Lir has been coming back, using his raw IP. Can it please be blocked
until the ban is lifted off his user account?
Maveric tells me this is his IP: 22.214.171.124
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
Oliver -- I hope I do not understand you correctly in that you think I
was somehow insulting Lir. I don't know Lir, only what I've seen of
his work. Although I certainly used what are generally considered
pejorative terms to refer to Lir's behavior, I think one can only say
that they are pejorative when there is no justification for their use.
That is sadly not the case. It is honorable for you to stick up for
Lir, and unfortunate that you were mistaken for him. I suggest that the
response to your post is merely indicative of the unpleasant feelings
that Lir tends to stir up. If he has been insulted, I'm sorry, but I
think that my estimation of Lir's behavior is based much more in fact
that Lir's very insulting and groundless accusations towards people who
don't agree with him. BTW, I also do not in any way blame you for the
Saints' tragic win yesterday ;-) I did find it interesting that you
knew I was a sysop and had been here a while, when I've been gone for
months -- you can't be that much of a newbie!
Lir -- hyperbole, especially when coupled with unveiled sarcasm, isn't
really a persuasive form of debate. It's merely annoying. I suspect
you know that and don't care.
Other than that, I like Anthere's idea of adding a pronunciation guide.
One drawback is that I think there may not be a universal guide -- I
think Americans use a different system of notation (but am not sure).
Also, I teach east Asian history. I grew up with Wade-Giles, am
becoming more familiar with Pinyin by the day, and neither comes close
to approximating the correct pronunciations.
When I ask it for the "last 100 in last 3 days" this morning,
I'm only getting about 25 items, because it seems to cut off
anything not dated today.
Also, shouldn't it be "the last 100 entries in the last 3 days"
instead of "in last 3 days"?
(I'm posting this to the international list because I suspect that
the bug is serverwide.)
The vindicative hate campaign against Oliver shows how much abuse I suffered from various wiki "elites" who, unlike in Oliver's case, had no doubt that I was Lir. I find it absurd that I am to be criticized on the grounds of
"Lir's edits are like magpie droppings" and yet I am the one that is banned.
Jimbo says the official reason I was banned was because I accused certain people of racism and totalitarianism. The truth is, there are racist assholes here on wikipedia, and Im being banned for noting it.
Now, Im not calling Jimbo racist, if he was racist this would be kkkpedia.com. But he is totalitarian, and can't possibly deny that without denying his stance on voting and banning. I hope he realizes that persecution is wrong, no matter how much the evil ones urge him to abuse power in their name.
Remember, I was banned for being a constant annoyance to wikipedians everywhere. That means that all of you who I got along with just fine...all of you are me...and your day will come soon, unless you shut up and never ever state that you disagree wholeheartedly.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> What is this, the third or is it the fourth time James Zitzmann has posted
> absolutely pointless profanity on the list?
And my last name is McLauchlin, not Malkemus.
> Non, malheureusement, il n'existe aucune politique à
> ce sujet, car la majorité des wikipédiens sont
> français ou belges (éventuellement expatriés), donc ce
> problème n'a jamais été rencontré;
> C'est un peu l'ambuiguité Français (population)
> français (language) que j'ai déjà relevée...
Hm, existe-t-il un équivalent à Wikipedia talk où l'on pourrait discuter de
cette question? J'aimerais bien voir [[Wikipedia discuter:Variation
régionale]] ou quelque chose de semblant, en y déplaçant peut-être la
discussion de [[Discuter:Montréal]].
(Et "hôté" c'est mon erreur.)
I've been confused by the "edit conflict" screen so many times that I seriously think the page should be redesigned. Other contributors also have frequently commented on talk pages that they lost what they just typed, due to edit conflicts.
I'd like to have the columnwise, side by side "revision of" display show up at the top of the page, where I can't possible miss it!!
Below that, I'm not sure what needs to come next, but:
* we need to make it VERY EASY for users to recover from the edit conflict
* users should NEVER feel they have to lose what they just typed
I'm not looking for a quick fix on this, but I bet dozens of users have the same issue kq and I have.
Je me demande s'il existe une politique sur le Wiki français par rapport aux
orthographes régionales de même qu'existe sur le Wiki anglais. Je suis
actuellement en débat avec Meszigues sur l'article [[Montréal]] qui fait
référence au "Village gai", aux "Jeux gais", et aux "gais et lesbiennes". Il
préférerait de voir ces mots écrits comme "gay" ou "gays".
