I say this as a new page patroller myself:
For love of all that's sweet and holy, somebody higher up please
tighten up the technical standards for non-userfyed article creation.
Most of my PRODs and CSDs nominations are from people who simply don't
know what they are doing. In the meantime,
I'll add that it doesn't take much to simply create an account and
create an article that says I luv Jane Doe she iz so awsumtastic!!
While banning anonymous creation in the mainspace had its good
intentions, it's probably not as useful now as it was intended.
For instance, just today
responded to us and became a
significant contributor, 3,000 new really active people a year would
deal with a great many of the problems of wikipedia. If we could get
one in ten, it would totally rejuvenate the project.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
Interesting! My gut reaction was that revision is noticeably more
jargony than edit.
Yeah, I mean it even says in our motto, The encyclopedia that
*anybody* can edit.
Emily
On May 25, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I
Oh, I should've figured that one out on my own. Continue on.
Emily
On May 22, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I
May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all
wrong,
I don't think I've seen the word autoreviewer tossed about in any
other context. I was under
- Double Check - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature
will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad
community).
I like this one. With this, there would be double checked edits,
that is
Probably not, unless we take an educated guess from the German
Wikipedia. I get the impression that we're doing things significantly
different from them, so yeah. I don't think anyone can.
Emily
On May 21, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com
I agree. Cross out the last line.
Emily
On May 21, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
Love the rest, but the We'll be watching it carefully is a little
creepy.
~A
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 22:57, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't and can't right now but we should probably say
I chuckled.
Emily
On May 20, 2010, at 10:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Spotted by Matthias:
http://www.mightaswelldance.com/blog/2010/05/how-wikipedia-kept-me-out-of-jail/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Emily
On May 15, 2010, at 8:16 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted)
who mouth off about the
[snip]
[2] Except those of you who already have them. But for you, we have
a whole wiki that you can go wild on. You can even have a wheel war
if you want and we won't tell a soul.
Should you really encourage behavior such as wheel warring? Even as a
joke?
Emily
On May 14, 2010, at
Oh, you're talking about the test wiki?
Wow, never mind. My profound apologies. I have trouble interpreting
inflection even offline.
Emily
On May 14, 2010, at 4:07 PM, William Pietri wrote:
On 05/14/2010 01:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
[2] Except those of you who already have them
Not really. Wheel warring is a serious offense.
Emily
On May 14, 2010, at 6:47 PM, AGK wrote:
It's not acceptable *ever*.
I was trying to do a test once and all my test articles disappeared.
It had taken a while to set up.
At that point you either just leave or wheel war and then leave.
Yikes! That could be quite problematic!
But still, fundamentally, we aren't here for the money. Clearly,
people need to put their heads together and come up with a creative
back up money making solution for the Wikimedia Foundation should this
happen again.
Emily
On May 12, 2010, at 12:24
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good,
because it means the site can't be trusted in the eyes of
librarians, teachers, etc etc.
So, in other words, it's a good idea to have rules based on what
For what's it's worth, Jimbo has now limited the powers of the Founder
flag.
Emily
On May 9, 2010, at 7:58 PM, AGK wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
That would be for *most* IP editors, correct?
Because I've run across a few IP editors that seemed to care, even if
they don't edit on a consistent basis.
Emily
On May 3, 2010, at 3:25 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 3 May 2010 20:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010
Okay, true. I just wanted those editors acknowledged. That was all.
I'm a bit nitpicky, and it appears I've caused a digression. Carry on.
Emily
On May 3, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
Because I've run across a few IP editors that seemed to care, even if
they don't edit on a consistent
Okay, but which pronoucation should we use? Australian English?
British English? Canadian English? Does this matter with IPA?
Emily
On Apr 24, 2010, at 12:31 AM, David Goodman wrote:
To me IPA is likely to remain one of the scripts I will never learn,
and whether I ought to learn it is
William, those are my concerns exactly (along with the and which
standard dialect of English should we use? concern).
