Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Minimum 50 edits, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Minimum 50 edits

  • Voting on: This vote is to determine the minimum number of edits needed for a vote to count, on en.wiktionary.org's WT:VOTE pages. Previously, there was no limit at all, only a guideline of 50 edits (waived for visiting sister-language Wiktionary contributors.)

Support

  1. Support SemperBlotto 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Contributors with 5,000 edits should count double (how do you do a smiley?)
  2. Support Jonathan Webley 08:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Jeffqyzt 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) With the caveat that we need a mechanism to keep 50 "junk" edits from unlocking.
  5. Support TheDaveRoss 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 50 seems decent.
  6. —Stephen 02:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Kipmaster 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support --Richardb 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC) People must be experienced here (on this project) to make decisions here.

Oppose

  1. Oppose Connel MacKenzie 07:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Lets keep the waiver clause intact.
  2. Oppose MGSpiller 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) a significant edit count on other wikimedia projects should be sufficient, perhaps 50 on a sister wiktionary, 100 on a wikipedia / wikibook etc. (I seem to recall that I jumped straight in)MGSpiller 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose ammendum by MGSpiller is good -- Tawker 03:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose DAVilla 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Agree with the above, and scs makes a good point.
  5. Oppose per MGSpiller. Jon Harald Søby 20:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Other

  1. Abstain: Since we don't have a voting policy or a consensus on one yet, it doesn't quite make sense to me to vote on the edit minimum. —scs 13:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Excellent test! I completely forgot about {{abstain}}! --Connel MacKenzie 14:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Comment: Are we including anonymous user accounts with 50 edits in this, or only Users with named accounts? The draft as it stands includes anonymous accounts, which could mean multiple people connecting through the same address. I would support if we limit the 50 edits to created named User accounts, and provided that the 50 edits were somehow meaningful (i.e. not random plagiariam or vandalism). --EncycloPetey 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I honestly don't know. I started this vote mainly as a test that the submit buttons were working as expected...and people started voting while I was still mucking about. Perhaps someone could restart this vote with all the various clarifications? Weren't all comments supposed to go on the talk page? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Well, people have started voting: no real point in discouraging participation, at this point. --Connel MacKenzie 09:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    That's an important clarification. This does not apply to anonymous IPS. Anonymous users are just that, anonymous. Users who want to be active in the community must attach a label by which their contributions can be recognized. DAVilla 21:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia