User:Ashenai alerted me to that fact.
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Dispute resolution attempt in the
> Ashida Kim case
>
> On 10/4/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki(a)earthling.net> wrote:
> > I'm ready to get rid of the whole thing right now.
> >
>
> It has survived AFD. I doubt you would get a different desscission a
> second time around. The article is going no where.
>
> The best paralell is probably [[sollog]].
>
>
> --
> geni
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>I see both extremes as very BAD. Ferries may not appear notable to a
>random individual, but if they're the longest running one on a certain
>route, no one will doubt it needs inclusion. Animals, cities,
>scientists, and historical events are covered in regular
>encyclopedias, so we need to cover them too.
I see no reason any given field needs an *arbitrary* cutoff for the
sake of having a cutoff. If we can achieve actual completeness in some
area (e.g. articles on US towns), why the hell shouldn't we?
>When people fight for the inclusion of websites and webcomics (for
>example) it's more of a vanity issue. It may be verifiable and
>presented in an NPOV manner, but the fact they're trying to get a
>comic/site with a tiny audience into a general purpose encyclopedia is
>POV too, an attempt at promotion.
Surely third-party verifiability takes care of this one. If someone
else cares to write something verifiable about it, it should get in.
- d.
> From: steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Easy to say. You dont have right-wing nutcases tag
> team reverting your rewrites.
That's a difficult problem, maybe impossible.
But it can't be solved by Wikilawyering the number of reverts
complaining about what computer programmers call "fencepost errors"
in counting reverts, or when 24 hours begins, or whether you get an
extra hour if the change from Daylight Savings to standard time
happens during the 24 hours... or anything like that.
Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be majoritarian, if you have a
garden-variety revert war between one person and many, yes, the many
can effectively impose their will. As far as I know, the only remedy
is to patiently conduct discussions, gain consensus, and then ask for
help when you can show that people are reverting against consensus.
That may not work, either.
All I can say is that fussing about how many reverts you get to make
and whether some sysop counted them properly isn't going to help.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>> On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> These are excellent observations. My son's Social Studies teacher
>>> is an info geek who is familiar with Wikipedia. I should ask
>>> him if
>>> he would be willing to run a survey of his class asking: "What
>>> belongs in an encyclopedia?" and "What should not be in an
>>> encyclopedia?"
>>>
>>
>> I think it would be important to specify "Wikipedia" not "an
>> encyclopedia," so as to avoid treating Wikipedia like paper.
WHAT?
I've suspected for some time that there is a faction that does not
think Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, but this is the first time
I've seen this stated in so many words.
So much for "five pillars."
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
In my opinion, any allegation of "wikistalking" a contributor which
fails to mention that said contributor is under arbcom parole which
requests or invite blocks for violating that parole, is in itself
disruptive. I think HK should be banned for 30 days for wasting
everyone's time with this frivolous accusation.
Ed Poor
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:00:00 -0600
> From: Jeff Willis <simsgenius069(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 11
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Hi, everyone. Not sure exactly how this works yet, but I'll learn. :-) I'm new to the mailing list, so hi, everyone!
The following argument is not valid. I can think of several titles
relevant to the the history of technology which are not in the BL
catalogue, and not listed on the C19 Short Title Catalogue which
covers a range of copyright libraries. This is particularly true for
trade catalogues which are outside outside UK copyright deposit rules
and so never recorded.
On 3 Oct 2005 at 21:33, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> An even easier solution: the holdings of the Library of Congress is
> accessible from the Internet. I would expect that the same could be
> said for the British Library, the Biblioteque Nationale (sp?) in
> Paris, & the equivalents in Germany, Italy, Japan, & Australia.
> (However, funding for such useful projects always seem to be
lacking.)
>
> Any citation from a source that cannot be found at one of those
sites
> is considered invalid; & considering that, by law, a copy of every
> book printed in the US or the UK ends up at the respective national
> library, one would have to work hard to find a reliable source not
in
> one of those catalogs.[*]
Tony Woolrich
Canal Side, Huntworth, Bridgwater, Somerset UK
Phone (44) 01278 663020
Email apw(a)ap-woolrich.co.uk
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
Wikien-l,
I have just been blocked for an alleged 3RR violation at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
I thought the rules favored the contributor, since the first edit doesn't count as a revert, but in this case it appears the first edit is being counted as a revert so the deletionist is getting the final say.
While my first edit is adding text that I have previously proposed, it is two days later and to a new version of the article. The text had previously been opposed but on unconvincing, rather spurious grounds that I have responded to in good faith on the talk page and in the edit summaries. I think this article is heading for two versions because csloat is trying to rally a clique, but in the meantime I am curious about this technical issue of how edits/reverts are counted. I would not have knowingly violated 3RR, apologies if I am wrong.
-- thanx for your consideration,
Silverback
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> >On 10/3/05, Michael Turley wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Anyone have any good ideas of how better to encourage people to cite
> >>sources?
> >>
> >>
> >Make verifiability a key policy, and egregious edit-warring to insert
> >unsourced statements a blockable offence.
> >
> Great idea!
This would swing the balance too far in favor of the deletionists. The unsourced statement would have to be unreasonable. Obvious common knowledge statements should not have to be sourced, and someone edit warring, demanding that every petty statement be sourced is being unreasonable, and should not be rewarded by being allowed to impose a burden upon other editors.
-- Silverback
I'm ready to get rid of the whole thing right now.
> From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim
> case
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <605709b90510040819v3a644237v58915ec294a2d1de(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/4/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should
> > >be just the thing.
> >
> >
> > Looks like he's, er, not:
> >
> >
> Oh well, I gave it my best shot. If anyone else has some ideas?
>
> My opinion is that this guy has legitimate privacy complaints we can and
> should act on, but we shouldn't expect him to thank us for it, because he
> wants the article gone from Wikipedia.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm