I'm a lurker on the mailing list, but I wanted to note my support for the cookie-banning idea. I am viciously opposed to cookies, and I wouldn't support anything more difficult than a simple cookie to get rid of (I know how to do that, and I'm computer-retarded). The user Michael/Weezer, however, probably does not know. I have no reason to suspect this, except that he doesn't really seem to be capable of doing anything (i.e. writing complete sentences, responding to others like a human being, avoiding creating facts) and his dozens of IP addresses, which change with nearly every edit, make banning simply not a feasible option. I would guess that a cookie-block would keep him from editing, leaving me and Zoe and Salsa Shark and Eloquence and KQ and everyone else much more time to add actual content to the Wikipedia.
TUF-KAT
PS: I've been wholesale reverting everything he does, as has many other people. Does anyone have a problem with me outright deleting articles that have nothing to revert to? These are almost entirely minor punkish-emo bands and the track listings for their albums (presumably, I don't check whether or not he's correct anymore) and I just delete them if there is nothing to revert to.
PPS: On my user page, you will find a link to [[TUF-KAT/Pseudo-album stubs]]. Please add a link to any article on an album that does not have: *A track listing *Album cover *Complete personnel/Billboard chart positions *At least a sentence or three about how it fits in the band/genre's oeuvre (sp?)
Including the above will make these articles worthwhile stubs, while "XXX is an album by ZZZ" with a track listing helps no one.
PPPS: While I'm posting anyway, could we all make an effort to include our Wikipedia names in our posts if isn't the same as whatever is in our "from" box? I've been confused on more than one occasion for this reason. (I know I haven't always done this, but let's all make a pledge...)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
--- Tucci tucci528@yahoo.com wrote:
could we all make an effort to include our Wikipedia names in our posts if isn't the same as whatever is in our "from" box? I've been confused on more than one occasion for this reason.
I agree. I also don't like that our software makes it easy to sign comments with nicknames different from usernames. By now there are some people for whom you need to memorize three names (nickname, username, mailing list name), and some people even change their nicknames around. This behavior is childish and makes it harder to follow discussions. I think it shouldn't be encouraged by the software.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
-+- Tucci tucci528@yahoo.com wrote:
could we all make an effort to include our Wikipedia names in our posts if isn't the same as whatever is in our "from" box? I've been confused on more than one occasion for this reason.
I agree. I also don't like that our software makes it easy to sign comments with nicknames different from usernames. By now there are some people for whom you need to memorize three names (nickname, username, mailing list name), and some people even change their nicknames around. This behavior is childish and makes it harder to follow discussions. I think it shouldn't be encouraged by the software.
Agreed. I think the nickname/username distinction was well-intended, but creates more problems than it solves.
Regards,
Erik (Eloquence)
Erik Moeller wrote:
I agree. I also don't like that our software makes it easy to sign comments with nicknames different from usernames. By now there are some people for whom you need to memorize three names (nickname, username, mailing list name), and some people even change their nicknames around. This behavior is childish and makes it harder to follow discussions. I think it shouldn't be encouraged by the software.
Agreed. I think the nickname/username distinction was well-intended, but creates more problems than it solves.
*sigh* if only people were *sensible* with these things.... "mav" for "Maverick149" is pretty clear.
I don't think there's anything wrong with album listings on wikipedia. They could be useful, and they are information, even if an encyclopedia wouldn't print it.
Tucci tucci528@yahoo.com wrote:PS: I've been wholesale reverting everything he does, as has many other people. Does anyone have a problem with me outright deleting articles that have nothing to revert to? These are almost entirely minor punkish-emo bands and the track listings for their albums (presumably, I don't check whether or not he's correct anymore) and I just delete them if there is nothing to revert to.
PPS: On my user page, you will find a link to [[TUF-KAT/Pseudo-album stubs]]. Please add a link to any article on an album that does not have: *A track listing *Album cover *Complete personnel/Billboard chart positions *At least a sentence or three about how it fits in the band/genre's oeuvre (sp?)
Including the above will make these articles worthwhile stubs, while "XXX is an album by ZZZ" with a track listing helps no one.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
At 02:23 PM 4/23/03 -0700, TUFKAT wrote:
PPS: On my user page, you will find a link to [[TUF-KAT/Pseudo-album stubs]]. Please add a link to any article on an album that does not have: *A track listing *Album cover *Complete personnel/Billboard chart positions *At least a sentence or three about how it fits in the band/genre's oeuvre (sp?)
Including the above will make these articles worthwhile stubs, while "XXX is an album by ZZZ" with a track listing helps no one.
While I agree that track listings aren't enough, I can easily imagine a useful article about, say, _Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band_ that doesn't have the Billboard chart positions. Similarly, a complete list of personnel isn't the most important information about a Jethro Tull or Frank Zappa album (though it would be worth adding).