Morven wrote:
>On 11/10/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [[WP:AUTO]].
>WP:AUTO addresses creating an article about yourself. It doesn't address
>finding an article about yourself on Wikipedia nearly so well. Perhaps I'll
>start such a guideline, if it turns out there isn't one.
It doesn't need a new guideline, just adding to that one. Common-sense
guidelines should do it:
* Please don't edit the article about yourself directly. It would
probably be appropriate to add relevant information to the article's
talk page for other editors to decide on.
* You don't get to judge whether you are an encyclopedic subject.
[rephrase in diplomatic]
* If you don't like the photo, please do contribute a good photo under
a free license.
* ...
- d.
Hello,
I am a student at the University of Miami, and it seems that the entire university has been IP banned from wikipedia.
I noticed this yesterday when I was looking at your entry for Led Zeppelin on wiki. I noticed that for no reason at all, the picture of the band had one of the members listed as "Leigh Limbrick" when it should have been John Paul Jones. "Gadzooks!" I exclaimed to myself. In an outrage, I clicked the edit button, only to be greeted with a page stating that I was a warned vandal and that bluemoose had given me the boot.
I haven't really ever vandalized everything, but I can take this to mean that someone at the university here has spoiled it for all of us and gotten the entire college blocked. I can see how this might happen, having adminned several sites, forums, the like, myself.
The catch 22 here is that the only way to resolve the issue is to contact Bluemoose, which I can't do, because I don't have a username. I also can't create a new account, edit Bluemoose's talk page, or edit my ip's talk page, because of this IP ban. You may want to modify your blocking policy, as this catch-22 makes it very difficult to report when such occurances arise.
I would appreciate it if the IP ban could be lifted, or if perhaps I could make an account which would be an exception to the IP ban. I have on occasion contributed anonymously to wiki (under different IP's), and have always enjoyed contributing to such an effort.
The IP in question is 192.88.124.202.
Thank you,
Mike Battaglia
WP:ET is a "proposal" for curtailing the use of
excessive editor templates on articles, allowing their
essential debates to be noted in a minimal form.
User:Radiant! (sic) listed it as "rejected by the
community," and clinging to the loose belief that
User:Radiant! (sic) and the two others who commented
on the idea dont themselves represent the community.
Nor does any ridiculously deletionist (FLOABT) voting
on TFD represent "consensus" on an idea. Radiant has
always had a preference for the long and verbose
template forms, and has sort of been a crusader
against changing them. I think personally they are a
nuisance, and that they essentially deface wikipedia
articles and makes commercial sucker-sites easier to
read. Anyway, Ive changed it back to {{proposed}}.
Stevertigo
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
I got this note regarding a potentially wrongful block. Please have a look.
Jack (Sam Spade)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: User3 <bernardrooney(a)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2005 7:56 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Sam Spade <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
Hi. Thanks for your message. I got blocked trying to edit the
'torture' page removing a reference to ronald reagan. This block is on
both my username and ordinary editing, ie IP address 203.26.16.67.
Maybe it goes away in a few days. I cant email the guy who blocked me.
I dont edit much.
> Daniel Brandt is far from the first subject of a Wikipedia
> article to come along, find the article, and try to 'fix' it,
> edit it, delete it, or even boost themselves on it. And he
> won't be the last. As Wikipedia becomes more and more in the
> public eye, and as well-known people become more and more
> familiar with online things, we'll see it quite often.
>
> We should be more prepared for this. Do we even have a page
> to point people at if they are themselves the subject of a
> Wikipedia article, explaining how Wikipedia works when it
> comes to biographies of living persons, and how they should
> engage with Wikipedia to improve articles on themselves? If
> not, we should.
>
> We should also try and interact better ourselves with these
> people, and recognise that in most cases their intentions are
> not evil. They simply don't understand Wikipedia or the way
> it works, and thus misread and misinterpret what's going on.
