Some of the WikiProject Cricket editors have spotted that Cricinfo, the
largest cricket-related website and part of main cricket publisher the
Wisden group, has started using (and crediting) Wikipedia as a source on
its articles and player profiles:
* Thompson, J, 'When Test cricket came to India', 29th April 2006
* Williamson, M., 'A familiar tale of riots & betting', 15th April 2006
(sourced from our featured article [[Sydney Riot of 1879]])
* Player profile of Edmund Barton (first Prime Minister of Australia)
(credited and GFDL-marked copy of [[Edmund Barton]])
Obviously this is really pleasing for our cricket coverage; Cricinfo may
be 'only' a website but it's one that every cricket fan with an Internet
connection uses (not to mention one that we ourselves have raided
mercilessly for information as a source!), so this is a nice recognition
of the quality of Wikipedia's articles in this area.
School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
Just got this charming missive. If we're not going to do anything
about Brandt, I'll just stop editing the article like he wants because
I don't need to spend the rest of my life being hounded by a crazy
Just one more edit from Jokestress on my bio article, or just one more
edit from you on my bio article <b>OR</b> on any of the two Talk pages
or my User page, regardless of the nature of the edit -- even if it is
ostensibly friendly -- and you and Jokestress are both going into a
Google-Watch sidebar with your real names and pictures. I may throw in
Sir William Reierson Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet of Kittybrewster, into the
mix as well, since he is part of the Google Groups episode as of today
(which makes it relevant to Google-Watch.org). I don't know about him
yet because I'm not sure he knew what he was doing. By the way, this
is not a threat. It's a promise. Also, I'd advise you to put your real
name on your user page, because all of your harassment (please learn
to spell this word) from January 5, 2006 until now has been done
"without disclosing his identity," which makes you potentially liable
for criminal penalties under that new law that you deleted from my
user page. It doesn't matter that I've identified you, because you are
still operating on Wikipedia as someone whose identity is not
disclosed. Yes, please take this to Brad Patrick, Wikipedia's lawyer,
in Tampa. My position is that he should be reporting you to the U.S.
Attorney in Tampa as part of his legal obligation to protect
Wikipedia. If he doesn't, I can raise the issue with the Florida bar.
In other words, it would be a conflict of interest for Mr. Patrick to
give you any advice on this. Jokestress is off the hook in terms of
the criminal statute because she identifies herself on her user page.
I'm sending a copy of this to Jokestress by external email. --Daniel
Brandt [[User:126.96.36.199|188.8.131.52]] 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There has been no explanation as to how this alleged consensus has taken
place. Its because there is no actual consensus on this. The only consensus
that exists is merely between the people on one side of the dispute. .
Alkivar has certainly misused his power on this occasion. It is very
irresponsible that Alkivar would resort to blocking someone for a month
without even bothering to discuss it with the individual. Does anyone know
Alkivars email address so that I may reason with him?
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
The campaign manager of a candidate in the Georgia (*)
gubernatorial election has resigned after someone in his
office changed the bio of her opponent.
Full story at:
Another reminder to us and our fellow editors of the huge
responsibilty we all bear these days to edit well.
*that's the American one, in case you were wondering
While we are discussing child pornography and drawing of children
engaged in sex acts, lets talk about external links to sites with these
Instead of a single image that can be presented in a context to make it
clear it is educational , a bigger concern is external links to image
boards with images of a child engaged in sexually explicit act. These
appear on Wikipedia on a regular basis. When I went to image board web
sites to look for inappropriate images, I felt disgusted that another
Wikipedia editor would put it on Wikipedia. I think we need to modify
our policy/guidelines dealing with images with children engaged in
sexually explicit acts. They should not be permitted in my opinion.
Editors that repeatedly add them should be blocked for being disruptive.
Sydney aka FloNight
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
"...to an openly anti-Wikipedia site"
"some amazing people are working behind the scenes and in the front
lines over there [i.e. at Wikipedia], putting in the hours to make a difference and make
Wikipedia better. [...] We wouldn't have this site if we didn't respect and love
the concept of a Wikipedia. It's the implementation we have issues with."
I believe them when they say they are pro-Wikipedia.
I've been astonished by how many Wikipedians are unwilling to be open to criticism (one of the essential elements of a cult by the way :) !)
I don't agree with their vehemence of the opposition to WP:OFFICE. But anyone who's been following this debate about Erik and Danny
will realise its implementation has been completely ham-fisted at times. So disagree with Wikitruth, and prove it wrong, but don't lie about it.
Endnote: Yes they did copy an article about a member of Jimbo's family that lingered in the database for several days.
I am glad they are embarassed about that and have deleted it. Makes their motivations more believeable.
"Probably acted?" In fact, NOBODY apparently knows what he is doing since he
has precluded himself from contact. Why isn't he explaining what happened?
Ego-tripping is a solitary activity on the part of some of the administrators.
Don't expect them to be accountable when they don't want to be.