Emily
On Apr 24, 2010, at 10:17 AM, William Pietri wrote:
Has anybody actually studied the effect on actual users of removing
schemes like [[Wikipedia:Pronunciation
I think it's better that Wikipedia be usable to laypeople, and not be
in academic savior mode.
Emily
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
A lot of so called IPA out there is created by Americans for
Americans and
expect that certain sounds can be expressed by the
can't interpret? If the idea is to help readers understand
how a word is pronounced in English, it should actually be useful to
the majority of readers and not largely useless but academically
perfect.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
I'd have to agree
How is this going to work out? Will it slow down loading for a lot of
people? Is there any other reason somebody can think of why there
isn't more devices that support IPA?
Emily
On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:48 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
We ought to have a
I find Cpedia rather...hilarious, for some reason. I don't see the
point to it, otherwise.
Emily
On Apr 15, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Del Buono, Matthew Paul wrote:
But it would seem the technology is still some way off.
I don't know. I think I have found a good use for it.
Can anybody explain what PWD is?
Thanks,
Emily
On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com
wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time
We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume
that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an
article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for
it, they figure.
If, on NPP, I find that an article has been recreated, it's usually
I'd think that'd be a good idea. Part of the problem I observe as a
new page patroller is that younger Wikipedians will often write rather
silly or childish articles. Maybe if we can add a line to the end of
the deletion and You wrote a problem article notification templates
advertising
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
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
That seems unduly harsh for one post which your personal opinion
judges
off-topic
Ec
It doesn't matter if the judgement is harsh. In my opinion, people
should get only a handful of warnings for blatant mailing list abuse
I'm going to contribute to this thread backwards, replying first to
this message and then replying to other peoples' reply. I hope other
people don't mind at all.
here's a nice post by someone who's been contributing occasionally
since 2004, about how daunting wikibullying can be for
When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they
often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate
keepers.
Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an
admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but obviously a newcomer (or
even an
It is a balance between efficiently working through new page patrol
(NPP) and not scaring off new editors who may develop into good
editors, and who may be quite happy for others to take their edits
and improve them (but don't want them just thrown away).
I, on occasion, will improve an
confirmed, and You can
probably write a non-speedyable article confirmed.
Is there any way to take out the bad checks and balances without also
taking out the good as well?
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
The argument that an article about a non-profit can't be an
advertisement is absurd.
Well, yeah. Non-profits can advertise as well. They have that right,
if done in the proper place. The difference between a for-profit and
non-profit corporations is non-profits, at least in spirit, aren't
But of the people who contribute them, many can be encouraged to
learn how to write adequate articles and perhaps become regular
contributors. People who write inadequate unsourced promotional
articles can be simply rejected, or alternatively helped to write
good ones or at least
The one that matters most to me is that something of the order of 2%
of speedy nominations are just cleanup cases (sometimes extreme, but
not nonsense as often tagged).
I assume you're an admin, and have the power to speedily delete. Do
you actually clean up the article instead of
We can change that. Wiki wont do it. Nor will Wikimedia for that
matter. But collaboration will..
I agree 100%.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:12 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
who
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals
we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).
Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this
question not out of spite, but of curiosity.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Charles Matthews
For how long could I do this before I get blocked?
Quite a long time, if at all, I'm afraid. You would probably get a
WQA, RFC, and an arbitration case justifying your actions long after
there's any discussion of blocking you. More than likely, you'd be
banned from new page patrolling, and
different, perhaps non-English cultures. Both of these can interfere
with competence required to edit Wikipedia, and also with being
accepted in Wikipedia.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Charles Matthews wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal
I'm quite active at speedy deletion and often decline
overenthusiastic tags, but I would disagree with making it
compulsory to improve a good faith article one tags for deletion
(though I'd be happy with something that encourages this).
I suggested this mostly for public relation
there should be a special recent
changes page for administrative actions?
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:20 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort
of) from ArbCom
I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but
hmm.
How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in
with a super majority?
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:35 PM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish
It doesn't have anything to do with the release of the software,
it's just a matter of using the right tool for the right job.
You're right. My bad.
Emily
On Sep 13, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/13 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
You can restrict the editing
That's a very nice interpretation, and in retrospect, I think that's
what Will meant.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Emily wrote:
How does
.
