Jimmy Wales wrote:
Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia. Would someone with the appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this technically true.
As always, Joe is invited to write to me to discuss this further, and/or is invited to the mailing list.
Some have expressed a strong conviction that Joe Canuck is the same person or persons as DW, etc. I express no opinion on that matter, and find that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning. To the extent that it is true, of course, then just being the same person is grounds for a continuation of the ban.
--Jimbo
what has he done?
Just to clarify for those who don't know:
(1) He systematicaly downloaded a series of images to wikipedia, many of which may well have been copyright.
(2) When a number of users asked him to clarify their status, he became highly verbally abusive, issued legal threats and then deleted the questions from his talk page.
After a series of requests and after consulting with various users I removed the images from the pages and placed them on the Votes for Deletion page. A note was left with each image stressing the problems with copyright and stating that they were listed for deletion. (Given his history of deleting 'unwelcome' comments I thought it safer to protect the image pages, so that he could not delete the note and then claim he did not know of it.) All users without exception who commented said that in view of his refusal to give /any/ information on their original sources, the images should be deleted.
(3) Though asked not to, Canuck reinserted the images into the pages. When users removed them, he tried to reinsert them yet again. To stop these edit wars, I was forced to protect all the pages onto which he continually tried to reinsert the images /temporarily/.
(4) Canuck then verbally abused and threatened users on the Votes for Deletion page and on various talk pages.
(5) A close examination of his edit pattern, and the /manner/ in which he edited pages (eg, removing birth and death dates from after a person's name in the first line, the standard encyclopædic method of entry which is also used by wikipedia), coupled with the nature of his abuse left little doubt but that Joe Canuck was banned user DW, who was banned for among other reasons verbally abusing users and charging article structures to a version he wanted, even when users told him that his version was contrary to wiki style.
In view of the refusal to give details of the origins of images, the sheer scale of his abuse of users and the overwhelming evidence that he was a banned user, a number of users requested his immediate banning. Though not commenting on the issue of whether he was DW (which was academic in the circumstances), Jimbo agreed that Canuck's behaviour was so completely contrary to all wiki stands for as to warrant immediate banning. Following his banning I immediately removed all the protections placed on the pages.
Unfortunately the history of this user as DW, Black Widow and now as Joe Canuck suggests that he will return, will continue to download and install images the copyright status of which he will refuse to clarify, and when challenged will begin verbally abusing people again. While users like Michael and Adam have been banned for adding in textual inaccuracies to articles and for acting provocatively to other users, DW/Joe Canuck's behaviour is far more serious in so far as by blatently using potentially copyright images he endangers wiki itself, through the possibility of legal problems arising from his action. The fact that he is consistently abusive /in the extreme/ to anyone who gets in his way or simply politely asks as to the status of his images makes dealing with him a particularly unpleasant experience.
For evidence of his abuse, see [[User:Joe Canuck]] page, onto which his abuse has been transferred from other pages. Also [[Votes for Deletion]].
JT.
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
(this is being sent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)
This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation. The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left to stand along English lines.
The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I have been talking at length about this). Proper English spelling then is generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is used by billions around the world. Similar to Han characters, which can be read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.
Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to their proper pronunciation. Proper names have long undergone a normal Anglicization when translated to English. Attempts in different aread have been made to reform this -- the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin, being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese. Im not going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.
A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of the other languages combined. (Internet access issues, WP founded by English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers. There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills, should feel like they are unwelcome - (as long as they can take correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their articles - certainly integrated language tools -implementation might someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.
In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense - for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness of people to use them. Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.
Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be paid for being the common tongue. There will always be a struggle between the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different value systems. The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres only its own.
All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc) let "Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of Czechlosovakia. Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere. Why depricated? Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example) . Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.
WLBUY, -SteveM.
(this is being REsent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)
This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation. The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left to stand along English lines.
The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I have been talking at length about this). Proper English spelling then is generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is used by billions around the world. Similar to Han characters, which can be read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.
Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to their proper pronunciation. Proper names have long undergone a normal Anglicization when translated to English. Attempts in different aread have been made to reform this -- the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin, being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese. Im not going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.
A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of the other languages combined. (Internet access issues, WP founded by English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers. There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills, should feel like they are unwelcome - (as long as they can take correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their articles - certainly integrated language tools -implementation might someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.
In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense - for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness of people to use them. Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.
Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be paid for being the common tongue. There will always be a struggle between the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different value systems. The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres only its own.
All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc) let "Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of Czechlosovakia. Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere. Why depricated? Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example) . Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.
WLBUY, -SteveM.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Response to STEVEN
Steven: I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this issue, but I believe that this | suggestion is misguided. Proper names have been translated from | their original language into others long before English came on the | scene.
Well, no more. The point is that "long before" the web and Wikipedia were born -- a lot of things were true -- many of them little known. Now its not the case -- on an almost daily basis we edit pages that are also edited by people from Deutschland (hey Erik), Eire (James), (complicated).... ZhongGuo (Samuel), Ceska Republika (xChaos) -etc.etc... The proper name of Africa might be whatever the people of Africa - refer to it - namely "Africa" -- certainly European colonial history plays a role there.
| In English, the capital of the Czech Republic is Prague. This is a | translation of the name. As you point out, there is some | momentum in the English to use translations that more closely | approximate the pronunciation in the dominant language of the | area. However, language evolves naturally. Wikipedia can declare | "Prague" deprecated, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the | rest of the English speaking world, and it would make the project | look silly. | | - Stephen G.
Well, I wouldnt want to make anyone "look silly." Heavens no.
-Stevertigo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stevertigo wrote: | This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of | spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation. | The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - - the | actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left | to stand along English lines.
Hear him, hear him! I have long lobbied for my city to re-adopt its true name of Yang-na, given to it by its original inhabitants. The religious-fundamentalist colonialist oppressors have successfully insisted on their own foreign name of "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora, la Reina de Los Angeles de la Porciuncula" for far too long now -- and even that abomination of a name is often abbreviated even further, implying that the Christian concept of angels defines our city in its entirety!
It is good to know that Stevertigo agrees with me that mere millions of people and centuries of tradition cannot be allowed to stand in the way of CORRECTNESS.
I'd just like to point out that if I couldn't succeed in getting [[Occam's Razor]] to redirect to [[Ockham's Razor]] (rather than vice versa) then there is no way in hell that [[Prague]] will ever redirect to [[Praha]]. ;)
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
I'm starting to understand the Lir school of edit first ask questions later. I'm sure Mav would agree.
-Steverti Gogh-
| Dante: I'd just like to point out that if I couldn't succeed in getting [[Occam's | Razor]] to redirect to [[Ockham's Razor]] (rather than vice versa) then | there is no way in hell that [[Prague]] will ever redirect to [[Praha]]. ;)
Sean Barrett wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation. The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - - the actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left to stand along English lines.
Hear him, hear him! I have long lobbied for my city to re-adopt its true name of Yang-na, given to it by its original inhabitants. The religious-fundamentalist colonialist oppressors have successfully insisted on their own foreign name of "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora, la Reina de Los Angeles de la Porciuncula" for far too long now -- and even that abomination of a name is often abbreviated even further, implying that the Christian concept of angels defines our city in its entirety!
O good Lord!
It's bad enough that we're repeating arguments in the wrong space (naming convention discussions belong on naming convention talk pages, in this case [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)]]), and without saying anything that hasn't been said before (Steve doesn't seem to have read any of the old discussion, and mav seems to have no interest in pointing him to it), but now even the inane strawmen are being repeated almost verbatim.
Stop wasting my time!
-- Toby