[snip]
>
> -Matt
I spent a considerable amount of time helping physicist Jack Sarfatti
with precisely the same issue. He got banned twice before he got the
hang of it. I used the telephone to verify his identity and also clue
him in. He didn't realize that Usenet newsgroup customs do not apply to
Wikipedia. After a couple of false starts, he got with the program and
the [[Jack Sarfatti]] article is stable - with [[user:JackSarfatti]]
contributing as a peer.
I spent so much time on this, because like Matt I am looking ahead to
the future. We are "merely" a top-40 web site. What will happen when we
begin to challenge Google, or network TV or major newspapers as "the
place where people come for timely, reliable information"?
I'm planning to give a talk at Wikimania in Boston next summer (July or
August 2006) on the topic, "Harmonious online interactions as a key to
creating a high-quality collaborative product".
Uncle Ed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: steve v [mailto:vertigosteve@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:10 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: Article creation (was Re: [WikiEN-l] More fodder
foryoureditcountitis)
>
>
> I kind of agree with Charles in the sense that some
> institution computers dont allow cookies to cache -
> meaning all edits must be IP edits (dont use term
> 'anon').
>
> It would be interesting to hear from the regular IP
> community what their concerns are - anonymity,
> caching, too busy to log in, dont care to have a web
> ident, dont want to get personal, etc?
>
> SV
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
1. Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he lost his sysop
rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to
find ways to improve the community.
2. Because Steve is right about the term 'anon'. Actually more than 95%
of our contributors are anonymous. Choosing a recognizable pseudonym
does not remove the mantle of anonymity; it just substitutes another.
I'm sure no one means anything derogatory by saying 'anon' - it's just
convenient shorthand for "non-logged in user". But it still can grate on
the ears. It can offend, in the same way that Mark Twain's use of
'nigger' in his otherwise anti-slavery novel [[Huckleberry Finn]]
offends. (The relationship of Huck and Jim clearly showed the moral
superiority of an adult black man to an adolescent white boy. And Twain
would not have put this in his novel, if he hadn't meant Southerners to
take the point. It may even be one of the reasons that he moved up
north, to Connecticut.)
The marginalized, the downtrodden, the people with no formal education
have a voice, and Wikipedia is listening to that voice. We are not
storming the citadel of Academia by the gates, but we are (like bloggers
rebutting TV networks and Matt Drudge scooping news magazines) LEVELING
OUT the playing field. This is democracy in action.
Uncle Ed
Former Bureaucrat
Can someone tell me why article transclusion is allowed? Or why it is necessary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2005 has the same problems as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_English_cricket_season_%2814-25_September…
The issue here is that many editors are running into articles that look like unnecessary stubs which in fact are transclusions and are completely unaware of it. Why don't we just disable such transclusions? I do not believe main space (article) transclusions are necessary and they skew our article count. The number of cricket articles that I found were a total of 508 articles that happen to be transcluded. I did not know that, nor did the five other people who nominates similar articles for deletion.
--
Jason Y. Lee
AKA AllyUnion
Yes, but I am the one who added "Several denied they
were spies, and even more were never indicted."
And even that caveat is not sufficient to ameliorate the heading.
-Cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Andrew Gray
Sent: Tue 11/8/2005 9:21 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
<<SNIP>>
For [[Category:Soviet spies]], however, the description is: "This
category lists people who are said to have spied for the Soviet Union
by some sources. Many are not Soviet citizens. Several denied they
were spies, and even more were never indicted."
This is somewhat less stringent, certainly. I mean, there's no
shortage of claims that [[Harold Wilson]] was a Soviet spy - should he
be in that category? God no - and if there'd been accusations of rape
he wouldn't be in [[Category:Rapists]]. But under the wording now,
you'd be perfectly justified adding him...
The difference between the scope of the categories can be put this
way: you wouldn't be able to add Bill Clinton to the Rapists category,
but you would be able to add Wilson to the Soviet spies one. Yet the
accusations are only accusations for both...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l