http://www.elance.com/jobs/wikipedia_expert_needed/web_content/15606905
Wikipedia expert needed Limited Project Open Bidding Elance Escrow Project
Job Description
Client: [subscribers only] (5 projects posted, 1 Awarded)
Billing and Payment System confirmed
Provider can contact client
The screenshot:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2STb5PipKZM/SjXn-aydftI/ACQ/VjBAtYHOzrs/s1600-h/nichalp.JPG
Fred
http://www.elance.com/jobs/wikipedia_expert_needed/web_content/15606905
Wikipedia expert needed Limited Project Open Bidding Elance Escrow
Project
Job Description
Client:
2009/7/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
The screenshot:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2STb5PipKZM/SjXn-aydftI/ACQ/VjBAtYHOzrs/s1600-h/nichalp.JPG
Fred
Yes we know that would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nichalp .
The matter has been dealt with.
--
geni
Stevertigo wrote:
(1) No WYSIWYG editing system.
Browsers by limitation are not real WYSIWIG editing systems, and
because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser.
New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either
proprietary or useless unless the W3C
The moral panic on this subject is irrational. Folks are scandalized
(scandalized!) by the very thought of people being paid to add articles to
Wikipedia because they might have a conflict of interest. Rspeer notes that
we've got along perfectly well with volunteers so far, presumably implying
Nathan wrote:
On the contrary, my guess is quite a few
articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by
fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with
WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and
delete them because
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The basic
conflict of interest point is not that motives should be pure,
whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The
basic
conflict of interest point is not that motives should be pure,
Charles Matthews wrote:
I'm not yet convinced that the absence of WYSIWYG is a barrier to WP
doing anything specific, and I don't believe that the usability
studies
I have seen prove that it is. But then I tend to believe that the
issue
with expository problems lies in the
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard
to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command-
line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with
Macintosh computers.
Interesting to think what one
Looking at the blocking notice [2], there seems to be a sensible solution to
this:
You stated [1] that: Some years ago, other people I knew became interested in
my work at Wikipedia and I gladly supported them. The initial idea was that
each one should have a personal account, but in
I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from some years
ago, that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption, is
the right thing to do. That's like saying You violated 3RR in 2004, I'm
blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your guilt and
Nathan wrote:
I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from some years
ago, that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption, is
the right thing to do.
The account is blocked, because the problem is with the account. There
are obviously good grounds for an
In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter_jac...@gmx.net writes:
There are two thousand years of
struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of
interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this
and propose that the bible verse can speak for
Thank you for these thoughts. The suggestions of Andrew about how to make an
appeal will probably get me unblocked.
But, in the first place, I'm not sure if I was blocked correctly. I was told
in my last request for unblock that the same person and only that one
person may press the keys on the
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.wexperts.net/
Context? Yours?
-Steven
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity...
Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling...
Meta note:
Please be careful to give
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Aryeh
Gregorsimetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, contenteditable is standardized in HTML 5. There may be other
ways; a lot of other projects seem to manage to do good WYSIWYG
somehow, at least in major browsers. AFAICT, the only reason we don't
have it
- Desiphral desiph...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Desiphral desiph...@gmail.com
To: charles r matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, English
Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 20:49:28 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
A review of governance on the English Wikipedia has been started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_review
Oh, I get to take some credit for this, don't I?
-Stevertigo
Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised account. A
user was allowing other people to share his account, and had not agreed to stop
doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly deserved a block.
Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale
Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised
account. A user was allowing other people to share his account, and had
not agreed to stop doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly
deserved a block.
Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the
2009/7/9 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
A review of governance on the English Wikipedia has been started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_review
Oh, I get to take some credit for this, don't I?
I
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/9 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
I wasn't intending to assign credit.
I'm quite used to it.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
A review of governance on the English Wikipedia has been started here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_review
I think one of the main
- Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing Wikipedia
accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out.
I agreed as I knew about it, I said they will stay away from it (without
knowing about this policy, just for avoiding accusations of association) and
I changed my password. If it's about the present tense of I do not let
'arbitrary' people use my account, even less spammers, it was as a reply to
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
http://www.wexperts.net/
Context? Yours?
-Steven
No, I'm just laconic. However, we may be faced, eventually, with a new
industry, let's tentatively call it Wikifarming: after the gold farming
industry
OK, I'll unblock you, and save you a step in the appeals process, to
unblock-en-l. I can see several things going on, some cultural. There is
no evidence in recent edits, checked by checkuser, that there is any
editing by others or for pay. In other words, this user has, other than
impudently
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:51 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Contenteditable - nice. Good WYSIWIG? Gmail? Lots of AJAX isn't
really a good thing, is it?
Gmail does not use AJAX for its WYSIWYG editor, as far as I know. And
yes, its WYSIWYG editor works fine (although I normally type mail
Thank you. After the unpleasant experience I went through, I wonder if there
are other people caught as collateral victims in this paid editing roundup.
Something needs to be done to prevent this. Plus that, generally, I find the
whole roundup process not addressing the issue of paid editing, just
2009/7/9 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.wexperts.net/
Context? Yours?
I wonder if it was started by a Wikipedian to troll.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/9 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.wexperts.net/
Context? Yours?
I wonder if it was started by a Wikipedian to troll.
See
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Today.27s_featured_article
- d.
And what does that protected blank page say ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser/Log?cuSearchType=targetcuSearch=Wexperts
--
John Vandenberg
-Original Message-
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:
2009/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
geni wrote:
2009/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Nathan wrote:
On the contrary, my guess is quite a few
articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by
fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with
WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Per the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]], Sharing an account – or the password to an
account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the
account being blocked.
This is worded in such an absolute way as to make the hearts of the
policy police glow. The
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Fred Bauder wrote:
There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing Wikipedia
accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out. We might have to
sort some of this
Cross-posting to Wikien-l...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Unfortunately,
community-created help pages tend to accumulate vast amounts of
instruction cruft that distracts from simple high-level information.
Maybe it's time English Wikipedia (at least)
Anthony Simone wrote:
A lot of the discussion was at Talk:Main Page, with some more at the
article talk page. Note, though, that almost all the people who
seriously objected to it were IPs and users with very few edits. So, it
seems to have gone over pretty well with our users, most of whom
42 matches
Mail list logo
