ess, and if you want to make a habit of Wikipedia editing, invest some
time and learn how it works. There are some good guides to it, but the best
guide is to try it yourself. Pick something you don't have strong ties to,
and try to see how it's covered and look for improvements. Invest the
ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics ).
If all else fails, try the reference texts named in the article, Google, a
library, or a textbook.
FT2
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some questions regarding a wiki page, so I want to ask the
> a
The history of [[Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby]] is a bit interesting.
A number of odd accounts there.
Geni and I chatted about some of these earlier, he was looking into them
too.
FT2
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Looks to me like they are referr
You think the message is starting to get through?
FT2
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> I am really, really pleased that PR Week chose these three as their
> expert quotes on the issue - all are basically what we would have said
> had they asked us. It'
al foundation of the
community, in a reasonable space. If it could be made even easier (less
text? graphical? popups for detail?) then it could be useful material for
this discussion.
FT2
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> Since it's a WMF holiday a
(short) relevant subpage.
I'd actually like it done via a popup, that appears when you click a cell
for information. That's more classy and suited to the richer interface of
other modern websites, but outside my skills. Anyone else know where I can
find a basic "click thi
Win-win, and community consensus can decide the reliance to place on their
newly written source v. other sources that existed.
FT2
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> High motivation for making decent open-source images available:
>
>
> http://searchengineland.
This is also interesting.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2010/12/16/stories/2010121650040100.htm
FT2
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
> > According to the article they do, but
est of the world can devise" to
measure up to, compare with, and provoke improvement.
Like others have said, we need others around. Maybe not today or tomorrow,
but for the future.
FT2
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 December 2010 20:51, George Herbert
Would prefer on its own wiki as this is comprehensive up to a given date.
Maybe January2001.wikipedia.org -- immediate impact.
(DNS software cannot handle 2001.wikipedia.org)
FT2
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Tim Starling
>
hem by creating "
January2001.wikipedia.org" though.
FT2
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:08 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can these edits be imported into wikipedia in time for the tenth
> anniversary?
>
> I'm assuming some will relate to pa
ice by
suggesting it can be done by such means (even if it sometimes could for
borderline cases).
FT2
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
> > One of those steps being "Check to see if anyone already work
we need to say, for a
neutral informative encyclopedic article, with the rest beyond that shaded
by avoidance of harm.
There will be many cases where we need to provide details that some would
prefer not to read, because they go to the heart of the article or the
topic's full description. I do
It would, that's a sensible idea.
Another easy option is to use a term like "collaboration", or to put the
topic first.
"Collaboration:Cosmology"?
"Military history collaboration"?
FT2
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:41 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17
Wasn't debating which specific image to use, only the principle of whether
we can show an image at all, and whether it helps impersonators.
Clearly we should try and choose a well sourced licence-compliant good
educational value image, in preference to a poor and dubious one, if we keep
any.
e amazed if more than a couple of % could determine a fake FBI
badge anyway.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Duty of care is a legal term.
>
> Yes, and a legal term Wikipedia editors would be wise to learn the
> meaning off.
>
> OK, you're sho
http://www.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=badge%20site%3Afbi.gov
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Shane Simmons wrote:
> On 8/9/10, Carcharoth wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, FT2 wrote:
>
>
>
> >
Duty of care is a legal term.
I think more to the point an expectation of commonsense applies to those
having a random badge waved at them, to verify it and not merely take it on
trust.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Well, you know, I think there is a duty of c
your home,
are genuine police officers.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and change
> such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. There
> is absolutely no excuse for disclosing ac
re okay, if not then
not.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Well, I tried that and quickly found
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
>
> That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike and
> t
the anti-copying shades and effects should
either not be entirely shown, or if entirely shown then they should not be
shown in excess of ___ dpi."
FT2
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> You may be right. Changing subject slightly, does that argument apply
> with currency
job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator will
not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
FT2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
> > I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunde
hen we have enough to say
"X says Y" and the fact that X chose to say Y on a blog or self pub website
is not really an impediment.
FT2
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> IAR is cool. Basically it encapsulates that wik
Can you explain and suggest what you mean here?
FT2
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> (Snip)
> Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms
> might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an
> absolute sense things that need to be interpr
rsonal website, blog, etc) for the reader's
understanding.
