On 05/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> More to the point, the outcome of the Monty Hall problem is "common
> sense" once you understand it. Denying that staying will give you a
> better chance of winning when there are 9999998 doors with goats behind
> them open, when you've had it explained to you, is /not/ common sense.
Fwiw, I explain it like this: "Did you know what was behind any of the
doors when you made your first guess? Do you know now? Do you prefer
uninformed decisions?"
Steve
I wouldn't use the word right for apparently some people do not like talking about rights on a privately owned website, but I agree with your words. And it is not simply a matter of voting. When a person thinks of something that he thinks will be beneficial to the project, he SHOULD gather others who are likely to be interested to marshall his cause. This helps rather than disrupts the consensus building process and is totally helpful to the ultimate goal of building an encyclopedia. Incidentally, there was an inconclusive debate about this issue at AN/I and my talk page not long ago, the admins may remember it.
Molu
>>Message: 7
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 08:57:15 -0700
From: "John Tex"
Subject: [WikiEN-l] We need to recognize that advocating is a basic
right
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
We need to recognize that each user has a right to try to influence policy
in ways that they believe are beneficial to the project. Two basic tenets
of this are discussing the ideas and building up groups of people who agree
with you and who will help you bring about the beneficial change.
This is "advocacy". Contacting people to recruit them to support you or to
act according to beliefs you think they may already have should rightly be
called "campaigning". This is a Good Thing.
Let's stop insulting people by calling them "meat puppets" or "vote
stackers". Let's stop confusing the issue by calling it "spamming". It is
not spamming. Spamming is indiscriminately notifying people that are
probably not interested in the hopes that a few people will be. This is
practically the opposite.
Attempting to stifle advocacy is harmful to the consensus building process
and it is harmful to the project. If we try to prohibit it, it will just be
taken off-wiki, which would be a huge shame.
>>Johntex
---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase
On 5/3/06, wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org
>
> From: Ben McIlwain <cydeweys(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cyde should not have violated Deletion policy
> (Johntex)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4459925E.90903(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> I didn't "close" the debate so much as I "canceled" it. My "vote", as
> you mention, was to cancel it ... and then a minute after that I
> realized I could go through with what I said should be done.
Unfortunately, this misses the point. Whether you called it a "closure" or
"cancellation" or a "stoppage" or whatever. You halted the process that a
lot of people were contributing to. They had a right to be heard. This
wastes a lot of time and looks like bad behavior for an admin to kill an AfD
early, especially one he has been involved in.
Johntex
Phil Boswell wrote:
>The stabbing will continue until morale improves :-)
>
>
I'll forgive you the misspelling and still give you credit for inventing
the new slogan for the WP:OFFICE policy:
Stubbing will continue until morale improves.
--Michael Snow
---- Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Bacchante Maenad wrote:
> >Are you trying to tell me that Freakofnurture is an administrator?
I think He's a hacker. He sent me an email about getting high and staying up until four am and dumping the edits. Rob, are you sure he's an admin, or do you think this guy's just messing with our heads? Somebody ought to find a contact somewhere on the cite and ask if this asshole is really part of their team. (forgive my french.) Let's all do it okay? Send this email back through and we'll all find a phone number there within 48 hrs. and call!
-JTMH
> > > Hi,
> > > I tried again to create a username and predictably the self
> > > described
> > > angry Wikipedia admin username, Freakofnurture, immediately blocked
> > > me from
> > > editing. The name I choose was "Even Small Children Can Edit
> > > Wikipedia" and
> > > his explanation is "yep, and i'm keeping it safe for them". It's
> > > curious
> > > how this person became an admin, being so angry, his consistent not
> > > assuming
> > > good faith and not being genuine in his communications. It seems
> > > in the
> > > wikipedia user-space there is plenty of room for anger and
> > > nastiness and not
> > > much for humor.
> >
> > I've got an idea. Stop registering inflammatory usernames and we'll
> > stop blocking them.
>
> For those who like their drama, select from the following responses:
>
> "Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
>
> "Oh my god, it's admin abuse! I am shocked to my very core."
>
> and
>
> "Where are we going, and what's with the handbasket?"
>
>
> Rob Church
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- "BJörn Lindqvist" <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> > > A bridge expert knows that it *is* an important bridge.
