I hereby decree, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that today shall
forever be known as Magnus Manske day. Wikipedians of the distant future will
marvel at the day when the new software era dawned upon us.
Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should say a toast to Magnus and his many
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:38 am, Helga wrote:
> Hello, I am a little swamped with all the wiki list reading material and it
> seems my limited email is getting overloaded.
You might want to create an email filter to sort any emails with the string
"Helga" in the subject into a special folder (just use the help menu of
whatever email program you use and look up "filter").
Otherwise you may miss some emails that concern you.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Saturday 24 August 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> Something I wondered - how do you know who the new users to greet them?
> Do you just look for user names you haven't seen before or is there some
> way to identify them? I'd be happy to do the meet-and-greet but I don't
> know how to do it.
Well - I guess I do it the hard way and scan each edit in all Recent Changes
for a 24 hour period looking for edit link user names (a dead give-a-away)
and for user names I don't remember seeing before. This works for me since I
pretty good reading comprehension and memory.
What would be most useful is a listing of new users that can be accessed from
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers. That way this job would be
BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a good many of these "users"
logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for other nefarious or
non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who hasn't contributed at
all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these no-longer used user accounts
Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for months and whose user pages
are still edit links)?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Monday 19 August 2002 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> Can still be done later. The problem is the lack of time. If you wait to
> long there are to many links to the new location of the english
> wikipedia that can not be broken. If there is no fundamental objection
> to put the English wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org then that must be done.
> What to do whit www.wikipedia.org can wait (a littel.)
This is just silly -- we are building an encyclopedia here not an
organization. There is nothing at all wrong with having the English wikipedia
at wikipedia.org and have all the pages that are about the English language
project be in the wikipedia namespace (or in the other languages project
namespaces). As each language figures out what to call their wikipedia we can
buy them domain names for that and make sure the xx.wikipedia.com domain
names still work.
Other than being a one-page portal to all the different language wikipedias
(which the Main Page already does -- as do most of the other language main
pages) I don't see any logic in using wikipedia.org for anything other than
the English language wikipedia.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I made a bunch of people sysop. I think I got everyone who requested
it. Plus, I got a few more besides.
The only thing I ask of sysops is that you not delete pages unless you
are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there will be no controversy about it.
If we have fights about deleted pages, then I think the best thing to
do is to implement some form of nondestructive delete.
But, better to just not fight in the first place. :-)
p.s. Anyone else who wants sysop, just email me.
Check out www.archive.org - they may have some of stuff your looking for.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Kurt Jansson jansson(a)gmx.net XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> > > Speaking of which; Jimbo, we really need to have a periodically
> > > database dump tarball available.
> > Hey, I just noticed that there *is* a database dump available now at
> > http://www.wikipedia.com/tarballs/ (as of March 21)! Awesome, thanks!
> > However, the old usemod database has vanished from there. Since the
> > edit histories aren't merged in yet, this is a problem...
> We should also keep in mind, that in about ten years there will be
> scientific studies about the evolution of certain Wikipedia articles,
> and in about 25 years there will be an old Wikipedia tarball lying next
> to an old Linux kernel in the [[Museum of Free Software and Open
> Source]] (existing since 2017).
> Even today it would be nice to see the complete history of an article -
> is this an problem of discspace or speed? Can it be solved?
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
isn't this it here:
>> While in the process of updating some of the articles like
>> and FAQ and such, I found a link to Jimbo's article "Wiki is
>> soil", which currently is empty. I can't find it under Wikipedia
>> commentary or in meta, either. Did it get lost in transition
>> somewhere, or has it been deleted intentionally without deleting
>> the links to it?
>I noticed that it was missing and just assumed that someone moved it
>to meta, or my user space. I haven't looked that hard for it.
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
While in the process of updating some of the articles like policies
and FAQ and such, I found a link to Jimbo's article "Wiki is fertile
soil", which currently is empty. I can't find it under Wikipedia
commentary or in meta, either. Did it get lost in transition
somewhere, or has it been deleted intentionally without deleting all
the links to it?