>
>I must say, even though I'm personally rather fond of JT, I think he's sort
>of dropped the ball here. I really think the best thing to do would have
>been to accept Erik's peace offer, as it seemed very fair and sincere. I
>hope he'll see that he's not really winning a lot of converts by being so
>confrontational at this stage and pull back the reins a bit.
Let me clarify:
1. I am rather fond too of Dante! :-)
2. I have a lot of respect for Erik.
3. I do believe that on a few occasions (usually to do with religion) Erik
loses all sense of judgment and, probably without realising it, produces
edits that are glaringly POV.
4. I want to work with Erik.
5. IMHO Erik does have a habit of ignoring criticism of his work, of seeing
agendas, or personalising criticism as attacks, etc.
6. On the page in question, Erik added in text with is seriously POV and
unbalanced. I tried to NPOV the article while not censoring the allegations,
by making a new article specifically focused on discussing the allegations,
many of which are not directly about Mother Teresa, the focus of the
original article. That article was to be linked to the main one, with a
summary of the allegations, focusing on those centred on MT, contained in
the main article. (Interestingly, a couple of people, unaware that this was
originally attempted a week ago, are suggesting that as the obvious
solution.) However Erik went ballistic, reverted, listed pages on the VfD,
talked about bans, accused me of censorship and a 'pro-Catholic' agenda.
Since then many users have come to the talk page and said that there /is/ a
clear problem with the MT page as edited by Erik. People other than me have
talked about POV, agendas, lack of balance, etc. Some have observed that the
MT article carries more extreme criticism than in articles on Hiter and Idi
Amin! Erik has ignored all the criticism and focused his attacks on me. I
have not edited the page in days, but to clarify for the community what is
the problem and what is the proposed solution, called a vote. Erik tried to
move the questions, change the questions, dispute the terminology, add in a
900th repeat of his constantly repeated defence (ok, 900th is an
exagguration but you get the point) all about censorship, etc (bizarrely
linking in Pol Pot in the debate!).
To set up the vote, I left messages on plenty of talk pages, including
people who agree with Erik. I left messages on the Village Pump and here. In
other words, while Erik has been talking about working with people, I have
been doing it; trying to NPOV a poor article, trying to get a debate, trying
to set up a vote to clarify what the community want. I have been seeking a
community consensus. Erik has been trying to get people to accept what he
wants.
But I have a lot of respect still for Erik. I do want to work with him. But
it is difficult when, on topics touching his pet topic, his dislike of
religion, he lets his personal opinions blind him to the NPOV requirement.
/If/ I was a catholic apologist, I would have deleted Erik's controversial
stuff, not given it its own linked article. On [[Pope Pius XII]] I would not
have dug up a quote from Hitler to a cabinet meeting that supports Erik's
thesis.
My bottom line is ensuring that articles are NPOV and encyclopædic. And all
that I have done is to ensure that. I just wish that Erik would show the
same neutrality and concern with NPOV. That he holds strong opinions is his
right. But he needs to avoid pushing those agendas in a 'case for the
prosecution' style that makes articles 70% accusationary (another
contributor suggested 80%). There is no point Erik talking peace if he
insists it is a peace based on getting his way, when most people have been
repeating over and over again 'this article has a POV problem'.
wikipeace
JT
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Rick moaned:
> This is an insult to the people who actually
> participate in Votes for Deletion and feel that we
> and the page provide a useful function. If you feel
> that any and all pages need to be kept, then why
> don't you say so on the VfD page? Because you are
> better than that? You're above it? VfD is beneath
> your contempt? You are so much superior to those of
> us who feel that made-up articles and people's
> resumes don't belong on Wikipedia?
>
> Please explain how to fix an article which contains
> nothing but a resume of someone nobody has ever
> heard of.
I delete resumes right away, or blank them with a note in talk to the
"contributor" advising them not to post their resume.
I don't feel that "any and all pages need to be kept" - I've only voting
*against* on VfD a few times.
Sorry if you feel that "ignoring" a page is insulting. I also ignore
almost all of the pop culture pages. But that doesn't mean I "hate" pop
culture. I just don't know enough about it to comment or write.
VfD just seems like a cumbersome time-consuming way of pruning. I don't
see what above and below has to do with it.
