On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:58 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Programing being difficult isn't out problem (at least not going by
what people have managed to do with templates so far). Programing
being inaccessible is.
Including being inaccessible even to trained programmers.
It strikes me
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created
everything from nothing.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it
created everything from nothing? Just like
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that
directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when
atheists
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created
everything from nothing.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it
created
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since my first mail:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18
:-O That would be more or less precisely what I was
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually read Charles' message, or just stop after the first
sentence to fire off a reply? He wasn't saying why on earth would
Wikipedia be citing the BIBLE?!, he was saying that you need to
Carcharoth wrote:
Since the rest of this thread is threatening to descend into a long
discussion about theology, atheism and agnoticism, I'll chip in at
this point where people are making theological jokes involving
Wikipedia.
I think Wikimedia needs a new deprogramming language, myself.
Matthew Brown wrote:
It strikes me that in the current Wikipedia template-programming
system that we've managed to create a perfect storm, a worse
solution for everyone. We're in, at least, the easy situation in
which almost any alternative would be better.
To be fair, there are tens of
2009/7/7 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Take a look at the prediction in the Wikipedia eleventy billion article pool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill/11BP#The_Last_Article
A brilliant rip-off of Asimov's The Last Question.
Humanity: LOLBOT, CAN WE REVERSE
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Not that the template issue shouldn't be addressed when the
kludginess starts hitting home; but as they say Le mieux est
l'ennemi du bien ([[:q:Voltaire]]). Fortunately your
sentiments are compatible with
Note: Yeah, this one's got snippy comments about irreligion and
unscience in it. Skip it at your discretion, and don't complain about
the magnetized aluminum grains it uses up on your free email host.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Qualified is you word,
Previous post typo correction diff:
-suppose seriously
+suppose this seriously
-that atheist can
+that atheists can
-just an sophomoric
+just a sophomoric
-concept, is one example.
+concept is one example.
-nicely: claiming
+nicely - claiming
-dressed in the
+dressed up in the
-unscientific for a
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
unselfdisciplined enough to feed the corrupted ent?
Did you say ent? :-)
Those loquacious, garrulous, verbose, lugubrious rambling tree-herders?
OK, Charles is right, back to the bible link quoting
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So you have your divisive discussion going now. Explain to me again how
this improves the English Wikipedia. Do we have to have this stuff each
time religion comes up, or is this is a one-off, or just when
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Erm, the MediaWiki template language survives because it has a
monopoly. There is no alternative. It doesn't really matter how bad it
is - there is nothing users could switch to.
The word monopoly implies unfair business
stevertigo wrote:
feed the corrupted ent?
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly obscure.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
feed the corrupted ent?
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly obscure.
Doh!
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting
themselves to media,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly obscure.
Ah. So corrupted ent is just your
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sure. But not in a good way.
I graciously accept your apology.
So what's your KGS ranking?
It's a new account, but I can give you one stone.
-Stevertigo
___
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sure. But not in a good way.
I graciously accept your apology.
So what's your KGS ranking?
It's a new account, but I can give you one stone.
Well, settling it
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, settling it over the board would be good, but on the basis of
[my one game history] I kind of doubt that.
Still, I'm rusty too.
Rusty goes around. I had to default on that game actually. Something
Stevertigo wrote:
The word monopoly implies unfair business practices such that make
an inferior product the exceedingly market-dominant one. Putting aside
its basic inapplicability in an open-source context, and the fact that
in that context people will make free choices to use a tool, and
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We
*shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we
did so
Previous post correction diff:
-saving the human life
+saving human life
-objectivity in a repackaged for a
+objectivity repackaged for a
+or+objectivity in a repackaged form..
-S
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly obscure.
Ah. So corrupted ent
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
So you have your divisive discussion going now.
Its not my discussion. For one, it takes two to tango. Secondly, I
finished it didn't I?
Are you standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier to proclaim this
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
corporate
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since my first mail:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sheldon Ramptonshel...@prwatch.org wrote:
[...]
If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now
become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the
conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web
2.0. Web
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since
2009/7/7 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I believe somewhere in all this, there was some working code. What
more needs doing to make that go live, or to propose to take it live?
Magnus Manske: You're right. To atone for my sins, here the
auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Where should that tool be discussed?
Well, I mentioned it on my Wikimedia blog :-) Er, presumably the
Bible-related wikiprojects would be a good place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Bibleverse
On 07/07/2009, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is
our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine
have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
Probably. Humans don't handle low risk,
2009/7/7 Sheldon Rampton shel...@prwatch.org:
If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now
become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the
conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web
2.0.
I'd call that a feature. Content is
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Judson Dunncohes...@sleepyhead.org wrote:
snip
{{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if true | value if false }} .
The help pages for templates are not very helpful.
Instinctively,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful.
I don't suppose seriously unhelpful comment would be the same kind
of criticism a Muslim might make of a Westerner who illuminated some
basic
I had thought we'd formally policyized the please leave blocked users
alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the
block (short of making threats against people, etc), but I can't find
anything on-wiki that has it in writing.
I know I've had discussions with people about
I had thought we'd formally policyized the please leave blocked users
alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the
block (short of making threats against people, etc), but I can't find
anything on-wiki that has it in writing.
I know I've had discussions with people
Actually, I was under the impression that our policy was essentially the
opposite -- I certainly wouldn't tolerate a long rant about a block on a
user's talk page. We tell blocked users to make their unblock requests
succinct and neutral, and we disable the option to post to a talk page if
the
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:18 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Erm, the MediaWiki template language survives because it has a
monopoly. There is no alternative. It doesn't really matter how bad it
is - there is nothing
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:22 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now
become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the
conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web
2.0.
I'd call that a
45 matches
Mail list logo
