On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Thanks for the response...
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
So we can promote things
Could you expand on this? AFAIK, the topic under discussion was a template, intended to be placed on user pages, containing the text: "This user is a Satanist" (IIRC). Is this intended to promote something? Is this intended to promote the improvement of some article in Wikipedia? Generally, most things in the non-article space parts of Wikipedia are designed to assist in writing the encyclopedia, or reflect on such writing. Unless I am mistaken, very few if any things on Wikipedia are designed to promote anything, except possibly Wikipedia itself. I look forward to you expanding on what you mean by this.
<major sniping>
Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come from.
And (baring the Islamic issue discussed here ad nausaum), what evidence do you have that Wikipedia does not? Deleting a template is not blocking anyone from editing the encyclopedia, unless I am seriously out of touch here...
You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two totally different issues.
Er, I asked for two things. 1) What did you mean by "promote"? 2) What evidence do you have that Wikipedia is not allowing people to edit because of their background? Unless I am misunderstanding, you didn't provide either of these in your response. I look forward to you doing so.
<part of original message removed>
Calling my post major sniping seems very premature when you didn't understand that.
As for the comment about "major sniping", that was a typo. ;-) I meant to say <large parts of the original message removed>. Sorry about that.
Continuing to wonder about "promote", Jesse Weinstein
The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and blockable offense no less). I was pointing out that their point of view which allowed This user is a christian and strictly disallowed this user is a satanist, to be against in wikipedia's neutral philosophy. The word promote may not have been the right word, however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has not been rebutted.
I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way. I was merely stating the position that it should and does indeed promote edits by any serious editor wanting in good faith to improve wikipedia. That goes against someone who claims that no serious editor (given their personal culture) would ever in good faith say that they were a satanist. They were bringing in far more of their personal bias to wikipedia than these templates ever have (as long as they are all available and not deleted by people with personal religious agendas)
Peter Ansell