On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This is all the Visual Editor edits in en:wp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangestagfilter=visualeditor
It's not many. So please switch it on (you can still click Edit
source to do references
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
However the overall format in the article is considered when
considering what is appropriate. Image galleries create large breaks
in the text and messy formatting due to issues with screen resolution.
As a result there are best
Hi all,
Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of touch.
Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the image use policy.
Several galleries that I've added to articles have been removed. (And
see this response to my second attempt to gallerise one article:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work
with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I
Yeah, I wonder if there is equally a pro-text/anti-image bias amongst
some
Hi Lydia,
Very cool. You might want to expand on this text: Language links in
the sidebar will automatically come from Wikidata, once the article is
linked on Wikidata. No special syntax is needed for that.
Speaking as someone who knows nothing about Wikidata, the phrase once
the article is
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks nice! Feels a bit visually busy ... maybe not being used to it.
The languages dropdown seems a bit mystery-meat navigation to me -
perhaps head it Other languages like the Categories dropdown next
to it.
Yeah, the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Minor quibbles:
* The header hits a common problem - treating read/talk/edit/history
as four different interfaces to the same page, while they're really
three interfaces to the page (read/edit/history) and one link
Hey, that works :)
I put it on userstyles.org. So if you use the Stylish plugin for
Chrome or Firefox, you can add it here:
http://userstyles.org/styles/82333/wikipedia-3-columns-magnus-manske
Steve
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
For those
for wide screens for so long. I mean, seriously - that
eiger-normal.png looks *awful*. The text is far too wide to read
comfortably, and then there's this huge white space next to the
contents box.
And all with a tiny amount of CSS. Great job, Magnus!
Steve
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Steve
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Trouble there is that newspapers are portrait and have pages, but
screens are usually landscape and (the important bit) stretch
indefinitely vertically. A good example of the problem with doing it
like a newspaper is
Hi all,
Just wondering if there is any published analysis from the Page
ratings widget that appears on every page. My subjective impression
is that the ratings data is pretty bad, but I'd be interested to read
up.
Thanks,
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Their article on us is great, though:
http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia
Wow, that's awesome - the whole introduction is gold. In fact, so much
to enjoy about that article - even the effect of scandals on
Wikipedia
Oops, your question wasn't rhetorical? :-) I haven't consulted it in
years, but nor have I ever really used it to beat people over the head with.
Steve
On Apr 1, 2012 5:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2012 01:11, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
When was the last time you looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for
use in your own writing? And not to tell someone else they were wrong
about something.
What's wrong with that? That's how most rulebooks work - people
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Did someone change the password? Those details aren't working for me.
Oic, you can create your own account on the labs site.
My thoughts:
- The choices use the article wizard, create a draft, create this
article myself
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Now whatever the merits of his case, this chap does have a point about
the unfriendliness of the environment. It isn't so much that we've
gone out of our way to be unfriendly, but the tool we use to
interact--the wiki,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Timwi ti...@gmx.net wrote:
div class='slidershow' style='width: 300px'
; Term One : [[Image:Image One.jpg|300px]] Description One
; Term Two : [[Image:Image Two.jpg|300px]] Description Two
; Term Three : [[Image:Image Three.jpg|300px]] Description Three
/div
I would think that percentages of FA/GA/A/B/C/Start/Stub with respect
to page hits would be much more illuminating.
Ooh, I'd like to see that. And to get a list of pages that are well
below par considering their popularity.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
3) Clicking outside the edited section should do something (ie, prompt
you to save or abandon)
What if you want to copy something from outside the section? (Assuming
paste would work...)
Good point.
4)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tom Jenkins tomjenkin...@gmail.com wrote:
StackExchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StackExchange, a free
Question and Answer network of websites would start a website dedicated
to Wikipedia and Wiki questions if the community only supports the
project by
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com Nice :-)
Update : WYSIFTW now with auto-collapsed references!
Hey Magnus, not sure if you're looking for more feedback, but, I just
tried the section editing and:
1) Can't paste into it (ctrl+v). Other keys also don't
, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Force-reload, go to an article, and you'll see a new WYSIWTF tab (I
trust you can decipher the acronym ;-)
Hi Magnus,
I'm not getting an extra tab. Perhaps I've done
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. The grinches did get rid of the
recipes though; not many left.
