Jimbo wrote me an email: I think this one basically screwed your chances of being allowed back in, ever. Why don't you just give up and go away now? ---- Excuse me? I don't see how it is inappropriate to note that the statement should be attributed to a source. You asked for my opinion and you got it. If I had advocated adding to every presidents page: George Washington is viewed by many to be the best president. Abraham Lincoln is viewed by many to be the best president
etcetc
Bush is viewed by many to be the best president. It would be a bit redundant, no? As you said, "We could say the same thing in a number of articles, and it would be equally uncontroversially true in all of them." Does that merit inclusion in the article? Should we state that Iowa is the most beautiful state (to many), as is Georgia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, California, Texas, and New York? Should we go on to note that Pink Floyd is considered (by many) to be the best band, as is KISS and System of a Down. Should we note that the Blues Brothers is the best movie (as viewed by many) as is Aliens and Chicago?
"Erwin Rommel is considered by many to be the greatest general of modern times." hardly seems to be informative. Especially when the reader will find the same statement at the page for every single famous general.
I do not see why you are taking offense at my suggestion that a source be accredited whenever a pov statement is being made. I myself was earlier criticized for saying "Many people believe such and such" as somebody wanted to know WHO these many people are. Now that I agree with the earlier wikipedia consensus I am confronted by yet another contradictary wikipedia consensus. I do not see how it is a "troublesome" or {trollish" or "vindicative" or "immature" for me to try and discuss this with you.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Jimbo wrote me an email:
I think this one basically screwed your chances of being allowed back in, ever. Why don't you just give up and go away now?
Excuse me? I don't see how it is inappropriate to note that the statement should be attributed to a source.
Because, as usual, you seem to have absolutely no comprehension of why you were banned in the first place.
You make no apologies, you promise no changes.
--Jimbo
Lir is correct on this one, Jimmy. As long as he is showing respect for the efforts of others, his disagreements shouldn't be cause for banning. But that isn't what is happening here; Lir has decided to adopt the Wiki culture, and got slammed for it by you.
I agree; the quote about Nightfall being considered Asimov's greatest story NEEDS to be attributed; the 1968 consensus of certain Sci-Fi writers seems like sufficient attribution.
All this "many believe that" crap is very vague and un-encyclopedic. It makes it sound like we don't know much about the topics we are writing about.
No more double standards. Not for Lir, not for me, not for anyone.
Jonathan
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:17:06PM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Jimbo wrote me an email:
I think this one basically screwed your chances of being allowed back in, ever. Why don't you just give up and go away now?
Excuse me? I don't see how it is inappropriate to note that the statement should be attributed to a source. You asked for my opinion and you got it. If I had advocated adding to every presidents page:
George Washington is viewed by many to be the best president. Abraham Lincoln is viewed by many to be the best president
etcetc
Bush is viewed by many to be the best president.
It would be a bit redundant, no? As you said, "We could say the same thing in a number of articles, and it would be equally uncontroversially true in all of them." Does that merit inclusion in the article? Should we state that Iowa is the most beautiful state (to many), as is Georgia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, California, Texas, and New York? Should we go on to note that Pink Floyd is considered (by many) to be the best band, as is KISS and System of a Down. Should we note that the Blues Brothers is the best movie (as viewed by many) as is Aliens and Chicago?
"Erwin Rommel is considered by many to be the greatest general of modern times." hardly seems to be informative. Especially when the reader will find the same statement at the page for every single famous general.
I do not see why you are taking offense at my suggestion that a source be accredited whenever a pov statement is being made. I myself was earlier criticized for saying "Many people believe such and such" as somebody wanted to know WHO these many people are. Now that I agree with the earlier wikipedia consensus I am confronted by yet another contradictary wikipedia consensus. I do not see how it is a "troublesome" or {trollish" or "vindicative" or "immature" for me to try and discuss this with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
I've been trying to stay away from controversies here, but at the risk of alienation, I have to agree with Jonathan on this one. Note that I was not around when this whole Lir thing got started and haven't read the historical context.
M Carling
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Jonathan Walther wrote:
Lir is correct on this one, Jimmy. As long as he is showing respect for the efforts of others, his disagreements shouldn't be cause for banning. But that isn't what is happening here; Lir has decided to adopt the Wiki culture, and got slammed for it by you.
I agree; the quote about Nightfall being considered Asimov's greatest story NEEDS to be attributed; the 1968 consensus of certain Sci-Fi writers seems like sufficient attribution.
