> Thanks. I'm not really worried about being desysopped, I
> don't think anything I've done warrants it, but if it
> happens, it happens, and I leave the project.
>
> RickK
Let's not get too carried away. Even if the community decides the
article should stay, you speedily deleted it out of concern for
Wikipedia's legal well-being, so there should not be much ill-will
because of that.
BTW, I've moved the discussion of this from VfD to [[Talk:Kobe Bryant]]
-Fuzheado
Rick,
Sounds like a good call; it's not Wikipedia's job to "out" people. This
is one of the reasons I have never supported any of these "de-sysopping"
campaigns against you and other newly minted admins.
Thanks.
Ed Poor
A Wikipedia Bureaucrat
Rick wrote:
>An interview with Jimmy Wales and info about Wikipedia:
>http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/features/story.jsp?story=504287
Page 11 of the review section, for those taking notes. Accompanying
pictures: a pile of dusty-looking books, and a photo of some kids gathered
round a computer monitor, apparently in thrall of the knowledge presented
before their eyeballs.
Ec wrote:
>Too bad they don't realize that it's wikipedia.org rather than
>wikipedia.com.
They also say "Any self-styled expert in a subject can write or edit an
article about anything to join the 200,000 others in the Wikipedia, *as
long as they give the intellectual property to the project*" (my asterisks)
which is a bit wide of the mark.
I also wonder if the article talks up Jimbo's role in the whole thing a bit
- I mean, he's our spiritual leader, benevolent dictator and sugar daddy, I
know, but things like "To manage the editing process, Wales uses the
Wiki..." make him sound a bit like editor-in-cheif as well.
I'm sort of picking fault, really. It's not a bad article on the whole.
Fred wrote:
>Remember we are talking about a
>multi-volume work, or are we?
As I understand it, that's not what is being talked about at the moment
(though it's something many would aspire to for the future). The talk has
been of a single-volume concise work, along the lines of the Columbia or
Britannica Concise encyclopedias. Comparisons with the full EB made in the
article are somewhat premature, methinks.
I refer you to Jimbo's original post on the subject:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/011045.html
---
I'm interested in how these things get in papers by the way. Most previous
coverage, I think, has come from press releases, but this article is mainly
about a paper version, about which there have been no offical
pronouncements that I'm aware of. So what happened here - did somebody go
to the paper about this, or did the paper go to Jimbo out of the blue? Just
curious. If it's the latter, it's surely a sign that we're being taken
really quite seriously (something which probably shouldn't surprise me, but
which nontheless regularly does).
Lee (Camembert)
It seems that people want the article on the recent attacks in Madrid to
be at [[11 March, 2001 Madrid attacks]] rather than [[March 11, 2001
Madrid attacks]]. Myself, I don't care about the date format itself, but
I hate that this could create inconsistency with the [[September 11,
2004 attacks]].
Shouldn't we be consistent in this respect across at least one Wikipedia?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:06:44PM -0800, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> Why not use a conversion syntax that allows a question
> mark for one of the values, which then gets converted
> and replaced in the actual markup code. The editor
> could then correct the converted value for the
> context.
>
> For example, {{num:mi:1000:km:1600}} would show "1000
> miles" (or whatever) for a US user, and would show
> 1600 km for everyone else.
>
> If the editor entered {{num:mi:1000:km:?}}, then it
> would be converted in the markup text as
> {{num:mi:1000:km:1609}}. The editor could then change
> that to read as the first example above, if desired.
> Similarly, the editor could express the value in km
> and leave the mi as a question mark...
>
> This would allow a preference of either unit, or both.
>
> By the way, I'm not at all stuck on this syntax -- I
> haven't given those details much thought. It the
> concept that I want to contribute.
>
If we're going to be pedantic about this, I'd suggest
a couple more features, listed in order of priority:
1) The *first* figure to appear in the notation should always be
the "source" figure, so when editing you know which one has
been rounded for display.
2) Should you be able to explicitly indicate the number of significant
digits in a measurement?
3) Ideally, you'd like to be able to mouse-over such figures in the
displayed article, and get the metric and imperial equivalents in a
pop-up box or something, as well as an indication of which is the source
figure.
4) Would it be going over the top to (optionally) be able to specify a
separate "source figure" (of higher precision than that desirable for
display) that is separate from the displayed figure in that unit system?
