Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the
points in this thread?
Carcharoth
If you don't mind the recursion, I've posted some of the discussion so far to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Issues/Long-term_discussions
which is part of the still-conceptual
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
pick, which is
Bod Notbod wrote:
Hi again,
But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware
of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at
the moment. Things that really need doing.
Y-E-S spells YES and you are now it.
Articles with Unsourced Claims
I
The more you know about how it is, the less you know about how it changes.
The more you know about how it changes, the less you know about how it is.
Just measuring something changes it.
--Restatement of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message
The way I look at it, there already is one in group, and one out. Admins can
theoretically read and write anything. Other users can block creations with
{{db-nonsense}}, and only admins can over-ride the decision. Keep in mind
that BLP is a specific issue, and one that Wales said we should
Creating essentially invisible articles in userspace already has at least
one example, and seemingly within [[category:hated people]]. I guess that
they could go straight into mainspace, suffer there, get moved into
someone's user space for protection that is like vandal proof, then once
It is an old idea that ran on IBM 370s in 1990. On them, what I am
describing is child's play. On them I could also give you permission to read
a file, and only with a certain program. run only for example was so
common that it had an abreviation: permit bugs run unsp:disasm (permit
user:bugs
wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message news:c60.4955af03.3794c...@aol.com...
Your belief in something however does not effect it's own existence.
However I have a new twist on this old issue.
Given: God can do anything
Assume: God creates an object which can do more things than God
Explain:
Bod Notbod wrote:
If you can give me a link to a specific (project) page that you're
thinking of with regard to unsourced claims, please do.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup]]
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup]]
geni wrote:
Not that I am in the slightest manner interested in any
type of pet being added to wikipedia, but is this decision
transitive?
That is, are (presidential/head of state) pets of any nation
notable on the English language wikipedia,
Not sure if he actually had any famous pets,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually
do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides
as articles of their own. Granted horse are not generally
considered pets.
Deletionists,
Casey Brown wrote:
Was there something missing that you noticed?
Not really on-topic, but I couldn't let it go un-remarked-upon
that that is of course one of the classic one-liners, whether
deliberate or not.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
More seriously - relatively speaking - I think we actually
do have quite a few emperors and the like favorite rides
as
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_animals
This one, on the other hand, is interesting (takes all sorts):
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it was useful ...
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the best way forward is probably to improve talk pages. They've
already proven that they can go the distance; so 'all' that's needed
Well, i think we still have a long way to go before we've successfully
copied that
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
Does
Greetings,
The IRC Group Contacts decided last year to hold a surgery every three
months where general IRC matters could be brought up for discussion in
an environment in which IRC people able to put those into action
(which includes all the contacts themselves) were present and
involved.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without
A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of
discussions. I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if I
asked. I asked, and was denied. Until IRC commits itself to openness, it
should have little to no impact on any facet of our project. Without
Not exactly my point.
First god creates a regular stone, which god can do.
Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone, could
change the color of the stone from green to red.
So this shows that god can change a *property* of a pre-existent object.
If crushable is a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Hmm, it might save time if you sent an email to Jimbo, so you could get
his straight and insightful no to the idea of resolution-l. Or even
his very direct and trenchany yes.
Hm. I don't email retired
Our preoccupation with the modern era triumphs again.
Though we have a picture that includes him
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Rupert_-_1st_English_Civil_War.jpg,
and mentions in a couple of articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine [[Familiar
spirit#Prince
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to
assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the
stevertigo wrote:
horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a
committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing
how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the
wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was reached.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is
harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In
stevertigo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to
assume that it is ground of your
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Right, strictly Doris Lessing, C.J. Cherryh and the less pulpy parts of
Jack Vance in future.
Who?
People will generally not know what we're talking
about, but the high ground will be ours.
Hrmph.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
If I drop a *concept like Karellen, everyone should get the *concept
immediately.
Sorry - my natural recursive rewriting pattern sometimes produces redundancies.
-Stevertigo
___
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry - my natural recursive rewriting pattern sometimes produces
redundancies.
Er, I should say recursive rewriting without re-reading pattern actually. :-)
-Stevertigo
___
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Not exactly my point.
First god creates a regular stone, which god can do.
Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone, could
change the color of the stone from green to red.
Hm. Read: Making a point
2009/7/30 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using
normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a
fait accompli.)
You can't delete images with normal editing
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Previous post correction diff:
- a point decapitalizing God
+ a point of decapitalizing God
- and thear supposedly
+ and their supposedly
- a pair of more sufficiently more massive ones.
+ a pair of sufficiently more massive
As far as I can tell, this is the state of consensus on the idea of a
resolution-l:
* one strong proponent (Stevertigo)
* a couple of mild supporters (Fred Bauder, W. Johnson)
* nobody else cares much
* several people have suggested it would need consensus on the wiki to
be a happener - no info
This is about 15 hours from now.
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org
Date: 2009/7/30
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Downtime due to network maintenance, Friday July
31st 12:00 UTC
To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello,
Due to a
Also a mention here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marston_Moor#Aftermath
Called a lapdog, so searches for dog wouldn't find that.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM,
WereSpielChequerswerespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
Our preoccupation with the modern era triumphs
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
You can't delete images with normal editing abilities and the initial
clash as it were was on commons.
You can remove them from articles.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, this is the state of consensus on the idea of a
resolution-l:
* one strong proponent (Stevertigo)
* a couple of mild supporters (Fred Bauder, W. Johnson)
* nobody else cares much
* several people
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it?
-Steven
Sorry, thought this was going to foundation-l.
-S
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
* Nobody else cares much is perhaps accurate, perhaps not. Only the
supporters and opponents count - not the abstentions - and IMHO I've
been fairly successful at defeating the opposition's arguments anyway
- too often by simply pointing out the lack of
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody's actively trying to kill the idea! works okay in wiki
editing (where bad edits are reversible), but probably isn't enough to
bother with an unconvincing structural change. Until anyone else cares
enough to actually
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using
normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a
fait accompli.)
And the deletion backed up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It should be noted that you can, like every other freenode user that
wants to keep logs, establish a connection and keep your very own. For
example, I have a ClueNet shell account, which is very convenient for
this purpose, to which irssi stores all
Was that English? :D
~Keegan
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:27 PM, FastLizard4 fastliza...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It should be noted that you can, like every other freenode user that
wants to keep logs, establish a connection and keep your very own. For
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Gwern Branwen wrote:
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using
normal user editing abilities. Â (Which did not prevent it from becoming a
fait accompli.)
And the deletion backed up with protection, mind you:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, FastLizard4 wrote:
Has anyone pointed out to these people that the plates (and the
answers) are probably available elsewhere on the Internet and only
need a simple Google Images search to bring them forth?
No, it's been discussed for months and nobody's thought of this
simple
http://www.nytpick.com/2009/07/nyt-hypocrisy-paper-tries-to-crack.html
This is pretty much a random link which seems to give a useful summary, but
it seems like the New York Times didn't suppress the news about this guy
the same way they did about their own guy, and checking our article, it
seems
So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
To psychologists, to render the Rorschach test meaningless would be a
particularly painful development because there has been so much
research conducted — tens of thousands of papers, by Dr. Smith’s
estimate — to try
50 matches
Mail list logo
