The Iraq War article has recently been formed to
consolodate the term under something a bit more
substantive than a disambiguation. There remains the
issue of unnecessary dating of events, where such
events are uniquely enough referenced and titled to
warrant more common terms. There are thousands of
cases where we use the common term instead of a more
official term, so why then is there a persistence in
using a unique standard using titles prefaced with a
date?
In many cases, the date doesnt actually offer any
disambiguation, and seems to be in the interest of
making the title more NPOV. In fact it makes
longer-running events to be segmented and devoid of
context. In the above topic, Ive repeatedly tried to
change the situation, only to be outright reverted by
known and respected pov-pushers. It would appear that
the climate has settled into some more conciliatory
acknowledgement of non-official concepts regarding the
war, and thus the recent move hasnt yet been reverted.
Small topics like the above may fall only to the
interest of a few, but the date in title policy issue
needs some fixing.
SV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Today's blocking of an IP indefinitely for just being a clueless
newbie is only the most recent example of a recently-promoted admin
being too keen to block, and to block for too long.
I have raised this issue once on the Admin's noticeboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#New_admins_being_over-enthusiastic_with_…
But I also want to raise it here for any extra input, and also in the
hope certain people are listening :-).
Perhaps the beauracrats could add to their "congrats" message a word
of advice on (not) blocking.
Dan
(First, hello all, please be patient with me, as this is my first post to
the mailing list and I'm sure I'll do something wrong in the process.)
I have a very specific question that I can't seem to find an answer to, and
it seems that the mailing list is the best way to get a definative answer,
particularly from our Fearless Leader. Everyone knows that there have been a
couple of recent VfD's that have created havoc on the site, and have been
commented on ad nauseam. I don't want to rehash those particular examples,
rather, I want an answer to this question:
Is it appropriate for the fate of pages in the Wikipedia: (project)
namespace to be decided on VfD?
The deletion policy is vague on the issue. I understand that the recent
VfD's have involved specific issues that many would consider exeptions to
policy, but all I want to know is, is it okay for otherwise acceptible pages
in the project namespace to be VfD'd:
1) If I propose a policy in good faith, is it acceptible to disregard
standard proceedure for gaining consensus and instead list the page on VfD,
and if it survives, consider it policy, and if it fails, consider it dead?
2) If so, can established policies/guidlines be overturned by a VfD. For
example, WP:BITE.
3) Finally, if established policy is subject to VfD, is official policy, for
example, NPA and NPOV, subject to VfD, and if not, why is it any different
from other policies that have gained consesus but are deletable under #2?
My guess is, getting a definative answer on the issue is about as likely as
finding a flying pig, but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. I'd really
like to see an answer in the form of: "No, VfD can't touch policy, including
proposed policy" or "yes, all pages are subject to VfD." Bonus points if the
header of that response says "From: jwales"
Thanks all for your patience,
Essjay
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
www.wikipedia.org
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:07:20 +1000, David Gerard wrote:
> I can imagine cases where, in a given field, one vendor's catalogue
> numbers might be useful to list.
Music (e.g. BWV) and Astronomy comes to mind, for example.
Though those are cases where what were originally one "vendor"'s numbers
have become a (de facto, at least) standard.
--Ph.
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I noticed a little while ago that "the Free Encyclopedia" is now missing from the page titles (in FireFox, at least). Any explanation? I don't really care if it's there or not; I was just curious as to the reasoning behind the change. Thanks in advance,
Ryan
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Hello,
My user name is Dai Grepher, my I.P address is 68.41.169.128, I am sending this message because the administrator Andrevan has misused his abilities to block me from editing any page but my own for 24 hours. While I know that this is a temporary block, I still believe that Andrevan should be reprimanded for misuse of administrating privileges, and I believe that he will continue to misuse his powers unless he is reprimanded. The message I receive when trying to edit is as follows:
"User is blocked
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Andrevan.
