On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Whether or not email is enabled is public information. There is no need to notify someone before publishing it.

On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: There are dozens of reasons why someone might not have email enabled - having left Wikipaedia, being on wikibreak, odd privacy concerns, not involved in blocking people, having offered alternative off-wiki communication, not knowing their email was disabled, etc. My point is, you can't understand why just from looking at a list, but everyone has a reason, and that makes all the difference.

On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: Couldn't we just have statistics? 'Out of X admins checked, Y (Z%) had email disabled. Please check to confirm your email in enabled, especially if you block people.'

On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: Statistics are good if you want to say there is a problem with unenabled emails, talk page notes are good if you want to bug certain people to fix things. Wasn't Autowikibrowser designed to make this sort of thing easy?

On 9/13/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: Marc: I don't know about Matthew, but I definitely would (and do) say things like this to someone's face. There is nothing really 'mean' about the statement. Furthermore, the whole point of saying something like this is not to further a discussion, but to convey the idea that there is no reason to continue a discussion about something so completely trivial. Not everything has to be discussed to the ground. Sincerely, Silas Snider -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delenn: But ... then, why ? Dukhat: When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be. - Atonement, Babylon 5 Mere mortals buy air conditioners, a true nerd builds a wormhole generator that links to an ice planet with higher air pressure. --adapted from an XKCD forum posting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 9/13/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: Yes, given a similar quantity of exasperation with things. There is, IMO, nothing to advance. I apologize for the tone, but not the substance. If normal communications like this bother you, if you consider being ever mentioned or discussed in anything but a personal communication with you a breach of privacy and an affront, then frankly the project is not for you and you need to find something else to do. Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia's purpose is not to keep every possible contributor happy. We are engaged in a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, and I think a level of paranoia that considers the list Greg posted to be an affront or an invasion of privacy is not helpful to our project, and not compatible with it. -Matt

On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: *You* are here to build an encylcopaedia. The Wikipaedia community has already stated loud and clear they do not want my help with that. So y'know what? I'm sorry I wasted my time writing a Good Article and a bunch of other stuff. I am here because Wikipaedia is seriously hurting people, often being a worse attack site than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and it needs to stop.

On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have already explained that there are methods of destructive editing and Sybil attack control better than simply getting rid of all edits from Tor. In any case, I used Tor, and they didn't want me to edit. Case closed. Is is so ridiculous? If a person who has been attacked from Encyclopaedia Dramatica tries to get material removed, Encyclopaedia Dramatica makes the article on that person worse. If the person tries to blank the page on him or her, Encyclopaedia Dramatica calls the person a vandal and blocks him or her. As far as Encyclopaedia Dramatica is concerned, they have a right to do this because of *their* free speech and *their* policies. If a living person, who is not particularly notable, has an article about him or her on Wikipaedia... well, what then? There are those on Wikipaedia who would set the threshhold for notability very low, and refuse to delete an article on request from any subject who met that level of notability. Enough that they often win such debates. Hell, what happened to Mr. D. Bra ndt? He complained, and his article got worse. And of course, Wikipaedia lets Google index all namespaces, so if you have a user page, you may as well have a biography. Four years after someone is banned, negative Wikipaedia pages on him or her still show up on top of Google. Does being banned from Wikipaedia make a person notable all of the sudden? Some banned users have edited under or disclosed their real names - others use long-standing pseudonyms. Apparently, a banned user who publicly reveals himself to be a pedophile who would have a relationship with a child if he has the chance can get his user/talk pages blanked, but not a banned user who posted semi-nude pictures which, so far as we know, were of herself, although to be fair there wasn't really any evidence one way or the other as to whether the pictures were of her. And then Wikipaedia comes up with justifications such as 'banned users are assholes - they deserve it'. At least Encyclopaedia Dramatica doesn't tell you that you deserve it, they just say 'but it's made of lulz!' or something. And then of course Wikipaedia says even more cruel things to the person - just like Encylcopaedia Dramatica. And Wikipaedia has higher Google rankings than Encyclopaedia Dramatica. As for Wikipaedia Review? Well, they may be an attack site, but Wikipaedia makes them look like gentlemen. I've had a much easier time getting personal things about myself removed from Wikipaedia Review than from Wikipaedia, and it's not like the Wikipaedia Review doesn't hate me.

On 17/09/2007, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, I am quite banned, and I haven't been in good standing since 3 June 2007, so what have I got to lose? Let's see, his article lasted nearly two years before being blanked and redirected, despite his strong objections throughout most of that time period. 14 AfDs from November 2005 to June 2007 - 14 AfDs in 20 months. It is well known that I strongly disapprove of many of his actions. However, Wikipaedia has caused him great pain, for no good reason, and I do acknowledge that those actions I disapprove of happened *after* the deletion of his article was refused. Some of us do care. Still, WP is worse.