I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish,
and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles
about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about
the concept behind the word, not the word itself.
I think your meh example is perfect.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Force-reload, go to an article, and you'll see a new WYSIWTF tab (I
trust you can decipher the acronym ;-)
Hi Magnus,
I'm not getting an extra tab. Perhaps I've done something stupid,
but I stuck the above code
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Please discuss there ...
I'm not on Foundation-L, so I'll discuss here:
So, specification of the problem:
* We need good WYSIWYG. The government example suggests that a simple
word-processor-like interface would be enough
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the article they do, but only if you give them your name
and address and then let a professional verify your edit. Also you
can only edit for free for the first 24 months, then you have to pay
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for the volunteers on those wikis.
Are you serious? What's in it for them is the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
Cuba has begun its own online encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia, with the
goal of presenting its version of the world and history.
Cool, well at least it's not duplication of effort. If there are going
to be any other online
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So does clicking Random Article and (gasp) judging for one's own self
what is a stub produce a figure very different from 50%?
I
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Tendrl:Differences
Everyone uses their own real names.
Meh. You lose good editors that way.
Potential contributors need to create an account to edit, but don't have
Excellent, the fundraiser has high penetration, and recognition
amongst the target audience segment! Combined with high clickthrough
and conversion metrics, this campaign will achieve its target
potential!
Steve
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This reads like a radical anti-egalitarian manifesto by some young
Internet-based firebrand ... then I got to the end and my jaw dropped
at the author's job.
Heh, I'm obviously closer to this space than you - I wasn't
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncologyhttp://chicago2010.asco.org/:
Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Cos I've never understood how bugzilla works, and there's something
weird about how you have to register over there and it is different
from Wikipedia (I'm not even sure which servers it runs on). I tend to
raise
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you do get a developer to do that, can you also ask for the what
links here thing to distingush between links provided by template
content and links provided by article content (i.e. non-template
content)?
So I decided to fill in a red link I saw on the community portal:
[[List of Rivers of Egypt]]. I started creating the article, then
reached the amusing realisation that perhaps there is only one. Yep,
that one.
So, do we just have a pathetically short list? It seems for
completeness etc, that
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having
explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
I don't see it,
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
lobbying groups. A look through the articles in this category (if
accurately placed there) may help UK readers of this mailing list to
see what public policy means:
[4] http://tinyurl.com/y92rgo2
Doesn't work for me. Perhaps you could explain a little bit more on
the webpage how to use it. Is there a required format for the page you
link from the edit box? A little context would help... I can't get
anything to work.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:37 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever
Awesome. That trumps both Racing Legends (
http://www.racing-legends.com/news.htm) and Team Fortress 2.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, 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
create articles and some want to limit it to accounts that are four days
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, altally altal...@googlemail.com wrote:
When I started, I created an account from the beginning. Why? Because it
wasn't hard to notice the big Sign in/create account link in the corner.
Newbies aren't all clueless idiots. You are making the mistake of assuming
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone reading this list is probably pretty smart - Wikipedia is a
nerd magnet, after all.
So I liked this blog post explaining how people fail to share:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
against all sorts of content, including user-generated content. This led
to two common sorts of freak out.
One was brand managers who were shocked to see their beloved brand
appearing on the same page with something
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Peter Coombe
thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
The portal doesn't select from all featured articles, only those that
have been on the main page.
I do agree that the Featured Content portal is under-promoted though
(in fact portals generally are)
Yes, I don't
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Yes, I don't really understand the decision taken on en not to show
portals on article pages. On fr, for example, if you read a chemistry
article, there's a Chemistry
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
deteriorating from brilliant prose into mediocre prose). If the community
approved a featured star display for caption boxes the problem would
Has this been proposed? It seems logical and inoffensive.
Steve
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Threat not a promise: newish book, anyone read? I see the Signpost are
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Review desk|looking for a
reviewer]]. I did try to get a publisher interested in Teach
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipe-tan on b3ta.
http://www.b3ta.com/board/9830507
- d.