> >Star Trek is not in the encyclopedia! Only areas of expertise and proveable facts should be accepted. Wikipedia is an area for learning, not competition. If you know you're not good enough, don't try. Yet honestly, 90% of the population is capable if they want to be. They just have to try harder than Star Trek!
> > Then again, loving bridges, he may not find it in is heart to delete
> > _any_ article about them that has sources. Which, to a certain extent,
> > is fine with me, but it does have the potential to significantly
> > change the whole "deletionism/inclusionism" balance. Imagine the same
> > concept applied to Star Trek experts. "Tribble Rebellion of 2280?
> > SPEEDY KEEP!"
>
> I don't see the problem? Wikipedia works because autonomous persons
> and communities can work on their areas of expertise without having to
> go layers of bureaucracy. Except for a few global rules; Wikipedia is
> an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not paper, it is those communities and
> their ability to work autonomously that is shaping Wikipedia. That
> work process scales very well and is the reason why Wikipedia contain
> millions of articles. Centralized processes (like AFD) does not scale
> very well at all. Therefore I think it makes sense to avoid
> centralized processes.
>
> The more decentralized, the less people involved, the more easy it is
> to form consensuses. So if there is a consensus among the group of
> Wikipedians working on Star Trek articles that "Tribble Rebellion of
> 2280" should be kept, then that is what should be done. I think it is
> perfectly clear that those who work in the topic area knows best what
> articles belong in it. The last thing THEY need is a centralized
> process involving clueless opinionated people interfering in their
> business.
>
> > Topical AfD is not a bad idea as long as these subcommunities are as
> > open as the general AfD, and the only process by which they
> > distinguish themselves is one of self-selection. That is, my opinion
> > on a topical AfD should not count less because I have not worked in
> > that topical AfD before.
>
> In theory yes. In practice, people are more likely to listen to
> someone who has credentials.
>
> --
> mvh Björn
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- freakofnurture <freakofnurture(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sweetie, it looks like you're done for. I wouldn't have said that bit about 4am and all...anyway, I don't get high, i am high all the time. I'm epileptic and the meds I take make me higher than anything you've ever taken in your life. But, after a lifetime of being high, believe me, it gets old! Don't write to me telling me about getting high, I'm a counselor. Have a good time recovering. Hasta
> Interestingly, this is the same troll that registered "User:Let's Get High
> And Edit Wikipedia" (see also
> <http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041218.html>). Get
> a life, stop creating sockpuppets, and take a shot at usefully contributing.
>
> --user:freakofnurture
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/More-Angry-Admin-Abuse-t1560623.html#a4239186
> Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 20:36:57 +0200, you wrote:
> You are causing competition and taking away from the meaning of wikipedia!
Forgive me for being crude, but how much of the world has enough intelligence to write on the subjects that your cite needs? And then yet, to do it thoroughly enough to keep visitors coming back on a regular basis? I think you may need to consider a new plan. Food for thought.
> >I agree that edit counts are *relatively* meaningless, but people use
> >them anyway. The reason I support formalising them as a requirement,
> >is to prevent people citing lack of edit counts for increasingly high
> >limits. Once we fix that 1000 edits is enough to be an admin, "not
> >enough edits" will cease to be a reasonable reason to oppose a person
> >with 2000, for instance.
>
> Indeed. And it will deter those who self-nominate after their third
> edit. Just as with notability criteria we can, by consensus,
> de-emphasise those things which some have thought significant but
> others have sown are not. A low edit count number will make it plain
> that edit counts are indeed meaningless.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- Solo999uk(a)aol.com wrote:
>Have you tried looking around at Wikipedia for an administrative name or contact that you can call to find out why you are being blocked? What are you writing that is bothering them so badly? If you have a problem with administration, then you have to take one step further up and go to supervising administration to make sure that everyone is being just and fair. But be honest with yourself. Are you sure there is nothing that would offend anyone in what you have sent? If there is not, then take a deep breath, use the world wide web, and find a supervising administrative contact. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
I have been blocked and not for the first time since joining wikipedia 10
> days ago.
>
> Each time I get blocked a different IP address is quoted and a different
> false 'offence' cited which could not possibly concern me directly.
>
> Can you please help to sort ASAP.
>
> The blocker this time is 'canadian caeser'.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have been blocked and not for the first time since joining wikipedia 10
days ago.
Each time I get blocked a different IP address is quoted and a different
false 'offence' cited which could not possibly concern me directly.
Can you please help to sort ASAP.
The blocker this time is 'canadian caeser'.