Je me tiens, premièrement, à ce que "Village gai" et "Jeux gais" restent
absolument, puisque ceux-ci sont l'orthographe officielle selon 1) la Ville
de Montréal, 2) la Comité de Candidature Montréal 2006. Il serait tout
simplement érroné, dis-je, d'utiliser une orthographe que les instances
compétentes n'utilisent pas, quoi que ce soit.
Quant à l'usage ordinaire, "gai" est l'orthographe courante et usuelle de ce
mot dans les journaux, les revues, et les livres québécois. De plus, c'est
dans le Petit Robert. Je l'utilise comme québécois et je la considère plus
appropriée pour un article traitant d'un sujet québécois. On a des
politiques pour faire de même sur le Wiki anglais (pas de parti pris sur les
orthographes britanniques et américaines, sauf que c'est plus approprié
d'utiliser l'orthographe britannique pour un sujet britannique et
vice-versa). Nous faut-il esprimer un tel politique explicitement pour le
fuck, fuck, fuck matt malkemus. fuck, fuck, fuck matt malkemus.
Earn free ringtones - go to:
James's Domain - Your source for Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, Anime, Manga, and more! http://www.jzcool.net
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:29:14
Matt M. wrote:
>Je me demande s'il existe une politique sur le Wiki fran�ais par rapport aux
>orthographes r�gionales de m�me qu'existe sur le Wiki anglais. Je suis
>actuellement en d�bat avec Meszigues sur l'article [[Montr�al]] qui fait
>r�f�rence au "Village gai", aux "Jeux gais", et aux "gais et lesbiennes". Il
>pr�f�rerait de voir ces mots �crits comme "gay" ou "gays".
>Je me tiens, premi�rement, � ce que "Village gai" et "Jeux gais" restent
>absolument, puisque ceux-ci sont l'orthographe officielle selon 1) la Ville
>de Montr�al, 2) la Comit� de Candidature Montr�al 2006. Il serait tout
>simplement �rron�, dis-je, d'utiliser une orthographe que les instances
>comp�tentes n'utilisent pas, quoi que ce soit.
>Quant � l'usage ordinaire, "gai" est l'orthographe courante et usuelle de ce
>mot dans les journaux, les revues, et les livres qu�b�cois. De plus, c'est
>dans le Petit Robert. Je l'utilise comme qu�b�cois et je la consid�re plus
>appropri�e pour un article traitant d'un sujet qu�b�cois. On a des
>politiques pour faire de m�me sur le Wiki anglais (pas de parti pris sur les
>orthographes britanniques et am�ricaines, sauf que c'est plus appropri�
>d'utiliser l'orthographe britannique pour un sujet britannique et
>vice-versa). Nous faut-il esprimer un tel politique explicitement pour le
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:39 pm, Tom Parmenter wrote:
> I'm resurrecting this feature request from [[Wikipedia:Village pump]]
> where it is discussed under "Wikipedia Evangelism".
> The point raised was the desirability of an easy way to ask a friend
> to comment on the accuracy of an article, or simply to point out an
> interesting article to someone.
> How about doing what a lot of news pages do? Add a box at the bottom
> of each article
>  Send this article to a friend
> along with a java mailer to fire the message off and a text box to add
> a note. Having a linked mailer would eliminate the necessity of
> firing up a mail program.
This would be a most cool feature. Of course, it would only be available to
logged-in users that have valid email addresses set-up in their preferences.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Opps! I forgot to add a diff to a list response to JHK to wikiEN-L. Here are a
couple of substantial edits to pay for this mailing list post and the JHK
>There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic
>systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather
>than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge
>intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
>In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we
>shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
Yes, I agree with that. What are the better ways? I'm getting
disgusted with *what I perceive to be* (and which in fact may not be,
at all) a breakdown of community standards. Notwithstanding 24, I
think everyone would agree that wikipedia is a community. We try to
be friendly, we have the occasional tiffs, we choose to live together
and socialize a bit. This to me is a no-brainer: Wikipedia is a
Physical communities have little compunction against casting people
out, either explicitly or implicitly: through gentrification, through
draconian rules regarding presentation, through neighborhood groups,
through calls to the police. Sometimes this is a good thing,
frequently it is not. Yet, unlike most communities, we are a
community bound by choice rather than circumstance, and we are bound
by intention rather than location. We are together because we have a
common goal. We are a community of people trying to build a free
online encyclopedia. To this regard, it seems to me that we should
not hesitate to show people the door when they prove not to share our
goal. We are a community, yes, but we are not a community of people
whose goal is to remove content, or to argue or chitchat (though some
of that will invariably occur along the way).
