David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since my first mail:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18
:-O That would be more or
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since my first mail:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so
strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the
argument
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so
strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be
Um.. no we're not.
Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much
more readable. *yawn*
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 12:13 am
Subject: Re:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Um.. no we're not.
Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much
more readable. *yawn*
Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or
alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as
an alternative
My entire point Neil was simply that, short-time-to-learn should also be a
consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already known*
source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which requires
that every command be learned again without any prior
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Neil Harrisuse...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
snip
Wikitech-l is undoubtedly the right forum for this discussion, so we
really should continue this discussion there.
It would be nice is discussion of the non-technical aspects continued
here and some of it fed
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I had thought we'd formally policyized the please leave blocked users
alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the
block (short of making threats against people, etc), but I can't find
anything
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then
wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with
the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go
This has come up a number of times (as GWH says). We aim to avoid a block
- uncivil - extend block - more uncivil cycle. As best I recall, the
point is that users who rant against the blocking admin for blocking them,
or against Wikipedia generally, or about the unfairness of the block, or
even
Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents
them acting up while blocked...
Better: *Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it
prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for
themselves while they are blocked. *
In
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sheldon Ramptonshel...@prwatch.org wrote:
(1) No WYSIWYG editing system.
Browsers by limitation are not real WYSIWIG editing systems, and
because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser.
New functionality, regardless of its development, is
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
There is also the same issue for those involved on the on wikipedia
censorship. How much of this did they know? What was the wording of
the request Jimbo received?
The main issue now for all involved is saving face. This is an
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, George Herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Some things are not easily describable and modelable in the in-wiki
mental model and process.
Things that are not describable and modelable in the in-wiki but are
so in the private news org model? Hm. Pay, danger,
Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page
incivility the same as incivility anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F
-Durova
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2
The question being discussed there is:
Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has
been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page,
often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently
than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP pages
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We
*shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we
did so shows that we don't have a
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen,
doesn't mean you don't want it as well.
But it has some negative effects that they don't care
In a message dated 7/8/2009 3:23:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial
example:
{{#switch:
{{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }}
| error = that's an error
| correct =
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen,
doesn't mean you
Despite being at least semi off topic, I must
comment on this:
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
as appropriate to inform articles
The question being discussed there is:
Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has
been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page,
often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently
than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP
In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter_jac...@gmx.net writes:
There are two thousand years of
struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of
interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this
and propose that the bible verse can speak for
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty
to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Browsers by limitation are not real WYSIWIG editing systems
They aren't? How about contenteditable?
New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either
proprietary or useless unless the W3C deals with it.
2009/7/8 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line.
One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist
demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing
demands completely. One example
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, George Herbert wrote:
A news blackout, to me, seems much less ambiguous and much less giving
in than paying ransom. We do not impose legal or social penalties
against families or companies that pay ransoms.
Well, some are trying:
28 matches
Mail list logo
