I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based
on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics
(http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at
[[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
--Adam Raizen
> From: rednblack(a)alum.mit.edu
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>First of all, my opinions and RK's are wildly
>divergent.
Though they converge as for reverting :-)
>As to the current Islamism article, it was a
>replacement of RK's previous version, which stevert
>was fighting with him over. I don't think steve has
>stepped in since then much, maybe because he finds
the >current version more satisfactory, or maybe
because he >grew bored with the article.
This is him to say.
>My objection to 142 is not over content, but rather
>this:
>142 decided that "Islamism" was not a neutral term. I
>don't know why he decided this, because he never
>bothered to respond to my queries on that point.
>Thereafter he hacked up the Islamism article and
moved >chunks of text around unilaterally. My debate
with him >over "militant Islam" notwithstanding, this
is hardly >acceptable practice.
Oh Graft, I must respectfully say that it is quite
often done a practice, though it is here done in a
bolder way that done usually.
Everyone, one day or another, is bold to the point of
what can be perceived as rudeness.
Just today, I did some moving around on the french
wikipedia, on this summer heat wave article, that was
felt as too bold by one of the author. Us being in
good relationship, he gently told me I disturbed him.
You also were very bold with me once. I spent many
hours writing a - imho - well researched, informative
and attributed article. But I did not write everything
that was to say on the topic ("always leave something
obvious to add..."). You then explained to me on the
talk page that while the article was obviously lacking
some aspects, I should also *drastically* reduce what
I wrote.
You also added "I agree the trading issues might be
very important for you europeans, and maybe even for
us americans, but they are not, by far, the only
important factor surrounding GM food."
As you say, the trading issues are very important to
us Europeans; I would even dare say essential. Kat
confirmed it was very important in saying "The trade
aspect is a major source of frustration for U.S.
farmers who see export markets close to them whether
the individual farmer should choose to grow GMO grain
or not. A discussion of GM food would be incomplete
without it."
The fact it was only one factor, and apparently not
very important, was only an opinion of *you*. And the
fact some of the other factors were missing was not an
argument to remove half of my article, but rather for
someone to complete the parts missing.
If I did it very in-depth, it was because I am aware
of the depth of lack of understanding american people
have over why europeans had a moratorium. This - imho
- required precisions.
But anyway, in short, we were two people supporting
keeping the article as such. You were alone stating it
should not, and saying I should drastically cut in
what I wrote for it was not being very important.
The next thing I knew, you had amputated the article,
and moved the whole part that did not suit you, with
no consideration of my own position, with no
acknowledgment of who had written the whole bit, and
with no fixing both articles properly to introduce the
notions covered in the other article.
basically, this is called a consensual agreement with
the 33% winning the case.
This is also "moving chunks of text around
unilaterally."
Notice, I don't hold bad feelings toward you for
having done that, though I was unhappy of that, but
again, respectfully, I must insist that boldness
happens, and does not necessarily lead to an edit war
or asking protection.
>Understand that my dispute with 142 is not an
>ideological one. My dispute is over the
>style in which 142 operates. He took an existing
>article, rewrote it willy-nilly with
>little justification, got in two edit wars over it
>(with myself and RK, who have little
>ideological common ground), then listed us both on
>[[Wikipedia:Problem users]] and
>went ahead with other reorganizations and
>article-creations without any discussion.
It is very unfortunate you got in an edit war with
hir.
I would not hold getting in an edit war with RK as
being very...err...well...never mind.
As for being listed on problem users, I would not mind
that too much if I were you. People who know you are
confident you are ok. I hope it did not spoil your
best day too much :-)
Thought : Aoineko and I often list each other on
problematic users on the fr :-)
>I am unclear exactly in what ways the current
>"Islamism" article is not neutral, and
>I am uncertain how it could incorporate such inchoate
>notions as "why?" people become
>radicals of any stripe. I think the article does
>attempt to give SOME answer as to how
>people are pushed into increasingly radical
directions >(although there's no discussion
>of Algeria/France right now, which is a major flaw.
