Ok, I've brought it back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
Place your guesses!
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Alex Sawczynec wrote:
> Looks like it was deleted:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_po
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, AGK wrote:
> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
He posted without enough context, got defensive when that was pointed
out, then started snide remarks about developers not consulting the
community and therefore making bad decisions. Since you asked.
Now,
Looks like it was deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
We've still got the five million and ten million pools though.
- GlassCobra
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> There must be a page for predicting
There must be a page for predicting the three millionth article. I
can't find it. Where is it?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not that it matters, but over at WikiVoices we have only three rules.
They've served us well without modification for over a year.
1. Cluefulness is mandatory. If someone lacks clue, offer them one of
your spare clues. If clueless person refuses multiple offers of clue,
clueless person ge
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> "Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
>>
>> How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would
>> lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> "Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
>
> How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would
> lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
> subject's life."
> Much narrower.
For IAR
"Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it?
How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
subject's life."
Much narrower.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 7/1/2009 12:11:52 P
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the
> assumption of good faith" ?
No, because in this context, "do what's right" means "you may ignore rules for
reasons other than the ones just listed". (It only lists improving and
Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the
assumption of good faith" ?
The no-mans-land between "don't try to inflict malicious harm" and "report
evidence-based statements" is a big fat gray one.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Tim
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> First define "right".
This is about IAR, you know. IAR is inherently about using personal judgment;
if we modify IAR so that IAR may be used to do the right thing, we should
*not* define "right" or even assume that it has one definition.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, philippe wrote:
> Agreed. We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to
> the exception.
One of the suggestions I made was to fix IAR.
IAR is *entirely about exceptions already*.
And even with respect to changing WP:NOTCENSORED, what's so awful about just
sayi
First define "right".
In a message dated 7/1/2009 9:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
**Make you
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, David Goodman wrote:
> 1/
> when people should be "protected", is not self-explanatory. Some may
> feel that
> people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
But it would at least *say* it.
> 2/
> "doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "imp
In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific
guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would
just
become a default guideline to be applied
Agreed. We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to
the exception. That's the flaw found in too many organizing documents
(the constitution of the state of Oklahoma in the US comes to mind
immediately - they wrote it to the exception, ended up with several
hundred pages, an
I hope that we at least get Waves instead of talk pages. Being able to play
back the discussion would be invaluable.
Ryan
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Sage Ross
> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Steve Bennett
> wrote:
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3
"We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at
all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against
troublemakers"
Not for notability. We've never boxed ourselves in that much.
WP:N remains a guideline, and in fact says it will not always be applicable.
The best way is keeping this so exceptional that we do not even make
rules about it. People will always go outside of the rules if they
think there is a true emergency. Even were we to say, never do it,
yet people would if they think it justified.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.o
Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby. Welcoming ideas that would give the
soil good traction.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> 1/
> when people should be "protected", is not self-explanatory. Some may
> feel that
> people are best protected by knowing the full truth in a
1/
when people should be "protected", is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
2/
"doing right" is even more ambiguous of a concept than "improving the
encyclopedia";
the reason we have actual rules is that people will not alwa
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
> With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
How about this as a start:
-- Modify WP:N
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Currently there is too much bickering and too
> many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
> [[WP:IAR]].
There's a reason for this: In a dispute, the side who can point to a rule gets
to win. If there are two sides of a
I'm suggesting nothing more than that the community work out how to heal
the fracture that exists. Wikipedia:Notability itself is not fully
accepted on Wikipedia as thing stands. I've got a long history and
involvement with notability on Wikipedia, and my guiding imperative has
always been to
2009/6/30 :
> Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
> reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
> given for why?
You keep saying it was reported by Al Jazeera. It wasn't.
- d.
___
W
I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get
involved in notability-related discussions.
Am I understanding your point right:
At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single
guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsid
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
>> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
>> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
>> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
>> the curren
>
> Brian, not Brion. :-)
Oops - I misread.
My comment stands. ;)
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
> the current fractured state of play might be
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
But p
2009/7/1 Carcharoth :
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, AGK wrote:
>> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
>
>
>
> Brian, not Brion. :-)
>
I think people are giving *Brian* an unfairly hard time because he is
giving *Brion* (and the other "techies") an unfairly hard time. :-)
Pete / th
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, AGK wrote:
> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
Brian, not Brion. :-)
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.
Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time? If his message didn't provide
enough details, then a polite request for clarification would be in order;
on the contrary, however, some of the replies to his post were just plain
rude. I do miss the days when we all played nice.
AGK
33 matches
Mail list logo