> There seems to be a tendency amongst some users to e-mail using
> attachments.
>
> Could I remind them that this will produce irritating "An HTML
> attachment was scrubbed...
> " error messages? Just send them in plain text.
On Jun 30, 2004, at 6:00 AM, rkscience100 at yahoo.com wrote:
> Your document is attached.
[<document.pif> not quoted]
That's another reason for avoiding attachments!
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Robert Dodier wrote:
>It turns out that VfD is used as a general forum to
>determine what to do with an article. Deletion is an
>option but redirect, cleanup, & copyvio are used as well.
>So I suggest renaming "Votes for deletion" to "Triage".
>
>The VfD header message can be changed accordingly --
>
> "This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Triage
> because someone decided it would be a good idea to
> get some more eyeballs on it."
>
>I'm thinking such a message is more accurate, and
>also gentler on new contributors, whose articles
>end up on VfD out of proportion to their numbers.
>
The message would be too gentle, I'm afraid. Not that I oppose being
gentle with new contributors, but if article deletion is to remain an
option, we need to give people fair warning of that. Many people take
umbrage even at having a few words deleted from articles, let alone
having an entire article deleted. Since deletion is such a serious step,
we need to make some effort to let people know about the possibility.
That being said, I certainly agree that people discussing potential
deletions should be more aware of other alternatives.
--Michael Snow
Robert Dodier wrote:
> Maybe "Triage" isn't the best name since it
> suggests trauma. Any other ideas?
Great, now I have this vision of lying in a hospital bed while a bunch of
nurses stand around me and say "Delete. Not notable." :-)
Cheers!
David...
I am concerned with WHEELER's anti-semitism. He has made some offensive
remarks in the past, but ones I could dismiss as poor communication in the
course of heated debate. Now he really has posted an ad hominem
non-sequitor on the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft#personal_p…
In the context of a discussion with AndyL over the relationship between the
Austrian and Hungarian National Socialist movements, WHEELER posted the
following:
And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because your
relatives suffered under the Holocaust. [As far as I can tell, this is not
true; Andy L always bases his arguments on historical documentation -- SLR]
The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the island of Crete. My uncle,
Sirodakis, was a great underground fighter. It was my island that lead a
ferocious resistance to the Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic
priests that went to the camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that
destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish
concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single
Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my
face.[[User:WHEELER|WHEELER]] 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not only does this have nothing to do with the article, it is simple, base
anti-semitism -- a simple association of bolshevism with Judaism that the
Nazis themselves mastered and promoted. I think WHEELER should be banned
for it, personally. At the very least it calls for a profound and sincere
apology.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
--- "Christopher Mahan" <chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>Surely you are aware that he may be correct in stating that some jews
>may have been communists (it was popular in the Soviet Union between
>the wars) and that some of them may have been involved in, how shall
>I say this, "purging" certain "christian" elements out of the New
>Soviet Society.
>On the other hand, he may not be. But for you to say that this did
>not in fact happen means that your homework is rosk solid.
>Calling them concentration camps may stretch the meaning of the word,
>but in the very liberal sense, camps where people are concentrated
>may be called concentration camp. Of course, it's a poor choice of
>words, but it's not illegal.
>By the way, my grandfather was sent to a German labort camp. He was a
>captain in a french armor unit in 1940. So don't assume I don't know
>what I am talking about.
>Finally: calling for a ban does not foster wikilove, so please calm
>down before clicking send and review your email to make sure it is
>constructive.
>=====
>Chris Mahan
>818.943.1850 cell
>chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
>chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
>http://www.christophermahan.com/
First, Chris, I never claimed that you don't know what you are talking
about. Also, although it isn't always easy to tell from an e-mail, I
believe I am pretty calm (pulse and bp seem about normal).
But I do think you misunderstand me, and WHEELER. WHEELER was not arguing
that some Jews were communists (indeed, many were), nor was he arguing that
some of the people who established and ran Soviet prison camps were Jewish
(certainly, some were). He wasn't arguing these things, because these
issues are not relevant to the article under discussion. He was neither
responding to anyone's argument that "no Jews were communists" nor was he
suggesting that the fact that some Jews were communists (or, some
communists were Jews) should be included in the article. He made his
assertions solely in the context of a personal attack against AndyL.
More importantly, he did not (as you suggest) claim that some Jews were
communists, or some communists were Jews, or that communists persecuted
Christians (I wouldn't take issue with any of these claims, and certainly
don't think any of them are anti-Semitic). Rather, he identified Jews with
communists, thus repeating a Nazi slur. He singled out "Jewish" communists
as guilty for destroying the Russian Orthodox Church. This is offensive
for two reasons: first, for a very long time it is the Orthodox Russian
Church who persecuted Jews and promoted anti-Semitism; secondly, after the
Revolution the Communist Party as a whole was involved in persecuting the
Church. Why single out Jews? It is such singling out that is
offensive. He also referred to "Jewish concentration camps," which I take
to be anti-Semitic. I have no objection to calling the gulags
concentration camps; I do object to calling them "Jewish" concentration
camps as if "Jews" in general are responsible. This is offensive on its face.
If you still have trouble understanding the difference between
anti-Semitism and a reasonable assertion of facts, let me try an
analogy. Some Nazis were brought up in the Catholic Church. Yet it would
be misleading and offensive for me to talk of "Catholic Nazis who
persecuted Jews" (because non-Catholic Nazi's also persecuted Jews, and
there were Catholics who helped Jews), or to talk of "Catholic
concentration camps." Yes, there is a complex relationship between the
Catholic Church and the Nazis, as there is a complex relationship between
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Jews. But to talk of
"Catholic concentration camps" is just as offensive as talking about
"Jewish concentration camps."
Perhaps you have never suffered from hate-speech, or are simply insensitive
to the matter, Chris. You certainly have a right to disagree with me and
even to say this message is unconstructive. But trust me, I am calm, I
have thought about this, and I believe it is constructive. What WHEELER
wrote is not just a violation of wikicivility, it is an example of hate
speech. It served and serves absolutely no purpose at wikipedia, except to
use this space as a vehicle for expressing hate speech. I am against that.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
Mav,
I agree with your idea about reducing the burdens of those "on patrol"
against petty vandalism.
How about some sort of marking or system, whereby you can set the "Looks
Good To Me" flag on a particular edit (or on a particular article
version, which is not _quite_ the same thing).
I personally would not bother re-checking any anon edit which mav had
already looked at and marked okay. If mav says okay, it's good enough
for me!
Contrariwise, users could mark an edit (or article version) with:
* a "Huh?" flag (I don't understand what the contributor is saying)
* a "Bias" flag (Looks like unattributed POV masquerading as _fact_)
* a "Copy Edits needed" flag (too many spelling or grammar errors for
me)
Note that this would not be a voting system. Nothing automatic would
happen to edits, versions, or contributors based on their "score".
But it would give other editors the chance to use filters to see (or
avoid seeing) classes of articles needing (or unworthy of) their
attention.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Could someone more expert in these things please look over
[[User:The Trolls of Navarone]]'s edits and talk page. If
he's not a reincarnation, he's doing his best to look like one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:The_Trolls_of_Navarone&curi…
- that's a favourite slab of text of 142/Entmoots/JRR - and
writes in an almost identical style. Some consider him a
reincarnation already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:The_Trolls_of_Navarone&acti…
- but this appears disputed. I'm inclined to say "of course he
bloody is", but would like the opinion of someone with more
experience of the ex-user in question.
- d.