MediaWiki talk:Anonnotice: Difference between revisions
→Wording: comment |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
***The appeal has led to a big increase in donations. We are still very much in need of funds (if we plan on lasting for more than a year). I think this appeal is a one-time thing, since a second appeal would look kind of odd, as you suggeted. So, we should try to milk this thing for all we can. The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span></sup> • 2006-01-16 04:43</small> |
***The appeal has led to a big increase in donations. We are still very much in need of funds (if we plan on lasting for more than a year). I think this appeal is a one-time thing, since a second appeal would look kind of odd, as you suggeted. So, we should try to milk this thing for all we can. The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span></sup> • 2006-01-16 04:43</small> |
||
::::Your claim is not consistant with previous statements and actions of the board.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
CJ, your concern is one that is held widely. However a small number of very vocal people - e.g. Brian - are choosing to ignore these concerns. You are, of course, absolutely right, but I for one am tired of battling those who cannot see other's points of view (and seem to pull stuff out of thin air, like the statement "The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds", which is pure conjecture). [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
CJ, your concern is one that is held widely. However a small number of very vocal people - e.g. Brian - are choosing to ignore these concerns. You are, of course, absolutely right, but I for one am tired of battling those who cannot see other's points of view (and seem to pull stuff out of thin air, like the statement "The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds", which is pure conjecture). [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:51, 17 January 2006
This page was created on January 16, 2005 (one day after Wikipedia Day). It is the equivalent of MediaWiki:Sitenotice except that it shows up only for unregistered (anonymous) users. According to the developers, by either deleting this page or setting it to -, MediaWiki software will fall back to the SiteNotice. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wording
Should we at least word this so we're no resorting to Jimmy's personal appeal, which will likely loose its meaning if we don't reserve it for when we really need it.--cj | talk 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest leaving it as is for a week, to try and gauge how much of a difference there is in focusing on anons only. After that, I would switch it to something simple like "Thank you for your continued donations." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 03:49
- Jimmy's appeal has obviously led to an increase in donations. My concern is that in continuing to use his appeal now, when we really needn't, users of Wikipedia will be less responsive to a future personal appeal. Shouldn't we just direct readers to the donation page rather than over-use the appeal?--cj | talk 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The appeal has led to a big increase in donations. We are still very much in need of funds (if we plan on lasting for more than a year). I think this appeal is a one-time thing, since a second appeal would look kind of odd, as you suggeted. So, we should try to milk this thing for all we can. The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 04:43
- Jimmy's appeal has obviously led to an increase in donations. My concern is that in continuing to use his appeal now, when we really needn't, users of Wikipedia will be less responsive to a future personal appeal. Shouldn't we just direct readers to the donation page rather than over-use the appeal?--cj | talk 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your claim is not consistant with previous statements and actions of the board.Geni 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
CJ, your concern is one that is held widely. However a small number of very vocal people - e.g. Brian - are choosing to ignore these concerns. You are, of course, absolutely right, but I for one am tired of battling those who cannot see other's points of view (and seem to pull stuff out of thin air, like the statement "The next time we're likely to see such an appeal is when the site is going to shut down out of lack of funds", which is pure conjecture). Dan100 (Talk) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)