consensus?
WereSpielChequers
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
From: wjhon...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 8cbd991b3a1ad8c-1414-5...@webmail-mh03.sysops.aol.com
Content-Type: text
, not
realising why that was known as the Saudi setting.
WereSpielChequers
--
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:04:18 -0500
From: kgnp...@gmail.com kgnp...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Brand Republic: BBC Radio 4 launches Wikipedia
parod y
quoted one pundit
who thought it would be easier to improve wikipedia.
One interesting contrast is with sites that only allow qualified Doctors to
edit them, but it seems that New Scientist's current substantive criticism
is our incompleteness, not our veracity.
--
WereSpielChequers
Rupert's
doghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familiar_spirit#Prince_Rupert.27s_dog]].
We don't have a proper article on Boye.
WereSpielChequers
--
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:28:12 +0100
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l
that the
author of a good faith article has a redlinked talkpage.
I also think that many of our speedy tags and templates should be
rewritten to be less bitey and more welcoming.
WereSpielChequers
Maybe we can make up a rule that says Unless the page was obvisouly
written in bad faith, you have
as no need for the tools. I'm
definitely in the latter group and wouldn't see not wanting to be a
janitor policeman as necessarily grounds for an oppose.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:13:38 EDT
From: wjhon...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
faults
most RFA !voters are open to a candidate who responds by changing
their default; again I doubt that enough admins or experienced editors
are taking the time to point this out to people making that mistake
before their RFA.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:11 +0100
such as a week, with anything not flagged
after then going live at that point. This would mean that everyone who
checks their watchlist weekly would have had a chance to revert
vandalism before it went live, and would mean that the wait would
never be longer than 7 days.
WereSpielChequers
Given
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie_treatment
Two articles at least should be unveiled in the next few days.
WereSpielChequers
On Friday, September 18, 2009, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post
tagged for deletion,
there are others as yet unpatrolled that won't be disclosed until they
have faced the people who patrol the back end of the unpatrolled
queue.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:38:53 +1100
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l
contribution has in the first sentence was king of ** from
* to ***. It has yet to be marked as patrolled and I anticipate
it reaching those who patrol the back of the unpatrolled newpages at
some point this week.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
--
Message
.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:38:53 +1100
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the
create an article as a newbie challenge
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID
.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:21:50 +
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Technology Guardian article on global article
distribution
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 4b17ad5e.5050...@ntlworld.com
/Category:Nonsense_pages_for_speedy_deletion
I fear some of our taggers see No-context as a euphemism for needs
quite a bit of work.
WereSpielChequers
http://enwp.org/WP:WANTED
http://enwp.org/WP:MISSING
I've been writing new stub articles just from those in the past couple
of days. It reminds me
to watchlists is an option to ignore
rolled back edits. If A has edited an article, b has then vandalised
it and C has reverted to the version edited by A then I'd really only
like to see A's edit on my watchlist.
werespielchequers
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:30:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike
at the next
London meetup - which should be on the 14th Feb.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
, and of course there is the little matter of cost. Enabling
volunteers to improve the bits of Wikipedia that they volunteer to do
is much more cost effective than employing people and telling them
what to work on.
WereSpielChequers
The change that would make the biggest difference is that each person
who
of people who retire and
don't die whilst they are in the public spotlight (I suspect a
statistical analysis of Wikipedia articles would give solid evidence
for the and they all lived happily ever after nursery story ending
).
--
WereSpielChequers
Anyone know what happened to wikipedia this afternoon?
Firefox can't find the server at en.wikipedia.org
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org
/RFA_by_month
Regards
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
contributors we will need a
new method to appoint admins.
--
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/Talk:Mephedrone#Meow_meow
And raises the question as to whether this redirect
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miaow_miaowaction=history
is self referential.
Of course if the edit was legit we need to inform the Eye.
WereSpielChequers
.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I couldn't find the deletion and block buttons, and all the scripts
various people have set me up with disappeared. So I've reverted to
the old skin; At least they made it easy to do that.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:38:56 +0100
From: AGK wiki...@googlemail.com
been raised in the woods by bears. But that had only been up
for a few months, nowadays I very rarely find vandalism that has been
up for a whole year.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
have enough admins to do the urgent admin tasks for quite
some time to come; But I can see us becoming more dependant on the
occasional admin who can clear a 100 article backlog at CSD in an
hour or two, and I fear a growing divide between admins and others.
WereSpielChequers
Date: Wed, 26 May
to a
Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy
would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by
the results.
WereSpielChequers
IMHO, etc...
The fundamental problem is the difficulty in *removing* SysOp, which *makes*
it a big deal.
If it really
that didn't
merit a block are rarely discovered; So either they don't happen or
more likely no-one spots them.
