Samuel Klein wrote:
Forwarding from foundation-l. This is lovely - bold of HuffPost to include
Wikimedia in its wide-angle view of today's media, and appropriate
considering the way WP helps make sense of the chaos of breaking news.
Right. I wonder whether the ambiguous use of access in
I'm hoping that we won't have too many trick articles in this
process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
criteria are write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
criteria.
So far we've had a range from Battleships and miniaturists to Monarchs
and a winger. I think we've
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many trick articles in this
process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
criteria are write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
criteria.
Yeah, any such article ahs to
Bohgosity BumaskiL brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
Great minds discuss ideas.
Mediocre minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss other people.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
...Which pretty much sums up the problem with Wikipedia: If we can't
discuss things at the idea level, we're relegating
2009/10/30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many trick articles in this
process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
criteria are write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
2009/10/30 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many trick articles in this
process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
criteria are write an
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/30 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many trick articles in this
process, or
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider
below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
after all.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well,
2009/10/30 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the
preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the
deleting admin?
That was fatigue from dealing with too many people reacting as I
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't
Yes, there are enough misconceptions to make this worth discussion. In
fact, one oft he reasons for not notifying is when one knows the
notification will be ignored, or, possibly, start a conflict.
Give the official equality of all admins, most of us are not anxious
for conflict, and this is
12 matches
Mail list logo
