I know that I am over the "he said, she said" conversations of deWS. Accept that
you have
different perspective and recollections, accept that maybe that each of the others point
of view may be how they see it from their recollection, and not consider it lying. Maybe,
agree to differ and move one.
From the outside, you actually agree on more than you
disagree, identify the issues that
you see need resolving, and see if you can. If
you both parties think that it is worthy
of resolving, then find a mediator. If it isn't going to resolve, move on.
I can understand that ThomasV has a software extension that he has built from a very
definite principled point of view, then not want the tool used for something that is
against his principles. I can and do support his right to limit a tool's use within
his
principles, and that sets aside whether I agree or disagree with his point of view.
To the point of validation of previously validated works. You can get a bot to go through
and change the <pagequality> of a work if that is accepted by the community
Regards, Andrew
On 2 Jul 2010 at 0:08, Michael Jörgens wrote:
I don't know if there is an sense to reply to this
mail, because is
only a copy of the same boring discussion we had several times. And
which can be broken down to the sarcastic sentence. "I the developer
know what is good for the world, and everybody has to follow my will''.
If he wants to overrule his own community, or there is a consensus
there to have these hard coded rules, in a configurable system he can
set the flags accordingly. If an other community has more confidence in
their community and don't want the hard rules, set the flags to the
according values and everybody (or all except one) will be happy.
And you can be shure that there is a broad consensus by the real active
people to get the ip's editing allowed. And the second point he always
forgets to mention, is that he make us a lot of work to transfer older
projects to this extension. He is not willing to give the right to set pages
which have been validated before to the validated state by transferring it
to his extension. Even Admins are excluded from doing that.
Sorry for beeing a little bit sarcastic,but I think i've (we) had this
discussion with ThomasV now 4 or 5 times. And I don't find a way to get a
good solution, together with him.
Greetings
2010/7/1 ThomasV <thomasV1(a)gmx.de>
> Here is my answer to the statements made recently.
>
> * For those who are not familiar with the issue, I am the main
> developer of ProofreadPage, a Mediawiki software extension
> that allows Wikisource users to proofread a page of text by
> comparing it to its scanned source. This extension also manages
> book metadata and citation information, and it imposes a very basic
> processing workflow, where a page must have been checked by two
> different users in order to reach its final state.
> [see here :
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Page_Status]
[snip]