-----Original Message----- From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 08:03 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to contemplate what Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of dogs fall on someone after he and his ilk are in control, I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by and do nothing.
The central problem in all of this is the hyperbole. At worst the WR-ites are a bunch of malcontents whose not always coherent ravings can be ignored by choosing not to visit their site. As a "pack of dogs", they rank right up there in threat with a litter of Pekinese pups.
I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
Fred
On 02/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 08:03 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to
contemplate what
Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of dogs fall on someone
after he and
his ilk are in control, I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by
and do
nothing.
The central problem in all of this is the hyperbole. At worst the WR-ites are a bunch of malcontents whose not always coherent ravings can be ignored by choosing not to visit their site. As a "pack of dogs", they rank right up there in threat with a litter of Pekinese pups.
I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
sooo... why was the link to wikipedia review removed and why did you endorse the blocking of the editor who added it, and why did you claim that the ruling covered the adding of such a link.
you are incredibly inconsistent.
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 08:03 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to
contemplate what
Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of dogs fall on someone
after he and
his ilk are in control, I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by
and do
nothing.
The central problem in all of this is the hyperbole. At worst the WR-ites are a bunch of malcontents whose not always coherent ravings can be ignored by choosing not to visit their site. As a "pack of dogs", they rank right up there in threat with a litter of Pekinese pups.
I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why did you endorse my block if this is the case? The block was enacted solely on the ruling in the MONGO case and was applied to my reverting to a version of a page that contained a reference to Wikipedia Review. If there was no arbitration ruling that relates to Wikipedia Review, how is the justification for my block valid? Why did you support it?
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
Perhaps you have forgotten then that the "attack sites" proposal was directed at it.