At 09:55 AM 5/24/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:13 PM 5/22/2010, Rob Lanphier wrote:
What this means is that there would not actually be a separate autoreview
group. Autoconfirmed users would be given the access rights. I made this
simplification because I wasn't able to find any
On 22 May 2010 22:20, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An
edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the
previous version
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong,
I don't think I've seen the word autoreviewer tossed about in any
other context. I was
Oh, I should've figured that one out on my own. Continue on.
Emily
On May 22, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:00, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
I suspect that any action by an autoconfirmed user will automatically
accept something of any actions not yet reviewed. Will those
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong,
I don't
I think you have the terminology right but that is something we
probably want to change if we can.. if we keep using autoreviewer
as a statement there it is going to confuse a lot of people on En
who have seen autoreview as a very different thing for a while now.
Ya know, I was just
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting
for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say,
since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified
in the last few days upon seeing the implementation.
Now that we actually have a proposal,
On 23 May 2010 03:05, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting
for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say,
since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified
in the last few days
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:b8ceeef70908230910h3466019cpcedf7ae0a2c0a...@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd really hate to go to [[curry]] and see recipes. The sorts of
spices that are often included yes. But
wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message news:cde.51a20c14.37c33...@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/23/2009 6:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca, I wrote of a common spam complaint
that is either fraudulent or dangerous.
It's a bit rough to complain about Wikihow in this
I said:
It was there on link six.
Turns out it was not to the wikihow site, just a use of their name.
I did see it on the site, one time. Maybe google does hav scruples and leaks
in those scruples, just like wikipedia.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot
of people would find such practical information very useful.
Perhaps so, but it's not in tune with the idea of an encyclopedia,
which is what we're
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd really hate to go to [[curry]] and see recipes. The sorts of
spices that are often included yes. But not cooking times.
If I look up [[engine]] I want to know how it functions. But I don't
want to see a tutorial on how
In a message dated 8/23/2009 6:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=enq=wikihow+enlargement+penismeta=
It was there on link six.
It's a bit rough to complain about Wikihow in this regard. It's
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:40c6a93a0908201411w75a700derc9a07759fd9d7...@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are
configurable.
Is there a
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 07:31:51AM -0600, Jay Litwyn wrote:
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:40c6a93a0908201411w75a700derc9a07759fd9d7...@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are
configurable.
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
I notice the test wiki has the categories Usefulness,
Presentation, and Neutrality, while the extension documentation
uses four example categories, Reliability, Completeness, NPOV,
and
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
The intent is to set up
http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with a bit
more introductory text and then get the word out to start a
conversation about the
How does this differ from the talk page assessments? If this is meant
only for readers-who-don't-edit, then you will have to tell editors
that, as there will be some editors that try and skew the feedback for
a particular article.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Erik
2009/8/21 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
How does this differ from the talk page assessments? If this is meant
only for readers-who-don't-edit, then you will have to tell editors
that, as there will be some editors that try and skew the feedback for
a particular article.
* People
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:fbad4e140908210704u76f71a4fid58ea2ed952f9...@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
I notice the test wiki has the categories Usefulness,
Presentation, and
2009/8/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/8/20 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
The intent is to set up
http://readerfeedback.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page with a bit
more introductory text and then get the
Jay Litwyn wrote:
Sage Ross wrote
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories Usefulness,
Presentation, and Neutrality, while the extension documentation
uses four example categories, Reliability, Completeness, NPOV,
and
Perhaps the ratings system should only let readers remove a template,
then send them a welcome message (to an IP#, no less) that transcludes
the template of their expertise, and encourages them to follow the links in
it,
and by those actions encourage them to ensure that their rating is even
more
2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot
of people would find such practical information very useful.
Sure, it would be very useful, but it isn't within Wikipedia's scope.
