Hmmm... I finally agree with Larry that 24 is a troll.
your non-reply is good - that suits us both. I don't
consider you a person, since you accept non-persons
and non-interactions in your non-community as an
I never realized I wasn't a person before. Good thing
24 is here to enlighten me. I say we just reverse all
the changes he makes until he comes to his senses...
Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 01:49 am, tc wrote:
> Sorry about the last message. I was writing a reply, then thought
> better of the tone, but accidentally sent instead of deleting. Thus
> the unfinished reply. I hope that didn't throw any fat on the fire.
> I trust it'll all work out for the best.
Apology accepted. BTW please disregard the "Slashdot" remark -- I too
sometimes write and then delete inflammatory stuff in an email before sending
it. I even on occasion accidently send an email before deleting the negative
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 01:49 am, kband(a)www.llamacom.com wrote:
> maveric wrote:
> > "you are quite welcome to have a "party" or "clique" discussion on what
> > your mailing list clique wishes to do about the Governance of this
> > project. I will proceed as I am until someone writes a [[m:Status quo]]
> > that identifies some action of mine as a problem, or until someone else
> > achieves consensus on a means of [[m:Governance]] on the project now that
> > Larry is gone. -24" (I of course had to sign 24's comment for him/her --
> > still doesn't get that convention either...)
> > If I read this right, then this person is purposely trying to force us
> > into joining his "wikipedia governance" project! And if we don't, 24 will
> > continue > doing the same darn things in the same way as he/she is
> > already doing them.
> > I don't know about ya'all, but I don't like being coerced.
> Aren't you trying to coerce him into joining the mailing list? He doesn't
> have any power to coerce you, so I don't know what you're worrying about.
> He's harmless.
Please read what people have said before you jump in with abrasive comments
directed at another person on the mailing list -- this isn't Slashdot.
With that said....
All I stated was that I mentioned there was a mailing list (on two occasions)
and on one occasion I invited him/her to join the list.
I disagree with your other statement; He does seem to think that he has the
power to coerce us into joining his "governance" project by willfully not
abiding by our standards and policies.
I've tried to work it out but I'm still a bit confused, so I've got a
couple of questions that maybe you can help me with.
The search engine on the wikipedia rejects punctuation, so does that
mean that for best search results we should leave it out of entry
eg. There was no entry for 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'
until I made one, but there was an entry already there for 'Harry Potter
and the Philosophers Stone' without the [correct] apostrophe. Which one
should be the main article and which one should be the redirect?
If I want to make a sub-page for a topic, say 'Possums', what's the
protocol for naming it? I see a lot of entries have used backslashes,
but I read that the slashes don't mean anything anymore. I'm confused!
Just say I wanted to make subpages on possum dietary requirements, how
to keep possums as pets, and how possums breed. [not that I know
anything about possums, but it's an example that came to mind.]
And, lastly, if I wanted to break my user: page up into subpages with
projects I'd like to do on one page and projects I've already started on
another, what should I call it? I'm getting confused. I looked at the
FAQ and help pages but I didn't really understand their explanation... I
got lost at about the point where I was told to use brackets to make
categories more logical.
And about those brackets, which subject header would be more correct -
lime, fruit lime/fruit or lime (fruit). I've seen entry titles using all
Thanks in advance!
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
Love and huggles to all!
You've come at an awkward time when our conventions and
our software are a bit out of sync. I'll summarize briefly
here, and I'm still working on updating the policy pages
to better reflect our consensus about such things.
If a title is "Plato's Republic" or "Philosopher's Stone",
go ahead and use the apostrophe. If that screws up the
search function, then the search function needs to be fixed.
Simple singular nouns like "Possum" are ideal titles. There
are still some legacy pages with plural titles that are lists
of things, and those may get changed to "List of..." or
something at some point, or we might just leave them alone
because people are used to them and there are many links.
There's no longer any such thing as a subpage. Slashes
should only be used for titles that actually have a slash in
them, like "OS/2". Pages that really are dependent on context
should include that context in the title with a phrase like
"Abstraction in object-oriented programming" rather than
Articles about independent specific topics should be named in
whatever way makes them clear; references to related topics can
appear inside, but there's no reason to hard-code relationships
in titles. Pages "Possum breeding" and "Keeping possums as pets"
will probably both have links to "Possum", but there's no
reason to enforce any other relationship among them.
"Lime" should be a disambiguation page, with links to
"Lime (fruit)" and "Lime (mineral)". See the pages
>I've tried to work it out but I'm still a bit confused, so I've got a
>couple of questions that maybe you can help me with.
>The search engine on the wikipedia rejects punctuation, so does that
>mean that for best search results we should leave it out of entry
>eg. There was no entry for 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'
>until I made one, but there was an entry already there for 'Harry
>and the Philosophers Stone' without the [correct] apostrophe. Which
>should be the main article and which one should be the redirect?
>If I want to make a sub-page for a topic, say 'Possums', what's the
>protocol for naming it? I see a lot of entries have used backslashes,
>but I read that the slashes don't mean anything anymore. I'm
>Just say I wanted to make subpages on possum dietary requirements,
>to keep possums as pets, and how possums breed. [not that I know
>anything about possums, but it's an example that came to mind.]
>And, lastly, if I wanted to break my user: page up into subpages with
>projects I'd like to do on one page and projects I've already
>another, what should I call it? I'm getting confused. I looked at the
>FAQ and help pages but I didn't really understand their
>got lost at about the point where I was told to use brackets to make
>categories more logical.
>And about those brackets, which subject header would be more
>lime, fruit lime/fruit or lime (fruit). I've seen entry titles using
>Thanks in advance!
>Karen AKA Kajikit
>Come and visit my part of the web:
>Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
>Aussie Support Mailing List:
>Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
>Love and huggles to all!
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> I think the greatest damage that 24 is doing is wasting our resources. By this I mean
> _human_ resources. I nearly got a heart attack after seeing my mailbox this morning
> and the amount of discussion going on. Some useful points have been made but I'm still
> not sure if it is all worth the hassle. Imagine all that time spent on writing articles....
Exactly. I've decided not to reply to his long posts on meta, and now I'll stop chatting about him here.
- Stephen G.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
Powered by Outblaze
> > He seems intelligent, but very narrowly focused
> I disagree. I admit he seems educated.
> Obduracy and a refusal to engage or compromise with anyone who disagrees with
> him is not only not a sign of intelligence, its a sign of non-intelligence.
Not necessarily. It can also mean that someone has been totlly convinced to except a extreme position. Such a person would view comromise as a step backward. It's a sign of arrogance.
- Stephen G.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/
Powered by Outblaze
Without any actual knowledge, I think it reasonable to suppose that
Manning Bartlett is not a Baha'i of any kind. By "lot more of us than
you", I think he was referring to the Wikipedia community, er,
"regular participants" as 24 would prefer I say.
I will respond to this fellow, and seek your counsel.
I have omitted identifying details of the person who wrote me.
The essential facts, in case you don't feel like reading all of this:
66.219.221.xxx is a member of the "Orthodox" Baha'i religion. This is
a small splinter group from the main Baha'i faith. The exact size is
a matter of some dispute. '66' claims that the larger sect engages in
extreme shunning of the smaller sect, and that they are attempting to
suppress information on the wikipedia. '66' suspects (incorrectly,
I'm pretty sure) that Manning Bartlett is a Baha'i who is trying to
Someone, 'Rabo', apparently wrote to a Baha'i newsgroup seeking
knowledgeable people to help deal with '66'. '66' feels that this was
yet another attempt to marginalize his group.
This has been long predicted, although I never thought that the Baha'i
faith would be the source of friction. I thought maybe the
Scientologists would find us, or the anti-Scientologists, and their
decades-long Usenet flamewar would spill over here.
Anyhow, please take a look. I guess we don't really care about their
religious argument; we only care to make the article(s) NPOV. But
some of usual techniques (describing the conflict rather than engaging
in the conflict) are perhaps difficult to apply in situations where the
parties are arguing over whether the conflict is important enough to be
described prominently in the main article.
------------------------- Forwarded message --------------
I wrote you sometime back abnout a problem with a article on wekepedia
and you were kind enough to respond. I was at the time being totaly
erased and raised the possibility that a group of Baha'is from the
larger sect (Ibelong to the smaller one) were possibly doing this as
they try to shun us completely.
I agreed with you that this should be a wait and see thing.
Recently the article on the Orthodox Baha'i Faith has been continually
reedited by several people some of the editing i found to be helpful,
but a lot was for the purpose of marganilizing the article in facor of
the larger group.
I came coincdentally across an article ont he larger Baha'i news group
which urged all baha;is to go there and rewrite the article so as to
put the larger group in the best light. I am enclosing a copy of that
news group article. Also, you will find that the main individual
claiming not to be a bahai who has rededited allot, in teh history of
the editing has put comments in like there are a "lot more of us than
you", whihc I can only take as reference to him and other baha'is.
Below is also a copy of that statemnt in the history section along
with a letter I have sent out to all Orhtodox baha'is on my mailing
list letting them know what is happening to the article on their
beliefs. Over the past few days the Orhtodox Baha'i site has
continually been reedited in an attempt to marganalize the Orhtodox
Faith. At this point on the talk section of wedkepdia Orhtodox Bahai
Faith is my response to someone reediting who claims not to be a
Baha'i the article on soc.religion.bahai which i refer to in my repoly
appeared over the past few days as well.
The real reason is best summarrized from an article written on
soc. religon. bahai where the writer urged baha'is to rerwrite the
article in order to reduce the influence of the Orhtodox group. I
have there fore writtten the people in charge of wikipediea today to
express my concerns that what is being done is really for the purpose
of non-nuetrality on the larger groups part yuour professions of not
being a baha'i notwithstadning. copy of exceprtps from article on the
larger Baha'i Board fololow:
Several month back I posted on this newsgroup requesting contributions
for the Baha'i entry in a encyclopedia project:
Well an article was written, and time went by.
