On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 07:15:42 PST hiro wrote:
>>
>> It seems like this guy is just mocking wikipedia's notability guideline.
>
> After reading the discussion, I'm beginning to wonder about wikipedia's
> notability. If it's not mentioned o
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 06:46:45PM -0500, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> I think we should try and get wikipedia to delete the article, then get some
> well known and "reliable" source to write an article about how dwm was
> removed from wikipedia thus making dwm notable.
>
That seems counter-intuitive.
I think we should try and get wikipedia to delete the article, then get some
well known and "reliable" source to write an article about how dwm was
removed from wikipedia thus making dwm notable.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:57 AM, wrote:
> As you said, it is the first hit and it points to suckles
As you said, it is the first hit and it points to suckless.org
i could not care less about what an article on wikipedia says about
dwm, if a potential user reads the article, as long as the reference link
points to suckless.org its cool with me.
"...and nothing of value was lost"
On Wed, Feb 24,
Hi,
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Kazimiers wrote:
>>> This error is caused by an incomplete status bar definition: there a
>>> status bar applet defined in your config which lacks a "label"
>>> subsection.
>> I looked into my config file and found the following status bar applets:
>>
>
The only thing that matters in wikipedia is your bureaucratic skills.
You Germans should be able to master it!
uriel
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> someone pointed me to this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm#Dwm
>
> I wouldn'
So there is consensus. Perhaps we can edit that stupid wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
On 2/24/10, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> That's actually my point - wikipedia is artificially enforcing notability so
> we should artificially create notability.*
>
> *Not a serious
That's actually my point - wikipedia is artificially enforcing notability so
we should artificially create notability.*
*Not a serious suggestion.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well, that's exactly the point.
> Wikipedia is trying to artificially enforce
Well, that's exactly the point.
Wikipedia is trying to artificially enforce notability, which is of
course going to fail miserably...
On 2/24/10, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 07:15:42 PST hiro wrote:
>>It seems like this guy is just mocking wikipedia's notability guideline.
>
> A
not fixing any problem
On 2/24/10, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> Maybe we should just lobby some "credible" tech blog and get them to make a
> post about dwm. Problem solved.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Jason Ryan wrote:
>
>> I doubt it will have any impact at all; but as it does appear
>> d
On Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 07:15:42 PST hiro wrote:
It seems like this guy is just mocking wikipedia's notability guideline.
After reading the discussion, I'm beginning to wonder about wikipedia's
notability. If it's not mentioned on cat-v.org, it's not worth knowing
about. ;)
If wikipedia delet
Maybe we should just lobby some "credible" tech blog and get them to make a
post about dwm. Problem solved.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Jason Ryan wrote:
> I doubt it will have any impact at all; but as it does appear
> discriminatory to me, I have posted a brief rant:
> http://jasonwryan.
I doubt it will have any impact at all; but as it does appear
discriminatory to me, I have posted a brief rant:
http://jasonwryan.com/post/409379904/wikipedia
Thayer Williams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Jason Ryan wrote:
It points to a deficiency in the way Wikipedia views nota
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Jason Ryan wrote:
> It points to a deficiency in the way Wikipedia views notability: it is quite
> at odds with the notion of influence and derivation that powers free and
> open source software...
Agreed. I said as much too. Under the current Wikipedia guidelin
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:25:13PM +0100, julien steinhauser wrote:
> If you change ctrl-f to f in your hinting script, does it work better?
This is what I did, but unfortunately it makes no difference.
S
--
Sean Whitton /
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x3B6D411B
http://seanwhitton.com/
signature.asc
Desc
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222&rurl=translate.google.com
> I wouldn't recommend to join that discussion there, such appeals
> usually lead to the deletion. But perhaps someone has more links to
> second party sources that might convi
It seems like this guy is just mocking wikipedia's notability guideline.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:03:15AM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:38:46AM +0100, markus schnalke wrote:
> > That is likely true. I did not use modification keys, except of shift
> > which is handled (by gtk?) internally.
> >
> > Actually, this hack had the purpose *to get
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:38:46AM +0100, markus schnalke wrote:
> That is likely true. I did not use modification keys, except of shift
> which is handled (by gtk?) internally.
>
> Actually, this hack had the purpose *to get rid of* modification keys.
> ;-)
This is true, of course. There's anot
On 2/24/10, Jason Ryan wrote:
> markus schnalke wrote:
>> Maybe one should list all WMs that see dwm as their primary influence.
>
> It points to a deficiency in the way Wikipedia views notability: it is
> quite at odds with the notion of influence and derivation that powers
> free and open sourc
markus schnalke wrote:
Maybe one should list all WMs that see dwm as their primary influence.
Unfortunately, that has already been rejected (quite correctly under the
definition of notability) as a valid criterion...
It points to a deficiency in the way Wikipedia views notability: it is
q
[2010-02-24 08:08] Anselm R Garbe
>
> someone pointed me to this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm#Dwm
>
> I wouldn't recommend to join that discussion there, such appeals
> usually lead to the deletion.
That does not surprise me, when you read the arguments
Hi,
someone pointed me to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm#Dwm
I wouldn't recommend to join that discussion there, such appeals
usually lead to the deletion. But perhaps someone has more links to
second party sources that might convince them to keep the arti
23 matches
Mail list logo
