On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:30:30 +0000 (UTC),
wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org <wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org> wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:50:11 -0700
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] [fwd: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in-accurate
> history of Goa]
> To: wikien-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040802205011.GM32655(a)wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I have no opinion about this, I just forward it in case someone feels
> like looking at our articles.
>
> I informed the author that they could edit the site.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from .@.-----
>
> From: .@.
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
> To: jwales(a)bomis.com
> Subject: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in-accurate history of Goa
>
> Jimmy Wales,
>
> The following is an in-accurate account of my peoples history. We
> Goans till today are waiting for our true freedom. Please do some more
> research to display the truth on your web site.
>
> When India became independent in 1947, Goa remained Portuguese. The
> Indian government of Jawaharlal Nehru insisted that it, along with a
> few other minor Portuguese holdings, be turned over to
> India. Portugal, however, refused. France, which had also had small
> enclaves in India (most notably Pondicherry), gave them up. Portugal,
> however, amended its constitution to have Goa made a Portuguese
> province and refused to surrender it.
>
> Opinions within Goa were mixed. The port was profiting immensely from
> being a conduit of smuggled goods into India, the strong Roman
> Catholic faith of the inhabitants also led to some affinity for
> Portugal. Many of the people were pro-India, however, and a pro-Indian
> resistance group began operating in the territory. In 1955 an unarmed
> invasion was launched by a mass of Indians following the teachings of
> Gandhi. The Portuguese met them with force and 21 were reported
> killed.
>
> In the 1960s the World Court and the United Nations General Assembly
> both ruled in India's favour in the dispute. World public opinion was
> also turning against Portugal due to their brutal actions in
> Angola. The United States, however, remained supportive of its NATO
> ally and would not allow the UN Security Council to rule against
> Portugal.
>
> The Indians offered continued special treatment for the Portuguese in
> Goa and protection of the area's distinct culture, but still the
> Portuguese refused to negotiate. This was mostly out of concern for
> the situation in Angola, where any concessions in Goa would weaken
> Portugal's colonial hold.
>
> In December 1961 India, under pressure from public opinion, and
> foreign pressure from the rest of the third world to oppose
> colonialism, moved into Goa. Twenty Indians and 17 Portuguese were
> killed in the fighting, which lasted twenty-six hours.
>
> After annexation the area was under military rule for five months, but
> the previous civil service was soon restored and the area became a
> federally administered territory.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ----- End forwarded message -----
Correct me if I'm wrong: Jimbo is the creator of Wikipedia, but it is
not "his site" anymore. The Wikipedia community has made it so much
larger that something like this shouldn't really be sent to Jimbo, it
should be posted on the talk page and/or the person can edit the page
directly (as Jimbo said.)
Wikiacc
--
Encoded with Double ROT13 - circumvention will be prosecuted!
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:48:00 +0000 (UTC),
wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org <wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org> wrote:
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:45:38 -0400
> From: moink <theresa.robinson(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Jeopardy question
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <68537b550408021145561e82a6(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> > Hmm. I do watch "Jeopardy" frequently, and I'm usually good at "getting
> > it" What's so inconceivable about a big-eared African fox?
>
> There are obviously not enough "Princess Bride" fans in Wikipedia. :)
>
> moink
>
Maybe these people just don't subscribe to wikien-l?
Inconceivable.
--
Encoded with Double ROT13 - circumvention will be prosecuted!
We need some help from the arbitration committee.
Jayjg is now committing outright vandalism by inserting
fake quotes into the article on [[Relationship between
segments of Judaism]]. This is not a matter of how to
phrase someone's point of view in accord with NPOV policy;
the problem is that he is totally fabricating beliefs and
quotes, and attempting to pass them off as real. He is
totally out of control.
As an ultra-Orthodox Jew, Jayjg has been taught to distrust
all other Jews, Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Although I feel
sorry for him, I can at least try to understand why he
feels that everyone is an enemy to him. But that does not
justify faking facts and quotes.
