The Heretic Knowledge Vault talk:Policy
From The Heretic Knowledge Vault
(→New Usernames?) |
|||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::It doesn't get more tightly controlled than on emailed/pm'd request to an admin. [[User:Normalphil|Normalphil]] 18:54, 6 November 2007 (CST) | ::It doesn't get more tightly controlled than on emailed/pm'd request to an admin. [[User:Normalphil|Normalphil]] 18:54, 6 November 2007 (CST) | ||
::I didn't understand this either. Tiamat, were you thinking of ''privileges'' rather than user adds? I don't want to add any more admins (except for [[User:Viking-Sensei]] as soon as he gets up to speed) until/unless we start having a lot more admin work than now. The new-username policy should cover creation of usernames without the sysop (let alone bureaucrat) privilege, so that people ''can'' make those edits you're talking about (but not do anything permanently harmful). Thoughts would be appreciated as to what should be required before those unprivileged usernames are added. -- [[User:Graybeard|Graybeard]] 23:03, 6 November 2007 (CST) | ::I didn't understand this either. Tiamat, were you thinking of ''privileges'' rather than user adds? I don't want to add any more admins (except for [[User:Viking-Sensei]] as soon as he gets up to speed) until/unless we start having a lot more admin work than now. The new-username policy should cover creation of usernames without the sysop (let alone bureaucrat) privilege, so that people ''can'' make those edits you're talking about (but not do anything permanently harmful). Thoughts would be appreciated as to what should be required before those unprivileged usernames are added. -- [[User:Graybeard|Graybeard]] 23:03, 6 November 2007 (CST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | It all looks good to me. Could maybe be a little warmer, but the Amens and Brothers and Sisters and so forth go a long way to making it funny as well as "Hey, here's the rules." -[[User:Imp-Chan|Impy]] 15:18, 7 November 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 21:18, 7 November 2007
Please add your comments on the block/protect policy here. This page will remain unprotected, and hence open for editing, even during the current spambot crisis. -- Graybeard 10:25, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
- Looks good to me. Block policy is pretty clear, which is always a good thing, and letting new users know they don't have to sound like a history professor is a decent idea. Tiamat 11:11, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
- It reads well enough, and clearly enough. The only thing I would think about changing is that it can come off as a little stand-off-ish, even though it does state in certain sections, it still has a feel of "If you come 'round these parts and aren't made of metal with a super brain, we'll eat ya!". This of course could just be excess negative energy of Kyhmites flowing over and colouring my view. Ezelek 08:42, 19 June 2007 (GMT+10)
- That's a fair criticism. My "rough draft" is probably colored by the fact that we have had this spam attack and a lot of people have spent a lot of hours dealing with it. Let me try some language that makes the point "good guys are welcome, even if bad guys aren't." -- Graybeard 19:18, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I added the bit about correcting and editing stuff. I thought that needed to be said. If a contributor doesn't know English well enough then there are the rest of us that are willing to correct as necessary. Just don't be offended when it happens. - Brother Slamlander 17:42, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, it needed to be said. :-) When it comes to exposing one's prose to editing, most wikis have more pointed language than that, in fact. -- Graybeard 21:09, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
New Usernames?
With the new Forums stabilizing and our spambot protection holding, we may have reached the point where we can -- very carefully -- resume adding usernames, under tightly controlled circumstances. Could we have a discussion of appropriate language for a "new user policy" here, before putting it on the actual policy page? Note that Poe and Impy have the right to override any proposed policy, but if we can craft something sensible, I think it'll stand scrutiny. Discuss, please. -- Graybeard 22:12, 5 November 2007 (CST)
- Part of me wants to require a minimum post count, or at least a minimum amount of time registered to prevent any attempts to sneak in under the radar. That may not be an issue, of course, depending on how new users are to be added. I assume sysops will have the common sense not to let someone who registered on the forums that morning with a confused jumble of letters for a username have free reign over the wiki. Tiamat 13:09, 6 November 2007 (CST)
- It doesn't get more tightly controlled than on emailed/pm'd request to an admin. Normalphil 18:54, 6 November 2007 (CST)
- I didn't understand this either. Tiamat, were you thinking of privileges rather than user adds? I don't want to add any more admins (except for User:Viking-Sensei as soon as he gets up to speed) until/unless we start having a lot more admin work than now. The new-username policy should cover creation of usernames without the sysop (let alone bureaucrat) privilege, so that people can make those edits you're talking about (but not do anything permanently harmful). Thoughts would be appreciated as to what should be required before those unprivileged usernames are added. -- Graybeard 23:03, 6 November 2007 (CST)
It all looks good to me. Could maybe be a little warmer, but the Amens and Brothers and Sisters and so forth go a long way to making it funny as well as "Hey, here's the rules." -Impy 15:18, 7 November 2007 (CST)