>From: David Vizcarra <david.vizcarra(a)gmail.com>
>
>Of course there weren't 3 edits from your part, because you and the
>other members of your little mafia group divided the reverts amongst
>yourselves.
This is the kind of statement that is more likely to provoke opposition than
co-operation.
>How do you know about the warning if you only gave me one? I wonder.
Your talk: page is open for everyone to view; there were at least two
warnings on that page. Wonder no more.
>During the warnings I was given i was in constant communication with
>the admin who blocked me. You suggested me to revert my revert, he
>asked me to revert my reverts. So I did,
Reverting your reverts means actually reverting them.
>and rephrased the paragraph
>in a different way. Is one not able to edit at all after 3 reverts?
>that wasn't clear to me.
As has been explained, "rephrasing the paragraph" again and again to remove
the stuff you don't like is reverting.
>You and your people kept making changes to the article without prior
>concensus. Were disrespectful as well.
Considering that that section of the article has been stable for months
before you started messing with it, against considerable opposition, I'm
rather bemused that you would now complain that others were "making changes
to the article without prior concensus". However, it is a moot point; the
fact that you used the phrases "your little mafia group " and "you and your
gang" indicates to me that further discussion is pointless.
Jay.
Doesnt seem so sticky. I rewrote the sentence.
Apparently Mark was sticky on using the term
"pseudoscience" - practically a pejorative, or at
least a colored characterization.
Granted, no real scientist considers creation science
to be science or any part of it. But any NPOV use of
the term pseudoscience requires an explanation which
may not be warranted in a one-sentence overview.
SV
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > As you can imagine, it's very much a
> back-and-forth thing. Look at the
> > versions from earlier in the week following edits
> by pro-creationist
> > users FuelWagon, Rossnixon and especially PWhittle
> (as well as the IP
> > address 138.130.203.177
>
> Sounds like another sticky issue like the climate
> change problem. Good thing
> the ArbCom has already seen this type of case
> before.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the
> tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- David Vizcarra <david.vizcarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> However, his concept of "outside opinions" was those
> who he usually sides with and he knows agree with
him.
This may be true. But it sounds like an opinion about
a user. What does this have to do with anything?
> the[[User:SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon]] would never have
> existed.
Some vandal making a page is supposed to prove
something? You've lost any foundation in reason here.
> That is perhaps the reason for so much vandalism on
> his user page and
> talk page. Many people have been angered by allgeged
> pro-Jewish bias.
Back to the bottom rung, David. This train of thought
is one that even very reasonable people can rightly
call "over the top," and perhaps even "bigoted." Youre
asserting that because a user has been the target of
allegations that such allegations are true and
justified, and that therefore they are tied to your
claim of their ethnic or religious bias. ATM his bias
appears far less in need of correcting than is your
apparent excessive theorizing on the nature of his
ethno-religious particulars, and your accusation of
such bias. Do you see the difference?
While I sympathise with you feeling that youve been
ganged up on in an article dispute, at a certain point
you appear to stop being rational, and your choice of
attacking a person for his group status has little
distinction from attacking a group itself. Your
approach has literally no hope of success or drawing
support for your views, and reasonable people may
consider it inexcusable behaviour, until you see to
correct it.
SV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Slimvirgin wrote:
> with you is to write in a dry, disinterested,
> encyclopedic style, and to cite excellent sources.
"Dry and disinterested" is not necessarily good
writing (hence readable writing), nor should the
notion be synonymous with encyclopedic writing, or our
general interpretation of it. Good writing is both
balanced and interesting. And "cite excellent
sources" is always controversial, as my sources tend
to be more excellent than others, and thus tend to
represent different views and hence are rejected.
Further, there are issues which contradict common
dogma or history, yet are extremely obvious to any
neutral observation. For example to state 'the Vietnam
War was as much (if not more) anti-democratic as it
was "anti-communist"' is simply the purist truism of
that history --it shouldnt be considered either POV or
controversial. It is however rejected by those who
favor more detached, clinical language, which puts
emphasis on the abstract, elite-view politiculars than
on the human issues, the moral issues, or even the
basic facts of what actually happened.
The problem with being detached was once an issue with
the Irish Potato Famine article, which was written
with a focus on the particulars of a fungus and
Catholic overpopulation rather than the socio-economic
background or the human impact. Some still assert
there was deliberate intent to cause human death, and
though that assertion is considered by "detached"
academics to be largely out of bounds, it's
nevertheless an issue which required some treatment,
if only to clarify it and the terms used. In that
case, more "encyclopedic" emphasis meant objecting to
treating the issue at all. Again, using detached
language often only serves the detached POV. We're
neither an encyclopedia for infants requiring strained
meals, nor one for experts with all the excellent
prerequisites.
SV
--- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > --- David Vizcarra <david.vizcarra(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Like you have pointed out, non-NPOV views are
> being
> > > pushed by groups
> > > arguing with individuals.
>
> Steve and David, the way to deal with a group of
> editors who disagree
> with you is to write in a dry, disinterested,
> encyclopedic style, and
> to cite excellent sources. I've encountered very few
> editors who will
> revert material like that, no matter how much they
> disagree with it.
