Sean,
This dialogue just started with me asking a question and trying to be
helpful. Try to be less of a prick. The mailing list is for all users, not
just your small clique of regular users.
-172
Abe Sokolov stated for the record:
>I have just as much right to post something on this site giving you the
>perspective of the general editors as you people do. And if you don't like
>it, I'll just do it more frequently.
The very fact that you try to make a distinction between "the general
editors" and "you people" makes it clear you have no idea who "the
general editors" are or what they want.
And when presented with the fact that the consensus of the Wikipedia
community doesn't like it, you state your intention to annoy that
community "more frequently." I personally don't think that's a good way
to persuade people, but please don't let my opinion cause you to
hesitate. Annoy the community as frequently you want.
--
Sean Barrett | Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
sean at epoptic.com | That alone should encourage the crew.
| Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
| What I tell you three times is true.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
I got a request to a phone interview by a journalist at Wired
magazine. I have declined the interview request because I don't think
my parents would appreciate my getting interviews and I don't think
they would understand exactly why. Also, I don't particularly feel
like doing one at the moment anyway.
Has anyone else gotten phone interviews?
my original block:
17:34, 22 Dec 2004, Mirv blocked Nasrallah (expires 17:34, 24 Dec 2004)
now:
17:52, 25 Dec 2004, Mirv blocked #13186 (expires 17:52, 26 Dec 2004)
thats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
? I clicked on a red link (actually a users name without a userpage) and bang!
Please can an admin unblock me? this is cruel and unusual...
my block was for 48 hours, not 96hrs...
17:34, 22 Dec 2004 Mirv blocked Nasrallah (talk) (contributions) with
an expiry time of 48 hours - thats at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log/Final_archive
thanks
Sean Barrett stated for the record:
Will somebody please archive this, the Nth repetition of this particular
debate, so that two weeks from now, when repetition N+1 begins, we can
simply e-mail the archive to the person suggesting that we "pull up the
ladder" and not let any more casual editors into our club?
Well, given your rude response, I can see that you don't want casual readers
of the listserve into your club on the mailing list. What gives me the right
to disturb your elite palace court, right?
No one wants to dissuade casual editors from editing on Wikipedia. However,
vandals exist and they are problems. You and your mailing list cabal would
know this if you spent more time actually articles on Wikipedia.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
For the past months, [[Autobiography (album)]] has been the subject of
heated debate. I doubt whether any policies and guidelines have been
broken, but what is clear is that Everyking refuses to allow others to
edit the article, arguing they are removing "essential information".
Here is a quote from the talk showing the information he considers
essential:
---Begin quote---
Which seems more informative? Compare another of Zen's paragraphs:
"In Canada <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada>, the album debuted
at number 37 on the Jam Music charts in late July [3]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_072904_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_072904_ALBUMS.html/), and
peaked at 11."
With mine:
"In Canada <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada>, the album debuted
at number 37 in late July [4]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_072904_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_072904_ALBUMS.html/),
rising to number 36 in its second week [5]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_080504_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_080504_ALBUMS.html/) and
then to number 30 in its third week. [6]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_081204_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_081204_ALBUMS.html/) In
its fourth week, it rose greatly, to number 11 (its peak), [7]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_081904_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_081904_ALBUMS.html/) but
fell to number 14 in its fifth week, [8]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_082604_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_082604_ALBUMS.html/) where
it remained in its sixth week. [9]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_090204_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_090204_ALBUMS.html/) In
its seventh week, it fell slightly to number 15, [10]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_090904_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_090904_ALBUMS.html/) and
then slightly more in the next two weeks: first to number 16 (week
eight) [11]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_091604_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_091604_ALBUMS.html/), and
then to number 17 (week nine). [12]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_092304_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_092304_ALBUMS.html/) It
remained at number 17 in its tenth week, [13]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_093004_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_093004_ALBUMS.html/)
before falling to number 24 in its 11th week [14]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_100704_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_100704_ALBUMS.html/) and
then to number 29 in its 12th week. [15]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_101404_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_101404_ALBUMS.html/) It
rose again in its 13th week, however, to number 23, [16]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_102104_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_102104_ALBUMS.html/) and
rose further still in its 14th week, to number 20. [17]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_102804_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_102804_ALBUMS.html/) It
then fell to number 30 in its 15th week [18]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_110404_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_110404_ALBUMS.html/), to
number 33 in its 16th week [19]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_111104_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_111104_ALBUMS.html/), to
number 41 in its 17th week, [20]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_111804_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_111804_ALBUMS.html/) and
to number 46 in its 18th week. [21]
<http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_112504_ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/prev_112504_ALBUMS.html/) In
week 19 it fell slightly more to number 47, before rising to number
38 in week 20. [22] <http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/ALBUMS.html>
(/http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicCharts/ALBUMS.html/)"
---End quote---
[[User:Calton]] has also compiled some statistics on the scale and
breadth of this dispute, albeit before it reheated itself again after
Everyking placed the article on FAC:
---Begin quote---
Some statistics:
As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, there have been *554 edits* (counting the
original creation of the article), inflating the article to 38K in size.
