Remember it?
1,927,797articles at the time of writing. 1,529 featured articles. That leaves 1,926,268 articles that you could be working on improving.
Does it really matter if [administrator of your choice] is a [secret agent/evil overlord/janitor/popular TV talk show host]? Even if s/he is, there's not much you can do about it.
On 8/2/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Does it really matter if [administrator of your choice] is a [secret agent/evil overlord/janitor/popular TV talk show host]? Even if s/he is, there's not much you can do about it.
Great sentiment :)
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]] (evil overlord!)
On 8/2/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Remember it?
1,927,797articles at the time of writing. 1,529 featured articles. That leaves 1,926,268 articles that you could be working on improving.
Ah no about 150 articles are currently hard protected. Includeing [[Rorschach inkblot test]].
Does it really matter if [administrator of your choice] is a [secret agent/evil overlord/janitor/popular TV talk show host]?
Potentialy. Popular TV talk show host could have COI issues.
Even if s/he is, there's not much you can do about it.
Not true.
On 8/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Remember it?
1,927,797articles at the time of writing. 1,529 featured articles. That leaves 1,926,268 articles that you could be working on improving.
Ah no about 150 articles are currently hard protected. Includeing [[Rorschach inkblot test]].
Does it really matter if [administrator of your choice] is a [secret agent/evil overlord/janitor/popular TV talk show host]?
Potentialy. Popular TV talk show host could have COI issues.
Even if s/he is, there's not much you can do about it.
Not true.
-- geni
So geni, do you just argue for the hell of it? Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish with the above responses? You might want to try being more constructive, or just keep your mouth shut.
Erica
On 02/08/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Remember it?
1,927,797articles at the time of writing. 1,529 featured articles.
That
leaves 1,926,268 articles that you could be working on improving.
Ah no about 150 articles are currently hard protected. Includeing [[Rorschach inkblot test]].
Does it really matter if [administrator of your choice] is a [secret agent/evil overlord/janitor/popular TV talk show host]?
Potentialy. Popular TV talk show host could have COI issues.
Even if s/he is, there's not much you can do about it.
Not true.
-- geni
So geni, do you just argue for the hell of it? Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish with the above responses? You might want to try being more constructive, or just keep your mouth shut.
Erica
I kinda see the point - isn't the list about improving Wikipedia? the whole lions of zions thing should have been salted a week ago. Wikipedia as some people forget has history lists its just petty to continue arguing over and over. Any person on this list can probably see POV and it is easily dealt with.
mike
On 8/2/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
So geni, do you just argue for the hell of it? Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish with the above responses?
The first two comments are just low level humor.
You might want to try being more constructive, or just keep your mouth shut.
The fact is that attempts to sweep the debate under the carpet so far have proved unhelpful. I would suggest that further attempts by almost any method including the one in the opening email of the tread are unwise due to the risk of people finding them patronizing.
Is that dirrect enough this time?
On 8/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
So geni, do you just argue for the hell of it? Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish with the above responses?
The first two comments are just low level humor.
No, actually it's calling you on your pointless arguing. Kamryn's message is that we should be working on the encyclopedia. You say that there are 150 articles that are hard protected-- so what? You are arguing some issue that is not relevant here.
You might want to try being more constructive, or just keep your mouth shut.
The fact is that attempts to sweep the debate under the carpet so far have proved unhelpful. I would suggest that further attempts by almost any method including the one in the opening email of the tread are unwise due to the risk of people finding them patronizing.
Is that dirrect enough this time?
geni
That is more direct, yes. By arguing about off-topic points (like whether we can do something about an editor being a secret agent) you did not put forth your opinion clearly.
Erica
On 8/2/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
So geni, do you just argue for the hell of it? Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish with the above responses?
The first two comments are just low level humor.
No, actually it's calling you on your pointless arguing. Kamryn's message is that we should be working on the encyclopedia. You say that there are 150 articles that are hard protected-- so what? You are arguing some issue that is not relevant here.
You might want to try being more constructive, or just keep your mouth shut.
The fact is that attempts to sweep the debate under the carpet so far have proved unhelpful. I would suggest that further attempts by almost any method including the one in the opening email of the tread are unwise due to the risk of people finding them patronizing.
Is that dirrect enough this time?
geni
That is more direct, yes. By arguing about off-topic points (like whether we can do something about an editor being a secret agent) you did not put forth your opinion clearly.
Erica
What does "hard protected" mean? And "soft protected?" Is the latter when a page is protected from IP editing?
KP
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
What does "hard protected" mean? And "soft protected?" Is the latter when a page is protected from IP editing?
KP
Yes. Hard protected is no editing by non admins. In the case of [[Rorschach inkblot test]] this is due to an edit war. Talk page makes interesting reading.
On 8/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
What does "hard protected" mean? And "soft protected?" Is the latter when a page is protected from IP editing?
KP
Yes. Hard protected is no editing by non admins. In the case of [[Rorschach inkblot test]] this is due to an edit war. Talk page makes interesting reading.
-- geni
So, I thought semi-protected was no IPs, then hard-protected is no non-admins. Okay, thanks.
KP
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
So, I thought semi-protected was no IPs, then hard-protected is no non-admins. Okay, thanks.
KP, that is correct (with the added effect that registered accounts newer than a certain number of days have the same restrictions as IPs).
—C.W.
On 8/2/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Remember it?
I remember it. I also remember that it's "just a website". This is forgotten by many wikipedians and also by the meatspacers on the so called "badsites". I have a hard time believing that whatever happened to those detractors here was so terrible that they feel that they have to make trouble for editors and admins in the real world.
On 8/2/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
1,927,797articles at the time of writing.
That's awfully close to 2,000,000. We'll probably pass that mark in a month or so. Are we going to anoint an official two millionth and issue a press release, like we did for [[Jordanhill railway station]]?