But does it give these people point of view on how
they perceive themselves, what they think as being
said extremists ?
Does it describe in which way, the so-said non
extremists perceive them as extremists ?
>Unfortunately I know little to nothing about it/them,
>so maybe you can fill in the >gaps?)
Thank you very much for your trust, but I am not
currently willing to be called a vandal again :-)
>I readily acknowledge that the current "Islamism"
>article has profound failings and needs
>a lot of work; I also acknowledge that I am not an
>expert on Islamism, just a guy who has
>read a few books on the subject. I have no problem
>with more knowledgable people improving
>the article.
You already did a good work. The point is not
necessarily "more knowledgable" people, but rather
"other knowledgeable" people. Look, I never read any
books on islamism, so you probably know more than I on
some points. But did your father ever received a
letter from one asking for your hand when you were 15
? :-)
>Anyway, I suppose it's time to retreat into the camp
>of people who have been bitten by 24/142/Entmoots and
>just have to learn to live with it.
>Saurabh
Live with it, yes. Retreat, perhaps not :-) Dunno.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Sorry that I am late to this debate. In Alex's proposal, I read
"[...] you further affirm that such text is not defamatory or in
violation of any law; [...]"
I strongly object to this language. I do not feel a moral
obligation to be bound by all laws, not even by all
laws I happen to know about or that apply to me. Also,
I am not capable to decide whether a given piece of
text violates any law, not even those laws I happen
to know about or that apply to me. I however do
feel a moral obligation to be honest, which would therefore
preclude me from affirming the above.
Axel
P.S. Minor point: presumably there are or have been laws
against defamation somewhere, so it is not necessary to
mention defamation specifically.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:49:51 -0400
> From: rednblack(a)alum.mit.edu
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Hi,
>
> I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day
> with 142.177.*.* (formerly
> 24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and
> [[militant Islam]]. I
> must admit that I'm not really a very patient
> person, especially when the other
> party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to
> respond to my points, and
> is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic
> viewpoint. It's even more
> irritating when the user has been hard-banned
> several times, and writes totally
> terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of
> everything else.
>
> So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this
> situation.
>
> See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant
> Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem
> users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked
> to have [[Islamism]]
> protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I
> wrote most of [[Islamism]],
> and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of
> work, I feel that the
> changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate.
>
> Saurabh (Graft)
Your issue with 142 is - imho - a perfectly classical
edit war, with two different sets of opinions,
yours/RK versus 142.
I can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue
you raise above, with the fact you listed [[Militant
Islam]] for deletion just after RK redirected it with
justifications which were not convincing.
I know little of the topic (though, as you may know
about 10% of the french population is of muslim
religion, and we have our share of religious
extremism), so when you listed it on vfd, I just asked
you whether the issue was that the term did not
existed at all, or whether you thought the content was
wrong.
Your answer to my question was
"The concept does not exist, as even the article
admits, and so the article should be deleted. It's
like having an article called militant Christianity?,
and listing all the Christians who have ever been
violent and employed Christian rhetoric to support
themselves. We could do it, but what would be the
point? The only common thread is that they're militant
and Christian... why not start an article on Blond
Presidents?? or Atheist Right-Fielders??"
When I looked at the two terms, both existed (militant
islamist has over 34200 hits on google). This was
confirmed by Jt who said
"It is certainly a real term, one I have heard widely
used in academia, in the media and in politics,
whereas Islamism is not a term I have used much
outside the US and Israel. And yes there should be an
article on Militant Christianity? as it too is a real
term describing Christian fundamentalists who believe
that they are fighting a 'war for Christ' and that
violence is a necessary means in that war, in areas
like abortion, homosexuality, anti-semitism,
secularism, etc."
For those interested, read
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete
Obviously, though you share opinion with RK that the
concept does not exist and think that the article
should disappear, it seems that others have another
opinion. And that not only does the concept exists,
but that also it is relevant and informative for
readers. I do think it is quite reasonable to think
that on these types of matters, we cannot expect that
everyone agrees.
Hence, it is not a question of banning or
idiosynchrasy, or such, it is just a matter of
diversity of opinion and perception. Just the essence
of Wikipedia, not a personal matter. Accepting that
other people have different opinions, no matter how
much total crap it appears to us.
In this, the fact you loudly claimed the concept and
the word did not exist, while obviously the word
exist, and Jt opinion is that the concept exist and is
important, should be proof enough that we sometimes
are wrong. Nothing to be ashamed for, if we knew
everything, we would not need wikipedia.
You also openly admit your own bias and the fact you
wrote alone most of the Islamism article.
Perhaps then, would it be good to imagine that *one*
person cannot know everything on a topic and that it
would make sense that such a wide topic be worked on
by more people than just a couple
Whatever the effort you will put to be at your best in
terms of neutrality and completude, do you think you
would ever be able to "think" and see things like a
"fou de Dieu" is (You certainly have a term for these
people, those seeing God as a mean and an end, and
revolving every matter in their life around Him)?.
I understand very well you may think 142 is writing
inappropriate things. This is what we think each time
we have an edit war with someone. Each time we
disagree and get hot over it.
The only thing I can think of to help you here, is to
remind you that we are all different, and ever will
be, and each day I read the english wikipedia, I see
that and am amazed.
Also, to focus on the content, and not to divert your
thinking in the dear hope to see someone you disagree
with be banned, because if an opinion is serious and
relevant, it will come back by the back door. Hence, I
would say to face this issue rather than trying to
avoid it.
And if need there is, to choose a neutral party to
help you (given that RK who will certainly be in the
discussion, is not a neutral party :-))
And...yes...just to give you my opinion on the
islamism article. It is good and informative. But
biased.
When I read the below paragraph
"Much Islamist activity since has been directed
against governments in Muslim societies, which
Islamists oppose because they are governments
according to human law, not divine law. However, a
considerable effort has been made to fight Western
targets, especially the United States. The United
States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire
because of its support of Israel, its presence on
sacred Saudi soil, what Islamists regard as its
aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of
the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some
Islamists have concentrated their activity against
Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with
hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that
this is of necessity due to historical conflict
between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a
Jewish/American alliance against Islam. "
I cannot help repressing a sad smile, and think of all
the difficulties my country has in integrating muslim
population, some of it being islamist, of how much
infrastructure was destroyed in the past years by
attacks, how many people died in my country during
these religious battles, of how many euros were spent
in rebuilding, of all the discussions over the FIS in
Algeria, of the islamists in Marocco, Egypt, Jordan
trying to have their voice heard through legal means.
The current article is informative, but it does not
answer my questions, and does not help me to
understand why from time to time women and children
die when in Paris subway, or when they go shopping for
presents around Christmas. It does not help me to
understand why, from time to time, I can't park my car
in front of my children school because the terrorist
alert is on again. It does not help me to understand
why recently a teenager has burned alive a young girl
refusing to cover her head in one of our cities. Or
why some people get wild at the though of their wife
head naked on identity pictures. It does not help me
to understand why some french people refuse islamic
religious cult building in their town. It does not
help me to understand just why some people are so
extremists when muslim people may be so delightful.
And if anyone read french here, I invite them to read
this speech given by Nicolas Sarkozy over french
muslims
http://www.religioscope.info/article_143.shtml
I dunno where you are from, Graft (America I suppose)
and I dunno what your relationship with islam and
muslims is, I can just say the current article needs
work and other perspectives than yours and RK. Because
right now, if I look at the article history, I see
that you two are basically the authors of this
article.
Steve was censored right ?
I suspect an article on islamism, reflecting all
points of view (per Wikipedia goal) should not be
restricted to a "two head american authorship".
If you want the world to read this article with the
feeling it is fair and deeply informative, or if you
want american people to better understand why they
have suffered such a terrible loss, please do not
cling to that article. Rather try to understand and
acknowledge other views. Please Graft.
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Hi,
I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day with 142.177.*.* (formerly
24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and [[militant Islam]]. I
must admit that I'm not really a very patient person, especially when the other
party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to respond to my points, and
is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic viewpoint. It's even more
irritating when the user has been hard-banned several times, and writes totally
terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of everything else.
