Oh, but in no part in the article I put that it was a translation, I
just said it was an interview with Rockaxis.
--
Alvaro
On 12-01-2009, at 12:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Alvaro García wrote:
It's a joke, right?
--
Alvaro
Sadly, no.
I seem to recall
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list
centered around whether a certain Japanese
word was indeed mistranslated, and created
a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one
of the wikipedia mailing-lists...
It was similar to the mud
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
impossible. One or two
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
impossible. One or two anytime in the future will
Well, there are many articles and statements that can't or don't need
to be verified. Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters
interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus
didn't need sources nor they could be put. Two days later, my
substantial
Why exactly would your translation not need sources?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters
interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus
didn't need
Establishing that a source is reliable is up to the person adding it, if
challenged.
Just like all of our content.
In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.
Well your querulous and idiotic is someone else's attempt to ensure the
source is reliable.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/11/2009 5:44:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
It depends how querulous and idiotic they're being, and if they can
get a couple of their
2009/1/12 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well your querulous and idiotic is someone else's attempt to ensure the
source is reliable.
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable
sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on
their user pages - then they
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/12 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well your querulous and idiotic is someone else's attempt to ensure the
source is reliable.
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable
sources - the sort of rabid
On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is a tremendous difference between won't accept just anything
and won't accept anything. Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean
you're done, and can say I've got it sourced, these horrible people
just won't accept it!
A few blogs and A
Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 22:34, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Why exactly would your translation not need sources?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Once I translated
Don't you know you have to cite a dictionary each word?
-Phil
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Alvaro García wrote:
Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 22:34, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Why exactly would your translation not need sources?
The source is the magazine.
Why would you say there are no source, when you have a magazine as the
source?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 9:35:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
**A Good
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is a tremendous difference between won't accept just anything
and won't accept anything. Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean
you're done, and can say I've got
A lot of the early internet stuff isn't well documented by today's deletion
discussion standards. Websites that were well known (in certain circles) in
the 90s are gone now or look quaint and hobbyish today. I think a Wikia wiki
might be perfect for collecting and maintaining the history of the
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
Sigh.
http://www.zenofdesign.com/2009/01/06/wikipedia-is-what-it-is/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
The only hit MUD gets on Wikia now is
http://dragonheart.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Dragonheart, a MUD created in 1995, but the wiki is completely neglected.
I'll go ahead and ask for a Wikia site.
Fred
A lot of the early internet stuff isn't well documented by today's
deletion
discussion
The only hit MUD gets on Wikia now is
http://dragonheart.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Dragonheart, a MUD created in 1995, but the wiki is completely neglected.
I'll go ahead and ask for a Wikia site.
Fred
http://requests.wikia.com/index.php?title=Mudaction=purge
On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
Sigh.
Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming Magazine
reference and a quote from
Wikipedia editors should really have enough knowledge about their
subject matter to make choices based on good judgement rather than strict
adherence to flawed guidelines. Any guideline, law or contract doesnt
absolve one from using ones brain these things are just frameworks for
handling
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Wikipedia editors should really have enough knowledge about their
subject matter to make choices based on good judgement rather than strict
adherence to flawed guidelines. Any guideline, law or contract doesn't
absolve one from using one's brain —
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
The explosion of comments from outright reliable sources (Raph Koster
and Richard Bartle, even when blogging, are reliable secondary
sources) makes this a clear-cut notable article at present. I may
recreate, using
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:35 PM, toddmallen wrote:
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to
write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish
notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish
any significance whatsoever.
A blog
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes,
his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmal...@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
This is the hairdresser argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That you are being deliberately dense is not a reason to play up to you.
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmal...@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
This is the hairdresser argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a
previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third
party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote:
Yes, anyone can blog about anything. What is more interesting,
however, is what Richard Bartle, one of the most significant figures
in MMOG design and commentary, has opted to blog about.
And oh look. He's opted to blog about Threshold.
That
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A
is a
previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is
the case.
The
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:52 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is Was his
expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked
and published what he had to say on this matter? The answer appears
to be no. Self-published sources, even by
No, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It is not notable, just one of the
thousands of failed, or infrequently used MUDs on the web. Threshold is
quite different. It has, and had, a nice player base and notable
characteristics.
http://blog.dillfrog.com/?p=46
Fred
Hello,
When it became clear that
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen was popular culture for teenage girls.
Four centuries ago, Shakespeare was popular culture.
A lot of scholars today would be happier if their contemporaries had kept
better records about either of their lives. When Austen's nephew finally
wrote up his
Ah, the irony. This entire episode has produced articles like this:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/01/08/wikipedia-muds-and-where-the-sources-are/
Lots of information there for Wikipedia.
2009/1/10 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen was popular culture for teenage
The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
impossible. One or two anytime in the future will permit reinstating
the article.
If some Wikipedia
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
37 matches
Mail list logo
