For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing the main
point: standard Wikipedia protocol for disambiguation. In
the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it not
being allowed here? Let's change the [[Gaia]] article to a
disambiguation page (proposal follows)
-----
'''Gaia''': This is a [[disambiguation]] page. The term
'''Gaia''' may refer to
[[Gaia (goddess]] - A Greek and Roman goddeess.
[[Gaia theory]] - A group of scientific theories about how
life on Earth may regulate the planet's biosphere to make
it more hospitable to life. This discusses scientific views
on the subject in general, including the views of Drs.
James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan,
etc.
[[Gaia hypothesis]] - An article devoted to solely to Dr.
James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.
[[Gaia theory predecessors]] - A discussion of
proto-scientific, mystical and religious views about life
on Earth that bear similarity to Gaia theory.
[[Gaians]] - A radical political and environmentalist
group.
(and other related topics can be added as well. Perhaps
Gaia theory in religion, Gaia theory in art, etc.)
----
Will this work?
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Hi folks,
I think the royal we might be appropriate in some cases. For example, when talking
to a newcomer to Wikipedia, an editor might say "Welcome! (link) We try to write
from a neutral point of view (link) here, so I've edited your recent changes to
attribution theory (link). What do you think?". Here, the editor can be pretty confident
that Wikipedia, as a whole, agrees with the neutral point of view.
On other occasions, the royal we might not be appropriate. For example, in the
sentence "We support anarcho-communism and the abolition of capitalism", the
word "we" is not appropriate, because most Wikipedians do not support anarcho-
communism, and a few may even have a soft spot for capitalism, though they'd
obviously never admit it in public.
Oh, and royalty and folks with multiple personalities get special priviledges. Which is
nice. Anyway, since RK accused me of "jew-baiting" and "adopting Neo-Nazi-like
revisionism", (grr) I'm probably not going to be able to be very impartial here. I'll
stick to writing something at [[we]].
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Folks, please re-read my previous posts to this list. The
problem is not about science. The problem is that Anthere
has given up all pretense of honesty, and has repeatedly
lied about my beliefs and about my actions.
Further, she has publicly admitted that words mean nothing,
and that she will continue to engage in non-stop reversions
to force her way of thinking to be represented in our
entries.
Finally, she refuses to follow all of our Standard
Wikipedia conventions, and refuses to accept the validity
of linking to other articles, "See also", and
disambiguation. Every single attempt at compromise has been
rejected with reversions on her part.
Finally, Anthere does NOT speak English properly; she is
demanding that we believe her claims about what the phrase
"Gaia theory" means to English speakers. Perhaps, though,
I am wrong. She may well speak English just fine, and she
may be deliberately lyin because she enjoys trolling. I
don't know.
But one cannot create facts by repeating lies and reverting
any discussion which mentions things that one finds
inconvenient. For shame.
Finally, Anthere is also lying about my supposed attempt to
remove certain topics from Wikipedia. This simply never
happened, ever.
I am appalled not only at her hateful actions, but at the
way that many Wikipedia contributors are encouraging her
vandalism. (And non-stop reversions are a form of
vandalism. Stop playing word games; you know what I mean.)
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
| >Toby: (Of course, RK also gave a false vandalism
alert for
| > an edit war,
| > so he automatically loses it by my standards. ^_^)
| > -- Toby
Hehe.
|Anthere: I fear I could be expecting to be a "troll"
again very
| soon :-(
| I was apparently not offered the truce some
suggested.
| I think the the phrase "Gaia theory" does not refer
| exclusively to a scientific thoery.
| Thank you to those of you morally supporting me :-)
Well, it was nothing. Thank you for keeping your
composure, as it made
it easier for us to discern the smoke from the real
thing. The issue of
whether these articles are properly organized, as I
see it, are far less
important
than the issue of people treating others with distaste
and accusation.
So, regardless of that particular situation, ( I think
Robert had a point)
you should
never feel intimidated or forced into positions that
require you to
compromise your
dignity. Those who make attempts to cause you feel
that way are to be
looked upon with
some distaste, if not moderated by sanction.
Best.
-Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
My curiosity got the better of me today, and I decided to see what the old wikipedia was up to.
