On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:57, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sinew...@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong)
is:
We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or
No Jonathan, the alternative to admin-only-editing is not full protection.
Semi-protection allows established users to edit an article.
Established users are not the same as sysops, therefore the rest of the
universe isn't non-sysops.
I'm not sure what makes one an established user exactly, but
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:33, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
No Jonathan, the alternative to admin-only-editing is not full protection.
Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit
war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.
Semi-protection allows
When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to
semi-protection.
We should not have a type of protection that allows admins to make *content*
changes willy-nilly.
When an article is in full protection, admins should not be making content
changes, except perhaps to
[[Ian O'Brien]], Australian swimmer
[[Austin Nichols]], US actor
[[Cynna Kydd]], Australian netball player
[[Kevin O'Halloran]], Australian swimmer
[[Sandra Morgan]], Australian swimmer
All features articles, all lacking an image, even though they all have
appeared at big public events.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
[[Ian O'Brien]], Australian swimmer
[[Austin Nichols]], US actor
[[Cynna Kydd]], Australian netball player
[[Kevin O'Halloran]], Australian swimmer
[[Sandra Morgan]], Australian swimmer
All features articles,
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the
quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for
perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can
be issues at ANI:
- *For
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
[[Ian O'Brien]], Australian swimmer
[[Austin
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Magnus
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL
Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the
quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for
perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL
Does anyone really object to the idea of admins
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official
administrator's board, while ANI is the incidents board, the i'm telling
on you board where any user can report any perceived threats. Just tends to
lead to more outrageous, drama-inducing posts, I'd wager.
- GlassCobra
On Thu,
Rename to Wikipedia:Administrator help requests or Requests for
Administrator assistance?
Sometimes a name can have an effect.
FT2
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobr...@gmail.comwrote:
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official
administrator's
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Rename to Wikipedia:Administrator help requests or Requests for
Administrator assistance?
Sometimes a name can have an effect.
FT2
I have never really liked the structure of the admin noticeboard pages - in
that they are
People need a single main point of contact for problems; If we removed
AN/I, then the confused complaints would come to AN. If we could keep
all the miscellaneous nuisance contained within AN/I, that would be
helpful, large as it might get.
The various specific boards for reporting problems, SPI
I wouldn't be so quick to call it nuisance. We have thousands of active
users, hundreds of thousands of occasional users, and a wide range of
warriors, promoters, and people who don't get the plot (or would rather not
do so). There's a very wide range of reasons someone might want an
administrator
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 13:15, Al Tallymajorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.
2009/7/23 Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com:
If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be fully
protected?
There's quite often a bitter disagreement over one thing, which sadly
results in protection to stop the editwarring, despite general
agreement on more broad
2009/7/23 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com:
Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
consensus?
This usually works okay in practice, but then, that too is an
2009/7/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
This usually works okay in practice, but then, that too is an
administrative role, rather than an admin making a content decision as
such, and needs to be confirmed sensibly.
e.g. I've added , does that work for everyone?
A good example is the
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:
A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
(at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
stepping in and saying no, this is a severe BLP
2009/7/23 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:
A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
(at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
FT2, why not do a proper analysis of a week or two weeks of requests
at the admin and other noticeboards, to get some concrete figures, and
not just a general feeling?
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick to call it nuisance. We have
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/7/23 Al Tally:
If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be fully
protected?
There's quite often a bitter disagreement over one thing, which sadly
results in protection to stop the editwarring, despite general
agreement on more
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/23 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:
A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
(at the time), that was IMO just the right
Mainly I'm on wikibreak and trying to do other things. Though you wouldn't
think it.
It wouldn't be hard to do as you suggest (analyze 2 - 3 archive pages?) but
the views of users are in themselves interesting and valuable. It's user
feedback, not just internal measurements, that count, when
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/wikipedia.shtml
But Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed, imperfect
in the way a person you love is imperfect, and filled with conflict
and disagreement in the way a good conference or an effective
parliament is filled with
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/wikipedia.shtml
But Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed, imperfect
in the
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Daniel R. Tobiasd...@tobias.name wrote:
There is also the possibility that *neither* of these things [God
uncrushable stones] exist, and that is the possibility that seems
most logical to me.
