geni wrote
>
> On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste(a)dapyx.com> wrote:
> > Should we have a category which says that the subject of the article
> > (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician who
> > collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
> > with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
> > mathematician Paul Erd?s?
> >
> > Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.
> False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
> articles on everything that could fall within that category.
That's a misapprehension of what this is about.
I'd have voted for deletion myself. This is about as pop-cultural as mathmos get (I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I am interested to see what the expert community thinks about this scenario:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Knapp%27s_Restaurant&diff=83…
Relatively new user "Ipthief" (about 20 seemingly clueful edits between July
17 and October 25) decided that there ought to be an article in Wikipedia
about the Bill Knapp's restaurant chain (now closed, but a verifiable
"institution" in Michigan for decades -- and 900+ Google hits). So, Ipthief
set out at 2:36 PM, writing the first forms of a stubby article.
Two minutes later, user "Diez2" lands on the page, throws up a {{db-bio}} on
the page. In the next moment, Diez2 informs Ipthief's Talk page of the
advice, "If you can indicate why Bill Knapp's Restaurant is really notable,
you can contest the tagging."
Is it too much to expect someone to either (a) wait a little longer than 2
minutes before calling for a speedy delete, or (b) look up something on
Google to get some gauge of notability . . . before making such an
adversarial, deletionist move? Or, is everyone on such a red-alert for spam
(even of companies that are now bankrupt and out of operation), that this
will be the standard procedure?
--
Gregory Kohs
I just found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Capote#In Cold Blood
Apparently some time ago, someone added a metric conversion (4 km^2)
to the term "1,000 acres" in the quoted New York Times article.
That's a direct historical quote - is an in-line metric units
conversion appropriate within the quote?
It seems to me like we shouldn't be doing that.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
On 30 Oct 2006 at 17:35, "Erik Moeller" <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, Jeff Merkey has
> volunteered to host it at sep11memories.org. Hopefully, the wiki will
> be moved in the next few days; it is now again locked for editing.
Is that the Jeff Merkey who keeps suing people, making whacked-out
attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians on his website, and generally
showing a mental disconnect from reality?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I just issued an NPA warning to a user on their talk page. They
responded with a rant and posted the exchange on (1) their talk page,
(2) my talk page and (3) an article discussion page.
I am sure it doesn't need to be in three places at once and I am tempted
to delete the response from at least the article discussion page but
this is a delicate situation and I don't really want to make a mistake
here. Or do I post my response in the same three places? Or replace two
of the places with links.
What is the "correct" response in this situation?
Thanks,
SimonB
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This email and any attachment(s) is intended only for the addressee(s) named. If you are not the named addressee we request that you delete this email and do not disseminate, distribute or copy it. We endeavour to exclude viruses from our data but it is the responsibility of the recipient to check any attachments for viruses. E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free and we do not accept responsibility for any such matters or their consequences.
I'm a little unclear on this from reading Wikipedia's policy on libel.
It seems concerned only with libel of individuals. What is the policy
with regards to organisations? In the UK the libel laws cover
organisations as well as individuals.
For example, what happens if an article is being used as a front for a
religious hate group? Would whether the "religion" was mainstream or
quite small make any difference?
Thanks,
bksimonb
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This email and any attachment(s) is intended only for the addressee(s) named. If you are not the named addressee we request that you delete this email and do not disseminate, distribute or copy it. We endeavour to exclude viruses from our data but it is the responsibility of the recipient to check any attachments for viruses. E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free and we do not accept responsibility for any such matters or their consequences.
I hope I'm posting in the right place. I've written a javascript tool that
modifies the small edit links that appear at the right of each section
header to open the edit form for the section inline (without going to a
separate page). The "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons also work
exactly as they would normally. After clicking "edit", the link changes to
a cancel button. Clicking "Save page" has the normal result - the entire
page reloads with the changes. To try it out, add this to your monobook.js:
inc("User:Supadawg/secedit.js");
inc("User:Supadawg/util.js");
function inc(path) {
var lt = String.fromCharCode(60);
var gt = String.fromCharCode(62);
document.writeln(lt+'script type="text/javascript"
src="/w/index.php?title='+path+'&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"'+gt+lt+'/script'+gt);
}
Leaving out the inc() function if you have it already, of course. It's
tested and working on Firefox 1.5, and not working on Internet Explorer 6.0,
and only on the English Wikipedia. If you can read javascript, I've tried
to comment the code enough to make it understandable, but it's still a
little messy. If anyone could give me some feedback, I'd be very grateful.
I don't know you.
But having run into your open letter I can relate.
Those who shouldn't have the power have it, and the few who should and do
cannot do enough to stop them.
I respect your choice, and fully understand.
I just wanted to chime in and say that there are others out there. I've been
there, hold on.
If you haven't given up I think this is worth fighting and bringing into the
open. All I want is a few details and permission. I don't care if they ban
me and remove it. Let them try. It's not like IP addresses are hard to come
by.
If you disagree with that action I will respect your choice and go back to
trying to fix what these maniacs have been up to.
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=…
Thanks to the amazing efforts of many volunteers -- Fang Ali,
Timichal, Timrem, Draicone, Lorenzarius, Ore4444, Trodel, Cool Cat,
and possibly others -- the Sep11Wiki has been pushed into a shape that
I think it can be published independently as a static website,
including a new logo. As I've mentioned before, Jeff Merkey has
volunteered to host it at sep11memories.org. Hopefully, the wiki will
be moved in the next few days; it is now again locked for editing.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.