> From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
> Rob wrote:
>>> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
>>> Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of
>>> drawing a Mohammed picture at home.
>>
>> I would be afraid of doing *anything* at home were I targeted by a mob
>> of violent religious fanatics. (A cartoonist would of course have
>> nothing to fear from the sternly worded letters of non-violent
>> reasonable religious folks.)
>
>Surely, but why would you be targeted by a mob of violent
>religious fanatics?
Are you asking this rhetorically, or are you being obtuse? I'm sure
I'm not the only one who saw the firebombings and threats related to
the J-P cartoons.
--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac
Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted
that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard
and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that
article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on
WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to
file a Deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=5…
which itself got removed after administrators commented
"Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing
this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it.
It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of
administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree
with.
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]]
Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]]
block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs
where I allegedly personally attacked him.
Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor
of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider
the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
best regards
--
Raphael
The recent days have been very confusing to me. I'll keep it short. User:Zoe demanded a certain part of the article to be sourced. That part of the article was sourced, but had no footnotes attached to it. Zoe asked what the sources were, and I gave them the two souces: one was a book and another was a Doc-file. These sources had been included in the article.
Zoe claimed that they didn't have the book and that the Doc-file could not be accessible for all people. After much discussion, Zoe agreed to restore the part of the article, until it was found that the text was plagiarized from another site and was again removed. All was fine.
Meanwhile, I went to a few articles started by two other users and removed the unsourced material. I was reverted and warned for being disruptive. After some negotiations, I started instead to discuss the issue, as Zoe said that I should do. I went to ANI to ask questions about the Wiki policy on sources. I didn't care about the text that was removed due to plagiarization, as I deemed the decission to be a correct one. I went to ANI to ask whether an article about a comicbook could use that same comic as a source. I then asked if an article about a movie could use the same movie as a source. I thought it was original research, because the author of the article needs to interpret the art by himself and then write about it. No-one gave me any answer to the topic; instead, Zoe blocked me for disruption and trolling.
I'm sure that most admins will agree with Zoe's decission, even tho I was being polite the whole time and even tho I was ultimately blocked for asking questions on ANI (which ironically, saw a couple of admins contradict themselves) by an admin who was involved in the dispute. That's fine with me: you can agree with Zoe and everyone else that disagreed with me. Perhaps I was being disruptive by asking too many questions. But I would still like to know if an article about a movie can use the movie as a source; and if an article about a comicbook can use that same comicbook as a source. If the answer is no, can any action be taken against such articles? And where can this info be found?
I don't want to be accused of taking things out-of-context or for whatever else, so I will include the links to the relevant discussions.
The question on ANI that ultimatelly got me blocked:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
* My first question on ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
* Vlad III Dracula source conflict:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vlad_III_Dracula#Nine_anecdotes
* My talkpage (accused of vandalism, trolling, disruption, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Vlad_III_Dracula
* The discussion on ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
* Discussion on one of the related articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abin_Sur
User:Anittas
---------------------------------
Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting.
Molu
On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:00:54 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip>
>As for why he quoted it *above* his message, it's because he knows how
>to send emails. *Please* stop top-posting.
>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>As a mathematician I'm particularly interested on his contributions to see
>why (if they were correct) were removed and think of possible reasons, but
>again, no user with that username
Sorry I got it wrong. My username on the English wikipedia is Herve661.
And the contribution that was deleted is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=26373…
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
[[User:Raphael1]] (Raphael Wegmann) has literally been droning on
about this issue for MONTHS. He is extremely singleminded about this
to the point of making his issue with the displaying of the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons very disruptive.
It is very much a pity to see Raphael1 (Wegmann) bring his disruptive
tendencies here to the mail list.
The following bit of his last letter is extremely demonstrative of his
one sidedness here.
</snip>
>Take a look yourself:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144
>A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it?
>At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it.
What Raphael1 (Wegmann) fails to mention is that one of these IPs is a
confirmed open proxy and the other two were part of image blanking
barrages by IP hopping vandals.
