On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore?
>
Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the
discussion. Perhaps we need an 'open' list for people subscribed to
any of the other list
"Harm" is gray, not black and white. Almost anything we publish could
*cause harm* in some way.
However the Rorschach images are not BLPs. I'm sure publishing details to
day about President Wilson's adultery might "cause harm" to his descendents
if any, but it's already been published in a d
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word
> > when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm,
> > rather than to help their income.
> Methinks that posting was a smiley facey wanting. I si
I believe that you are mistakenly supposing that the list would discuss *a
particular* case. I believe that the original proposal was to create a
list that would discuss the resolution process itself, not a particular case
of it, but rather the entirety of the process.
Will
In a me
I know you are trying to be rigorous, but your logic has far too many
assumptions to be so.
Firstly you assume that a property is eternal. Predicate logic would
probably assume that if A exists, than that does not change, but the entire
message I'm proposing is that this property can change.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is what happens when you mix computer programmers and mailing lists. :P
- --
- --FastLizard4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FastLizard4 |
http://scalar.cluenet.org/~fastlizard4/)
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Keegan Paul wrote:
>> Was that English?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Jay Litwyn <
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> Plus, no admin actions went against his account:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Wp_freedom_fighter
> on wikipedia.
It's not the most intuitive thing, but the "user" field in l
2009/7/31 Jay Litwyn :
> I can almost see a whack-a-mole problem happening if we tried to control it,
> say by listing IP#s by default on edits to commercial interests. Then they
> would just do the suppresion through remote access to their home computer.
> http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ I should c
everything will ve affected
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Until It
> Sleeps wrote:
> > "Unfortunately this means that practically all sites and services will be
> > down during that time."
> >
> > Does this mean all mailing list sites, or
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
>>
>> That seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. To destroy the
>> effectiveness of a test that has that kind of research background to
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore?
>
I was thinking that as well.
>From experience, unless booted elsewhere, these "religion / general
philosophy" threads take on a life of their own and become
2009/8/1 Steve Bennett :
> My current view is that [[wp:1.0]] is really the only taskforce that
> matters, and there is a huge amount of work to be done there. Clean up
> the process, improve the selection, review more articles, improve the
> articles that are going to be released.
> When deciding
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Until It
Sleeps wrote:
> "Unfortunately this means that practically all sites and services will be
> down during that time."
>
> Does this mean all mailing list sites, or all Wikimedia sites, including
> Wikipedia itself?
Both, afaik, but the downtime is over now a
> 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.
My current view is that [[wp:1.0]] is really the only taskforce that
matters, and there is a huge amount of w
Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care anymore?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit wrote:
>
> My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which,
> admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's
> inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would
> anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the author) ev
"Unfortunately this means that practically all sites and services will be
down during that time."
Does this mean all mailing list sites, or all Wikimedia sites, including
Wikipedia itself?
- Until It Sleeps
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Sent: Thur
One reason they are not publicly archived is so that discussions are not
driven into DCC for want of not being held to word, quoted, or caught
displaying a degree of ignorance or a prominent prejudice that you actually
want to be argued out of. It can be live and off the cuff remarks, perhaps
e
wrote in message
news:8cbdef1cc58b49c-1160-2...@mblk-m09.sysops.aol.com...
> http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+articles+with+unsourced+claims
>
> Proving evidently that our internal search is lame compared with Google
> :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_
"Risker" wrote in message
news:eb45e7c0907290700i150fc36bnc445c01210ad7...@mail.gmail.com...
> Not to engage anyone further in this topic, I would appreciate it if the
> moderators consider whether this has gone on quite long enough, and some
> moderation is needed here.
>
> I know several people
Please allow me to start this proof from scratch and try to go from the
paradox that is most interesting to the simple answer of no, and
generalizing it to all paradoxes, refuting objections in a monologue,
because it does not seem to contain equally powerful participants. Can God
crush an uncr
"Brian" wrote in message
news:9839a05c0907181130y31750611u1d6c29c9e3684...@mail.gmail.com...
>A daguerreotype of a well adjusted [[Phineas Gage]] holding the rod that
> impaled his frontal lobes was recently discovered. It will be published in
> The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences im
"Thomas Dalton" wrote in message
news:a4359dff0905231300l62f6e442m749aeec5cbb25...@mail.gmail.com...
> 2009/5/23 Fred Bauder :
>> I suppose this is old news:
>>
>> http://www.brandweeknrx.com/2007/08/abbott-caught-a.html
>
> "August 30, 2007"
>
> Yeah, I'd say that's old news...
I can almost see
Subject-Was: Blocking / Moderation
Okay, so lets properly open the topic.
How would anyone go about getting participants in a dispute to subscribe to
this list or any other?
"Bod Notbod" wrote in message
news:3ae0a6ac0907280131k4e867aeer147f5fd65bedd...@mail.gmail.com...
> Stevertigo:
>
>> And
wrote in message news:d10.52ec3825.3798b...@aol.com...
> 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 (
"Casey Brown" wrote in message
news:de28ceda0907191928u248ab87cr889c788006055...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, wrote:
>> Why would Google care about our internal issues?
>>
>
> I would assume because he was using a gmail e-mail address, maybe
> something the user was doing
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM, wrote:
> The archives of this mailing list are searchable.
At the moment they're not. If you go to
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l and enter
something in the search box you get "404 not found".
_
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the
>> Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for
>> much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as
>> scientific when
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the
> Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for
> much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as
> scientific when exposed to open critici
29 matches
Mail list logo
