On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:37, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:02:44 EDT
> From: daniwo59(a)aol.com
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Danny's harassment
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <2b.5f005263.2e55d4c4(a)aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> [snip]
>
> No, I am attacking '''you''' as ignorant.
>
> [snip]
>
> Danny
Not trying to be a smart aleck, but that's ad hominem yourself.
I know it's not nice being attacked, but contrary to current common
occidental belief perpetuating a war rarely stops it.
- Jens
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:02:44 UTC, daniwo59(a)aol.com
wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/18/2004 9:37:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> rkscience100(a)yahoo.com writes:
> A few weeks ago Danny threatened to ban me.
>
> Funny, I don't remember that. Could be, but it is something I would
> remember. Remind me where.
> Sadly, I am
> again having problems with Danny, this time on the [[Jews
> as a chosen people]] article.
>
> Sad, indeed.
>
> Danny is making crazy statements like this:
>
> "Crazy" is ad hominem
>...
There's not much point in complaining about ad hominem arguments when the
thrust of his argument is to complain about what the _person_ involved is
(you are) doing. They would be logically invalid if he were attacking a
position on some other subject by attacking that position's advocate
(you). But he's not. Not here, anyway.
Whether he's right or wrong, I have no idea and no reason to research, not
being a member of a mediation or arbitration group, to which this stuff
ought to have been referred by now. But if he's wrong, you could either
rebut him or ignore him, either of which is better than making fallacious
claims of logical fallacy.
On 18 Aug 2004, at 21:08, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:06:47 -0400
> From: "Michael Becker" <mbecker(a)jumpingjackweb.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:TrangBang.jpg and other copyright confusion
> To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <200408181106.AA1355743302(a)jumpingjackweb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> It seems that even though decisions have already been made by Jimbo on
> the mailing list regarding free use of images, quite a lot of arguing
> is still going on in wiki-space. Image:TrangBang.jpg was just deleted
> due to votes on vfd. It was then reuploaded, and there seems to be a
> conflict between the uploader and deleter. Also, there seems to be an
> argument on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. I think that since Jimbo has
> given his (i.e. the foundations) official stance on fair use, this
> should be reflected by a policy of some sort in wiki-space. This would
> help diffuse any further disputes on the fair use issue. Otherwise, I
> don't see these disputes ever ending.
>
It's precisely because of this idiocy^W<swearword /> that I went ahead
and emailed the Associated Press for permission re that picture.
Only way to settle this dispute, if you're asking me.
Sadly, I haven't heard back from them (so far).
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
Businessweek interviewed Linus Torvalds, and Linus mentioned
Wikipedia as an example of the open-source method applied outside of
software:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040818_1593.htm
Unfortunately, the WP ref comes after he describes how mutual trust
makes Linux work, so of course the business readers' heads will have
twisted around several times, fallen off, and rolled into the corner.
:-)
Stan
It seems that even though decisions have already been made by Jimbo on the mailing list regarding free use of images, quite a lot of arguing is still going on in wiki-space. Image:TrangBang.jpg was just deleted due to votes on vfd. It was then reuploaded, and there seems to be a conflict between the uploader and deleter. Also, there seems to be an argument on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. I think that since Jimbo has given his (i.e. the foundations) official stance on fair use, this should be reflected by a policy of some sort in wiki-space. This would help diffuse any further disputes on the fair use issue. Otherwise, I don't see these disputes ever ending.
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
> When we passed 100,000 , 200,000 , 300,000 etc articles there was a
> fair bit of fanfare.
>
> I think it is only right therefore to announce that en passed the
> 100,000,000 word mark earlier this month.
>
> This is about the same size as Columbia, Encarta Deluxe and EB put
> together, and if printed would weigh about the same as George Bush.
>
> Across all languages we reached this milestone back in January, and
> are now up to 220,000,000 words.
>
> Qualitätsoffensive, anyone?
