I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the
Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :)
On 25 June 2012 06:21, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?
to edit our articles.
I don't believe you actually said this.
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup to
a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
off its new images.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com
I really really don't get all this talk about
On 25 July 2012 22:04, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
to an article.)
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On 10 January 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.comwrote:
I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
Quick and easy: don't bother with the Dutch Wikipedia. It is one of the
more toxic environments on the internet. :)
On 28 November 2014 at 14:47, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
It is with some degree of sadness that I have to bring this to
wikimedia-l, but it's something that has
A slight tangent: I did a quick Google search to try and refresh my memory
about the Wikipedia Forever thing, and these were the results:
I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.
On 4 December
Yes. Finally, a voice of reason.
On 8 January 2015 at 08:07, mcc99 mc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,
While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of
Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it launched.
People can learn not just all
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
Aspen grove: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pando_(tree)
On 17 February 2016 at 10:14, Anders Wennersten
> I second this opinion, please remember we are many not having English as
> our mother language
> Also besides being all lost in the discussion of Knight
...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales wrote:
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> effects of lack of transparency and openness. Assuming I and
Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
'outing' a power user.
The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.
Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the
Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
On 2 May 2016
I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
constant and blatant double standard.
And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
repeating their position ad nauseam.
On 10 November 2016 at 09:00, Gerard Meijssen
> You do not get it. Wikimania is first and foremost about spreading the word
> about what we do and who we are.
> I have read Pax's original post. He did not go to Wikimania. He asks for
Shouldn't articles be judged independently of who exactly wrote them and
for what reason?
If an article reads well, has good content, is sourced, neutral etc, what's
the issue exactly?
On 24 May 2018 at 12:28, Gnangarra wrote:
> I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker
On 22 July 2018 at 10:02, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'll ask forgiveness in advance for starting a probable flame.
> I support WMIL stance: equity is absolutely within our Wikimedia
> values, and supporting LGBTQ rights is always a good thing.
> But I cannot help but see the
I don't understand in which possible world anyone thought this was a good
The MfD, that is. It, and the entire discussion in favour, reads as some
sort of caricature of the worst SJW-type excesses.
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 16:41, Fæ wrote:
> As the last second repost had the same
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem,
>the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
>request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
This is sarcasm, right? Right?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, wrote:
> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same
reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better, that
things have been tested, etc.
The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff
*works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere.
I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> Hey all,
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 18:45, Adam Wight wrote:
> I can imagine many potential conflicts of interest in this two-wiki
> arrangement, most concerning is the possibility that the scope of Wikimedia
> could be restricted in order to drive users towards the for-profit.
This is not a hypothetical.
Mail list logo