To be clear, John is not an OTRS agent. I believe he was saying that
he had checked with people who are agents (multiple sources) but
he's not one himself (though he is subscribed to the unblock-en-l
mailing list as a former admin).
On 8/30/10, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Mon,
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM, William Beutler
williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
As to the natural monopoly question, well, there is this resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
There are some markets where network effects and very high entry costs, such
as building
Carcharoth wrote:
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was
careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if
there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from
the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from
Wikipedia
Please note that I am not an OTRS agent, and never claimed to be. What I
stated, was that I had run several checks for this user across multiple
mailing lists, (foundation-l, wikien-l, unblock-en-l, and the OTRS system
along with several others just to be through) and that this user (with the
On 30 August 2010 11:43, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
However once they posted to
a public mailing list about their said treatment on one of these lists (and
being unable to confirm said treatment) a explanation is needed from the
user in question about their activities and about
On 30 August 2010 01:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 August 2010 01:14, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
I do think alternative wiki projects that seek to fill gaps created by
Wikipedia's choice not to include some types of information stand the best
chance of
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was
careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if
there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be
Now that you mention it, I've avoided the article in the exact same way.
Without the spoiler talk, I probably would have visited already. Although
it's something like an irritable mental gesture... it's not like I have any
plans to see the play anytime in the foreseeable future, and I haven't read
Carcharoth wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding
out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know
this is a completely different argument to the one I used before).
Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both
unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no
John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator.
He has not been outcast from the human race. He has minimum
responsibilities which he performs in a reasonably competent manner.
We are not pure and have no intentions of attempting to become pure.
However, as always, John
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding
out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an
entire section called Identity of the murderer... If I did not want
to learn the identity of the
That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in
some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of
sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the
article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the
contents and selecting (or
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding
out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know
this is a completely different argument to the one I used before).
With other things, I just read the articles
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, David Levy wrote:
Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to
argue that Wikipedia articles should contain spoiler warnings for the
benefit of readers (though the English Wikipedia community has reached
consensus to the contrary). This is very
I wouldn't over-interpret my parting shot. I was on the way out the door
anyway.
- causa sui
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator.
He has not been outcast from the human race. He has
I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an
Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a
comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an
efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you aren't
looking at it
This mailing list is easily googled and and I think words like
bullshit just casts a very bad cloud over who we appoint as
administrators on the project.
Whether or not it was cross posted is not of initial concern, we
should be more constructive and direct the user to the appropriate
method of
Access to information in an efficient manner *includes* providing
readers with choice. Writing an encyclopedia also includes
consideration of the readers. There is a balance to be struck between
editorial discretion and what a reader might want. If you go too far
to rigid editorial control, you
The problem remains that and individual subscription of $295 a year
stinks, to say nothing of $995.00 for a printed copy. Basically, only
institutions or major publishers would find a subscription worthwhile and
those are higher yet.
Essentially it is a paradigm that does not deliver the goods.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The problem remains that and individual subscription of $295 a year
stinks, to say nothing of $995.00 for a printed copy. Basically, only
institutions or major publishers would find a subscription worthwhile and
those
In a wide range of articles we make fairly tight decisions what is relevant
to present an encyclopedic article, and what is not strictly needed.
Guidelines on plot summaries emphasize they should not be over-detailed.
I have no problem at all with the concept that we can have an encyclopedic
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:39 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Encountering certain problems with DBAD at the [[Human]] article,
wondering if it would work to autoblock anyone from reverting a page
whom has not actually participated in discussion on the talk page..
You would likely just
Wikileaks reveals that Snape killed Dumbledore
WILD WEST END, Baker Street, Sunday (NTN) — The online encyclopedia
Wikileaks stands accused of revealing the ending of The Mousetrap,
recklessly endangering the income of Agatha Christie’s descendants.
“My grandmother always got upset if the plots
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this
doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight).
Ha: Insincere discussion - translation 'edit warring is more sincere.'
-SC
___
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:55 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this
doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight).
Ha: Insincere discussion - translation 'edit warring
26 matches
Mail list logo
