Erik writes:
>Expiring watchlist entries after a certain
>default period (unless you make an edit in that
>period) may also help (but also has some screwup
>potential).
It does, yes. Some of the articles I watch are
infrequently edited, but if someone comes along and
vandalizes them or inserts blatant POV, I want to be
sure to see it. As far as the vandalism goes, it may
come as a shock to some, but not every vandalism is
caught--I recently found a country page that had been
vandalized nearly two months earlier.
kq
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I'm all in favour of the new watchlist, despite having had to cut down from
1600 items (and that's without automatic).
Previously my watchlist timed out after about 8 am, so I could only view it
once a day. Now it works every time. Thank you Brion
Jim Frost
----- Original Message -----
From: <wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org>
To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #577 - 16 msgs
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Easter Bradford (Jimmy Wales)
> 2. Re: Wikipedia Shepherds (Daniel Ehrenberg)
> 3. Re: Easter Bradford (Christopher Mahan)
> 4. Re: Wikipedia Shepherds (Toby Bartels)
> 5. Re: I give up (Toby Bartels)
> 6. Re: Easter Bradford (Steve Vertigo)
> 7. Re: Watchlist (james duffy)
> 8. Re: Watchlist (Erik Moeller)
> 9. Re: Watchlist (Steve Vertigo)
> 10. Re: Watchlist (Brion Vibber)
> 11. Re: Watchlist (Erik Moeller)
> 12. Re: Watchlist (Brion Vibber)
> 13. Re: Watchlist (Ray Saintonge)
> 14. Re: Watchlist (JFrost8401(a)aol.com)
> 15. Re: Watchlist (Brion Vibber)
> 16. Re: Watchlist (Erik Moeller)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:24:55 -0700
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Easter Bradford
> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> Graham Burnett wrote:
> > Someone with an axe to grind keeps inserting POV stuff into
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bradford and accusing anyone who
makes
> > any changes/reverts of being a 'liar'. Personally I've never even heard
of
> > Easter Bradford, but could somebody else cast an eye on this before I
get
> > drawn into an edit war about something I couldn't even care less about?
>
> I would say that the bulk of that entry fails the confirmability test.
> It does appear that someone with an axe to grind is doubting the
> veracity of the information given, and without some independent
> sources, my feeling is that the article should be removed or at least
> cut back to a stub of confirmable information.
>
> I just said the same thing on the talk page, and probably this
> discussion can just continue there, as there's not really a policy
> issue just yet. Policy nerds such as myself should take note of this
> as a good example for future discussions of people editing articles
> about themselves.
>
> My general feeling is that it is almost always a social faux pas to
> write an article about yourself. It's nearly always a faux pas to
> even edit such an article, although if someone else wrote an entry
> about you (and I'm not talking about a buddy that you put up to it!)
> I suppose it wouldn't be horrible to step in and correct factual
> errors.
>
> To me there's a certain unsavory braggadocio involved in proclaiming
> oneself to be worthy of an encyclopedia article.
>
> --Jimbo
Hi Jimbo- I have to say that when I first noticed the page I had no idea
that Easter Bradford was a wiki contributor, I'd never heard of him, I just
noticed POV and potentially libelous material was on the page and edited it
to make it less POV and libelous. It wasn't until a little later that it
become clear that there were actually two people engaged in an edit war (or
more like a cat fight!) on the page, and it was me who protected it,
although I realied with hindsight that perhaps this was a wiki faux pas as I
had actually been involved in editing. It was even later that I realised
Easter Bradford was in fact a wiki contributor, and was probably one of the
parties in the edit war.
I'm tempted to revert the page back to the last edit by a 'trusted person'
(ie, logged in contributor apart from myself), which, IIRC, was camembert.
However being the person who for better or worse locked the page, it might
be better if somebody else did that?
I really don't have an interest in the page one way or the other though in
terms of it's content apart from that it conforms to wiki standards, (NPOV,
not libelous, accurate, etc, etc)
Cheers Graham (Quercus robur)
K Forstner wrote:
>Did the announcement that the page would be disabled
>escape my notice? What is going to be disabled next?
>Wikipedia?
What the hell! My Watchlist has been the main thing
between me and wiki-insanity ever since it became
impractical (and later /impossible/) to review an
entire day's edits. As far as I'm concerned disabling
editing altogether would almost be a better option if
it weren't for the "Related Changes" feature (at least
I can tract changes to pages I have listed on my user
page).
Hey waitaminute - why not place the watchpage list on
a regular wiki page so that Related Changes can do
it's magic on it? As a matter of fact why can't that
/replace/ the slow watchlist code completely? IIRC,
the "Related Changes" and "Recent Changes" code is the
same.
-- A very annoyed (but understanding) mav (with 2,000
watched pages - I thought I had way more than that...)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigo wrote:
>Instead of Wikipedia "Volunteer Firefighters" -- I
>propose we call them (us) "shepherds."
As a recovering Assemblies of God/700 Club member/Young Republican, that
sounds rather paternal; so everybody else are sheep?
