-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
zeros). I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism." The article
had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes. Savidan made no
attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
in-progress article on its talk page.
Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
neologism," whatever that is. Perhaps the full article would deserve to
be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike. Perhaps it
would belong in Wikipedia. You'll never know now. Nine (9) minutes
after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
before its creation had completed.
I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.
- --
Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to
sean(a)epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
=9qCT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A lot of the problem is that AFD has an culture of stalemated trench
warfare between notional "inclusionists" and "deletionists". Having
somewhere else to take the obvious 95% would be a damn fine thing as
it would set up a new space for a hopefully less embittered culture to
emerge. Also, it'll take a lot of the strain off AFD so people here
have more time to take more care. Win-win-win, I hope.
(On Uncyclopedia, with the advent of {{NRV}} largely replacing VFD,
there's a lot less angst and the article count on the wiki is actually
going *down*. And the quality when you hit 'Random page' is actually
going up. W00t!)
- d.
Hi, all-
Firstly, many thanks to everyone who is, or who has been, involved in the
success of Wikipedia. It is undoubtedly one of the most impressive academic
and democratic endeavours to have ever developed on the Internet. I use the
site frequently as an intellectual resource and I greatly appreciate the
efforts of all who are involved. Wikipedia's standards of quality, ease of
use, and vast wealth of information make it the single best catch-all
reference source of which I know.
Sadly, these quality standards may have recently been misapplied, I believe,
in Paul Bauder's blocking of my abilities to edit a Wikipedia entry. As I
have never edited informational content in an entry (though I have
occasionally corrected a few grammatical errors), I am not certain that I
could have committed "repeated acts of vandalism." As I do not make it a
habit to edit articles frequently, being blocked is more offensive as a
matter of principle than as an accurate accusation. I would like to have
the situation reviewed so that I may contribute to the Wikipedia project if
possible.
My info is as follows:
IP: *68.180.65.172*
Name: Griffin Watkins
Thanks Again,
Griffin
Peter Mackay wrote:
>I mean, the bible
>says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your
>heart
>
Actually, for the excessively literalistic among us (that would be all
of you, I expect), the text of the Bible only says looking upon "a
woman". You're already adding your own interpretation by using
gender-neutral language and adding the "not your spouse" bit, even if it
can be inferred from the fact that the topic is adultery.
This makes a nice case study on how important it is to know the
_meaning_ of rules, not just the _definitions_ of the words they
contain. Deliberately ignoring the meaning when it's obvious, as in the
example I showed, places you outside the law and risks losing its
protections.
If people would work to *understand* rules instead of trying to lawyer
them, they would find them much easier both to follow and to enforce.
Those who are clearly trying to circumvent the rules, we can do without.
--Michael Snow
I've been blocked from editing articles due to violation of 3RR.
On that end, I'm actually working with a member of "LJ Drama" (the
article I kept altering - I was actually deleting heresay but nobody
seemed to care about that) to post a more truthful version of events.
It seems pretty ridiculous that I can't even edit my own user page.
I petition for the block to be lifted. As I'm working with one of the
people in 'LJ Drama', I have no reason to modify the post. I'll leave
that up to him.
Thank you,
Nathan Richards (nathanr)
[sent to wikitech-l and wikien-l]
Mail from Arwel Parry (arwel(a)cartref.demon.co.uk) keeps ending up in
the moderation queue. It shouldn't - he's a member of the list and
comes up unmoderated in Mailman. What could be causing this?
- d.
Can we use material from Wiki Classical Dictionary? Is
that site a part of Wikipedia, or is it like the
Orthodox Wikipedia, with some material being
copyrighted? The article in question is actually
posted on a different site, but WCD was given
permission to publish it on their site.
Link: http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Drangiana
Anittas.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/
bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/
First of a two-parter. Seems pretty good to me, the reporter has done
some work, it's not just a hatchet job. But it's pretty negative
about Wikipedia.
There is a discrepancy between what WIkipedians know Wikipedia to be
and what outsiders think it is.
They think it's an encyclopedia.
That discrepancy is going to cause us more and more trouble unless we
find a better way to deal with it.
On 13 Feb 2006 at 12:19, Sherool <jamydlan(a)online.no> wrote:
> Still waiting for someting like this:
>
> "For a whole 5 seconds the Wikipedia claimed that George W. Bush is in
> fact 'poop' yesterday, no comment from the White house so far, stay tuned
> for more shocking relevations".
I would edit that to a more formal, encyclopedic style and call him
"feces".
--
== 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/