Perhaps a new WikiHowTo project? (Several such
2009/8/21 Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote in message
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature, here's a
suggested list:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_plan
The list there is:
The whole thing,
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote in message
news://news.gmane.org/fbad4e140908211511y22906e4ue3dbbd7b12cfc...@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote in message
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature,
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:a4359dff0908210918w6ad2a4a5q14a3fc036fa31...@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot
of people would find such practical information very
-Original Message-
From: Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:a4359dff0908210918w6ad2a4a5q14a3fc036fa31
2009/8/22 wjhon...@aol.com:
Jay you seem to be under the assumption that Wikia is a sister.
It might be more appropriate to call Wikia your father's new wife or
your first cousin from that part of your family that your family
doesn't talk to anymore.
I agree with you that Wikia isn't a
2009/8/22 wjhon...@aol.com:
Thomas you need some new word to describe the relationship.
We have sister projects. Wikisource for example, wikiquote, etc.
The Wikia domains or subdomains represent something a bit more removed.
Can we call them half-sister projects? Step-sister? What would you
Hooray!
Big thanks to the developers and put your tipple of choice on ice those
of us blessed with ancient powers of foresight are excited that flagged
revisions is finally enabled on the english wikipedia!
Well the smart money's actually on next tuesday, with the official
announcement
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are
configurable.
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories Usefulness,
Presentation,
On Aug 20, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
It allows readers to give feedback (duh ;) on the quality of a page,
sticking a little bar down at the bottom of the article for it.
(You've
probably seen similar sorts of feedback solicitation on other sites
like
Did you find this
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm hoping it will work in practice like wikisource, where there are
four levels of approval as a text goes through the various
transcription and proofreading stages. But I may be misunderstanding
the differences.
I am giving him the bio he so deserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Hattersley please leap in fast if any of
my famed spelling or grammatical errors occur!
giano
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I see.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 21:31, Phil Nash
2009/2/7 Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece
Slightly confused article headed The wiki-snobs are taking over by Giles
Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the
author
Hehe great one.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:20, Giacomo M-Z solebaci...@googlemail.comwrote:
I am giving him the bio he so deserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Hattersley please leap in fast if any
of
my famed spelling or grammatical errors occur!
giano
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:36
Please remember that the archives of this mailing list are available
for anyone to read.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Hehe great one.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 12:20, Giacomo M-Z solebaci...@googlemail.comwrote:
I am giving him the bio he so
2009/2/8 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
Article is dated today, and refers to a proposal Jimmy will be making
tomorrow. Any idea on what this proposal will be?
Revoking [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]]?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/8 wjhon...@aol.com:
I'm sick and tired of this back office wheeling and dealing.
At our last meeting I am *certain* we had agreed to take over the island of
Barbados.
Now I hear this. I'm completely miffed.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:29:29 +, David Gerard wrote:
Sorry, Bono has rights to islands in the Caribbean. Jimbo owns Florida
(except Clearwater, which is owned by Scientology, and the Everglades,
which are owned by Carl Hiaasen) and we have the Arbitration Committee
yacht cruising between
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece
Slightly confused article headed The wiki-snobs are taking over by Giles
Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the
author claims My entry features at least two errors, one
Well maybe it said so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 20:27, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.comwrote:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece
Slightly confused article headed The wiki-snobs are
Alvaro García wrote:
Well maybe it said so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
Well no, he says my entry, and a quick look at Roy Hattersley (which has
fewer than 500 edits), shows nothing in the edit summaries for son,
Giles, mistake or error. While this may not cover all, the
Oh, I see.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 21:31, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Alvaro García wrote:
Well maybe it said so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
Well no, he says my entry, and a quick look at Roy Hattersley (which
has
fewer than 500 edits), shows
I've just checked a small sample of 10d unreviewed changes
from the list. About 50% are not reviewed for unknown reasons,
the can (and I have) be given the flag within 30 seconds of
reading (style changes, URL changes).