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
What
Treating them as such would lead to over-defending them, i.e. drama.
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
whenever I can (okay,
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
Oh, well. I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/8/09 10:44 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic
spectrum
Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
subordinates.
True, but I see a lot of articles at new page patrol that also violate
NPOV, CIVIL, or both. I run this great business is POV, not to
mention SPAM.
of babies.
You're right, and that's what I find most disheartening.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints
it's B-Class.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:07 PM, geni wrote:
2009/9/10 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
This is wishful thinking, Geni.
Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
sized ones (1 ton) is not.
Uk's first
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
What? I'm confused.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Emily wrote:
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their
writings.
So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic spectrum,
and isn't neurotypical nor psychotic?
I know this is off-topic, but well, it's interesting.
Emily
(bias: recent diagnosis of PDD-NOS)
On Sep 8,
As a casual reader on OPB (other people's blogs) I get annoyed if my
comment gets wiped or never appears.
Yeah, but see, the thing is, you don't own the blog. The person
writing it does (well, technically, the blog hosting service does).
They have the right to not have a comment show up.
Simple suggestion: A big green button at the bottom of every page
marked Comment on this page which creates a new section on the
discussion page.
Good idea, but we would get dozens of OMG I LUV THIS PERSUN!11!!!.
Emily
On Sep 2, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3,
I suppose there would need to be a guideline started to decide what
sorts of things are OK for comments.
I thought we were talking about how to make the talk page more
accessible...
Emily
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:19 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/3/2009 7:21:35 AM Pacific
not sure it would, it's a trial balloon.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2009 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Googley comments
I suppose there would need to be a guideline started
this as a way to improve the article, only a way to allow
casual readers to make comments.
It seems like just that possibly more-friendly approach might bring
people into the project as editors as well.
I'm not sure it would, it's a trial balloon.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Emily
I notice the button to submit a comment is labelled Make a public
comment; confusing!
Maybe what they mean is Make a comment, generic member of the public.
Emily
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Luna wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just today noticed a new
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage
vanishes.
Perhaps.
Emily
On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage
vanishes.
Full disclosure can also level the field.
Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been
active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into
oblivion and have very low average trust levels?
Sometimes. However, on new page patrol, I'll sometimes completely
rewrite a page, both for practice and
Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it
is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually
want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still
widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it?
Well, that's what I'm worried about,
- it allows us to create blamemaps for history pages, so that you
can quickly see who added a specific piece of text. This is very
interesting for anyone who's ever tried to navigate a long version
history to find out who added something.
I have to admit, I'd find this incredibly useful
I've heard Americans refer to garage sales.
Where I live (mid-Missouri), there's more yard sales and rummage
sales than there are garage sales, but it's all the same thing.
On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
snip
P.S. A
Or perhaps it is a reputation score - my memory is fuzzy.
Either way, I would like the score to NOT be published. I'd hate to
have the community divided over a piece of software.
Emily
On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Brian wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Nice signature... I found this in my spam box. :)
Yeah, anytime I see something in my junk email drawer, I assume it's
Will Johnson. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Soxred93 wrote:
Nice signature... I found this in my spam box. :)
-X!
On
, much like
the
neighbor that knocks on your door with brownies and tells you all the
sekrets about the neighbors.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
The Welcome Wagon, like Esperanza, got taken out back and shot a few
years ago when we decided
PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
The Welcome Wagon sought to bring them into the community
If it was bought back, would it survive?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Keegan Paul wrote:
The Welcoming committee is a central repository for welcoming new
users.
The Welcome
Examples:
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=25408Itemid=62
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208941/Free-edit-Wikipedia-appoints-volunteer-editors-vet-changes-articles-living-people.html
FT2
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc
Don't you mean is the Wikimedia Foundation aware of this?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean!
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
The reason for this is, when Flagged Revisions got into the press
last
Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him next week.
I'll bet he'll be delicious with BBQ sauce and a side of mashed
potatoes and baked beans. Mmm mmm mmm. X-D
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:12 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/28/2009 8:10:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
And we can always revert to the previous Jimbo, so lots for everyone!
