I can just about cope with admins, but tutored editors and reviewers? what
more do we have to put up with. Testing my own flags on QA - who on earth is
going to rate them and have the time? The backlog is going to be outta
sight. k we start with GA and FA when will editors have time to decide on
new GA and FA and when every article above stub who is going to decide and
when?
misery, misery.
On 19/01/2008, Jonathan (Wikipedia) <jonathan.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that we might be able to create a Tutorial:* namespace when we
> get quite a few more Signpost tutorials. I think that it'd be easier
> than having to dig up those tutorials by searching through the Signpost
> archives. Thoughts?
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Hi all,
wouldn't it be a good idea to start blocking school (not university)
IPs indefinitely. I have rarely seen a good edit come from one of these
and the time spend on vandal fighting them is just wasted time, really.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
I'm not sure this is the right list for this, but I've been thinking
about this for awhile now. Surely, some languages that Wikipedia is
offered in are unnecessary and obsolete. For example Gothic and
Allemanisch and many other German dialects. Anybody who can uses
Wikipedia in a German dialacet spoken in Germany can also at least read
standard German.
Why am I against such languages? A) They are an additional cost and
Wikipedia isn't exactly swimming in money and B) the contributors of
these Wikipedias would be making contributions to the larger more
popular and also more necessary standard version of the language. I know
this from several cases that good editors switched from Standard German
to their local dialect, for "a laugh".
Of course, this doesn't apply to all dialects and all dead languages.
Latin for example is still used in academic circles and is therefor not
dead in my opinion. However, I don't see many people writing in Goth
anymore.
What is the general opinion on this, am I alone in thinking that this is
maybe an issue that needs to be addressed?
Ian [[User:Poeloq]], who is running the risk of making some enemies ;-)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/articl…
"I did a quick test on my own, looking up Nancy Mitford (I'm a fan) and
judging the results on time and accuracy. Wikipedia gave me four pages of
almost 100 per cent accurate information (I rang her niece, Emma Tennant,
who spotted one small error), together with 33 links to related characters
and a 16-line bibliography suggesting further reading. I got the whole lot
in ten seconds.
"The Britannica required a 20-minute trip to my nearest library. It gave me
350 words and a bibliography with one entry (Harold Acton's memoir). The
online version offered the chance of signing up to a 30-day free trial, but
still required my credit card details, replete with reassurances about
taking my privacy "very seriously" - always a worrying sign. The DNB
provided by far the best and fullest entry (but so it should). However, a
month's subscription costs £29.35, and a year will set you back £195 plus
VAT."
--
Sam Blacketer
Where do our most dedicated parser abusers hang out? They need to know
about this.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 17 Jan 2008 13:34
Subject: [Foundation-l] Help needed to fix broken templates
To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
(Cross-posting to wikitech-l and foundation-l, I suggest replying on
wikitech-l.)
All known bugs in the new preprocessor have been fixed. So it's now time
to enable it on Wikimedia. Unfortunately, a lot of articles and templates
rely on bugs in the old parser, and ideally they should be fixed before
the switchover.
We'll be aiming to switch to the new preprocessor on the 24th of January.
For technical background information about this project see my first post
on this subject:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-November/035154.html
Over the past few days, Splarka and MZMcBride have been putting in a great
deal of work to beta test the new parser, by checking articles on the
English Wikipedia and several other wikis for any changes. Between the
three of us, we've built up extensive documentation of the commonly-seen
differences between the old and new parsers, and we've identified and
fixed eight distinct bugs in the new parser.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Migration_to_the_new_preprocessor
We'd now like to invite the rest of the community to help.
This post is just a brief summary of the wiki page, please go there to
find out more.
The two most common problems with existing articles are comments after
headings, and abuse of bug 5678. Here's a comment after a heading:
== Heading == <!-- that was a heading -->
This will still make a heading in the new preprocessor, but it won't make
a section edit link. In the old parser, it does make a section edit link.
This change was done to resolve various incarnations of bug 4899, i.e.
mismatches between the section edit link and the section you end up editing.
Bug 5678 is a cluster of problems associated with double-parsing of the
results of parser functions. It's often reported and causes a great deal
of distress. But since the standard way to find out how to write wikitext
is to try it and see what works, many people have inadvertently utilised
behaviour arising from this bug to do various things.
A typical example is misuse of {{!}} to separate template parameters, as in:
{{#if:1| {{template{{!}}parameter}} }}
In the new preprocessor, {{!}} can never be used to separate parameters.
The fact that it was possible in the old parser in certain circumstances
was an accident.
Please see [[m:Migration to the new preprocessor]] for information about
how you can find and fix these problems.
I have introduced two cool new parser features to help ease the pain:
{{#tag:}} and {{#iferror:}}. #tag allows you to invoke XML-style tags such
as <ref> with syntax similar to parser functions, with full access to
template parameters. For example:
{{#tag:ref|[{{{url}}} {{{text}}}]}}
This is equivalent to:
<ref>[{{{url}}} {{{text}}}]</ref>
except that it works. You can also use #tag to call <imagemap> and
<gallery>. #tag is a core parser function with a slightly different syntax
to the one used by the TagParser extension. It is intended for use in
meta-templates where the simpler XML-style syntax is not sufficiently
versatile.
#iferror detects error return codes from #time and #expr. It is part of
the ParserFunctions extension.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The FlaggedRevs code shudders forward! This is not "happening news"
yet, it's sort of pre-news ... but! Progress! :-D
Once it's fit for public use, the plan is still to put it on de:wp and
see how that goes. (Not sure yet what criteria will be used to decide
if the trial is a success, failure or what.)
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: P. Birken <pbirken(a)gmail.com>
Date: 14 Jan 2008 04:19
Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Current Status
To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions <wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
A happy new year to everybody. Thanks to Aaron and Tim, the code is
now fit for large-scale applications. The next step (large-scale
betatest or immediate deployment) is now under discussion, I'll keep
you in the loop.
The current version of the extension using a set of parameters that
shows most features, but will not be used in this form, can be found
on test.wikipedia.org and you can give yourself rights by logging in
and going to http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userrights.
If you find any bugs or points you want to discuss, right now would be
a good time :-)
Best,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~
am i doing this right?
sorry to bother you but your site has lost or deleted
the page " duffen cory"
can you help me recover the page which was posted for historic reasons only
I was the subject matter of several famous David Hockney works
and I have no idea how to recover from the delete ( that originally said it needed a clean up )
thank you in advance
duffen cory