This is more, a natural extension and rationalization of an existing norm,
and puts SELFPUB on a platform with other material of a like nature. Worth
proposing?
FT2
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
It's a major issue, and needs recognition as such and a cultural problem,
not just on ANI but anywhere it happens.
FT2.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
> It seems like the trick is to work toward implementing this as an actual
> cultural ideology, which it c
709494>].
It's even possible to be civil and courteous to self-announced racists when
deleting their hate material
[4<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NatDemUK#Your_user_page_.28again.29>].
Taking firm action and even disagreeing is compatible with respecting others
and consideri
s were not sufficiently followed by all participating admins.
If they had been, you would not have felt as you describe.
My argument is therefore directly in line with that - that admins need to be
first and foremost, people who can and do exemplify good standards of
conduct - even in a heated mat
I should say, the fact we are willing to discuss not assume is fine.
Obviosuly the harm and upset arising is not.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM, FT2 wrote:
(Snip)
> The second problem beyond that is the problem of "fiddling while Rome
> burns". While we potter round discus
take care to be visibly fair and neutral even
if they could argue they aren't involved, take care to explain and apologize
if needed rather than assume or act rough.
This is what I mean by needing users to have the right basic attitude. the
rest then overlays that.
FT2
On Fri, Jul 16, 20
min when one is
not a good custodian of Wiki norms and has a basically substandard or poor
attitude on wiki basics.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[
User:FT2/RfA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA>]].
Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that?
FT2
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
> So to speak more generally, what I'm tryin
don't? doesn't.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
ys "we can't decide" - is
better conveyed in one article.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Updated at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pending_changes#How_it_affects_past_revisions_and_page_history
FT2
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Carl (CBM) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM, FT2 wrote:
> > Once a revision is no longer current, then whether it was
>
quot; edits are no more "lost" than they ever were. The
purpose of pending changes is to ensure the current presented version will
be presentable to non-editors and logged-out users - nothing more.
FT2
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at
to this thread with a list of all
Flagged Revs related pages (whether RFCs, proposals, or major threads) so we
can see what's out there?
FT2
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:34 AM, FT2 wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, R
information.
>
Might it be worth gathering all Flagged Revs pages and moving them to
[[WP:Pending Changes/Historical discussions/...]] with redirects, to make
clear what's what?
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia
Edit review is not bad.
FT2
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 25 May 2010 02:33, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> > I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be
> > interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of
>
elay is not yet known as this is a new anti-vandalism
measure, but should not be excessive. We'll be watching it carefully."*
(or similar.)
FT2
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 wrote:
> > *+ **"...The average delay
*+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around minutes, and we'll
be watching this carefully."*
FT2
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, FT2 wrote:
> "Pending edits" might describe the edits, but not the "regime" or tool.
>
> "Delayed ed
unknown editor edits the article, the edits won't be made public until they
have been given a basic check by vandalism patrollers. Once they are cleared
as non-vandal edits they'll be made public".*
FT2
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:57 PM, AGK wrote:
> On 21 May 2010 22
Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet
points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but
haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
FT2
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
&
following about 3-4 years after that, in the wake of that recognition.
FT2
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Michael Ritchey wrote:
> In which year of Wikipedia's existence did it start to really attract and
> satisfy users? In other words, when did it hit a critical mass of good
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
> >> Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good*
> >> dicks to act like dicks?
> FT2 wrote:
> > No. I'm saying IAR ensures that /if/ an admin wishes to act
&g
e an
indfividual judgment on it."
In a project where anyone can write wordings, the communal sense of the
spirit of a policy, and its pre-eminence, is quite a significant thing.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsub
;yes you did follow the strict rules. But you're still not following
the spirit of them."
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
reviewing the interface wordings for RevDelete and Flagged Revisions to try
and improve their commonsense-ness -- see my
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091001134721&limit=50&target=FT2>here
and on the flagged
rev's test
wiki<h
t any reasonable witness
exposed to that same item would agree is obvious to the five senses.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
n see what its basic plot is", and we
have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says.
(Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.)
FT2
___
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 Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
> >
> >> So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in
> principle
> >> check i
e point. And agreed that it is infuriatingly vague in a way, to some
people, because something not written can matter more than the words on the
page.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this ma
If you try and run Wikipedia literally "by the policies" (including IAR) but
not the spirit, you'll get close but there will regularly be areas you'll
miss the point, the "what a clueful person might intuit" (which will surely
be divergent with others!)
FT2
On Wed,
n. That would in principle
suffice for something that anyone could check and anyone agree upon --
obvious, clear, blatant, unambiguous, verifiable. Because reliable sources
are expected to be correct, if it's contradicted by sources, then other
editors will require some kind of evid
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Is it common to get birth years wrong by 14 years?
>
Yes. Ask any work colleague over 60 how old they are - "Oh, I'm 40 next
birthday"!
More to the point claims of older age than one has (or younger youth) may be
strongly upheld all of one'
do know
what credible students of reality, history and culture have concluded and
without dipping into philosophy, that is what we document.
It's not fireworks and adventure. It's documenting what credible sources
state, and the fact that credible sources do state those things.
IAR is t
g in the context of her article as well.
So state the facts. It's fine to say "source X states Y and source P states
Q" or the like.
Where it becomes OR is if you then start to draw your own conclusions from
it, which one is "right", etc, if you don't have a good basis t
ay help you. Another is here, where there is
some genuine historical uncertainty to whether the matter existed or not:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_speech_on_August_19,_1939>
Between those two, you should get some good ideas.
FT2
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rob wrote:
On 9/18/09, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> If I may push my most radical suggestion, I want i.e. <> to be a
> shortcut for allowing for very short references in
> text.
Interesting idea. May be worthwhile.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailin
le to see what's changed between any peer reviewed
editions.
FT2
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:44 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the p
et the paper be
updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's
paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it traditionally works, but in a
number of ways, better.
FT2
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:27 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:19:21 PM Pa
y, or upon major new information, so they
become a living document -- the paper on the higgs boson as it is now, and
the same paper as it was a year, 2 years ago, showing the advance of
knowledge and correcting itself as time passes and knowledge develops.
FT2
__
long-term,
is worth considering. Making Wikipedia more approachable by academics is
worthwhile too. A peer reviewed WikiJournal sounds good.
FT2
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:19 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
?"
Nobody knows how it'll work out, or what the best approach is, how it needs
to evolve to not disrupt our better editorial processes (hence the long
discussions and trials), but in all the approaches, that's the basic idea.
FT2
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Surreptit
> now in Commons.
>
One difference whether the content was added by someone uninvolved in the
"paid text", who reviewed it and without any reward to themselves felt "this
is good material to include". or by someone who stood to gain (directly
or indirectly) by having t
ath issues.
So might anything, potentially.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Passed on to WP:AN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Protection_template_issue
FT2
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Okay, found out why.
>
> You need to account for [[Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to
> dispute]] and
or better more up to date information, let us know!"
I also might consider trialling a button that said "If you notice an error,
omission, outdated facts, or any other ways we can improve this article,
'''[[TALK PAGE|click here]]''' and let us know!"
FT2
___
the category isn't itself a subcategory of
some "protected pages" category. Specifically, there are protection
templates <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protection_templates> such
as "Pp-dispute" that don't also include the page in one of the main
"pro
recreation. Those don't appear in categories either.
It looks like you'd need to do a check on actual status of mainspace pages
via the toolserver to get accurate statistics.
FT2
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>
> One of the best responses to some of the
#x27;ll read it is in the media...
so we have to bludgeon home it ISN'T.
(There would have been a "graphic imagery spoiler", but we deleted
spoilers ages ago)
FT2
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>> ... and then, when the claim proves to be false,
ors, so
I don't have to spend time on them and can focus on these sections".
However I would be relying on my own experience and using it as a tool to
assist and help me shortcut doing things I do already, not as a bible of
reliability, a substitute for reliable sources, or as a measure of
stead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get
the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> How would the blame maps work with people editing around vandalism? For
> e
r it is a tool that needs
considerable experienced interpretation and is *misleading *without it.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:23 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our
> interface without adequate testing. Quality or trust in an
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/8/31 FT2 :
> > Yes. Incredibly useful. What I'd like would be when colors are shown, if
> you
> > hover over some text it pops up a hover of the user who wrote it and when
> it
> > was written (the re
der, having a narrow top bar
that doesn't scroll, where status, flagged revision etc info can be put that
will always be visible no matter where you are in the article.
FT2
___
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, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active
> for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion
> and have very low average "trust" levels? And more recent editors may
> have higher trust levels?
