Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I don't understand how this [off topic discussion about big diamonds and
physics] even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
It relates because using anything claiming it to be forever is stupid.
Short of
And I've said a hundred times that there's nothing wrong with cubic
zirconia.
Just don't let your girlfriend/wife hear you.
-X!
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
stevertigo wrote:
And I've said a hundred times that there's nothing wrong with cubic
zirconia.
Soxred93 soxre...@gmail.com wrote:
Just don't let your girlfriend/wife hear you.
That's not a problem.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people? That banner is
totally horrible and I really wonder if it even was a Wikipedia editor who
proposed it with all those capital letters.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:38
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Evangeline Han evanbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Because their advice was that it would work. It probably is working.
Steve
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still
alive in some alternate afterlife reality, I'm sure
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever the previous owner of the Koh-I-Noor is in fact still
alive in some
Evangeline Han evanbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Can the Foundation give an explanation as to why they went on with putting
up that banner despite strong opposition from many people?
Giving out explanations would defeat the purpose of having a command
entity in the first place. A command is exactly
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion years, which, as anyone knows, forever.
And if whoever
I don't understand how this even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily
On Nov 15, 2009, at 12:52 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
A DIAMOND IS FOREVER.
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not exactly true. Sol will consume Terra in only about 3.8
billion
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I'm personally not a big fan of the ads either, but if they were
substantially more effective, then I'd have to think about whether this
is one of those many occasions where my personal tastes diverge from
what makes a
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I don't understand how this even relates to banner slogans, people!
Emily
It relates because using anything claiming it to be forever is stupid.
Short of theological concepts and some metaphysical debate on the
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy,
in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I
don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously
aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously
involved with the
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
It is pretty much traditional for the fundraiser to cause controversy,
in fact. I know how Oleg feels. These days I ignore the ads, since I
don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously
aimed at
Brian J Mingus wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost
universally bad
impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much
money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many
Wikipedians the wrong way. It was created by a
Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost universally bad
impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much
money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many
Wikipedians the wrong
2009/11/13 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Well its tacky - if for no other reason that it presumes to represent
Wikipedia's eternal presence. Which is an interesting thought about
futurism, but one that needs an essay to link to. And the slogan is
in SHOUTCASE, which everybody knows is the
WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!
It just sounds like a war cry or triumphal primal scream.
I'd rather the words help or support were in there.
The cry makes it sound like Wikipedia is not the least fragile. It
sounds like it doesn't need support.
___
WikiEN-l
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov
oleg.alexand...@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current WIKIPEDIA FOREVER banner to be creepy. I don't
have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want
us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad
one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say,
it could always be worse.
IT'S A CONSPIRACY! :D
-X!
geni wrote:
Is there an actual place to discuss the wording of such banners?
It's ended up a bit spread out but:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Launch_Feedback
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners
That's quite some feedback.
Has
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want
us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad
one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say,
it could always be worse.
It is pretty much traditional for the
These days I ignore the ads, since I
don't see why I should give money well as time: and they are obviously
aimed at Wikipedia's readers, who outnumber the people seriously
involved with the site by a factor of 10,000 or more by now.
I share the same feeling. As an editor, I think I
2009/11/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want
us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad
one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say,
it could
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov
oleg.alexand...@gmail.comwrote:
I have been a Wikipedian for five years. I am an administrator, I have
written tens of articles, created hundreds of pictures, and made tens
of thousands of edits. I love Wikipedia and all that it represents.
I
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:38, Oleg Alexandrov
oleg.alexand...@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current WIKIPEDIA FOREVER banner to be creepy. I don't
have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of
soliciting donations.
I know exactly what I dislike about it: it feels like the
28 matches
Mail list logo
