On 4 Feb 2007 at 16:06, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Sum total of zero reports of it happening to anyone else and given the
> > number of people on this mailing list who use gmail that is somewhat
> > odd.
>
> And the amazing coincidence of the two accounts that got confused just
> happening to be involved in a conversation with eachother at the
> time...
Not to mention that this mysterious database malfunction (I prefer
wardrobe malfunctions myself) somehow restored the correct header to
the message in the copy that went to Mr. Peters as part of his list
subscription, so that when he replied to it it had the proper
attribution line, while the copies that reached all other list
subscribers, the digest-mode version, and the web archives all
misattributed the original message to Peters. This makes the JFK
assassination "magic bullet" theory seem highly believable in
comparison.
--
== 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/
Hi, I'd like to invite everybody here to get involved with the discussion in
[[:Category talk:Kurdistan]]. There currently is a confusion on what the
inclusion criteria supposed to be.
At the moment unrelated articles such as airline companies, rivers,
mountains, towns, cities, city squares, long dissolved countries, among
other things are categorized under the same category.
Cool Cat
There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays'
"Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices"
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html
It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about
non-free images being deleted!
--
Arwel Parry
I have to say that the WikiProject Go would dearly like to override the policy on Japanese names, because the name order used in 40 years or more of go literature in English has used Japanese name order.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 12:55 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Picture copyrights - an interesting article
>
>Arwel Parry wrote:
>
>>There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays'
>>"Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices"
>>http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html
>>
>>It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about
>>non-free images being deleted!
>>
>I think that those being asked for these ridiculous fees could have a
>good case for criminal extortion. The article says nothing about what
>happens if these people resist the demands.
>
>Ec
Probably pay the fee plus attorney's fees.
Fred
Keitei,
I've just made a quick check and you appear, despite your comments to the
contrary, to be doing nothing about this troubling case as of the time I'm
sending this email to you. I'm CC'ing you just so that I'm sure it gets to
you with all haste.
- on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident,
user:Ideogram states that he is closing the mediation. He is not listed as a
mediator on the case.
- on the mediation page, no change at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Bei…
- On the mediation talk page, an anon has written something about the
finalization of the case, but no reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-0…
- On Wikizach's talk page, no mention of this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach
I understand that there are reasons people don't get to these things, but if
Keitei is incapacitated, one would hope another member of the Mediation
Cabal would stand up.
Parker
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] First Amendment? - a Problem Mediation to consider
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 2/1/07, Keitei <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:31, Guettarda wrote:
>
> > On 2/1/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm < macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looks like this needs to be reviewed. A conclusion should be made
> >>> based
> >>> upon
> >>> WP policy rather than the US constitution.
> >>>
> >>> Mgm
> >
> >
> > It's actually par for the course in MedCab cases. The MedCab
> > provides for
> > informal mediation and a forum for discussion. That's a useful
> > role, but
> > one that seems to be routinely ignored. The role of a mediator
> > isn't to
> > judge the situation, but rather, to get people to talk and listen to
> > one-another. So any "conclusion" beyond that made by the
> > participants in
> > inappropriate, regardless of whether it was based on the US
> > constitution or
> > Wikipedia policy. The role of mediation is not to draw
> > conclusions. That
> > an informal body, with no selection process, no official standing,
> > and no
> > oversight, should make "rulings" is mind-boggling. Especially a
> > body that
> > seems, half the time, to be staffed by rank newbies who know little
> > about
> > policy.
>
> If mediators are acting as judges where they should not, we ask that
> you bring it up with the coordinators ([[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/
> Coordinators desk]]). From there, we try to convince said problem
> mediators that they have to mediate and not arbitrate, and if that
> doesn't work, they will be asked to resign from the case. Repeat
> problem mediators are asked not to take cases any longer.
>
> Of course this doesn't ensure that cases won't be total disasters,
> but the point is informal, fast, and not heavily regulated. Parties
> are encouraged to speak up if they don't think the mediator is
> helping though.
>
> --keitei (MedCab coordinator (along with Cowman109))
>
The mediator seems to think he is to act as a judge, keitei.
My analysis of the mediation goes back a bit further now that I've had some
time to look at it, and indicates some other serious problems with the case:
- the mediator did little to actually contact those relevant to the dispute.
- the mediator stated a time period at which he would "make [the] decision",
but did not discuss things with any other members, on the mediation page,
mediation talk page, article talk page, user talk pages, or anywhere else.
- comments questioning the mediator's impartiality because of his line of
work are in the history of the mediation, but they appear to have been
reverted rather than discussed openly. Any question of the mediator's
impartiality calls into question the mediation process.
Between this and a mediation "decision" that has nothing to do with
wikipedia policy or with the case at hand, and my little robot's making
"Danger, Will Robinson" noises...
Parker
It looks like Guy Chapman is definitely reading this list and is active on
Wikipedia --
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%24_London_Apartments&d….
He still hasn't answered my polite e-mails, though, so I have to conclude
he's just being arrogant and rude.
It also appears that the Stalinist hive-mind has a "flexible" definition of
what constitutes "spam". A few "nofollow" links to London apartment pages
on a User page = spam. Nearly 3,000 links to a for-profit Google AdSense
funded operation that gets exemptions from "nofollow" and often points to
wikis that have, at best, two active editors in the past month and/or less
than 5 edits overall in a month = not spam. Reporting on this "not spam" =
blockable offense from an admin who ignores e-mails.
If you Wikipedians are proud of this type of work, keep it up. It only
generates MORE of an urge to expose the hypocrisy.
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
> *57*% Sure. Everyone, paid or volunteer, has trouble staying neutral.
Wonder who supplied this exact wording? It has an odd, familiar ring.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
This is a top post. Some people think there is something wrong with top posts. Some even get real excited. They maintain that there is a long-standing convention requiring posting after the message you are replying to.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ? Firefoxman [mailto:enwpmail@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2007 01:28 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoconfirmed threshold
>
>What is a top post?
This is not a top post. This post is in the "proper" position.
Fred