Imagine a community of economists who choose to work together in a
room dedicated to studying the economy. An overzealous filmnut with
the initials KQ shows up and wants to talk about films endlessly, and
at every mention of trade he goes off on _Star Wars I_. He doesn't
know much about the economy, he doesn't know much about trade, he
doesn't even know much about math; if he's aware of these defects he
doesn't even particularly care. What he's found is a healthy
community who let him hang out, using their tolerance to assuage his
own clingy personal needs.
Would this person belong in a group of economists, given that he can't
discuss economy? Should he go with them to work? Certainly not.
Should he know this already? Certainly. Should the group tell him
this if he does not know? IMHO: absolutely. He is interfering with
work. He is welcome to stay provided he's not interfering with work,
but if he is, he has to go.
I see nothing wrong with people who want to change community rules.
If we need to discuss a rule change, we need to discuss a rule change.
What might be helpful is to put on each rule and convention page a
gloss over why the decision to support that convention was reached.
That way people can address specific points in the future rather than
starting the whole debate again from scratch (I've been here a year
and a half and I've seen more than enough of the basic debates about
basic conventions). These new debates, when started, should be both
calm & respectful, which IMHO means logical and unemotional.
If the community decides that we should append "all hail Dubya the
wise and mighty U.S. emperor" to every page title, then I will either
roll up my sleeves and get started or I will remove myself from the
community. But what I will *not* do is remain in a community whose
goal is so often ignored or forgotten that it resembles usenet. I'm
not here to chitchat incessantly; I'm not here to sling insults and
cast people out; I want to help contribute to this free/free
encyclopedia because I believe in the idea. I've seen what we've done
in two years; I want to see what we can do in another two.
It seems to me that people should know what we're here for and respect
that, and people who don't should be asked, kindly, if their
priorities are straight in coming to the website. As far as I'm
concerned, the encyclopedia is what matters; there are plenty of other
places online to chitchat, argue, or pontificate. Try yahoo!groups,
or livejournal, or usenet, or even slashdot. Our community is unified
in purpose, and quite frankly, anyone who is not here for that purpose
belongs to a different community. Banning comes about IMHO because
people aren't seeing enough community pressure to quit being an
asshole and/or get to work.
So how we determine someone has nothing to contribute? Isn't that a
bold decision? How long do we allow someone to try to contribute
before deciding it's not worth it?
I believe that: 1) It should not be necessary to tell people to leave.
The community expectation should be so great that we are here to
build an encyclopedia that trolls and vandals are immediately and
thoroughly discouraged. 2)I'd rather not feel compelled to tell
people to leave because they're interfering. Most people realize it,
and so most people don't dabble where they don't belong. 3) If
someone proves a stubborn & insistent impediment, we should tell him
or her to leave. 4) When we do tell someone to leave, we should be
able to enforce it if necessary. some people are simply not helpful.
We don't all agree who those people are, but I think we do agree that
such people exist. For those people who won't listen to reason and
won't listen to community pressure, we should have an accurate means
of blocking access. We are accepting to people by default, but wasps
should make their nests outside, not inside.
I daresay our standards are fairly open: come here to help build an
encyclopedia. Do not come here to chitchat, to troll, to play. Work
may be fun, work may not always be fun (I know this for certain), but
work is why we are here. We are open to people who want to help; we
are not open to people who want to hinder. We also, it seems (and
here I'm thinking of Helga), are not open to people who want to help
and consistently can not. Jerry Lewis can play in the
[[wikipedia:sandbox]]; he should keep his hands off the [[muriatic acid]].
p.s. I like Axel's idea of making an edit per email to the list. This
was a long email, and so deserved more than a few edits--however, the
'pedia is responding very slowly. I will redeem myself. :-)
(and later adding the missing verb) :-)
and corrections. Speaking of which, why doesn't "preview" preview?
All I get is a text-edit box showing what I've typed in. An HTML
preview might be handy.