I just took a look at [[George VI of the United Kingdom]], which has been protected by jtdirl, citing persistent vandalism. jtdirl is a participant on the lame edit war running on this and similar pages, and has naturally protected it in his preferred version.
The vandalism he's protecting? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom&am... for an example. Anyone ever heard of the British Royal von Wettin dynasty?
At 07:36 PM 8/2/2005, Skyring wrote:
Anyone ever heard of the British Royal von Wettin dynasty?
It's technically correct. The House of Windsor was originally called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a branch of the House of Wettin. If a dynasty includes rulers of different countries at the same time, as was the case with the Wettins, people often identify sub-dynasties, and so Windsor/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a sub-dynasty of Wettin.
Chl
On 8/3/05, Chris Lüer chris@zandria.net wrote:
It's technically correct. The House of Windsor was originally called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a branch of the House of Wettin. If a dynasty includes rulers of different countries at the same time, as was the case with the Wettins, people often identify sub-dynasties, and so Windsor/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a sub-dynasty of Wettin.
And if anyone really cares enough to want to know that much detail, they'll click on the wikilink to [[House of Windsor]] and read all about it. Short is sweet, after all.
On 03/08/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
I just took a look at [[George VI of the United Kingdom]], which has been protected by jtdirl, citing persistent vandalism. jtdirl is a participant on the lame edit war running on this and similar pages, and has naturally protected it in his preferred version.
The vandalism he's protecting? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom&am... for an example. Anyone ever heard of the British Royal von Wettin dynasty?
Reading [[Wettin (dynasty)]] shows the "vandalism" edit to be, well, exactly that.
Thiis would be a good use for per-article blocking.
Dan
Skyring wrote:
I just took a look at [[George VI of the United Kingdom]], which has been protected by jtdirl, citing persistent vandalism. jtdirl is a participant on the lame edit war running on this and similar pages, and has naturally protected it in his preferred version.
An anonymous ip number vandalized the page repeatedly and the vandalism has been reverted repeatedly by a few different people. Eventually, jtdirl protected the page.
This is so routine and boring that I can only interpret this email as yet another instance of you harassing jtdirl -- you've already been in trouble for this in the past -- doing it on the mailng list isn't likely to be given any sympathy.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I just took a look at [[George VI of the United Kingdom]], which has been protected by jtdirl, citing persistent vandalism. jtdirl is a participant on the lame edit war running on this and similar pages, and has naturally protected it in his preferred version.
An anonymous ip number vandalized the page repeatedly and the vandalism has been reverted repeatedly by a few different people.
I don't see how this is vandalism. It looks like a disagreement over a minor editorial difference.
Chl
Hear, hear!
--en:Cyberjunkie
-----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@wikia.com] Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 9:26 PM To: Skyring; English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is this right?
Skyring wrote:
I just took a look at [[George VI of the United Kingdom]], which has been protected by jtdirl, citing persistent vandalism. jtdirl is a participant on the lame edit war running on this and similar pages, and has naturally protected it in his preferred version.
An anonymous ip number vandalized the page repeatedly and the vandalism has been reverted repeatedly by a few different people. Eventually, jtdirl protected the page.
This is so routine and boring that I can only interpret this email as yet another instance of you harassing jtdirl -- you've already been in trouble for this in the past -- doing it on the mailng list isn't likely to be given any sympathy.
--Jimbo
On 8/4/05, Cyberjunkie swatso@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Hear, hear!
--en:Cyberjunkie
Ah, yes! Mr Anonymous Editor. Good to hear from you again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=2...
Well, that confirms my opinion of you. You persist only to besmirch others'.
--Cyberjunkie
-----Original Message----- From: Skyring [mailto:skyring@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 3:05 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is this right?
On 8/4/05, Cyberjunkie swatso@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Hear, hear!
--en:Cyberjunkie
Ah, yes! Mr Anonymous Editor. Good to hear from you again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=2 11.29.1.21
On 8/5/05, Cyberjunkie swatso@optusnet.com.au wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Skyring [mailto:skyring@gmail.com]
Ah, yes! Mr Anonymous Editor. Good to hear from you again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=2 11.29.1.21
Well, that confirms my opinion of you. You persist only to besmirch others'.
One could say the same of you, brother, given the nature of your message. But that would be equally wrong, wouldn't it?
It is hard to Assume Good Faith of that particular message, but you'd be hard pressed indeed to find an edit of mine which was malicious or intentionally offensive.