Sorry Pepe, but it's only entertaining for the first few microcenturies. I care a great deal actually I'd even work it into a policy myself. It's a "don't care, but this is a meta-document, not a policy" type response, unless I miss my guess. Is that a "yes I agree" or a "this is so trivial and pointless I have virtually no opinion other than a bureaucratic desire to make sure things are done right!"? - Xasxas256 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Well you're not testing it out on me, I've fallen for that before! I think I hold the dubious distinction of being the only person who's both a sysop on both wikis and has been blocked on both wikis as well! - Xasxas256 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC) If we expect that to be enforced, I think it should go into policy somewhere. Really? "cool" durations isn't really so cool? Darn it. Tanetris 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Ĭrushing them is better than blocking them for 88 fortnights! ) - Xasxas256 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC) I suppose you'd also object to "0.019178 years"? Not that I expect to ever be a sysop here, but I had a fantasy that if I was, that's how I would block the first person I had to block. I was wondering if there is any other opinions/consensus on this, I'd like to have a note in this guide not to use that format otherwise. Seeing "2.75 fortnights" in Recent Changes is totally meaningless to the average user. The block duration format isn't designed to be "cool", in fact it's not even for the sysop themselves, they know how long the block is for it's for the blocked user and other users. I'm quite strongly against using those two even if the GNU date format supports them. There's been no real discussion on it since then but I've noticed it's been written into this guide. I made a note about it on his talk page and I don't think he's used it since. I've noticed MP using "x fortnights" and "fourth thursday" as a block duration. contribs) - 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Blocking durations.On GuildWiki, v1.10 is in use, and there's a check-box for this option - so it's something that we should get eventually, if/when this site upgrades it's MediaWiki installation. No comments? I'm pretty sure that the "cascading protection" option isn't available in the version used here, so I'm going to comment out that section. But overall, well done on the guide! - Barek ( talk I would love if this wiki were upgraded (also adds option to set automatic expiry dates on page protections, among other goodies) - but that's a different discussion. It references "cascading protection" - I think that option is only available starting in MediaWiki v1.10.0 (this wiki is still on v1.9.2). Well written article - should be very useful, especially for the newer sysops although the section on page protection looks to have been copied from another source. I might drop a note on our Sysop's user page about this guide, no point in having a sysop guide if they don't know about it! - Xasxas256 04:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC) MediaWiki version I agree, looks very well thought out and written. Thanks a lot for this, very informative even if it is not finished yet. 4 The Rampaging Ntouka in the Room (the Admin-ANet mailing list).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |