On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
He does have a point. Jimbo founding principles did have something
about keeping mailing lists open. I would hope that this applies to
foundation-l as much as wiki-en-l, which I believe predates the
foundation
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
He does have a point. Jimbo founding principles did have something
about keeping mailing lists open. I would hope that this applies to
Steve,
Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work
it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I
think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular
on-wiki discussion of dispute resolution.
Fred
Stevertigo:
And of
Excellent comments by Bod Notbod.
Posting my response under the 'A modest proposal - a recap of
resolution-l' thread.
-Stevertigo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work
it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I
think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular
stevertigo wrote:
Um, no. There is a more actual reason underlying that one - that I was
embarrassing Cary, and by extension anyone else on functionaries-l or
else using private communication that they were being non-responsive.
There are several slang substitutes for non-responsive in common
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please don't assume that you were embarrassing anyone except yourself.
This looks like good, sound, hard-learned advice, even if it is
presented as an inappropriate and off-topic personal attack.
-Stevertigo
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given.
But you know why, right?
It's because it was felt that the issue you kept returning to was not
relevant for the Foundation mailing list. You wouldn't accept that,
continued to
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given.
But you know why, right?
Um, if there is a reason for a blocking, stating so openly, or even in
private
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
That someone should of course have an identity. In the future, when
someone is blocked from a list - particularly a seventh-year
contributor/editor, who's been earnest in answering each substantive
comment, question, or
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:33:45 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
Wales, who was for a long time our
most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal
personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this
very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Daniel R. Tobiasd...@tobias.name wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:33:45 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
Wales, who was for a long time our
most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal
personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up -
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Why care about what foundation-l does or doesn't do ?
It's a silly place full of silly people :)
I did not know that.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
2009/7/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given. It is my understanding that when individuals are blocked
from an open list, the list moderator must give some kind of
explanation. In an open discussion forum, it is
2009/7/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given. It is my understanding that when individuals are blocked
from an open list, the list moderator must give some kind of
explanation. In an open discussion forum, it is
Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given. It is my understanding that when individuals are blocked
from an open list, the list moderator must give some kind of
Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you sure you were moderated? Austin only mentioned that the thread was
killfiled.
Yeah, well. I could not post that ASCII-art nude of myself to the
list, so I guess I was blockified, as well.
-Steven
___
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think, although I was his ally in the cause, creating a dispute
resolution mailing list, that it is quite clear what the reason for
blocking is -- continuing repeatedly to post on that subject when he was
told it was
2009/7/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Well, you may be right about that, in a certain way. But nevertheless
I did get Cary to finally respond, and, according to his response -
mostly decrying the fact that I was making him look a bit too
administrative - we now have exactly one more day to
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Well, you may be right about that, in a certain way. But nevertheless
I did get Cary to finally respond, and, according to his response -
He's at this moment in NYT for the wiki
Why care about what foundation-l does or doesn't do ?
It's a silly place full of silly people :)
In a message dated 7/25/2009 8:40:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
been given. It is my
21 matches
Mail list logo
