hmmm.......I don't know what to do about it. I tried to talk to AOL but
to no avail. Any suggestions?
Pat
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 08:41:43AM -0400, Padreger(a)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi...if this message is in HTML please let me know. adamw's comment
> came
> > as a surprise, as it is the only such complaint I have ever had.
>
> It's the same as the other one; in multipart/alternative form, with both
> plain text and HTML versions. Not as distasteful as pure HTML mail, but
> still bad in terms of bloated message size.
>
> --
> Khendon (Jason Williams)
> khendon(a)khendon.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Jimmy wrote:
>The only concern I have about banning advertisements in user pages is
>that it commits us to enforcing content-based restrictions on those
>pages, which are generally NOT incluced in our NPOV mission.
Fair enough. I still wouldn't put up ads for paypal donations for myself, but I can laissez-faire with the best of them. :-)
kq
I don't think ads should be up there: suppose I want to put up an ad for something someone else finds patently offensive, or link my user page to amazon.com or kiddie porn? I think--and this is just my /opinion/--that user pages are a friendly service intended to make the editing a little more personable, and we really shouldn't abuse wikipedia for profit. And yes, I do consider it abuse.
I would /very much/ like to hear what others, especially Jimbo, think about this.
kq
Vicki wrote:
>He's wrong, imho, but I'd like some comments, so it doesn't look like a
>private argument
>between the two of us. Conversely, if I've misunderstood and ads on user
>pages are cool,
>I want to know that.
> The user hfastedge has on his page an ad for some kind
> of service he's offering...
We do have a policy here that user pages don't have all
the same rules as encyclopedia pages, and we generally have
let people get away with just about anything, but I don't
think we've ever discussed ads in particular. I don't
personally have much problem with it. It's been understood
that user pages are kind of personal space and not subject
to Wikipedia policy except for copyright violations and
outright obscenity. If a user wants to hype a business,
I don't think that's too out of line.
Well, I did check a little bit and found at least one article that had been
deleted. Worked on it a bit and found a few interesting links that fit
into it.
I think most of the deletions being made are being done in good faith and
for good reasons and probably should be possible without any hassle.
But I don't think all of them are. Perhaps it is just due to inexperience,
I think some of our sysops perhaps have a bit more enthusiasum about
delection and other duties than is really comfortable for others.
Anyway, when you move beyond the appropriate bounds of your
responsibilities it's pretty ugly.
Ed Poor, he's pretty cool. If he does something drastic he's on here
talking about it and it's easily remedied, cause we all know about it.
Anyway, I think it is fair to say that there is some vandalism or let us
say abuse of their position by some sysops. I would suggest that if you are
not one of those responsible there is no need to take offense; and if you
are perhaps an examination of your motives is appropriate.
When a person first comes on they experiment with different things, some of
which seem not that good later. They name things wrong, don't take a
Neutral Point of View, perhaps write articles in an inappropriate way. I
don't suppose there is any perfect way to straighten them out and get them
on the right track, so I guess a lot of leeway needs to be given to anyone
who takes the trouble to try to correct an error.
I think at some point, however, you should realize that if someone keeps
trying, that they are trying to do something worthwhile.
My point is, that unless you can justify it and are prepared to make a
record of what you have done and why that you leave other peoples work
alone unless you are engaged in improving it. Eagerness to just get rid of
whatever doesn't please you is unseemly.
I find returning to Wikipedia and finding articles deleted (and
unrecoverable) quite unpleasant.
Fred
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
> Some have mentioned the pages should go to some special wiki - that's
> fine with me, but I *very strongly* feel they should leave Wikipedia
> now. The meta is the best place for them now. I've already brought this
> up some months ago, and I agreed then to wait until after September 11,
> 2002. It is now September 25, and time to move on with these pages -
> there has been plenty of time to think of other/better solutions. As
> I've said before, I don't think we should give 911 any special treatment
> anymore - there's no reason for that.
