No. This may not be ideal but that is certainly worse. Damn the torpedos!
~A
On Monday, June 14, 2010, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 06/14/2010 01:12 AM, Cenarium sysop wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Cenarium
sysopcenarium.sy...@gmail.comwrote:
You'll soon have
There was always going to be a bit of Damned if you do, Damned if you
don't; It's just unavoidable in a community this large.
~A
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Love the rest, but the We'll be watching it carefully is a little creepy.
~A
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 22:57, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't and can't right now but we should probably say something on these
lines just because people will wonder how long to expect and saying
something
Well, according to Google, there are somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8
billion internet users in the world. If we ignore those numbers and
say only 1B use the internet, then according to Alex wikipedia.org
gets about 13.5% of internet users. That's 135 million users. We
definitely don't have
Delete and protect are in the dropdown arrow next to the star on the
upper-right. Block is where it always was, on the toolbar on the
left, but you have to click the arrow to display the menu. The reason
none of your scripts worked is that they are all in
[[User:WereSpielChequers/monobook.js]].
It's counter-intuitive, perhaps, but I find the internet community as
a whole to be surprisingly unaccepting of change.
~A
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:16, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
People should probably take blog and blog comment reaction with quite a
bit of salt. I've been
I absolutely agree. I'd never use vector to edit, but from a purely
reading point of view (which is still 50% of how I use Wikimedia)
it's gorgeous, and very smooth, and I feel definitely highlights the
editing aspect as well.
~A
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 16:21, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com
Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55%
success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate.
~A
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:33, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting; it says that of 22 articles
I'll add that it doesn't appear to actually be a story yet, just a
submission made through Firehose. Regular /.ers have clearly spoken
as to how they feel about it, as noted by the colorful tags placed on
the submission and its poor rating. Meanwhile, the article itself is
a misleading,
Proposed by Durova:
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Featured content stars for featured pictures
Inoffensive? To some, not to others.
~A
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 16:04, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
These two links may be of interest to you:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-good.php
As found on [[User:Csörföly D/random featured article]]
~Amory
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Sort of like getting annoyed with a police officer for giving you a
warning for speeding. No harm done to anyone, just don't speed next
time.
Pun intended.
~A
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:35, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It seems that,
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining. The argument that an article about a
non-profit can't be an advertisement is absurd. I recognize that NPPs
should on the whole be nicer to submissions from newer users, but the
overwhelming majority of
Not saying I disagree with you, but with that in mind and looking at the
test example, I'd say that the more useful concept isn't the ability to rate
editors - which I could do without, it's a little too anti-AGF imho - but
its usefulness as a metric of how many people have edited a particular
I have a feeling a lot of those are duplications of templates placed on a
page - Macbeth linking to Romeo and Juliet (and vice versa) was my first
example. Multiple search terms would seem to be the real place this would
be useful, to minimize crossover from templates.
~A
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009
Duplicating the function of templates - maybe not the best word to use. A
better one might be misinterpreting.
~A
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 14:36, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a feeling a lot
It does, however, automatically put you back to the Monobook skin, which is
clearly only an issue if you use something else.
~A
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 21:29, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Try clicking on it, don't worry it doesn't change the format or
anything unless you confirm it
Only as much as off-duty doctors, lifeguards, EMTs, etc. have to
attempt to save someone's life. Good-samaritan laws exist for a
reason.
~A
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:26, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that
I don't put my religion on my CV and would not want any prospective employer
knowing about it - not because I'm ashamed about it, just that it's private
information which isn't relevant to how good (or otherwise) a job I'll do.
That's the point. Giving them your usernames and passwords to
I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say I
liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and
your family photos, it's just excessive. It's also largely against
the TOS for most of these sites. It's an interesting view at the sort
of importance and clout
Well, of the five, the fifth is irrelevant, and the first will be obvious
automatically once you start typing. WP:S has the descriptions copied
verbatim (admittedly poor), but I think we all know how often that gets
viewed. I'd be neglect to introduce something else to the search bar itself
for
Rollback definitely works on the article's diff page. Twinkle also does the
same thing (assumes continued vandalism/agf) for all its various options.
~A
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:20, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On an article, rollback will do that if there is a sequence of
The exact specifications of the Little Boy bomb remain
classifiedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_informationbecause they
could still be used to create a viable nuclear weapon.
First line of the section. That sort of sums up this whole debate - it's
essentially a risk-benefit
23 matches
Mail list logo
