On 5 Aug 2004, at 10:29, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mike Halterman <haltermannews(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 3 different issues
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040804225515.60159.qmail(a)web14823.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Well, the first thing you bring up is very interesting and should be
> watched, definitely, if not just outright squashed right now.
>
> About Neutrality, I really don't care what screen name a person has. I
> don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm a believer in picking your
> battles, and I think this is one that is relatively unimportant.
>
> -Michael
Any suggestions on *what* to do on the first issue or *how* to "squash
it" (as you say)?
- Jens
Righto. My 1st post to this list, I hope this is the right place.
3 different issues, in descending order of perceived seriousness. Here
goes:
- wikipaedia.org
There is a HUGE issue (actually several issues) concerning the
Internet activities of a Dr. Martin Schlabeck, an apparent psychiatrist
based in Nuremburg-Erlangen, Germany.
Please refer to the attached wikipaedia.html file for an account of my
concerns.
I also wonder if I should repost this to foundation-l and/or
Wikipedia-l as well? Or maybe to a WikiDE-l? What do people think would
be right?
- [[Falcon I]] , [[Falcon V]] (and [[SpaceX]] )
User:Dschmelzer has contributed and mostly edited the above articles.
He has included pricing information about commercially available
products/services in them and he has written them in a way that I
consider advertising language.
I have edited the articles and aggressively commented on the
respective Talk pages (maybe a tad bit too aggressively).
I have then contacted Dschmelzer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:
Dschmelzer#Space_X_and_Falcon_rockets and vented my exasperation.
Dschmelzer has replied on my own Talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ropers#Falcon_Rockets and
reverted the articles.
While I certainly could have been more polite, what do people think of
the issues at hand?
- User:Neutrality
I consider it wrong to allow any user to carry such a user name. I
have contacted Neutrality and explained my precise concerns here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutrality#Ropers_.7C_Username
Neutrality's replies are also in that place.
Again, what do people think?
- Oh, and again, is this list the right place to voice such concerns?
Am I doing the right thing in that?
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
> If you agreed to it voluntarily then why are you questioning it with
> "Fennec could have done something other than block me (such as speak to
> me first)"?
> Christiaan
What am I questioning? I'm not saying Fennec wasn't able to do what he did.
I'm saying he shouldn't have. It was completely unnecessary and
counterproductive.
Just because an admin has the ability to block first and ask questions never
doesn't mean they always should. Frankly, when I made the agreement I
thought admins such as Fennec would have the common sense to realize that.
That said, I jumped to conclusions when I listed that page on VfD. And as
it turns out the block was removed fairly soon after I realized I was
blocked anyway, so little harm was done. So whatever, it's not the end of
the world.
Anthony
Hephaestos wrote:
> In light of the fact that the Arbitration Committee is
> quite willing to censure me and others for having the
> audacity to do the job they refuse to do, over any objections
> we may have, I don't think they are being taken seriously.
>
> On the other hand, if I were to change my handle to
> GreezyTroll and start spewing nonsense about "cabal" and
> "GFDL corpus", and inserting "faggot" into every other article,
> I think my objections would be taken quite seriously. In the
> name of "fairness" or somesuch.
Wikipedia is suffering from a classic case of looking for
the house keys under the street light. There is an inability,
or perhaps refusal, to recognize trolling. On the other hand,
it,s very easy to spot admins who are breaking rules.
RickK wrote:
> Sorry, but I will continue to do what needs to be done,
> and I hope, Heph, that you will, too.
Hephaestos wrote:
> Why should we, when our help is so clearly not wanted?
For the record: -I- want your help. I consider WP a serious
project -- that means the current troll-pandering has to stop.
Hephaestos, you rock, and RickK, so do you.
Keep up the good work.
For what it,s worth --
Robert Dodier
(Wile E. Heresiarch)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Jimbo wrote:
>I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who
>like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any
>names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it
>naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which
>Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
For the record, I am not a Democratic activist. In 2000, I publicly
endorsed Ralph Nader's third-party campaign. (This time around, I
plan to vote for Kerry, but that doesn't make me a Democratic
activist any more than voting for Bush makes someone a Republican
activist.)
As for my use of the term "Republican dumbasses," it wasn't intended
to apply across the board to all Republicans. However, the person who
wrote the article for bushcountry.org (the article that mentioned
Wikipedia and thereby triggered this thread) deserves in my opinion
to be considered a dumbass. He's a dishonest dumbass because he
selectively presents information from the Wikipedia article to serve
his political agenda, interpolating his own editorial glosses in a
way that makes it sound as though his opinions have been taken from
Wikipedia. (If you simply read his dumbass article, for example, you
would come away with the false impression that Wikipedia says Kerry's
shooting of a Viet Cong soldier was either a war crime or a "sham.")
He's a racist dumbass because he uses the fact that Kerry had a
Jewish grandfather to insinuate that he isn't a true Catholic. He's a
provincial dumbass because he insinuates that there is something
sinister about having been born in France and because he thinks there
is something dangerous about being "influenced by Europeans." And
he's a narrow-minded dumbass because he insinuates that there is
something sinister about having a friend who is prominent in the
Green Party.
Of course, that's just my humble opinion.
--Sheldon Rampton
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
RickK
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Sj wrote:
> "citing appropriate section" is rather onerous. I hope that a
> sensible explanation, not limited to a one-word epithet, for
> example, "repeatedly moving user pages to article namespace",
> would suffice.
Yes, of course. Mentioning the section number is redundant.
> # ...you should say "I unblocked Snidely Whiplash because you
> forgot to cite the (being a dastardly villain) section of the
> blocking policy." = What do you mean? I mentioned "section
> 54"! # Dastardly villainy is section 86; 54 is treacherous
> knavery. = Who cares?? Snidely needed to be blocked, so why
> did you unblock him? # By all means reblock him then, but
> cite the appropriate policy number. Imagine what would
> happen if everyone cited the wrong policy number. That would
> be like having no policy at all, wouldn't it? =
> *&$^%*@&%($~#& # Well, I never!
LOL! That is precisely the sort of talk page discussion that results. I
hope now that Fred and Maveric have claried the policy, we won't have so
much bickering (even if some us enjoy it ;-) any more.
Blocking guidelines:
1. Say WHY you're blocking the user (note: state a reason that anyone
with common sense would easily recognize as being official "blocking
policy")
2. If someone ELSE overlooks guideline #1, don't reverse their block
without letting them know (e.g., a nice note on their talk page).
Ed Poor
Rick,
You are right. I should not have made fun of your name. I'm sorry.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick [mailto:giantsrick13@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:52 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Phoenix dispute (was: unfair blocking)
Whatever happened to the policy of not attacking people on the
mailing list? You, as the list administrator, are allowed to be the
only one to do so? You keep chiding me for doing it, you might try
living up to it.
Also, this person is not a newbie.
Third, I was TRYING to be polite. He kept ignoring me.
RickK
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
Rick,
How could you have compromised with the stubborn Marine?
First, please re-read [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the
newbies]].
Second, stop being a "giant prick"
I repeat: nothing in Fred's posts of the last week involving making
policy.
He was merely clarifying what already _is_ policy.
You seem more exercised over the fact that someone is telling you what
to do, than over the question of whether the thing you're being told to
do is good or not. I can understand this sort of irritation. There's one
person I know who is a backseat driver; they can't navigate without
making nagging suggestions like, "Get in the right line now" and "Speed
up so you can make this light". It bugs me so much that sometimes I feel
an overwhelming impulse to balk -- just so I don't feel so darn
controlled.
Sorry if this is happening now on the list, for you, Rick. I don't mean
to put that kind of pressure on you, and I doubt that Fred wants to,
either.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick [mailto:giantsrick13@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:49 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking without a reason, considered
unreasonable
I repeat. Where in the arbitration committee charter are they
authorized to make policy?
RickK