Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
the english list to the general list, where it is
could we just swap mailing list names since
discussions relevant on english matter are on the
general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
community are on the english list ?
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Sigh. Another thinly veiled threat from our dear
"Sadly, you didn't learn your lesson from your first
attempt at slander and censure.
There are very few things you will regret more in your
life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong,
racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to
realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back
in, so, you deserve what you get. This is very sad.
You seemed to have grown up. But obviously not."
"There are very few things you will regret more in
your life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer." Sounds a lot like a mobster
telling a buisnessman that he will "regret" not doing
what the mobster wants. Sigh.
Sorry Craig Hubley (who lives in the Toranto area),
but the only regret is that I gave you some slack. The
hard ban will be enforced.
If my mentioning the real name of 142.177 was out of
line, then somebody delete this post.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
I believe the name "Brilliant prose" is problematic for several reasons:
- It emphasizes writing, while a good article needs to be written well,
factually accurate, neutral, reasonably complete, nicely illustrated and
well organized. It has to cite its sources, link to related pages and
present all data in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion. I believe
these criteria are not properly encompassed by the word "prose".
- The word "brilliant" is very vague and difficult to define. Accordingly,
many Wikipedians have different ideas as to what is "brilliant prose".
Some interpret the term pragmatically, feeling that every article that
satisfies certain criteria should end up on BP eventually, even if it's
short and to the point. Others understand BP to be always just a
selection, that is, if the average Wikipedia article was on par with most
traditional encyclopedias, BP should only list the very best.
- Last but not least, it conveys a sense of arrogance, and makes us look
foolish if we list an article that is only slightly "non-brilliant". The
likelihood that this happens seems very high. That also makes the title
sound slightly unprofessional (reminiscent of the fun and games days of
the early Wikipedia)
I would therefore like to ask you to brainstorm for a better title. My own
understanding of BP is the pragmatic one, that is, I see BP as our
certification mechanism, and every article should eventually pass through
it. As a matter of fact, I would like to see discussions on every talk
page at a certain point to the effect of "When can we get this listed on
BP, what needs to be done, let's do it".
As with all brainstorming, we should begin by just collecting possible
titles without criticizing them. If one of them clearly stands out, we'll
pick it. Otherwise we can vote on it.
Here are my ideas:
My favorite so far is "Trusted pages".
You'd have thought that our current policy list at "What Wikipedia is
Not" is clear enough on the matter of any old person off the street
adding an article about themselves to Wikipedia: self-published authors,
new prophets, and so on.
But with rising awareness of WP, this will be an increasing problem. See
for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.R.M._Parrott
On VFD he author argues that nothing in our policy forbids a biography
of him, even though we've found only two reviews of his books.
As well as being what we call "non-encyclopedic", these can't be NPOV
since the facts can't be verified.
Should we write a specific policy page about this, to expand the entry
on WWisNot, in a similar way to what I did recently for
>Do we want to inter-wiki-link disambiguation pages?
Yes, I think they're useful.
> there may be a disambiguation page for a term which
> is ambiguous only in English and not in other
>languages ([[jack]] comes to mind).
Then there wouldn't be a disambiguation page in
another language to link to, so that wouldn't be an
issue. Only languages which have a disambiguation page
that matches one in another language would have these
inter-language links, so I don't see why [[jack]]
would cause any problems.
Often a disambiguation page does map well to those in
other languages, such as [[Mars]], which has links to
[[Mars (god)]] and [[Mars (planet)]] in English, that
maps to the [[Mars (Mythologie)]] and [[Mars
(Planet)]] on de for example. There will also be links
on the foreign disambiguation pages that aren't
included on en, like fr has [[Mars (mois)]], but that
doesn't mean the English Mars page has to link to
[[March]]. I don't think that's a problem.
What benefit is there to removing them?
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
I don't suppose that there is a history graph of the donations to Wikimedia.
I was currious
how much of the US$31k was raised as a result of Jimmy Wales' December 28
letter and the
associated Slashdot coverage. I was also wondering if Wikimedia's
accounting ledegers are
open to the public. If not, why (this isn't a flame, I'm sure that there is
a good enough
Thanks for the great site. In my opinion Wikimedia deserves at least
another US$30k in 2004.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to
gain a little security deserved neither and
will lose both." --Benjamin Franklin
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of
human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it
is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
DeForest Kelley is not silly. On Star Trek he played the straight man;
Leonard Nimoy, on the other hand, was always silly. That's why it was so
much fun to watch Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock go at it ;-)
Peter Jaros wrote:
>>The purpose of disamb pages is to catch links made to [[Forest]], and
>>only this. Nobody will write "De[[Forest]] Kelley", will they? Nor
>>will they write "Epping [[forest]]", unless they actually want to link
>>to what a forest generally is.
>Not just for links. They're also to catch lookups when readers use the
>'Go' button. The page should also include anything a reader might be
>looking for by looking up 'Forest'. Though this is probably the same
>as what would link to it if we give the readers any credit. :)
It could reasonably link to [[List of forests]],
but doesn't need to contain such a list itself.
And [[DeForest Kelley]] is just silly. ^_^
I think Jimbo mentioned last month that there is a
problem with self-written biographies: other contributors
may be excessively reluctant to 'contradict' the person
who presumably knows himself best. This issue arose
over the Sheldon Rampton article, although it little
or no problem for the William Connelley article.
The other problem is alleged "vanity pages", like Easter
Bradford. We haven't come up with strict criteria on
how famous a person has to be, to merit an article.
Apparently the fame threshold interacts with the "self-
promotion" taboo in an undefined way.
As it stands, an article about a contributor is more
likely to survive if it's written by someone other than
the contributor. The reasoning being, if at least one
other person has heard of you, maybe you're important?
Sorry if this didn't make anything clearer other than
how incomplete the policy is on self-written and obscure