I would like someone to officially warn Moreschi against making personal attacks.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/…
As an administrator, Moreschi should be setting an example to others and not break Wikipedia policy whenever he feels like it.
Nobody should resort to personal attacks, especially not an administrator who should know better.
(but we all know that administrators can get away with flouting policy whenever they like, just look at Cyde for instance)
I would also like MichaelLinnear cautioned and warned for same (as well as publishing private contact information).
See: http://nathanr.ca/Images/WikiDefamation.jpg (the edit was oversighted at my insistence)
The edit MichaelLinnear made can be considered libel and defamation, designed to damage my reputation (it's damaged enough).
He deserves a block nevermind a warning.
It is rather biased that my very fair requests are ignored just because I'm a banned user.
If an active user in good standing were to ask this, their wishes would be respected.
My status as a blocked user is irrelevent.
I absolutely insist that a fair-minded admin should do the right thing here and warn both users - publicly (where I can see it) and not behind closed doors.
Thank you for your time,
Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom)
I'm fine with several hundred editors calling for my head. At least
it shows that I'm being bold and not letting myself be swamped into
submission by people who don't understand policy.
On May 11, 2007, at 10:31 PM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Anytime an admin steps in on a controversial AFD and decides "today
> it's
> a discussion, and not a vote" will have several hundred editors
> calling
> for his head in the next 24 hours. This is quite disruptive to the
> project. Even more so than an exiled user created 400 sockpuppets. For
> example.
On 5/11/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote:
> No, I don't. I add an information-dense attachment that no modern mail
> client displays inline.
I've never used a mail client that *didn't* display it inline. Fwiw,
I'm currently using the Gmail web client, which is about as "modern"
as you can get, isn't it?
I'll have a look in Outlook 2003, I'm curious whether that processes
these things correctly. I suspect it doesn't, but will check.
But in any case, and this applies to Chris Howie as well, there is no
real benefit to me in changing to an email client that "Has A Clue".
Why would I care if your messages are signed or not? You can't prove
that you didn't send an email even if it was signed incorrectly (that
simply *doesn't prove* that you *did* send it). And I can't think of a
situation where it would be vital for me to be absolutely certain that
a message came from "you". So, PGP might have some small benefits to
the sender, but basically none to the receiver. So, no, not worth
changing email clients over :)
> Wikimedia's various servers add numerous "Received" lines to every
> message to the list. Why aren't you complaining about them? Probably
> because your client handles them properly.
Yep.
Steve
This is something I thought about after the latest Main page deletion.
You go to a local library, webcafe, or kiosk to do something on
Wikipedia and find yourself logged in to somebody else's administrator
account.
What are you tempted to do?
What do you actually do?
What I'm tempted to do, delete the administrator's noticeboard with
the comment "I'm a moron who forgets to log out from public terminals,
please LART me".
What I actually do. Log his stupid ass out, log in as myself and send
him a polite and civil email telling him what happened and to be
careful next time. If email is not enabled, leave same message on his
talk page for all the world to see.
Hi all,
I have a friend, Mats Molén, a creationist and a part time teacher in
(public) school in Sweden, and also working in his own creation museum
(and no, not the size of the creation museum in the US). My errand is
about an "invective" picture of Mats Molén (there's an article about
Mats Molén in the Swedish WP since he's a well known author of a
"classical" book (well, in Sweden) about the natural sciences which is
critical about the evolution paradigm. Guess if Mats Molén is liked by
all geologists and evolutionists in Sweden?!
Mats has a very kind and compassionate personality though, but such
doesn't "count" in all contexts... =). Mats actually taught evolution
before writing the book. Not after, though.
However, it seems like a young student found it being a great idea to
take a not-so-perfect-photo of my otherwise not-so-bad-looking friend:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mol_n.jpg
From the picture it looks like the picture is taken in a classroom in a
school in Umeå, Sweden (link to map)
<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=sv&q=Ume%C3%A5,+Sweden&ie=UTF8&ll=71.357…>.
This picture was once added to an article about MM in the Swedish WP as
a, say, "complement" to the original picture in the article. May I
suggest that this very picture isn't very "Informative"? Obviously the
picture was added in order to make Mats look silly.
I talked to the administrators of the Swedish Wikipedia about removing
the picture from the article (this was now a while ago), and they did.
Except for some misunderstanding of my intents they also found the
reasons for publishing the picture in the article being... um,
questionable.
So, at last the picture was removed from the article. But long before
that I had already requested that someone remove the picture from the
archive, but I might have done something wrong in the request process
(all those templates to create & confirm), because it hasn't been
removed yet. The picture is still in the archive:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mol_n.jpg
(And yes, of course I can't resist mocking him for this silly picture! =)
Mats Molén wrote to me today and was a bit sad (again) about this
picture. It's still there, and it starts to feel kind of "sticky". I
know that Mats sees no problem with being criticized for his views and
claims, and he's of the kind of people which is prepared to publicly try
to answer concrete criticism of his views and claims, simply because
that's what he expects from others making bold claims.
Both I and Mats Molén actually do appreciate Wikipedia, although not
entirely without reservations (this may surprise some since we are what
many of you would call fundamentalist Christians). We really do think
that WP is in part useful. We don't like everything we see in it when
browsing the articles, but we also see value in it.
Now I ask of you in this group to help making the value in WP to appear
better. It is not a good thing if biographies and media repositories in
WP are used in hate campaigns against individuals. What makes WP unique
in this respect is of course that people tend to perceive info in an
encyclopedia as "facts". It really "clashes" with stupid pictures like
the one at hand. So, for WP's sake, and for my friend's sake, can you
please assist me in removing the nonsense-picture* of Mats Molén from
Wikimedia commons?
Best regards,
// Rolf Lampa, Sweden
[*] Picture suggested for removal:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mol_n.jpg
On 11 May 2007 at 06:33:05 -0700, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com>
wrote:
> Steve Bennett stated for the record:
> > Yes, you add 10 lines of spam to every message you send.
>
> No, I don't. I add an information-dense attachment that no modern mail
> client displays inline.
>
> Wikimedia's various servers add numerous "Received" lines to every
> message to the list. Why aren't you complaining about them? Probably
> because your client handles them properly.
In digest mode, the Received lines are stripped, but the PGP key is
included inline. (Does any mail client actually extract those things
from the middle of an ASCII-format digest?)
--
== 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/
The [[American Bar Association]] just published this:
http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/my11blog.html
Precis: Digg may well be protected under CDA section 230, *because*
the string of hex digits is probably not copyrightable (too short, and
they've already claimed it as a mechanism, i.e. an interface, which is
not copyrightable ... probably). CDA sec 230 is why people who really
want to sue over a Wikipedia article will generally have to approach
the actual contributor.
Of course, the article notes "it may still be risky."
Oh, they also note the AACS LA hasn't a hope, and the DMCA basically
doesn't work.
Presently, [[AACS encryption key controversy]] is actually somewhat
stable and readable as an article. There's one arbitration case been
brought already over it, but it seems most of the article contributors
are horrified disagreements got that far. And even those of us who
really want the key to be quoted in the article are quite happy to
wait for things to calm down.
Next week, week after? Whenever the story dies out in the media.
- d.
In a message dated 5/11/2007 2:23:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
ccool2ax(a)gmail.com writes:
Hey guys,
I've been on unintentional WikiBreak for 5 months. What happened?
Chris is me
[[Essjay controversy]].
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
