Toby wrote:
>Please, list administrators, why are we still accepting posts
>from addresses that aren't subscribed to the list?
>It's been long enough now to change that!
When you send a message to a yahoo group you're not subscribed to, you
get a message back saying the group doesn't exist, though it does. I
know this because a friend was subscribed by the moderator, but with a
typo in the address. Anyway, that might be a handy function, unless
it reeks of Cabal.
kq
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Poindexter&diff=509574&old…
Clutch writes:
> It is of note that the Changing Doctrines material was
> a straight dump of material RK had already written and
> put on another page on the Wikipedia,
You have this backwards. This essay on changing doctrines
was originally written for the subject of Jehovah's
Witnesses. After it was finished, it became apparent that
it would be useful somewhere else as where.
Further, this is not the section that Jimbo was referring
to. This is '''not'' the section that was part of the edit
wars. Rather, it was specific controversial issues within
the essay that he (and I) are referring to.
Clutch writes "RK's information dump would have been
appropriate in the talk page, but not the article proper."
Sigh. Stop attacking the analysis as an "information dump".
As the clear consensus on the Talk page explcitly states,
others agree that this material is necessary here for a
discussion of the topic.
Clutch then adds "I will refrain from characterising RK's
action, but I invite you to look at what he added, then
imagine if you were a Jew, and someone dumped something
like that in the article on Judaism, how would you feel?"
Huh? THIS WAS ALREADY DONE TO THE JUDAISM ARTICLES. There
are very detailed section explicitly showing the changing
of doctrines in Judaism; this section became so long that
it was spun off a long time ago into its own separate
article. (And I myself wrote most of this article!)
Additionally, an ever harsher view of Orthodox Jewish
perceptions versus historical reality has been written in
the section on Torah study, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and the
documentary hypothesis.
And even more, the same critical historical analysis of
Christianity exists in many Wikipedia articles.
I would ask you to stop claiming that people are, in
effect, out to hurt the Jehovah's Witnesses. In point of
fact, all of us are working together to describe ALL
religions, and we strive to do so in an NPOV fashion, using
critical historical and logical analysis.
I myself have been the target of harsh criticism from many
religious Jews, because they think that the Wikipedia
articles are unfair to Judaism, as they contradict the
positions they learned in Hebrew school or Yeshiva. (Most
of the criticism I have received has come in direct e-mail,
and some of it was nearly flammable. The word "heretic"
comes to mind.)
Frankly, the criticism you have given me about the
consensus edits to the Jehovah's Witness articles is mild
to what I have received in regards to the articles on
Judaism and the controversy about the origin of the Torah
(five books of Moses)!
If you would look at the big picture, you will see that
over a wide array of articles, no religion is favored. They
are merely being discussed from the point of view from
someone observing and describing that religion, rather than
being an adherent of that religion.
Shalom,
Robert (RK)
=====
"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.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
FROM THE DESK OF
DR. BELLO MUSA
N N P C.
ATTN,
MUTUAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP-STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.
I am Dr. AHMED ABDUL The chief accountant of The
Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and I
head five man tender board in charge of contract award
and payments approvals.I came to know of you in my
search for a reliable person to handle a very
confidential transaction which involves the transfer
of a huge sum of money to a foreign account.
There were series of contracts executed by aconsortion
of multinationals in the oil industry in favour of
Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) among
which were for the following:-1. The expansion of the
pipelines network within for a crude down stream
products distribution and subsequent evacuation:- $8,
Billion United States Dollars.2. Contract for the turn around maintenance
(TAM) of the various refineries in the country $115 million Uited States Dollars.
3. The construction of storage tanks for petrolwum
products (depots) $190 Million United States Dollars.
The original value of these contracts were delebrately
over invoiced in the sum U$69,000.00 (sixty nine Million
United States Dollars Only) which has now been
approved and is now ready to be transferred, being
that the companies that actually executed these
contracts have been fully paid the projests officially
commissioned.It does not matter whether or not
your comapny does contracts project of that nature
described here, the assumption is that your company
won the major contract and sub-contracted it out to
other companies.
