On 6/30/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: Why did you create the page, and how do you justify its continued existence in a website dedicated to creating an encyclopedia? Erik

On 6/30/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: Arguments based on server load do not wash. If server load is ever an issue, the developers can tell us what to do. Note that this doesn't only apply to this instance, but to all editorial actions (as opposed to those done by developers). Let's not put words into their mouths. -- Sam

On 6/30/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: The moment something outside the encyclopedia space which you merely find amusing becomes disruptive and annoying to other editors, there's little justification to keep it around. Certainly disk space is not one. You could have demonstrated maturity and blanked the page yourself. Instead you reverted the MFD notice, put a big "jajaja" text on your user page, and commented on MFD itself: "If it crashes Firefox, maybe you should use a non-broken browser. " Don't get me wrong. It is legitimate to experiment and try to determine whether there are HTML instructions that might crash or freeze common browsers. This should be done in a subpage clearly designated for that purpose, such as [[/Browser crash test]]. If you then can reproduce certain behavior, you can report a bug -- either for the browser, or for MediaWiki to filter these instructions. Asking community members to help you with such an effort to test problematic browser behavior is a positive way to contribute on the technical level. What you have demonstrated, however, is not mature behavior, and I support the (one week) block being upheld for the time being, at least until you acknowledge this. Erik

On 6/30/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: Preferably, *not* on Wikipedia itself, though. "Wikipedia is not a web host" applies quite strongly here, and it's quite easy to set up a MediaWiki instance where you can play a crashing browsers and whatnot. While the tester may not mean harm, a local (and hence transcludable) page on English Wikipedia that caused problems for browsers would be a gift to any alert vandals.

On 6/30/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: SPUI has now been unblocked after a discussion on WP:ANI. I think we need to avoid having unblock discussions in multiple places at the same time -- perhaps when we start using unblock-en, we can try to more systematically centralize all discussion there. Erik

On 6/30/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think it's the best option. It sucks that they have to write an email, but it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest their block if they are, well, blocked. Ryan

On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag. Steve

On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: I presume the problem is with people who are scared to reveal their real name. They have two very easy options: (1) get over it, or (2) get a free webmail account which identifies as their SN. ~ESkog

On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs inculsionist battles. -- geni

On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Doubtful. Historicaly most encyclopedias have not been NPOV. Of course the problem here is that prior to wikipedia no one sat down to work out solid defintion of what an encyclopedia is. NPOV does has a role to play of course. You use it along with the verifabiltiy stuff. Non only should there be enough information to write an article but enough to write an NPOV article. This does not appear to be universialy accepted though. -- geni

On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Even if you subtract the newbies, it's fairly obvious that there is no consensus to delete. I think the page should be kept for now, but this is a special case of WP:MEME where the meme is still very young and it's hard to determine how ephemeral it will be. There's nothing wrong with doing another AfD two or three months from now. In the case of [[Brian Peppers]], Jimmy tried an article creation moratorium as an alternative approach. Peppers, however, is another special case where human dignity is concerned. I see no harm in keeping a verifiable, limited page about [[Eon8]] for the time being. I am very wary of viral marketing crap, but this seems to be a harmless experiment without a clear commercial motive. If someone is looking for a nice wiki idea to launch, I suspect a "MemeWatch" wiki that explicitly allows original research would do rather well, and we could point many of the forum people who keep coming up in cases like that in this direction. Applying our existing policies seems more important to me than keeping the encyclopedia free of "trivial" content. With 1.2 million articles, including a page dedicated to anthropomorphized operating systems ([[List of OS-tans]]) and an entire category of lists of fictional animals, that strikes me as a rather quixotic enterprise. Erik

On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I don't see what it has to do with NPOV and why you spell cabal with a "q." This is not a case of WP being specifically targeted for planting a meme; it _is_ a meme: http://technorati.com/search/eon8 As stupid as it may be, it's notable enough to document. You need to stop worrying and learn to love the wiki. Erik

On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted. -- geni

Erik Moeller wrote: And now it's deleted again. It's been put up for review at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Eon8>. I don't frequent AfD so perhaps I get a skewed impression, but does anyone think that the prevalence of extremely hyperbolic "strong" voting is on the increase? AfD isn't even supposed to be a vote in the first place, technically, so giving a vote to "Destroy, pillage and salt the earth of this accursed article" or "Strong strong strong KEEP" seems kind of silly and pointless. The calls to _ban_ article contributors and/or people who voted to keep the article are even more silly, well over into the realm of blatantly stupid - AfD is not ArbCom, the very notion of crossing the two gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe it's just these specific highly contentious arguments where that sort of thing happens.

Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: . I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew content is the entire premise. I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a template. To my horror, it noted: "The community is interested in process not content". This is madness. - Randall Brackett _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: Obsessive? Please clarify "obsessive." Do you have a reliable source which states that over 10 hpd is "obsessive"? Are there significant dissenting views? This statement reeks of anti-geek POV. (obligatory smiley: :-) ) -kc-

On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ...and as I mentioned, it's a necessary one. Surely we can move on now. Ryan

On 7/4/06, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'm not sure that's the friendliest, most welcoming attitude we could possibly give to someone who has possibly been wrongly blocked (it happens, you know). But I'll leave it there. Steve

Randall Brackett <megamanzero521@yahoocom> wrote: On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote: -- I've no idea what the manner of this conversation has to do with SPUI. I was under the impression the focal point of this e-mail thread was the discussion of the unblock and the editor in question. In relevance, I paticularly don't think this user should be unblocked so easily anymore. I'm not very experienced with SPUI, but to have multiple blocks, consistant comments concerning behavior on WP:AN/I, blatent disregard to dispute resolution and egregrious edit warring is not the standards demanded of us as wikipedians. SPUI is a good contributor, but unfourtunetly he trolls (look at his userpage) and its very commonplace for him and the editors familiar with the behavior. Its a bit of travesty, I believe, when a wikipedian is not sastisfied with producing an encyclopedia and sharing knowledge, that he must degrade to silly games and disruption to waste resources. I too have a long and productive editting history, but I really don't see why my fellow wikipedians would have to tolerate me if I resorted to such nonsense. - Randall Brackett _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

On 7/5/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I find ignoreing him works most of the time. -- geni

Fred Bauder wrote: I'm not an admin - Freakofnurture restored it for the VFU.