I presume I'm not the only one who keeps getting these...could a
moderator take care of it?
Steve
On 4/10/06, Haiko.Hertes(a)perdata.de <Haiko.Hertes(a)perdata.de> wrote:
> Ich bin momentan leider nicht im Haus. Sollten in meiner Abwesenheit Fragen
> oder Probleme auftreten, dann wenden Sie sich bitte an folgende Personen:
On 4/10/06, TGGG85(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> I too was blocked not too long ago from editing Wikipedia. I
> NEVER recieved
> an adequate explanation from any of the administrators. I think a lot of
> them
> are power freaks ...
On 4/10/06 Ryan Delaney wrote:
For starters, if you want the situation to be rectified, starting out by
insulting the only people who can help you is probably not the most tactful
approach ...
For "tactful" or kowtowing approach ever to matter, in correcting any wrong, defines a tyranny and can only happen in one. No good can ever be contributed to the world by any society with no ethics, that defines all access to fair play as a discretionary mercy instead of a right. Such a society will always be corrupted to its own elite's agendas.
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
I too was blocked not too long ago from editing Wikipedia. I NEVER recieved
an adequate explanation from any of the administrators. I think a lot of them
are power freaks whose need for control finally surfaces after they recieve
the "position" of administrator. I checked out the administrator who
originally blocked out me and wasn't impressed with his credentials if you call being
an expert in "punk and metal rock" something really significant in the vast
realm of things.
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an
image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
1) It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no
censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is
extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
encyclopaedia.
2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image
is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image
justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image?
Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image
is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this
picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I
wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
--
Sam
maru dubshinki wrote:
>On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 4/9/06, Carl Fûrstenberg <azatoth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>link?
>>>
>>>
>>It should be in the dead-tree US edition.
>>
>>The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:
>>
>>http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif
>>
>>It still states:
>>
>>"And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia
>>changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing
>>entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can
>>start new ones."
>>
>>http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944
>>
>>
>That's not the only problem. They are also using a very misleading
>article count- we don't have three million. We only have 3M if one
>counts every last entry and redirect as an article.
>
>
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that nothing exists outside
the English Wikipedia. That kind of attitude gets us a very bad
reputation in the Wikipedia community's other languages. If you read the
article, you will find that the article count there (2.6 million) is
explicitly described as covering 120 languages.
--Michael Snow
Dear Sir/Madam,
I, Loom91 (59.93.194.7), was recently blocked by sysop Commander Jean for disruption. I believe that this is a mistake and appeal to have this block lifted. I've already requested Commander Kean by email to reconsider the block.
I was banned for supposedly spamming user talk pages. What really happened was that a poll on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Censorship is ongoing and I wanted to inform potentially interested users abut this, so I posted a short and polite message on their talk page requesting them to review the policy and make their opinions known (I did not ask them to vote for any particular side, and votes in response to these messages were divided). I sent these messages both to those likely to vote Support and those likely to vote Oppose. I do not believe such messages constitute spamming or disruption.
Some of the receivers thanked me for letting them know about the poll and voiced their opinions. Disruption is defined in Blocking policy as disrupting the normal workings of Wikipedia, but by involving more wikipedians in the discussion I facilitated better working of Wikipedia. As shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming, this sort of communication is not considered to be inherently bad, let alone worthy of blocking.
In the light of these circumstances, I ask sysops to investigate the matter and unblock me if they feel as I do that the block was unwarranted and a mistake on the part of Commander Kean. Thank you very much.
Loom91
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On Apr 9, 2006, at 8:40 PM, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Molu Bosu Palit <loom91(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] A question about Wikipedia method
> To: WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20060406171753.2281.qmail(a)web32104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> I have this question about Wikipedia method. If I see cntent that
> I know for CERTAIN to be true, but the content does not cite a
> verifiable source and I also know of none, then should I keep the
> content or should I remove it? Thank you.
>
> Molu
Neither. If you're sure the content is true, then you should not be
in a rush to remove it, but if nobody has found a verifiable source,
then the reader should be specifically alerted to this problem.
So, tag it with a {{fact}} tag (which displays as a superscript
"Citation needed.") Wait a while and see if anyone can find a
verifiable source. Continue to try to find a verifiable source yourself.
If, after what you consider to be a reasonable amount of time, nobody
has come up with a source, then do not simply remove it, cut it from
the article, but paste it into the talk page and explain both that a)
you're removing it because nobody could find a source for it, but b)
you personally are sure that it is true. Give your reasons for
thinking it's true. Giving a good explanation may help someone else
find a source. For example, if you say "I think I read it in the
Boston Globe," then since my local public library happens to give me
access to a database with the full text of the Boston Globe back to
about 1980, I might be able to find a source even if you, without
such access, can't.
On 8 Apr 2006 at 10:41, "Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
>
> Yes, in terms of laws. This image might not fall under child
> pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't
> actually stop it being child pornography.
So "you know it when you see it"? But people's standards are not
necessarily consistent, or objective. Do any of you remember the
flap a few years ago when Oklahoma City banned the award-winning film
"The Tin Drum" as child porn, and the cops there confiscated all
copies of it? This is a movie that the MPAA had rated "R" (mature
but not pornographic), and it won an Oscar and a Cannes film festival
award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum
--
== 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/
At 10:49 AM 4/8/2006, Katefan0 wrote:
>Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take the
>time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
>problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
>company itself. I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
>office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
>you?
Of course not. But I'm pretty sure that the HR department has better
things to do...
Chris