For instance, Jayjg wrote "In the late 1980s non-Orthodox
movements began attempting to hold non-traditional services
as the Western Wall, in order to assert what they viewed as
their denominational rights. "
The problem is that this is a lie. The indisputable
historical facts, reproted in many Israeli newspapers, are
that in the late 1980s ORTHODOX JEWISH women began holding
prayer services in the women's section of the Kotel, the
plaza adjoining the Western Wall of the Temple in
Jerusalem. They had support from a number of prominent
ORTHODOX rabbis. In response, they were slandered as people
out to destroy the Jewish people, they received death
threats from some ultra-Orthodox Jews, and they were beaten
up - in public.
A little later Masorti Jews (Israel's Conservative Judaism)
began holding prayer services near the Western Wall,
however these services were NOT held next to it, but rather
far behind it, in an adjoining public plaza.
Jayjg keeps removing all this information. His claims that
they are all non-Orthodox is a lie, that they were all at
the Kotel is a lie, and that their real purpose was not to
pray, but rather were making a public demonstration for
political purposes.
Also, Jayjg, is shockingly making up fake quotes about
Conservative Judaism's founding documents. Jayjg repeatedly
inserts fake quotes about how Conservative Judaism's
founding documents stated that they fight against "Insane
Orthodoxy and Stupid reform". The problem is that this is a
bald-faced lie; none of the Conservative movement's
documents say anything of this sort. This is a deliberate
fraud, i.e. vandalism. I happen to own a vast library of
the Conservative movement's publications, from 1900 to
today, and nothing Jayjg writes is in there.
The same goes for Jayjg's libel about the leadership of
Reform Judaism; the hatespeech that Jayjg attributes to
them was simply never spoken, ever. It has been proven that
instead of quotin from the leadership of reform Judaism,
Jayjg is simply restating the views of one Rabbi Avi
Shafran, an ultra-Orthodox opponent of Reform Judaism.
Rabbi Shafran not only faked quotes from the Reform rabbi
in question, but Rabbi Shafram is on public record as
saying that all Reform and Conservative rabbis deserve to
be killed. He is, to put it lightly, a lunatic.
When we have an article on George W. Bush., we do not look
for his most insane opponent who publicly states that he
wants to kill Bush (like Osama bin Ladin) and then use
Osama's quotes and essay as an accurate description of
George W. Bush's point of view! That would be insane...but
that is precisely what Jayjg keeps doing.
(Quotes with references available, by the way. I do not
make any statements like this without detailed references.)
We need to control Jayjg, stop the fraud, and get back to
work. Unfortunately, something seems to be very wrong in
the mediation committee. I have been trying to get medation
with a number of other people on other articles for three
weeks now, and none of the Wikipedia mediation volunteers
has done anything at all. Why they refuse to do what they
promised to do is beyond me.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The arbitration dispute: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco
versus User:Lir]] has the potential to affect all Wikipedia administrators
(sysops). Please see the proposed decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]. It would
require any administrator who blocks a user to set forth at least a
reference to the section of [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely
in order for the block to be presumed valid and not subject to immediate
reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive" would not be acceptable.
Please place comments on the talk page of [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]
Fred
Stormie wrote:
> Angela_ wrote:
>
>> Antonio, since you're a sysop you can unblock yourself. Make a note of
>> the IP that is blocked (the message you get when you try to edit will
>> tell you this). Then go to
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist, find that IP and
>> click the "unblock" link next to it.
>>
>> I expect the reason you are blocked is because you share an IP with an
>> AOL vandal.
>
> Well, according to the block log, the reason he was blocked is because
> he shares an IP with his father, who was blocked for "repeatedly
> recreating duplictate article despite repeated requests to stop."
There's something wrong in the tone of that response. I have not looked
at the article but I do understand that it was a biographical article,
and the dispute was over whether the person's middle name should appear
in the title of the article. The reference to "repeated requests to
stop" suggests that the person making those requests was operating on
the premise that the existing article was absolutely correct. What
attempts did that person make to find a compromise solution?