The God paradoxes don't involve so much the issue of God's
on 7/23/09 1:14 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/wikipedia.shtml
But Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed, imperfect
in the way a person you love is imperfect, and filled with conflict
and disagreement in the
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show parodying
the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
online activity. Produced and directed by Pozzitive, the four-part
series is called
Update: The developer of watchlistr is now discussing on wikitech-l
how to do this on the toolserver, and how to authenticate without
passwords being saved on the toolserver (which is not allowed).
Further detail no doubt to come :-)
- d.
2009/7/22 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
fyi
Parodies are compliments in my book. Sarcasm to flattery and all that. Look
forward to a US available link.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show
The function of an admin in an edit-war situation should be solely to revert
to a previously accepted version, and await talk page consensus, then
unprotect.? Admins should not change an article to what they believe is the
talk page consensus, as oftentimes this involves a great amount of
2009/7/23 kgnp...@gmail.com kgnp...@gmail.com:
Parodies are compliments in my book. Sarcasm to flattery and all that. Look
forward to a US available link.
It'll be on the iPlayer, so UK people can listen again later and
theoretically record it to put up somewhere.
The thing to remember is
2009/7/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/23 kgnp...@gmail.com kgnp...@gmail.com:
Parodies are compliments in my book. Sarcasm to flattery and all that.
Look forward to a US available link.
It'll be on the iPlayer, so UK people can listen again later and
theoretically record it
The other day I ran across what is perhaps for me, one of the most bizarre
situations with references I've yet to encounter.
Webster's has produced a book.? I found it in some random Google books searches
I was doing on a subject.? It states certain facts and a few of them I knew to
be without
One thing which I'll no longer stand as a Wikipedia, is the pre-wiki citation
mode that the like of that hack job Encyclopedia Brittanica uses.? All the
citations lumped at the end, with no ability to cite *a* fact to *its*
evidence.? So to follow up an article, each person must be an expert.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The other day I ran across what is perhaps for me, one of the most bizarre
situations with references I've yet to encounter.
Webster's has produced a book.? I found it in some random Google books
searches I was doing on a subject.?
That's interesting.? Someone signs up with service X to pull details from your
service Y that perhaps you don't want the world to know.? Like that you've
watchlisted Oral Sex.
How do I, as service X make sure that you as Service Y actually have the user's
approval for this pulling of my data
No matter, by definition, is uncrushable. Or indestructible, for that
matter.
An electron is uncrushable.? Can an electron decay?
-Original Message-
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 10:53 am
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show parodying
the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
online activity.
Listening now - utterly realistic
On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
It'll be on the iPlayer, so UK people can listen again later and
theoretically record it to put up somewhere.
iPlayer radio programmes are available outside the UK too.
Jeremy
___
WikiEN-l mailing
2009/7/23 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show parodying
the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
2009/7/23 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show parodying
the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/23 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show
2009/7/23 Jeremy Atherton jaw...@gmail.com:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
It'll be on the iPlayer, so UK people can listen again later and
theoretically record it to put up somewhere.
iPlayer radio programmes are available outside the UK too.
For those wanting a direct
Thanks for the tipoff, hopefully if we ever do take advertising it won't be
quite that mind numbingly bad. They certainly got the idea of dab pages,
admins, inane edit wars (must check out [[Crystallography]] to see whether
it currently says that if Topaz crystals make you drowzy or alert)
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/23 kgnp...@gmail.com kgnp...@gmail.com:
Parodies are compliments in my book. Sarcasm to flattery and all that.
Look forward to a US available link.
The thing to remember is how ridiculously mainstream Wikipedia
50 matches
Mail list logo
