Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
the english list to the general list, where it is
could we just swap mailing list names since
discussions relevant on english matter are on the
general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
community are on the english list ?
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Sigh. Another thinly veiled threat from our dear
"Sadly, you didn't learn your lesson from your first
attempt at slander and censure.
There are very few things you will regret more in your
life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong,
racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to
realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back
in, so, you deserve what you get. This is very sad.
You seemed to have grown up. But obviously not."
"There are very few things you will regret more in
your life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer." Sounds a lot like a mobster
telling a buisnessman that he will "regret" not doing
what the mobster wants. Sigh.
Sorry Craig Hubley (who lives in the Toranto area),
but the only regret is that I gave you some slack. The
hard ban will be enforced.
If my mentioning the real name of 142.177 was out of
line, then somebody delete this post.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
A few days ago, Gareth Owen wrote to Ed Poor:
> > No. You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted.
Jimbo then responded:
>In the interests of accuracy, Ed said absolutely no such thing. He's
>very supportive of those edits, in fact, and has additionally
>suggested that it would be appropriate to cite Connolley as a source.
Since Jimbo is interested in accuracy, he should review the revision
history for the SEPP article:
I think it's obvious from even a cursory review that Ed has *not*
been supportive of Connolley's edits. I'm flabbergasted that Jimbo
cites Ed's interest in "citing Connolley as a source" as evidence of
how "supportive" Ed has been. Take a look, for example, at Ed's edit
on 18:39, 24 Nov 2003, when Ed actually *did* revise the article to
"cite Connolley as a source." Here's Ed's comment on that edit:
"attributing your POV to you, Dr. Connolley - you've finally stepped
over that line I warned you about."
Does that sound "supportive" to you, Jimbo?
| 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
| Weapons of Mass Deception
>On 11/26/03 9:20 PM, "John Robinson" <john(a)freeq.com> wrote:
> > After having today discovered [[User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk]] I have a
> > couple of questions:
> > 1) Why was this person made an admin in the first place?
> > 2) Why does this user remain an admin after abusing that privilege in
> > an edit war?
> > These questions are not rhetorical.
The Cunctator wrote
>Ah, but the second one *is* leading.
And as usual not answered, just waffled around.
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
"Ray Saintonge" <saintonge(a)telus.net> schrieb:
> I suppose I should not have used the word "likely". It was just too
> polite. :-)
> Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having been
> blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have
> difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P
Sorry, but there is an important step missing in your 'logical conclusions'.
Cunctator unprotected the page -> The page was protected. Correct. (after
The page was protected -> Someone protected the page. Correct (in all
Someone protected the page -> A sysop protected the page. Correct.
A sysop protected the page -> A sysop abused their power. Nope, sorry.
General rule is that sysops should not protect pages that they are involved
in. The general rule is NOT that sysops should not protect pages. If that
were the rule, sysops would not have been given the possibility to protect
pages in the first place.
>From: Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion
>Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:07:25 -0800
>The Cunctator wrote:
>>BTW, do you deny that having [[Gene Ray]] on VfD is a sign of something
>I do deny this. If it were *deleted* I'd think it was something seriously
>wrong. If it's not deleted, no harm done--someone made a mistake, it was
>corrected (presuming the page does not get deleted), and the process works
>as it's supposed to.
But that misses the point, Mark. :-) The independent republic of TC operates
under different rules to wikipedia. You can't expect Cunc to actually /obey/
the wishes of everyone else, now, can you? When tc visits a page, /his/ own
rules are all that matter, as he has shown most recently by unprotecting a
protected page so that he can get his own way. Wikipedia rules like on
protecting pages don't apply in tc-land. :-)
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.
And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?
> We should trust users to remove pages from VfD
that should *obviously* not be deleted
We already do this. However, we only do this where there is consensus, or the
expectation of consensus, that the page should obviously not be deleted. Basically,
you can remove a page from VfD whenever you are confident that nobody will object
to your removal.
Where you've removed a page because the issue has been resolved by a redirect,
move it to ''redirects for deletion'' as a quick check that the resulting redirect is not
going to cause any problems.
When unlisting a page, move the conversation to the talk page of the article in
question, or to the user who listed it. I think all this stuff is already written down in our
deletion policy, by the way, so that's always good reading. Thrilling stuff it is, too.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
After having today discovered [[User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk]] I have a
couple of questions:
1) Why was this person made an admin in the first place?
2) Why does this user remain an admin after abusing that privilege in
an edit war?
These questions are not rhetorical.
>Wow. When Maveric first "mandated" that the VfD header be included
>on every article on the VfD page, I objected, claiming that such action
>was unnecessary. Not one person came to my defense, and I was
>attacked and excoriated for my lack of support for Wikipedia. Now here
>I am, having bent my neck and acceded to the will of the Wikipedia, and
>now I'm attacked for putting the headers ON the articles?
Don't confuse disagreement with attack. I saw no attack. However, I'll add my
support: The headers are needed to inform editors and readers of the article
that it may be deleted soon. Not having such a header and just deleting the
article is a denial of due process to the editors and readers of the article.
Please continue to add this header as you see fit.
>Will someone please fill me on the rules and when they change? It
>seems that no matter what I do, it's wrong. Every single time I add
>something to the Main Page article, Maveric deletes it.
Stubs listed in the Selected Articles section on the Main Page are often
replaced by better examples of our content. That is the whole point of the
Selected Articles section! There also has to be some criteria to base listing
on. For the Anniversaries section much of that is dictated on the relative
completeness of the article. Other things to consider are the relative
importance of the event. More on Talk:Main Page, Talk:Selected Articles on
the Main Page and my user talk page. Once again you are spamming your
complaints in multiple places which requires multiple replys.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
The Cunctator wrote the following on the pile of pointlessness we playfully refer
to as "wikien-l":
> Martin wrote the following on [[Dcide]]:
> Delete based solely on dislike of Easter Bradford stubs.
> Is he being facetious, or is this what is counting as a reasonable
> argument at VfD nowadays?
I don't think he reads this mailing list. Perhaps you could discuss the matter
with him on his user talk page?
Now, are you wasting everyone's time, or is this what is counting as an issue for
the mailing lists nowadays?
-Xanthia (for Martin)