Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
>>> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
>>> harm; any problem with that?
>> At the very least consens
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
>> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
>> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
>> exactly the same way.
>
> Any responsible journalist wil
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:14:00 -0500
> From: Emily Monroe
>
> Holy cow. Is Jimbo aware of this?>>
>> Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him next week.
>>
> I'll bet he'll be delicious with BBQ sauce and a side of mashed
> potatoes and baked beans. Mmm mmm mmm. X-D
>
Sometimes the best way of spreading best practices like this is to
write a userspace essay. It can start small, but can help get thoughts
together. There are several userspace essays I should have written
that I never did, so I'm not really one to talk. But some of the most
insightful things I have
i agree with you very much that Welcome, but ... messages as
currently used would be considered an insult or condescending by
almost anyone. "Here's your speeding ticket. Have a nice day!"
You might try using custom messages. I have variations on several that
I use, but i always to adapt them to
>
> From: Tony Sidaway
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and "!voting", what's the difference?
>
> On 8/28/09, Al Tally wrote:
>
>> > Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to
>> > wade through a mass of comments.
>>
> If you can't be bothered to engage in
Easily confused?
I picture you as a sort of Rachel Welch, with thigh-high boots and a
whip in a minidress
Firstly, your email icon is a kitten is it not?
Secondly your message "how does this relate?" sound like you are
cracking your whip at the group for being bad and chatting.
-Origin
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:39:40 +0100
> From: Tony Sidaway
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Voting and "!voting", what's the difference?
>
> Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive
> polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme
> appeared on Wikipedia: t
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Emily wrote:
>
>> <>
>>
>> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
>
> What? I'm confused.
I think he is saying that you correctly pointed out that people were
drifting off-topic, and h
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
>
> Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
> compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
> exactly the same way.
Any responsible journalist will.
Fred
__
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>>> Link please.
>>
>> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
>> harm; any problem with that?
>
> At the very least consensus can't be said to b
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO.
> The "we should conceal information that could potentially harm people"
> argument didn't hold much weight in the recently-concluded Rorschach Wars.
There is no reasonable
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>> Link please.
>
> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
> harm; any problem with that?
At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
What? I'm confused.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Emily wrote:
> <>
>
> Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Emily wrote:
<>
Your new nickname is "Kitten with a Whip"
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:07 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/9/10 George Herbert :
>> This is wishful thinking, Geni.
>>
>> Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
>> sized ones (1 ton) is not.
>
>
> Uk's first attempt failed and
2009/9/10 George Herbert :
> This is wishful thinking, Geni.
>
> Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
> sized ones (1 ton) is not.
Uk's first attempt failed and India's probably did. I think that
qualifies as tricky.
> And the explosive lenses get easier the more
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/10 George Herbert :
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote:
>>> 2009/9/9 :
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
"plans".
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The prob
2009/9/10 George Herbert :
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote:
>> 2009/9/9 :
>>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>>> "plans".
>>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
>>> eq
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/9/9 :
>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>> "plans".
>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
>> equipment in order to enrich the uran
-Original Message-
From: geni
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 :
> The entire argument about keeping the names of kidnap victims secret
to
> me is flat. I do not
2009/9/9 :
> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
> "plans".
> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
> cheap thing to do.
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
"plans".
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap thing to do. Everyone however kno
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they
> probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a
> Taliban regional commander and got the story.
Iran and the Taliban don't exactly get on so unlikely they would just
repeat a taliban s
> Interesting here is what they say about themselves
> "
>
> Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international
> news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
>
> Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding
> Iranian and foreign media pro
2009/9/9 :
> I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's "slapping
> the hand that reaches".
> Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
> Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
> sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I r
I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's "slapping
the hand that reaches".
Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I really don't know wha
Interesting here is what they say about themselves
"
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international
news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding
Iranian and foreign media professionals.
> 2009/9/9 :
>> Well what were the sources?
>> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
>
> They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance,
> seems reliable:
Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is
that a reliable sour
> Once it's all over
> the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the
> article.
> - d.
Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
2009/9/9 :
> Well what were the sources?
> Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance,
seems reliable:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105379§ionid=351020403
__
Well what were the sources?
Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikie
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>> We are supposed to be community-driven.
>> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
>> Link please.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>
> Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
> harm; any problem with that?
There is no such consensus. We
"Do no harm" isn't a consensus however.
That language is so incredibly vague it could be taken to mean almost
anything.
Fred we've been over this many times on this list :)
You really want to do it again?
We have articles on murder victims which appear on the top of Google,
keeping that fresh in
2009/9/9 David Gerard :
>> BLP talks about removing unverifiable harmful information about living
>> people, it doesn't say verifiable harmful information should be
>> removed (unless it is given undue weight).
>
>
> That's the point - it's entirely in order to be very conservative in
> what's acce
> We are supposed to be community-driven.
> Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
> Link please.
>
> Will Johnson
>
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
Fred
___
WikiEN-l m
2009/9/9 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/9 :
>> I really don't see this as IAR.
>> It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
>> reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
>> secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
>> flat
2009/9/9 :
> I really don't see this as IAR.
> It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
> reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
> secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
> flat to me. But at any rate, if we we
I really don't see this as IAR.
It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a discus
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
BTW does Wikinews have any traction yet?
I mean does it hit the first googly page ?
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporte
2009/9/9 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect
> wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping
> other more established news organizations, but in fact
> be there before all the other major news orgs with the
> full nitty gritty.
I don't.
2009/9/9 David Gerard :
> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>
>> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
>> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
>
>
> I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
> was entirely covered by BLP:
Keith Old wrote:
> Folks,
> >From the Huffington Post:
>
> "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
> several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around
> the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping,
> and later d
David Gerard wrote:
>
> I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
> was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
> potentially extremely harmful information.
>
> We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews
> for that. If we wait
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
po
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
More serious than life and death?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
T
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
Would you have us do different?
>>>
>>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
>>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
>>> would suggest just protecti
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>>> Would you have us do different?
>>
>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
>> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a li
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>>> Would you have us do different?
>>
>> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
>> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
>> would suggest just protecting the art
> 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
>> Would you have us do different?
>
> I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
> editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
> would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to
> the OTRS ticket. Such
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to
the OTRS ticket. Such a protectio
Would you have us do different?
Fred
> Folks,
> From the Huffington Post:
>
> "Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
> several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media
> around
> the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the
>
The protection referenced an OTRS ticket
(https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2009090610014951)
in the edit summary. I'd be interested to know more information on
that ticket, specifically if it was a request for protection from a
news organization.
I suppose
2009/9/9 Keith Old :
> Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the
> kidnapping seems justified. His article is here.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist)
>
That would rather depend on what was at the
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&cl
on 9/9/09 12:45 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
> 2009/9/9 Emily Monroe :
>
>> Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
> about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also has
> a note
Folks,
>From the Huffington Post:
"Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around
the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping,
and later drew criticism for this from so
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
> about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses.
That was what I was talking about. Thanks--I probably should've looked
there to begin with! :-)
> It also has a note asking for more and better references.
And yet
> Baby *pages*, I should point out to any horrified readers...
Good thing you clarified. I actually interpreted what you said
previously literally for a second. Well, actually, for more than a
second. :-)
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:43 PM,
> Go more slowly, is all I can suggest ;-p
That's what I'm learning! I'm trying to at least use PROD more often,
if tagging for deletion at all.
> Do take heart that anyone who's read large chunks of
> Special:Newpages will fully concur on the absolute necessity of
> knifing lots and lots o
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe :
> Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also has
a note asking for more and better references.
- d.