Consequently, my colleaques and I are willing to
transfer the total amount to your account for subsequent disbursement,
since we as civil servants are prohibited by the code of conduct bureau (civil service laws)
from opening and or operating foreign accounts in our
names. Needless to say, the trust imposed on you at
this junction enormous. In return, we have agreed to
offer you 20% of the transferred sum, while 5% shall
be set aside for incidental expenses (internal and
external) between the parties in the course of the
transaction, and the remaining 75% is for us,The
Nigerian officials.
Modalities have been worked out at the highest level
of the ministry of finance and the central bank of
Nigeria for the immediate transfer of the fund within
14 working days subject to your satisfaction of the
above stated terms.Our assurance is that your role is risk free,
I accord this transaction the legality it
deserves and for mutual security of the fund, the
whole approval procedures will be officially and
legally processed with the name of any company you may
nominate as the bonafide beneficiary of the
above mentioned amount.
Therefore, when the business is successfully concluded we
shall through our same connections withdraw all
documents used from all the concerned government
ministries for 100% security risk free.Once more, I
want you to understand that having put in over 19
years in the civil service of my country, I am very careful
to have my image and career deemed.
Please contact me immediately through E-mail whether
you are or not interested in this deal, if you are
not, it will enable us scout for another foreign partner
to carry out this deal but where you are interested
send the required documents.One blank letter head, one
invoice sheet and your bank particulars through my
above address as time is not on our side in the business.
Send by Email for security reasons.
Thanks as I await in anticipation for your fullest
co-operation.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Ahmed Abdul
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:00 pm, John Grygo wrote:
> Is this what I get for signing-up the other day?
> A good old 'Nigerian Scam' E-Mail?
> How secure is your site?
>
> Chagur
Your email address and personal info hasn't been compromised and neither has
the website so security /is not/ an issue at all. The available evidence
shows that the spam in question was sent to the mailing list, not you
directly. Spam is an eventual fact of life for anybody with an email address.
So since this is an open and unmoderated list that has been around for a
while we get spam too.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Disulfide_bond&diff=507442&oldi…http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Beryllium_copper&diff=510428&ol…
You Wrote:
>Is this what I get for signing-up the other day?
>A good old 'Nigerian Scam' E-Mail?
>How secure is your site?
>
>Chagur
woohoo! I'm rich!
kq
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56829,00.html (not the
payment you're expecting, but payment nonetheless). :-)
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 will be back if and when I hear that he has calmed down. Sorry, but I will not be told that my contributions will be looked at "charitably" by him or that I am buying into an anti-Semitic line. I will not watch as he suggests a new contributor is a "Muslim posing as a Jew." I will not cooperate with him if his idea of working together means that he sets the tone. For anyone who doesn't know what I mean, I suggest you look at the titles and explanations he has given to his changes (and not just to my work) over the past few days.
I may not be a very vocal contributor, but I think I've added something to Wikipedia in the almost-a-year that I've been here. Hopefully things will go back to the pleasant, slightly less chaotic way they once were.
Good luck
Danny
I'm pretty sure that my response will not make either side happy, as I
conclude that both sides are wrong in this controversy *and* that
neither side needs to be banned. There's a long analysis here and
then a conclusion at the bottom. People only marginally following
this can just skip to my CONCLUSION.
Clutch launched the article on Sep. 26, 2002, apparently thinking of
it as a "scratchpad" where people could work "until what is factual
and what is not can get hashed out sufficiently to be put in the
article on Jehovah's Witnesses in a neutral manner."
He included some external links, presumably so newcomers to the
discussion could get up to speed on the criticisms being discussed.
For the next 14 days, the only activity was a low grade edit/revert
war with Modemac. Modemac kept deleting the external links; Clutch
kept restoring them.
I think that at this point, Clutch was clearly in the right. Those
external links were valid and useful. Eventually, he lost this
battle, as the links are not in the current version at all. Maybe he
just gave up.
Finally, on Oct. 10, discussion took off when Wesley added some new
information. Modemac weighed in again, by simply deleting the
external links again.
Then, on Oct. 14-15 Modemac weighed in, usefully this time, by adding
the bulk of the text that is still there. This was edited and
expanded in the usual wikipedia fashion by Vicki Rosenzweig, RK, Ed
Poor, and Soulpatch.
On Oct. 20, RK returns and adds section headings and introduces the
first "Changing Doctrines" material.
There were only a few other edits, relatively minor in nature, until
Dec. 12, when the current controversy broke out.