Big surprise to see that Anther is involved in yet another edit war over the Gaia articles. It was her possessiveness of everything related to agriculture, her frequent cries of "vandalism", her fractured French-English, and her tendency to simply fork topics into hundreds of Green-oriented smaller articles that drove me to leave wikipedia back in May.
At the time nobody seemed to care about her behavior. At least now it is getting attention focused on it where it belongs. For what it is worth, this isn't just between Anthere and RK. It is between her and anyone who dares to touch the agriculture articles and doesn't share her Green politics and "interesting" concept of how information should be organized.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
HI all - Thanks, Toby for your suggestions on helping. I'm doing a lot
of the cleanup by myself since I can understand Erik's reluctance to do
a SQL search and replace. Out of curiosity, has my old name been
replaced in article histories? Anyway, if anyone feels like helping do
the changes by hand, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll keep going,
and perhaps if someone runs into my old name, he or she could just
change it to [[User:JHK|JHK]]? Thanks bunches!
Jules
Anthere - This isn't a question of RK getting what he wants - the
problem, as I see it, is that the entire argument has descended into
"what Anthere wants" versus "what RK wants." That's not the basis for
good editing.
All of the information you had in the article is still there in the
history, and can be put back in. Protections are only temporary
measures, and I added a comment at the top of the page so that readers
know the article and its contents are in dispute. I didn't look to see
who had edited last -- it doesn't matter and is no reflection of
opinion.
I really think you both should take a break, because this is way too
personal. If anybody wants to unlock the page, that's fine -- I may
have overstepped wiki bounds by locking it in the first place. But
perhaps if you both leave it alone (and refrain from insults on the talk
page), some more objective Wikipedians would have a chance to read all
of the articles in question and work on the article from two points of
view (pun intended):
*Is this article consistent with other similar articles in content and
format? (if so, fine, if not, then fix it)
*Is the current format (one article, many articles, whatever it is -- I
forget) useful to a user who knows little and wants to find out more?
If so, good, if not, fix it.
This seems to me to be a case where objective eyes would do the most
good for the wikipedia AND the article.
Be peaceful.
J
Anthere bizarrely claims "If you decide to force us not to
edit the page (ie, by protecting it, I will of course not
edit it), I ask that the page be kept in a state that is
decent toward my own personal acceptance that the page is
reunited against my belief for it to be the best option.
That means, not censored by RK"
I urge list readers to recognize that this is false. It is
no mere difference of opinion. What she claims NEVER
HAPPENED. It is that simple.
No one here is censoring here, or removing content from the
Wikipedia. All I have done is introduce standard Wikipedia
disambiguation techniques. However, Anthere still rants as
if disambiguation is a form of censorship or persecution.
(It is not.) We have tried to disabuse her of her notion,
but she becoms more agitated by the day.
Anthere now claims "Please. Now, notice; I read the first
paragraph of RK new page. And the first paragraph is false.
That is a good start. It states the first person who hold
the idea that all organisms on a planet regulate the
biosphere to the benefit of the whole, was Lovelock. This
is just false. It will take hours to correct his changes. I
am plain disgusted."
Of course, what she writes is simply not true. It is easy
for her to continually rake me over the coals, as she
simply makes stuff up, an attacks me for beliefs I do not
have, and positions I do not hold. I have repeatedly
clarified my positions, and she just ignores the
clarifications.
Folks, if you want to lie about my beliefs, and then attack
me for these non-existent beliefs, go right ahead. But it
really is quite sad. I would think that this is a bannable
offense.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Just protected Gaia Theory. Don't care if someone wants to unprotect
it. Won't be offended. Hope I haven't stepped out of line. Just
trying to bring things back to a sane level. Hope RK and Anthere will
respect the protection. Hope RK will stop extending his personal
attacks against anyone who questions his motivations. Hope RK will stop
misinterpreting/misrepresenting other people's comments in insulting
ways. Still don't care about what's in the article. Haven't read it.
Don't get the arguments. All actions based purely on the wish to stop
the madness. End transmission.
Hi all - hope I did nothing wrong here, since I don't think I've ever
blocked anyone before. Just blocked 216.135.25.129 because user was
repeatedly vandalizing Karl Marx Article. Hopefully, the person will
quit once s/he figures out no further harm can be done.
J