Raphael1 has had no qualms taking matters into his hands in terms of
altering the display characteristics of the cartoons on the
[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article repeatedly
himself and has been repeatedly blocked for it (thankfully):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…
Raphael1's latest disruption (for which he's been EXTREMELY correctly
blocked for a week over) was the creation of a list entitled
"Persecutors of Muslims" that listed every single admin who ever
blocked so much as an IP address of those who vandalistically removed
the images (which he subsequently spammed messages providing links to
a group of select editors -without ever even informing the admins
listed on his user page-):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
Raphael1's actions have inspired copy-cat editor who've gone so far as
to impersonate him in efforts to remove the images (never with any
attempt at consensus). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael101
The way Raphael1 is going, much like the extremely disruptive editor
that he recently tried to defend, Resid Gulerdem (see the Admins
causing death of Wikipedia letter thread) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…
he'll probably be permanently blocked before too long as well.
Please move on and be less disruptive and help make Wikipedia even
better so that those familiar with your neverending "discussion" won't
first think of the expression "don't feed the trolls" the moment your
name pops into their heads.
-Scott Stevenson (Netscott)
After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations - below) the link to the updated
version of another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
under my old user page is deleted for ''the good of
Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones who
would like to see that proposal with the correct link.
Earlier version can be found at
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as 'rejected'
but the truth is, I could never find an opportunity to
put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the
updated version below this message for the sake of
completeness and for your convenience.
Best,
RG
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>Message-ID:
<20060531115320.74085.qmail(a)web52711.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>The comments were very useful in general. The most
>important ones among them are the ones addressing
>possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
>for it was one of them.
>
>I was thinking on this problem for quite some time
>and had already some ideas about the solution in
>mind. I decided to post them here. I am a user who
>blocked indefinitely (how do you think I know the
>'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
>chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
>hope that the points raised below contribute to the
>efforts towards a solution. Just a quick
>suggestion...
>
>I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
>Further explanations are given [in the square
>brackets].
>
>Best,
>
>Resid
>
>--------------------
>[[WP:OURS]]
>--------------------
>
>[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
>ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
>between sysops and users.
>
>[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
>RelationS) as well.]
>
>1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
>
>'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
>encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
>well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
>(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
>
>[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
>controversial issue are very important to address. If
>the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
>would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
>disputes.]
>
>[It is easier to write an article on a purely
>technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
>etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
>problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
>admins are also part of the disputes. Their
>experience and privileges then does not constitute a
>base for neutralization of the article but -let me
>put it this way- rather make them a target for
>accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
>only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
>realize that there is no stronger factor to polish
>the reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
>of the controversial issues.]
>
>[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
>started. I could not have a chance to put it to a
>vote properly.]
>
>2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
>
>Based on the area of specialization and interest,
>experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
>experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
>work on the controversial articles categorized
>as being related to their area of specialization and
>can make recommendations on particular points. If
>necessary, the study groups may also supervise
>controversial articles until the dispute is
>resolved.
>
>[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
>form some study groups based on the area of
>specialization of the users, say 'history of
>science', etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
>the opinion of the related study groups. The group
>may vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up
>with a decision. It does not have to be a final
>decision though, as usual. Many violations such as
>3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way
>which may result in a more friendly atmosphere
>between users and admins who feel obligated to force
>the rules consciously.]
>
>3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
>
>Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
>admin mentor when s/he create an account in
>Wikipedia. The users blocked by more than 3 admins
>are required to have a mentor. Users can change their
>mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
>by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
>mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and
>these accounts will be managed as before.
>
>[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
>will provide a dynamics measure of their success.
>This dynamic approach might be better than
>reelecting them periodically. There is almost no
>accountability of admins in a practical way. They
>should be accountable to the community. A periodic
>reaffirmation can be added to this too, if someone
>thinks is of paramount importance.]
>
>4. '''Limited block policy'''
>
>A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
>the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
>posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
>unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
>Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
>
>Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not
>by an admin.
>
>[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
>about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
>agreement on a block based on the rules. It should
>not be hard to convince an admin about the
>applicability of a specific policy. This approach
>put the discussion of the validity of a block onto
>the admins involved rather than to an admin-user
>dialogue which, not surprisingly, results in a
>block. This part also gives the flexibility to the
>admins who think a block is unnecessary but do not
>want to step on another admin's toe.]
>
>[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
>should be able to ask for an unblock,
>unconditionally, after this policy gets approval, if
>it does. That may bring some reconciliations and
>peace to the project.]
>
>------------------------
>
------------------------
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
------------------------
{{Proposed|[[WP:ETH]]}}
{{Policy in a nutshell|<CENTER>Be wise and
responsible...</CENTER>}}
{{Policylist}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps kwrite.png|80px|left]]
'''Wikiethics''' (Wikipedia editorial standards and
ethics) include the principles of [[ethical]]
standards related to editing articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the
existence of ethical standards that reflects the
common heritage of human [[literacy]] in both the
editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself.
This document aims to outline their parameters and
scope. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently,
their place in the whole picture and their relation to
the Wiki ethics and standards are the main issues to
be addressed.
== Editorial Guidelines ==
It is helpful to have a productive editorial
discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes
arise. The following sections provide important
guidelines for editing an article.
=== Article-based classifications ===
Owing to the diversity of backgrounds that the editors
come from, the interpretation of terms like
'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', 'minority',
'acceptability' etc. should always be decided on an
article by article basis, and by following
[[WP:CON|consensus]] based on the judgement of the
contributing editors in that particular article.
Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible
to agree on the definitions of these particular terms
based on cultures, religions, life styles, etc. As a
quantitative measure to 'majority', 'supermajority'
and 'consensus', by [[Wiktionary:majority|majority]]
more than 50% of the contributing editors is meant, by
supermajority more than 75%, and the term
[[Wiktionary:consensus|consensus]] refer to 'no
significant disapproval'.
=== Collective consciousness ===
Collective consciousness can be explained as [[common
sense]] and a common understanding between the
contributing editors. This does not strictly exclude
ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With
Wikipedia policies in mind, consensus among the
contributing editors should determine what is
'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular
discussion.
=== The culture of compromise ===
[[Empathy]] and [[sincerity]] towards '[[the other]]'
during the discussion of articles by editors or third
parties is a powerful tool for [[compromise]].
=== Conflict resolution ===
It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by
taking all possible options available into the
consideration.
=== Images ===
If a picture is causing concerns in an article,
choosing visual or verbal descriptions based on the
judgment of the contributing editors might be helpful.
Changing the image with a more encyclopedic one,
lowering the picture in the article, providing a link
instead, or posting a warning template are other
options can be considered.
=== Polls ===
A [['straw poll']] on a particular argument or on part
of an article can be started at any time to see where
the community stands on that particular issue. It is
reasonable to think that an [['approval poll']],
however, needs to be started upon the completion of
the proposals based on a consensus.
=== Discussion pages ===
Editors are encouraged to seek whatever process is
most likely to result in consensus and build a better
encyclopedia using the existing guidelines. For
efficiency of the discussions on an article one
''might'' chose to copy the part from the article onto
the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he
thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her
suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get
more input from the other editors and consequently may
lead to a better article.
=== Anonymity ===
The editor's [[anonymity]] does not exempt them from a
responsibility to their personal ethics.
==Editorial standards==
High editorial standards would add to the reputation
of Wikipedia. Wikipedia recognizes the standards which
are shaped for centuries and currently practised in
the mainstream media, for example,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Harm_limitatio…
Harm limitation principle], and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decen…
Taste, decency and acceptability] listed in
[[Journalism ethics and standards]].
[[Ethic_of_reciprocity|Golden Rule]] ("not to inflict
harm") can be taken to be another example. Some of the
important editorial standards in Wikipedia are
discussed below.
=== Objectivity ===
A Wiki article should reflect judgment based on
observable phenomena, physical reality, and should be
uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Absence of [[bias]] and lack of emotional involvement
are necessary. Separation between news, opinions, and
advertisements is also equally important. Competing
points of view need to be balanced and fairly
characterized in the articles.
=== Privacy ===
As Wikipedia becomes more popular and readership
increases, the potential impact of published material,
whether positive or negative, also magnifies.
Therefore, [[journalism ethics and standards]] become
relevant and editors are encouraged to consider when
editing wikipedia. Editors should also consider
notable individuals' rights to [[privacy]] and strive
to [[Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation
principle|limit unnecessary harm or discomfort]] to
them. These factors should be balanced against the
[[public interest]] in reporting information about
them. This might occasionally lead to an [[ethical
dilemma]], and requires greater effort on the part of
editors to discuss and deliberate when making
editorial decisions.
