James Forrester wrote:
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I
can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start
reporting every time I see it doneand I can't see it
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a
disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and
fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a
disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and
fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to
The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of policies
about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is very
good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a
workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the
I agree with much of what you say, Ian. But I see the issues of crime and
punishment and getting and keeping the playing field level as just one
function of an oversight body. There are many other areas that need
monitoring in such a complex project such as WP. The question I still have
is how do
You're asking the wrong question. The purpose of arbcom-like body is to
check that the policies are being correctly interpreted, but the policies
like:
wp:blocking policy
is so full of words like 'may' and vague words like 'disruption' as to be
functionally useless.
You got into a discussion
But the article whichever version is used still needs a massive
citation needed tag added, and better sources. The monkey stuff seesm
to come from the experiment described here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/02/monkey-see-monkey-facepalm/
Trouble is, most
On 10/03/11 8:22 PM, Risker wrote:
On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
Every day, I see perfectly
If somebody is being a
jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing
upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom.
+1
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
Sent: 04 October 2011 10:45
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
If somebody is being a
jerk isn't it better to bluntly
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like
memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual
communication in the language of Shakespeare.
FWIW, I've known the
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like
memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual
communication in the language of Shakespeare.
Oh, please. I'd call you
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like
memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Phil Nash wrote:
That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for
its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom.
Let's not forget Arbcom doesn't make policy, which usually ends up meaning
Arbcom constantly makes de-facto policy
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
FWIW, I've known the face-palm gesture for ages, and never knew it was
in any way related to Star Trek. I suspect our article on the topic
may be slightly over-egging things there. I've used and seen the
facepalm
Like many others, I've seen the facepalm used to represent a fairly broad
spectrum of emotions, both directed at one's own actions and that of
others. It's certainly been around since well before Star Trek, since I
remember it being used before that show was on TV, and in fact I wouldn't be
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker
Sent: 04 October 2011 18:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
So perhaps a better focus of discussion would be how to deal
2011 18:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
So perhaps a better focus of discussion would be how to deal with
editors
who are unable to or unwilling to understand project guidelines and
policies. It seems that the primary use of this template is by editors
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Sent: 04 October 2011 21:08
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 10/04/11 3:51 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
On 04 October 2011 at 21:08, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 10/04/11 3:51 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:04, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Unfortunately, I think this
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme
indicating an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief,
disgust,
shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of
I wouldn't judge it on the connotations, I'd judge it on the use. Self
deprecatory such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Winters is
fine.
Some of the other times it has been used are more troubling, but is it any
worse than some of the intemperate language we sometimes see? I'd prefer
: 03 October 2011 11:05
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient
and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
{{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we
Usually when I facepalm it's because I have a moment, not someone
else...
I believe [[WP:DICK]] is a bigger issue than {{facepalm}} at the moment
Bob
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Schnautz
Sent: 03 October 2011 19:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Usually when I facepalm it's because I have a moment
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
On 3 October 2011 13:06, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invoking it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
One of the fun things we wrote into the policy right from the
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can
take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting
every time I see it doneand I can't see it going very far with
Arbcom or
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can
take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting
every time I see it doneand I can't see it going very far with
Arbcom or with AN/Iconsidering how many people back it as one of the
three most
James Forrester wrote:
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I
can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start
reporting every time I see it doneand I can't see it going
On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
Every day, I see perfectly civil people facepalming. I
33 matches
Mail list logo