>
her guides, 2/ we
don't want to encourage a move to that kind of user evaluation metric anyway
for the many reasons given.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
>
> > 2009/8/31 Brian :
> > > I would
ure but slightly skewed pages, or a sock user. the page text will
show reversion, recreation or aging which is useful... but the author's
trust rating will be very variable.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Brian wrote:
> Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too little inf
ou don't need to publish trust scores of users, and
even telling a user their own trust score is merely a toehold into self
promotion/gaming at best. People should edit, not be encouraged to keep
scorecards.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Nathan Russell wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3
Color coding to show aging of text (Wikitrust) has been around for ages -- I
think since shortly after the Seigenthaler incident or some 2006 incident,
or some research around 2006 ish.
Maybe this means the owners will run it live or something. I don't know.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:
Is there an easy way to identify new editors? As in, new accounts are easy,
but many users start as IPs.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> > The Welcome Wagon sought to bring them into the community
>
> If it was bought back, would it survive?
>
>
Indeed. It was a milestone compared to what went before, and enabled citing
to become a norm or expectation (rather than an option) in practice not just
theory.
But its some years on and we're in the #5 and useability... methynks we can
do better still :)
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:
One immediate if minor advantage: old references don't get lost from the
text, when their first mention is removed.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, FT2 wrote:
> Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
>
> The main disadvantage would be t
ticle, the references list (separate text box
below) scrolls to that citation, which can be edited.
Some minor details to be worked out but... any mileage?
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Well-sourced junk that reads like it belongs on Simple En.wiki:
>
>
I'm serious.....
FT2
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:09 PM, wrote:
> Only if I get to write the Drama chapter.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: FT2
> To: English Wikipedia
> Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Positives to publicity
>
I'd be all up for writing a wikibook introduction to Wikipedia. Anyone else
interested? :)
FT2
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Keegan Paul wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM, wrote:
>
> >
> > Just imagine how many Terabytes of data are hiden under the iceberg t
2expert+editors%22
Examples:
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25408&Itemid=62
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208941/Free-edit-Wikipedia-appoints-volunteer-editors-vet-changes-articles-living-people.html
FT2
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 a
ions to these and see what effect it has on editing quantity
and quality.
That's how I'd explain it (condensed and simplified as needed for the media
concerned).
FT2
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/26 David Gerard :
> > 2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle
Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you.
FT2
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Andrew
> Turvey wrote:
> > Similar story also reported by the BBC:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm
>
&
I'm waiting for actual definitive information on enwiki or meta.
FT2
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Keith Old wrote:
> G'day folks,
>
> The New York Times reports on flagged revisions:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipe
ies do not insist on it all.
FT2
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:57 PM, wrote:
> You do not need to mention "all" contributors.
> A satisfactory attribution is merely a URL pointing to the Wikipedia
> article and possibly one pointing at the history page.
> By our inaction we&
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/15 Charles Matthews :
>
> Imagine the Obama "Wikipedia Care" plan. Can the government
> successfully intervene to save Wikipedia?
>
>
> - d.
" $700 bn +/- a few dimes, divided by about 100k active participants =
."
I could
other removal/deletion processes, which would
in the usual course routinely be handled by admins. if not, then part of
cleanup is that the non-admin closer tags the redirect as {{db-reason}} or
such.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> I have the impression that that
It's simpler than that. "Move" has an option not to leave a redirect.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> There is no draft namespace (yet). That would have to be proposed and
> discussed on-wiki (discussions here are more like brain-storming). The
&
Something like deletionism/inclusionism would only really be useful in terms
of "phases Wikipedia has gone through" or "issues that its editors had to
resolve on the way". There's a lot of those.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote:
ot;which side should this item fall into", mostly the criteria are agreed, the
broad conclusions drawn.
FT2
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards :
>
> >> To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interv
es the term or which mention the term in the draft, or create the
draft in draftspace as [[Draft:PAGENAME]].
This is in addition of course to usual options which would then continue:
"If you are experienced at editing and wish to directly create an article
without a draft..."
FT2
e topic of the thread) don't use userspace for drafting, but
go directly to mainspace.
FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
using a formal draft: space
(clarity, collaboration, ease of finding, more obvious, less pressure on new
editors).
FT2
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> FT2 wrote:
> > Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
