RedactionalOne

Welcome!

Hello, RedactionalOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Firefox 4. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling 00:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RedactionalOne. You have new messages at Jovianeye's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:AGF

Just because I'm disagreeing and looking for information doesn't mean I'm trying to "derail" the process. Putting smiley faces on your assertions of bad faith just makes them even more insulting. SDY (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just about to edit that out. It's been a long day and I can't believe how dysfunctional this process has been. It's probably partly a presentation problem - the page has gotten very messy. If the community cannot agree about such a seemingly uncontentious issue, it's a bad day for Wikipedia. I'll edit what I've written. RedactionalOne (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No big deal. I wouldn't characterize it as uncontentious, but... whatever. SDY (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your latest comment on the VP proposal

Hi. I've just seen your latest comment about dropping the 4 day / 10 edit limit to 24 hours / 2 edits. If that could be worked into a solid proposal, I'd support that. The thing which was getting me the most was the length of time people would wait before working unassisted. Dropping it to your suggested level would at least help, and wouldn't make it seem so bad. Fish^Barking? 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. It also occurred to me that users might be left in the ridiculous position of going in and adding one comma to something just to notch up another edit. ;) RedactionalOne (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A similar thought had crossed my mind. I assume the 10 edits is to article space. All they'd have to do is find a really short article and lengthen it word by word, 10 times, job done. All systems are open to abuse :) Fish^Barking? 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've corrected my username on the proposal. I'm actually BarkingFish, the "Fish" in my sig is for "Fishing" for user information, and I used "Barking" as the link to my talk page, cause I suppose Barking is a way of talking. :) Fish^Barking? 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed article creation trial

I'm contacting you because you participated in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles a few months ago; and particularly because you had some interesting ideas on how to implement the trial. I have set up a discussion page for various aspects of implementing the trial at WP:ACTRIAL. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are interested. I am not initially contacting a large number of users (in an attempt to keep the discussions contained and manageable), but feel free to invite any other users who might be helpful. Thanks. —SW— ^verbalize 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just seen your message from several weeks back. Haven’t been logged in for a while, and your comment didn’t show up in my RSS watchlist feed for some reason.

My ideas involved stepping back and coming up with a foundation for solving wider issues than just inappropriate new article creation – vandalism of current ones, for instance. As I get a better sense of how things operate behind the scenes I begin to see that a strategic approach probably has less chance of actually being realised than a number of separate (not necessarily compatible) initiatives. It’s the inevitable price paid for the size of the beast.

I’m pleased that the Autoconfirmed article creation trial is going ahead – it’s the beginnings of addressing the blindingly obvious Achilles heel of Wikipedia! Looks like the trial planning is on track, but feel free to contact me again – I’ll keep a closer eye on my Talk page. RedactionalOne (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, changes like these have to be done in tiny incremental steps on Wikipedia. Anything more complicated than that and there's no chance of getting everyone to agree. Surprisingly enough, we're actually having problems getting the developers to agree to make the changes we need to start the trial, despite the giant RfC with strong consensus. But we'll keep on working on it. —SW— ^talk 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The developers are just concerned whether we have thought of sufficient metrics to provide an accurate assessment of the trial when it is over. The trial is far better planned than the developers give us credit for - we have even provided them with the required details of the minor changes to the site software that are needed for implementation. They just need convincing that we know what we are doing and that we have everything under control. You can help by watching the page at WP:ACTRIAL. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)