Ec
On 5 Aug 2004, at 19:26, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:09:53 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Danny has been nominated as our next
> Mediation Committee co-chair -- please weigh in!
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <411269E1.8080705(a)telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Ray Saintonge:
>
> Excuse me for raining on the jargon, but what it "UTTM"?
Up To The Minute.
Apparently after a CBS News programme. (Or they have adopted a
previously existent catchphrase.) Anyway, it's not the most well-known
of phrases.
- ropers
Robert,
Thank you for your two lengthy explanations about Judaism articles. I
appreciate the time you've taken to bring these matters to the attention
of us all on this mailing list.
Some of us have begun looking into this, but I predict it will take
several days just to understand it all:
* We haven't all been following the articles and talk pages as closely
as you
* Some of us aren't up to speed on Israeli history and other fine points
of Judaica
However, your analysis is very helpful, and I have a few suggestions
based purely on that:
1. Try to identify Points Of View (which I like to abbreviate as POV)
On the Wailing Wall Women (no humor implied or intended!), it looks like
someone's POV that what they did was "non-traditional", i.e.,
unorthodox. They apparently have concluded that the worshipers were
therefore not "Orthodox".
2. Characterize undesirable edits as "biased" or "mistaken"
It sounds so much nicer than to use the L-word (rhymes with fire)
3. Use the "diff" function
Compare the preferred version of the article, with the diff function to
illustrate an example of valid information being removed. You can then
place a link to this diff on someone's user talk page (like mine :-) and
ask them to take a look.
4. No one should remove a POV that they disagree with.
Controversies thrive on differing points of view. It's a great service
to our readers to let them know what other people think. If Rabbi Avi
Shafran is a source of certain reports, then by all means say so in the
articles. I hope there is also an [[Avi Shafran]], so readers can decide
for themselves how much credibility to ascribe to him.
Ed Poor
Professional Peacemaker
"Heavily underutilized", as I understand it, means the
simple default choice by Wikipedians to not use it.
The possible reasons are that the BBS format is
outdated; other threaded formats are cleaner and
easier to use. I think the main reason that people
elected to "heavily underutilize" the BBS is because
its yet another distracting divergence from the wiki.
The other platforms are slow enough; though MLs are
basic and ubiquitous, and IRC is more UTTM. Any added
platform (should there be a choice) has to compete
with the utility of these others.
S
--- Brian Corr <BCorr(a)NEAction.org> wrote:
> Nope -- just "heavily underutilized" -- Thanks,
> Brian
>
> At 07:20 PM 8/4/04 -0700, you wrote:
> >I support the choice of Danny, but I thought that
> the
> >boards.wikimedia.org were defunct...
> >
> >S
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I'm sorry for the profusion of mails on this issue, but I think it's
kind of important.
Google reveals that the Museum Copyright Group in the UK had a presentation
on museum copyright issues in 2003 by the "Peter Wienand, Partner and Head of
Intellectual Property, Farrer &CO"
They were so kind to place their material online here:
http://www.mda.org.uk/mcopyg/event02.htm
He has some very interesting things to say about the issues we are
interested. Let me quote some relevant sections:
2. What is the nature of a copyrighted work?
* Works need to show originality, and/or skill and judgement
* Many copyrights may exist in any work or in an archival file.
9. How can rights be enforced in the taking of photographs of archival
material?
* This is difficult to do under copyright law
* However, rights can be enforced under contract law
11. Are there any rights issue relating to facsimiles?
* This relates directly to whether there is any copyright protection
afforded to photographs of art works. Although this has never been
properly tested in the UK, there is probably enough skill and
judgement in the photos of art works to afford them copyright
protection in their own right
So, there we are...nobody knows what the law is in this situation is.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel
robert.merkel(a)benambra.org
http://benambra.org
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been
searching for evidence which could support this.
-- Bertrand Russell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------