 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
|
|||
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I guess I'm not the only one who kind of tuned out of this project after the de-adminship disaster. I've just added a new proposal of mine to the list on the main page, but I'm wondering if I am just talking to myself here. Should this project be revived as a place away from WP:RFA to discuss changes to that process, which seems to be the focus at the moment, or should it be shut down and marked as historical/inactive? Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm almost afraid to reply to that. :-) I'm still listening. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nearly every other part of the project has matured and moved on (or died and decayed) yet the role, responsibilities, difficulties, and issues regarding administrators remains static. Like this page. When the time comes and the issue is properly looked at then perhaps this page will serve its function - and for that reason I think it should remain dormant only.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 21:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Concur. The resilience of the institution of adminship against reform is inevitably going to cause chaos down the road. When that time comes, a forum outside the dramaboards, adhoc RfCs and the sinkhole that is WT:RFA should be of some use. Skomorokh 21:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, given the darkness now upon Wikipedia, it is essential this project remain active. One day the reformation must happen, this project will kick into life, and a renaissance of Wikipedia will dawn. Or perhaps not. Perhaps we will just continue to indulge the current sub-clique of mean-spirited admins. Gradually Wikipedia will sag and roll over as this sub-clique has their way, relentlessly asphyxiating Wikipedia's lifeblood, the dedicated content editors. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lummee, do you want me to watch your userpage now? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thought this whole thing died out ages ago. Maybe it was just ahead of it's time? — Ched : ? 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you not hear the distant rolls of thunder? --
Epipelagic (
talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually I heard the thunder long ago when I created the page all so long ago. (although I was hardly the first. Perhaps the lightening and showers will arrive on the scene before long though. :) — Ched : ? 05:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you not hear the distant rolls of thunder? --
Epipelagic (
talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why this project has a userbox that is taller than all the other projects' userboxes? At the least, can we have an alternative version that is the standard size? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
|
|||
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I guess I'm not the only one who kind of tuned out of this project after the de-adminship disaster. I've just added a new proposal of mine to the list on the main page, but I'm wondering if I am just talking to myself here. Should this project be revived as a place away from WP:RFA to discuss changes to that process, which seems to be the focus at the moment, or should it be shut down and marked as historical/inactive? Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm almost afraid to reply to that. :-) I'm still listening. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nearly every other part of the project has matured and moved on (or died and decayed) yet the role, responsibilities, difficulties, and issues regarding administrators remains static. Like this page. When the time comes and the issue is properly looked at then perhaps this page will serve its function - and for that reason I think it should remain dormant only.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 21:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Concur. The resilience of the institution of adminship against reform is inevitably going to cause chaos down the road. When that time comes, a forum outside the dramaboards, adhoc RfCs and the sinkhole that is WT:RFA should be of some use. Skomorokh 21:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, given the darkness now upon Wikipedia, it is essential this project remain active. One day the reformation must happen, this project will kick into life, and a renaissance of Wikipedia will dawn. Or perhaps not. Perhaps we will just continue to indulge the current sub-clique of mean-spirited admins. Gradually Wikipedia will sag and roll over as this sub-clique has their way, relentlessly asphyxiating Wikipedia's lifeblood, the dedicated content editors. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lummee, do you want me to watch your userpage now? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thought this whole thing died out ages ago. Maybe it was just ahead of it's time? — Ched : ? 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you not hear the distant rolls of thunder? --
Epipelagic (
talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually I heard the thunder long ago when I created the page all so long ago. (although I was hardly the first. Perhaps the lightening and showers will arrive on the scene before long though. :) — Ched : ? 05:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you not hear the distant rolls of thunder? --
Epipelagic (
talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why this project has a userbox that is taller than all the other projects' userboxes? At the least, can we have an alternative version that is the standard size? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.