On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
interpretation of the anyone can edit part of your slogan.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
There has never been agreement for more than the 2,000. It will be
Wha?
The 2000 limit was a technical thing which came later, and not from
the community.
I don't think it's a bad thing, even outside of the simple
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2010 19:15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The objective of this trial isn't to give us good press, it's to persuade
the community that this is a useful and viable tool.
I couldn't disagree more. The
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, part of the objective here is to see whether we get enough
encyclopedia-worthy edits to determine if it is worthwhile removing
protection.
[snip]
I couldn't disagree more strongly. If we were making a judgement on
the
Imagine an article with many revisions and pending changes enabled:
A, B, C, D, E, F, G...
A is an approved edit. B,C,D,E,F,G are all pending edits.
B is horrible vandalism that the subsequent edits did not fix.
You are a reviewer, you go to review page by clicking a pending review
link. On
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine an article with many revisions and pending changes enabled:
A, B, C, D, E, F, G...
[snip]
I don't know how to fix this. We could remove the reject button to
make it more clear that you use the normal editing
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 06/14/2010 06:46 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 15/06/2010, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Have there been any other media outlets, blogs, etc. who see Pending
Changes as a loosening of controls? I haven't;
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 9 June 2010 11:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On the gripping hand, limiting it to BLP's got a consensus.
Trying it on for a wider array of articles is really asking for
someone to punch you
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
3. This set of pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions
...still has the old vocabulary, and still refers to
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
We expect a publicity storm around pending changes. Jay doesn't
currently plan to do a press release as such, but we're definitely
getting ready with talking point sheets and Q+As and a blog post and
etc. For obvious
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you :-)
Last sentence: We'll trial it by putting a small number of pages in
'pending changes' instead of locking them.
That's still grammatically awkward (= bad) and the obvious question
is, which pages?
Any pages
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
[snip]
I do have a fear that reporters, who are embedded in institutions with
complicated review flows, will bring a lot of baggage to interpreting
this, and so will have notions and potential misunderstandings that are
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2010 20:55, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
d) it only applies BLP articles
Can you identify the origin of this belief? It's
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:00, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
I suspect that any action by an autoconfirmed user will automatically
accept something of any actions not yet reviewed. Will those
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Good question. I should say that I have no inside knowledge on this
project, and am speaking purely as a random Wikipedian who does web
stuff for a living. That's just my educated guess, both on ratios and
clicks.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Relatedly, a proposal!
Search box, two buttons. One, search or go, acts as the old
mixed-search go button - it is a direct leap to that title, else
falling back on the search. The second button is advanced; it takes
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Shmuel Weidberg ezra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Wow, so he's able to delete content on *one* of the 200+ languages of
Wikipedia. I'd still say the statement is substantially correct. He used
to have unlimited power on every project to do anything. Now he's
administrator
[ simulcasted to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Reliable_sources.E2.80.94_some_of_these_babies_are_ugly
]
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told FoxNews.com.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the
very least they would have
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/05/2010, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
I prefer the old location for the search box, yes. But I think that's
because I'm _used_ to it being on the left. I think the usability team
gave a rationale at one
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one
freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission,
even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's explanation? bad press:
- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html
In related news, there is a proposal to
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The message currently delivered by the software is:
Edits must be reviewed before being published on this page.
And yet the edit
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
We discussed this at some length today, and I wanted to update everybody.
Who is the we in your message? (I'm just asking because its entirely
ambiguous, since you were quoting me it looks like I was involved,
though I
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
having things change mid-edit could be a bit disconcerting!
I've just remembered that in some implementations of this, almost
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2010 17:59, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
As the software currently stands, however, it generates some rather
obnoxious messages advising you that your edits won't be visible until
they've been
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anthony wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you haven't caught it— my strongly held and long standing recommendation
is that we make the process as invisible as possible: By overloading the
cookie that is set when a user (inc. anons) edits we can switch these people
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Anthony wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't see what why it is advantageous to not tell an anonymous
editor that their change will only be visible once it has been
approved. Some might even be glad that we're finally bringing in a
peer review system for the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2010 20:34, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of the notice part— it sound like you support making anons
see the draft version of a page (all pages?) after they've edited?
The two issues
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
My understanding, possibly incorrect, is that we can't do that. Because
most pages for non-logged-in users are served from caches, most
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs
version of the German Wikipedia. We're pretty close to release, and we
believe only minor UI
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the point of using a phonetic alphabet that 95% of our
readership 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
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a perfect metric, but it is probably the best one we can
actually measure. A metric we can't measure is completely useless.
When choosing a metric you always have to compromise between ease of
measurement
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to get a little wider input on this issue. Tony1 is
reviewing a recent academic book about Wikipedia for the Signpost, and
we'd like to include an image of the cover in the review:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
A common way to stifle discussion about nuance in any situation is to refer
to old discussions on similar ideas and say we already discussed this and
got consensus. Keeping an ancient history of all past debates could
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking
the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading
section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And
further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of
the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the
topic.
Carcharoth
That is why I despise the war on external links and further
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htmIt's obvious of the
peak in January of 2007.
What I'm interested in is thoughts of why New Contributors has
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
It is commonly said that anyone can remove unsourced information, and that
the burden lies on the editor who wants to include information to provide a
source. I have always taken this to mean that if I think something is wrong
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking edit, but
actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's
experience:
http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki
concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Autoconfirmed status of accounts affects ability to move pages, but not
ability to create articles.
And upload images and edit semi-protected (of course).
