Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't.
- d.
On 3/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't.
Is there any particular reason you're putting this on the mailing list?
On 3/10/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any particular reason you're putting this on the mailing list?
Because he wants to see if you really will oppose or challenge absolutely anything anyone does, ever.
Experiment over.
Ryan
On 3/10/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any particular reason you're putting this on the mailing list?
Because he wants to see if you really will oppose or challenge absolutely anything anyone does, ever.
Experiment over.
Huh? I really suspect David has better things to do with his time than that.
Is there any particular reason you're putting this on the mailing list?
Because he wants to see if you really will oppose or challenge absolutely anything anyone does, ever.
Huh? I really suspect David has better things to do with his time than that.
Touché!
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/10/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any particular reason you're putting this on the mailing list?
Because he wants to see if you really will oppose or challenge absolutely anything anyone does, ever.
Experiment over.
Huh? I really suspect David has better things to do with his time than that.
To look like he is in the loop :-)
----------
More seriously, I think Carl Furstenberg and Steve Bennet questions are the most important ones to focus on and deal with.
And nobody answered them yet.
Wait a bit more and some will also ask who is Jimbo ;-)
Ant
More seriously, I think Carl Furstenberg and Steve Bennet questions are the most important ones to focus on and deal with.
And nobody answered them yet.
Wait a bit more and some will also ask who is Jimbo ;-)
Ant
Yes, Ant, exactly. If this project is to be *inclusive*, then everybody who joins has to be brought up to speed.
I have a picture of Danny in my head from Wikimania 2005, but I struggle to recall his surname.
Using first names (or handles or nicknames) only is a method to keep the "in crowd" in, and the "out crowd" excluded.
Some, like David Gerard, use real names almost everywhere in Wikipedia.
David started this thread, BTW.
BCNU.... and YMMV as always,
G'day Florence,
Gordon Joly wrote:
BCNU.... and YMMV as always,
Talking about inclusive and exclusive... what do BCNU and YMMV mean ?
BCNU = "I'll be seeing you". You may find it amusing to imagine Gordon with his thumb and index finger pressed together to form a circle, which is in turn held over his eye to emphasise the "seeing". Then again, you might not.
YMMV = "Your Mileage May Vary", a totally outdated saying unfit for such modern marvels as you and I. The *real* abbreviation ought to be YKMASD.
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Florence,
Gordon Joly wrote:
BCNU.... and YMMV as always,
Talking about inclusive and exclusive... what do BCNU and YMMV mean ?
BCNU = "I'll be seeing you". You may find it amusing to imagine Gordon with his thumb and index finger pressed together to form a circle, which is in turn held over his eye to emphasise the "seeing". Then again, you might not.
YMMV = "Your Mileage May Vary", a totally outdated saying unfit for such modern marvels as you and I. The *real* abbreviation ought to be YKMASD.
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
?!?!?
Well, I found this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_mileage_may_vary
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/~crosby/IllBeSeeingYou.html ???
/me goes banana
G'day Florence,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Florence,
Gordon Joly wrote:
BCNU.... and YMMV as always,
Talking about inclusive and exclusive... what do BCNU and YMMV mean ?
BCNU = "I'll be seeing you". You may find it amusing to imagine Gordon with his thumb and index finger pressed together to form a circle, which is in turn held over his eye to emphasise the "seeing". Then again, you might not.
YMMV = "Your Mileage May Vary", a totally outdated saying unfit for such modern marvels as you and I. The *real* abbreviation ought to be YKMASD.
?!?!?
Heh, I guess I was a bit obscure. Whimsical mood; you know how it is.
Well, I found this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_mileage_may_vary
That's a pretty good description. YMMV means, basically, "things may be different for you than they are for me".
"I'll be seeing you" is a phrase used by some when they say goodbye. It's equivalent to "See you later" or "Until we meet again".
The thing with the fingers was a reference to the television show /Prisoner/ or, for our younger readers, /Babylon 5/.
/me goes banana
The YKMASD thing I just made up to be funny (did it work?), and stands for Your Kilometreage May Act Slightly Differently, which is pure parody.
