WP:ET is a "proposal" for curtailing the use of excessive editor templates on articles, allowing their essential debates to be noted in a minimal form.
User:Radiant! (sic) listed it as "rejected by the community," and clinging to the loose belief that User:Radiant! (sic) and the two others who commented on the idea dont themselves represent the community. Nor does any ridiculously deletionist (FLOABT) voting on TFD represent "consensus" on an idea. Radiant has always had a preference for the long and verbose template forms, and has sort of been a crusader against changing them. I think personally they are a nuisance, and that they essentially deface wikipedia articles and makes commercial sucker-sites easier to read. Anyway, Ive changed it back to {{proposed}}.
Stevertigo
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I just got this from my Google alert on Wikipedia: http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2145845/tax-group-say-wik...
"The Professional Contractors Group (PCG), an organisation for freelance and temporary contract workers in the UK, has joined the authoring ranks of Wikipedia, the open source encyclopaedia.
John Kell, political researcher for the PCG, has written three entries, two on British taxation law, with a decidedly pro-PCG bias."
These articles are being written by [[User:John Kell]]. I recently placed {{NPOV}} templates on the articles [[IR35]] and [[S660A]] for reasons that should become obvious in the context of their content, and [[Professional Contractors Group]] as well. This seems to be an attempt by a political lobby group to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not intimately familiar with the political situation surrounding these statutes, so I would ask that other users try to help me in making the articles more neutral.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
These articles are being written by [[User:John Kell]]. I recently placed {{NPOV}} templates on the articles [[IR35]] and [[S660A]] for reasons that should become obvious in the context of their content, and [[Professional Contractors Group]] as well. This seems to be an attempt by a political lobby group to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not intimately familiar with the political situation surrounding these statutes, so I would ask that other users try to help me in making the articles more neutral.
These seem to have been cleaned up pretty quickly, which is nice to see. Wikipedia's actually better now for Mr. Kell's contributions---even though the original ones were not neutral, they did contain some good information that we previously didn't have, and now do.
-Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Delirium wrote:
These seem to have been cleaned up pretty quickly, which is nice to see. Wikipedia's actually better now for Mr. Kell's contributions---even though the original ones were not neutral, they did contain some good information that we previously didn't have, and now do.
-Mark
The problem is, I cleaned them up by cutting out a lot of potentially useful information because it was original research and I didn't know how to go about citing it, since I'm not familiar with the issue. Check the edit histories.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Delirium wrote:
These seem to have been cleaned up pretty quickly, which is nice to see. Wikipedia's actually better now for Mr. Kell's contributions---even though the original ones were not neutral, they did contain some good information that we previously didn't have, and now do.
The problem is, I cleaned them up by cutting out a lot of potentially useful information because it was original research and I didn't know how to go about citing it, since I'm not familiar with the issue. Check the edit histories.
Shouldn't you be moving such sections to the Talk page?
It's cute that they announced it, though. If only all POV-pushers were so convenient. It's also somewhat cute that they "joined the authoring ranks of Wikipedia" -- as if it takes active membership and not just clicking on the "Login" button.
FF
On 11/10/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I just got this from my Google alert on Wikipedia: http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2145845/tax-group-say-wik...
"The Professional Contractors Group (PCG), an organisation for freelance and temporary contract workers in the UK, has joined the authoring ranks of Wikipedia, the open source encyclopaedia.
John Kell, political researcher for the PCG, has written three entries, two on British taxation law, with a decidedly pro-PCG bias."
These articles are being written by [[User:John Kell]]. I recently placed {{NPOV}} templates on the articles [[IR35]] and [[S660A]] for reasons that should become obvious in the context of their content, and [[Professional Contractors Group]] as well. This seems to be an attempt by a political lobby group to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not intimately familiar with the political situation surrounding these statutes, so I would ask that other users try to help me in making the articles more neutral.
Ryan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDc7gW6MKb8lYmCtcRAoqtAJ9qJe/dFQNw3I/o0nT3ctCthq+qAgCfdJlN dKiMGY+JEO9xVr7/jOCqq3U= =9iQ9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
It's cute that they announced it, though. If only all POV-pushers were so convenient. It's also somewhat cute that they "joined the authoring ranks of Wikipedia" -- as if it takes active membership and not just clicking on the "Login" button.
Hrm, I wonder if they will just as noticably "join the ranks of banned users at Wikipedia"... :-P
On 11/11/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
It's cute that they announced it, though. If only all POV-pushers were so convenient. It's also somewhat cute that they "joined the authoring ranks of Wikipedia" -- as if it takes active membership and not just clicking on the "Login" button.
Hrm, I wonder if they will just as noticably "join the ranks of banned users at Wikipedia"... :-P
I hope not. Personly I suspect that once they find out how hard it is to push their POV they will give up.
-- geni