Still practicing, after all these years.
From the information provided to this list, it is reasonable to
assume that other wikipedians, besides this one, have been dealt with
by other arbcomcs, besides the pt.wiki arbcom, by their real names,
like Virgilio A. P. Machado, NOT their user names, like Vapmachado.
This page lists existing arbcoms:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee
For reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to
the communities at large, the assistance of the members of this list
is asked in helping identifying as many of those cases as possible.
This request for assistance is made, due to the dauting task of
searching each and everyone of the arbcoms archives to find those
examples. If readers provide information from the arbcoms with which
they are most familiar, this could be a fine example of cooperative
work. Given the assumption above, it is expected that the list member
who classified the original sentence as "extremely inaccurate" would
have no difficulty whatsoever in providing at least another example.
The cooperation of the other readers would also help to justify the
use of "extremely inaccurate." The mere occurrence of another case
hardly justifies classifying an accuracy of 50 % as "extremely inaccurate."
Please remember to provide a link to each case you may identify and
would be so kind as to contribute to the gathering of that
information. My own case can be found here:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09…
and
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitrage…
Thank you so very much for your cooperation and understanding.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
The one that can be fooled by some people all of the time, by all the
people some of the time, but not all of the people, all of the time.
At 21:34 07-12-2010, you wrote:
>When a person says "by an arbcom" it implies by one of several arbcoms that
>exist. The word "an" (um/uma) suggests one of several/many.
>
>Perhaps more accurately "by the Portuguese Wikipedia Arbcom"?
>
>The term "for what it's worth" (or "as an aside") in English implies
>information provided that may or may not be useful to the reader but is
>given because it is possibly helpful.
>
>
>FT2
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
>
> > Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect.
> >
> > The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by
> > an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned
> > has "extremely inaccurate."
> >
> > It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado
> > (Vapamachado)"
> >
> > Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be
> > understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki."
> >
> > What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text?
> >
> > If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that
> > qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the
> > comment and apologize.
> >
> > "for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful,
> > friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more
> > akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Virgilio A. P. Machado
> > The one with only this tag line
> >
> >
> > At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote:
> > >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real
> > > > name, NOT his user name!
> > > >
> > >
> > >This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth.
> > >
> > >FT2.
-------- Messaggio Originale --------
Oggetto: [Communia] Berlin, 14.01.2011 (public domain day)
Data: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:44:06 +0100
Da: J.C. DE MARTIN
A: communia(a)lists.communia-project.eu
PUBLIC DOMAIN DAY CELEBRATION - GERMANY
Date and Time: 14th January, 11:00-20:00
Place: CO Impakt, Erkelenzdamm 59 - 10999 Berlin
http://publicdomainday2011.eventbrite.com/
## Public Domain Day, Berlin, 14th January 2011
To celebrate Public Domain Day 2010 the Open Knowledge Foundation will
host an informal meetup in Berlin. The event will focus on
opportunities to reuse public domain works in interesting new ways,
whether as the basis for useful web services, in research and
education, or in the arts. Participants will include artists,
designers, developers, scholars, legal experts and representatives
from cultural heritage institutions.
The day will be a mix of showcasing examples of the reuse of public
domain works, discussions, and hands on workshops. There will also be
a 'public domain treasure hunt' where participants will be divided
into small groups and will sift through works which have just come
into the public domain in 2011 to look for interesting curiosities by
lesser known artists and authors as well as obscure works by more well
known creators.
Reference: Jonathan Gray, jonathan.gray(a)okfn.org
_______________________________________________
Communia mailing list
Communia(a)lists.communia-project.eu
https://lists.communia-project.eu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/communia
> You may check my user page too, on the Brazilian Portuguese
> Wikipedia. It's a barrel of laughs. Sorry you'll have to check the
> history. :-)
>
Well, as far as I am concerned creation of articles like this
http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=29663_1998_WH23&redirect=no or
like this http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrostis_taliensis in the amount of
several thousands per day with the only purpose of keeping clear from
Russian Wikipedia in terms of the number of articles damages the images of
Portuguese Wikipedia much more that transitions between the dialects. You
will soon become sort of the second Volapuk, and for Volapuk the dialect do
not really matter.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Seeing http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics I'm quite worried about the onlook.. choosing "year to date" tab shows a definite deacceleration (and we still need about 4x the current cumulative amount).
