Template talk:Workgroup introduction: Difference between revisions
imported>Thomas E Kelly No edit summary |
imported>Stephen Ewen (should be at CZ:Workgroups Virtual Tour and a smaller template made) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I thought this could be useful for adding to certain users talk pages - the user I was imagining would be someone who is actively writing but has not joined a workgroup and/or has not posted workgroup category tags on articles. What do you think? Is it too much? Is it too step-by-step? Would you change any wording? If so, please edit away [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 22:26, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | I thought this could be useful for adding to certain users talk pages - the user I was imagining would be someone who is actively writing but has not joined a workgroup and/or has not posted workgroup category tags on articles. What do you think? Is it too much? Is it too step-by-step? Would you change any wording? If so, please edit away [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 22:26, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
By saying "Do Not add yourself to the editors list" are we encouraging some ding-bat to do so and try and get around ths system and later cause a scandal? Do we have any way of locking the editors page from users adding themselves? [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 18:30, 1 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
We are talking about that now among the constables. This is more for those that are honest and don't know they they are not supposed to add themselves. If someone plans to be dishonest, it is up to the constables to figure out how to stop them. We've just started that conversation now. There have already been some that have figured out the how to do it, they just thought they were supposed to. I would rather tell them not to and then they can't say they did not know. Most won't break the rules if they know what they are. What do you think? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 18:39, 1 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
:I think this is good but way too long for a template. I think it should be at [[CZ:Workgroups Virtual Tour]] and a smaller template made to simply inform where the tour page is and invite people to peruse it. — [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:22, 5 April 2007
I thought this could be useful for adding to certain users talk pages - the user I was imagining would be someone who is actively writing but has not joined a workgroup and/or has not posted workgroup category tags on articles. What do you think? Is it too much? Is it too step-by-step? Would you change any wording? If so, please edit away -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:26, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
By saying "Do Not add yourself to the editors list" are we encouraging some ding-bat to do so and try and get around ths system and later cause a scandal? Do we have any way of locking the editors page from users adding themselves? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:30, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
We are talking about that now among the constables. This is more for those that are honest and don't know they they are not supposed to add themselves. If someone plans to be dishonest, it is up to the constables to figure out how to stop them. We've just started that conversation now. There have already been some that have figured out the how to do it, they just thought they were supposed to. I would rather tell them not to and then they can't say they did not know. Most won't break the rules if they know what they are. What do you think? --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:39, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
- I think this is good but way too long for a template. I think it should be at CZ:Workgroups Virtual Tour and a smaller template made to simply inform where the tour page is and invite people to peruse it. — Stephen Ewen 13:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT)