WikiEN-l July 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

130 participants
136 discussions

Moldy discussions
by Sean Barrett 05 Jul '06

05 Jul '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 How about a separate mailing list exclusively for discussion of all things Moldovan? - -- Sean Barrett | Susan: I'm just trying to be realistic! sean(a)epoptic.com | Peter: No, you're just trying to be smart. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEqo40MAt1wyd9d+URAr9/AJ9MwSsTTyeEZE18IWtuxdNV/IzObQCfbFah oWHxVGqk+J8M1sz9dNPDKos= =UN6o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 7

Top-posting (was Re: Offline submissions?)
by Daniel R. Tobias 05 Jul '06

05 Jul '06

[top-posting fixed] On 2 Jul 2006 at 01:30, mboverload <mboverload(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/1/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun 2006 at 23:52, mboverload <mboverload(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Wait...what's wrong with white people? =D > > > > They like to top-post their e-mail replies? > > If you want to tell me how to fix this in gmail, go ahead =D http://mailformat.dan.info/config/gmail.html -- == 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/

3 2

[[Geographic_references]]
by Bogdan Giusca 04 Jul '06

04 Jul '06

What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace. According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but it's linked by thousands of articles, so... Any idea what should we do with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references

13 28

Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
by Daniel P. B. Smith 03 Jul '06

03 Jul '06

> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey > I on the other hand am wondering whether we shouldn't consider putting > Mr Awbrey on moderation, in an effort to increase the signal to noise > ratio on this list. I appreciate your good faith effort to get > something out of this "exit interview", but if you look at the thread > as a whole, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. General: Away, away! Police: Yes, yes, we go! General: These pirates slay! Police: Tarantara! General: Then do not stay! Police: Tarantara! General: Then why this delay! Police: All right, we go! Yes forward, Yes, forward on the foe, on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe! General: Yes, but you _don't_ go! Girls: They go, they go! Police: We go, we go! Yes forward, Yes, forward on the foe, on the foe, Yes, forward on the foe! General: Damme, you _don't_ go! Girls: At last they go, Police: We go, we go, Girls: At last they go, at last they go! Police: We go, we go, Girls: At last they really, really go! Police: We go, we go, we go, we go! --W. S. Gilbert, "The Pirates of Penzance"

6 8

3RR policy proposal: No "Gotcha" rule
by Warren Blanco 03 Jul '06

03 Jul '06

> > WP:3RR was changed (without there first being consensus) back in April so > that reverts count towards the 3RR even if they are unrelated. This has > resulted in some editors playing "gotcha" by invoking the 3RR without first > giving a warning. I'd like to propose the following exception to the 3RR policy: Exception: Lack of warning A 3RR ban cannot be imposed against an editor who has not been warned that he or she is in danger of violating the 3RR. A ban can only be imposed when an editor violates the 3RR after receiving a warning even if he or she has already tecnically violated the 3RR prior to receiving a warning. ---- This policy is already implied on ANI:3RR which states: "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about WP:3RR <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR> on their talk page. Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned." Unfortunately, admins seem increasingly willing to block without regard to warnings, a practiced that assumes bad faith.

18 27

The categories Animals by country and Flora by country
by Bogdan Giusca 03 Jul '06

03 Jul '06

I'm not sure how useful is the classification by country for plants and animals using categories. 1) There are many plants and animals which can be found in most countries in Eurasia and Africa, for example. That would mean a hundred or two of categories. 2) In an average country, there are somewhere between 3-10,000 species of plants. Some tropical countries (like Brazil) have more than 25,000 known species of plants and 5,000 species of animals. I can't see how such an immense category can be useful or maintainable. An alternative would be the usage of lists, but those would also potentially be very large. Any suggestions?

5 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 03 Jul '06

03 Jul '06

Jon Awbrey wrote > JA: The pattern of conduct that was exhibited over the space > of a few days by this small group "new users" was a type > of slash and burn and section blanking that I personally > consider to be nothing short of rank vandalism, whether > anybody else had the boldness to call it that or not. What I actually saw, when you were editing such articles as [[mathematical relation]], was the need (for the encylopedia's sake) to do something apt with some prolix and over-written contributions. Not without value, but a long way from our house style. So, I'm not surprised at the sequel. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
by Rosa, Michael 02 Jul '06

02 Jul '06

On 29 Jun 2006 at 14:14, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey(a)att.net> wrote: >For example, under the proper ordering of priorities a >statement that is relevant and sourced should not be deleted >in favor of an opinion that is unsourced just because the >source is not the favorite writer of 2 or 3 editors or because >the sourced statement contradicts the personal POVs of 2 or 3 editors. >But this is actually the routine way that things are done in WP. Cite please - preferable at least a dozen or so of examples, they should be easy to find if this is really the "routine way" of doing things on WP. This is a persistent, recurrent and systematic pattern in your emails that I have observed, you describe something that you claim is taking place without giving any specific and real-life examples. Cheers, Michal

12 32

Re: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
by Mark Gallagher 02 Jul '06

02 Jul '06

G'day Rob, > If the majority of editors on the page agree that the block quote is > inappropriate, this is concensus. If you disagree with this > decision, you can initiate a discussion on the talk page, and ideally > these editors would discuss the issue with you. I hope this was just a brain fart, and you weren't really arguing that majority == consensus. If we have 7 editors discussing an article, and 4 think Jon's right and 3 think Jon's wrong (or vice versa), that could well, depending on the circs, be described as "a bloody row", but not "consensus". Cheers, -- Mark Gallagher "But the visibility was very poor, and you yourself admit that you were being struck by thunderbolts all the time, which must have distracted your attention, so it is more than probable you were mistaken." - Esmond Haddock, /The Mating Season/

2 1

Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey (Jon Awbrey)
by Puppy 02 Jul '06

02 Jul '06

Take two, formatted. Apologies for the word wrap issue on the previous email. >/Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:26:26 -0400 / >/From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> /<snip> Enough. I have edited articles which Jon Awbrey is involved in editing. The words which do *not* come to mind are "concise, clarity, reasonable, verifiable". The words which *do* come to mind are "pontificating, arrogant, obfuscate, verbose, obstinate". IMHO, the issue is not that he has had to deal with POV pushers and aggressive adversaries. The issue is that he writes reams of original research, in overdone pseudo-intellectual style, which obfuscates rather than clarifies any meaning which he might be attempting to present. When anyone asks what he means, he responds in a condescending, rude manner, insulting the questioner. When his ability to write three paragraphs of personal interpretation based upon a one-line source which only tangentially relates to his edit is brought up as a possible OR violation, he dismisses concerns with, again, insults and insistence upon his superiority. In short, he seems congenitally unable to work with others, unless those others are devotees of his personality cult. Any suggestion of modifications of his incredibly convoluted content additions is met with similar accusations of incompetence of his fellow editors. He frequently makes long, windy posts on talk pages, which neither clarify what he is doing to the article nor address any concerns anyone has raised. A strong mentorship in which Verifiability, No original research, Consensus, Civility, and simple respect for fellow editors would do far more to enable him to make productive contributions to Wikipedia than any kind of guidance on "dealing with pov pushing editors and bullies". Teaching him to communicate effectively would be even more help. One presumes he has a point buried in the massive volume which constitute a single post, but locating that point is always challenging, and usually not worth the effort. This has been pointed out to him multiple times, but his response is utter dismissal of the notion that *because he is the one attempting to communicate something, the onus is on him to try to make his meaning clear*. He has now expanded his love affair with his own pontificating beyond articles and talk pages to this list, and as is usual, the response is an initial attempt to understand what on earth he's getting at, followed by a general numbness at the sheer avalanche of self-aggrandizing fluff. I suggest that if Jon Awbrey wishes to stay with Wikipedia, he be assigned strong mentors, and if not, he be moderated from the list. We don't need another 10,000 emails of an "exit interview" - if he is leaving, a one-line email with the word "goodbye" will cover the subject more than adequately. One puppy's opinion. -kc-

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l July 2006