A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people? That banner is
totally horrible and I really wonder if it even was a Wikipedia editor who
proposed it with all those capital letters.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:38
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Evangeline Han evanbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Because their advice was that it would work. It probably is working.
Steve
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still
alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
IMHO, the google books settlement, and all its twists and turns, has
big implications for us,
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still
alive in some
Evangeline Han evanbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Giving out explanations would defeat the purpose of having a command
entity in the first place. A command is exactly
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever
David Gerard wrote:
2009/11/15 William Pietri will...@scissor.com:
[...] I'm just saying
that we don't have to speculate; we can run all the ones that don't seem
blatantly counterproductive, and find out how well they do. Even better,
we can automatically optimize which we show and how.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
IMHO, the google
I don't understand how this even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily
On Nov 15, 2009, at 12:52 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I'm personally not a big fan of the ads either, but if they were
substantially more effective, then I'd have to think about whether this
is one of those many occasions where my personal tastes diverge from
what makes a
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
But from what I can see of their budgets, not all that much of their
funds are going to that. The rest is going for stuff like
maintaining an office in a much more expensive city than the cheap
one they used to have in
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I don't understand how this even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily
It relates because using anything claiming it to be forever is stupid.
Short of theological concepts and some metaphysical debate on the
I've noticed lately that the blurbs Google is generating for Wikipedia
articles not only no longer reflect the article intros (for a long
time they were putting out whatever tripe DMOZ had about the article)
but are now selectively quoting the most opinionated piece of
POV-tripe phrasing that
16 matches
Mail list logo
