At 12:00 04/01/2003 +0000, you wrote: Your proposal is, I think, worse than the current system. Unreliable users still wouldn't be trusted and would still have every edit checked, reliable users still would be trusted and have every edit ignored by default. But with your proposal, large edits (in terms of sheer size), which might actually be very minor (lots of spelling fixes, table formatting, restoring vandalised articles, etc), would not, in fact, be marked minor. And automatically marking small edits is minor is surely a bad idea - it would be worse than the current system because people who are honest about such small (in terms of size) changes actually being major would have their edits automatically marked minor as well. It might well be "a win from a usability point of view" inasmuch as one doesn't have to click on a pesky check box if one's edit is minor, but this is surely outweighed by the fact that those "M"s on Recent Changes would all become unreliable (instead of just some of them being unreliable). LP (camembert)