--- Alex Regh <Alex.Here(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Today I wanted to read [[Opus Dei]] - and frankly, I didn't exactly like what
> I saw...
<snip>
> Given that people still hit us with that one "checking" of WP where we didn't
> call the disputed birth date of somebody I never heard of "disputed" [1],
> well, if those people find that article, we will never hear the end of it -
> besides the minor problem of the article not exactly being up to WP
> standards,
> like NPOV.
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.
> Something should be done, but as I said, I don't really feel I
> should do a rollback on my own.
Have you raised your concerns on the Talk page?
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
User:147.72.93.172/147.72.93.199 has for some time
been a troublesome presence on the Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review article. He has made some valid
points, but they are lost amid a torrent of claims of
libel, legal threats, and general rudeness. Earlier
today he removed a large amount of material from
Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review without archiving and
replaced it with the words "Edited to allow more
space." I reverted and asked him not to do it again
on his user talk page. He blanked the entire page
this time. I warned him against vandalism and
reverted. Another blank, another warning. I blocked
at the third blanking of the talk page.
He has long claimed nearly everything someone posts to
the article or the talk page is libelous in some form
or another. I am surprised to learn from the headers
of the email David Gerard forwarded that apparently
the anon is Carl Prine, an award winning PTR reporter.
One would think a reporter wouldn't throw around
accusations of libel so casually. In any case, much
of the material is standard talk page arguing, and the
material removed includes a lengthy polite attempt by
User:KeithTyler to reason with Prine, something that I
can't imagine any reasonable person objecting to.
- Gamaliel
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Kevin Rector said:
> >
> > Yes, I do believe that if a non-nude can illustrate an article as well
> > as a nude can then the non-nude should be used.
>
> Why in this case, though? The whole point was that she posed nude wearing
> the Heart of the Ocean for Jack, and the treasure hunters looking for the
> diamond found the picture. That is the McGuffin that holds the whole
> story together.
A still of of the drawing, not of the actual nude actress, would be more
appropriate then.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
Rick wrote:
> > Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key
> > to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is
> > part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have
> > argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as
> > an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible,
> > sensitive and broad-minded.
>
> I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida
> are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
No. Censorship is imposed from the outside. You may wish to call it self-censorship. Indeed I believe it is broad-minded to be considerate of those who are looking for high-quality information yet do not want to be confronted with nudity. I find links to porn sites, especially with a clear disclaimer, much less troublesome than images that pop up without warning.
I am pleased Catholic Arkady does not object. That does not actually demolish my argument at all. It just influences the numbers by 1 :-) But seriously, the South American issue has already been mentioned.
JFW
____________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned by the StreamShield Protector antivirus system.
Free education for all doctors.
The simple, fast way to prove you are keeping up to date.
http://www.doctors.net.uk/freelearning
____________________________________________________________
Old picture = complaining/controversy/unhappy people/low image
quality/some value to the article
New picture = less complaining/less controversy/fewer unhappy
people/higher image quality/equal value to the article as the old one
At least that's how I see it. If you disagree that's fine.
I just went and checked (it's not on my watch list); there hasn't been a
comment on the talk page for Titanic for two days. That means that all
the people who were expending energy there have now hopefully moved on
to more productive pursuits (except for those of us who keep rehashing
it on the mailing list -- which was something I promised myself I
wouldn't do - oh well).
I'm not really interested in getting back into this, I only answered
because you asked.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> Kevin Rector said:
> >
> > Yes, I do believe that if a non-nude can illustrate an article as
well
> > as a nude can then the non-nude should be used.
>
> Why in this case, though? The whole point was that she posed nude
wearing
> the Heart of the Ocean for Jack, and the treasure hunters looking for
the
> diamond found the picture. That is the McGuffin that holds the whole
> story together. You get that contrast, the many contrasts in that
movie.
> Great opulence above decks, poverty below. A naked young girl full of
the
> promise of life, an ancient old woman at the end of it. Also it's a
very
> pretty picture.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So you are calling me a liar. Ok, just wanted to make sure. I find that
interesting considering you have no proof that my statement was made in
bad faith or was a lie (for the record, it wasn't a lie I actually meant
what I said). You're not exhibiting very good behavior for a Wikipedia
Administrator.
By the way, I really wish you'd quit talking about "what offends me"
because you have no idea of what offends me. So far, about the only
thing in relation to Wikipedia that I've found to be overly offensive is
your behavior on this mailing list towards people you don't like or
agree with.
Finally, could you point out (just once) where I've "demanded" the
removal of anything in Wikipedia? I've worked to bring disagreeing
parties together on a topic. When there was a controversial picture I
found a different picture (I did not crop the original) that satisfied
virtually everyone (except you - you've made that clear). I've worked to
create consensus and it has been emotionally very taxing because of
people like you. You have contributed nothing but grief to the entire
process. Perhaps it's because you're more interested in promoting an
ideology than making good informative NPOV encyclopedia articles.
Yes, I do believe that if a non-nude can illustrate an article as well
as a nude can then the non-nude should be used. I believe that this
creates less controversy which ultimately helps the project. That has
been my motivation -- not the removal of "anything that offends me". So,
your characterization of my behavior and motivations throughout the
whole ordeal is just plain wrong and downright uncivil.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:49 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
>
> --- Kevin Rector <krector(a)Compco.com> wrote:
> > > --- Kevin Rector <krector(a)Compco.com> wrote:
> > > > Yeah, to be clear, I'm making no comment on the
> > > > "goodness" or "badness"
> > > > of the article it's content or anything at all
> > to do
> > > > with the article in
> > > > question, but the topic of linking to
> > "commercial"
> > > > sites.
> > > >
> > > > -Kevin
> > >
> > > Right.
> > >
> > > RickK
> >
> > You calling me a liar?
> >
> > -Kevin
>
> C0nsidering your recent history of demanding the
> removal of anything that offends you, then, if the
> shoe fits ...
>
> RickK
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
> http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l