On Sunday 19 January 2003 04:00 am, wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Ah, sorry, I probably should have sent this both to the main and the tech. There are both a tech and a policy issues here...
How is it a policy issue when it was your browser that inserted the huge amount of whitespace in the page in question? My response is where it should be - on Wikitech.
--mav
WikiKarma: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Flatow and updating each year page and many other pages from January 18
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday 19 January 2003 04:00 am, wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Ah, sorry, I probably should have sent this both
to
the main and the tech. There are both a tech and a policy issues here...
How is it a policy issue when it was your browser that inserted the huge amount of whitespace in the page in question? My response is where it should be - on Wikitech.
--mav
It is a policy issue when I try to do something, I explain *why* I do it on Brion page, and in the comment box,
and that without any consideration with what I tried to do, you revert all without even taking care to check why I did it, without taking care to ask why I did it on the talk page of the page in question in case you didnot understand.
What I did (but left unfinished for it took me quite some time just to do that, and even adding something on the talk page would have taken about 10 mn to avoid getting things messed) was utterly discarded and labelled destruction by you, and is now unrecoverable.
I consider having many different propositions done on the same page is useless, they could be on separate pages. That whole page is a total mess, and it is very hard to see the different arguments. All the arguments are not even there. Nobody is doing the job. I tried to start it. And it was dismissed as inopportune. Without consideration.
When edits are reverted without consideration, that's a policy issue.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
On dim, 2003-01-19 at 04:39, Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Sunday 19 January 2003 04:00 am, Anthere wrote:
Ah, sorry, I probably should have sent this both to the main and the tech. There are both a tech and a policy issues here...
How is it a policy issue when it was your browser that inserted the huge amount of whitespace in the page in question? My response is where it should be - on Wikitech.
It's a policy issue because you appear to be advocating the policy that edits by someone with a broken browser should be reverted with prejudice.
If we can correct the problem automatically, nobody'd ever have to know. If we can correct it manually, that should be enough -- make the fix, and note the problem so the user can work around it if possible.
If we can't correct it at all (eg, page cut off half-way), only _then_ should we get into the realm of completely reverting pages for technical reasons. But if there are legitimate changes in the part that made it through, we should still keep them...
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.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org