Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Move Squad: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Move Squad
(but who's counting?)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
:100 "usefull" edits. [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 14:22, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
:100 "usefull" edits. [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 14:22, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
::Ugh. I'm loathe to count up individual edits to determine "usefullness". If by "useful", you mean non-spam/vandalism I would agree (although hopefully they'd be blocked long before they hit 100). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:25, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
::Ugh. I'm loathe to count up individual edits to determine "usefullness". If by "useful", you mean non-spam/vandalism I would agree (although hopefully they'd be blocked long before they hit 100). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:25, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
::: Yes. Let us say "100 non-vandal edits". I don't know how we'd even define useful. Fixing a single typo is useful, especially if they fixed a single typo in 100 different articles. That's a lot of proof-reading. And that's a ''minor'' edit. As long as we're not looking at 100 edits to link Canadian drugs or whatever, I think we're in the clear. --[[User:Day|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]])</sup> 15:40, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 20:40, 12 July 2006

Suggestion: Automatically confer move priveleges on registered users after 100 edits? --Peter Farago 12:50, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I like that idea --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 13:44, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
100 "usefull" edits. Shane (T - C - E) 14:22, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Ugh. I'm loathe to count up individual edits to determine "usefullness". If by "useful", you mean non-spam/vandalism I would agree (although hopefully they'd be blocked long before they hit 100). --Steelviper 14:25, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Yes. Let us say "100 non-vandal edits". I don't know how we'd even define useful. Fixing a single typo is useful, especially if they fixed a single typo in 100 different articles. That's a lot of proof-reading. And that's a minor edit. As long as we're not looking at 100 edits to link Canadian drugs or whatever, I think we're in the clear. --Day (Talk - Admin) 15:40, 12 July 2006 (CDT)