--
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https
for more false positives, but I suspect I'm not the only Wikipedian
who would welcome a somewhat beefed up approach to sockpuppetry.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https
their account
as AutoPatrolled is in itself community building; Two of the editors
I marked as Autopatrollers in late 09 or early this year have since
become admins.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 20 August 2010 09:47, FastLizard4 fastliza...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
don't just need to show that the much larger
number of jury members would be available, you also need to identify a
benefit for this proposal, and that benefit would need to be more than
commensurate with the disbenefits that I've identified.
WereSpielChequers
On 20 August 2010 18:13, Ian Woollard
WereSpielChequers.
On 20 August 2010 19:37, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
I still don't think that they're required for that. The fact is that
most vandalism and attack page detection and fixing is done by non
admins, so it's just a question of giving users appropriate powers to
deal with those
.
WereSpielChequers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 21/08/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is it possible to have the ability to blank an attack page and keep it
locked until an admin looks at it and deletes it?
The point is not to have admins.
You could just have it so
things on AN/I). My comments were in
response to the idea of replacing admins with juries to delete attack
pages and block vandals.
WereSpielChequers
On 24 August 2010 15:41, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
All those concerns are addressed by the idea I proposed where people
can
I'm prett suspect that the vast majority of reverts on EN wiki are
reversion of vandalism by hugglers and other patrollers at newpage
patrol. I don't think it would be a good idea to discourage those who
do that accurately. Giving feedback to those with an excessive error
rate is useful - but not
or other
places where edit conflicts are likely.
The only time when I'd recommend making a really big edit in mainspace
is when creating a new article. The risk of incorrect speedy tags is
so high that it is worth the risk of not saving for an hour or so.
WereSpielChequers
On 17 September 2010 22
by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalie_von_Rauch which has been up since
2006.
Plus I've fixed a typo of July 31 and removed an unsourced DOB
WereSpielChequers
On 18 September 2010 14:50, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/09/2010, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote
I've just tracked down one anomaly to 2005, as the user hasn't edited
since 2008 I've just quietly removed that particular redlinked battle
from the relevant list.
Good news is that April 31 has only 47 anomalies.
I think this could be a big project.
WereSpielChequers
On 18 September 2010 17
the article.
I think it is reassuring to have multiple names up front - people will
come to an article from various redirects so having multiple possible
names in the lede gives our readers reassurance that they are on the
right page.
WereSpielChequers
When I clicked on the Wikipedia link at the top of the article it took
me to the article on Wikipedia.
I hope that this brings us some extra editors, I'm sure it will bring
us an unknown number of extra viewers.
WeeSpielChequers
On 3 December 2010 16:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
, or parts of it, is Amazon doing
anything different? If not have we brought this to their attention?
WereSpielChequers
On 4 December 2010 10:28, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
The citation for wikipedia according to wikipedia would look like this:
James Joyce. (2010, December 3
it was down to 11.3%.
WereSpielChequers
On 29 November 2010 19:15, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Stubs and how to handle them seem to be controversial still (or again),
which is rather surprising
more complete than an unreferenced article of
three times the length.
WereSpielChequers
On 4 December 2010 12:05, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
WereSpielChequers, All,
1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than
the the number of articles
This is a weak
at work, or to edit in your real name.
WereSpielChequers
On 7 December 2010 16:31, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html
'“Wikipedia is a complex culture, and sometimes it can feel like the free
encyclopedia everyone can edit -- except
Wiki
meetings in London.
Also we are now collaborating more closely with the UK chapter and
they always seem to have someone at London meetups.
Carcharoth and anyone else who is in the vicinity, it would be nice to
meet you if you can join us at one of these.
WereSpielChequers
On 8 December 2010
market.
Can't say I'd be tempted, but perhaps the Indian market puts less
value on the word free?
WereSpielChequers
On 12 December 2010 16:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/britannica-to-give-wikipediarun-for-its-money/417969/
Bundling
Can these edits be imported into wikipedia in time for the tenth anniversary?
I'm assuming some will relate to pages that have since been moved or
deleted so I appreciate this won't be an easy project.
WereSpielChequers
On 14 December 2010 16:16, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote
.
WereSpielChequers
On 20 December 2010 13:41, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code
When I go to the above page, the bit at the top (the title) reads as follows:
MediaWiki
it did work
this time) there were a fraction of the messages I get on EN wiki. I'd
hate to think how slow things would be if it was implemented on EN
wiki.
WereSpielChequers
On 22 December 2010 11:49, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On jargon, I still think Neutral point of view
Actually it happens quite frequently, usually with IPs turning
redirects into articles. Though I've also seen articles that started
by an IP creating the talkpage.
WereSpielChequers
On 11 January 2011 01:57, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, Gwern. It is not possible
at least a secondary motivation of improving their writing skills in
the language they are editing in - I might try and get a question on
this into one of our user surveys.
WereSpielChequers
On 23 January 2011 13:39, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 23/01/2011 05:13
37% to 53% in three years sounds pretty good to me. Especially as the
other 47% will include some who choose not to consult any sort of
reference at all.
WSC
On 17 January 2011 03:48, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Few organizations track Wikipedia usage. Pew has carried out a
support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree
with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what
they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them.
WereSpielChequers
On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1
=sysopcreationSort=1
But to get back to the gendergap issue, the good news is that two of
our four new admins are female.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https
, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is
that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage,
so has signed for yyy FC or died is probably usable. As for
the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway?
WereSpielChequers.
On 4 February 2011 13:25
Just as we have no way of knowing which of our editors are AIs who
have passed the Turing test, I doubt if they will be able to tell
which of their editors are humans who can pass a reverse Turing test.
Incidentally one of my friends who is in that line of work reckoned
that there probably isn't
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Living_people_on_EN_wiki_who_are_dead_on_other_wikis
We also have the typo team and the BLP noticeboard among many
different ways in which Wikipedians can collaborate to improve the
pedia.
WereSpielChequers
On 9 February 2011 18:48, Ian Woollard
of the pedia. But the ratings won't give us that.
WereSpielChequers
On 14 February 2011 17:04, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/02/2011, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
True, but how well is the distinction understood by people who apply the
templates or rate the articles?
I'm
to bring in a new wave of editors then the model would
break and it would be possible to think in terms of how many potential
articles qualify.
WereSpielChequers
On 14 February 2011 21:54, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 20:48, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote
around. I suspect the ultimate size of the pedia depends at least as
much on the way we treat new editors as it does on the availability of
easily accessible sources.
WereSpielChequers
On 17 February 2011 09:38, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 16/02/2011 23:56, Carcharoth
by anonymous authors, would it be
ethical to disown them now and prevent them from being part of the
project?
WereSpielChequers
On 18 February 2011 08:26, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
The first survey's fine. :-) I'm merely suggesting you put out a second
survey once
be designed to give contrast
that works for various forms of colour blindness, and there are still
lots of images in wikipedia that need alt text for people using text
readers.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:35:18 +
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports
Hope that helps.
WereSpielChequers
On 9 March 2011 10:10, ramesh kumar ramesh_ch...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear Members,
I am a PhD student in a reputed university. My Research is on blog
classification using Wikipedia Categories.As
.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
.
WereSpielChequers
On 8 April 2011 11:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:09, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Other options would be for a site that ended the
inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and
concentrating on verifiability
.
WereSpielChequers
On 9 April 2011 00:08, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites
Jimbo runs
Hi Michala,
1 I started editing Wikipedia articles because I saw a small
improvement I could make.
2 I don't know how many articles I have edited, but it will be a large
number. Not as large as the number of edits I've made, you can see
that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITS but
disquiet about that editor notified
them of this thread?
WereSpielChequers
On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just delete articles we don't
like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
You see, I
a redirect explicitly require that editors are notified about
discussions about them.
ANI by contrast explicitly requires people to notify the editor who
you are making a complaint about.
May I suggest that we do the same?
WereSpielChequers
On 25 May 2011 21:17, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote
close this thread or focus it on the issue of
how we prevent this list for being used for forum shopping and
canvassing?
WereSpielChequers
On 25 May 2011 23:56, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
Presumably we are evaluating the arguments that are not /ad hominem /on
their merits
that deleting fewer articles is the will of the
people I'm not sure we get that many mistakes at AFD. I'm more
worried about CSD, and to a lesser extent prods and turning articles
into redirects.
WereSpielChequers
On 1 June 2011 20:07, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9
flames are added to the fire, such as it provoking a sea change in
Wikipedia policy, it will fade into obscurity.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 June 2011 01:11, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Avoid victimization
When writing
be surprised if they didn't consider such
things as when a webpage was last updated.
WSC
On 3 June 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, WereSpielChequers wrote:
8 letters, three syllables doth not a four letter word make, and the
term itself is somewhat more
I've just tested two searches in google. Rick Santorum had our
article on the person in second place and our article on the neologism
in third place. For Santorum we again had the second and third
spots, but the order was reversed. In both cases Google gave prime
place to a website about the
Thanks for raising this, if the main search engines are collaborating
on this together then it will probably work. But it makes me wonder:
Are other sites implementing this?