So you could record a source figure of 84.52 km/h (which appears in the
mouse-over box) but is displayed in the text as 85 km/h or 52 mph?
Is this all getting too complicated?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel
robert.merkel(a)benambra.org
http://benambra.org
She's leaving the country...she doesn't speak English...I insulted her
friend's breasts...and she thinks I collect women's ears in a bucket.
-- Jeff Murdock (Richard Coyle), "Coupling"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Inman inman(a)powerweb.net wrote:
> I was wondering if there is some way I could get a list
> of the people who died in the Spain Madrid terrorists
> attach on the trains. Thank You
I've started getting one or two inquiries like this, each week, and I'm
wondering how to handle them.
1. Approve the post, so it's passed on to the mailing list?
2. Reject the post with the default explanation:
"Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this
list."
3. Refer the person to some sort of Reference Desk on the
Wikipedia website?
Ed Poor
Wikien-l admin
Ed Poor wrote:
> << 22:35, 20 Mar 2004 Adam Bishop blocked "Gdansk" with an expiry
> time of 24 hours (Being annoying, minus a million points!) >>
> I'd like to know why Adam did this, and I wish he had said
> something about the block on the mailing list. Does every admin have the
> right to temp-block a long-time contributor just for "being annoying"?
> TUF-KAT asked me to be a Mediator for an issue involving
> user:Gdansk, and I think I'm owed the courtesy of being informed
> if an administrator blocks a party involved in a mediation.
During the last days user "Gdansk" has repeatedly done strange edits
to various German city articles like Kiel, Dresden, Munich etc. In the edit
summary of Kiel he wrote:
"retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk
and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the
Germans angry"
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kiel&action=history)
When he was blocked, he was engaged in several similar edit wars which
could be considered as vandalism. I think, blocking in this case was
justified because he admitted that his actions had no other purpose
than making other people upset.
So, if you enter mediation with this user could you please tell him in
some way that these actions have to stop? I am not part of this
mediation, but I don't like to see articles vandalised that have
nothing to do with the original dispute.
By the way, could an admin now unprotect the Kiel page? It was not
listed on the list of protected pages, so it has probably been
forgotten.
Mirko (Baldhur)
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:47:08 -0500
From: "Poor, Edmund W"
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Bishop temp-blocked user:Gdansk
To:
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
<< 22:35, 20 Mar 2004 Adam Bishop blocked "Gdansk" with an expiry
time of 24 hours (Being annoying, minus a million points!) >>
I'd like to know why Adam did this, and I wish he had said
something about the block on the mailing list. Does every admin have the
right to temp-block a long-time contributor just for "being annoying"?
TUF-KAT asked me to be a Mediator for an issue involving
user:Gdansk, and I think I'm owed the courtesy of being informed
if an administrator blocks a party involved in a mediation.
Ed Poor
Mediator, Admin, Bureaucrat, etc.
----------------
I suppose Adam did not know
Aren't quickpoll open now ? If so, why wasn't the blocking decided by a quickpoll ?
In this case, someone could realise that the user in in mediation, and kindly tell Ed.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Oh, sorry, basically he had admitted he was being a troll, by going around
adding Polish names to German cities in revenge for places like Gdansk
having "Danzig" mentioned in their articles. I asked what relevance the
Polish name had to cities like Kiel or Munich, but he said it didn't matter.
(Unfortunately, as en: is down I can't find exact quotes right now.)
I really shouldn't have blocked him, of course, as I had become
semi-involved...and I know "being annoying" is not a good reason. But it
had to stop somehow.
Adam Bishop
>From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Bishop temp-blocked user:Gdansk
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:47:08 -0500
>
><< 22:35, 20 Mar 2004 Adam Bishop blocked "Gdansk" with an expiry
>time of 24 hours (Being annoying, minus a million points!) >>
>
>I'd like to know why Adam did this, and I wish he had said
>something about the block on the mailing list. Does every admin have the
>right to temp-block a long-time contributor just for "being annoying"?
>
>TUF-KAT asked me to be a Mediator for an issue involving
>user:Gdansk, and I think I'm owed the courtesy of being informed
>if an administrator blocks a party involved in a mediation.
>
>Ed Poor
>Mediator, Admin, Bureaucrat, etc.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht…