Richard Grevers wrote:
>> See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp
>> Which is based on: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>>
>Why do the section headings "Encyclopedia"
>and "Community" have a line height smaller
>than their font size? Text is really rather difficult
>to read when all the descenders are truncated.
Huh? Line height hasn't been specified in HTML so I don't know why you are
seeing that. If you or anyone reading this knows how to fix that then please
do.
Anyway I went ahead and made some changes to the Temp page (per some asides in
my last post on this topic).
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp
Please put comments on the talk page (the mailing list isn't good for this
type of thing).
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Temp
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS I'm leaving on a Yosemite field study in 2 hours and won't return to make
comments until late Sunday/early Monday UTC.
I am hereby announcing my intention to ignore (neither read nor respond to)
any message that arrives in my inbox in other than black text on
background. This includes both white text on black background as WELL as
black on black.
On a side-note, I'd sure like to discuss the new naming convention that
Stevertigo has suggested. How about we move it off of the mailing list
(where there seem to be *cough* problems *cough* with some peoples' email)
and onto the Wikipedia where it belongs? I suggest [[Wikipedia:Naming
conventions (Proper names)]].
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but it certainly is
quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote
from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_…
Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really get
a vote? )"
I would also like to point out that I've seen PP make some quality edits as
well, so this message shouldn't be interpreted as unqualifiedly negative.
Nevertheless, I felt that I ought to bring this to the attention of those
on the list.
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
I note the following message posted after I was banned, such ban under appeal: james duffy wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:06:05 +0100.
This public communication is filled with prevarications and libelous statements about me. I hereby demand that the person claiming to be someone named james duffy, working on Wikipedia.org using variations of the logged in User name Jtdirl, immediately retract these statements in a fomal public communication on this mailing list.
User:Joe Canuck
---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Note: I am sending this to ALL mailing lists and newsgroups on which I am
regularly active. I sincerely hope that no wikipedian would descend to such
depths (and AFAIK I haven't been excessively rude to anyone here).
To the person who is mailbombing dramatic.co.nz
You can stop your childish games now. All your bombing messages are going
straight to dev/null. Legitimate mail is still being accepted.
--
Richard Grevers
I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!
On Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:07:23 AM US/Central, David Baltzer
<dcbaltzer(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
>...formal appeal of the ban stated above in accordance with the second
paragraph...
>...provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious matter...
Fine. Play lawyer all you like; I don't think anybody told you to
bring it to the list though.
>conducted myself in the most appropriate and proper manner possible
Thanks for the chuckle though. I needed that.
~~~Hephaestos
>
> >Reasons for enforcing ban:
> >
> >In spite of repeated warning, persists in his annoying habit to make
> >dozens of edits per page within an interval of seconds,
>
> Banning somebody for making too many edits to one article in too short a
> space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think it's even close to a a
> good reason for banning.
>
Well I guess I'd have to be banned too 'cos I'm frequently guilty of this as
well.
Graham (quercus robur)
>Pizza Puzzle wrote: I would like to note that I agree with you. Prague
should be henceforth >"Praha"; just as the German cities should be written
in German. Two points were made >against you:
>A) The Christopher Columbus issue; one should note that whether Cristoforo
or Cristobal >is used; either one is infinitely more correct that
Christopher since Colombo, himself, used >both the Spanish and Italian
versions BUT NEVER the English version which is wholly >fallacious.
Well, I tend to agree. It does however bring into mind the possibility that
asserting such "policy" as i suggested (aside from contradicting my long
standing dislike for propriety) would not be really practical. Maybe this
would be a far better argument against. The argument for really relies on a
change of convention, like I said - namely something that would be somewhat
revolutionary. The question then is implementation - would it be too
confusing? Could it be a way to enhance cross-lingual communication?
I finally realized that this really was about attempting to break down the
language barriers - allowing some easier cross-operability that ignores the
established language barriers, allowing for some compromises in our
much-hailed "standards" -- but also allowing for increased multi-lingual
participation. This is no doubt the future of wikipedia, but it would
require some heavy assistance from language tools -- technologies that are
barely in their fruition.
It could be after all, that the solution is simply for all these miserable
foreigners to just learn English gooder.
>B) The Los Angeles issue in which one user sarcastically stated that we
should revert to >the Native American name. Such a reversion would not be in
accordance with your more >reasonable suggestion since Los Angeles was
essentially built on top of the older city, in a >like manner, Mexico DF
should not be renamed Tenochtitlan.
All such arguments were red herring attacks, summat. But GTBOTD* they
attempt to illustrate the fuzzy boundaries inherent to drawing lines to
differentiate changes to how things are done. In essence I agree with
them - 'dont mess with it if it aint broke.' To a large degree I threw it
out there to see what the climate was, and what the real idea was that I was
trying to materialize. I had it saved as a draft and decided to send it -
to see if it would stir some braincells. Not that I intent to fight a one
man war for something so stupid and trivial as policy. In short - they were
abolutely correct, though their arguments were a bit convoluted.
The funny thing in that case, is that it actually illustrates my point.
"Los Angeles" isnt changed in American speech to "The Angels" -- nor to
Americans call most other Latin based names by anything different, simply
due to some language similarities. In fact, in most cases the Anglicization
is rather loyal - thus its the minority that are modified, and then usually
only slightly. To change the minority to their proper local names, would be
to actually enforce the existing *standard. (something again I dont
advocate). "Roma" instead of "Rome" -- 'would be too confusing?' I dont
think so. These are the same arguments against the deprication of the term
"Indians" to refer to American Natives. Tie that in with the Christoforo
Colombo factor, and youll get the joke.
>In secret correspondence with certain unnamed individuals, I have been
informed that you >are now classed as a "true troll" and are walking on
"very thin ice". Good luck, viva la >resistance!
As it should be. I wonder if theyre using Danny's once-stated definition of
a troll - here on the list. "Very thin ice?" I was on "very thin ice" from
the day I started contributing. This later became "good job on this" and
"good job on that." People get pissy, and I dont give out blowjobs - thats
what that means. All of humanity is on thin ice, so its like the pot
calling the kettle... "nigga!"
BTW, IMHO, "Troll" is almost like the internet equivalent of calling someone
a "terrorist" - 'I saw you marching at a peace rally, you terrorist...'
It's a very slippery slope, and some here have gotten quite quick to use the
T word, (at least in private :]) it seems they never understood the late,
great, Robert Zimmerman when he said... "don't speak too soon for the
wheel's still in spin."
-Wove and trolling,
Steven
*GTBOTD Given the benefit of the doubt.
RE: Notice of Appeal of BAN
I refer to the following:
Jimmy Wales - Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:40:58 -0700
Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia. Would someone with the
appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
technically true.
As always, Joe is invited to write to me to discuss this further,
and/or is invited to the mailing list.
Some have expressed a strong conviction that Joe Canuck is the same
person or persons as DW, etc. I express no opinion on that matter,
and find that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning. To
the extent that it is true, of course, then just being the same person
is grounds for a continuation of the ban.
--Jimbo
- - - -
Sir:
Please accept this as my formal appeal of the ban stated above in accordance with the second paragraph. Regretfully, it is impossible for me to provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious matter when the only accusation made known to me is �that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning.�
I have done nothing but be a conscientious contributor to Wikipedia.org of a very sizeable amount of encyclopedic information and have conducted myself in the most appropriate and proper manner possible. Accordingly I must ask that you post to this mailing list the specific details of the �actions� you claim were justification for banning me in order that I be allowed to make a proper response. Thank you.
D.C. Baltzer (User:Joe Canuck)
---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
>Well, currently, Wiktionary isn't doing so well. It
>has only 3447 entries, far too few for a real refrence
>dictionary. And the textbook project hasn't even
>started.
I personally dont use Wiktionary but would see more use in
it if it were more unified with WP. If there were an easy
way to write a quick definition for a word I use in an
article, for example a scientific term, and put it in the
Wiktionary instead of starting a stub article on the WP.
Maybe a command that would formulate a Wiktionary hyperlink
easily like we have for within WP ...
Karl
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com