The other half are unreferenced additions to articles nobody
cares about
Peter Jacobi wrote:
OTOH, requiring references for each addition would solve the
problem in the other direction.
Every time I've discussed specifics of flags I have come away confused
(admittedly, that is not very often). But, as I understand it, it is
technically possible to have
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Peter Jacobi wrote:
OTOH, requiring references for each addition would solve the
problem in the other direction.
Every time I've discussed specifics of flags I have come away confused
I'm hoping it will
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=englishaction=overviewproject=dewiki
To my mind the more important statistic is that 98% of all articles
have had their most recent revision reviewed.
--
Stephen Bain
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful
statistic would be the age of the oldest unreviewed revision.
What would also be useful would be to put together the list of
articles with
2009/2/2 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful
statistic would be the age of the oldest unreviewed revision.
17.8 days
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important statistic. A more useful
statistic would be the age of
2009/2/2 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree, that's definitely the most important
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=englishaction=overviewproject=dewiki
To my
2009/2/2 Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=englishaction=overviewproject=dewiki
To my mind the more important statistic is that 98% of all articles
have had their
Will these things be applied differentially to talk pages and articles?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/28 Jay Litwyn brewh...@edmc.net:
Will these things be applied differentially to talk pages and articles?
I don't believe flagged-revisions was ever anticipated to be used on
talkpages (or other internal pages) even in a full-scale
implementation
--
- Andrew Gray
FWIW, I did a radio interview yesterday about flagged revisions, on
Chris Evans' show on BBC Radio 2:
http://neurolysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-gerard-on-chris-evans-bbc-radio-2.html
(cheers to Chris Down for the transcript)
Hopefully I set out the controversy neutrally and accurately :-)
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:09 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, I did a radio interview yesterday about flagged revisions, on
Chris Evans' show on BBC Radio 2:
http://neurolysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-gerard-on-chris-evans-bbc-radio-2.html
(cheers to Chris Down for the
The Cunctator wrote:
Funny how it supposedly closes tomorrow but it's already done and archived.
I've never liked the idea that a poll should ever be closed. It would
be enough to make the subject matter implementable when certain
pre-defined thresholds are reached. If at some later time
Funny how it supposedly closes tomorrow but it's already done and archived.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposed trial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial
The voting page:
Probably because of jimbo's comment
On 1/26/09, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny how it supposedly closes tomorrow but it's already done and archived.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposed trial:
2009/1/23 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au:
now that it has been successfully tested elsewhere.
Where and what was capacity was the site? i know know about the
backlogs and such it would cause on somewhere huge like en.wiki even
with all the autoconfirmed users being reviewers or whatever the
Proposed trial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial
The voting page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial/Votes
Closes Fri 24 Jan at 24:00! (I guess that's Sat Jan 25, 00:00.)
- d.
___
2009/1/22 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
That is a really short time period for a poll!
The poll started weeks ago, I think David's just letting people know
it's about to finish. (It seems the closing date was only just decided
on.)
___
Ah ok! I figured something was up as we never have polls that end so
fast! Thanks for posting here as I did not know otherwise!
On 1/22/09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
That is a really short time period for a poll!
The poll
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/23 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
Ah ok! I figured something was up as we never have polls that end so
fast! Thanks for posting here as I did not know otherwise!
If you've managed to miss the whole
Yep! You got it exactly :D
On 1/22/09, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/23 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
Ah ok! I figured something was up as we never have polls that end so
fast! Thanks for
now that it has been successfully tested elsewhere.
Where and what was capacity was the site? i know know about the
backlogs and such it would cause on somewhere huge like en.wiki even
with all the autoconfirmed users being reviewers or whatever the
term that they are using for it is now.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:46 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkl5VDEACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oLsEwCdGMZNsW73O9qm3FmrS0M2SDnZ
uKEAnjd3RDmc8v95UKq21BOQjILjCF5a
=5+yn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
73 matches
Mail list logo