Uncle Ed
Ray,
The [[List of heterosexuals]] page is an example of a *useful* lightning
rod. It shunts dangerous high voltage energy away from the "real
contributors". If the children want to play, let them. They're safe
there.
Uncle Ed <== giving out coloring books, next
Hi, I've called a vote on [[Talk:Mother Teresa]] to clarify once and for all
what people think about the current article and what we should do about it.
Please express your opinion. lol
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Stevertigo wrote:
> > 6. Type " nominate for VfD in 2 weeks. ~~~~"
>
>Actually we want to keep comments brief as possible --
>so just VFD is always fine. Also, just use ~~~ -- not
>~~~~. Saves space.
I know but I had a conflicting design objective. I needed to come up with a process which could satisfy those who would list a page on VfD. IMO that requires two features: a definite timeline and feedback so they can see whether they are happy with the result and list it on VfD if they aren't. ~~~~ is the easiest way to both give a timestamp and identify who wants to be given feedback.
If I think anything needs deleting, I just delete it. Right away.
So far, I've gotten away with that. Larry (anyone remember Larry?) said
to "be bold", and I've been bold ever since (tempered by occasional
meekness).
Grad student resumes go right in the garbage; I'm not waiting a week for
the 11-point vFd process. Same as graffiti.
This is a WIKI, fer crying out loud!!!
Uncle Ed
Going to bed
Because his head
Is full
Of stupid jinx
And foolish kinks
That pull
His mind from work
Like Captain Kirk
Beaming down to save the crew
So do not shirk
Or meekly lurk
Do what you have to do
> RickK wrote:
> No, no, no, no, no! Kill that obnoxious Cleanup
> proposal. It's impossible to understand
1. Copy article wikilink.
2. Visit cleanup
3. Edit
4. Move to line above first entry
5. paste wikilink
6. Type " nominate for VfD in 2 weeks. ~~~~"
7. Save.
Optional:
8. Look for a VfD nominated page with a date 2 weeks ago and not nominated by you and look at it. List it on VfD if it still looks as though it needs it.
9. If you don't think it needs it, drop a note to the lister sayin that it looks OK now so you've removed it from cleanup and ask them to list it on cleanup as a "second listing" if they still think it needs work.
10. If it's a second listing, follow step 9 but suggest VfD instead of cleanup.
Optional, desirable:
11. Scan cleanup to see if there's a page which interests you and fix it or post a note to the primary author(s) which politely reminds them of the page. If they are a newbie, suggest what is needed to fix it and point them to a good example, help articles and your talk page as a way for them to ask for more help. If the page no longer needs work and isn't a deletion candidate, remove it from cleanup.
> and unworkable.
Why is what I just described more unworkable than the current VfD process? Is it more or less likely to help and encourage newbies than a VfD listing?
To cut the traffic on VfD, list on Cleanup for two weeks first if it isn't actually harmful (offensive or illegal, not tasteless or dictionary) to have it around for that time. And tell the most prominent creators it's been listed there for more work so they can do that work if they want to.
This gives time for the debates to start and maybe finish before things arrive at VfD. Also time for the people who are inclined to work on articles to do that before they use the more time-consuming VfD process. Would be nice not to see newbies getting educated instead of listed on VfD an hour afer starting work on a page as well.
Once those steps have halved the demand for VfD there won't be a need to cut the time things stay there.
Cleanup might need to switch to one page per day of the week but that's less painful there because there's no deadline.
Yes, its true -- my comments regarding him were inappropriate; it is inevitable that, within this often hostile community (where personal attacks are a dime a dozen); that I would also succumb to an occasional outburst of spite. I apoligize to Adam for attempting to bring undue attention towards his statements -- in the future, I will try to make more of an effort to ignore those who harass and taunt me.
To improve the discussion climate and the handling of NPOV on Wikipedia, I
have worked on two new pages and would appreciate input:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks
- An attempt to address the problem of personal attacks in the wiki-way
rather than with force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
(together with Ed Poor)
- A guideline to point newbies to so they can quickly understand the
basics of NPOV.
Go ahead and edit, and in the case of the first page, please do add your
name to the poll on the talk page after reading it.
Thanks,
Erik