The reason given is this:
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dai Grepher". The reason given for Dai Grepher's block is: "Ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned."."
On the talk page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission
I have respectfully stated that a consensus on the issue is not applicable to the article, since I have provided a substantial amount of evidence that disproves the popular theory and those that have voted have clearly ignored the facts that I have presented. Also, this consensus does not reach beyond the limits of Wikipedia to users holding a different belief and therefore does not represent the targeted fanbase. Under Wikipedia consensus policy, a consensus cannot be used to determine which side has "won" a dispute. It can only be used to see if there is a consensus, which there is not since I disagree with it and the opposition. Andrevan is using the consensus incorrectly as justification for changing the article to reflect his own opinion and also for blocking my account.
I have suggested that the article remain ambiguous, and not bias toward their side or my own while dispute resolution takes its course. The others debating the issue and myself have agreed to contact mediators and arbitrators to resolve the issue fairly. Andrevan makes it clear on the Zero Mission talk page listed above that he believes the popular theory and has stated orders to change the article to directly contradict me (Dai Grepher, found under the: The article should not be ambiguous, section of the article), which shows a direct prejudice against my theory and a complete disregard of the facts that I have presented that at the very least seriously question the popular theory.
I have edited the article to be non-partisan and I have also made additions to the page, which by Wikipedia policy is not classified as a revert. Andrevan is the one who has reverted and vandalized the page by ignoring the NPOV policy. Also, Andrevan has not posted warnings of blocking my account on my talk page, as Wikipedia's policy for handling vandalism states. I however have posted these required steps on his talk page and also The Missing Link's talk page because they continue to change the article to be biased.
The second reason, an accusation that I have vandalized other user pages is untrue. Andrevan is misusing his powers to preserve his own personal belief, rather than protecting the page to be non-biased and allowing dispute resolution to take its course. By doing so, and blocking me, he is hindering the peaceful resolution of the dispute. I respectfully request that the administrator Andrevan be given the full reprimand that he deserves.
I urge you to please look into this matter at the talk page listed above, and handle the issue responsibly. Thank you very much.
-Dai Grepher
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
On 19/08/05, andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> The following is an incomplete list of those suspected to be
> members of, or to be the "useful idiots" of, the so-called
> "Elders of Wikipedia" (the Zionist cabal which has Wikipedia
> in its grip).
Why do I forsee this list becoming a badge of honour...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
I suspect this will turn out to be much ado about nothing.
They will create a Wiki, they will write about two hundred articles
and dump in the full text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
Google will find them in the top twenty if you search for "Nazi
encyclopedia"--just below "Soup Nazi - encyclopedia article"--and
Google will bring them up as the 1268th-ranked if you just search for
"encyclopedia."
The eighty-three members with accounts will _immediately_ get into
time-wasting edit wars with each other. You know how it is: nobody is
as contentious as adherents of two _slightly_ different sects. I
don't know what the neo-Nazi equivalent of the filioque clause would
be, but you may be sure they will conduct religious wars about it.
(If they don't, start one: just innocently ask them whether, on their
Wiki, "billion" means a thousand millions or a million millions).
In four months they be tired of putting in actual work on it and it
will become a ghost site.
"I can call Wikis from the vasty Internet."
"And so can I, and so can any man...."
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
If your definition of "trolling" is doing something to provoke a
reaction... I plead guilty, yes. There was no other way to do it given
the groupthink attitude towards dissent on certain topics.
This is a standing offer to anyone that wants to take me up on it: I
will answer any question you have, save for my real Wikipedia name, as
completely as I can.
I am making this offer in good faith. Yes, I violated policy. I
believe I had good reason to. I may have made an error in judgement
letting it go on that long, but that is something I have to live with
and learn from.
A. Nony Mouse
On 8/10/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> *sigh*, so in other words you are a troll? Your actions really piss me
> off, but of course that's what you wanted. :(
>