If editors are supposed to take great writing seriously, we must give it the
highest possible award.
Jimmy Wales, here's something you could make happen.
I *demand* that we have a guaranteed daily place on the main page, to be
reserved solely for articles chosen for their great writing.
Anything less is a display of lack of commitment in our goal--to be as good
as, or better than, any other encyclopaedia, free or otherwise, with
digraphs or without.
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
[[Formosa's Law]]. Could all lucid persons connected to reality please
leave this thread alone. Thanks.
Did you mean to cite Formosa's Law, or Formosa's law? We have articles on both.
AndriyK wrote:
>User Ghirlandajo violated WP rules several times.
>Yesterday, I described it on Wikipedia:Administrators'
>noticeboard:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not…
>then he messed up the page by removing the title of
>the section
>== [[User:Ghirlandajo]] ==
>and by moving my text into another part of the page so
>that it became unclear who exactly has violated the
>policies.
It made it clearer to me, not less so, as did your contribution list.
- d.
Dear Colleagues,
My username is AndriyK.
IP address is 141.2.247.88
I was blocked by David Gerard at 13:13, 28 October
2005.
The reason was formulated as
"The reason given for AndriyK's block is: "massive
disruption (read the MoS, talk before creating huge
amounts of work for others)"
In my opinion, the blocking policy was violated.
According to the official Wikipedia blocking policy
blocking is used to deal with vandalism, bots,
personal attacks, and inappropriate usernames.
Nothing of this is unapplicable in my case. I did not
violate 3RR.
I indeed have done a lot of changes, but I did not
vandalize the articles. I corrected the names of
Ukrainian city according to their proper English
spelling (e.g. those used by Encyclopaedia Britannica,
see, for instance,
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9023842?query=Chernihiv&ct=)
What I did completely conforms the Wikipedia policy
concerning using of modern English in the articles.
Doing these changes I corrected several subtles
mistakes (because of wrong spelling, some lings were
wrong and led to articles that actually were not ment
in the text).
David Gerard was likely misinformed by a one group of
users. These users try to force wikipedia community to
use a sort of "Russian English", i.e. transliteration
from Russian prononciation of the names of Ukrainian
cities instead of the spellings used by modern
creadible English sources (like Encyclopedia
Britannika and many others). I tried to explain my
edits on the talk pages, but this group of users do
not accept any reasons. They push their POV so to say
"by force".
The same group makes also often propaganda insertions
to the article, which is also an obvious abuse of
Wikipedia.
Thank you in advance for solving the issue.
Best regards,
AndriyK
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
AndriyK wrote:
>My username is AndriyK.
>IP address is 141.2.247.88
>I was blocked by David Gerard at 13:13, 28 October
>2005.
>The reason was formulated as
>"The reason given for AndriyK's block is: "massive
>disruption (read the MoS, talk before creating huge
>amounts of work for others)"
Admins wishing to check up on this should check [[WP:ANI]], AndriyK's
contributions and his interactions with others. Anyone feeling the
above is unfair, feel free to unblock, but do please put a note on
WP:ANI.
- d.
Alphax wrote:
>"Hey Calvin, what are the rules again?"
[[Formosa's Law]]. Could all lucid persons connected to reality please
leave this thread alone. Thanks.
- d.
>Wikipedia is NOT a "public forum". It is a website
run >by a private
>organisation. You agreed that you would abide by
certain >terms and
>conditions; if you have broken those terms and
>conditions, you have no
>legal comeback.
>
>- --
>Alphax
Aha!
Yes he does have his comeback, if Wiki itself has
broken either its own self-described terms or another
law, towards him. Good luck to him: you've been asking
for it with your gloating claims to be above every law
in the world.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Mr Merkey's future contributions will be screened for unduly uncivil
subject lines as well as uncivil contents. He can of course continue
to contribute as relevant.
Fred's right, though - legal matters go straight to the Foundation;
wikien-L is just a bunch of users.
- d.
Fred,
Here's the settlement. Roll the page back to the agreed content and
lock it and unblock my accounts so I can edit
in the cultural areas. Leaving me blocked is grounds for action. Why
should I be blocked when it was your admins
who violated the laws? Blocking me to avoid claims when you allow
others to edit is unlawful. Was I blocked due to
my race? Or perhaps due to my religious or culturual beliefs. See
where this could go? From my perspective, I was
a victim of stalking on this site, and I was blocked for political
reasons, not because I did anything wrong. Making
claims you can block people for legal threats in the case of this person
may become a self fulfilling prophecy.
There's right and wrong, and you are an attorney. You cannot block a
public forum for any reason or no reason. It violates
the CDA and anti-trust legislation. Think about it.
Jeff