On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
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
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
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.
So, it seems (if I interpret Jimbo's mail on wikitech and the discussion
here correctly) that most of us would like *some kind* of category
scheme in wikipedia. I do, too! But, we seem to differ on the details
So far, I saw three concepts:
1. Simple categories like "Person", "Event", etc.; about a dozen total.
2. Categories and subcategories, like
"Science/Biology/Biochemistry/Proteomics", which can be "scaled down" to
#1 as well ("Humankind/Person" or something)
3. Complex object structures with machine-readable meta-knowledge
encoded into the articles, which would allow for quite complex
queries/summaries, like "biologists born after 1860".
1. Easy to edit (the wiki way!)
2. Still easy to edit, but making wikipedia browseable by category,
fine-tune Recent Changes, etc.
3. Strong improvement in search functions, meta-knowledge available for
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
For a wikipedia I'd have to write myself, I'd choose #3, but with
respect to the wiki way, #2 seems more likely to achieve consensus (if
there is such a thing;-)
You people just lie all the time. This website is an amazing experiment in groupthink, juvenile insults, and a refusal to acknowledge even the most basic processes of judicial review. Not only was I banned; but, you people are so wrapped up in your deceit, you can't even acknowledge the ban! Lol -- its fascinating how messed up this site is becoming. When is the cabal going to grow up; all that power-tripping is gonna take its toll on you.
On 06/29/04 23:26, Denni wrote:
> I put forward as a suggestion that newbie and anon postings be screened,
> similarly to VfDs, for the first few weeks or first few dozens worth of
> posts. The software is in place to track x number of posts and shunt
> those not meeting certain criteria through to a fastedit page; while
> newbies/anons can edit in what seems to be a transparent manner to them,
> Wikipedia can also monitor for malicious edits, edits made out of
> ignorance (an article submitted intended as a userpage, for instance,
> that ends up in article namespace), or edits made similarly (as was my
> error - editing the article instead of its related talk page).
This is a technical solution to what is, after all, a social problem.
Worse, it's a harsh and exclusionary one.
Let me suggest an alternative:
The above requires someone to care to check the newbie/anon queue.
As such, let's assume we have sufficient people on hand who care about
this enough to do it.
Instead of putting the newbie/anon posts in an approval queue, let
them go through to the wiki live and direct as they do now - but create
a special: page specifically to display those contributions.
Then the sufficient people to monitor this stuff will have technical
help in doing so, and we would have avoided putting a restriction on
the wiki we could do without.
What do you think?
(I have no idea if this would be easy or hard or what to code. I can
see it being very useful. Though I doubt I'd be monitoring it a whole
This should probably be discussed on wikipedia-l, not wiki-en - I've
crossposted it there and set reply-to there.
I'm an admin on en, and have blocked myself for a week for a wikiholiday. I
happened to check my watchlist at work (while being logged in), and
discovered rapidly that the admin "rollback" feature is not inhibited by
Okay, the blocking of admins is a rare occurrence, but I believe this
security issue might need addressing...
Lir, you may have read Brion and Tim Starling answers about you being banned from mailing lists and irc. You are not.
Ed also wrote to me, and mentionned that he could see no evidence of you being banned from the mailing lists. He also added that till now, only Jimbo was deciding blocks on the english mailing list (though, I must admit I distinctly remember I blocked someone one day...but oh well...).
Your posts probably do not go through because you may not have any account. This is a public mailing list, *requiring* registration. It is no hassle. Administration of mailing list is a pain, because of the huge amount of spam. It is difficult to "distinguish" the "relevant" mails being blocked by "mistake", from the spam. Be nice to administrators and register please.
In short, you are not banned from the mailing lists, nor are you from irc.
As Ed put it "Please sign on and talk with us".
And as I put it "Please, discuss english banning on the english mailing list"
PS : Tim, that makes one ;-)
C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com> wrote:
I am also blocked from IRC.
----- Original Message -----
To: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: you are very rude
do you mean then that you are blocked from the english
mailing list ?
--- C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com> wrote:
> No, I am not rude; I am banned without reason. I am
> a victim, and you should respect my arguments that
> wikijustice has gone haywire. I do post to the
> English mailing list; as I have stated before, they
> do not accept my posts there.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Anthere<mailto:email@example.com>
> To: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:47 AM
> Subject: Re: you are very rude
> No. *You* are rude.
> The wikipedia mailing list is for all wikipedians;
> poorly-english speaking as well. We do not want
> to have to spent time and energy trying to
> what really is of little if no interest to them.
> You do not have trouble on any other wikipedias
> en. Then, please stick to en per respect for the
> english wikipedians.
> --- C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]
> <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com>> wrote:
> > It is very rude of you to respond to my
> > banning, by simply asking that the discussion be
> > held elsewhere. You should be ashamed of
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
*I was banned, apparently because I am suspected of "sockpuppetry". I have not been provided with any evidence of this, the issue has not been reviewed by the mediation committee, I am not guilty. Please remedy this matter. -- User:Lir
**Without having to think about it too much, I can point to the well-proven sockpuppet "Editing Saddam Hussein," which you attempted to use to vote in RfA, and which User:Plato has admitted was you.
*Surely, Plato's say-so is not sufficent grounds to ban me; I'm rather confused as to how he can "admit" to my alleged crimes. Regardless, having reviewed the history of User:Editing Saddam Hussein -- I am at a loss as to how that account envokes the negative connotations indicated in the latter half of "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who posts under more than one name. While they may serve legitimate purposes, sock puppets may be sometimes also used to deceive, for example by voting more than once in a poll or otherwise creating an illusion of broader support for an idea."
*Apparently you feel that the account was used to sockpuppet against your admin request -- do you have any proof of my voting more than once in RfA? I doubt you will find any evidence to support your allegation; since, I am not User:Editing Saddam Hussein nor is that my sockpuppet.
Thanks for your help. Yes, I am aware of the "nil" situation, as well as the SIL code. Should we use MIK?
I think that seems appropriate.
Yes, Mikasuki is an endangered language, at least in its number of speakers. However, its speech community, although very vibrant (YOU visit the Seminole reservations and tell me if it's not! ^_^) has never been all that big, compared to other Muskogean Native American languages, such as Creek and Choctaw. Since the language is vibrant but endangered, I don't think it could be MORE appropriate that we get a Mikasuki Wikipedia up. The same goes for all Native American languages, especially when we have a Toki Pono wikipedia up (no offense to Sonja! ^_^ Désolé!).
Anyway, I look forward to seeing them up. I will get them set up for native speakers to start posting. Please let me know.
1. Re: New Wikipedias (Ray Saintonge)
2. Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't be
"standard" (Rowan Collins)
3. Re: Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't
be "standard" (Arvind Narayanan)
4. Re: Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't
be "standard" (Rowan Collins)
5. nl: exceeds 30.000 (Gerard.Meijssen)
6. Re: Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't
be "st (Till Westermayer)
7. Re: Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't
be "standard" (David Gerard)
8. Re: Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't
be "standard" (Ray Saintonge)
9. Interwiki links (Michael Diederich)
10. Re: Custom Logo (Timwi)
11. Re: Since "standard" isn't "standard", perhaps it shouldn't
be "st (Timwi)
12. Re: nl: exceeds 30.000 (Timwi)
Wikipedia-l mailing list