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.
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.
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)
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
--- 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
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.
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".