...but absurdly trivial this time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm
I note that the BBC helpfully doesn't tell us what the right answer was!
(For the record, Grove Art states b ... ?1485–90; d Venice, 27 Aug
1576, so it's definitely unclear)
--
- Andrew Gray
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are articles do not exist to be commercials. While YOU may use the
article as a movie review to see if you want to watch the movie,
other readers may use them for many other purposes. Would you read
any of our other articles just to see if you want
I've noticed that established users are practically immune to the
consequences of being incivil if they aren't absolute trolls. I mean, I
could probably say fuck you to a number of people right now and get away
with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to introduce something similar to 3rr except for
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com wrote:
...but absurdly trivial this time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm
snip
Well, the news article has been updated as this incident was mentioned
on the Floor of the House:
Later, Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, xaosflux wrote:
While YOU may use the
article as a movie review to see if you want to watch the movie,
other readers may use them for many other purposes.
This statement is trivially true no matter what phrase you substitute in.
*Any* purpose for using an article is one that
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, xaosflux wrote:
While YOU may use the
article as a movie review to see if you want to watch the movie,
other readers may use them for many other purposes.
This statement is trivially true no matter what
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Patton 123 patton...@gmail.com wrote:
I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhauldoesn't appear
to have had much discussion. What do you think about it? Personally I
2009/2/11 Charlotte Webb charlottethew...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Patton 123 patton...@gmail.com wrote:
I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but
this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhauldoesn't appear
to have had
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't work for admins that have been around a while - most of
the people that contributed to their RFA will have left the project.
I wasn't entirely serious and I know it won't be tried, but it would
at least
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/2/11 Charlotte Webb
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
principle of time immemorial and not worry about it.
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
principle of time immemorial and not
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
Carcharoth: In fact we do have quite a few mailing list admins around. These
include: Pierre Abbat, Brion VIBBER, Robert Merkel, Manning Bartlett, Vicki
Rosenzweig, Bryan Derksen, Taw, AxelBoldt, The Cunctator, Magnus Manske, Tim
Starling, and several others I've neglected to mention. As far as
2009/2/11 Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com:
Carcharoth: In fact we do have quite a few mailing list admins around. These
include: Pierre Abbat, Brion VIBBER, Robert Merkel, Manning Bartlett, Vicki
Rosenzweig, Bryan Derksen, Taw, AxelBoldt, The Cunctator, Magnus Manske, Tim
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I have occasionally referred to some of our more common-sense disabled
editors as Turing Test failures ...
Which is a bit of a problem if you want to have credibility addressing
a civility issues.
--
geni
2009/2/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I have occasionally referred to some of our more common-sense disabled
editors as Turing Test failures ...
Which is a bit of a problem if you want to have credibility addressing
a civility issues.
Well, I don't
http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2009/02/wikipedia_before_wikipedia.html
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
20 matches
Mail list logo
