Hi there...Sheldon Rampton here. I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia,
but I'd like permission to be a sysop anyway.
I am making this request because I am in the process of creating my
own separate project, a "Disinfopedia" that will be modeled after
Wikipedia. In addition to the Wikipedia software, I would also like
to use or adapt a number of protected pages (e.g., guidelines on how
to create an article). I am not planning to make any changes to those
pages as they exist in Wikipedia, but in order to cut-and-paste the
information into my own project, I will need sysop status.
If you need any further information about my bona fides, I am the
editor and webmaster for PR Watch (www.prwatch.org).
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
Eclectiology, I don't know if you know about this project, but archive.org
keeps snapshots of websites, like a library for the internet. There was an
interesting interview with the inventor in the New Scientist a little
while back (It's probably available online if you look for it).
>>Along the same line, I've often found interesting web sites which I've
bookmarked for later reference when I can focus my attention on the
subject matter. Several months later when I'm ready ... poof! it's
gone. Some of these have useful information, and it's a shame that it
becomes lost because somebody didn't pay his ISP bill.
These sites are covered by copyright, so for the most part we just can't
copy the material onto Wikipedia and make it available to the public.
Still it could be in the public interest to copy material from
threatened sites into a restricted access file where it could be revived
if and when the original site could no longer be maintained. It would
be a lot easier to come to a conditional release agreement while the
site is still functioning than after it has gone under.<<
There are only 10 types of people in this world;
Those that know binary...and those that don't
>What about requiring an edit summary
>for major edits, and not requiring
>one if the minor edit box is checked?
Unless there is a byte counter married with the diff
that would only encourage people to mark moderate and
major edits as minor. Vera Cruz already marks all
edits as minor and this is *VERY* annoying.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
This is in regards to the article on "Israelites".
Danny writes "I don't frequently post on this list, but I
do read it and have been following the discussions taking
place here. I am on the verge of getting into a major flame
war with RK. Rather than do that, I have decided to follow
Ed's example and leave Wikipedia for a while."
I am puzzled and astonished to read this. The flame war is
coming from Danny alone.
I have been trying to talk to him and work with him, but
Danny refuses to talkm literally. I have tried to make
peace with him, and have repeatedly requested that he
contribute to the article, instead of making personal
attacks. I have added new material, and explicitly asked
Danny to comment on this material, and offer any
constructive criticism he would like to. But Danny refuses
to contribute to any articles, and simply writes ad homenin
For whatever reason, Danny simply fills the Talk pages with
implications that I am ignorant, he attacks the beliefs of
mainstream scholars, he refuses to clarify his statements,
and he makes unilateral deletions without explaining what
the problem is.
Worse, he also now claims that he, and apparently he alone,
has the right to decite what is NPOV, and has repeatedly
implied that the views of any scholar other than him are
not worth describing in the article And all this is despite
my repeated requests for conversation and discussion. These
remarks are still on the Talk page in the Israelite
Frankly, I am terribly confused. These recent actions by
Danny are not like him at all, and until two days ago we
had a good relationship! But after he saw just one sentence
he disapproved of (I said that Jews are descendents of the
Israelite tribe of Judah, and refugees from some of the
other tribes.) he begain fixated on some imaginary claims
that have to with "racial purity" or something, and never
let go of this idea.
Danny then refused to speak to anyone about the issue, and
simply implied that Jews were lying about their heritage.
Since this particular Biblical minimalist position is used
on the Internet by anti-Semitic groups on a daly basis, I
was extremely concerned, and I told him so. NO ONE ACCUSED
HIM of being an anti-Semited. Rather, I asked him to
clarify precisely what he meant. Yet instead of writing
clarifications, he made personal attacks. (In later days
he did make some clarifications, but he still refuses to
bring forth any sources at all to back up his position.)
Ironically, the ONLY person on Wikipedia in recent days to
offer any support for Danny's claims has been ME. I went
out of my way to add material, in the article on the
"History of ancient Israel and Judah", on both Biblical
minimalism and Biblical maximalism, with sources,
bibliography and weblinks. Danny, mysteriously, refuses to
give any support for his own position.
Danny's most recent remarks about me are, to put it
charitably, incomprehensible. He attacked me by claiming
that I was writing nonsense, that literally every proposed
addition I had offered was wrong...and then he admits that
almost every proposed change I made was, in fact, correct!
He then concludes that I am totally wrong. In a word,
He has continually attacked me for beliefs that I don't
have, and keeps imagining that someone is trying to prove
that Jewish people are some sort of "racially pure" group,
whatever that means. Yet no one is making such a claim. And
its not just my point of view; other people have joined in
on the Talk pages, trying to explain this to Danny, but he
insists that his mis-reading of the material is correct.
I went through his comments one at a time, and explained to
him that he was attributing many beliefs to me that I don't
have, and that he was attacking claims that I was not
making. Further, I explained that some of his beliefs I
actually agreed with! Yet all he gave in return was
All of this disturbs me greatly, as this is not like Danny
at all. I just can't explain why he refuses to talk, why he
refuses to explain his position, why he refuses to back up
his own position, or why he is making up all sorts of
attacks on non-existent beliefs, and attacking me
This is not right, folks. This is justplain wrong.
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
Expanding an idea by fonzy, I have created a skeleton for Wikipedians to
organize the sharing of information from proprietary resources. See
The current text that is there:
This page is a reference for Wikipedians in need of certain proprietary
information resources (encyclopedias, CD-ROM archives, expensive books
etc.). The page has a section of resources that are offered and one of
resources that are wanted. These sections are separated into subsections
for specific resource types.
Feel free to offer any type of resource, but please understand that this
page is not intended to facilitate copyright violation -- "shared
resource" implies that you are willing to make use of that resource for
someone else, in your own time. Please provide as much detail as possible
* version of the resource
* storage form of the resource (paper, CD-ROM, online archive etc.)
It is assumed that these resources are available to you for free or that
you are willing to cover any costs. Users should note that these shared
usage offers, unless otherwise noted, are only valid for Wikipedia
Please add your own resources in the appropriate section.
.. some content follows ..
On Thursday 26 December 2002 04:00 am, Tom Parmenter wrote:
> Rule or no rule, an empty summary field is bad manners.
> You can always cut and paste something from your change. The
> statement that writing a summary can be more onerous than making the
> change is ludicrous.
> Tom Parmenter
Not when fixing formatting. Having to fill-in an edit summary would
significantly slow me down so I definitely would object to having to perform
the needless keystrokes for these mundane changes. However, when I do make an
edit worth documenting I do so nearly every time and if anything I over
document. This should stay a 'rule to consider' for at least logged-in users.
It would be OK by me if this was a requirement for non-logged-in users (along
with taking-away their ability to mark edits as minor). Anything to slow the
rate of useless experiment page creation AND give non-logged-in users another
reason to log-in or at least use the preview function is a good thing.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
The software is already set up for Jimbo's proposal (all we have to do is turn on one setting).
Oh, and give the admin password to everyone on the moderator team.
When you log in as a mailing list admin, you'll find a list of "posts awaiting administrator approval". You may browse through the posts in any order you choose.
When viewing a particular post, you have the following choices:
* approve it (software sends it out and takes it off the queue)
* leave it in the queue (someone else will deal with it)
* reject it -- for Jimbo's use only (software provides
a nice big text box for comments!)