When we are done, we can revert and voila! Wikipedia has food forever!
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:18 PM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/28 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:58 AM,
The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any
page at all can be open to improvement by anyone.
Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of Well, it isn't
*really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being
constructive here.? I envision a
I'm seeing ban discussions on [[WP:AN]] being turned into polls, and
attempts to undo this are resisted by people who apparently believe
they're following Wikipedia policy.
I tend to avoid [[WP:AN]]--I don't need moar dramah--but if this is
true, then it shouldn't be happening.
Emily
On
Yes. We need all the help we can get!
Emily
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:33 PM, kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, we are getting a good amout of email asking
about how to help the project because of the BBC and NYT. Here's to
that.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
Do we have a welcome mat rolled out and some magic pixie dust to
tell people to please not be BITE-y?
*pixie dust pixie dust* ;-D
We don't want a large influx of editors arriving to help after
reading about things in the news, only to run into someone
unfriendly or rules-bound.
I
my Palm Pre
Emily Monroe wrote:
Do we have a welcome mat rolled out and some magic pixie dust to
tell people to please not be BITE-y?
*pixie dust pixie dust* ;-D
We don't want a large influx of editors arriving to help after
reading about things in the news, only to run into someone
but why do you think that Wikipedia as a non-profit wouldn't be a
part of that?
You mean the Wikimedia foundation?
Emily
On Aug 23, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The content of Wikipedia, like malaria, is here to stay. It's
Perhaps the more rational approach is to do what our structure can
do well, and let other projects in the future try other ways and
other things and other goals.
I think this is a great idea.
Emily
On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, David Goodman wrote:
Perhaps the more rational approach is
While wearing a prom dress.
Why not a wedding dress?
Emily
On Aug 21, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Risker wrote:
2009/8/21 wjhon...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/21/2009 10:40:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gwe...@gmail.com writes:
Only if you deny it '*with extreme predjudice*'.
And then jump on
You may be too young to remember that it was the Homecoming Queen
whose Got A Gun I did it... for Johnny!
Yeah, I didn't get that at all.
Emily
On Aug 21, 2009, at 4:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/21/2009 11:45:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com
Oh, now THAT'S funny.
Smiling,
Emily
On Aug 19, 2009, at 8:19 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/17 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
The Christian Science Monitor reports/
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/
WIKIALITY, The
I don't get why there is any need for a dedicated Wikipedia browser.
I agree. For one thing, there's the issue of making it accessible to
Mac, Windows, and Linux.
But yeah, it's good for inspiration.
Emily
On Aug 16, 2009, at 10:32 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:09 AM,
I have the impression that that's only available to admins?
Emily
On Aug 13, 2009, at 8:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
It's simpler than that. Move has an option not to leave a redirect.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
There is no draft namespace
. Tobias wrote:
On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell
people do? We agree that there's a
point that incivility shouldn't be tolerated.
Emily
On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
I propose that we have a This probably belongs in the draft
namespace. tag. I don't know how to move something from one namespace
into another (do you do it the normal way?), and it will help with
busy new page patrollers. If I see two or three articles that needs to
be moved to the draft
-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
True. Maybe we can do something along the lines
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others.
I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not
as a punishment, or
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
It's good to see you
If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if
they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the
provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced.
If we do that, then I think we have to give people blocks for BITEing
and BAITing. It's the only way
Consensus process can be tedious in person, where the communication
bandwidth is far higher than mere text, we have tone of voice,
pauses, body language (which is highly efficient compared to text at
communicating intention).
If anyone of you have attended a Quaker worship meeting with
These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open
and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part
of the solution.
I agree. If you don't participate in discussion, don't complain after
the discussion is closed.
Marc IS participating in discussion
I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want
it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer
to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation.
Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable
for the provoker.
Like I
or sticks to pot shots from off the field, but mailing list
participation usually falls in the latter category.
Nathan
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Emily Monroe
bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open
and free, and those who sit
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively
refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the
wiki are actually made. They aren't made here.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Emily
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