Looks like the urine pic is a 'shopped version of one of these:
Strangely enough, the flaggedrevisions feature seems to provide a lot of
what we need:
1) People don't have to watch changes as they happen, they can stumble on
them when they go to save a new change
2) Changes are marked as patrolled, so far more efficient than 10 people all
noticing the same
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:49 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
3)The massive backlog in patrolled edits will kill the instant
feedback wikipedia currently gives and reduce editing to a level where
watching everything is no longer a problem.
Only if all pages are set to show only the patrolled
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Perhaps one of our wizards could check how many pages are not watched by
anybody who has edited in 2009.
More useful and precise would be collecting page views of diffs. I
don't know if we record them or
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Mike Pruden mikepru...@yahoo.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm the only one who finds this a little concerning in my part, but
lately I've been feeling that too many users are trying to watch too much of
Wikipedia at one time.
Let me elaborate a little. It isn't
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
There is a whole process now for requesting a main page featured
article slot. Mainly because we have more featured articles being
produced than there are available slots.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the typos for MySpace.com and google.com had been created
and deleted by db-R3 (typo unlikely to happen in real life). I
recreated them with an edit summary pointing to that page, as evidence
that people's typing
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
day's events in history. Excluding Pearl Harbor (or anything similarly
notable) from OTD because a related content item is featured elsewhere
on the page suggests that the event itself is not notable enough to be
listed on OTD.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton just volunteered for something. Anyone got favoured VA
exhibits we don't have a pic of? Get back to him with room,
collection, cabinet, etc :-)
VA = Victoria and Albert, a London museum, to save you all the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm working on the theory that volunteers will work hard at whatever
they damn well feel like. This is one way to get n00bs in, and
doesn't preclude other approaches.
Here's another: when someone searches for an article
Here's another: when someone searches for an article (let's say norwegian
antarctic expedition)
Incidentally, I find the following collection of facts rather curious in
their ensemble:
1) Norwegian Antarctic Expedition was one of the most requested redlinks,
with 25 or so hits
2) There is a
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here's another: when someone searches for an article (let's say
norwegian
antarctic expedition)
Incidentally, I find the following
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Something for Commons, though?
That's tricky, since Commons by definition only stores media, it doesn't
have a framework of concepts to hang media off by default. That's why it
would be very natural to
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given the huge preponderance of readers over editors, the last point
really should be first (visit help desks). Then I would go to drafting:
If you are able to draft an article on this topic, you can
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Thanks! I thought 807 was quite a lot, but then I saw David has
created 1224... :-)
I daren't ask how many redirects we have in total, though I am sure
that is somewhere as well.
Aww, just shy of 600 here.
Steve
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:11 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep, that'll be my coupla hours' Wikipedia tonight: rescuing articles
in the queue ...
Also have a look at the article incubator, where articles that barely fail
AfD get shunted.
Steve
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:39 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I usually suggest to new-comers that they first spend some time
improving and updating articles in their field of interest to get
It depends what you mean by newcomer. I think it's easy to make the
mistake of assuming a
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
While I fully agree with your nowhere near finished position, the
argument
you presented here is especially weak.
All that shows is that the geodata coverage is not especially uniform.
Yeah, that map has been popping
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:50 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
And most of the time I think they are being treated OK by the
deletionists. Though I did see one speedy tag where I wondered if the
tagger would have tagged as non notable a nature reserve of over
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's important to keep in mind that volunteers - anyone you're not
compensating for the work - do what they want, and won't do that they
don't want to. A lot of volunteer organizations implode when people
at the
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Giacomo M-Z solebaci...@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh that sounds really interesting, I will pay some money to join IRC and
then get up at 2am to participate. Much more fun than doing it freely and
openly on Wikipedia.
Please stop trolling.
(Moderator)
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, it is a great idea that's why we have article introductions,
right?
- causa sui
Yep! Our style of having an introductory paragraph that is a summary of the
salient points of the whole article (rather than a
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
The strategy process is still ongoing and there are a number of
proposals for adverts. I don't sense they're going to get any traction
this time. But if the WMF severely lacked funds in future years I
imagine everyone would
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Jake Wartenberg
j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote:
I've created website to complement these mailing lists a venue for
discussion. It's at wikien.net http://www.wikien.net/. Please let me know
if you have any feedback or questions.
