On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:03:12 +0000, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.auwrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +0000, Chris Down < neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com> wrote:
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=1400782&oldid=1400771
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/C...http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_%282%29_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=1401650
As pointed out, the user in question has not provided a link to a home project, to prove they have some sort of standing in the community. If this sort of practice was accepted, I could just go and register several accounts and vote how I wanted to skew the discussion. Voters have to have *some* sort of eligibility. We generally ask for 100 edits to any project. You miss the point where it says *any* project, not just Meta. A user's first edit to come and vote on such a proposal is not normally the sort of edit an editor would make. A link to a home project should be provided so the validity of the vote can be checked.
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
I thought your comment in the firts link above was a bit bitey.
Brian.