Hi Fred and All,
In answer to both questions, the page is Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. The
Talks pages througout the history section and the article are both
litered with excertps from the sealed settlement agreement. Delete the
page and rollback to the content Wales and I agreed to and lock it, then
case closed and I can get back to editing. Please consider this.
It's going to take about 35 days total to get an order to take it down (
and I will get the order). How about just accept this proposal, do what
Wales and I originally agreed to, and lock the page back to the
stipulated content, remove the entire history section (or hide it from
the public) to remove the settlement language. Then I can happily get
back to editing and not have to worry with that page again.
Thanks,
Jeff
>My suggested wording is:
> All edits to Wikipedia are recorded and visible, with the [[IP
>address]] they are from. Your IP address is publicly visible on edits
>where you are not [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]]. See
>[[wikipedia:privacy policy|privacy policy]].
I've just realised that's ambiguous and partly incorrect. How about:
All edits to Wikipedia are publicly visible. Your [[IP address]]
is recorded, and it is publicly visible on edits where you are not
[[Special:Userlogin|logged in]]. See [[Wikimedia:Privacy policy]].
(BTW, the Wikimedia: interwiki prefix works on meta: but not on en:.)
Better? Easily translatable? An improvement on nothing at all?
- d.
Hi everyone,
[[User:Anonymous editor]] is contesting for Adminship. Many votes in his
support are by usernames created in the last couple of days, and their only
contribution to wikipedia has been that vote. When I pointed that out,
[[User:Anonymous editor]] deleted my comments, marking his deletions as a
"minor edit", and his close admin friend [[User:Slimvirgin]] blocked me.
This pair is known for misusing wikipedia policies and admin powers in the
past, for example, with reference to the [[Islamophobia]] article.
Kindly look into the past credentials of [[User:Anonymous editor]], and cast
your vote.
Thanks
Muwaffaq
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>> Firstly, I must apologise for being so terse and shitty on IRC last night.
>No you must not! It's fine.
I stormed off in a huff! (And did in fact switch off the computer and
go to bed.) How dare you invalidate my hissy fit! YOU ALL SUCK AND I'M
DELETING MY LIVEJOURNAL!
- d.
Alphax:
>I have to concur. There are plenty of disputes over "facts" - I
>requested page protection for such an article the other day.
It's still an article fork template in essence, and hence a Bad Thing.
>I propose re-creating {{twoversions}} as:
>"The editors of this article are crazy and will be shot as soon as a
>rouge admin finds them. (Look, there's one! Under the big pile of hay in
>the barn! Quick, before 'e gets away! CHARGE!!!!!!1)"
At this point I wish you'd gotten admin.
- d.
"the concern for the welfare of others, the need to be treated with
respect, and the need to be welcomed in a culture - are all things my
people share with yours." - Karla McLaren,
I feel that this is the essence of the Unification Movement - which
finds itself firmly in both camps: the metaphysical, because
Unificationists espouse a belief in God and the afterlife and the
skeptical, because Unificationism declares itself as refusing to be tied
to "blind faith".
I'm a software engineer, and my boss relies on me to be "skeptical" when
testing other people's programs. "Billy said it works? Well, I'll
believe that when I see it." Then Billy refuses to believe that it
DOESN'T work, unless I can reproduce the error right in front of his
eyes - and he still won't be fully convinced until he himself can make
it fail.
My personal question is whether any faith can stand the scrutiny of
critical thinking. And my answer is yes, but that makes me a rare bird
indeed. Even people in my church think I'm a bit kooky for being so
hard-headed.
My work at Wikipedia has often involved what McLaren called speaking to
people in in their own language: she said, "If we want to successfully
communicate with someone, we've got to understand not just their
language, but the cultural context from which their language springs.
>From what I've seen in both the New Age and the skeptical cultures, this
understanding is absent."
