Difference between revisions of "Talk:SL5B"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Credit: response) |
(→Credit: further response) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: That edit was of course reverted,[https://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=SL5B&diff=73947&oldid=73932 <sup>2</sup>] as the information removed was accurate and since Everett had not included a reason for the removal in the edit summary there did not appear to be any reason for the information to be removed. | : That edit was of course reverted,[https://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=SL5B&diff=73947&oldid=73932 <sup>2</sup>] as the information removed was accurate and since Everett had not included a reason for the removal in the edit summary there did not appear to be any reason for the information to be removed. | ||
: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 14:59, 6 August 2008 (PDT) | : [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 14:59, 6 August 2008 (PDT) | ||
:p.s. | |||
: Edit summaries are good practice on potentially contraversial edits, as they speed up dispute resolution with regard to whether or not said controversial edit should be retained or reverted. Without an edit summary, it is generally assumed that if there is no (apparent) reason for an edit being made, that there is conversely no reason why a controversial edit should not be immediately. | |||
: With both Zai and myself being veterans of the Wikipedia, we are defaulting to the spirit of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Three-revert rule]- though 3RR generally refers to "within a 24 hour period", in this case it refers to the same information being removed by the same person. | |||
: There is also the fear of reprisals for reverting a Linden's edit, seeing that Everett has previously blocked 2 other Residents for reasons apparently relating to the [[SL5B]] article.[[Special:Log/block|<sup>3</sup>]] | |||
: It is important to note that if it wasn't a '''Linden Lab Employee''' who made the edit (without apparent reason) I have no doubt that neither of us would hesitate to immediately revert the edit. | |||
: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 15:14, 6 August 2008 (PDT) | |||
==Organisational Questions== | ==Organisational Questions== | ||
Revision as of 14:14, 6 August 2008
Credit
I can't see a reason why credit is taken away from voluntary helpers at this event... I'm sure these Residents invested a lot of time and work, so having their name on the page should be a way to say thank you. Removing them is... harsh... from my point of view. So I ask for a revert of the edit(s).
Greetz, 
Lynch (talk|contribs) 10:52, 6 August 2008 (PDT)
- This is the second time Everett Linden has made a "content removal" edit without utilising the edit summary field.1
- That edit was of course reverted,2 as the information removed was accurate and since Everett had not included a reason for the removal in the edit summary there did not appear to be any reason for the information to be removed.
- SignpostMarv Martin 14:59, 6 August 2008 (PDT)
- p.s.
- Edit summaries are good practice on potentially contraversial edits, as they speed up dispute resolution with regard to whether or not said controversial edit should be retained or reverted. Without an edit summary, it is generally assumed that if there is no (apparent) reason for an edit being made, that there is conversely no reason why a controversial edit should not be immediately.
- With both Zai and myself being veterans of the Wikipedia, we are defaulting to the spirit of Wikipedia's Three-revert rule- though 3RR generally refers to "within a 24 hour period", in this case it refers to the same information being removed by the same person.
- There is also the fear of reprisals for reverting a Linden's edit, seeing that Everett has previously blocked 2 other Residents for reasons apparently relating to the SL5B article.3
- It is important to note that if it wasn't a Linden Lab Employee who made the edit (without apparent reason) I have no doubt that neither of us would hesitate to immediately revert the edit.
- SignpostMarv Martin 15:14, 6 August 2008 (PDT)
Organisational Questions
So, where does it begin? Where do I go to participate in SL5B? Isn't there an agenda for the first week? Only the second one? Isn't there a starting point or central hub to visit first? This wiki entry presumes that we know what SL5B is.. what am I missing?