=== Responsibility ===
When making editorial decisions, each editor should
make some personal consideration of sensitivity
towards private individuals, children and juveniles,
victims of crime, and people who are currently
suffering grief and tragedy.
=== Public accountability ===
Wikipedia has an obligation towards it's readers. It
is not in Wikipedia editors' interest to act
irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is
contrary to public interest and in a fashion that
violates the trust of our donors and the public.
Upholding the public's trust is easier than re-gaining
it.
=== Censorship ===
[[Censorship]] in any form is not acceptable. 'No
censorship' means information/descriptions/expressions
should be included into or excluded from an article
for editorial reasons or ethical concerns only based
on the editorial consensus. Based on their judgment
concerning verifiability of information, information
content, and encyclopedic nature of the article,
Wikipedia editors can include or exclude some
information, expressions, and visual or verbal
descriptions into or from an article. A description
can be considered inappropriate for one article but it
might be appropriate for another. The article-based
classification gives that flexibility in
decision-making to the editors.
=== Offense ===
It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or
people who are using Wiki as a source of information.
It is generally possible to find a different version
of the same description which might be found less
offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing
the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can
help in that direction. Keeping the informative
materials stated objectively in the article is
necessary as a means to this end. No offense policy
restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values
or people, [[culture]]s, [[life style]]s, etc. It is
always good to be considerate regarding the concerns
raised by 'minorities' of particular discussions or
articles.
=== Pornography ===
[[Pornography]] can be described as visual or verbal
descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause
sexual excitement and should generally be avoided in
Wiki articles. The decision of what is appropriate and
what is pornographic is discussed on an article by
article basis to form a consensus.
=== Violence ===
Editors should be sensitive in portraying
[[violence]], that is aggression or rough unwarranted
force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on
another being, in Wikipedia articles. They should also
be sensitive about the rights of victims who are
subject to violence and also the possibility, if any,
that these portrayals may incite someone to harm
others.
=== Racism ===
[[Racism]] can be defined as the notion that people of
one race or creed are superior to another. In
Wikipedia articles, expressions that unnecessarily
portray prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of
people of a certain race or creed are to be avoided.
The expressions that intended to be divisive over
nationality, race, colour or creed and also that
glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial hatred,
strife, and violence cannot be considered as
encyclopedic.
=== Propaganda ===
Wiki articles must not be written from the perspective
of supporting any political, social, or religious
movements. Editors should be careful about the
information uploaded by an organization or a
government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is
also advisable to be more conscious regarding
deceptive or distorted information that is
systematically spread.
=== Bias ===
Editors should be careful in regard to reflecting
their religious or spiritual beliefs as well as
ideology into the composition of the articles. It is
advised that the possibility of causing animosity
between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies
should be carefully examined and avoided.
=== Sexism ===
[[Sexism]] can be defined as discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards someone based on their gender
identification. Expressions that unnecessarily promote
sexism in articles are not encyclopedic.
=== Language ===
Language used is often as important as the context.
[[Slang]] words, [[rudeness]], [[sarcasm]] are not
useful in articles and should be avoided.
== Policies relevant to ethics on Wikipedia ==
=== Policies ===
# [[Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions]]: Wikipedia
strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia.
Decisions which are made about articles or policies
should not be regarded as binding. That does not mean
you should ignore a consensual decision; it means that
everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later
date.
# [[Wikipedia:Civility]]: Being rude, insensitive or
petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working
well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and
be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.
Mediation is available if needed.
# [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]: The license Wikipedia uses
grants free access to our content in the same sense as
open source software is licensed freely.
# [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]: Do not stop other editors
from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking
good-faith edits to different articles, repeated
personal attacks or posting personal information.
# [[WP:IUP]]: Be very careful when uploading
copyrighted images, fully describe the images' sources
and copyright details on their description pages, and
try to make images as useful and reusable as possible.
# [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: It is Wikipedia policy to
delete libelous revisions from the page history. If
you believe you have been defamed, please contact the
help desk.
# [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: All Wikipedia
articles must be written from a <em>neutral point of
view</em>, representing views fairly and without bias.
This includes reader-facing templates, categories and
portals.
# [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: Articles may not
contain any unpublished theories, data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any <u>new analysis
or synthesis</u> of published data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas.