In recent weeks, a contributor who we only know by his/her IP address
of 66.219.221.xxx (Which is myself) has commenced a campaign of
championing the Orthodox Baha'i position.
When I originally researched the Baha'i Faith, I quickly concluded
that apart from the plethora of webpages the OB division was extremely
small (as in barely hundreds of members), (My Comment: as an Orhtodox
Again the figures this writer gives are inaccurate) and therefore
while it was fair to mention it, it was also fair to place it within a
Hence I am writing to ask if someone can return to the website,
examine the articles and help those of us who are insufficiently
informed to paint a true picture.
The antagonist in the dispute has one extremely valid point however -
the article on the Orthodox Baha'is does cover the Baha'i principles
in great depth, and frankly the Baha'i article tends to focus solely
on history and buildings. We (the editors) feel that the principles of
the Faith should be encapsulated in the main Baha'i article and we
should limit the OB article to the point of distinction (ie. the
dispute about succession of the Guardianship). But none of us feel
suitably qualified to redress this imbalance.
The Wikipedia is a growing resource, it now has nearly 30000 articles
(after only 16 months) and a viewcount extending into the millions per
month. Certainly there are numerous issues about the actual quality of
our articles, but that's why I am writing to a newsgroup where I could
reasonably expect to find "experts".
To find related pages - enter Bahai in the search box. "
I also have written a reply put on the other two bahai newsgroups
since as you know censorship rpevails on the group this artricle
appeared in and orhtodox are shunned:
An article appeared on alt.soc.bahai which called for the larger Bahai
group to martial its forces to put the Orhtodox Artciles om a
particular website "in its proper persecptive" meaning reduce its size
The writer did admit however that::
"The antagonist (that's the Orhtodox Bahai) in the dispute has one
extremely valid point however - the article on the Orthodox Baha'is
does cover the Baha'i principles in great depth, and frankly the
Baha'i article tends to focus solely on history and buildings. We (the
editors) feel that the principles of the Faith should be encapsulated
in the main Baha'i article and we should limit the OB article to the
point of distinction (ie. the dispute about succession of the
Guardianship). But none of us feel suitably qualified to redress this
Hence the call for others to come in and try by all means to reduce
the Orhtodox article to non influence while admitting the better
article ont he Faith's principles was doen by the Orhtodox!
Needless to say I have sent a copy fo this letter to the heads of the
particular website with the point that what ever the main group does
there is for the obvious purpose of reducing the Orhtodox arrticle and
is intself an obvious attempt at non-neutrality which the particular
site in question requires.
Again so that people will know what our priicples are and wehter they
differ from the alrger group i Have again rededited and will
contiually reedit the Orhtodox article until i hear from the staff of
wekepedia on this.
Additionally the hisoty section which shows when and who edited the section finds these comments:
Tuesday, April 9, 2002
a.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith; 23:05 . . . 66.219.221.xxx [*I have sent a letter of concern to the wakepedia staff on this as the openig paragraph wording is definately not NPOV, per the talk article]
Monday, April 8, 2002
a.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (1); 16:46 . . . Rgamble [-/Talk]
b.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (2); 16:37 . . . Manning Bartlett [NPOV restored, duplicate content removed again: If you want an edit war then fine - but there are more of us than there are of you]
c.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (3); 14:41 . . . 66.219.221.xxx
d.. (diff) Orthodox Bahai Faith (4); 13:54 . . . 66.219.221.xxx
Thanks for your prompt attention, as I would liek to avert what is likely to become a contentious issue if allowed to drift,
----- End forwarded message -----
"Guardian Tor " <guardian-tor(a)operamail.com> writes:
> He seems intelligent, but very narrowly focused
I disagree. I admit he seems educated.
Obduracy and a refusal to engage or compromise with anyone who disagrees with
him is not only not a sign of intelligence, its a sign of non-intelligence.
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:06:58 kband(a)www.llamacom.com wrote:
> > What did 24 do on wikipedia.com?
> For examples see "particle physics", "money", "Artificial Intelligence".
Deleting particle physics was certainly a dumb thing to do (though easy
to deal with).
His contributions to the "money" article, if he did revision 6, seem
to me to be quite good. It looks like he took a very brief article and
usefully expanded the history, from commodity money to fiat money.
Even his "agenda-based" paragraphs are properly put into context,
by stating that it's a "green economist" position.
His edits to "artificial intelligence" didn't help much, but the
article was already a mostly incomprehensible mish-mash, and what he
did is certainly no worse than what just about every editor I know
(including myself) has done at least one point.
Are there other entries? Or is the hooplah mostly about his meta-rants?
I don't see that much evidence that he's trying to violate the mission
of Wikipedia, or even subvert it to his own kooky ends. He seems to
respect the mission, and thinks that people don't have the right
understanding of what NPOV means. I personally think that NPOV concept
has flaws as being the guiding principle for Wikipedia, since it's
such a semantically flexible term.
That said, he's obviously self-centered and self-righteous. Has he
made any edits in the last few days?