We've got an undeletion policy that clearly allows for history-only
undeletions. They don't need to be listed on DRV and they don't need
to be kept for ten days if they are.
Accordingly I've undeleted the history of [[Thomasine Church]],
earlier deleted by AfD and recreated as a redirect (and a very good
one) to an article about the Nasranis, who sometimes use that term to
describe themselves.
Unfortunately I have had to do this in the face of almost unanimous
opposition along the following lines:
"That article was complete, unverified piffle on someone's homebrew
website church. Even hidden in the history it would be detrimental to
the reputation of Wikipedia"
"I agree with most of the above. this should be kept safely out of harm's way"
But original the material is not as toxic as the above statements seem
to say, being simply an account of a US-based church that claims
spiritual links to Thomas. As far as it goes, it's verifiable, but
slanted somewhat towards the views of that church.
As this is a straightforward matter under the undeletion policy, I've
gone ahead and undeleted.
As I've outlined before, DRV is even more prone to assumptions of bad
faith than AfD. In a great example of instruction creep, it now
purports to declare some material (not copyright infringing, not
defamatory) unfit even for a history undeletion.
I want to compliment the article on the French Republican Calendar. It
is accurate and incredibly detailed. There has since the eighteenth
century been controversy about the way to establish the first day of the
year. I have always said that I need to figure out exactly what the
problem is, but I've always put it off. Now I won't have to take the
trouble as it is fully and clearly discussed in the Wikipedia article.
Hats off!
Whoever
I wont to know whats up with my block it was supposed to end today but im
still blocked so if theres some thing going on here that i need to know
about let me know.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
In reply to:
"Let's not get narky, eh? I didn't like his tone, either,"
I'm sorry if my tone offends some; the record, it was generated by the
following, which *I* didnt much like, either:
> "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission
only
> > are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have
> > tolerated them for some time..."
I'm not writing here for the purposes of offending anyone; the purpose
is to provoke some thought, if not discussion (I'm sure this has
already been done, dont worry) on a policy which I find antithetical to
the notion of a commons. A secondary purpose is to provide feedback on
why I personally, have been dissuaded from contributing material to
Wikipedia. I was in the process of going through my photo archive and
linking them up to articles in Wikipedia, when I came across the
requirement that they be open to profit-making; which pulled me up very
quickly. The above statement stopped me in my tracks. If that
information is useful to you, then well and good. If not, it really
doesnt make much difference to me.
In reply to:
> Because Wikipedia is free as in freedom. Your pictures are not free
> (though apparently they are gratis); you are limiting who can
distribute
> them. Please re-evaluate contributing to Wikipedia if you are
unwilling
> to support freedom.
My answer is that I do not see how enriching private corporations
furthers freedom. My pictures are indeed gratis.
The only objection I have is to allowing others to make profits from my
work. That definition of freedom isnt in my dictionary.
Ask the Java community how they feel about Gates embracing and
extending their freedoms.
When freedom is defined by the ability of corporate persons to enrich
themselves at the expense of the community, whether thats by patenting
life forms, folk medicine, or whatever, then we have truly lost the
idea of freedom. It is of interest that the images allowable are still
restricted - by for example the "by" atrribution. Its only the "nc"
that seems to draw howls of protest.
I cannot understand why people freely contributing material to be used
by anyone else for whatever purposes they wish - EXCEPT to make a fast
buck - is considered "if you are unwilling to support freedom."
I suppose we each have our definitions of what freedom truly is.
Mike
All,
An anonymous user (IP 146.6.110.149, which tracks back to UT Austin) claiming to be Gary LaVergne, a UT employee and author of a book on Charles Whitman entitled "Sniper in the Tower" (http://www.garylavergne.com/book.htm), has posted a message on my talk page complaining about some content I about him, presumably at [[Charles Whitman]].
Here is the text of his message:
Mr. Sigenthaler's recent experience has encouraged me to send you this note. As you know, I have been the subject of some discussion in one of the pages you administer. Some of those comments I consider libelous. I strongly suggest that you, as the party responsible for this article and discussion, and/or Wiki executives take immediate action to purge such false and irresponsible statements, and block such from occurring in the future.
