Michael Turley wrote:
>I wanted to make sure my edits were "proper" before committing them,
>after all, they are in the edit history FOREVER ;-), so I did more
>than an afternoon's worth of reading before my first logged-in post.
>My initial thoughts were "What would be worse for establishing your
>reputation than having a crappy first edit?" Yet I still neglected to
>use an edit summary! Doh!
It took me a few days to realise it used a version control system and
that the edit summary was equivalent to the CVS commit message ;-)
- d.
Stefan Sittler wrote:
>I know, I know: how about the Capulets and Montagues? Crips and the
>Bloods? Yeah! Or the Sharks and the Jets. Then there could be a tender
>story of children of the warring Associations thrown together by fate
>and passion, tossed on the winds of information, tenderly editing each
>others articles, realizing the narrow creed they followed was nothing
>when it came to verifying AND including their love for another, each
>one spouting verse on the others talk page in the middle of the night,
>being bold, breaking the 3RR together, only to be cut down and burned
>out in a brutal flamewar ending only in tragedy as one takes the
>poison of AfD and the other falls on his own WP:POINT in a message to
>all, and eyes are opened by this tragedy, leading to a historic
>agreement as Jimbo Wales eulogizes over their young but lifeless
>accounts, complete with tender homilies about community and vision and
>how he C0ntr0lz Teh Un1v3rs3.
>Or not.
SUBSCRIBE
You so need to put this on Uncyclopedia.
(http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia)
- d.
jmerkey wrote:
Note from listadmin: This is apparently [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]. Mr.
Merkey wrote another message which I rejected for incivility. He is
currently unsubscribed; should he subscribe, he is likely to remain on
moderation.
- d.
>I'm not inclined to care a whole lot. People who hit the 3RR have
>already gone beyond reasonable editing. Whether they get blocked for
>24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me.
Seconded. The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. It *really
doesn't matter* if the article is on [[m:The Wrong Version]] for a
while longer. It really doesn't. Consistently running up 3 reversions
every 24 hours is prima facie evidence of failure to work with others.
- d.
Kelly Martin wrote:
>I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it)
>and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and
>to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the
>ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
>
>
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term
for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
--Michael Snow
I have just discovered that a bunch of these have been obliterated as an
unfortunate side-effect of an entirely right-minded drive to delete orphan
talk pages.
The particular page which I stumbled across is
[[Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete]] which can be
viewed here (if you have the right credentials :-):
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Talk:Constitutional_Charter_o…
I understand that there is another project currently underway, moving the
old VFD discussions to AFD. Should these even older discussions be treated
in a similar fashion?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Charles Matthews wrote:
>Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology correspondent
>Charles Arthur. Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.
Analyst wank: the subgenre of business and technology reporting where
a columnist comes up with a good headline then writes a flight of
fancy making it sound like a plausible idea. Ones that don't happen
are forgotten and ones that do happen make the columnist look
amazingly prescient.
That said, it does raise the issue of what people want from a search engine.
- d.
>I fail to see how having more arbitrators would do anything but cause the
>process to be less efficient. The only reason we have more than one
>arbitrator is because it's more democratic that way, not because it's more
>efficient.
It's not for "democratic" reasons, it's so that there's a diversity of
opinions and POVs on the committee. One person can't know everything
or see everything all ways.
- d.
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>You know, I think the word advocacy is not really fitting, it's more
>like a clerkship what we are talking about. It's not like the person
>would be searching and trying to find evidence or make up arguments
>himself, he/she would just be given the evidence and be tasked to sort
>through it, organize it, find the important diffs an explain what is
>happening in them. It's not like they should argue the case.
Something like this (helping organise a mountain of evidence into
something that makes sense) has happened before on an ad hoc basis. In
the Baku Ibne case earlier this year, Tony Sidaway did a fantastic job
of showing clearly WTF was going on (editor being harassed by a couple
of obsessive trolls) and got a vote of thanks for it. I couldn't make
head nor tail of it before that. As a general process, there's the
question of (1) who does it (2) the clerk inadvertently (or
advertently) putting their own POV on things in the process. But it's
an idea worth thinking about. Even if it smells like instruction
creep.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
>One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and
>retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
>present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As
>it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
>ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
>"evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
The catch is of course that concise, coherent, joined-up thinking is
often the problem editors' precise weak point ...
- d.