Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread User Mono
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means? From: peter.southw...@telkomsa.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done Makes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread Michael Peel
Probably not. How about 'archived'? Thanks, Mike On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono userm...@outlook.com wrote: Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means? From: peter.southw...@telkomsa.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread Isarra Yos
Why not? People know what the words 'read' and 'only' mean. Putting them together should be pretty self explanatory: It can only be read. On 10/03/14 22:32, Michael Peel wrote: Probably not. How about 'archived'? Thanks, Mike On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono userm...@outlook.com wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread Michael Peel
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is historian jargon... Thanks, Mike On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:33, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: Why not? People know what the words 'read' and 'only' mean. Putting them together should be pretty self explanatory:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread Michael Snow
On 3/10/2014 3:36 PM, Michael Peel wrote: Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is historian jargon... It's not so much jargon that's the problem - it's that nearly all websites are read-only, and to some visitors it will be rather puzzling why we should go

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread Michael Peel
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:42, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 3/10/2014 3:36 PM, Michael Peel wrote: Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is historian jargon... It's not so much jargon that's the problem - it's that nearly all websites are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread matanya
I have fixed it per Amir's comment. It makes sense, and we should use this note on every wiki we close - i.e. site we serve read-only. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
Thank you. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬ 2014-03-09 11:14 GMT+02:00 matanya mata...@foss.co.il: I have fixed it per Amir's comment. It makes sense, and we should use this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread Bohdan Melnychuk
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called? And also if follow the ask's logic - shan't it worry the hypothetical noob who doesn't know clearly what's wiki that Wikipedia has been set read only? For me it sounds not less

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread James Alexander
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote: But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called? Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread Bohdan Melnychuk
Is it *just *can't edit? I believe at least we can't create a new acc in there. Closing is more then setting read only. We should use proper therms instead of those that more understandable by noobs. --Base 09.03.2014 12:12, James Alexander написав(ла): On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread James Alexander
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote: Is it *just *can't edit? I believe at least we can't create a new acc in there. Closing is more then setting read only. We should use proper therms instead of those that more understandable by noobs. --Base Well, then

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-09 Thread Peter Southwood
Makes sense to me too. Peter - Original Message - From: James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done