G'day Phil,
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
>> The other day you were speechless with rage; now you're unable to
>> enunciate your true level of disgust. I think us rogue admins ought to
>> take up a collection to buy you a thesaurus and dictionary; it may help
>> you on such difficult issues as how to express yourself in print.
>
> This has to be the single most civil and productive message I have ever
> read on any listserv. Mark, I must applaud you for being the bigger man
> and addressing these concerns calmly instead of lashing out at the person.
You're right: I *was* out of line. The mailing list (and IRC) tend to
be a bit less civil than Wikipedia, but even so, they ought to be more
civil than cheap shots like the one I've left quoted above. Someone
whose opinion I value highly told me I must "still be in USENET mode",
or words to that effect, and s/he's probably right ... USENET is often a
battleground, but Wikipedia ought never to be, even on this list.
So, Crotalus: I am sorry. It was a cheap shot, uncalled for, incivil,
and unfair. I *would* like you to stop the "speechless" bizzo, but I
could've put it a lot better.
Now, lest anyone think I really *am* being the better man, I thought I'd
clarify a few things. First up, I *did* answer Crotalus' points, with
rather rougher language than ought to have been used with ladies
present, but they *were* answered. Secondly, Crotalus' post amounts to
an accusation that Kelly Martin, for whom I have a lot of respect (even
if she *does* need a holiday), was essentially attempting to rig an RfA
by blocking Grue.
So, and I'm sorry if this loses all the cred I'd built up in the first
two paragraphs, I should not have said what I did, and I owe Crotalus an
apology for that ... but I am not ashamed one whit of telling him that
he was being a silly sausage, and by gum, I'd do it again. The post
that started this thread was outrageous.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/270 - Release Date: 27/02/2006
This quote from Danny is highly entertaining (from [[Talk:Harry Reid]]):
" It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the
proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry
Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's
life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February
2006. "
So far as I know, articles on Wikipedia continue to get edited on a
regular basis; i.e. some changes may happen to the article in the next
100 years (though the way Jimbo and Danny are acting, maybe it
won't!).
So I'm not sure why Danny is worried about trying to get the article
perfectly "right" for a mythical 100-year-from-now viewer.
Or does he have a time machine he's not letting the rest of us know about?
This note: "The page is protected again. Reid's people did not
threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here."
was also pretty unfathomably rude.
So much for respect for fellow editors. I guess some people are just
more equal than others.
I reported multiple reverts in three areas of Middle-earth articles by user
CBDunkerson. Another user, TCC, immediately followed up by reporting
me. Borghunter blocked me but said that CBDunkerson had not been blocked.
Wiki Blocking policy clearly states that is inappropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy
Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule. Where multiple
parties violate the rule, sysops will treat all sides equally.
I documented the multiple reverts by Mr. Dunkerson, who has been violating
Wikipedia policy by inserting false and misleading information into the
articles. He specifically targeted edits I made last year.
Since I am blocked, I cannot use the email form to ask BorgHunter for an
appropriate explanation of why the violations of Wikipedia policy by Conrad
Dunkerson -- who has repeatedly refused my requests to post specific change
proposals to the TALK pages for the articles -- have not been dealt with in
the same way as my reverts of his reverts.
--
Michael Martinez
"Cuando Maria canta, canta para mí"
http://www.michael-martinez.com/http://michael-martinez.blogspot.com/
Hi. I belive i have become the vicitm of a admin abuse. I would appreciate
if someone could take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Striver#Three_revert_rule_violation
I request to be unblocked, and i aim to go report the admin for admin
abuser, possibly going further. Comments are welcomed, i rather have them on
my talk page, since i rarly logg in here,
Thanks, and peace.
_________________________________________________________________
Nyhet! MSN Messenger i Mobiltelefonen! http://mobile.msn.com/
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevage(a)gmail.com>
>
> On 2/24/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:
>> Without sources it is [[wikipedia:original research]] and
>> inadmissible.
>
> That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware
> from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should
> only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
>
> Steve
In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
>> online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
>> claim to expertness.
>"Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of
>published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games,
>magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an
>occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own
>comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
>I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in
>English Literature. He worked on games and publications for Steve
>Jackson Games. So he has a lot more qualifications to write about
>writing than just being a blogger.
* d, nn, never heard of him myself, webcomics aren't encyclopedic,
here's some tortured justifications that I think sound better - ~~~~
- d.
Delirium wrote:
>> http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/
>>See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal
>>ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but
>>webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."
