Concerning the WP:Office actions, I think we need to be very careful about focusing so much on biographies. Slander of Bill Gate is still slander whether the offending text is contained at [[Bill Gates]] or [[Mircorsoft]] or [[anti-IE]] or at [[bondage]]. The article may at first glance have nothing to do with the target of the slander at all.
-Johntex
On 3/15/06, wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to wikien-l@Wikipedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikien-l-owner@Wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: more WP:OFFICE shenanigans (Kirill Lokshin)
- Re: more WP:OFFICE shenanigans (Delirium)
- Re: Too much agglomeration (Stan Shebs)
- Re: more WP:OFFICE shenanigans (Kirill Lokshin)
- Re: Too much agglomeration (The Cunctator)
- Split tool? was Too much agglomeration (The Cunctator)
- Re: Too much agglomeration (The Cunctator)
- Cute mention in the NYT (The Cunctator)
- Re: Retrieving article deleted for NN (Tony Sidaway)
- Re: Retrieving article deleted for NN (Tony Sidaway)
- Re: Retrieving article deleted for NN (The Cunctator)
- Re: Retrieving article deleted for NN (Kat Walsh)
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:57:55 -0500 From: "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 3f797b9a0603151657h47a1da36ta4cf23eacd139009@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Why is it not a good comparison? There are many people who would
argue
that Satanists are no better than Stormfront members (possibly worse,
if
you believe the network-TV exposes on "satanic cults").
If indeed an individual keeps making superficially neutral edits that turn out not to be, then I would favor banning them---but *because of that*, not because they happen to be a neo-Nazi, or a pedophile, or a Satanist, or whatever the moral-panic-du-jour is.
My point wasn't so much about the type of person editing (although an argument can be made that our level of care here should be directly proportional to the size and intensity of the pitchfork-wielding mob after Jimbo if we screw up), but about the type of article. Biographies, being highly susceptible to defamation and the like, are of significantly less risk than articles on general topics.
Are there some particular biographies where we should be wary of Satanist manipulation? ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
And that should be *more* risk, of course!
Kirill Lokshin
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:03:53 -0500 From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 4418B979.2090905@hackish.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
(although an argument can be made that our level of care here should be directly proportional to the size and intensity of the pitchfork-wielding mob after Jimbo if we screw up)
That's actually what I'm afraid may be happening, at least in some cases.
-Mark
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:10:02 -0800 From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Too much agglomeration To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 4418BAEA.3080002@apple.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
The Cunctator wrote:
Someone please tell me how this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
is better off not being broken up into separate entries.
Wow, it's sure grown since I looked at it last. I think it's ready to be its own project now - gitmo.wikimedia.org, complete with full bios of all the prisoners and all the guards, and entries like [[15 March 2006 at Gitmo]] to record the events of each day (only the *notable* events of course).
Stan
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:48:50 -0500 From: "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 3f797b9a0603151748x21e91f49r5e37542e5fee3b28@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
(although an argument can be made that our level of care here should be directly proportional to the size and intensity of the pitchfork-wielding mob after Jimbo if we screw up)
That's actually what I'm afraid may be happening, at least in some
cases.
I don't think that's entirely a bad thing. Unless we wish to ignore Wikipedia's reputation entirely, we should, within reason, avoid doing things likely to blow up in our face in a particluarly spectacular fashion. Whether any particular issue _is_ likely to blow up is open for debate, of course; but we shouldn't pretend that any decisions we make will have no reprecussions in the outside world.
Kirill Lokshin
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:10:14 -0500 From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Too much agglomeration To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: dfd0b40603151810w4b0a9ff2paa6d522eb1550431@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Someone please tell me how this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
is better off not being broken up into separate entries.
I count four sections that are already broken off into separate entries:
[[Camp Delta]] [[Camp Iguana]]/ /[[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]] [[Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture]]
It looks like it could use more, though. Is anyone trying to stop you from doing it? I don't see anything obvious in the history or talk pages discussing this issue.
No, I'm just whining. If the Naval Base section was broken off from the detention camp section i'd have less to complain about.
