i have updated new release of mybb 1.6.11 on wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyBB
What i Updated
Stable release 1.6.11 (October 8, 2013; 1 day ago)
In MyBB 1.6 Section
On October 08, 2013, MyBB Version 1.6.11 was released. It is a Security & Maintenance Release. In this release MyBB Team has fixed 5 vulnerabilities and over 65 reported issues causing incorrect functionality of MyBB. In Vulnerabilities they have Fixed one High Risk, One Medium Risk and Three Low Risk Issues.
References
http://blog.mybb.com/2013/10/08/mybb-1-6...e-release/
i did right or not ?
i think, it was important and i updated. hope mybb team will not mind it
if i did something wrong or missed some info, please update this again.
I'm just surprised we have a Page. They took it down a ton of times since most references were from mybb.com.
Yeah, it was NFD'd in April last year but kept (only one argument was made, but imho it was a good one).
Anyway, OP, you made a slight grammatical error, so I fixed it for you.
On an aside, I also fixed a few errors and cited a claim. Name on Wikipedia is MrSeabody, if you want to look at revision history.
(2013-10-09, 10:45 AM)Seabody Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, it was NFD'd in April last year but kept (only one argument was made, but imho it was a good one).
Anyway, OP, you made a slight grammatical error, so I fixed it for you.
On an aside, I also fixed a few errors and cited a claim. Name on Wikipedia is MrSeabody, if you want to look at revision history.
hmm... i can see you have fixed this...
Quote:n this release, 5 vulnerabilities and over 65 reported issues causing incorrect functionality of MyBB were fixed, including a vulnerability that affected users using a [[MySQL]] Database.
thanks for your effort...
That page has had a turbulent history, that's for sure.
I'll never completely understand the problem with citing MyBB.com, seeing as that's the official source for the software...
Well Wikipedia moderators doesn't obviously like and becomes a** (censored on purpose) regarding that. I've tried to contribute in past on quite a few topics too but gave up due to the same foolishness.
(2013-10-09, 01:50 PM)Josh H. Wrote: [ -> ]I'll never completely understand the problem with citing MyBB.com, seeing as that's the official source for the software...
Because that's not what citing is meant for. That's like saying "Walmart is the best supermarket in the world [Source: Walmart]", or having a pharmaceutical company test their own drugs for effectiveness. The idea with citing is to get unbiased information on a topic, and for an article to be allowed on Wikipedia it must have a notable impression on the world, and be proven through reports from international news or from articles from established websites.
(2013-10-09, 02:34 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-10-09, 01:50 PM)Josh H. Wrote: [ -> ]I'll never completely understand the problem with citing MyBB.com, seeing as that's the official source for the software...
Because that's not what citing is meant for. That's like saying "Walmart is the best supermarket in the world [Source: Walmart]", or having a pharmaceutical company test their own drugs for effectiveness. The idea with citing is to get unbiased information on a topic, and for an article to be allowed on Wikipedia it must have a notable impression on the world, and be proven through reports from international news or from articles from established websites.
You're taking extremes of the point, though I hear what you're saying. But there's nothing wrong IMO with citing an official page for something like the date of a release.
Try telling that to the moderators of Wikipedia. Those are the standards they go by.