Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dag"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Admins can edit up to a certain level, some pages need a big poobah to do the work :-) chance of causing major major disruptions being a pointer [[User:Trex|Terry Fage]] ([[User talk:Trex|talk]]) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (MST) | Admins can edit up to a certain level, some pages need a big poobah to do the work :-) chance of causing major major disruptions being a pointer [[User:Trex|Terry Fage]] ([[User talk:Trex|talk]]) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ray, ahhh, I can see that. A malicious alteration. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Donno what level I'm at in the wiki as far as editing permissions are concerned, I can't edit this page. There is a bit of the English that needs correcting and some fiddling with the == heading settings so that when this page is included inside another (like the FAQ Section 1) the levels are correct. I think using <nowiki><includeonly> ... <includeonly></nowiki> around an extra single = each side of each heading will work. Bit of a cludge though. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Allsorts|Allsorts]] ([[User talk:Allsorts|talk]]) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (MST) | ||
Revision as of 01:11, 13 February 2013
Protection
Not sure why this page is protected. What is the "security risk"?
Allsorts (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (MST)
I believe it is locked to prevent users inadvertantly entering incorrect dag repo details, which could potentially affect thousands of users if they got rpms from an incorrect repo Ray 9:15 am 13Feb2013
Admins can edit up to a certain level, some pages need a big poobah to do the work :-) chance of causing major major disruptions being a pointer Terry Fage (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (MST)
Ray, ahhh, I can see that. A malicious alteration.
Donno what level I'm at in the wiki as far as editing permissions are concerned, I can't edit this page. There is a bit of the English that needs correcting and some fiddling with the == heading settings so that when this page is included inside another (like the FAQ Section 1) the levels are correct. I think using <includeonly> ... <includeonly> around an extra single = each side of each heading will work. Bit of a cludge though.
