WikiEN-l May 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

118 participants
211 discussions

27 May '05

1. Revert of [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] 2. Revert of [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] 3. Revert of [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] 4. Revert of [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] No complexity there that I can observe, sorry, I don't see it. El_C >The third listed revert is not a direct revert. You could claim it is >a complex revert but it doesn't meet my standards (which normaly >involve past history of gameing the rule). If a block is disputed it >is standard practice that the user remains unblocked.

2 1

Controversial block
by El C 27 May '05

27 May '05

This isn't the same as weiging carefuly contested VfD one was involved in, etc., this was a clear and very technical case of 3RR violation. The incessant tendency to personalize intellectual and procedural matters is -also- something that Wikipedia can see improvement in. El_C >Sadly this is not the case and we currently have a few admins who >regularly block people that they have had numerous arguments with, >admins who unblock themselves after violating other rules, and admins >who close VFDs that they have been vocally involved with. Hopefully >this is just a temporary illness.

1 0

Controversial block
by El C 27 May '05

27 May '05

Blocking for 3RR is a technical enough procedure, regardless who implements the block, so long as the 3RR has been breached. Jack states that: "I do not feel that I had violated the 3rr," and of course, he is more than free to substantiate that claim with pertinent evidence, one which indicates that his 'feeling' corresponds to objective reality as others percieve it (i.e. that there was no 3RR). As for Jack and questionable emails, I'm sure User:FeloniousMonk has a thing or three to say about that. El_C >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Us… >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks >I feel I am a "logged-in user(s) with a substantial history of valid >contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block" >I feel that Mel Etitis has a long history of conflict with myself, and >should not be blocking me once, much less twice. Comments he made to >me by email after the incident (a conversation which I feel should be >fully disclosed) make this especially clear. I further feel that I >could have been warned, and challenge anyone to suggest that i was >aware that my edits were seen to be a 3rr violation, or that if I had >been advised thusly that I would have continued to revert. As I made >clear in my comment to David here, I do not feel that I had violated >the 3rr, and I have no intent to resume the questioned behaviours. I >request that I be unblocked. >Jack (User:Sam Spade)

2 1

Blocking edit war
by El C 27 May '05

27 May '05

Okay, now that I've posted that, I see a new email in my inbox from Jack himself (a somewhat unwelcome intrusion/direct contact, but no big deal) where he mentions he misunderstood how the mailing list works. Fine. 90% of my comments still stand though. El_C >ah, my mistake, I thought that was a personal email. Still getting >used to the mailing list. >Jack

1 0

Blocking edit war
by Jack Lynch 27 May '05

27 May '05

I have been reblocked. Thats kinda ironic, eh? Jack

2 1

Blocking edit war
by El C 27 May '05

27 May '05

Please see my two unironic comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Us… El_C >I have been reblocked. Thats kinda ironic, eh? >Jack

2 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Introduction
by Daniel Mayer 27 May '05

27 May '05

--- David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Maybe it would be a good idea to point test edits away from > [[Wikipedia:Introduction]] and to the sandbox? Adding test edits to the page > can easily result in a newcomer removing the introduction, and although thats > easily reverted, some potential new contributors might end up reading a bunch > of tests instead of the introduction. As the page a lot of newcomers see > first, a link to the sandbox and protection might be a good idea, as its a > common vandal target. Yes, please. I can't remember the number of times I've reverted that page from inappropriate tests. -- mav __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

1 0

Wrongful block
by Jack Lynch 27 May '05

27 May '05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Spade#3RR_violation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=1426… - Revision as of 16:55, 26 May 2005, revert #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=1428… - Revision as of 23:35, 26 May 2005 (compromise edit, inserting corporatist, which is complimented by El_C) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=1428… - Revision as of 00:00, 27 May 2005 Revert #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=1430… - Revision as of 12:12, 27 May 2005 Revert #3 I feel this was a wrongful block. Jack / User:Sam Spade

2 2

(fwd) WikiLens wants YOU
by David Gerard 27 May '05

27 May '05

Forwarded for Dan Frankowski, dfrankow(a)cs.umn.edu. - d. Have you ever wanted to toss aside that pesky "neutral point of view"? Wouldn't it be fun to get *opinionated*? Would you help with a project similar to Wikipedia, but for opinions? Wikipedia is a community-maintained encyclopedia based on fact ("Vampire Watermelon" aside ;) ). WikiLens (http://www.wikilens.org) is a community-maintained repository of *opinion*. Right now, those opinions are expressed as ratings, comments, or lists, which are in turn digested to show people useful information. For example, ratings are turned into recommendations; lists are mentioned on each item page. Think of Amazon, Epinions, MovieLens, or other web sites centered around things (books, video games, movies, beers, vacation spots, plants, etc.) and what people think of them, except this site is non-commercial, editable by all, open content, open source. Users can create items and even categories! We are where Wikipedia was in 2001: a glorious idea to take over the universe, not yet much content. That's where you come in! There are still tons of features to add and bugs to squash. However, it's no fun without users, so we'd greatly appreciate if you'd create an account and try us out. Rate a few things, create some items, make some comments, invite some buddies. Remember, the most important thing is your opinions; the facts of a page are useful, but not as useful as ratings or reviews. Most of all, have fun! If you decide not to come back, tell me why. As we get feedback, we can do the most important things first. Feel free to answer questions or give feedback, either here, on wikilens.org, or to dfrankow(a)cs.umn.edu. Dan Frankowski ============================================== Here is some additional detail if you want to more info. *** STRUCTURE You can think of the system as - a wiki - a recommender - a social network (buddies' ratings influence your recommendations) *** MOTIVATION I am the staff scientist for GroupLens research at the University of Minnesota, which has been studying recommender systems since the mid 90s. Our most well-known site is http://www.movielens.org, a movie recommender. However, it does not allow much in the way of contribution, and it is movies only. I am engaged in a project called "Recommenders Everywhere", where we try to build tools and/or websites that allow anyone to make recommenders to use people's opinions to sift through content. See also http://wikilens.org/wiki.php/RecommendersEverywhere. *** IT'S NOT MEDIAWIKI As a Wikipedia user, you might ask, "Why is this system not based on MediaWiki, my favorite?" I tried installing MediaWiki when I started this project, and it wouldn't install without register_globals, and even still I couldn't get it to work. Thus, I chose another popular wiki, PhpWiki. Of course now MediaWiki is super easy to install and beautiful looking. If I had to choose now, I might choose MediaWiki. However, we're already invested in PhpWiki, and are unlikely to switch any time soon unless there is an active user community clamoring for it.

1 0

Re: Complaint: Cyberderk
by Derk 27 May '05

27 May '05

I would have replied directly to the message, but I just signed up to the list. Anyway, this person created an article containing "Arguably, a better name for the article on Evidence_Based_Medicine Evidence Based Medicine." This is not encyclopedic. He left a message on my talk page and I had written up a response to him stating that if he wanted to move it, he should sign up for an account and move it, that the article space is not the place for his opinion regarding the title of articles. As I went to reply, I got an edit conflict on his user talk page in which he decided to call me "cryptodork".

5 6

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l May 2005