-- mav
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ceasefire declared
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:27:14 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by
>mc4-f10.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 7 Aug
>2003 05:31:34 -0700
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h77CVJY14969;Thu, 7 Aug
>2003 12:31:19 GMT
>Received: from joey.bomis.com (root(a)joey.bomis.com [130.94.122.196])by
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h77CUUY14920for
><wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:30:30 GMT
>Received: from joey.bomis.com (jwales(a)localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h77CREq6025513for
><wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:27:14 -0700
>Received: (from jwales@localhost)by joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit)
>id h77CREuH025512for wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:27:14 -0700
>X-Message-Info: EoYTbT2lH2MsQxQLKd6QGg8OdPqYrWLN
>Message-ID: <20030807052714.M23909(a)joey.bomis.com>
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
>Sender: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>Errors-To: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia
><wikien-l.wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/>
>Return-Path: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2003 12:31:34.0780 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[D6CE1BC0:01C35CDF]
>
>I'm hereby declaring a ceasefire in the Jtdirl/RK flamewar. This is
>not a proclamation to be enforced by banning or anything like that,
>it's just a proclamation to be enforced by mutual respect.
>
>I don't see that any progress is being made right now, so I ask all
>parties to just let it drop for now. Just let the pages be on the
>Wikipedia for a little while, let the attacks and counter-attacks
>cease on the mailing list, and maybe in a few weeks, tempers will have
>cooled enough to permit a kinder and more productive mutual approach.
>
>And I ask everyone to "be the bigger party". If the other fellow
>tries to bait you with one last snarky comment, just take pleasure in
>how he looks like a jerk, and don't give in to the temptation to
>respond in kind.
>
>--Jimbo
That's perfectly OK with me. Thanks, Jimbo
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Thanks for letting me know that my watchlist contains 1655 pages. If only I
could access it. Did the announcement that the page would be disabled escape
my notice? What is going to be disabled next? Wikipedia?
Sorry for this emotional outburst, but if you're in the middle of
cross-referencing, this is more than inconvenient.
KF
James Duffy, JTDIRL, has been causing problems on the
"State of Israel" article of late, because he refuses to
work with others in our Wikipedia peer-review. Instead of
working on the many Arab and Jewish refugee articles that
already exist, he keeps bypassing the peer-review by trying
to stuff his own biased statements into new articles.
When I noted this, he made personal attacks on me as
promoting "censorship". This is a violation of Wikipedia
protocol. I have tried discussing this with him, and have
alerted members of this list about this incident.
Astonishingly, Jtdirl has decided to respond with total
frabrications. He is now screaming that I am accusing him
of anti-Semitism. Huh?
Sure, it is wrong of Jtdirl (James Duffy) to do an end-run
around our peer-review, and for him to shove his POV essays
on this subject into other articles. And it is wrong for
him to falsely accuse me of "censoring" him, for the
"crime" of asking him to follow standard Wikipedia
protocol. But where does this have to do with
anti-Semitism? Nowhere.
JTDIRL claims:
> Any attempt to add in /anything/ that is not pro-Israeli
> immediately leads to RK going ballistic and screaming
> anti-semitism.
That in of itself is false. But more disturbing, Jtdirl
then starts mentioning something about the status of
Jerusalem, which has NOTHING to do with this topic. His
claims to the contrary are bald-faced lies. No one is
writing about Jerusalem. He is just making this up. Jtdirl
just is in some sort of rage, because I AND a few others
have removed his POV essay and out of place statements in
the State of Israel article.
Sadly, though, his incoherent responses do come close to
Jew-baiting. Every time I disagree with him, he claims to
be the victim of false anti-Semitism charges...even though
the topic has nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism. He
seriously needs to lay of the Jews for a while. Seriously.
With concerns,
Robert (RK)
Jimbo writes:
> Robert, I really think you should moderate your tone,
> because I think that doing so will make your comments
> more effective.
In theory, I agree with you. However, I also agreed with
Jtdirl that these topics (Arab refugees and Jewish
refugees) should be discussed on Wikipedia. That's moderate
as well. I just was shocked by his false claims of
censorship. (Especially since we have more than three
articles discussing this subject!)
When we work together for months to whip articles into
decent shape, it seems inappropriate, and a violation of
Wikipedia policy, to do an end-run around them by starting
a new discussion on the same subject, pushing only Jtdirl's
point of view. I am not the only person who has pointed
this out.
Jimbo writes:
> Making a moral judgment in a case like this is likely to
> turn people off. And, really, it runs a very strong
> risk of being _not true at all_. It strikes me as more
> likely that jtdirl is mistaken, rather than actively
> dishonest. Or that you are mistaken.
Ok, I agree; I could be mistaken. But Jtdirl refuses to
talk to me, so no conversation is possible. You saw for
yourself James Duffy's odd response to my points:
I said we *should* have articles on Arab refugees, but we
should no do an end-run around our peer-rview. I stated
that it is wrong to claim censorship is going on.
