On Saturday 04 January 2003 04:00 am, Alexander Stephen Bradbury wrote:
> I think the new main page is looking pretty good, I wouldn't mind changing
> the current one for it. I think going live with it on Wikipedia Day (if
> people agree, obviously) would be great. ... We definitely need a
> press release though. Some statistics (like in the PG newsletters) would
> be nice, what we've achieved, what we need to do. Has anyone drafted
> anything yet?
>
> ASB [[User:Smelialichu]]
Our first press release from a year ago is here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia's_first_press_release--draft_for_comment
We can simply rewrite that to serve as this years version.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma Payment. Have you had you Wiki today?
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=January_6&diff=563902&oldid=563…
I also updated various pages linked from that page
Hi Zoe,
I'm not normally in favour of banning people, but from what I see of 172's
contibutions, they are strikingly POV, and constantly reverting pages
without explaining why is completely unacceptable. I think the time has come
to ban 172.
JT
>From: Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] It's time for 172 to be banned
>Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:23:35 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>He/she is making wholesale reversions to any changes made by anyone in
>[[New Imperialism]], without comment.
>
>Zoe
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Ortolan88 Wrote:
>Fwappler is (pick one), a suitable case for treatment, a troll, or the
>most ineffable individual in history. See [[User_Talk:Fwappler]] for
>data.
Hm, I rather thought s/he was a bot. The more you talk with him/her,
the less sense the conversation makes.
kq
Someone has created articles for Walt Disney's ancestors: [[Elias Disney]], [[Kepple Disney II]], [[Flora Call]], [[Herbert Arthur Disney]]. It is my contention that these articles are not of importance to an encyclopedia. Eloquence seems to think that they're useful (see the Talk for Elias Disney). What is the opinion of the community?
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
The maintenance page (also the lonely page) is disabled half the day. The
result is that the list of pages with mispeelings, which used to fit in one
page, now goes on for several. Can we have it back on all the time? I suggest
caching the result of the query for ten minutes.
phma
172.147.58.92 made some badly titled articles such as [[of the]] and pointers
to them; I blocked the address, and I and someone else reverted the edits.
172.147.58.92 also made some changes to [[Doctor Who]] and a couple of other
articles which I don't know whether are vandalism or not. Someone who knows,
please check.
The address is in AOL, but appears not to be a proxy from its name.
phma
As a way of saying hello to the list, I thought I'd mention a couple
of print sources that are now out of copyright & may be useful for
mining future information/maps/illustrations from:
1. The London Illustrated News. If half of the blurbs I've read is
true, then the issues prior to 1912 should be full of engravings
of the current archeological finds -- as well as contemporary events.
Has anyone explored this?
2. The Victoria County History series. For those not in the know,
these were a collection of volumes on the historic counties of England,
covering the geography, antiquities, & natural history of each county.
Many of these were written before 1912; if I can make the time in the
next few weeks, I will stop by a local college which has many of
these & see if I can find an out-of-copyright plan of the excavation
of Silchester.
Geoff (aka llywrch)
I think the new main page is looking pretty good, I wouldn't mind changing
the current one for it. I think going live with it on Wikipedia Day (if
people agree, obviously) would be great. It would certainly great if we
could get 100,000 articles by Wikipedia Day, but unless we got thousands
of bot generated articles, I can't see it happening. We definitely need a
press release though. Some statistics (like in the PG newsletters) would
be nice, what we've achieved, what we need to do. Has anyone drafted
anything yet?
ASB [[User:Smelialichu]]
--
<signature>
There are only 10 types of people in this world;
Those that know binary...and those that don't
</signature>
> Several of us have been working on improving the Main Page and are
> pretty satisfied with the results. See
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp
>
> And also a before and after screenshot:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/1/1e/MainPageTemp-800pxWide.png
>
> Comments about added improvements and edits are welcome.
>
> It would be great if we could work on this some more and then go live
> with the new version on January 15th aka Wikipedia Day. It would also
> be great if we all concentrated on trying to make 100,000 articles by
> the 15th.
>
> Speaking of which, a press release is also in order for Wikipedia
> Day.....
>
> Power to the Wiki and Happy New Year!
>
> --Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=January_2&diff=551217&oldid=551…
>