>
> Pete/Pcb21
Speaking of milestones, aren't we getting pretty close to one million
articles covering all languages? A nice handy round number probably
worthy of some fanfare. Are we planning a press release or other special
efforts to publicize it, either externally or internally? Sometime in
September looks like the target date, given our statistical direction.
--Michael Snow
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:21:00 -0400, Cantus Vetustus <cantus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Look:
>
> 13:44, Aug 17, 2004, David Gerard blocked #7771 (expires 13:44, Aug
> 18, 2004) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used
> by "'''Cantus'''". The reason given for Cantus's block is as follows:
> "'''[[WP:3RR]] in violation of Arbitration Committee ruling'''".)
>
> This is stupid. Everytime I try to edit an article logged in as Cantus
> (just to see if the block has expired), my IP is getting blocked for
> another 24 hours. When my original blocking time expires, I won't be
> able to edit, because the IP was reblocked for another 24 hours.
>
> You see, USER:CANTUS had an specific 24-hour block time. Any IPs
> USER:CANTUS uses under the *USER:CANTUS ACCOUNT* should only get
> blocked until the original 24-hour block of the *USER:CANTUS ACCOUNT*
> expires. Reblocking those IPs used by USER:CANTUS under the
> *USER:CANTUS ACCOUNT* is unfairly prolonguing the block for
> USER:CANTUS.
>
> It's an entirely different thing if USER:CANTUS, not logged in under
> the *USER:CANTUS ACCOUNT*, evaded the ban and actually edited an
> article with a sock puppet account or with an anonymous IP. But this
> was not the case here. In this case, USER:CANTUS was *under* the
> *USER:CANTUS ACCOUNT*, and only clicked the Edit button to see if he
> could edit, and his IP is getting reblocked for another 24-hours.
Yes, that is the system automatically resetting the clock on you as
long as you try to evade the block. If you stop trying for 24 hours,
it'll stop resetting the clock.
> If this is not fixed now, I'm talking to Jimbo.
> Sincerely,
> Cantus.
I've cc'd this to wikien-l, which should alert Jimbo to your
satisfaction. Also the developers, in case this isn't how the
autoblock is supposed to work.
(Note to all: this was after I blocked Cantus for 24 hours for
violating the Arbitration Committee verdict on his reverts - that if
he violated [[WP:3RR]], he was subject to a block. See [[Template
talk:Protected]] for the reversions in question, and see history of
[[Template:Protected]] for Cantus' edit warring.)
- d.
From: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 50:
Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:25:32 +0100
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> We don't actually have to move anything
(my explanation why that is and how precedence can ensure things are
resolved right anyway was removed here)
> If you want to introduce a new namespace (or namespace alias), you *do*
> have to move all pages whose title begins with the new namespace name
> followed by a colon, or else they will become inaccessible. For the
> reasons, please see my reply on the technical list.
I've already sent a (politely dissenting) reply to the tech list. :-)
-- Jens
Folks, it's been fun administering the mailing list of the English
Wikipedia, but I no longer have the time to do a good job.
I'm resigning effective Friday, August 20th. If anyone wants to be
trained as my replacement, I'll be glad to help (there's not much to it,
really).
Ed Poor
Wikien-l admin
----- Original Message -----
From: Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)yurkycross.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:49:09 +0100
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] When can an article be considered public domain?
> On 14 Aug 2004, at 6:39 am, Jim Cecropia wrote:
>
> > First IANAL
>
> Would such jargon stand up in a court of law?
>
> Christiaan
>
In terms of what? I am not representing myself as a lawyer and thereby stating that what I am saying may be knowledgeable, but it's not legal advice, so take it FWIW. Anyone who went to court and said, "I did this because a guy on the internet told me so" is not likely to do too well anyway.
Even if I WERE a lawyer, I would still have to say it is not legal advice, because no lawyer-client relationship exists.
IA-(still)-NAL, C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm