On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:42, Michael Snow 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 read-only, and to s
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 o
t 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 th
ono 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 12:32:56 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of
http://strategy.wikim
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 sense to me too.
>> Peter
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "James Alex
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:/
Makes sense to me too.
Peter
- Original Message -
From: "James Alexander"
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
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
On Sun, Mar 9, 201
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk 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 we can disagre
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 M
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk 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 can't edit it. I th
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
armagedo
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 :
>
>
> I have fixed it per Amir's comment. It makes sense, and we should use
> this note on every wik
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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listin
13 matches
Mail list logo