Am I correct in thinking that implementing this would further our
mission by making relevant parts of our data more likely
editors - no objections to it being the default for readers
if they were the people it was designed for.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 July 2011 18:24, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/2011 2:32 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Very little discussion ocurrred r.e. rolling this out. For example
after
Monobook :P
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:41 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
This reminds me somewhat of the Vector rollout, I've just today come
across another example of why we need to upgrade newbies to Monobook
once they start editing. Monobook has a rather
less
than ten ratings even if trialled for a couple of months.
Lastly we need to be prepared for sockpuppetry, especially as these
are random unsigned votes with no rationale. Can we have assurances
that something is being built into the scheme to combat this?
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 14 July
/2011 7:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
it?
Remember there is a risk that this could exacerbate the templating
trend. Just as we need to value edits
.
WSC
On 15 July 2011 10:28, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/14/11 5:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
it?
It's difficult to see any logical
Actually there are a number of other tests we need to run before we
know whether Article Rating really is a net positive or a net
negative.
I hoped they would compare the 100,000 with a control sample to see
which gets more edits:
I think one key question is whether you have already edited this article in
such a way that this sockpuppetry might verge into abusive sockpuppetry -
i.e. two accounts that appear to support each others arguments/edits being
secretly controlled by the same person. If not, or if your only edits to
That's an interesting bunch of posts. I've pre-emptively salted one where
the company name was in the posting.
They weren't all trying to commission spam though. Some of them are for
using Wikipedia, including a mirror for mobile apps, others for creating
Wikipedia like stuff including one chap
Nice to know we are as accurate and more up-to-date than the competition.
I'd love to see further work done on the 2% of information where we
currently differ from the textbooks, hopefully most of that will just be
that the textbooks are out of date. But it would be good to have that
confirmed and
There is also the idea that the lead should be written for a more general
audience than the rest of the article. I don't know if our cancer articles
follow that style, but I find that in many articles in subjects where I'm an
ignoramus I can grasp the lead but get lost if I try to finish the page.
to oppose
candidates who don't meet certain thresholds of tenure and editcountitis.
WereSpielChequers
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien
but I'm happy to defend your
right to say it.
TTFN
WereSpielChequers
On 22 September 2011 01:31, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
snip
[[User:Rodhullandemu]] - still flying the flag
that don't use American English
spelling. Better still would be to get page views from the USA, or at least
page views ignoring the 6 hours when the US is most likely to be asleep.
WereSpielChequers
On 30 September 2011 04:17, Michael Katz michaeladamk...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm making a crossword
Yes, but for the purpose of creating a creating a game that may not be an
issue. Michael asked how to get a list of recognisable topics to build a
game with, not how to list all 3.7 million article names in order of
recognisability.
WereSpielChequers
On 30 September 2011 11:11, Scott MacDonald
as
many edits to get into the top 8,000 today as it did to get into the top
4,000 in early 2008.
I don't know if the other features you wanted exist, but if there is demand
they may well do already.
WereSpielChequers
On 30 September 2011 17:46, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day
We have FA for those who want to focus on one article, we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CUP as a somewhat game like process
for content contributors. What aspect of content contribution do we not have
a game like feature for?
WereSpielChequers
On 1 October 2011 17:01, Thomas
?user=WereSpielChequers
I've just come across it in the Stewards elections, so it is both somewhat
specialised and at the same time something that editors from many different
wikis can appreciate and clearly many are judging each other by. You could
argue that it is a function of editcount
is in my old hobby horse of Computer Based
Training. I'd love to see the scout movement awarding vandalfighter and
Wikipedia editor badges to scouts who've done the training and then
demonstrated their new skill.
WereSpielChequers
On 1 October 2011 20:03, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote
that we keep it and try to resolve the conflicts rather than the symptoms of
those conflicts.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 October 2011 11:07, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
According to our article
discussion? I'm not trying to squash
discussion here, but if people do discuss it here without reading the posts
by the Italians, by Sue and many others on Foundation then I suspect a fair
amount will be repetition and explanation of what has been said on
Foundation.
WereSpielChequers
On 5 October 2011
that a candidate had a tendency to
unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom.
WereSpielchequers
On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you
need a template or hidden cat for
unsuccessful deorphaning attempts.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 November 2011 13:00, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
On 3 November 2011 11:10, Carcharoth carcharot
@Geni. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Omnibus_Survey was my
preferred alternative, but it was considered unacceptable by the Research
Committee. Are you really determined to stop such research altogether or
could you compromise on one annual survey?
Cheers
WereSpielChequers
On 10
readers will read and
where many of the mistakes will disappear via deletion?
WereSpielChequers
On 10 March 2012 11:16, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey guys
So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on
Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply
:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Before we go to such a restrictive closed wiki approach I'd really like
to
understand why the WMF has made such an abrupt Uturn on openness. I'd
also
like to see an answer from the great unanswered question
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
