Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Ed
From mailing list messages I read earlier, Wollmann's article already failed
VfD previously (and had serious NPOV issues). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:17 PM Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Ed
Admitedly... I am surprised his article was deleted for him being non notable... while at the same time he is mentionned in another article (which seems to imply he is...).
But maybe this is not an argument for notability ?
Ant
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050513 06:47]:
Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Admitedly... I am surprised his article was deleted for him being non notable... while at the same time he is mentionned in another article (which seems to imply he is...). But maybe this is not an argument for notability ?
"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
- d.
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
There are a number of policies which make notability a deletion criterion, even if they don't use the word "notability". It's certainly used as a criterion often enough; it may be the single most popular reason given for deletion.
Jay.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
JAY JG wrote:
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
There are a number of policies which make notability a deletion criterion, even if they don't use the word "notability". It's certainly used as a criterion often enough; it may be the single most popular reason given for deletion.
Jay.
Like "potential for expansion". Given Mr. W's recent activities, I'd say there's plenty of room for expansion. Also, Mr. W appears to be more notable than other people whose articles survived VfD (and set precedents for doing so).
I think there should be a request for undeletion on this.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax said:
I think there should be a request for undeletion on this.
I could reluctantly see that--if he's the first person to get into this kind of situation with Wikipedia, for instance. However I'm not sure it would be very ethical to undelete on those grounds. It seems too trollish to me (though I don't think you are proposing it for trollish reasons).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Alphax said:
I think there should be a request for undeletion on this.
I could reluctantly see that--if he's the first person to get into this kind of situation with Wikipedia, for instance. However I'm not sure it would be very ethical to undelete on those grounds. It seems too trollish to me (though I don't think you are proposing it for trollish reasons).
Did you read the pages...
David Gerard wrote:
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050512 15:34]:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Probably not at all. Read these:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/index.html http://www.smbtech.com/ed/whyed.html
- d.
In the context of his relevance in the AUK article: not only has he won AUK's "kook of the month" award many times, and "kook of the millenium", he has also had an award named after him.
It is well known that he has threatened everyone who disagrees with him with legal action; it is alleged on the site mentioned above that he has caused *hundreds* of people's ISPs to cancel their accounts, based solely on the fact that he asked them to.
If the latter is true, it makes him one of the most influential people on the Internet (usenet anyway), comparable to Kibo and Sollog.
As for the undeletion, maybe wait until the court papers come :)
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax said:
Did you read the pages...
I *contributed* a considerable amount of material to them, although I do not endorse them. [...]
It is well known that he has threatened everyone who disagrees with him with legal action; it is alleged on the site mentioned above that he has caused *hundreds* of people's ISPs to cancel their accounts, based solely on the fact that he asked them to.
One of my reasons for utterly repudiating the Wollmann fan club, prior to their compilation of that site, was their propensity for wild exaggeration, not to mention their tendency to unconsciously ape Wollmann himself. Wollmann claims to have persuaded ISP's to pull many accounts, because it is his intention to intimidate--he credits me with teaching him how to do this because I once reported him for spamming and his two accounts of that time were pulled. His fan club agrees that he has been successful, partly because it enables them to explain away the few times they've had their own accounts pulled for misbehaving, and partly because it serves their interests to make their own misbehavior look less serious in its consequences than his. I was for a considerable period of time, and may well still be, one of Wollmann's prime targets--my ISP told me they had received hundreds of complaint emails from Wollmann, and he inadvertently sent a number of the early complaints to me. ISP's do not pull the accounts of people who aren't misbehaving. None of the complaints ever resulted in any official or unofficial complaint or disciplinary action against me by my ISP. One ISP that received telephone complaints from Wollmann made an unprecedented post on Usenet detailing his bogus complaints. This is typical of Wollmann and his detractors. They exaggerate flagrantly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Alphax said:
Did you read the pages...
I *contributed* a considerable amount of material to them, although I do not endorse them. [...]
It is well known that he has threatened everyone who disagrees with him with legal action; it is alleged on the site mentioned above that he has caused *hundreds* of people's ISPs to cancel their accounts, based solely on the fact that he asked them to.
