Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it would be a big help.
please take a look
I believe this edit speaks for itself. Notice that this edit was labeled as
"restoring an URL and working toward a compromise on POV issues". A
"compromise" (after his previous drastic POVification of the article) which includes
the unexplained removal of plenty of significant information and obviously
POV statements such as:
"Labelling Wagner as an anti-Semite is misleading; he never supported
violence against Jews, nor did he hold them to be at fault for the cultural divide
that he perceived existed between German Jews of his time, and mainstream
Once more, Clutch is trying to whitewash Wagner of any and all anti-Semitism
(the "accusations" of which he believes are only made by Jews.) Frankly, I'm
fed up by his edits. I can see absolutely no reason why Lir is banned and he
is not. Enough is enough.
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
142 (whom many believe is the IP formerly known as 24) has been
editing many voting systems pages in a very odd way. He takes the
literal meanings of words in a phrase (instant runoff voting,
disapproval voting) and writes a lot of things about topics vaguely
related to the overlap of those two words. He attributes lots of
random (but plausible) viewpoints to critics, countercritics, etc.,
as if he were summarizing a particular coffeehouse conversation.
I can't keep up with him in real-time, though eventually I can edit
all these pages and justify my edits in talk pages. I just thought
I'd let you all know in cases there's anybody else who'd like to help
me follow up on this.
M Carling wrote:
>If this turns out a be a serious problem, one idea would be to only allow
>logged-in users to make changes (except in the Sandbox).
That won't do much to keep out banned people. If someone wants to
continually evade the ban, all they would have to do is subscribe a
different user name every time they need to log in.
Banning IP numbers isn't a very satisfactory solution either. To get
around that barrier, just visit a different Internet cafe every day.
In the event that this becomes more of a problem, perhaps the tech
folks should start working on a more substantial system for
authenticating subscribers. Here's what I think would work:
(1) Establish a toggle that people with developer status can use to
switch between "permission required" and "no permission required"
mode for accepting new subscriptions. When "permission required" is
turned ON, new subscribers would have to pass their submission
request through a sysop, who would have to approve it before they can
begin posting. When it is turned OFF, people can subscribe the same
way they do now. Most of the time, it would be turned OFF, but in
situations where a persistent vandal is active, it could be turned
ON. That would make it possible to deny access to the vandal until he
or she loses interest and goes elsewhere.
(2) Create a special page, computer-generated and available only to
sysops, which lists all of the pending submission requests. It will
list the nickname of each pending subscriber alongside a check box,
so a sysop can go through and quickly approve a batch of names simply
by running down the list, checking the boxes, and clicking a "submit"
button. A separate check box next to each user name can be used to
flag individuals for further scrutiny, and clicking on the name
itself will take you to a talk page for that user. Most users can be
quickly approved this way simply by verifying that their IP number is
not on a banned list or range. The others can be contacted via email
and asked a few questions. Of course, vandals could still get through
eventually by giving disingenuous answers, but there would be enough
barriers to entry to slow them down and keep them from simply running
amok at will.
| 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
Hello . . .
Writing to request sysop status - my motivation is simple : * -based sex
Like This, queef, ulm, Tea bag sex position, teabagging, John Cheese,
Erectile Bone, Cabinet of Canada . . . ad infinitum.
I've no doubt that this kind of nonsense would eventually get caught
with or without me, but what's the point in waiting for someone else to
come along and clean it up if my fair amount of spare time and
T3-and-friendly-boss-equipped day job give me the ample opprotunity to
help keep the 'pedia tidy ? After all, *someone* has to finish
classifying and deleting all those orphaned talk pages . . .
Anyway . . . take a look at the 'votes for deletion' page, and tell me
everyone's life wouldn't be easier if I could just dump garbage like '
Arise Oh Compatriots Nigerias Call Obey ' myself. :' )
~ J.T. ( Tzaquiel )
PS : I might've cross-posted this to the Wikipedia list - if so, all
After quite a while of personal abuse ('moron', 'retard' etc) DW sent me the
Will suggest you stop vandalizing the [[Amedeo Modigliani]] page on which
you have made no contribution except to vanadalize it. Keep it up and I
guarantee you that a dozen people will start examining very carefully
anything your retarded brain might have created as per your list....DW
For the record, what I did was revert the page to the style as laid out by
Zoe (she asked me a few days ago to keep an eye on the page 'invert and hurl
abuse around' phases. I duly did that while carefully keeping in the one
textual change he made. However DW does not appreciate anyone else touching
'his' pages. It is one thing to leave insults on people's talk pages (is
there anyone he hasn't done that to by now?), but to threaten to vandalise
the work of someone if they 'vandalise' (ie, touch) anything of his seems
astonishing. Or maybe there is nothing astonishing in anything DW says or
Do we have to put up with nonsense from DW or could someone out there
(preferably someone he hasn't already hurled abuse at, if there is anyone he
hasn't hurled abuse at, that is!) have a quiet word with him. Or maybe feed
him a dozen valium!
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*