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:19:11 -0500 From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Split tool? was Too much agglomeration To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org, "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: dfd0b40603151819p24e0fb79q219855128e10882a@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
After whining about [[Guantanamo Bay Naval Base]] I was wondering if it would be possible to develop a split or clone tool; like the move tool but would allow a new page to be generated with the same history as the other one.
I hate copying off tons of text from GBNB and losing the history; with the clone/split tool I wouldn't have that problem. I'd think it would be comparatively easy to implement in some clever fashion ??
Message: 7 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:56:15 -0500 From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Too much agglomeration To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: dfd0b40603151856y16c5b85dm64f21d2468493003@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Someone please tell me how this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
is better off not being broken up into separate entries.
I count four sections that are already broken off into separate
entries:
[[Camp Delta]] [[Camp Iguana]]/ /[[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]] [[Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United
Nations
Committee Against Torture]]
It looks like it could use more, though. Is anyone trying to stop you from doing it? I don't see anything obvious in the history or talk
pages
discussing this issue.
No, I'm just whining. If the Naval Base section was broken off from the detention camp section i'd have less to complain about.
Okay, I did a bit but there's still tons that needs to be broken off and better organized.
Message: 8 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:00:29 -0500 From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cute mention in the NYT To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: dfd0b40603151900y555c0564xaac67f1419312844@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/sports/ncaabasketball/12bracket.html
"Nowhere is the growth of the bracket's prestige more evident than with the proliferation of bracketology, a concept defined in Wikipedia, not Webster's."
Just think that in a few generations "Wikipedia" will be the generic equivalent of "Webster's".
Woot! (Again, defined in Wikipedia and probably not in Webster's.)
Message: 9 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:13:16 +0000 From: "Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Retrieving article deleted for NN To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 605709b90603152013p404f36f3i8611bb13450e1340@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Me too. Basically, anyone listed in [[:Category: User undeletion]],
which is
linked to {{user recovery}} (note: this is NOT a userbox).
Oh yes it is! It doesn't actually contain a table and there aren't any colors, but the purpose and usage are exactly the same. Just because something doesn't *look* like a userbox, doesn't mean it isn't a userbox. A the creator of that particular template, *I* should know.
Message: 10 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:19:32 +0000 From: "Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Retrieving article deleted for NN To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 605709b90603152019t13b98d20p8488bae6ee07e7cc@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I'd say that this article should *never* have been listed for deletion. As an article about a fairly longlived students' society with several established orchestras, bands and whatnot that have given public performances, it should have been merged to the parent article about the University.
This is what is so frustrating about the deletion process. Absence of thought is endemic.
Message: 11 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:21:29 -0500 From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Retrieving article deleted for NN To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: dfd0b40603152021l70df398fqf72ee3eaf4474216@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all, An article dear to my heart (well, more an article about a subject dear to my heart) has apparently recently deleted for non-notability. Although I actually agree with that designation, I suddenly sympathise with anyone who's had an article deleted! Particularly some of the (good faith) remarks made on the AfD page like "Delete. It still amazes me some of the topics that people think are notable." -
Just wondering whether it's possible for me to get the content (and if possible, history) of the article back? There are probably more appropriate places to host it. Or maybe even trim it down and merge it into some other article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Engineering_Mus...
I'd just like to say I think it's pathetic this was deleted.
Message: 12 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:22:20 -0500 From: "Kat Walsh" mindspillage@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Retrieving article deleted for NN To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 8e253f560603152022m17daf352uc8c6c7d22b6ea76d@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 3/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...now, re-reading the article (thanks very much Ben), I'm wondering if the club *isn't* notable, as a community music group, rather than as a university society. It's true, societies are a dime a dozen. But community music groups that anyone can join (it's open to non-students) are rare, and there can't be many of this size (around 200 members). *thinking music*
Community music groups that anyone can join are rare? I've only been a member of one with over 200 members, probably over 300 -- the others had about 80 -- but they weren't unusual and I wouldn't call any of them notable; they'd probably merit mention in the articles about the town or university they were based in, though.
Not that I would nominate an article on one for deletion if it showed up, of course -- I'd leave that dirty work to someone else!
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking "Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 32, Issue 110