At this point, Clutch returned and removed a ton of material from the
article, with the stated reason "Removing material already
incorporated on the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses page". I have
not verified this claim, but if true, it is consistent with Clutch's
originally stated view of the purpose of the page.
After that, there's a ton of edits back and
forth... delete/revert/delete/revert.
It does not seem to me that IN THIS CASE, RK and Clutch are disputing
anything about the actual _content_ of the article in question.
Clutch feels that this article needs to mostly go away because the information
in it is in other articles. RK feels the opposite, but mostly opposes what he
sees as heavy-handed unilateral action by Clutch.
There is NOTHING on the talk page about this particular controversy.
(There is discussion there of various _content_ controversies.)
On the talk page, RK says "The problem is that I have already tried to
do so three times. Each time I started doing this the pro-JW faction
came in and vandalized the entry by immediately deleting the material
I was adding, which included many specifics." (To fully understand
what he's talking about, you need to read the full context on the talk
page.)
He wrote this at 15:07 Oct 14, 2002, but he must be referring to some
other article, because his first edit is at 14:07 Oct 14, 2002, and he
had only made that one edit. I'm assuming he's referring to the main
Jehovah's Witness article. Were people deleting stuff from there?
Is there really a "pro-JW faction"? Are there any Jehovah's Witnesses
working on this article?
--------------
CONCLUSION
I conclude, preliminarily, that Clutch and RK were both wrong to
engage in a pointless edit war without also, at least, opening a
discussion on the talk page about the merits/demerits of getting rid
of the article or keeping it. But neither do their actions amount to
bannable vandalism.
I further conclude, preliminary, that Clutch and RK both made claims
about consensus which are, at best, unverifiable from the talk page.
When there is no discussion on the talk page about what should be done
with the article, no conclusion can be drawn about consensus.
Generally speaking, making claims about consensus is wrong. If it
really were consensus, then there would be no controversy left about
it.
Unless more information is pointed out to me about this controversy, I
will conclude by simply asking two things:
1. Folks, please try not to get into simple back-and-forth
edit/revert wars. Let the other person win for awhile, and make your
case on the talk page. Try to meet the other person halfway.
a. For people in Clutch's position here: Ask before making any major
changes. Apologize if you make a major change that upsets someone, and
let the reversion stand until you can resolve the other person's concerns.
b. For people in RK's position here: rather than merely reverting, revert
and make a comment on talk page, a comment that presumes good will on the
other person's part. Try not to call people names like "pathological liar".
2. Let's not be so hasty to call for bans, nor so hasty to cry
vandalism. Not every asshole action the other person takes is
vandalism.
------------------
I have no opinion about whether the material in this article is in
other articles. I have no opinion about whether this article should
continue to exist. I only have the opinion that the right way to
figure it out is to *talk* about it, not to engage in demands and
counter-demands, edits and reverts.
--Jimbo
Can someone please ban clutch? The community has reached a
consensus on the "Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial
Issues" article, and Clutch has kept unilaterally
vandalizing it. Worse, today he he started a campaign of
lying about what the consensus is.
Clutch actually is claiming (see the "History" of the
article for yourself!) that he is now acting in accord with
Wikipedia community consensus. Since he isn't, one must
wonder whether he is simply a mean persin, and is a troll
trying to disrupt the community - or if he actually has
some sort of psychological problem, and believes the
delusion he has just written?
I again ask Wikipedia sysops to accept responsibility for
their position; please stop allowing vandals to ride
rougshod over Wikipedia community consensus by deleting
articles. Continued silence effectively implies consent,
which is unfortunate.
Robert (RK)
=====
"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.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
The vandal has either run out of IPs or lost interest. I'm going to bed now
but when I arrive at work (in about 10 hours) I will unblock the IPs the
vandal was using and periodically monitor Recent Changes. If somebody else
feels up to it, they can unblock the IPs sooner and then keep on eye on
Recent Changes.
--mav
The Cunctator wrote:
>> I've already blocked about a dozen IPs from this
>>person and they keep on comming back for more.
>>This person makes 2 or 3 vandalism and then gets
>>a new IP. I know these are AOL proxies so they will
>>have to be unblocked soon.
>>
>Why bother blocking, then?
So that they will go away when the run out of IPs. Then a while after that we
can unblock the IPs. This should be obvious.
-- mav