Therefore I'm particularly concerned about an ongoing campaign on catalan wikipedia asking to NOT donate to wikimedia (and instead give money to their own association).
Here is the campaign:http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Martorell&oldid=6…http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Mafoso&oldid=6410669http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullop&oldid=6331931
It basically says "I want to donate, but I wont donate to Wikimedia, instead I will donate to Amical. My donation will be appreciated and well used. Sorry Jimbo, but I need to think locally"
Now who are these users? These are cawiki sysops campaining about not donating in the very worst timing, and in the very worst circumstances (fundarising is getting short).
Now.. what is Amical?
Amical is NOT a wikimedia chapter. It's an non profit association of wikimedians with aims to becoming a chapter
REF1: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Associaci%C3%B3
And if you follow the external link, you see that for example, Martorell above is member of its board:
REF2: http://www.viquimedia.cat/viqui/Junta (notice they present themselves, in domain and logo as "viquimedia " (localized spelling) and not as "Amical" (yet they haven't been approved as chaper)
Now, these days a banner across wikis from the president of Amical (and appointed president of the non-yet-approved WM:CAT (REF3) Joan Gomà) is replacing Jimbo's in asking for donations
REF3: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan/ca#Junta
I see a conflict of interests. Amical people (including a board member) is promoting NOT to donate to Wikimedia and instead give to their association, while its president says otherwise.
Notwhistanding the use of a WP userpage for propaganda (campaigning for money to a non WM organization), and giving my concern about the fundraising going slower I feel I need to point out this campaign so it is publicly known.
...................Now.. why would members of an association whose objective is to support Wikimedia would be torpedoing the fundraiser?
Notice the diff dates (mid november).
Here's the context: there's a nationalist conflict regarding Catalunya status in Spain (they want to separate).
Not directly related, but influenced by this, there has been friction over the past months about the proposals of Wikimedia CAT and Wikimedia ES.
WM:CAT gets rejected
REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002097.h… (november 5)Quote:"Catalan Group has been rejected by the chapters committee. There is nosuch thing as Wikimedia Catala.
Cheers, Delphine"
And then attacks on Delphine start REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002120.h… (november 13)
"Delphine, as always, boicoting the cooperation between Catalans and the rest of the world.Now it seems she is also against cooperation with iberoamerica."
Notice "Marc Fontevila" is User:Mafoso (as signature shows)
AlsoREF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002181.h… (nov 16)
Next day, the banners boycotting the fundraiser appear on the Amical supporter pages. (Nov 17)Notice the wording about lack of transparencyhttp://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullop&oldid…
A few day latters, it's crosswiki posted a request on meta with biased wording about transparency againBut it's very soon found that the proposal is ***just another attempt to further the WMCAT agenda***disguised as "solving a general problem"http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Chapters._Proposal_to_g… catalan sysops have yet spoken pro proposal.
Wording was later changed and sections added to present things differently, but original wording can be seen onhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Chapters…"if you don't support, you're against transprency"
Basically, that's the context.
I'm REALLY CONCERNED about this boycott for purely wikipolitics reasons.
Given that Joan Goma is one of the few selected editors appearing on banners requesting donations, while at the same time the users on the association he's president of boycott Wikimedia for what seems a grudge, this has been up for several weeks, I think at least Amical as association (or Goma as president) should step forward and help clear things.
It's not acceptable an association who claims to support Wikimedia is boycotting it.
Sorry Jimbo, but as they say on their campaing: they have to thing first to themselves
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&ie=UTF-8&sl=ca&tl=…
When a person says "by an arbcom" it implies by one of several arbcoms that
exist. The word "an" (um/uma) suggests one of several/many.
Perhaps more accurately "by the Portuguese Wikipedia Arbcom"?
The term "for what it's worth" (or "as an aside") in English implies
information provided that may or may not be useful to the reader but is
given because it is possibly helpful.
FT2
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect.
>
> The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by
> an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned
> has "extremely inaccurate."
>
> It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado
> (Vapamachado)"
>
> Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be
> understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki."
>
> What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text?
>
> If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that
> qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the
> comment and apologize.