# [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]: There is no
excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do
not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and
maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
# [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is first and foremost an
online [[encyclopedia]], and ''as a means to that
end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community|an online
community]]. Please avoid the temptation to use
Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as
something it is not.
# [[WP:OFFICE]]: The Wikimedia Foundation receives an
increasingly large number of phone calls and emails
from people who are upset about various uploads on the
site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often
they are not. However, in most cases, even with the
invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which
can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to
soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the
long run.
# [[WP:OWN]]: You agreed to allow others to modify
your work here. So let them.
# [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]: Do not
[[Wikipedia:Revert|revert]] any single page ''in whole
or in part'' more than three times in 24 hours. (Or
else an Administrator may [[Wikipedia:Blocking
policy|suspend your account]].)
# [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]: Vandalism is any addition,
deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate
attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
Vandalism is determined by the judgment of the
Wikipedia administrators.
# [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: Information on
Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
theories, and arguments may only be included in
articles if they have <u>already been published by
[[WP:RS|reliable and reputable sources]]</U>. Articles
should [[WP:CITE|cite these sources]] whenever
possible. Any un-sourced material may be challenged
and removed.
=== Guidelines ===
# [[Wikipedia:Accountability]]: As an informal
guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should
log in before making drastic changes to existing
articles.
# [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]: To assume good
faith is a fundamental principle on any Wiki project,
including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it
follows that we assume that most people who work on
the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
# [[WP:ATK]]: A Wikipedia article written for the sole
purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
# [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]: Wikipedia works by building
consensus. This is done through polite discussion and
negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
regarding proper application of policies and
guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and
the Request for comment process are designed to assist
consensus-building when normal talk page communication
fails.
# [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]: [[Wikipedia]] must strive
for a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] in general and in regards
to [[criticism]] of article's topics.
# [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]: Divisiveness on
Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community
is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and
reason for existing because Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia and dividing Wikipedia contributors up
into seperated camps hinders rather than helps the
process of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]]: Wikipedia is a
communal effort. To make it work, contributors must
think from a community perspective as well as a
personal one.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't_panic]]: It's easy to get caught
up in an emotionally fired up argument over something
that is so important that it must be fixed
immediately. Moral outrage over an issue is a common
source of panic. Before removing the offending text,
perform a sanity check to see if any actual policies
are being violated.
# [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]: Wikipedia's contributors
come from many different countries and cultures. We
have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds,
sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect
is the key to collaborating effectively in building an
encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: Neutral Point Of View.
An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that
has been written without showing a stand on the issue
at hand. This is especially important for the
encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in
which very often there is an abundance of differing
views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral
representation, the differing points of view are
presented as such, not as facts.
# [[WP:POINT]]: State your point on Wikipedia. Do not
attempt to make an example out of anyone/anything to
prove the point.
# [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: Words and images that would
be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by
typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only
if their omission would cause the article to be less
informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally
suitable alternatives are available. Including
information about offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is
not.
# [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]: If you can provide
useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but
bear in mind that edits for which no reliable
references are provided may be deleted by any editor.
# [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]: Sign
all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help
others understand the conversation.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: When writing on
a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of
communication are counterproductive, while others help
make progress smoother. This guideline is designed to
help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.
# [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]: Vanity information
is considered to be any information that was placed in
any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent
conflict of interest, meaning any material that
presents the appearance of being intended to in any
way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or
one of the close family members or associates of the
author.
== See also ==
# [[Journalism ethics and standards]]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is states:
Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin
Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>;
> Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>).
On his userpage he claims
I'm General and future president Eisenhower.
I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was
started<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&…>however.
According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this?
Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General
Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> • ( at war
or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>)
15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting
here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to possibly
make a namechange compulsory.
Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he
slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in the
main namespace), which makes it harder.
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 31 May 2006 at 11:42, Molu <loom91(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never
> managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing
> called top-posting.
Your keyboard presumably has a set of arrow keys on it, which you can
use to move the cursor beneath the text you are quoting even if your
program starts it out above.
You might also try to configure your mail program to abide by the
line-length standards of Internet e-mail, while you're at it.
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/http://mailformat.dan.info/body/linelength.htmlhttp://mailformat.dan.info/config/
--
== 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/