/I was given a quiz of the basic concepts on Wikipedia,
and I passed. Perhaps you should also take it.
I became a sysop after a month of good contrabutions,
so you should be able to too.
--LDan/
Well...What were the questions like? "How do you edit a page"?
I think I'd know a lot...
I don't know...
--Ilya
Wikipedians may not like to hear this but there is a growing suspicion that
the multiple-banned DW is back, this time calling himself Joe Canuck.
-------------------------------
The following message was left on Camembert's talk page by 'Joe'. (Below it
is Cam's reply, explaining the question he had asked!)
I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only
encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our
snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians is
out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect,
whoever or whatever you are. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (And very
proud of it)
What in the name of somebody's god are you on about? I never said anything
about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert (by the way, I'm a
piece of cheese)
'Joe' removed Camembert's question from his talk page with the summary -
(removing abuse )
-------------------------------
Martin (MyRedDice) posed the following question to 'Joe'.
Hi again. I suggest that if you want to discuss images, copyright, and the
DMCA, then you try wikipedia talk:image use policy/copyright. In the
meantime, please cite the sources of your photos, as is good encyclopedic
style. Martin 18:12 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
'Joe' did not reply, just deleted the question from his talk page with the
summary: (removing smart ass remarks and question already answered)
--------------------------------
When Oliver Pereira asked 'Joe' a question regarding uploaded images he was
responsible for, he received the following threats and diatribe. (I
considered editing it but I think it is better read in full)
Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your
concern or your authority? The images I uploaded, contained no copyright
declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable
me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to
protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with
the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add
the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question
each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of
discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for
Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely
no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place
this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds
of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate
against me. Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law,
but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos
to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall
under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner
source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow
it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their
insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any
copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is
Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright"
should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and
others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in
quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes
their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine.
Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck
14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-------------------------
Joe Canuck has been editing many of the same pages as DW and his past
minions. He has been similarly arrogant and rude, not to mention in true DW
style mentioning legal threats (ie, That is in fact an act of
discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for
Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely
no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place
this open site in jeopardy.). Most puzzlingly of all, as a brand new user,
why did he react the way he did when Camembert asked whether he was DW. If
he /was/ a new user, he should not have known who DW was to start off with.
So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple
banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an
arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who
tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael
is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
/I agree with your sysophood. I became a sysop after
about a month of contributing (so I could edit the
main page, mostly), and I was eventually admitted. I
think that should set a precedent that, if your
contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
enough time to be considered experienced enough to be
a sysop. Unless, of course, a significant number of
you were subconsciousely trying not to be
reverse-agist aganst me. Perhaps that quiz that I was
given should be given to Ilya.
-LDan
What quiz? and what do you mean by "// I
think that should set a precedent that, if your
contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
enough time to be considered experienced enough to be
a sysop."?/
>So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that
>he is a multiple banned user given to legal threats, how
>should we act? Michael is an arrogant crude kid. DW is a
>far more threatening type of individual who tries to intimidate
>wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael is also
>multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?
>
>JT
Even if he is not DW then he needs to be sternly warned not to violate
Wikiquette and that to be considered "fair" a basic requirement is that the
image's source needs to be given.
I had my suspicions too when I saw he was editing the Year in Sports pages in
the same very odd way DW was under a previous incarnation. Just look at the
horrible mess at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_in_sports - which isn't
at all similar in format to any other year page type. This is classic DW -
completely ignoring established presentation conventions.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
The main reason I'd like to be a sysop is so I can help clean up
vandalism without having to go to the IRC, or going through the
painstaking process of contacting
an admin. IF you say I've only been here for a month, I'll say, "Check
my contributions, and show me anything you don't like". If you say I'm
not fit, why?
I normally wouldn't say this, because I am quite Christian myself,
but I agree we need a 'pedia with NO religion entries, except for
historical articles on the religion as one would find in a history
textbook, and in the same vein NO explicit topics, or anything of
that sort - we should have a separate, school-topics-only Wiki
encyclopedia for use at schools or other filtered environments.
The Wikipedia as a whole, as the large project to create a
comprehensive encyclopedia, is doing quite well in that respect.
If it wants to even implicitly support fair use and challenge
filters, let it do so. ''However'', these cannot be the goals
of a project that wants to serve as a research reference and
educational source for schoolchildren. And I think that there
should be such a project, even if it is not the Wikipedia.
I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement filters: 1) to
protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2) to protect those
who shouldn't see some content (this point is debatable), and 3) to
protect those who don't want to see some content. I realize now that
the first reason cannot be effectively implemented without impeding
the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second, apparently, is loaded with
too much POV (though I still don't see why we have to ''not'' censor
content because some people might censor ''too much''...). The third
I still believe should be implementable. Surely there can be no
subjectivity in labeling [[Transubstantiation]] as "Christianity",
and people like Toby Bartel's friend (was it?) can easily block that
for him/herself and his/her kids. Leave the "dangerous" stuff there,
just '''allow''' us (don't '''force''' us) to block it - why not?
Thus, in order to develop a useful reference for schools, I do believe
we have to run a separate project (Edupedia, PediaPedia, WiKidPedia,
call it what you may) with the rule of '''no''' religion, '''no'''
explicit content, etc. - go to the [[Wikipedia]] for those. As long
as Wikipedia is still not banned, it should suffice. But if/when
it becomes blocked, we should be able to have the benefits of a
Wiki encyclopedia, even behind school firewalls, NetNanny, etc.
So I think at some point we'll either have to fork or implement some
type of good Sifter - and for a school-targeted encyclopedia, forking
the necessary content seems better. Or, we could even start from scratch
with a new encyclopedia and have it as a separate sister project, written
at a slightly lower reading level and focusing on a separate set of
subjects.
Is there any Sifter code available? Is there a way to download, in a
serveable form, only selected articles without taking the entire 1GB tarball?
-[[User:Geoffrey]] Thomas
=====
-Geoffrey Thomas
geoffreyerffoeg(a)yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Thanks for the support everyone re my sysop request! Too sunny for computers
at the moment, I'm off to sit in the garden with an ice cold lager!
Graham (Quercus robur)
I've been having problems with redirecting a wiki
I put this text:
#REDIRECT [[turn-based gaming]]
this text gives me:
1. REDIRECT turn-based gaming
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_gaming>
can someone please help me?
Can I therefore also request sysop powers in order to be able to clear up
vandislm without always having to bother somebody else via the votes for
deletion page?
Cheers Graham (quercus robur)
> If you want to help fix vandal edits real easy then become a sysop. Our
only
> real criteria is that a person known enough not to be a vandal and isn't
> likely to abuse sysop powers. I hereby nominate you.
>
> But we cannot let any random user have this ability; Vandals /will/ use it
to
> constantly revert every edit by users that show up in Recent Changes.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>