On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
I hereby decree, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that today shall
forever be known as Magnus Manske day. Wikipedians of the distant future will
marvel at the day when the new software era dawned upon us.
Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should say a toast to Magnus and his many
inventions.
--Jimbo
> As time goes on, and more and more books are printed with their LC
> numbers, that code would end up coming out as even better.
Isn't it true that every book in the Library of Congress, i.e. pretty
much every book in the English language, has an LC number, even if it
isn't printed inside the book? If so, then LC numbers are close to
ideal book identifiers.
However, an ISBN -> {all equivalent ISBNs} converter would also be
really nice. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with the
traditional method of identifying a book by title and author though.
Spelling differences can always be solved by appeal to authority: use
the spelling of the Library of Congress.
Axel
At 03:16 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
> >examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
> >things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
> >Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
> >
> >Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
> >it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
> >encyclopedia article should say.
>
>What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
>
>But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga
>could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not
>her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
>
>Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's
>side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been
>inflammatory. No offense meant.
>
>Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at
>it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach?
>It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
We tried that. It didn't work.
>"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't
>disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
>
>"According to ..."
>"Some advocates claim ..."
>"Although most scholars believe X ..."
And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:38 am, Helga wrote:
> Hello, I am a little swamped with all the wiki list reading material and it
> seems my limited email is getting overloaded.
You might want to create an email filter to sort any emails with the string
"Helga" in the subject into a special folder (just use the help menu of
whatever email program you use and look up "filter").
Otherwise you may miss some emails that concern you.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Jimmy Wales said:
I think we could say: "Tensions between Jews and non-Jews in Germany had
been growing for several years, as evidenced by thus and such actual
facts that actually happened."
-- Jimmy, even that kind of implies a some kind of mutual antagonism --
>I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
>examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
>things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
>Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
>
>Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
>it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
>encyclopedia article should say.
What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been inflammatory. No offense meant.
Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach? It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
"According to ..."
"Some advocates claim ..."
"Although most scholars believe X ..."
The above 3 phrases deftly inserted into the article text work wonders. *sigh* if only Larry were still here.
Ed Poor
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 02:02 pm, you wrote:
> Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
> Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
No objection from me (this will help track vandals). Although I would like to
hear what others say first.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Saturday 31 August 2002 10:54 pm, Larry wrote:
> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.
I don't know about everyone else but I think that statement was a bit
insulting.
> So I don't propose we touch Wikipedia--but we have Nupedia. What I hope
> is that Nupedia can be changed and rearranged, somehow, to create an elite
> board of bona fide experts that is ultimately in charge of "releases" of
> free encyclopedia content.
Or we can simply revisit the idea of Beta/Stable; whereby some type of
process validates an article. Having another level of validation through
Nupedia would also be a good thing. In that way Nupedia would be a
distribution of Wikipedia in the same way as Red Hat is a distribution of
Linus' Linux and the GNU tools.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)