So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this situation.
See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem
users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked to have [[Islamism]]
protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I wrote most of [[Islamism]],
and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of work, I feel that the
changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate.
Saurabh (Graft)
------
[T]he system isn't great leaders, great machinating people controlling it all.
It's each person performing their job as one little cog in this thing..
-- Terry Gilliam, on 'Brazil'
>>75% is not a consensus,
>
>
> Actually it is. A consensus is generally interpretated as meaning a
clear
> and unambiguous majority. In democratic systems, a consensus is
generally
> defined as two-thirds plus one. Three quarters is described as an
> 'overwhelming consensus'. Lynch and Jones, ''Political Decision
Making in
Two-thirds majority is, if my dictionary is correct, called absolute
or relative majority. Two-thirds plus one is called super majority. I
have never heard a definition of consensus where 75% majority
constitutes a "consensus". Generally when consensus is used with
"exceptions" it is called consensus minus one, minus two, minus 1%
etc.
Regardless, it is to misuse the term of consensus to call a decision
approved by 75% of the voters and disapproved by 25% of the voters a
consensus decision. Consensus decisions are aimed to take into account
everyone's opinion and to take a decision everyone is satisfied
with. If 25% of the voters are unhappy that has not happened.
Btw, I think consensus is a very stupid form of "democracy" that leads
to a techno-cracy or a shout-o-cracy or a
post-on-the-mailing-list-o-cracy. It would be good if Wikipedia had a
better way to make decisions.
> Divided Societies'' pp.214-215. Whyte and Reynard, ''Consociational
> Democracy and Consensus Building: From the Lebanon to Belgium: Case
Studies
> in Democractic Consensus'' p. 190.
>
> Most deletions on wiki occur because of votes by a small number. Very
few
> votes attract nearly 30 voters and those with large numbers rarely
produce
> 75% agreement.
>
>
>>I can understand a user getting angry if it is a page s/he has spent
a lot
>>of time on. This user seems to rather be in a deep disagreement with the
>>majority of Wikipedia users/sysops rather than a genuine troll. In
general
>>I agree.
>
>
> The people he has fallen out with are people who that he show the
community
> the respect of following agreed conventions and methodologies, rather
than
I thought the whole controversy started with his pet page getting
deleted? Besides, the evidence for his wrongdoings presented for the
mailinglist jury hasn't been to compelling imho.
Besides, "agreed conventions and methodologies" are they really so
generally agreed if rule-breakers always have to be referred to them?
> act like a spoiled child who throws tantrums because he cannot get
things
> his way. Many of the people he has fallen out with are sysops. Many
are not.
Why did you divide the people he has "fallen out with" in sysops and
non-sysops?
I don't know who I think is the spoiled kid who throws tantrums... :-)
Many times it seems like it is the Wikipedia sysops themselves that
are the least willing to compromise. What we are talking about is a
few hundred bytes of text, likely smaller than this message I'm
sending to you. It is really so important to get pages like that one
deleted that it is worth all the effort, anger and fuss it costs?
Couldn't a more sensible solution have been reached if Budda's stupid
heterosexual page had remained? It is not the end of time we are
talking about!
> Some agree with his opinions. Some don't. But all find his behaviour
well
> beyonds the bounds of respect for the community.
Isn't it just as much yours and mine, and everyone else who considers
themselves Wikipedia veterans responsibility as the new users
responsiblity to make them behave within the bounds of respect for the
community?
BL
> > From: "Mike" <Mike(a)cybermaus.com>
> > > He then tried to edit the [[Consensus]] page to
> > redefine what a consensus
> > > is, forcing the comment Angela,
> > >
> > > Changing the definition on the [[consensus]]
page
> > won't help Buddha . . .
> > > [[User:Angela|Angela]] 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
> >
> > In spite of all the irritation he has caused, I
> > would still have been
> > inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, but the
> > above cited act brands
> > him as a troll in my opinion.
> >
> > Mike AKA CyberMaus
>
> Have you look at the page in question
([[consensus]]),
> its history, and the talk page ?
>
> Anthere
>
>Yes. I've just gone through it again and I hold to my
>opinion. What he wrote on the [[consensus]] page is
>not wrong. What bothers me is that he did it to
>justify his previous actions in spite of what is
>written in the rest of the article. See the second
>paragraph in the "consensus as collective thought"
>section, in particular the last sentence.
So, you mean that in spite the fact he is not wrong,
in spite the fact Angela has agreed he was not wrong,
"the above cited act brands him as a troll" anyway.
And you further justify it by the fact what he put
down (not wrong) is perhaps not consistant with other
things written down in the article.
Do you mean he should also have edited what was below
to make it more fit ?
>As I said, what he wrote is not wrong, but in my
>experience I have never heard or seen the word
>consensus used to mean unanimous. In Meriam-Webster,
>it is also mentioned that this usage is "slightly
>older". In my opinion, it is obsolete.
I did. Several times.
Such as "C'est un processus dans lequel aucune
d�cision ne peut �tre prise tant que tous les
participants ne l'acceptent."
Which means "it is a processus in which no decision
may be taken as long as all participants do not agree"
Or " Lors d'une d�cision consensuelle, il peut y avoir
diff�rents degr�s d'accord et de nombreuses nuances au
regard des engagements que les diff�rents membres
assument par rapport � une d�cision d�termin�e,
cependant le tout a lieu de fa�on explicite et
globalement accept�. "
Which means "When there is consensus, there may be
different degree of agreement, and many nuances as
regards acceptance of a decision by the different
participants. However, the whole must be globally
accepted"
But right, this is an ideal, and agreement by all is
hard to achieve. We seek the ideal.
>Here's another possible meaning: A minority holds an
>opinion to which the majority have no objection or
>differing opinion, thus the minority opinion
>is presented as consensus.
Of course, since it is globally accepted
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
There was some talk a while back about deciding on a standard method of
indicating pronunciations on Wikipedia. Of course some people said
pronunciations belong on Wiktionary, but that's beside the point: there
are many articles where a discussion of the pronunciation of certain
words is necessary, and there ought to be a standard way of notating that.
In fact, there is. The International Phonetic Alphabet is ideally suited
to marking pronunciations of words, and is flexible enough to describe
broad transcriptions that represent how a word is pronounced in multiple
dialects to minute phonetic details. This wisdom, of course, has been
lost on the makers of most American dictionaries, who each insist upon
using their own ad-hoc pronunciation scheme (one of my personal pet
peeves). The _Cambridge Dictionary of American English_ is a notable, if
perhaps not well-known, exception. The foremost dictionary of (mostly)
British English, the _Oxford English Dictionary_ uses IPA, as does the
major Australian English dictionary, _The Macquarie Dictionary_.
But I digress. There are several pages on the Wikipedia that deal
specifically with pronunciations, for example [[List of words of
disputed pronunciation]]. And the way that the pronunciations are listed
on that page is the worst possible mix of ad-hoc pronunciation schemes.
In fact, some of the ad-hac pronunciations given I couldn't even figure
what they meant. (does AHSK rhyme with American _task_ or _mosque_?).
Clearly some kind of standard scheme is needed.
I spent several hours today revamping that page, using IPA
transcriptions and doing some serious research about which
pronunciations are listed in what dictionaries. I put that page on
[[List of words of disputed pronunciation/IPA]]. However, I later
discovered to my tremendous dismay that the IPA letters simply do not
display in IE. The scheme for encoding IPA in ASCII, called SAMPA, is
capable of encoding anything in IPA, but it is not particularly readable
(although some might argue the same about IPA). It was designed to be
machine-readable, and it doesn't really seem like an adequate solution.
It uses lots of non-alphabetic characters to represent sounds (the 'a'
in _cat_ is '{' in SAMPA), and as a result SAMPA-ized pronunciations are
frankly ugly.