The article was created on 26 Jul 2004, 140 days ago, giving an average
of just under 4 edits per day, though that was not spread out evenly:
* July: 3
* August: 16
* September: 13
* October: 40
* November: 356
* December: 125
Of the 554 edits, *496 (or 89.5%) have been by Everyking
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Everyking>*.
Thirty-two users performed the remaining 58 edits -- although since two
of each were the leveling and then lifting of protection, I'll discount
those, making 30 users performing 56 edits. Reene had the highest single
number at 13 edits.
Of those 56 other edits, *29 were reverted by Everyking* (25 completely
and 4 partially) -- over half of non-Everyking edits. This includes the
removal of at least 4 tags (peerreview and clean-up), and involved at
least *four violations of the 3-revert rule* (including an astonishing 8
reversions in 2 hours on 26 November).
---End quote---
Two of my rewrites have been reverted by Everyking, who has refused to
stand down on the importance of useless chart information. I am at my
wits' end as to how to resolve this; I cannot think of any policies
violated, and I believe Everyking is editing in good faith, but it's
clear this article is stagnating, as Everyking refuses to allow anyone
to edit the article unless they agree to avoid removing his precious
promotional and charting information.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
I realise that the lengths of ArbCom terms are set by Jimbo, and
whilst I recognise his authority in such matters, I would like to
postulate that the length of the terms is perhaps excessive.
I say this not as a losing candidate in the recent election but merely
as a concerned Wikipedian. Two and three years is a looong time,
especially on the internet. I think that (especially given the -50%
returns of 6 "winners" in the recent elections) terms so long only
perpetuate notions that Wikipedia is somehow run by a cabal.
I myself would prefer the terms to be staggered at six months, twelve
months, and eighteen months. However, I realise some people would be
concerned about going through the nasty election process every six
months. So perhaps we should develop better election procedure. Or
perhaps 12-18-24 months would be more feasible.
Just some thoughts.
I agree with Blankfaze and Danny that three year terms are too long. Isn't
it one of the points of computers that they speed things up? Three years
in the wikiworld is a very, very, long time. Shorter term limits are a
matter not only of preventing the establishment of a cabal (or the
appearance of one); it will help prevent burn-out and of course encourage
greater participation on the part of others.
I understand Angela's concern about experience, but I think that requiring
candidates for AC to have been around for a certain amount of time, or
having done a certain number of edits, will guarantee a minimum amount of
experience at Wikipedia, and staggered terms will help ensure a continuity
of experience on the committee.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Anonymous [[User:66.234.65.212]] is on a mission to "expose[] the
constant cover-ups by liars on wikipedia" by adding links to a
idiosyncratic Web site to any article mentioning Francis Bellamy, the US
Pledge of Allegiance, the Roman/Nazi salute, and so on. [[User:RickK]]
warned him/her/it last August, and I just posted a second warning. It
is my intention to block that IP address if those links are re-added
without discussion.
See http://members.ij.net/rex/wikipedialies.html for the other side of
the story.
--
Sean Barrett | It's swell for tearing up
sean(a)epoptic.com | fragile ecosystems! Watch!