Why have you banned me from the mailing list again.
Of course with no explanation. Just a continuation of the high kacking of
wikipedia by fools and idiots. Who are quety happy to pervert the system to
there won ends.
There in general cowardly actions are hidden behind a human sheild of
wikipedia users.
Interms of social skills what does it say about someone who annony
mously Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238
Email: john(a)ontobus.co.uk
WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
> I wouldn't lose sleep over critics "having a field day" on
> any particular weak article. Sad to say, if people really
> want to find problematic material in Wikipedia, then they
> won't have to look very hard, regardless of the quality of
> any individual article like [[Opus Dei]]. Wikipedia is,
> effectively, permanently "under construction" -- although the
> increasingly large set of core articles is becoming pretty
> solid, it's always going to be easy to find an
> embarrasingly-naff entry somewhere.
This is like the people who test "machine translation" by tossing odd
phrases it at, until they find some idiom that trips it up:
* "blood, sweat and tears" into Russian (and back) produces something
like "bleeding, bile and body water"
Then, like the vultures they are, they pounce: "See? It's inaccurate?"
Remember, these are the same journalists who play gotcha with presidents
they don't like (see [[Bushisms]]). If you look hard enough, you can
always find some embarassing phrase or incident, to help you make your
target look bad (so you can discredit him).
This is the sort of thing that drove away Larry Sanger (in part): lack
of respect for accomplishment, diligence and solid scholarship. You try
to find some small thing to pick on, and then (illegitimately) imply
that it's representative of the whole. (I started to write an article on
[[damaging quotation]]s one time.)
To make Wikipedia really solid, SOMEBODY has to start verifying and
endorsing Article Versions. I still credit Larry Sanger as the
originator of the "sifter project", and I eagerly wait integration of
Magnus's software updates.
We need to be able to identify stable versions of articles - especially
important articles. I want to see tags such as:
* copy-edited by Vicki R.
* vandalism-patrolled by maveric149
* NPOV-checked by Anthere
Sure, multiple people can add their endorsements. I don't want to see a
"tag war" start, where one person adds the NPOV-dispute tag, and another
removes it. If someone *I* respect says the article passes or fails the
NPOV test, then that's all I care about. If someone *you* respect tags
it a certain way, that's all *you* care about.
Uncle Ed
Angela wrote:
> We already have
> policies regulating the addition of external links to articles, and
> these should be applied to Wikicities and Wikitravel in the same way
> that they are to any other site. Just because something is free
> content, or hosted on a wiki, doesn't mean we should give these sites
> any special consideration when deciding what is actually useful as
> part of an article.
I agree completely.
--Jimbo
Of you lack of social abilities and generally anti-social nature that as soon
as anything effects you composure you start barring people. In effect this
shows your overall lack of maturity and you high levels of insecurity.
If you actually had the scoial abilities you think I lack you would have coped
in who different way, but then you lot are basically Eight year old little
madams and school prefects, and like you did long ago. You think you
particular form of childishness is actually very grown up.
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238
Email: john(a)ontobus.co.uk
WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John,
If you can't refrain from profanity and other expressions of hostility
on this mailing list, I will ask the admins to put you on "filter
probation" for a few days.
If they do this, it will mean that an admin will review each of your
messages and either edit out the offending portions before passing the
message on, or mark it up and send it back to you for correction, or
merely delete it.
We don't like to do this, but we also don't like being called dirty
names.
Please think this over, and choose your next step accordingly.
Ed Poor
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
> It's difficult enough to explain to people the difference between wikis,
> Wikimedia, and MediaWiki. We're not helping our case by using identical
> templates for outside projects. In the case of Wikicities, we especially
> want to avoid this confusion, as Wikicities is a for-profit, and
> Wikimedia is a non-profit.
I agree completely agree and reverted the Wikitravel template back to the
non-box version. The template now creates a standardized external link again.
IIRC, that change is what saved this template from deletion before. I just
tried to do this with the Wikicities template, but failed. Could somebody else
hack that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWikicities
> My proposal would be to list *free content* websites somewhat
> differently from normal ones, but to not give them a full-blown "sister
> project" type box. For example:
>
> == External links ==
> ____________________________________
> | [[Free content]] links: |
> | * Wikitravel |
> | * Wikicities |
> |____________________________________|
Supporting free content is fine, but whatever is used should be standardized
and not nearly as flashy as our sister project boxes.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
There are now at least two templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWikitravelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWikicities
that point to projects that are not operated by the Wikimedia
Foundation, but which look exactly like Wikimedia Sister Project templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASister_projects
Both the Wikitravel and Wikicities template are used on lots of pages.
It's difficult enough to explain to people the difference between wikis,
Wikimedia, and MediaWiki. We're not helping our case by using identical
templates for outside projects. In the case of Wikicities, we especially
want to avoid this confusion, as Wikicities is a for-profit, and
Wikimedia is a non-profit.
I recall that the Wikitravel template was listed for deletion, with the
rationale that regular external links should be used, but there were too
many Wikitravel fans opposed to it to get through. The Wikicities
template would likely meet a similar fate.
So we need a better solution to make it clear that these are not
Wikimedia projects.
My proposal would be to list *free content* websites somewhat
differently from normal ones, but to not give them a full-blown "sister
project" type box. For example:
== External links ==
____________________________________
| [[Free content]] links: |
| * Wikitravel |
| * Wikicities |
|____________________________________|
Where the box symbolizes a different background color. But that's just
the first thing I can think of - other ideas would be welcome as well.
Note that I would classify "non-commercial only" licenses as non-free.
There should at least be theoretical compatibility with Wikipedia.
All best,
Erik
> > >Of your lack of social abilities and generally anti-social
> nature that
> > >as soon
> > >as anything affects your composure you start barring
> people. In effect this
> > >shows your overall lack of maturity and your high levels of
> insecurity.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > It shows something of _your_ social skills, maturity and level of
> > insecurity [snip]
Why don't we all agree to refrain from ANY mention of other
contributors' social skills or (alleged) lack thereof?
I'm willing to follow this rule. How about everyone else?
Uncle Ed