First, let me say that the idea of a printed version of Wikipedia is *GREAT*
I'd like to make a modest logistical proposal for the print edition. I think
that each article, in addition to having an associated talk page, should have
an associated "Wikipedia 1.0" page - a page containing a print-encyclopedia
worthy summary. This is important, because a printed encyclopedia should
contain no web links, or internal links, but we don't want to remove them from our articles either. Some longer articles need to be shortened for the print version as well. I think this is the most workable way to do it.
--Mark Pellegrini
User: Raul654
Dear Paulus;
Obviously, you have a lot to say :-)
I suppose that you need a public place to post all facts, statements,
and relevant information, as regards the current arbitration process.
I think the best place to do this (it will be much better preserved than
on the mailing list) is for you to head to the proper arbitration forum.
This forum is of course public, and is dedicated to arbitration proper.
You will need to register to post, but no approval is required. Just
fill in the information.
The address is http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=2
Please, try to focus on writting in the forum place for any arbitration
issue.
You may go on posting for any other issue on the english mailing list.
It will probably take a little longer for the posts to get through though.
I must insist that you choose preferably the board for most of the
current discussions. If you want to discuss the mediation process,
please post on the appropriate forum as well.
I strongly suggest that you do this, in order to help antie and uncle
ensure this forum stays functionnal and a friendly place.
Best wishes
Ant
(co-moderator today)
> In my haste I forgot to linebreak my last few posts,
>
> Are the long lines objectionable to anyone? I haven't seen any complaint, but
> I will try to rememeber to add linebreaks so that my posts are more readable
> in the archives.
>
> Thanks for your patience, I haven't used an email list in about twenty-five
> years, and then I was using a dinosaur and playing on BITNET relay chat.
They are extremely annoying to me and, I guess, everyone else that
uses a text-based e-mail reader. But as most people use a graphical
reader not many notice whether you use line breaks or not. There are
also other posters that doesn't use line breaks. So, if you can,
*please* turn it on because without line breaks it makes longer
paragraphs completely unreadable. But I understand that most people
aren't very computer-savvy so I wont complain either way.
BL
> Here's a hint for trolls of the future -- when writing to me to beg
> for a rehearing, try to avoid insulting me to my face twice in one
> day.
>
> --Jimbo
Can you, or anyone else here, with a straight face say that; if they
were banned, and felt that there was absolutely no reason for the ban,
would be able to stay completely calm as a saint?
BL
>I'm not a dogmatist on this point (recipes), I'm just
>throwing out for
>consideration -- what exactly makes this
non->encyclopedic, other than
>the constraints of paper on traditional
encyclopedias?
--Jimbo
I'd have fewer problems if they were accompanied by an
article on the food item in question. A recipe, on
its own, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
Meelar
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
What is said during mediation sessions is private, and won't be disclosed without agreement of all parties.
If you don't like this, then change it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation…
This is straight out of wikipedia policy on mediation. I hate to be blunt,
but who will argue this with me? I think you may now all stand down.
This is patently ridiculous, people.
Codie Vickers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_plasma_hypothesis
This is Curps' "solution" to the "problem" of his vague notions about tornadoes. Move all references to electricity associated with tornadoes to another entry for NPOV. Huh?
Here is the audit trail for this dangling participle left in wikipedia like a
whithered seedling stomped under a jackboot:
(cur) (last) . . 02:25, 26 Feb 2004 . . Curps (add intro sentence, wording similar to "laser star hypothesis" intro)
(cur) (last) . . 01:15, 26 Feb 2004 . . Curps (material moved here from Tornado page, as per discussion with user Lir)
Huh? Add intro sentence, wording similar to laser star hypothesis? What's
this? Oh, right, the laser star hypothesis which was introduced to
eliminate all mention of quasars observed to be lasing to observe NPOV.
Huh?
Codie Vickers
I initiated this process, why am I being treated like the defendant when I am the claimant?
Why is the process being ignored here?
There is no requirement of secrecy in mediation. I do not wish it and do not intend to abide by secrecy. Curps has refused this condition, thus he refuses mediation, thus my case against him should go to arbitration.
Codie Vickers
I know these are a lot of submissions in a row, but hopefully nobody feels
I'm wasting all our time. As long as everyone is giving their hare-brained
ideas about fixing The Problem, here's my equally-retarded nonsensical
flailing:
Advocate Position
=================
The advocate position stands in opposition to the tyranny of sysops. The
advocates' job is to prevent runaway abuse of sysop authority.
Likely advocate powers might include:
o Unilateral Unban (to mirror sysop unilateral temporary ban)
o Page Unprotect (to be a subset of sysop page prot/unprot)
o Audit Functions (these aren't anywhere that I can see them except the
clunky page histories. luckily I had the sense to comment my code so my
exhibits in my defense here were easy to pick out. plus I haven't been
rabidly vandalizing as some would suggest.)
Procedure for nomination or designation of advocates:
yadda yadda yadda, it's all pretty useless after this point because another person has to be involved and then all bets are off, good luck.
Codie Vickers.
How was I able to do this? I think it was accidental.
I can't explain the process I use to pick what I am going to contribute, I
just do it. I start researching and when I think I have something down I put
it in. Then I move on.
So in all this moving around with people hawking these specific threads they
felt like "protecting" for a while, I managed to encounter the ones already
crying for my blood. The crying has now stopped.
Hopefully we can all act like adults here and admit that everyone can get
angry and use profanity in a private email when they sense unreasonable
treatment.
Hopefully we can all act like adults here and admit sometimes we jump to
unwarranted conclusions.
Hopefully we can all act like adults here and admit our mistakes, and work
together for mutual benefit.
Now that the ground is somewhat broken, is it time to bury hatchets?
Codie Vickers