On Wednesday 10 April 2002 01:49 am, Jimbo wrote:
kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
Are there other entries? Or is the hooplah mostly about his meta-rants?
I'd like to second the call for lists of entries on the main site that he's screwed up. It'd help if we were all "on the same page" in terms of knowing what he's doing.
His meta-rants are annoying and strange, but can easily be ignored if absolutely necessary.
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.
Well, he's so incoherent that it's sort of hard to say...
--Jimbo
Somebody has something at [[wikipedia utilities/Pages needing attention]] -- you can also check out 24's list of contribs which is accessed through his/her user page at [[user:24.150.61.63]]. I have no idea why the contributions link works since Ed Poor created the page -- not 24 by a login. Also, I don't know if the contribs link is accurate or up to date (does this work for any IP?).
Most of what he/she contributes is discoherent -- although some is actually mildly interesting after you cut out the fat. I gave up on trying to keep up with edits to this person's material because there is just so much of it. Others seem to jump in quite often though -- God bless them.
Much of the most recent stuff really isn't THAT non-NPOV -- although it takes an entire article of words for this person to say, maybe, a couple of sentences of information (much of the leftover stuff is even not as non-NPOV as what Ed Poor or the Cruncrator contributes....). It is a bear to wade through this stuff. Apparently this person is beginning to understand that NPOVing his/her stuff at least a little helps prevent a quick REVERT or removal of text to a talk page. As I stated before, this person doesn't seem to engage in edit wars -- which I still think is strange (given all the other things this person has done).
Perhaps the power of the wiki is beggining to take its effect -- we can only hope. WojPob is right; this issue is taking up WAY too much of our human resources --- It's still a good idea for Jimbo to proceed with trying to contact this person and see what he/she is about. And for all of us to keep a watchful eye to make sure 24 has been tamed a bit. If this person is on a similiar non-NPOV level as Ed or Crunc I can live with that. (talking about level of severity, not ideology)
Although, the current lull in 24's submits may just be causing me to automatically (once again) give this person the benefit of the doubt when this person really doesn't deserve it. I guess we will see when he/she starts to massively submit again.
maveric149
you wrote:
[snip]
Much of the most recent stuff really isn't THAT non-NPOV -- although it takes an entire article of words for this person to say, maybe, a couple of sentences of information (much of the leftover stuff is even not as non-NPOV as what Ed Poor or the Cruncrator contributes....). It is a bear to wade
[snip]
watchful eye to make sure 24 has been tamed a bit. If this person is on a similiar non-NPOV level as Ed or Crunc I can live with that. (talking about level of severity, not ideology)
It's "cunctator", not "crunctator".
Do you actually have any awareness of any biased material I have contributed, or are you just going on hearsay? I'd really like to know if my conception of my contributions is incorrect, or if you're at fault.
I just want you to know how what you write makes me feel, which is rather hurt and insulted, inasmuch as my contributions have been predominantly to the creation of the most popular entries on the site (in terms of hits and interlinking) and careful editing of other entries, and not to the propagation of any particular agenda.
I have been forceful of my opinions about the nature of Wikipedia, but that's separate from being on a "non-NPOV level" like Ed.
Am I wrong?
yours, tc
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org