>
> Jeronimo
I agree the non-article 9/11 pages which including hundreds of tribute pages
should be moved (while still allowing Google to index them at their new homes
- we will still get traffic that way). But I do not agree that this should be
a hasty cut and paste effort. What I would like to see is a mechanism whereby
the move feature could move a page and its history in WIkipedia to Metapedia.
It would also be a very good idea to add "w:" link-backs where appropriate in
the moved pages. But to make this cross-linking work pages on Metapedia need
to look different than pages on Wikipedia. I've already suggested a light
gray background.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> Some have mentioned the pages should go to some special wiki--
> that's fine with me, but I *very strongly* feel they should leave
> Wikipedia now.
I'd be happy to host the pages on my site, and I don't think
Jimbo would have any problem hosting them on the Wikipedia
server either. But yes, they certainly need to be removed from
the main Wikipedia (though the articles about 9/11 can link to
them). That also seems like a good reason to keep "meta"
around and to upgrade it to the new software.
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 08:24 am, Fred wrote:
> Yes [Andre] you make many deletions, as I see from the log,
> most of which are fully justified. I only found one or two deleted
> entries that seemed interesting to me. (Although some substantial
> topics I'm not aware of the significance of may be there). [[infant
mortality (computer)]], fascinating topic although it ought to be
> expanded to include all devices. [[Abermud]], the father of them
> all, although not the grandaddy, that was Adventure. I guess
> I want to see interesting topics remain, even if undeveloped.
Since many others think that undeveloped topics should remain edit links then
why don't write decent stubs for the topics that interest you yet are placed
in the deletion log?
> Since [the deletion log] is such a rich resource for good articles
> perhaps it might extend back beyond 3 weeks and include an
> easy way to recover the text, small though it may be.
>....
> A close case...the Bronx Zoo will be an article, but much more extensive
> than that.
In 90% of the cases, the entire text is placed in the deletion summary.
Simply copy this and start from there (or query the database and read the
history as Brion has suggested).
Although it would be a waste of time to copy "the zoo in the Bronx" since an
actual very short stub would look something like;
The '''Bronx Zoo''' is a world famous [[zoo]] in [[Bronx]] [[New York]]. It
opened on [[November 8]], [[1899]] with 22 exhibits and 843 [[animal]]s and
with the goal to "advance the study of [[zoology]], protect wildlife, and
educate the public.
==External link==
http://wcs.org/home/zoos/bronxzoo/
Now that is a decent definition and could serve as the foundation of an
actual article. "the zoo in the Bronx" is useless crap and if I saw that
amongst 20 other similarly useless microstubs I would probably have deleted
it rather than spend a few minutes creating a short and still pathetic stub.
But if I did do this, then what about the other 19? Aren't they also
deserving? Time ain't cheap.
When many of these things enter the database each day it is not possible to
spend even 3 minutes on each of these microstubs that took the original
submitter 10 seconds to write. Furthermore, WIkipedia is not a dictionary so
I tend to not create such short stubs unless they serve a specific purpose.
It takes me 10 minutes to create a decent stub on a topic I know nothing
about. But at the same time I don't delete decent definitions submitted by
others; I add to the definitions.
Simply bookmark the deletion log and use it as a place to get ideas on
starting new articles.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Jeronimo wrote:
>* "these are among the most popular pages on the site" - that is not a
>good reason. We are an encyclopedia, and no matter how many visitors we
>get for a page, if it's not an encyclopedia article, it must go.
I agree with this completely. We should be careful about setting precendence for non-NPOV articles: what article will next get the privilege? None, I hope. If they can't be NPOV, they should go.
My $.015
kq
No, the point is that [[film noir]] turns up 3rd on the search results, after [[Film Noir]], a redirect, and after the list of films noir. It would be bestto follow but not index redirects, right? Or is there a good reason to index them also?
kq
The Cunctator wrote:
>kq wrote:
>> Also, he included redirects (e.g. [[Film Noir]]). Should we ask that those be excluded, or is it that pressing an issue?
>>
>We want him to include redirects. Ideally his software would know that
>they're redirects, but we want the result to come up if someone searches
>for an entry like "film noir".