[Wikipedia-l] Protest!!!!

Mon Jul 10 22:37:53 UTC 2006

2006/7/10, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com>:
> Andre Engels, your position is: changes to interface should get consensus
> before. So, when a new extension is added, or changed, and there're several
> new (renamed) messages, should i kindly ask permission for translating it
> from english? Don't be ridiculous! I translate them, and if i make mistakes
> or something is wrong, another one will change it. It's a wiki, do you
> remember? Changing outdated messages is fine to me. And if the other version
> is equivalent, there's no 'large change'.

There's nothing outdated about the messages, and changing numerous
existing translations is quite different from translating them afresh.

> > The action itself was hostile. On Wikipedia we work with consensus,
> > not one person doing something and the rest being given a fait
> > accompli.
> We also [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|]]. Asking a poll on every change
> would [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|disrupt
> Wikipedia]]

I'm not saying there should be a poll. I'm saying there should be
given an opportunity to discuss. No objections? Fine, go ahead.
Objections? Fine too, the thing can only get better from that. It sure
beats giving people a fait accompli.

> > It has been argued that others want to be part of the decision of what
> > are project specific messages. It has been argued that others want to
> > know what is going to happen. It has been argued that others want to
> > be part of the decision on which message of two similar ones is the
> > better one.
> *Then*, it should be argued, but only after it was asked.

After what was asked?

-- 
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels