On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an
orphan is quite misleading.
I think the word is used subjectively for any article deemed to need
more incoming links because the
I'm curious, is that your name?
--
Alvaro
On 07-02-2009, at 10:08, Charlotte Webb charlottethew...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming
links an
orphan
Hey,
I have a question:
Every time I go to a movie page to know how it is, I read the Plot
section. However, I have realised that 95% of them write about key
twists or scenes and they even tell the ending. I have thought of
editing some of them, but I thought I'd rather ask here first.
Are
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I have a question:
Every time I go to a movie page to know how it is, I read the Plot
section. However, I have realised that 95% of them write about key
twists or scenes and they even tell the ending. I have thought
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I have a question:
Every time I go to a movie page to know how it is, I read the Plot
section. However, I have realised that 95% of them write about key
twists or scenes and they even tell the ending. I have thought
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying I'd rather have a one-line plot, I'm just saying that
spoilers aren't that necessary. You go to the article to see if you go
watch the movie, not to read it because you didn't get the chance to
watch it.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying I'd rather have a one-line plot, I'm just saying that
spoilers aren't that necessary. You go to the article to see if you go
watch the movie, not to read it because you didn't get the chance to
watch it.
We are not a movie guide, but an encyclopedia. There are a great many
reasons why people might want to read an encyclopedia article about a
movie. Very high among them is to find out about the movies one hasn't
seen and never will.
If you want a movie guide to read up on whether you want to go
Wow man SORRY. I'm not arrogant, I'm just asking something!
Man, I'd never think everyone would be against me and insult me for a
simple question!
--
Alvaro
On 07-02-2009, at 12:38, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com w
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow man SORRY. I'm not arrogant, I'm just asking something!
Man, I'd never think everyone would be against me and insult me for a
simple question!
I suggest you do what I do: only read the first paragraph. ;-) When a
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow man SORRY. I'm not arrogant, I'm just asking something!
Man, I'd never think everyone would be against me and insult me for a
simple question!
The argument over spoilers on Wikipedia is commonly referred to as
the
--
Alvaro
On 07-02-2009, at 12:58, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com w
rote:
Wow man SORRY. I'm not arrogant, I'm just asking something!
Man, I'd never think everyone would be against me and insult me for a
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I certainly think there should be one than one template addressing this
issue, and preferably a one or two links template that only adds a
category.
Don't need multiple templates necessarily. Just
That's why *you* do it. It's not why *I* do it.
Sometimes years after I've seen a movie, I can't quite recall how it ended,
and I'd like to know that without needing to watch it again.
In a message dated 2/7/2009 7:35:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
I'm not
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Charlotte Webb
charlottethew...@gmail.com wrote:
But even though you'll find disagreement about how many links are
enough for a certain article. Five is right out. After a couple
hundred you'll find people fighting the other way with their
auto-delinking
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
That's why *you* do it. It's not why *I* do it.
Sometimes years after I've seen a movie, I can't quite recall how it ended,
and I'd like to know that without needing to watch it again.
Oh there will always be titles you can't find
Nathan wrote:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alvaro Garcia alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Man, I'd never think everyone would be against me and insult me for a
simple question!
The argument over spoilers on Wikipedia is commonly referred to as
the spoiler wars - drawn out, contentious, with a
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece
Slightly confused article headed The wiki-snobs are taking over by Giles
Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the
author claims My entry features at least two errors, one
Well maybe it said so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 20:27, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.comwrote:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece
Slightly confused article headed The wiki-snobs are
Alvaro García wrote:
Well maybe it said so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
Well no, he says my entry, and a quick look at Roy Hattersley (which has
fewer than 500 edits), shows nothing in the edit summaries for son,
Giles, mistake or error. While this may not cover all, the
Oh, I see.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 21:31, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Alvaro García wrote:
Well maybe it said so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
Well no, he says my entry, and a quick look at Roy Hattersley (which
has
fewer than 500 edits), shows
We could start a wikiproject to enforce how people need to get kicked out of
the project space. /sarcasm
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Brian br...@bhaws.com wrote:
For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia has become a complex and byzantine
bureaucracy...it's a maze of process and rules and editors
Trouble with that is that the vast majority of readers do not have
accounts with user preferences to set. They are unregistered readers
(some people create accounts purely to be able to set these
preferences). What unregistered readers see is a mish-mash of
different date formats, sometimes in the
I know all that. But thats really a minor software issue. We could for
example allow IP's to set such preferences. Or display a default dating
format based on the IP. If the IP is from the US, display the US dating
format, else display international standard. It could be as simple as
putting a
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:17 PM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
I know all that. But thats really a minor software issue. We could for
example allow IP's to set such preferences. Or display a default dating
format based on the IP. If the IP is from the US, display the US
On 08/02/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
I know all that. But thats really a minor software issue. We could for
example allow IP's to set such preferences. Or display a default dating
format based on the IP. If the IP is from the US, display the US dating
format, else
26 matches
Mail list logo