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
May I suggest that it would be helpful if Danny started using some kind of generic explanatory template for WP:OFFICE protections? Every time it's used, people are rather confused and frustrated until it's explained.
SCZenz
On 3/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:42:18 -0800, you wrote:
May I suggest that it would be helpful if Danny started using some kind of generic explanatory template for WP:OFFICE protections? Every time it's used, people are rather confused and frustrated until it's explained.
Alternatively they could always try thinking a little. Guy (JzG)
People who have it explained once, and then get it, are just fine. People who have had it explained once, and don't get it, that's their problem. It's the people who haven't ever seen it before that deserve an explanation.
SCZenz
On 3/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:42:18 -0800, you wrote:
May I suggest that it would be helpful if Danny started using some kind of generic explanatory template for WP:OFFICE protections? Every time it's used, people are rather confused and frustrated until it's explained.
Alternatively they could always try thinking a little. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:01:54 -0800, you wrote:
People who have it explained once, and then get it, are just fine. People who have had it explained once, and don't get it, that's their problem. It's the people who haven't ever seen it before that deserve an explanation.
Yes, I like the new template, although discussing on the talk page is not really an option here, wait until the matter is sorted and details available is really all we can do. Guy (JzG)
To be fair, the tag that geni removed was placed there by me. Danny had protected the article in question on February 10, inserting the standard "protected" notice and placing the comment "[[WP:Office]]" into the protection log.
On 8 March, I found it protected and did the normal check in the history and the talk page. Finding nothing special, and considering this to be a forgotten protection, I unprotected. When informed that the page had been protected under [[WP:OFFICE]] I reprotected and at that point inserted the following tag at the head of the article:
"This article was protected on 15:32, 10 February 2006 by [[User:Danny]] as an [[WP:OFFICE|Office Action]]" [[Category:Protected]]
After that, things seem to have become a little surreal. Someone removed the notice and was briefly desysopped by Danny.
I'm glad that we now have a template {{OFFICE}}. Pages protected under this tag are placed in the category "Office Protected", a subcategory of "Protected", and are unlikely to be mistaken for routing protections. Unprotections under this tag should be cleared with the person who performed the protection. Only people delegated by Jimbo to perform such protections (currently I think that is Danny) may perform administrator actions under [[WP:OFFICE]].
Tony Sidaway wrote:
To be fair, the tag that geni removed was placed there by me. Danny had protected the article in question on February 10, inserting the standard "protected" notice and placing the comment "[[WP:Office]]" into the protection log.
On 8 March, I found it protected and did the normal check in the history and the talk page. Finding nothing special, and considering this to be a forgotten protection, I unprotected. When informed that the page had been protected under [[WP:OFFICE]] I reprotected and at that point inserted the following tag at the head of the article:
"This article was protected on 15:32, 10 February 2006 by [[User:Danny]] as an [[WP:OFFICE|Office Action]]" [[Category:Protected]]
I should add that Feburary 10 -> March 8 is *entirely too long* for a WP:OFFICE protection. Anyone finding something protected that long should be verrrrrrrrry welcome to email Danny *and* me (cc please) to ask what is up. Normally that length of protection would indicate either a mistake or something serious.
I would say that in most cases, WP:OFFICE need not result in protection (semi-protection is more likely), and when there is protection it should normally not be for more than a couple of days.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I should add that Feburary 10 -> March 8 is *entirely too long* for a WP:OFFICE protection. Anyone finding something protected that long should be verrrrrrrrry welcome to email Danny *and* me (cc please) to ask what is up. Normally that length of protection would indicate either a mistake or something serious.
I would say that in most cases, WP:OFFICE need not result in protection (semi-protection is more likely), and when there is protection it should normally not be for more than a couple of days.
This resolves almost all of my concerns about this situation. As an avowed eventualist I can withstand _anything_ for a couple of days. :)
SCZenz wrote:
May I suggest that it would be helpful if Danny started using some kind of generic explanatory template for WP:OFFICE protections? Every time it's used, people are rather confused and frustrated until it's explained.
This is a reasonable request. The kinds of situations vary, of course. In some cases, there may be a *legal* reason why not much can be said in the short run. In *most* cases, it's really about trying to head off something before it turns ugly.
--Jimbo