>Assuming that was directed at me, then I'm not sure what you mean about
>"the dangers of reasoning from personal ignorance".
I meant the implication that there was not and could not be an actual
academic peer-reviewed journal of webcomics, which has come up a bit
in this thread - that's definitely arguing from personal ignorance.
>I was arguing
>against the general principle that we ought to write novel histories in
>cases where existing ones don't exist. If in this particular case one
>does exist, then of course that doesn't apply.
Of course. Every crank has fifty references for their original
research stitched together in a novel fashion, but that doesn't make
it not original research.
- d.
Hi. I read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3AANI#Block_of_Striver
MONGO is giving his spin of it, and i have no chance of defending myself,
since im blocked.
He is also missrepresenting me, for example with this:
"He has solicited other users in their talk pages to vote keep"
I did not ask people in talk pages to vote keep, I cite
Georgewilliamherbert:
-----
vote solicitation - complaint bogus, IMHO
I, for one, am insulted by the suggestion Striver was soliciting. I voted on
and have a strong opinion about the last AfD on the 9/11 group. Bringing the
new one to my attention was entirely appropriate; I am an interested party.
I also would probably have found it by my daily AfD scans in any case. A
second AfD so soon after the first is also very unusual (not against policy
per se, but...). People are legitimately going to want to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron&diff=prev&oldid=4…
------
Also, regarding "fuck you": Me and Zora have a long history, Zereshk is
invloved, and also several other Shi'a editors. All Shi'a editor dislike her
more or less.
There is a long history between me, Zereshk, other Shi'a editors and Zora.
See what she wrote about Me and Zereshk:
Zora: "It feels to me like a grotesque waste of time and energy to negotiate
with the mentally deficient and psychologically impaired."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations
------
Zora: The consensus of everyone but the Shi'a editors is that this article
is an embarrassment to Wikipedia (and to the Shi'a) and that it should be
merged, and any salvageable bits salvaged
Anonymous editor (a admin): Don't say that. I don't think the article is an
embarrassment at all and saying so could hurt many editor's feelings.
Me: : Fuck you you fucking Shi'a hatign bigot. I dont care. Ban me. I Ban
myself.
Anonymous editor (a admin): Striver you really shouldn't leave over
something like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron&diff=prev&oldid=4…
------
Read then this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStriver&diff=39780799…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=p…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jersey_Devil&curid=1922…
As you see, both me and Zora have been at eachothers necks, she hase called
me for mentally defincient, i once got so fedd upp with her that i cursed
her, delted my talk and user page and left Weikipedia. Sure, it wasnt civil
to curse her, just as it wasnt civil of her to call me and Zereshk for
menataly deficient, and the saying that i have asperrandom cyndrom.... But
neither fo use went to any admin and demanded the other to be blocked.
As i said, i left, untill the Admin Anomymos user asked me to return, as
well as this guy gave a award and urged me to come back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=4014…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=4014…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Striver&oldid=40349906http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATPW&diff=40356786&old…
MONGO was just fishing, he found that, and brought the part i cursed, and
used it as "evidence" out of context.
I find it blameworthy of him to block me, using 3RR as an excuse, a bad one
since i did not vioalte it, and since he was involved in it. And what is
even worst, another admin had already contacted me on that very issue, and
came to the conclusion that i did not break any rules. MONGO, on the other
hand, did break a rule by baning someone that he was personaly involved in,
and to make it worst, baned me over a revert he was a part of.
As for the Guild, read my talk page.
I have now decided to do everything in my power to see that MONGO loses his
admin rights, on this incident. Peace.
_________________________________________________________________
Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/
Steve Block wrote:
>I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
This is not the case and does them a great injustice. Though it's
possible such an assumption of bad faith from outsiders was behind the
dedicated attempts to drive them off.
>Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established
>academic roots.
This is not the case either. Try a websearch on "webcomics academic".
You should read up on the arbitration case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
>I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source
>which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it
>is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press,
>blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative
>is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of
>the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and
>unscholarly.
Yes. Hard policy for this sort of thing would produce ridiculous
results; we can't formulate more than guidelines, to be applied
according to editorial judgement. If an editor has that judgement,
they can reasonably judge if a given source is rubbish or not; if they
don't, no amount of guidelines can give it to them. You can't
Taylorise clue.
Are John Lee's featured articles on Beatles songs entirely written
using peer-reviewed academic journals as sources? Of course not.
(And in my experience as what sociologists use as a primary source
[music journalism], peer-reviewed academia on pop music is an
incredibly low-quality source of information or indeed clue.)
- d.