Anyhow, it seems that just using the HTML entities for the Unicode IPA
extensions is not an acceptable solution because it leaves IE users with
lovely but useless rectangles where there ought to be IPA characters.
There is a LaTeX extension called TIPA that allows the complete set of
IPA characters and diacritics. If this were installed into the TeX math
extensions, then a similar syntax could be used to generate images of
the IPA from LaTeX input.
I see the following possible solutions (in the order that I think is good):
1.) Auto-detect the browser and send IPA Unicode to browsers that
support it and TIPA LaTeX images to those that don't. (Pros: attractive
display of IPA for all users. Cons: lots of programming)
2.) Just send TIPA LaTeX images (Pros: attractive display of IPA. Cons:
Uses images in text when for some users embedded IPA Unicode would look
better)
3.) Store the IPA in a special format or in a special tag, auto-detect
the browser and send IPA Unicode to browsers that support it and SAMPA
to the rest. (Pros: doesn't require inserting images or using TeX. Cons:
SAMPA is ugly and hard to read)
4.) Render IPA into GIFs or PNGs and just insert them as images. (Pros:
compatible with everything. Cons: time-consuming, and difficult to change)
5.) Devise a Wikipedia-specific pronunciation scheme and just use that
(blech!) (Pros: no coding required. Cons: YAAHPS (Yet Another Ad Hoc
Pronunciation Scheme))
6.) Do nothing and continue to allow people to use ad-hoc pronunciation
schemes (BLECH!!) (Pros: no action required. Cons: maintains status quo
harms as described above)
Of course, no. 1 requires doing some coding and testing for what may end
up being a feature used on just a few pages. On the other hand, such
code could possibly be extremely useful for the Wiktionary. In the
meantime, I'm going to leave [[List of words of disputed
pronunciation/IPA]] as it is, and wait for suggestions.
Now of course there will be opponents of the IPA, because it's too
technical or whatever reason. To those people I say the IPA for the
purposes of representing English is really no more complicated than the
pronunciation schemes used in American dictionaries, like the
_Merriam-Webster Dictionary_, and the _Cambridge Dictionary of American
English_, which is designed for learners of English, seems to do just
fine with it.
- David [[User:Nohat]]
*
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_of_disputed_pronunciation/IPA>*
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:36:58 +0200
> From: "Mike" <Mike(a)cybermaus.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BuddhaInside's behaviour
> To: "Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia"
> <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <007801c37b86$0f081d50$2101a8c0@maus1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > He then tried to edit the [[Consensus]] page to
> redefine what a consensus
> > is, forcing the comment Angela,
> >
> > Changing the definition on the [[consensus]] page
> won't help Buddha . . .
> > [[User:Angela|Angela]] 18:04, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
>
> In spite of all the irritation he has caused, I
> would still have been
> inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, but the
> above cited act brands
> him as a troll in my opinion.
>
> Mike AKA CyberMaus
Have you look at the page in question ([[consensus]]),
its history, and the talk page ?
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>75% is not a consensus,
Actually it is. A consensus is generally interpretated as meaning a clear
and unambiguous majority. In democratic systems, a consensus is generally
defined as two-thirds plus one. Three quarters is described as an
'overwhelming consensus'. Lynch and Jones, ''Political Decision Making in
Divided Societies'' pp.214-215. Whyte and Reynard, ''Consociational
Democracy and Consensus Building: From the Lebanon to Belgium: Case Studies
in Democractic Consensus'' p. 190.
Most deletions on wiki occur because of votes by a small number. Very few
votes attract nearly 30 voters and those with large numbers rarely produce
75% agreement.
>I can understand a user getting angry if it is a page s/he has spent a lot
>of time on. This user seems to rather be in a deep disagreement with the
>majority of Wikipedia users/sysops rather than a genuine troll. In general
>I agree.
The people he has fallen out with are people who that he show the community
the respect of following agreed conventions and methodologies, rather than
act like a spoiled child who throws tantrums because he cannot get things
his way. Many of the people he has fallen out with are sysops. Many are not.
Some agree with his opinions. Some don't. But all find his behaviour well
beyonds the bounds of respect for the community.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus