stevertigo wrote:
And I am not really forcing the issue - just getting
the road cleared is all.
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all that.
The thing
Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some
moderation is needed here.
I know several people have already switched to nomail for this list.
Risker
___
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all that.
I understand that I
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
moderators consider this has gone on quite long enough, and some
moderation is needed here.
People are commenting, and I am responding. What is your
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to
borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
And yet you write to one or more
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes,
its not ideal to separate discussions or to move on-wiki matters to
the mailing list... but what is ideal, and what works for wikien-l and
others could at least work for us.
I should repeat though that the resolution-l
In a message dated 7/29/2009 7:01:13 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some
moderation is needed here.
On the contrary, the guy
In a message dated 7/29/2009 7:29:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
But note that none of this spamming would have
been necessary back in Jimbo's day - when anything came up he did his
best to give straight and insightful answers to almost anyone.
What a comic! I
Hi,
As I mentioned in passing previously, I'm intending to spend a lot
more time working on Wikipedia.
I can find lots of ways to spend that time at the community portal.
But I have so far been spending most of it patrolling Recent Changes
using Huggle.
But I'm interested to know if the good
The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic
planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have
the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the
future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area
as possible
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Lunalunasan...@gmail.com wrote:
It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
something.
So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem
This main page of strategy.wikimedia.org is merely a icon-listing of
all the projects.
There is no obvious link to drill down into the strategy wiki itself.
No links except to other projects.
And the main page can't be edited.
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Beaudette
Yes http://strategy.wikimedia.org should point with an obvious link to
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Will
-Original Message-
From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 2:27 pm
Subject: Re:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
___
WikiEN-l mailing
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
This main page of strategy.wikimedia.org is merely a icon-listing of
all the projects.
There is no obvious link to drill down into the strategy wiki itself.
No links except to other projects.
And the main page can't be edited.
Sorry,
I think the issue was server based.
It's been hiccuping some today and forwarding us to the
wikimediafoundation.org site... I bet he got caught in one of those.
Philippe
On Jul 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
This main page
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
This main page of strategy.wikimedia.org is merely a icon-listing of
all the projects.
There is no obvious link to drill down into the strategy wiki itself.
The top level page is a listing of all the other projects, Wikipedia,
Wikisource, etc.
Strategy not being one of those listed.
Sorry, but what do you mean by drill down? To me, the Main Page
seems to give a great deal of links (and explanations of what those
pages are). Was there something
Okay makes sense now. Now it redirects me, before it wasn't.
-Original Message-
From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 3:10 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request for help: Strategic Planning
On Wed, Jul 29,
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
Does this dispute put us in league
wjhonson, it's really not, despite the way it's acting for you. For
whatever reason, a small number of people are being forwarded to the
wrong site, and the servers are confused. I'm sorry you got caught in
it. That link really leads to the main page.
Philippe
On Jul 29, 2009, at 5:14
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
Please report to Re-education Camp #41
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Apparantly there is still dome dns propagation occuring. What I see at
strategy.wikimedia.org is not what I saw when I received the first e-mail. I
saw what whjohnson saw - a portal. Now it resolves to the wiki.
Ah okay.
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
is
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The
importance of your participation can not be overstated.
This still makes it sound as though community participation is
optional, and is input into
What he said. :)
I'm changing my invite message. Your way is better.
Philippe
On Jul 29, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Planning for the future is determined by your input. Come discuss
future directions for the Projects, how the Foundation can facilitate
the work of the Projects,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
Hi again,
But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware
of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at
the moment. Things that really need doing.
Y-E-S spells YES and you are now it.
Articles with Unsourced Claims
I did what I thought was the
36 matches
Mail list logo