>
> "for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful,
> friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more
> akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
> The one with only this tag line
>
>
> At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt
> >wrote:
> >
> > > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real
> > > name, NOT his user name!
> > >
> >
> >This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth.
> >
> >FT2.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect.
The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by
an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned
has "extremely inaccurate."
It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado
(Vapamachado)"
Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be
understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki."
What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text?
If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that
qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the
comment and apologize.
"for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful,
friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more
akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"?
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
The one with only this tag line
At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
>
> > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real
> > name, NOT his user name!
> >
>
>This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth.
>
>FT2.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real
> name, NOT his user name!
>
This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth.
FT2.
Let's see if I can get this right.
There has been a very entertaining, albeit totally useless exchange
on this list, as far as real results are concerned.
I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and
(almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the
comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's
not how things are supposed to happen here. I apologize for so
blatantly disrespecting that list rule, and any other one, that I
might not be aware at the moment. I appreciate the patience and
understanding of all directly involved, and all the readers who had
to endure my misbehavior.
That said, there's no excuse for the overblowing of my comments and
hyperbolic references to "personal attacks," by now a concept so
overused that it has lost any credibility whatsoever.
Let me quote some examples of what was NOT perceived as "personal attacks":
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:15:29
From: M. Williamson
"he perceives it to be dominated by Brazilians."
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:09:08
From: David Gerard
"This is Virgilio's pet around-and-around topic on this list."
(The above line was the sum total of this comment)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:55:29
From: John Vandenberg
"Thanks Mark."
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:09:30
From: John Vandenberg
"gramatical is spelled wrong.
and 'mistakes' is only true if you consider the Portuguese Language
Orthographic Agreement of 1990 to be a mistake."
(Notwithstanding this was all that was posted, it led to a pretty
pleasant exchange between me and John. Most of the time, big boys
don't need to be patronized. We took good care of ourselves. No
moderator intervention was necessary.)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:59:28
From: Nathan
"It's possible he has more experience with a grammar than you expect."
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:09:10
From: M. Williamson
> Before signing off, and before I forget, let me
> ask another trivial question. It has been a long,
> long time since you have opened a grammar of any
> language, hasn't it? That's an easy guess,
"Watch the personal attacks. [...] So I'll thank you to cease your
personal attacks."
My whole paragraph was:
Before signing off, and before I forget, let me
ask another trivial question. It has been a long,
long time since you have opened a grammar of any
language, hasn't it? That's an easy guess,
considering what a grammar is
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar) and that
the differences between Brazilian Portuguese and
Portuguese of Portugal go way beyond differences
in orthography. You'll find a lot of good links
here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_language_issues,
particularly this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Portuguese#Grammar
[...]
To call the attention of ALL participants in the discussion to
"Please focus on the comment, not the person making the comment." is
absolutely right and appropriate. To make it in a message addressed
to me smacks of "personal attack," and since it was made by a list
moderator, I would say that is a very serious offense. We all should
be aware of our responsibilities. We all have duties and rights here.
One wrong, does not justify a worst one. Any moderator that fails to
perform his duties appropriately, should take a leave of absence,
graciously submitting a request to be relieved of his responsibilities.
From them on, an exemplary participation in this list would be the
best and only argument to ask to be reinstated as a moderator.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html
'Wikipedia is a complex culture, and sometimes it can feel like the free
encyclopedia everyone can edit -- except me, acknowledges Jay Walsh, a
spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization
that oversees Wikipedia. He notes that Wikimedia has only about 30 paid
staff, and that Wikipedia is edited by a huge number of volunteers. And
he says, though its not an absolute rule, people are strongly
discouraged from creating articles about themselves or their
organizations because the site strives for neutrality.
If you want your organization to be listed in Wikipedia, Walsh and others
whove succeeded recommend the following steps:...'
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
In a message dated 12/7/2010 9:38:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
przykuta(a)o2.pl writes:
> "The more mentions you have in the press, and the more visibility you
> have in social media and blogs, the more likely you are to seem legitimate and
> “notable” -- a precondition for inclusion."
>
> legitimate and notable by facebook, twitter and blogs?
>
> przykuta
>
There is a great disconnect between the belief and the practice.