On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_%282nd_nomination%29
I can't find a single reference on it which
2009/4/1 Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination)
And before anyone gets too outraged, do make note of today's date.
One of these days people will learn to be original.
--
geni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination)
And before anyone gets too outraged, do make note of today's date.
Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipo...@gmail.com
http://elipongo.blogspot.com/
___
David Goodman wrote:
I would very much liketo take Wps redirect and disam system and
rationalize it. the first step would be to change the policy so the
full form of the name, including middle names, are always used when
available. The second is to add geographic designators for all local
No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a community,
and there are plenty of things I would do differently too if I had my way with
everything. There's zero point in pursuing proposals that are strongly opposed
by a significant section of the community. Majority
No, you argued that I should not oppose the current measure because it
was all that could pass.
My response is, better than nothing passes.
Now you are arguing something else.
Andrew Turvey wrote:
No, my argument is not spurious - it's to the point. We operate in a
community, and there are
Sorry, I meant better that nothing passes
doc wrote:
No, you argued that I should not oppose the current measure because it
was all that could pass.
My response is, better than nothing passes.
Now you are arguing something else.
Andrew Turvey wrote:
No, my argument is not spurious -
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of
we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny.
Meanwhile, everyone else has to follow them.
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an
article about the Earth to be made by
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a
pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person?
This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to
instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to
remain on wikipedia.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Kill the messenger!
Does anyone have a mob of peasants with torches standing around handy?
Perhaps someone will write an article about the legendary Wikipedia
riots of April 1, 2009.
Ec
-Original Message-
From: Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon,
on 4/1/09 11:16 AM, doc at doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a
pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person?
Absolutely! The basis for any encyclopedia article should be: This is what I
learned about the
2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal
+1
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
2009/4/1 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of
we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny.
Meanwhile, everyone else
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in
it.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Generally, I'm not a fan of this sort of joke. They give the impression of
we get to break the rules when we want to, as long as it's funny.
In a message dated 4/1/2009 9:45:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an
article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings.
If we really need the article to be made by people from other planets, I
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an
article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR
and say that that's not what it's supposed to mean, but it's not all that
I've seen no evidence that the unsourced BLPs are more prone to subtle
vandalism at the time of creation than the sourced ones.
If it's unsubtle vandalism, speedy already takes care of it just fine.
If it happens later, this proposal doesn't do any good towards solving
the problem.
Maybe there
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
So far each april fools thread I've seen has had at least one buzzkiller in
it.
Personally, I've never understood why deliberately misleading people
is supposed to be funny. I don't particularly enjoy having my time
wasted
I agree with the sentiment that flagged revisions would take care of this
additional issue as well.
Flagged revisions also allows people, like me, who are used to working
entirely online, to create drafts, then wander away for a while, then come back
and add more details, until you have a
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 13:08, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
(And WP:COI really does seem to say it's a conflict of interest for an
article about the Earth to be made by Earthlings. It's easy to invoke IAR
and
Don't get me wrong, I like April Fools, but there is so much unfunny stuff
around...
Man, whoever takes the cleanup job at the end of today has my condolences.
- Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian
Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious
vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need
lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job
will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The
problem is that
George Herbert wrote:
We have standards, people.
{citeneeded}
___
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, Apr 1, 2009 at 14:06, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's a sad reality. :-( Wikipedians respond too crazily to
COIs... what we usually suggest is that people don't tell others that
they have first-hand knowledge. :-)
Here is dmoz.org's policy on insider editors:
doc,
I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want
to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin
does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real
role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing
entirely. But
I'm in agreement with David here.
I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be
interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or
remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a
policeman is quite a different role.
So a flagged rev
2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a
pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person?
Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting
that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't
seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently
unexplained.
Perhaps it should check whether there is content outside of /* section
28 matches
Mail list logo
