User talk:Lidnariq: Difference between revisions

From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 7: Line 7:


::What if anonymous edits were allowed on one special talk page in particular? Users who are not logged in could be redirected there or given a link to it automatically if they try to make an edit. The entire wiki-talk doesn't need to be an emergency messageboard. To me, reverting the vandalism is less of a problem I think than just how the vandalism+revert pollute the recent changes list. Revering the changes is the problem of one person who finds it, but everyone who reads the RC has to read/parse this stuff. (Putting it all on a single page wouldn't help RC much though, but might make it easier to parse/ignore.) - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (MST)
::What if anonymous edits were allowed on one special talk page in particular? Users who are not logged in could be redirected there or given a link to it automatically if they try to make an edit. The entire wiki-talk doesn't need to be an emergency messageboard. To me, reverting the vandalism is less of a problem I think than just how the vandalism+revert pollute the recent changes list. Revering the changes is the problem of one person who finds it, but everyone who reads the RC has to read/parse this stuff. (Putting it all on a single page wouldn't help RC much though, but might make it easier to parse/ignore.) - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (MST)
:::[[Special:ListUsers/sysop|Administrators]] and users with 500 or more edits can [[Special:RecentChangesCleanup|mark RC entries as "bot"]] so that they're [[mediawikiwiki:Extension:Recent Changes Cleanup|hidden from the default view of Recent Changes]]. My practice here has been to hide spam, reverts, and other administrivia after two other users have made edits. The reason I left talk namespaces open is so that people could report problems with the content of pages. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (MST)

Revision as of 15:33, 20 February 2013

Leaving anonymous edits open

In this revert, you asked: "Are we sure about leaving anonymous edits open?"

Look how quickly and easily it was reverted, and it didn't need an administrator's help. After you noticed vandalism, it took you three clicks to remove it: diff, undo, save. Then compare to how much work an administrator needed to do to get someone's account set up properly under the trusted/role account system. Also notice the lack of a working link to the vandal's web site because the editor couldn't solve the NES trivia question that the wiki presents to someone new who adds an external link. --Tepples 22:09, 12 October 2012 (MDT)

Thank you for your help in fighting vandalism. But I've noticed a peculiar sentiment in the edit summaries for your reverts. Without anonymous edits, how would you recommend contacting someone in case of problems creating an account on or logging in to the forum or wiki? --Tepples (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2013 (MST)
What if anonymous edits were allowed on one special talk page in particular? Users who are not logged in could be redirected there or given a link to it automatically if they try to make an edit. The entire wiki-talk doesn't need to be an emergency messageboard. To me, reverting the vandalism is less of a problem I think than just how the vandalism+revert pollute the recent changes list. Revering the changes is the problem of one person who finds it, but everyone who reads the RC has to read/parse this stuff. (Putting it all on a single page wouldn't help RC much though, but might make it easier to parse/ignore.) - Rainwarrior (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (MST)
Administrators and users with 500 or more edits can mark RC entries as "bot" so that they're hidden from the default view of Recent Changes. My practice here has been to hide spam, reverts, and other administrivia after two other users have made edits. The reason I left talk namespaces open is so that people could report problems with the content of pages. --Tepples (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (MST)