WikiEN-l March 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

62 participants
306 discussions

Re: What W is not
by Daniel Mayer 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

On Monday 03 March 2003 06:25 am, tarquin wrote: > To see the diff: > http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not >&diff=0&oldid=715621 > > The one I quety is this, under the "not a genealogical or biographical > dictionary" heading: > > A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were > newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people. > > It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the > keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia. > > any thoughts on this? Cunc and I got into this on my talk page too. I mentioned that the consensus was to move the tribute pages to the sep11 wiki and he indicated that since he did not agree with the "consensus" that there was no consensus and therefore had no obligation to follow it. This, IMO, is working against the wishes of the community. With the exception of Jimbo, nobody here has veto power. Am I wrong on this point? --mav WikiKarma The usual at [[February 28]] and [[February 29]]

2 1

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors
by Poor, Edmund W 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Tony, Please take care to avoid terms like "Style Nazis" on the mailing list. Even if you don't mean anything nasty by such terms, you need to know that others may take offense. I myself have been known to take offense at innocent terms like "cult" applied to my church, even though it only means "religion regarded as spurious by others". The problem is that we cannot hear or see each other, and it is unfortunate that discussions are can easily be derailed into personalities by even a single usage of what might be a perfectly innocently-intended term. Please note that this is entirely without prejudice to the issue of whether people are being fanatical about date formats, an issue I am going to bow out of. I am more concerned with brotherly harmony here. Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor

1 0

Re: The Style Oppressors
by Daniel Mayer 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

On Monday 03 March 2003 06:25 am, "Tony Wilson" wrote: > My characterisation of the obsessive > urge to micro-manage things which >could perfectly well be left alone as > being something "the Style Nazis" would >do is an accurate one. If the cap fits ... And I was expecting an apology. How naive of me. Go ahead and continue to think that some of our best contributors are Nazis - it only reflects negatively on you. --mav

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors
by Poor, Edmund W 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

My dear nephew Maveric, You are of course right. No one should call you names, especially not a name so repulsively offensive as "Nazi". The popular softening of the term as in Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi" or Limbaugh's "feminazis" apparently cuts no ice with you, even though it might help you to understand that Tony almost certainly meant no offense. I will therefore ask Tony and the others to avoid using such offensive terminology. Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor

1 0

No personal remarks, please (was: The Style Oppressors)
by Poor, Edmund W 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Jonathan, If you are going to keep posting to this mailing list after being banned, at least try to avoid personal remarks, like, "You can have your Wikipedia. The world is passing you by." You have the potential to change the world and make it a better place -- but working together harmoniously with others is key to making effective and worthy change. Instead of comparing Jimmy to Nazis, why not compare yourself to some standard? I've been _nearly_ kicked off of three separate on-line communities (2 in my own church!!!) but I always took the time to figure out two essential factors: 1. How to avoid getting people so upset at me that they force me to leave; 2. How to get my points across without surrendering a major matter of principle. Please, desist for a few weeks and think it over. Ed Poor

1 0

Oh No! Not another date format post!
by Daniel Ehrenberg 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

as long as there is an appropriate redirect page linking April 3 to 3 April, etc, it doesn't really matter what the format is. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Sheldon to the rescue (was: Lists which are sheer nonsense)
by Daniel Ehrenberg 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

>Using "Americans" in reference to U.S. citizens is a bit like using >"Indians" in reference to Native Americans or "cripples" in reference >to the physically disabled. I know there are people who find it silly >and irritating that they should be asked to use more "politically >correct" language, but whenever possible I think it's best to be >sensitive about these things. I don't see a downside to saying >"United States citizens." It's precise, unambiguous and offends no >one. That would be my preferred usage. What about immigrants who haven't gotten citizenship yet? With any name, someone will be offended. Besides, do you think the Canadians are really offended by it anyway? _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American who reads the Wik
by Daniel Ehrenberg 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

>>Americans almost never speak that way. We would say "March the >>Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and >>Three". We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three". > >The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March, >2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least, none >of >my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it). you could say "the second of march, two thousand three". Sometimes I say it that way. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

RE: Oh No! Not another date format post!
by Daniel Mayer 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

>By all means have the date articles named >whichever way is most desired. When I want to >link to a date, I'll write it whichever way makes >the link turn blue. But when I'm crafting the body >of an entry, I should hope I've got better things to >do with my mind than stuff about trying to >remember which particular order the Wikipedia >Style Guide Nazis are insisting on. > >Tony (Tannin) > >Tony Wilson >(Tannin) Do you have any idea - at all - how insulting it is to be equated with a group of thugs that are responsible for the deaths of 40-60 million people which included the genocide of 3/4 of all European Jews and millions of other "vermin" like Roma and homosexuals? Please think before you write. With that said, you should calm down and realize that what is being proposed would be no more mandatory than what we have now. I've already explained this on the talk page. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) WikiKarma The usual at [[February 27]]

4 3

Sheldon to the rescue (was: Lists which are sheer nonsense)
by Poor, Edmund W 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Thank God we have a professional author around to guide us. What Sheldon wrote makes more sense than anything else I read about [[List of...]]. Uncle Ed I've been wanting to avoid wading into this discussion, but the term "Americans" does have a double meaning, and its usage as a reference solely to U.S. citizens rankles with some people from Canada, Mexico and other parts of North and South America who also consider themselves "American" as well. The term is commonly used in reference U.S. citizens, and it doesn't particularly offend me personally, but I know people who object to it. Using "Americans" in reference to U.S. citizens is a bit like using "Indians" in reference to Native Americans or "cripples" in reference to the physically disabled. I know there are people who find it silly and irritating that they should be asked to use more "politically correct" language, but whenever possible I think it's best to be sensitive about these things. I don't see a downside to saying "United States citizens." It's precise, unambiguous and offends no one. That would be my preferred usage. -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books [snipped rest of sig]

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l March 2003