Jtdirl (James Duffy) responded, stop calling me an
anti-Semite! And then Jtdirl started talking about
Jerusalem.
Huh? His statements have absolutely no relationship to what
is being said to him. He is in his own little world, and
that kind of freaks me out. I get the idea that people
read his letter, and respond to his false claims about
me...even though my letter said nothing about what he
mentions!
It would be very easy to smooth things over, but that is
impossible until his responses respond to what I actually
write. (That is a truism, no?)
On a separate topic: I am uncomfortable with the way that
Jtdirl and others slander me as a racist. For example,
Jtdirl again stated that Zionists are racists. He does this
knowing that I a Zionist, therefore the clear implication
is that I am racist bigot whose words should be ignored.
Such angry and false speech about Zionists (which includes
tens of millions of Jews and Christians) is not appropriate
here. Would we accept it if people said that Irish
nationalism is racist? That feminism is FemiNazism? That
black progressivism is really white-hating communism? I
doubt that most Wikipedias would stand for this. But when
people here make these generalized and incorrect statements
about Zionists, no one says a word.
You and I don't speak this way about people of other
groups; I propose that this standard should be true for all
of us here. I hope that I am not perceived as being
unreasonable.
Robert (RK)
----
Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
I am disturbed by the way that so many Wikipedia
contributors are libelling me. Time after time, people are
ignoring the words I write in lettesr, and somehow respond
to statements that I never wrote.
For instance, I have worked with many others in articles on
Arab refugees and Jewish refugees from the Arab-Israeli
wars. Also, in recent days I have been concerned about this
topic in regards to the State of Israel article, and have
said so quite explicitly. I *agreed* with everyone,
including Jtdirl, that these topics should be discussed,
but I do not want him doing an end-run around all already
peer-reviewed articles. In all other cases, people here
have labelled that sort of thing as a violation of
Wikipedia standards; I only hold that we maintain the same
standards here. This should not be controversial.
Yet in response, Jtdirl wrote dishonest (or incoherent)
responses, mumbling about Jerusalem and anti-Semitism. This
proves my point. His response literally has nothing to do
with the content of my post. In fact, they never do. He
just keeps screaming about anti-Semitism, over and over.
He can keep screaming about anti-Semitism until he turns
blue, but that won't change the issues. It is just a
diversionary tactic on his part, and one I am sad to say
that some of you seem to have fallen for.
And many of you were so fooled by his posts, that you
missed the truth: Jtdirl has been using me as a whipping
boy for his disagreements with all the other people who
also agree with. Many people have been bothered by Jtdirl's
recent POV writings to the State of Israel article. Try
checking the History option. Several Wikipedians, including
Jiang, me, and Uriber have been disagreeing with Jrdirl.
But instead of dealing with them, he uses Jew-issues as a
smokescreen. For shame.
Chris Mahan also wrote a response to this issue... saying
"Boo hoo". Wow! Real mature! I had no idea that this was
the kind of problem solving that Wikipedia encourages. I
am saddened that so many people find such responses
acceptable.
And let us considers two of Fred Bauder's recent posts.
When I pointed out that Jtdirl needs to respond to what
people actually write (as opposed to topics that no one
even mentioned) Fred bizarrely wrote that Jrdirl's
responses do make sense, and I am just not accepting NPOV.
This isn't about NPOV; it is about the fact that Jtdirl
made some sort of response that had nothing to do with what
anyone on this list wrote.
Fred Bauder, out of the blue, then chastizes me:
> You can't have a legitimate Israel article that leaves
out the conquest
> and subjugation of the Palestinians anymore than you can
have
> a People's Republic of China article without a prominent
link to
> totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
> You can't ignore an elephant in the room and maintain
> your legitimacy as an authoritative reference.
Huh? I never said otherwise, and I am tired of certain
people here lying about my beliefs. In fact, my position is
the exact opposite of what Fred attributes to me. I have
always held that these are subjects that Wikipedia should
cover, and I am glad that we already have many articles on
them.
Do you see what I mean? I have a certain position...and
people just write total fabrications about my beliefs. That
is just unacceptable.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I'm hereby declaring a ceasefire in the Jtdirl/RK flamewar. This is
not a proclamation to be enforced by banning or anything like that,
it's just a proclamation to be enforced by mutual respect.
I don't see that any progress is being made right now, so I ask all
parties to just let it drop for now. Just let the pages be on the
Wikipedia for a little while, let the attacks and counter-attacks
cease on the mailing list, and maybe in a few weeks, tempers will have
cooled enough to permit a kinder and more productive mutual approach.
And I ask everyone to "be the bigger party". If the other fellow
tries to bait you with one last snarky comment, just take pleasure in
how he looks like a jerk, and don't give in to the temptation to
respond in kind.
--Jimbo
Just want to say that I am completely ignoring this and similar flame threads.
So if somebody I respect is being slandered or lied about, then my silence on
that is because I didn't read the message to begin with.
I suggest other people ignore these flames as well - maybe then the people
doing the flamming will get a hint and take their battles to personal email.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)