Translations:How to contribute/13/en: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:23, 2 December 2023

Information about message (contribute)

This message has no documentation. If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.

Message definition (How to contribute)

#Only vandalism should be Rejected. Not-so-good edits with good intentions (e.g. adding excessive plot details into the Wikipedia article about film) are better made Approved and then reverted as usual. This way the author is not offended and the text is saved in page history, viewable by anyone.
#Any user that is deemed legitimate (does N good edits) should be added into <code>automoderated</code> group.
#Adding users to <code>automoderated</code> group via <code>$wgAutopromote</code> is NOT recommended, as it motivates the vandals to do many very-minor edits (e.g. adding interwiki). Better promote them to <code>automoderated</code> manually for one good edit and not promote for 30 useless-edits-made-for-count.
#Abstain from using blocks. Don't protect pages "just in case", except maybe for important templates.
#Allow the full rehabilitation of users with a bad history of editing. Their useful edits to the articles should be allowed, no matter how many times they were blocked. At the same time, trolling on talk pages should be rejected, so are the purposely-low-quality edits.

Only vandalism should be Rejected. Not-so-good edits with good intentions (e.g. adding excessive plot details into the Wikipedia article about film) are better made Approved and then reverted as usual. This way the author is not offended and the text is saved in page history, viewable by anyone.
Any user that is deemed legitimate (does N good edits) should be added into automoderated group.
Adding users to automoderated group via $wgAutopromote is NOT recommended, as it motivates the vandals to do many very-minor edits (e.g. adding interwiki). Better promote them to automoderated manually for one good edit and not promote for 30 useless-edits-made-for-count.
Abstain from using blocks. Don't protect pages "just in case", except maybe for important templates.
Allow the full rehabilitation of users with a bad history of editing. Their useful edits to the articles should be allowed, no matter how many times they were blocked. At the same time, trolling on talk pages should be rejected, so are the purposely-low-quality edits.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-# Only vandalism should be Rejected. Not-so-good edits with good intentions (e.g. adding excessive plot details into the Wikipedia article about film) are better made Approved and then reverted as usual. This way the author is not offended and the text is saved in page history, viewable by anyone.
+#Only vandalism should be Rejected. Not-so-good edits with good intentions (e.g. adding excessive plot details into the Wikipedia article about film) are better made Approved and then reverted as usual. This way the author is not offended and the text is saved in page history, viewable by anyone.
-# Any user that is deemed legitimate (does N good edits) should be added into <code>automoderated</code> group.
+#Any user that is deemed legitimate (does N good edits) should be added into <code>automoderated</code> group.
-# Adding users to <code>automoderated</code> group via <code>$wgAutopromote</code> is NOT recommended, as it motivates the vandals to do many very-minor edits (e.g. adding interwiki). Better promote them to <code>automoderated</code> manually for one good edit and not promote for 30 useless-edits-made-for-count.
+#Adding users to <code>automoderated</code> group via <code>$wgAutopromote</code> is NOT recommended, as it motivates the vandals to do many very-minor edits (e.g. adding interwiki). Better promote them to <code>automoderated</code> manually for one good edit and not promote for 30 useless-edits-made-for-count.
-# Abstain from using blocks. Don't protect pages "just in case", except maybe for important templates.
+#Abstain from using blocks. Don't protect pages "just in case", except maybe for important templates.
-# Allow the full rehabilitation of users with a bad history of editing. Their useful edits to the articles should be allowed, no matter how many times they were blocked. At the same time, trolling on talk pages should be rejected, so are the purposely-low-quality edits.
+#Allow the full rehabilitation of users with a bad history of editing. Their useful edits to the articles should be allowed, no matter how many times they were blocked. At the same time, trolling on talk pages should be rejected, so are the purposely-low-quality edits.