I'm Wikipedia's best Mediator (or have been so far - I have high hopes
for RedWolf's new crew) because I'm really good at translating one
"language" to another - not German to French of course, but the context
of assumptions (or "baggage"). How else could a man in a "cult" gain the
trust of a bunch of atheists? Jimbo gave me root access to the server,
the Cunctator nominated me for Admin, people are constantly coming to my
user talk page asking me to mediate their article disputes - and I don't
mean how to format the Simpsons' infobox, I mean the real hard stuff.
Oh, well, I'm just rambling. I didn't have anything in particular to
say. Sorry I wasted your time, I just thought David Gerard picked an
interesting web link and thought I'd throw out a few comments:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
Uncle Ed
Come to Meta to discuss next year's Wikimania.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2005 8:11 AM
Subject: Wikimania 2006 : general meeting & getting involved
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>,
Wikimedia Translators <translators-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Dear all,
Wikimania this past August was a joyous and wonderful event...
remarkable above all for the geographic diversity of its attendees.
Help make the next Wikimania just as wonderful, and even more
international and multilingual. Please translate this message and
pass it on to your respective mailing lists and wikis.
How to get involved :
1. Come to an IRC meeting next week. We will be discussing conference
dates, among other things. Note what times you can make it, or add to
the agenda, here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006:Planning#Meetings
2. Volunteer your time, language skills, and enthusiasm:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006:Planning#Volunteering
3. Sign up for yet another mailing list (wikimania-l). It is
currently low-traffic and primarily English-language; two things you
can help change.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
4. Plan carpools or offer crash space for the event. (harder to do
before the date is fixed, of course)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006:Venue#Attendees
Organizing Wikimania is at once demanding and rewarding; and a chance
to learn about the inner workings of a large conference. Please join
us on IRC, or on the wiki, to find out more.
++SJ
--
++SJ
As most of you probably know, China has recently blocked (again)
access to Wikipedia. I've gotten around their Great Firewall by
installing tor, but now, I find that my edit access to pages is
blocked, because I appear to be coming from an open proxy.
I don't understand why my edit access is blocked, even though I'm
logged in as a valid user (Klortho). I'm sure there's a good reason,
but I don't understand it. Anyway, is there any way around this? I
certainly hope so, because it seems ironic to me that Wikipedia, in
effect, puts up an additional barrier to Chinese people wanting to
express themselves (in addition to the censorship by the government,
that is).
Ryan Delaney wrote:
>It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in
>general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone
>edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so
>what's the point? If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion
>about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia
>at all. :\
Probably the single most damaging thing about AFD is that it
encourages participants to Assume Bad Faith. That's why it's a
poisonous pit so many of us don't wish to participate in. And that's
also why the rise in proceduralism over content.
Again, don't take my word for it. Read some of the discussions, see
the bad faith, see the personal attacks.
(I dont' mean geni, I mean VFD/AFD/VFU in particular.)
- d.
>[[User:Anonymous editor]] is contesting for Adminship. Many votes in his
>support are by usernames created in the last couple of days, and their only
>contribution to wikipedia has been that vote. When I pointed that out,
>[[User:Anonymous editor]] deleted my comments, marking his deletions as a
>"minor edit", and his close admin friend [[User:Slimvirgin]] blocked me.
>This pair is known for misusing wikipedia policies and admin powers in the
>past, for example, with reference to the [[Islamophobia]] article.
>Kindly look into the past credentials of [[User:Anonymous editor]], and cast
>your vote.
I have to get around to doing a pile of sockchecking [*] on this
precise matter. If you see an edit from me placing strikes through a
pile of the "Oppose" votes, you'll know why.
It may be necessary for bureaucrats to look very closely at these
votes or kill the RFA and restart it or try again later, in case
supporters have been swayed by the apparent mass of 'oppose' votes.
- d.
[*] The problem is I don't scale. We need more users with checkuser
access; how to arrange this is a vexed question, because the Board has
the willies about the privacy policy issue. It's not a matter to put
to a vote, any more than root access is. I discussed this with Tim
Starling last night and will hopefully send an email to the Board
tonight. It needs sorting out properly and correctly, but soon. I have
a couple of prospects in mind on en:.
[cc'ed to foundation-l]