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
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
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)?
I guess we could do that -- what would the purpose be, though? To force her to log in? I'm not sure how that helps anything.
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.
Well, if that's true, all I ask is that she come here and talk about it.
--Jimbo
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
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:
Ed, people have spent many, many hours trying your "low key" approach. It hasn't worked. Some Wikipedians have spent most of their Wikipedia time following Helga around, trying to work with her, fix up her contributions and explain why in non-confrontational ways. People have left the project in frustration because of her.
It's a little frustrating to hear people implying that everyone has treated Helga harshly and unfairly.
*sigh* if only Larry were still here.
Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this project off the ground. He has, however, been less than diplomatic in certain past situations.
Come now, Ed. There's no need to wish for a knight in shining armour whenever we have a problem. ;-)
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Ed, take a look at [[Eisenhower and German POWs]] and its talk page for a fair sample of dealing with Helga. She got her article into the Wikipedia, but many people had to fight like hell to keep it from being pure anti-semitism from one single, dubious source, and after all that it still consists mainly of unproven asservations. Or follow some [[Copernicus]] links and look at the associated talk pages. On all those talk pages you will see people bending over backwards to be polite, following up her suggested references, suggesting wording to get controversial points of view past NPOV, and generally giving her every chance to make a positive contribution while she grinds her axe, but all she wants to do is grind her axe.
She is dogged, impervious to suggestion, and absolutely clueless as to what makes an encyclopedia article or a worthwhile historical proof. She wants back those German lands that were "stolen" (by the Germans losing wars that they started), she want Copernicus to be a German, and, one suspects, she has other minority German enthusiasms as well. As I said before, "She's had her chance, but she's more trouble than she's worth."
As far as I know, her most positive contribution was getting Senator Capehart into the Wikipedia, where he now receives credit as the marketing genius behind the 20th century popularity of the jukebox. She put him in originally because he once made an obscure speech that Helga thought proved some point of hers, which some of us turned into an article about the Senator himself.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: Stephen Gilbert canuck_in_korea2002@yahoo.com |Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:57:59 -0700 (PDT) | | |--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote: |> 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: | |Ed, people have spent many, many hours trying your |"low key" approach. It hasn't worked. Some Wikipedians |have spent most of their Wikipedia time following |Helga around, trying to work with her, fix up her |contributions and explain why in non-confrontational |ways. People have left the project in frustration |because of her. | |It's a little frustrating to hear people implying that |everyone has treated Helga harshly and unfairly. | |> *sigh* if only Larry were still |> here. | |Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I |think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this |project off the ground. He has, however, been less |than diplomatic in certain past situations. | |Come now, Ed. There's no need to wish for a knight in |shining armour whenever we have a problem. ;-) | |Stephen G. |
Ortolan88 wrote:
Ed, take a look at [[Eisenhower and German POWs]] and its talk page for a fair sample of dealing with Helga.
Actually, Ed was involved with that case, according to the history. I must say that Ed's continued optimism about Helga is wondrous to behold. ^_^
She got her article into the Wikipedia, but many people had to fight like hell to keep it from being pure anti-semitism from one single, dubious source,
What are you talking about? Helga never mentioned Jews, or the Shoah. She linked to a revisionist web site, but not to an anti-Jewish page, and she probably found the page with Google, neither knowing nor caring about the site that it was on.
There are a lot of problems with Helga, but hatred of Jews isn't one that I've ever noticed. No, I haven't read all of Helga and perhaps she really is a Jew-hater (perhaps you can point me to evidence of this on Wikipedia). But [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and [[Eisenhower and German POWs]] don't contain this, and you sound as if you're the one with a chip on your shoulder (when I know, from reading her stuff, that Helga has one of these) when you say such things.
-- Toby
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
Ed Poor wrote:
*sigh* if only Larry were still here.
Larry's not a magic bullet. I respect Larry, and I think he deserves a lot of the credit for getting this project off the ground. He has, however, been less than diplomatic in certain past situations.
Yeah, actually Larry was less "appreciative" of bullshit than I am. He'd have called Helga a troll and banned her a long time ago.
So, maybe we *should* wish Larry was still here, but only because he was Schwartzkopf to my Powell.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org