To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s) of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the) Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more (>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation, Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First (1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this: all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia. We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been] blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl, RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite) (contribs) (all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism? Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto.
Indeed, Oronto was not a vandal.
He was a troll, a POV pusher, and a moron. His countless good faith edits amount to less than 50, all of which either involved adding a sentence accusing Nietzsche of "absurd and childish hatred of women" (Which he insisted was a NPOV characterization) or adding the {{test}} message to the userpage of anyone who reverted him.
This is not vandalism.
Now, having established that, good riddance.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Polytarp! wrote:
To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s) of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the) Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more (>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation, Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First (1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this: all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia. We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been] blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl, RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite) (contribs) (all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism? Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The latter certainly sounds like vandalism in my book, even if the former narrowly escapes that definition.
-- ambi
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:34 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Indeed, Oronto was not a vandal.
He was a troll, a POV pusher, and a moron. His countless good faith edits amount to less than 50, all of which either involved adding a sentence accusing Nietzsche of "absurd and childish hatred of women" (Which he insisted was a NPOV characterization) or adding the {{test}} message to the userpage of anyone who reverted him.
This is not vandalism.
Now, having established that, good riddance.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Polytarp! wrote:
To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s) of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the) Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more (>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation, Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First (1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this: all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia. We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been] blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl, RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite) (contribs) (all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism? Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think the latter is more assholery than anything else. He didn't blank pages. I've seen admins occasionally use the {{test}} template in pure and dripping sarcasm to point out utterly stupid additions. This could conceivably have been a case of that.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 14, 2004, at 1:25 AM, Rebecca wrote:
The latter certainly sounds like vandalism in my book, even if the former narrowly escapes that definition.
-- ambi
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:34 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Indeed, Oronto was not a vandal.
He was a troll, a POV pusher, and a moron. His countless good faith edits amount to less than 50, all of which either involved adding a sentence accusing Nietzsche of "absurd and childish hatred of women" (Which he insisted was a NPOV characterization) or adding the {{test}} message to the userpage of anyone who reverted him.
This is not vandalism.
Now, having established that, good riddance.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Polytarp! wrote:
To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s) of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the) Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more (>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation, Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First (1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this: all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia. We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been] blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl, RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite) (contribs) (all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism? Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
He also insists on editing the [[Neva]] article by saying that the water from the river tastes like Rasputin.
RickK
Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote: Indeed, Oronto was not a vandal.
He was a troll, a POV pusher, and a moron. His countless good faith edits amount to less than 50, all of which either involved adding a sentence accusing Nietzsche of "absurd and childish hatred of women" (Which he insisted was a NPOV characterization) or adding the {{test}} message to the userpage of anyone who reverted him.
This is not vandalism.
Now, having established that, good riddance.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Polytarp! wrote:
To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s) of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the) Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more (>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation, Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First (1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this: all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia. We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been] blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl, RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite) (contribs) (all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism? Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
Okay, now that's just daft.
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:He also insists on editing the [[Neva]] article by saying that the water from the river tastes like Rasputin.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
At 12:12 PM 10/14/2004 -0700, Mike Halterman wrote:
Okay, now that's just daft.
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:He also insists on editing the [[Neva]] article by saying that the water from the river tastes like Rasputin.
RickK
Yeah. Rasputin tastes _nothing_ like Neva river water.
Mike Halterman wrote:
Okay, now that's just daft.
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:He also insists on editing the [[Neva]] article by saying that the water from the river tastes like Rasputin.
It sounds like a Russian version of the "Big Rock Candy Mountain", except that it's vodka instead of whisky that's flowing. :-)
Ec
Seeing as people have derided to trivialize my complaints instead of acting upon them, I have remanifestestinied my account under the CLEVER name "U Tworonto." It's pronounced the same way, but it's spelled such as to include the fact that it's the SECOND in a series!
Isn't that just absolutely clever?!
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:38:01 -0700, Polytarp! polytarp@gmail.com wrote:
To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s) of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the) Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more (>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation, Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First (1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this: all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia. We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been] blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl, RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite) (contribs) (all of user's edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism? Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto.
Polytarp! wrote:
Seeing as people have derided to trivialize my complaints instead of acting upon them, I have remanifestestinied my account under the CLEVER name "U Tworonto." It's pronounced the same way, but it's spelled such as to include the fact that it's the SECOND in a series!
