Scríobh Mark Williamson:
If the Britney Spears article said "×'ר×TÖ´×~× ×TÖ´ ספּ×Tִרס ×T×-
×Ö·
[[פּ×ָפּ×.×oערע ×-×T×'ער×T×Y|פּ×ָפּ×.×oערע
×-×T×'ער]]" ("Britney Spears is a
[[popular singer]]") with an actual article of at least stub quality at the "Popular Singer" page, it could reasonably be considered a substub, but even if there was no article at "Popular Singer" I probably wouldn'tve touched it, had it been an actual sentence.
It's funny Mark, I don't seem to remember you being elevated to such a position where you could make authoritative judgements on what is a stub, a substub, or whatever. Whatever would have been the problem with just expanding the sub-sub-stub or whatever you believed it was to a good article? You know, like we do on other, non-minority Wikipedias. Yet again, both in your original infraction and your spamming of this list with hostile defensive flames, you've totally overstepped the bounds of what is commonly held to be acceptable behaviour here.
On another note, when the first post to this list informing of a problem on a minority-language Wikipedia came up, was I the only one who thought "Mark!", before I even opened it to have a read?
Regards, - Craig Franklin
Right, if I wrote an article on en: that said "a popular singer", it would be expanded? Am I supposed to believe that? If I made articles like that on en.wikipedia, I'd probably be asked to stop, and perhaps even banned.
An article containing two words is by no measure a stub, unless it is a language where those two words translate into an English sentence.
I would hardly call my actions "spamming this list with defensive flames". I believe I have the right to defend myself against accusations, so even if they are "defensive flames" I believe I am entitled to that. I have sent perhaps 10 "defensive flames" as you call them over the course of 3 days. That may be a little bit much, but given what is going on, I think it should be expected from anybody.
In addition, the only other minority language Wikipedia I've been accused of causing problems at is ks.wikipedia. Toki Pona is not a minority language in the usual meaning of the word.
If you check my edits on all minority language Wikipedias, I guarantee you there is nothing against policy. I also guarantee you that any edits made before this moment by "node_ue" on any Wikipedia are mine. In fact, the majority of these edits are reversions of vandalism, notes on talkpages, uploads of logos, or other minor helpful edits. Danny cannot reasonably claim to speak for the userbase of the Yddish Wikipedia, given that the one user other than him and I has worked out all outstanding issues on the Yiddish Wikipedia.
As noted before, if I continued to revert the pages to my speedy-template versions, that could be considered on all accounts "bad", however when I realised such edits - of which I made 4, I repeat 4, that's f o u r four - were upsetting Danny, I didn't make any more. In fact, I didn't make any more before he got upset, either, even though I had plenty of time. Danny is the only one whining about this.
Four. That's one, two, three four pages, totaling 19 words. If you subtract "a", "is", and "of" (in Yiddish of course), that is 19 words.
To deal with these pages separately, that would be 5 words on two pages (America and Britney Spears), 3 subtracting "a"s.
The other two pages total 14 words, 6 subtracting "a", "is", and "of". These two pages said exclusively "_____ is a brother of ___" and linked to one another.
It's not as if I went on some massive spree of replacing pages with {{delete}} notices, as a matter of fact yi.wikipedia doesn't yet even have enough pages for a "spree".
Nor did I ignore people when they confronted me. In fact, Jamesday confronted me and we came to an understanding that not only had I already stopped, I wasn't planning on doing it anymore. Danny didn't even bother to confront me.
And all of this hubbub took place nearly 24 hours after these edits, about 7 hours after they were reverted.
Claims against me are getting to such a level where they are so rediculous I would laugh if they were made against somebody else. 4 pages which would have been speedied on en.wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, not engaging in a revert war, and all the action taking place well after the actual "problem"? That's crazy.
Mark
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:58:17 +1000, Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net wrote:
Scríobh Mark Williamson:
If the Britney Spears article said "×'ר×TÖ´×~× ×TÖ´ ספּ×Tִרס ×T×-
×Ö·
[[פּ×ָפּ×.×oערע ×-×T×'ער×T×Y|פּ×ָפּ×.×oערע
×-×T×'ער]]" ("Britney Spears is a
[[popular singer]]") with an actual article of at least stub quality at the "Popular Singer" page, it could reasonably be considered a substub, but even if there was no article at "Popular Singer" I probably wouldn'tve touched it, had it been an actual sentence.
It's funny Mark, I don't seem to remember you being elevated to such a position where you could make authoritative judgements on what is a stub, a substub, or whatever. Whatever would have been the problem with just expanding the sub-sub-stub or whatever you believed it was to a good article? You know, like we do on other, non-minority Wikipedias. Yet again, both in your original infraction and your spamming of this list with hostile defensive flames, you've totally overstepped the bounds of what is commonly held to be acceptable behaviour here.
On another note, when the first post to this list informing of a problem on a minority-language Wikipedia came up, was I the only one who thought "Mark!", before I even opened it to have a read?
Regards,
- Craig Franklin
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
Right, if I wrote an article on en: that said "a popular singer", it would be expanded? Am I supposed to believe that? If I made articles like that on en.wikipedia, I'd probably be asked to stop, and perhaps even banned.
Mark, Mark, Mark, we don't want this discussion here. You must be able to resolve this on the local level with your peers on the Yiddish Wikipedia. Probably, that requires that you use Yiddish in the discussion pages there. Since I don't speak nor understand Yiddish, I will stay away from that Wikipedia.
There is 1 other user on the Yiddish Wikipedia, and he created those articles, and when I blanked them, he reverted them, and I did not make an issue of it... but apparently Danny feels it's an issue even though nobody else does.
Mark
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:56:42 +0100 (CET), Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Right, if I wrote an article on en: that said "a popular singer", it would be expanded? Am I supposed to believe that? If I made articles like that on en.wikipedia, I'd probably be asked to stop, and perhaps even banned.
Mark, Mark, Mark, we don't want this discussion here. You must be able to resolve this on the local level with your peers on the Yiddish Wikipedia. Probably, that requires that you use Yiddish in the discussion pages there. Since I don't speak nor understand Yiddish, I will stay away from that Wikipedia.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:08:30 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Right, if I wrote an article on en: that said "a popular singer", it would be expanded? Am I supposed to believe that? If I made articles like that on en.wikipedia, I'd probably be asked to stop, and perhaps even banned.
Not so. On en: the article would get {{substub}} slapped upon it, be extended to "Britney Spears is a popular singer." and then just left hanging around because anyone proposing its deletion would get insulted and told that he is just too lazy to extend it. Now if you had said de: or nl:, you might have a point, they don't like that kind of 'article', but on en: there is no way to ged rid of it unless you are an admin and sneak it away. And on da: it would after the extension not even be among the shortest pages.
Andre Engels
Not so. On en: the article would get {{substub}} slapped upon it, be extended to "Britney Spears is a popular singer." and then just left hanging around because anyone proposing its deletion would get insulted and told that he is just too lazy to extend it. Now if you had said de: or nl:, you might have a point, they don't like that kind of 'article', but on en: there is no way to ged rid of it unless you are an admin and sneak it away. And on da: it would after the extension not even be among the shortest pages. Andre Engels
On pl: it would also most probably be deleted right away.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org