On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> How is it tedious and painful? You look at the "what links here" list,
> search the page for (redirect), and edit all of 10 pages.
This was as efficient as I could get it:
1. Click what links here.
2. Choose a double redirect.
3. Click link to open in new tab
4. Click edit
5. Right click > Mozex > Edit text area
6. Search for "cockerel" (most of them were that)
7. Replace with [[Rooster|cockerel]]
8. Save/close
9. Click edit box
10. Paste edit summary
11. Save
12. Close tab
13. Go to step 2.
Tedious. Especially when computers were designed to do this sort of
thing for us, not the other way around. Some people thrive on this
sort of menial task - not me.
And I suspect a lot of users would be doing this without mozex, would
retype the edit summary each time, and wouldn't think of opening the
links in new tabs each time. Even more painful!
Stev
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>Wikipedia is Communism! We are the NEW BABYLON! We operate under a
>Totalitarian Unificationist Left-wing Objectivist Jewish Micronation
>Terrorist point of view! (Thanks to Michael Snow for the last one)
>
>
If I had known people were going to start repeating it, I would have
gone to more trouble to come up with something that reduced to a catchy
acronym. For those who are wondering what this is about, it's from a
discussion on another list
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-February/043685.html),
which coincidentally happens to mention those fancy Arbitration
Committee costumes Sean was wishing for earlier.
--Michael Snow
On 7 Feb 2006 at 22:19, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apparently no one is going to mention semi-protection.
>
> I think that was more softwear rather than policy.
Softwear? Is that something like underwear?
--
== 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 watched a roughly 5-minute segment on the local news (WCCO 4, the
Minneapolis-St Paul CBS affiliate) about the Congressional edits, very
focused on Norm Coleman. Pretty good piece, very favorable to us (pretty
negative on Coleman) - but ended with a jab at Jimbo: (quoting as best I
can from memory) "There's an ironic twist in this story: Wikipedia's
founder, Jimmy Wales, has been known to edit his own bio."
There might be video at wcco.com later.
-- Jake Nelson
The FA article, Music of Nigeria, is getting hit with a pretty vicious bot
attack -- name-change bot, a new one appears every time the old one's
reverted. It's become necessary to semiprotect this article, as well as the
Costa Rica elections article that's also linked off the mainpage. Each time
the semiprotection's lifted, the attacks start back up again within
minutes. Hoping somebody around who has checkuser can look into it and see
about foiling the originating IP ...
Thanks.
k
I, User: Colle was recently blocked for a 3RR violation. I was removing the statement: "I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics." from the talk page of the Safe sex article. I believe that is vandalism intended to offend, not to mention it is unrelated to the article at hand.
I would like to have my name cleared before I continue editing wikipedia! Thank you.
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
On 2/7/06 5:54 PM, "wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org"
<wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org> wrote:
> From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:58:03 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
>
> W. Guy Finley wrote:
>
>> What is staring to kill me is that people feel hey have a RIGHT to edit
>> Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege and if you demonstrate you're a
>> dolt and can't handle that then there should be no question your ability to
>> edit should be revoked for a set period of time or indefinitely. We're
>> talking about a user here who's vast majority of time has been spent putting
>> all the "funny" boxes on his user page and embarrassing the good name of a
>> rock and roll legend.
>>
>>
> I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a fundamental right to
> edit Wikipedia. Rather, the claim is that Wikipedia's mission of
> writing a neutral, high-quality encyclopedia is not well served by
> excessive policing of users to cull the ones who express opinions deemed
> "embarrassing". It seems more useful to limit banning to the cases
> where a user is actually disrupting the process of writing an
> encyclopedia, e.g. by edit-warring or spamming.
>
> -Mark
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have
seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This
just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'"
Yeah, that would go over well.
Oh, and how is a wheel war amongst several admins, intervention by Jimbo and
a speedy arb case NOT considered a disruption? All of this because a few
people thought something as sick as this was funny.
--Guy (User:Wgfinley)
My user name is rafofcon and my IP address is 66.108.243.107. I was blocked from editing pages by clockworksoul tonight for posting two discussion points for the article written about Stony Brook University. I had said nothing offensive and did not edit the actual article. I simply posted comments on the discussion page. I believe the block was without cause as I did not violate any Wikipedia policy.
Clockworksoul said that the reason he blocked me was because I am a sockpuppet of the user bobbydoop, but this simply is not true. I only happen to agree with some of the statements he made and decided to chime in. Again, I made no changes to the actual Stony Brook University article, but clockworksoul concluded that I was bobbydoop trying to evade a block. I do not understand how a comment made on the discussion page of an article leads to the conclusion that I must be a banned user attempting to evade his block.
Please resolve.
Thank you.
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.