One of my reasons for utterly repudiating the Wollmann fan club, prior to their compilation of that site, was their propensity for wild exaggeration, not to mention their tendency to unconsciously ape Wollmann himself. Wollmann claims to have persuaded ISP's to pull many accounts, because it is his intention to intimidate--he credits me with teaching him how to do this because I once reported him for spamming and his two accounts of that time were pulled. His fan club agrees that he has been successful, partly because it enables them to explain away the few times they've had their own accounts pulled for misbehaving, and partly because it serves their interests to make their own misbehavior look less serious in its consequences than his. I was for a considerable period of time, and may well still be, one of Wollmann's prime targets--my ISP told me they had received hundreds of complaint emails from Wollmann, and he inadvertently sent a number of the early complaints to me. ISP's do not pull the accounts of people who aren't misbehaving. None of the complaints ever resulted in any official or unofficial complaint or disciplinary action against me by my ISP. One ISP that received telephone complaints from Wollmann made an unprecedented post on Usenet detailing his bogus complaints. This is typical of Wollmann and his detractors. They exaggerate flagrantly.
Even though I said "alleged", I still feel like a victim of Pierre Salinger syndrome.
"It must be true - I saw it on the Interweb!"
IHBT. IHL. DAMN.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Alphax said:
I think there should be a request for undeletion on this.
I could reluctantly see that--if he's the first person to get into this kind of situation with Wikipedia, for instance. However I'm not sure it would be very ethical to undelete on those grounds. It seems too trollish to me (though I don't think you are proposing it for trollish reasons).
A few days back I removed an external link Sj had added to the alt.usenet.kooks article that led to one of Wollmann's pages with his photographic art on display. The reason this link was added was to give Wollmann some context information since he was the only unlinked person in the list of award winners. This suggests to me that there's some legitimate interest in having a Wollman article, and I suggested moving that external link to it should one be created.
Bryan Derksen a écrit:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Alphax said:
I think there should be a request for undeletion on this.
I could reluctantly see that--if he's the first person to get into this kind of situation with Wikipedia, for instance. However I'm not sure it would be very ethical to undelete on those grounds. It seems too trollish to me (though I don't think you are proposing it for trollish reasons).
A few days back I removed an external link Sj had added to the alt.usenet.kooks article that led to one of Wollmann's pages with his photographic art on display. The reason this link was added was to give Wollmann some context information since he was the only unlinked person in the list of award winners. This suggests to me that there's some legitimate interest in having a Wollman article, and I suggested moving that external link to it should one be created.
Oh ! This was probably *the* link he was referring to.... He talked about a link leading to material copyrighted by him...which he wanted removed.
Ant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Before I realised I had been trolled, I wrote:
I think there should be a request for undeletion on this.
I was wrong. Anyone is welcome to request undeletion, if they follow the correct procedure, but I will not be supporting it.
Leave Mr. Wollmann in peace, and remove his name from the AUK article. Add the fact that some users of the newsgroup are extremely disliked by other rabid fanatical users, to the extent of spreading false information on the internet about them. Names not required.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Poor, Edmund W (Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com) [050513 06:20]:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
You haven't been around VFD much lately, I take it. It's not just an immune system but an autoimmune disease; people appear to be trying to use it as Wikipedia's quality control system.
- d.
Poor, Edmund W said:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Been there, done that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Edmond_Wollmann
Tony Sidaway a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W said:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Been there, done that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Edmond_Wollmann
The page leads nowhere... so, why was it deleted ?
Ant
"Anthere" anthere9@yahoo.com wrote in message news:4283EC15.50408@yahoo.com...
Tony Sidaway a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W said:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Been there, done that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Edmond_Wollmann
The page leads nowhere... so, why was it deleted ?
From a quick perusal and in very broad terms, because people are confusing
"non-encyclopaedic" with "non-notable".
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia is to gather together crumbs of information that individually are not particularly helpful to construct a whole which is.
There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the centre of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then implode under its own weight.
The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we turn into just a list of people *everybody* knows about already.
Phil Boswell (phil.boswell@gmail.com) [050513 18:42]:
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia is to gather together crumbs of information that individually are not particularly helpful to construct a whole which is. There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the centre of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then implode under its own weight. The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we turn into just a list of people *everybody* knows about already.
That's what I mean by "immune system turning into autoimmune disease".
I also find the argument that Wollmann's article was VFDed therefore we must purge all mention of him to be utterly unconvincing.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Phil Boswell (phil.boswell@gmail.com) [050513 18:42]:
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia is to gather together crumbs of information that individually are not particularly helpful to construct a whole which is. There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the centre of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then implode under its own weight. The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we turn into just a list of people *everybody* knows about already.
That's what I mean by "immune system turning into autoimmune disease".
I also find the argument that Wollmann's article was VFDed therefore we must purge all mention of him to be utterly unconvincing.
The add thing about this is that the article about Wollmann could be a vehicle for some objective facts in the matter. That's better than finding things piecemeal on the mailing list.
Ec