Isn't that just absolutely clever?!
Brilliant. Blocked. Lucky you! You annoyed Jimbo himself. I haven't personally blocked anyone in a long time. I don't even know what the rules are about it! And I don't care! :-)
Now, if you want to relax and talk about something sensible, feel free.
--Jimbo
p.s. Yes, due process, blah blah blah. He's feel to appeal his ban to, uh, anyone actually.
Based on the name and conduct, I dare say Ute is probably female and (possibly quite) young. Maybe that could be asked about and/or taken into account? Just a thought.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 16 Oct 2004, at 04:17, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Polytarp! wrote:
Seeing as people have derided to trivialize my complaints instead of acting upon them, I have remanifestestinied my account under the CLEVER name "U Tworonto." It's pronounced the same way, but it's spelled such as to include the fact that it's the SECOND in a series!
Isn't that just absolutely clever?!
Brilliant. Blocked. Lucky you! You annoyed Jimbo himself. I haven't personally blocked anyone in a long time. I don't even know what the rules are about it! And I don't care! :-)
Now, if you want to relax and talk about something sensible, feel free.
--Jimbo
p.s. Yes, due process, blah blah blah. He's feel to appeal his ban to, uh, anyone actually. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
:(
This is the second time in as many or so months I've been called a girl.
Oh well.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:00:34 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Based on the name and conduct, I dare say Ute is probably female and (possibly quite) young. Maybe that could be asked about and/or taken into account? Just a thought.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 16 Oct 2004, at 04:17, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Polytarp! wrote:
Seeing as people have derided to trivialize my complaints instead of acting upon them, I have remanifestestinied my account under the CLEVER name "U Tworonto." It's pronounced the same way, but it's spelled such as to include the fact that it's the SECOND in a series!
Isn't that just absolutely clever?!
Brilliant. Blocked. Lucky you! You annoyed Jimbo himself. I haven't personally blocked anyone in a long time. I don't even know what the rules are about it! And I don't care! :-)
Now, if you want to relax and talk about something sensible, feel free.
--Jimbo
p.s. Yes, due process, blah blah blah. He's feel to appeal his ban to, uh, anyone actually. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So what? Does that mean we need to allow a person to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia? Have you even checked out this person's edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=... Are we just supposed to let them go ahead and troll for as long as they want to?
If they had even bothered to make ONE useful edit, they might have had an argument for not being blocked. His/he very first edit was to the Vandalism in progress page, in which he/she tried to support their vandalism as an anon. Things went downhill from there.
RickK
Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote: Based on the name and conduct, I dare say Ute is probably female and (possibly quite) young. Maybe that could be asked about and/or taken into account? Just a thought.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 16 Oct 2004, at 04:17, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Polytarp! wrote:
Seeing as people have derided to trivialize my complaints instead of acting upon them, I have remanifestestinied my account under the CLEVER name "U Tworonto." It's pronounced the same way, but it's spelled such as to include the fact that it's the SECOND in a series!
Isn't that just absolutely clever?!
Brilliant. Blocked. Lucky you! You annoyed Jimbo himself. I haven't personally blocked anyone in a long time. I don't even know what the rules are about it! And I don't care! :-)
Now, if you want to relax and talk about something sensible, feel free.
--Jimbo
p.s. Yes, due process, blah blah blah. He's feel to appeal his ban to, uh, anyone actually. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
Jens Ropers a écrit:
Based on the name and conduct, I dare say Ute is probably female and (possibly quite) young. Maybe that could be asked about and/or taken into account? Just a thought.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
Why being a female should exactly make a difference ?
Okay, okay, I was wrong on both counts. Mea culpa. I didn't mean to say that being a female makes a difference -- that bit was in relation to the way Ute was addressed (but Ute has since replied and clarified that he is male). The age thing is something that I tried to note but that's still unclear and others have made valid points about not giving younger contributors free reign, so I rest my case. It was just a flip thought anyway.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 16 Oct 2004, at 12:37, Anthere wrote:
Jens Ropers a écrit:
Based on the name and conduct, I dare say Ute is probably female and (possibly quite) young. Maybe that could be asked about and/or taken into account? Just a thought. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
Why being a female should exactly make a difference ?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l