_
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/9 Emily Monroe :
>
>> As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
>> articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
>> people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
>> whenever
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe :
> As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
> articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
> people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
> whenever I can (okay, take the PROD tag off *after* you've improved
> "Delete on sight" is unwiki, and violates several of our core
> policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
> subordinates.
True, but I see a lot of articles at new page patrol that also violate
NPOV, CIVIL, or both. "I run this great business" is POV, not to
mention S
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
Oh, well. I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 9/8/09 10:44 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
>>
>> So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic
>> spectru
> Treating them as such would lead to over-defending them, i.e. drama.
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
whenever I can (okay,
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> So making a
>> drama-free "clean up afterwards" procedure was considered the least
>> worst way of dealing with things.
> Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
> revived a notable-seeming Indian politican lady from t
David Gerard wrote:
> So making a
> drama-free "clean up afterwards" procedure was considered the least
> worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian politican lady from the dead. If the 10
ton weight drops
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews :
> I think an admin undeleting a speedy should always leave a note to the
> deleting admin, explaining why. The usual reason would be that a mistake
> of some kind (e.g. on copyright) has been made in applying CSD. If there
> is an issue of a judgement call on notability
Carcharoth wrote:
> I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
> inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
> be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
> ask the deleting administrator about those first?
>
>
I think an admi
2009/9/9 Carcharoth :
> I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
> inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
> be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
> ask the deleting administrator about those first?
Nope. Again, no
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 :
>
>> On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
>> the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
>> since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration
Apoc 2400 wrote:
> On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
> the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
> since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
> discussion?
>
Is it really good to propose the del
2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 :
> On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
> the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
> since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
> discussion?
Anything PRODded can be undeleted
>
> a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
> which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
> a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by hand) and
> pushing you down a different route for
>
> There is no way
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell :
> on 9/9/09 4:50 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hmm. Writing styles - and editing styles - are indeed quite
>> distinctive. If someone suddenly writes something out-of-character
>> online, I'll tend to first assume someone else is using their account,
>> be
>
>> on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> (Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
>
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell :
>> Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
>> You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through
on 9/8/09 10:44 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
>
> So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic spectrum,
> and isn't neurotypical nor psychotic?
>
> I know this is off-topic, but well, it's interesting.
>
> Emily
> (bias: recent diagnosis of PDD-NOS)
You would
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
>> I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
>> AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
>> appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
>> recommended at
I dispute that this is my private meaning.
And I propose that this is the standard meaning.
As well as the inworld meaning.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
2009/9/9 :
> What
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> I still think it is a potential good indicator of poor style. Anyway,
> pursuing it got me into an area needing attention, including what is now
> [[first date (meeting)]].
{{merge}} with [[Dating (activity)]]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Keith Old wrote:
>>...Youngborg recommends that
>> people use a “jaundiced eye” when surfing the Web. *
>>
>> *“I think people are going to have to get a little more calloused at the
>> Internet,” Youngborg said.
Steve Bennett wrote:
> "Most well known" or
> "best known"? Whichever one is currently in the article. Focus your
> efforts elsewhere.
>
Hey, this is an amusing topic ...
Example for a beer-tasting FAQ (about American lagers):
*Budweiser, Coors, and Miller are the most well-known bad examples
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly
> cause a book to revert to primary source status?
I have seen the dual argument as well: that sources which would
certainly be counted as primary if they were 100 years old
2009/9/9 :
> What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our
> first incident of a particular "fact" is a primary source, no matter
> what their source was.
You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term
is not the established meaning for this term
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell :
> on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> (Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
> Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
> You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their writin
David Goodman wrote:
> I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
> AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
> appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
> recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
>
[[WP:BEFORE]] seems to need some work, at
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Keith Old wrote:
>...Youngborg recommends that
> people use a “jaundiced eye” when surfing the Web. *
>
> *“I think people are going to have to get a little more calloused at the
> Internet,” Youngborg said.*
Jandiced eyes and callouses? Sounds like he should see a
89 matches
Mail list logo
