---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wp freedom fighter <wikifreedomfighter(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Morwen <morwen(a)evilmagic.org>
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew
disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy
at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently
expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains
dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take
you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to
this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
--
This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia
to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and
you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on
privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing,
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
In a message dated 7/6/2009 11:46:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes:
> ..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough
> to English, then Neil's offering: "PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS
> BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
> COLON CHARACTER IN THE..." makes the substantial point, in addition to
> being esoterically funny.>>
>
--------------
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so
strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument
whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a
bizarre type of hyper-English).
I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on
Earth.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
>From a check of the user I have in mind, they became an admin at 11 and a crat at 12.
biblio
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Alex Sawczynec <glasscobra15(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Alex Sawczynec <glasscobra15(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What was our youngest admin again?
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:53 PM
Hmm, I was fairly sure the youngest admin/crat was the same person; I
thought I remembered hearing that they were 12 when adminned, and then 13
when made crat. All these figures seem to be in about the same range,
though.
- GlassCobra
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Our youngest crat, if I'm not mistaken, was 12 years old. I'm not sure how young our youngest admin was, but 10 seems to ring a bell. It wasn't the same two people, I know that for sure.
biblio
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What was our youngest admin again?
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:41 PM
2009/7/16 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>:
> http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/07/hey-kid-support-your-local-wiki/
If memory serves, our youngest admin was 10 and our youngest crat 14
(quite possibly the same person).
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a message dated 7/12/2009 4:39:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net writes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&
> page=User%3ARebroad
>
> there were four previous blocks. A week might have been a bit better, but
> a month is not excessive.>>
>
-------------
I find it just a little bit unfair, to bring up things a person did *two
years* ago.
Two years in Wikitime is like 100 centuries in real life.
The block should be related to what they have done recently, not forever.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL
Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
---- "R E Broadley" <rebroad+wikimedia.org(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "R E Broadley" <rebroad+wikimedia.org(a)gmail.com>
> To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Sunday, 12 July, 2009 23:10:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] admins blocking but refusing to justify which policy or guideline applies
>
> Hi,
>
> ... which policy or guideline justifies my block,
Here are some policies, guidelines and essays that may help to explain the background to the block:
Policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit war
Guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing
Essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
> I also think there should be a facility for admins who operate outside
> of the law (if it can be called that) to be able to face consequences
> for their actions by some higher governing body - does such a body
> exist?
Yes - admins who misuse their powers can be challenged in various ways, which can ultimately lead to withdrawal of their powers. An overview is given at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINABUSE
Hope this has been helpful.
Regards,
Andrew
In a message dated 7/12/2009 3:11:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rebroad+wikimedia.org(a)gmail.com writes:
> I have been blocked by
> an admin for 1 month,>>
>
>
A month seems extraordinary.
Typically in a case like this do not we use something like 24 hours or even
48?
A month? For edit-warring?
Seems like a wholely new bar to me.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag
bibleverse that links to *one specific* website.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a
particular bible website over other similar ones.
Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we
provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just
a single link to amazon for example.
Will
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)