> > Also HE VOTED AGAINST CUDDLY ANIMALS.
> >
>
> Oh, well that does it then. I'll order a Level 14 Cabalstrike.
>
It's obvious that nobody in this case is THINKING OF THE CHILDREN.
And that's why I'm leaving Wikipedia.
Cheers,
Dan
First, and example, and then a question/suggestion. If you get bored
with my example, please continue anyway to my question/suggestion. :)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/15/how_many_times_m…
>Some are easy, of course, like the Wikipedia entry claiming that the
>word blackboard ‘‘is now perceived by some as being ’politically
>incorrect’ in the United Kingdom.’’ ‘‘Citation needed,’’ a parenthesis
>cautioned. Indeed: a Nexis search of UK publications found some 30
>blackboards in a week, against just three chalkboards.
This is a quote from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Our full text reads:
>Political correctness is a real or perceived attempt to refine or
>restrict language and terms used in public discussion to those deemed
>acceptable or appropriate. For example "blackboard" is now perceived
by >some as being "politically incorrect" in the United Kingdom,
[citation >needed] and so teachers are instructed to call it a
"chalkboard" >instead.
The tag was added here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_change&diff=43364581&old…
So from March 12 until now, we have a request that this dubious tidbit
be sourced, with no movement.
I think that clearly this bit should have been sourced or removed a long
time ago.
-----
Is there any way we could have a date-stamped fact tag? Which would put
such things into a category or other similar page? The purpose would be
to provide a mechanism for people to find *older* examples of fact tags,
in order to go ahead and remove them.
I would recommend that anything like this for which no citation appears
within 7 days be removed or edited in some fashion to remove the need.
--Jimbo
She is a journalist and friend of Wikipedia, so please help her if you
can. :) I don't know the photo she is talking about...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: photo by gus freedman -- may I use in book
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Melissa Rossi <melissarossi199(a)yahoo.com>
To: jwales(a)wikia.com
Hey Jimmy,
Do I have your permission to use the photo by Gus Freedman from
Wikipedia in my book What Every American Should Know about Who's Really
Running America?
As far, as I can tell this is OK to use as long as Gus Freedman is
credited?
Im totally under the gun -- it's brutal what is happening at moment --
so please let me know ASAP. Love the one by Chrys but couldnt afford it!
Thanks!
Melissa Rossi PS I will probably have to send some more legal signoff,
but this will suffice for moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
rates starting at 1¢/min.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/ev…>
In this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
It seems that VERIFIABILITY :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png> This
policy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies>in a
nutshell:
*Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts,
viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they
have already been published by reliable
sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>.
Articles should cite these sources
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE>whenever possible. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed.
Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:
* *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of
dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*
- *It is relevant to the organization's notability;*
- *It is not contentious;*
- *It is not unduly self-serving;*
- *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not
directly related to the subject;*
- *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*
Please clarify this.
Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an
article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's image, is
this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization
notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.
--
Have a blissful day!
Luis Alberto Riveros
> From: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan(a)tobias.name>
>
> I remember reading somebody's online description of trolls, where one
> of the signs is that they keep saying that they're quitting an online
> community / list / newsgroup / forum / site / etc., but rarely
> actually do.
GENERAL: Away, away!
POLICE: (without moving) Yes, yes, we go.
GENERAL: These pirates slay.
POLICE: Tarantara!
GENERAL: Then do not stay.
POLICE: Tarantara!
GENERAL: Then why this delay?
POLICE: All right, we go.
ALL: Yes, forward on the foe!
Yes, forward on the foe!
GENERAL: Yes, but you _don't_ go!
POLICE: We go, we go
ALL: Yes, forward on the foe!
Yes, forward on the foe!
GENERAL: Damme, you _don't_ go!
POLICE: We go, we go
ALL: At last they go!
At last they really go!
How hard is it to actually check before reverting?
Whenever I'm reverting a change, I always check to see
who the last editor (before the vandalism) was.
Anytimes it's either a a) IP or b) user without a
userpage (redlink) or c) the same user that added the
current "vandalism" , I'll go back into the history
and see what that person added. Sometimes, there are
multiple instances of vandalism not picked up by
whatever tools we're using (RC,VP, VS, IRC, ect).
-Royalguard11 [[User:Royalguard11]]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
=============
Sydney aka FloNight wrote:
> ---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> The whole article? *All* of it? Even the bits which are not crap? No
> I don't.
>
> Guy (JzG)
>
> ================================
>
> The first, second, ..... time they remove the crap. When it keeps getting inserted they blank the whole article.
You are making things up out of thin air. Here are the contributions of
the article-blanker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Aarc…
Just two edits, both of those were wholesale removals of the entire article.
The edit that added the objectionable material was on October 11:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Genshaft&diff=80888561&oldid…
That material wasn't touched until Aarcelay blanked the article. Nobody
at any point tried removing _just_ the objectionable bit.
Bryan Derksen,
I was speaking generally about the frustration seen on the OTRS complaints I have answered. If this was a single incident none of us would be going on and on about it.
Sydney
On 19 Oct 2006 at 09:08, "Parker Peters" <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> That's one of the reasons I gave up on editing Wikipedia and am slowly not
> bothering even to check my email on here: accounts blocked for "vandalism"
> or other reasons with no talkpage, new accounts with no welcome message, and
> general evidence of admins being shitty to them and getting away with it.
I remember reading somebody's online description of trolls, where one
of the signs is that they keep saying that they're quitting an online
community / list / newsgroup / forum / site / etc., but rarely
actually do.
I forget... is Parker Peters the one who picked a peck of pickled
peppers, or is he secretly Spider-Man, or what? :-)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
=============
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:09:42 +0100, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>Pause for a second. Imagine you're entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia.
>You see some horrible crap. You figure out you can edit. What do you
>do? You delete it.
The whole article? *All* of it? Even the bits which are not crap? No
I don't.
Guy (JzG)
================================
The first, second, ..... time they remove the crap. When it keeps getting inserted they blank the whole article.
Sydney