There have been a few of these.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
Go to Enable navigable table of contents in the editing tab of your
user-preferences. It's the checkbox at the very bottom - next to the other
experimental features.
Yay.
Steve
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Removed now, along with most of the article (which was a copyright violation).
I actually kind of liked the idea of a very brief summary. Maybe not
using the nutshell template, but it could work, particularly when you
have a number
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Parul Vora pv...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all!
The Wikipedia Usability Initiative conducted an evaluative study of our
progress thus far in mid-October. Highlights are posted to the blog
here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/18/ux-usability-study-take-two/
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The closest I've come to writing about things in other countries is here:
Aww, I'm a *much* better person than you:
New Zealand: Broken River, New Zealand, Craigieburn Valley, Fox Peak,
Invincible Snowfields, Mount
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:07 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554
Linked and digged from a current article. Quite chuckleworthy.
So cool!
The truth in no online database will replace your daily newspaper,
reddit.com pretty much did for me.
no CD-ROM can
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is a huge number of notable topics that we have not yet
covered. Sure, there may be fewer sources about central Africa, but
what about China and South America? The areas most Wikipedians care
about are well
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not here to discuss the wording of the fundraising slogans yet
again, but this one screams legal trouble:
Wikipedia. Ad-free forever.
[Progress bar] [Donate now button]
I'd interpret this as if we reach
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
The entire NEWT project is a disruption to make a point - and the
No. The main goal is/was data collection - to find out whether the
assertions made by the original blog post were accurate or not. It
seems that there are grounds
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Evangeline Han evanbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Because their advice was that it would work. It probably is working.
Steve
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
But from what I can see of their budgets, not all that much of their
funds are going to that. The rest is going for stuff like
maintaining an office in a much more expensive city than the cheap
one they used to have in
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy,
in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I
don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously
aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously
involved with the
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:26 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
People are doing some interesting work with auto-optimized ad runs that
we could look at adapting for next year. Given our massive amounts of
traffic, we could accept a pretty broad range of slogans, and let the
system
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, now you've given me another guess: The problem with PWD is that it's
wrong to have deleted material available for people to look at because that
would encourage them to look at deleted content rather than undeleted
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Schroedinger's cat very definitely is fictitious; it's not an
experiment you can actually do and get an alive/dead cat that you can
actually see, you would get either an alive cat, or a dead cat.
I agree with the
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many trick articles in this
process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
criteria are write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
criteria.
Hmm,
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think you needed to point out which bits of information corresponded
with which sources.
I sure did! I also needed to use bullet points - but I didn't know that.
I see the failed wikilinking for Bintulu was not
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:32 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
The idea is to test the speedy deletion process with articles that
shouldn't be speedy deleted.
Links to several of the articles in the process and their fates have
been posted to
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because X,
just say I did this because X.
Disagree. The response to I did this because X is, But there's rule
Y, which you should have followed. Explicitly
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:55 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to personally look at the articles and responses in more depth
before I comment more, but this has been exceptionally valuable
research.
Yes, can you please post the usernames and the articles that were
On 10/2/09, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
But the IAR policy is clear, if ANY policy, including BLP stops you
improving the wikipedia then you can override it.
...until someone objects.
The important caveat.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l
On 10/3/09, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there is one in there that strikes me as valid: the shield-mate
one. I know I've read about the idea before in multiple contexts, and
there's the obvious historical example of the Sacred Band. I don't know if
it's *correct*, and it
On 10/3/09, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
'''Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if
permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere
here.''' - Larry Sanger
Out of curiosity, on which side of the door do you see yourself, Steve?
Steve
On 9/30/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I reiterate that all experienced editors should try editing as
an IP for a while. See how well our propaganda matches the way we
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
From a Wikipedia editorial stance, stating that date of birth has multiple
reliable sources that conflict, is fine. Books state X, official government
records state Y, both are RS enough to be worth citing and the difference
is
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I’ve added a couple quick notes to this affect on the main page:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Ah, I didn't know about this. Having a quick look now. Comments:
- It looks like the UI could do with
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
