On Monday 20 January 2003 04:00 am, Brion wrote:

As much as it's tempting to tell people to not come back until they upgrade their computer, they're not always willing or able to do so. Not allowing them to edit is perhaps not _quite_ as morally repellant as kicking a grandmother in a wheelchair down the stairs, but I still wouldn't recommend it.

Would you also advocate that that same wheelchair-bound grandmother be able to drive even though she is blind and senile? Nobody is advocating kicking her down the stairs - that was a bad (flame bait) analogy. So let's end the flame there, shall we?

So let me get you straight: we are supposed to follow people around with hideously broken browsers, revert pages that their browsers destroy and then spend a lot of time re-creating what they were trying to do? Have fun doing that Brion - I guess I'll ignore meta too if this is expected.

I'm all for supporting as many browsers and platforms as possible, but when someone's choice of browser and platform, in spite of our best efforts to be inclusive, /still/ destroys pages and causes /a lot/ of work for others, then that isn't fair to the community (who are all volunteers) and slows down the progress of the project.

Now annoying things like the 32k limit can and should be dealt with by making sure articles and talk pages don't get too big (a good idea anyway). But what happened to the article in question was that whitespace was added to each and every line making it impossible to fix without a revert or spending dozens of minutes deleting each whitespace (if there is a fast way to do this, them please tell me about it - that would make this an annoying but /workable/ browser problem).

--mav

This requires a lot of Wikikarma: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Scandium&diff=0&oldid=60...