Jesse W wrote:
> On May 3, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
>
>> Given the existence of automated listing tools, adding a note to
>> a creator's talk page might not be a heavy burden and can only
>> be helpful for those who are not heavy watchlist users.
>
> That gives me an idea - what about a bot, that would go through AfD's,
> identify the "major contributors" (somehow) and, unless they had
> already commented on the page, drop a short note on their talk page.
> I would have not objections to that. (Except for the minor sadness of
> having *even more* bot-created talk page messages, but that's not
> really an objection... ;-) ).
This would be immensely better than imposing another procedural hurdle
on nominators, especially one that's likely counterproductive from the
nominator's perspective. Requiring human volunteers to do work they
don't want to do is not usually a good idea, and in these circumstances
would likely lead to grouchy nominators making _more_ comments about
"cruft", which we all seem to agree is a bad idea. We spend entirely too
much energy trying to fix broken processes by adding more process.
--Michael Snow
I think the question of whether or not cruft is offensive has been already settled as many editors have considered it offensive. Whether or not a word is offensive is not decided by some mathematical analysis of whether it meets several convoluted linguistic criterias. If a word is considered offensive by a significant number of people, then it is offensive and it should be avoided, irrespective of whether it can *logically* be considered offensive. See [[Godwin's Law]].
Using jargon on newbies is a tactic designed to hinder their participation in WIkipedia activities and should be discouraged. Whether or not the deletionists *hunt down* newbies and make them participate in AfD's, newbies *do* (and should), and it is not to the interests of the project to scare them off with jargon that conveys the impression that Wikipedia does not practice what it praches ("...anyone can edit").
Molu
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
I'm not surprised...
>Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:17:17 -0500
>From: "Kelly Martin"
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
>To: "English Wikipedia"
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
>> The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I
>> observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.
>Why? Why is it of importance? My first post to the Wikipedia
>namespace was an VfD *nomination* [1], and nobody pointed *that* out.
>[2]
>Kelly
>[1]
>[2]
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
While it is easy to AGF for calling contributions cruft, it's not so easy for that comment. Bias can creep into statement of pure facts through the process of selection of facts. However such behavious is expected in AfD. People who don't have a blood-thirst don't *usually* spend their time in the destructive passtime of deleting articles.
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:09:37 +0100
From: "Joe Anderson"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace I was attempting to
insert fact without opinion.
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope
> of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
>
>
> On 5/2/06, John Lee wrote:
> >
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> > >contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that
> > >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why
> > >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> > >to limited scope of interest"?
> > >
> > >Kelly
> > >
> > >
> > What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
> > isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
> >
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Hi.
Preliminary: This posting is *NOT* meant to re-incite a discussion that
has already taken place and is already over: namely, the debates about
the deletion of [[Template:User en-5]] and its equivalents for other
languages.
I just wanted to note one thing that struck me as significant and no-one
else seems to have brought this up anywhere in the discussion (the AfD
discussion; I haven't followed the mailing list):
The entire discussion blatantly reflects the stereotypical
English-speakers' language ignorance, which postulates that a native
speaker is necessarily "perfect" or "best", and a non-native speaker is
necessarily worse than a native speaker. The entire discussion assumes
that "native speaker" is an adequate label for a level of skill.
In reality, most non-native English speakers I know speak and write
English way better than an average native speaker. In reality, among all
speakers (native or non-native) there are huge variations in the level
of skill, ranging from "lolz asl?" to Pulitzer-prize winning prose. It
is *that* which the Babel templates are trying to gauge, *not* whether
someone is a native speaker or not.
Timwi
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:14:15 -0600
From: Fred Bauder
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser verification errors
Make a claim that there was an error and request a second opinion at
Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Our competence varies.
Fred Bauder
On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Cheney Shill wrote:
> How does one resolve errors in checkuser results?~~~Pro-Lick
I made the request along with a request for other suggestions if declined and was "Declined" 4 days later without any explanation or proposed alternatives by Mackensen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Checkuser_err…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mackensen
Suggestions? Arbitration?~~~~Pro-Lick
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
Charles Matthews wrote:
>Further, there could hardly be a better example of how 'original research',
>launched by Jimbo as a way to deal with crank theories, has been spandexed
>as an argument.
The ever onwards and upwards stretching of what constitutes "original research"
by the policy wonks is slowly starting to create problems for content creators.
Over at the Tree of Life wikiproject we like to have people upload photos of
any species they don't recognise and we try to identify them before dispatching
them to a suitable article. That hasn't come under threat yet as "original research"
but I fear it is only a matter of time.
Pete
Hi everyone,
As you may or may not know, Wikimania 2006 is less than 100 days away. There
is a strong possibility that I will be giving a presentation at the
conference regarding Wikipedia's continuing success. As part of my
presentation, I would love to include input from other Wikipedians regarding
the project.
You may find the survey at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak/Wikimania_2006/Wikipedian_Survey.
Your responses are greatly appreciated.
--Alex
*I have been blocked for using my first name, Ban, as a username. Your
username policy says nothing that could indicate "Ban" as being an
impersonation of someone, offensive, or otherwise worthy of any level of
blocking. Here is the error message:*
*Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing*.
You were blocked by Anonymous
editor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anonymous_editor>for the
following reason (see our blocking
policy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy>): "username"
Your IP address is *64.233.172.4*.
*If there is some obvious reason for blocking me that I cannot see, then can
I use "Ban Galen?"*
*Thank you for your time.*
*: Ban Galen :*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_image_replacement_request
This is a cat of fair-use images that should be pretty darn easy to do
free-content replacements for; promo shots and so forth. Look at those
images - they fairly scream "target practice." To tag such an image,
you put {{fairusereplace}} on it and it goes in that cat.
- d.