___
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM, altally altal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
This goes in the same category as:
Anyone with good intentions can get through the 6757836 step New Article
Wizard, so it's not too complicated
It doesn't
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM, altally altal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
Fascinating! I note how the article Celilo Falls was created a brought up
to
four long paragraphs by User:67.168.209.23. Today IPs are not allowed to
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
For example, imagine a well-meaning newbie who sees that our article
Logic starts with Logic is the study of reasoning. This newbie
might change that to Logic is the art and science of correct
deduction, which is
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
This is slightly misleading as it is actually referring to logged-in
users only.
[snip]
~600,000 distinct usernames and IP addresses recorded at least 1 edit
~100,000 distinct usernames and IP addresses recorded at
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard to understand the conjecture that Wikipedia ties in with those
plans. If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles
would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old
A good way to overthrow a regime is to predict its downfall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like just more strategic deletionist excusism. There is no
excuse for anyone giving to destruction a higher value than they do to
creation.
So now that things are wrapping up, don't forget to hand out some
merit
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
But CSD *isn't for deleting everything that should be deleted*. So the
fact that the article doesn't fit CSD but should be deleted anyway isn't
a loophole. Plenty of things which should be deleted don't fit CSD.
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
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
It is not in fact that easy - because every slogan has to be
translated into
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is
that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic
allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sean Moss-Pultz s...@openmoko.com
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Subject: [openmoko-announce] WikiReader
To: annou...@lists.openmoko.org, List for Openmoko community
discussion commun...@lists.openmoko.org
Dear Community!
Today, with the
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
No it's not. If the you've understood a rule as some formality that
you must comply with when it clearly does not help you've
misunderstood something.
That's how rules actually
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason I balk at using the SSDI or the census is I don't think we
should be using primary sources in this manner. There are numerous
pitfalls, including many errors of spelling and fact, to using these
sources. Historians and
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
The place
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
UI fail.
There is no reason for you to know or care that your edit isn't being
displayed to the general public. It's being displayed to you, it's
being displayed to all the other
This thread may turn out to be of interest to participants here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-September/055352.html
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
wrote: There is a page on the wiki collecting comments, please add
yours:
Done.
One thing that makes testing this thing quite difficult
any more of my effort. Enjoy.
On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still
have them if anyone feels like fighting it out
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still
have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
community.
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
On 12/25/08, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
There are plenty of things which people
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some
confusion abotu what self-created means, but I can't think of a better
term for it really. creation is such a nebulous concept for many
people.
Is
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
sure
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than comparing a convenient online copy of Wikipedia to a paper
copy of Britannica -0 of their readers have access to, or a
deliberately-annoying Britannica website (see
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:06 PM, WODUP wikiwo...@gmail.com wrote:
The article says The most notable instance of this was on the night Barack
Obama won the American election. I found that his entire, detailed entry
disappeared for nearly an hour - to be replaced with the one-line entry,
Barack
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
Diffs or it didn't happen!
Have the folks on the lists forgotten how to use contribs:
You can easily find examples in Phil's contrib history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tori_Amosdiff=prevoldid=257127013
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Oldak Quill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something I don't understand about this affair: BT set up Cleanfeed,
the ISP level content filtering system that caused this problem. Why
haven't BT subscribers been subject to the block?
They were, just two days later than
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/9 Giacomo M-Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why
haven't BT subscribers been subject to the block? - We are!
It appears BT didn't switch on the filtering of Wikipedia for a day or
so. Presumably they specifically exempted
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Yet Facebook provided no means of appeal, and my own efforts to contact them
and seek reconsideration fell on deaf ears.
The problem is bigger than IWF.
http://durova.blogspot.com/2008/12/who-watches-watchers.html
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:24 AM, R E Broadley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apologies for accidentally over-quoting on my last post :-s
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM, R E Broadley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the show, the last thing said (in the mp3) file is we've only blocked
the URL that
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Tim Starling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The poor woman clearly didn't know the difference between a URL and a web
page. Most likely the same can be said about the IWF staff member who
listed those two pages.
The colatteral damage will mostly go away if they block
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end
handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a
critic (and these things are so
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, geni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since wikipedians can rapidly generate very large numbers of thumbnail
URLs and have just the sod you attitude to do it such an approach is
unlikely to be effective. Blocking wikipedia by URL is unlikely to be
effective.
We could
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward
to dropping in the line Wikipedia smells of hammers. ([[Brass Eye]])
Apparently the image is on the the deluxe boxed set sold everywhere,
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/7 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On second thought, those pics would be derivative works of the cover and
hence not acceptable for Commons. It could be worthwhile, though, to have a
contact point for accepting such
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward
to dropping in the line Wikipedia smells of hammers. ([[Brass Eye]])
http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/virgin-killer-chart.png
[[Streisand effect]] ?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Andrew Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has been discussed at some length on this list before (ad
infinitum, as I recall), and people might like to know it seems to
have discreetly moved to the next stage: IFD. This is, what, round
four?
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Eugene van der Pijll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lukasz Bolikowski schreef:
A short introduction: let's say that two articles are connected if there
is an interlanguage link from one to the other in at least one
direction. Next, let's say that if A-B and B-C are
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
[snip]
Once
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, phoebe ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'd put in a vote for applying the same thing to infoboxes, too! And
then maybe an option for experienced users: turn off javascript and
see the whole smess as it is now/s wikitext.
Or reveal codes button, a pretty
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/11/25 geni [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than
protected pages...
Given the historic grow rate of semi protect from
89 matches
Mail list logo
