usion and bad feeling.
--
Alasdair
On Saturday, 10 December 2011 at 15:14, Mike Christie wrote:
> that rule to reinforce
> the point that there are those who, like Gregory and me, did not see any
> problem with the survey. Those
it is an interesting idea.
--
Alasdair
On Monday, 5 December 2011 at 05:29, rupert THURNER wrote:
> i started improving
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology and i felt somehow
> left alone by you native english speakers only writing emails :)
>
> what do
en.wiki content issues. I
would expect anyone responding to me to be able to comprehend that.
It is not very becoming of you to respond to what was a productive conversation
with such a lazy "theoretical" message.
--
Alasdair
On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:38, rupert THURNER wrote:
article as "high" or "top"
importance. But even that is a totally arbitrary criterion.
--
Alasdair
On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 19:03, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner (mailto:peter.dam...@btinternet.com)> wrote:
> > Interes
- many editors have pointed out that the Vital
articles "assessment" is an arbitrary and flawed metric of article importance.
So it would be better if it is not used in discussions at present.
--
Alasdair
On Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 17:04, rupert THURNER wrote:
> uh ..
include such info in future
updates of this kind?
Thanks
--
Alasdair
On Saturday, 3 December 2011 at 20:34, Megan Hernandez wrote:
> Check out the update on meta:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011
>
> More to come over the next couple days.
>
>
>
>
ia where some images were
not available (at all) to readers - regardless of whether or not they want to
see them?
I am not sure I agree with this concern as a practical matter but I can
understand it as a theoretical concern. Has the board or WMF talked about /
addressed this issue anyw
ers the option to hide "all" images by default and then
click on the greyed out images to load them if they want to see them.
--
Alasdair (User:ajbpearce)
On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 11:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 29.11.2011 10:32, schrieb Tom Morris:
> > On Tue,