All this "many believe that" crap is very vague and un-encyclopedic. It makes it sound like we don't know much about the topics we are writing about.
No more double standards. Not for Lir, not for me, not for anyone.
Jonathan
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:17:06PM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Jimbo wrote me an email:
I think this one basically screwed your chances of being allowed back in, ever. Why don't you just give up and go away now?
Excuse me? I don't see how it is inappropriate to note that the statement should be attributed to a source. You asked for my opinion and you got it. If I had advocated adding to every presidents page:
George Washington is viewed by many to be the best president. Abraham Lincoln is viewed by many to be the best president
etcetc
Bush is viewed by many to be the best president.
It would be a bit redundant, no? As you said, "We could say the same thing in a number of articles, and it would be equally uncontroversially true in all of them." Does that merit inclusion in the article? Should we state that Iowa is the most beautiful state (to many), as is Georgia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, California, Texas, and New York? Should we go on to note that Pink Floyd is considered (by many) to be the best band, as is KISS and System of a Down. Should we note that the Blues Brothers is the best movie (as viewed by many) as is Aliens and Chicago?
"Erwin Rommel is considered by many to be the greatest general of modern times." hardly seems to be informative. Especially when the reader will find the same statement at the page for every single famous general.
I do not see why you are taking offense at my suggestion that a source be accredited whenever a pov statement is being made. I myself was earlier criticized for saying "Many people believe such and such" as somebody wanted to know WHO these many people are. Now that I agree with the earlier wikipedia consensus I am confronted by yet another contradictary wikipedia consensus. I do not see how it is a "troublesome" or {trollish" or "vindicative" or "immature" for me to try and discuss this with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
-- Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205 Email: djw@reactor-core.org Webpage: http://reactor-core.org Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
This is my last post about Lir today, and I hope my last one ever.
M Carling wrote:
I've been trying to stay away from controversies here, but at the risk of alienation, I have to agree with Jonathan on this one. Note that I was not around when this whole Lir thing got started and haven't read the historical context.
Jonathan is not a reliable source for anything related to policy. He's just one or two steps away from being banned himself.
The problem with Adam is that he refuses, consistently, to acknowledge his behavioral problems, the problems that led him to being banned in the first place. This latest episode is just the last straw. He was asked to talk about why he behaved the way he did. He could have apologized, but chose instead to obscure the issue by blathering about inconsequentials.
What he wants to do here is lead people into the belief that he was banned for reasons having to do with detailed discussion of complex questions of NPOV. That's not true at all. He was banned for calling people racists and generally behaving badly, as well as for extremely low quality and POV edits on a great many subjects.
And now it's all over, so we can get back to work.
--Jimbo
Thank you, Jimbo. You are doing the right thing.
-- Sean Barrett | She is the kind of woman who lives for sean@epoptic.com | others. You can spot the others by | their hunted expression. --C.S. Lewis
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:40 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Asimov-still POV
This is my last post about Lir today, and I hope my last one ever.
M Carling wrote:
I've been trying to stay away from controversies here, but at the risk
of
alienation, I have to agree with Jonathan on this one. Note that I
was
not around when this whole Lir thing got started and haven't read the historical context.
Jonathan is not a reliable source for anything related to policy. He's just one or two steps away from being banned himself.
The problem with Adam is that he refuses, consistently, to acknowledge his behavioral problems, the problems that led him to being banned in the first place. This latest episode is just the last straw. He was asked to talk about why he behaved the way he did. He could have apologized, but chose instead to obscure the issue by blathering about inconsequentials.
What he wants to do here is lead people into the belief that he was banned for reasons having to do with detailed discussion of complex questions of NPOV. That's not true at all. He was banned for calling people racists and generally behaving badly, as well as for extremely low quality and POV edits on a great many subjects.
And now it's all over, so we can get back to work.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
Does this mean we now have perpetual bans? I'm not very comfortable with that idea.
Eternity is a very long time. If Adam wants to reapply for admission in a couple of years, after he's grown up some, that'll be for us to look at in the future.
There could be permanent bans, in the case of threats of lawless violence, or repeated attempts to violate a ban. But by and large, no, we don't have to go that far.
But at some point we do have to stop talking about particular cases. Some people need to go, and when it's time to go, it's time to go.
This has been going on (Lir/Vera Cruz/Adam/Bridget) for months now. Enough is enough, that's all I'm saying.
--Jimbo