Please forward this to Wiki executives.
I look forward to your speedy response.
Gary M. Lavergne
I'm a relative newcomer to the Charles Whitman page, having been asked to review some rather disruptive behavior and inappropriate editing by [[User:Subwayjack]], who I blocked until this evening for 3RR, vandalism and disruption. I can only guess, but I assume that this person is referring to Subwayjack's rather convoluted assertion that Lavergne's book was biased and that he published it in collusion with the University of Texas somehow to support their position on Whitman (it was published by UT Press).
The article doesn't contain this speculative information currently, although at one time Subwayjack did insert it and it was summarily deleted (Inserting edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Whitman&diff=30745179&old…). It does remain on the talk page, and I suppose in the article's page history. What's the general feeling about how to proceed? I don't think a person's comments on the talk page can be considered libellous, but maybe it's advisable to delete that edit from the article itself's revision history.
K.
It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our
newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability"
criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short
bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime.
In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were
contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as
"non-notable".
Michael J. Skindell: member of the Ohio House of Representatives,
ranking minority member on at least one committee, co-sponsor of a
bill to establish a universal health care plan for all Ohio residents.
Brian Brolly: founder of the national UK radio station, Classic FM,
former CEO of Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber's Really Useful Theatre Company.
B C Joshi: Indian Army General, founder of a paramilitary
counter-insurgency force, the Rashtriya Rifles.
Sambit Bal: A Wisden and Cricinfo editor, founding editor of Wisden
Asia Cricket.
Jake Putnam: Emmy-winning journalist, has won other major awards.
Michael Viscardi: child prodigy, winner of the 2005 Siemens
Westinghouse Competition, won $100,000 in scholarships.
Marissa Siketa: author put it up for deletion as a misspelt article.
Should have been redirected to Marisa Siketa. Actress in the popular
and longrunning Australian soap opera Neighbours.
The patrollers performing these deletions are all good fellows and are
doing an excellent job, but there seems to be a considerable price in
collateral damage.
Carbonite wrote:
>On 12/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> By the way, I really hope the experiment of switching off anon page
>> creation is followed up with an experiment in switching off AFD for a
>> month.
>Isn't that a bit like experimenting with not taking out your trash for a
>month? They're both fairly unpleasant experiences that no one really wants
>to do, but they can't be halted without some other way of getting rid of the
>refuse.
If the volunteer garbagemen are driving people out of the town as hard
as they can, it would probably be less damaging to the community and
be a REALLY GOOD incentive to come up with something less socially
toxic. See evidence in current RFAr.
- d.
I put up a "POV is disputed" thing on the page for munchausen syndrome
because it keeps saying her child and herself. Nobody has responded to what
I had to say on it's talk page for a couple of days. Should I just go and
change it myself since no one else seems to care?
Schyler
(my user name too)
On 12/15/05, Brian <brian0918(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>But, the reality is, the majority of the George W. Bush article is
>>alright and in need of little editing.
>>
>>
>
>
>You says it's alright and in little need of editing, so we don't have
>to worry about the fact that you are deliberately taking steps that
>you know will hinder editing of the article.
>
>You appear to have admitted that you're deliberately taking steps to
>maliciously hinder the editing of this article. I think that can be
>regarded as vandalism. Please stop it, the article does not belong to
>you and you do not have the right to render bona fide editing of the
>article extremely difficult.
>
If it's vandalism, it's the first vandalism to be universally supported
on an article's talk page. Thank you for picking one sentence to attack
and ignoring the rest of my statement.
It's gotten to the point where 3RR has become unenforceable. Any
administrator who tries to enforce 3RR regulations posted on AN/3RR are
subsequently villified, accused of bias, amd/or threatened with an RFC
if they continue doing their job. Due to this many editors stay away
from enforcing 3RR and I think something needs to be changed so that
admnistrators can actually enforce this rule without fear.
-Jtkiefer