> The stronger the opposition, the more persuasive
> your writing,
> sources, and arguments have to be. This usually
> leads to better
> articles, as frustrating as the experience might be.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>But don't do this if they were validly deleted.
>
>If you claim to have permission, I can imagine two reasons why the
>images would have been deleted:
>1) The permission was not verified (this is up to the uploader)
>2) The images were with-permission only. As of a mailing list post a
>few weeks ago from Jimbo
>(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html),
>images that are used on WP with permission but do not fall under any
>other category may be deleted.
OR - someone violated the policy because they had a point of view on the
issue and found these facts rather inconvenient.
These were uploaded prior to Jimbo's email on the issue.
Still, they were put forward for deletion because those who wanted it
deleted complained that permission hadn't been obtained. If there was
another reason for it, that should have been raised as the reason. I can't
even find the archives of the discussion.
Can someone please find out who deleted them? I would like to file for the
appropriate sanctions against the individuals. If I simply upload them
again, they are sure to be deleted as a result of Jimbo's policy.
> > >Something like the plan in [[User:David Gerard/1.0]] would use an
>article
> > >rating system (picture a "Rate this page" tab at the top next to
>"Article",
> > >"Edit", etc.) to get a rough idea of what is of decent quality to pull
>for
> > >a distribution.
>
> > I assume you're talking about rating per article, and not per revision
>(as
> > the latter would be fairly impossible). In that case, it'd be quite a
> > rough idea indeed.
>
>
>Nope, per article version. See [[m:Article validation feature]]. (I think
>"validation" is a misnomer here myself - that was Magnus' name for it,
>since he wrote the feature.)
>
I don't get it. How many ratings do you think an average revision is going
to get? 2 or 3? Probably much less than that, and that's without averaging
in all the 0s.
I must not be understanding the feature.
> > If the Mozilla process does this, then presumably its programmers are
>not
> > supposed to introduce brand new features during the alpha and beta
>stages
> > of development. I find that rather hard to believe, but maybe Mozilla
>is a
> > small enough project that it can do such a thing.
>
>
>It's comparable to OpenOffice or KDE in compilation time. Depends if you
>call that "small".
>
Well, from what I've read about it, this isn't the way Mozilla development
works anyway. In other words, the 1.0 branch is kept in maintenance mode
while what will eventually become 2.0 is still worked on in the main trunk.
> > Of course, maybe our only disagreement here is over how long it's going
>to
> > take to get from the point of the fork to the point where the branch is
>no
> > longer maintained. In my opinion a few weeks isn't going to be anywhere
> > near enough time to fix all the inaccuracies.
>
>The presumption is that the sufficiently highly rated stuff will be of good
>quality anyway. If it isn't, it's material for an article improvement
>drive.
>
Well, I don't understand how the ratings will work. How will a popular
article which is receiving regular edits ever get more than a few ratings
for a single revision? ([[Helium]] was edited 4 times just in the past
week. Are people expected to rate this every single time it is changed?)
And then, what do we do when the highest rated version of an article isn't
the latest version? Let's say a version of [[Helen Gandy]] somehow manages
to get 50 ratings. Then, maybe even just because of the attention of having
so many ratings, it starts to get heavily edited. Which version goes into
1.0, the old version, or the new one? If it's the old one, what if we have
to fix a few typos in that old one? We've essentially created a branch, and
we've done so at some random point rather than an intentionally selected
one. (And don't forget, this assumes a particular version manages to get a
lot of ratings in the first place, which seems incredibly unlikely as I
don't foresee people going through the history rating version after version,
people are just going to rate the most recent version).
>
>- d.
Anthony
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>I am worried about Jimbo's announcement about locking some articles. See
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20050805-1259-media-wikipedia.…
"'There may soon be so-called stable contents. In this case, we'd freeze the
pages whose quality is undisputed,' he said."
The way I read this, there would be a stable version and a current version,
much like the linux kernel or just about any large bit of source code. If
that's what he meant, it sounds like a good idea.
Of course, it worries me if this quote is accurate, because it makes it
sound like he plans on imposing this idea upon the community. We all know
how long it takes to implement something this major by any means other than
edict.
>Simply freezing content seems rather unwiki, but here
>"lock" is just a misnomer for "extended protection,"
>allowing sysops only to edit them.
Both are incredibly "unwiki", the whole basis of a wiki is that anyone can
directly edit it, not just sysops, and not just by proposing edits and
hoping one of the editors implements them. But the goal of Wikipedia is to
be a free encyclopedia, not a wiki. Wiki is just a means to that end.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>I think he is reffering to the guy who got a private mail forwarded to
>the list and wished his name off it. That sort of thing. I think that
>those rare cases can be handled on a case by case basis and removed by
>a developer.
A way to post without revealing one's email address (or even better to
reveal an alternate email address) would be nice, though. I read the list
using my main email account, but I don't want that address accessible via
google (spam sucks), so in order to post I have to log in to my hotmail
account, which is a huge pain in the ass. In fact, I usually make my
replies private rather than public because I'm too lazy to log in to hotmail
to reply to the list. Of course, even then I have to put a disclaimer at
the bottom asking people I reply to not to forward my post to the list
without first removing my email address.
In other words, mailing lists are so 1995.
Anthony
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
