>Vera's and 172's styles are very different, and Vera has several times
>displayed an embarrassing ignorance of things which 172 would know
>backwards. (And also displayed a knowledge of weird stuff like the exact
>composition of the military of the Phillipines in 1941 that doesn't
strike me as
>within 172's compass.) Besides, I don't think even VC would have the
>paitence to have had such massive edit wars with herself.
well that's good. I was beginning to fear for her mental health. ^_^
But I admit I've done by best to avoid them both lately.
The ban is on Vera's IP, not her username; I don't have the ability to
ban her username also. (though, as before, she'd probably just choose
another and continue being a gadfly).
kq
Vera's IP ban is excellent news. I look forward to us all being able to get on
with useful work now. 172 is on a dynamic IP in the 172 range. He detailed
many of the IPs on his user page a while back. I don't know about VC.
Vera's and 172's styles are very different, and Vera has several times
displayed an embarrassing ignorance of things which 172 would know
backwards. (And also displayed a knowledge of weird stuff like the exact
composition of the military of the Phillipines in 1941 that doesn't strike me as
within 172's compass.) Besides, I don't think even VC would have the
paitence to have had such massive edit wars with herself.
Tony
(Tannin)
The enormous frustration, disruption, and harm to Wikipedia that Vera Cruz creates is perfectly clear.
The probability of successfully negotiating with her to effect a reform is equally clear: near enough to zero
as makes no difference. She shows not the slightest sign of being able to reform, and every sign of being
able to evade and make a mockery of any and all attempts to restrain her: indeed, she obviously delights
in them, and goes out of her way to court them. An IP ban is the only practical response, and is probably
in any case inevitable. The sooner the better.
Tony (Tannin)
PS: My apologies for my double post a few days ago, and for the lack of word-wrap. After more than half
a lifetime working with computers, I *still* have trouble with mailing lists. Hate the damn things. If you
have multiple machines spanning several domains, they get very tricky. </excuse>
At 19:25 18/01/2003 -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
>I'm not one for banning, but if Vera Cruz is Lir and Lir is banned,
>then . . .
For the record, I just left a note on Vera Cruz' talk page, asking if Vera
Cruz is/was Lir. It seemed the obvious thing to do. The exchange went as
follows:
Camembert: Hi VC - quick question: are you the user formerly known as
[[User:Lir]]? --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]
Vera Cruz: Why? [[User:Vera Cruz|Vera Cruz]]
Camembert: Because there have been several suggestions that you are, and,
as such, should be banned immediately (for the reason that, as I understand
it, the being who used the name Lir is banned pending discussion with
[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] on the matter). --[[User:Camembert| Camembert]]
Vera Cruz: Im obviously [[User:Vera Cruz]] [[User:Vera Cruz|Vera Cruz]]
I don't have the inclination to pursue it any further (I don't know if
there's any point anyway). And I'm so far successful in my effort to not
form an opinion on the whole "let's ban Vera Cruz" thing, by the way.
lp (camembert)
Wikikarma: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islay_whisky
[btw - I accidentally sent this from the wrong email address initially, so
it may end up on the list twice - apologies if so]
mav wrot:
>I propose (again) that the current definition be used for "entries"
and a more
>stringent definition be used for "probable articles" (everything, of
course,
>is still a page).
I'd also prefer a more stringent definition.
kq
I've said this before and I will say it one more time: Do we want to keep the
piss-poor definition for automatic article detection?
I propose (again) that the current definition be used for "entries" and a more
stringent definition be used for "probable articles" (everything, of course,
is still a page).
We can simply take the count for entries and exclude anything that is less
than 500 bytes and has a link on it to [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] (or is
listed on one of links of disambiguating pages pages). That would give us
about 80,000 probable articles in the English Wikipedia (yes that still
includes about 30,000 rambot articles but so what? They are far more useful
as /articles/ than are many other entries we call articles).
The current prediction is that we should hit the 100,000 mark the middle of
next week. Press release or no press release, that number on the Main Page
will get some attention (thus the need for a press release to explain
things).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Zoe Wrote:
>I think the mentoring idea smacks of elitism. "We're better than
you, and this is how you should do things."
>Zoe
I rather thought it reeked of introducing people to community
standards, but perhaps I'm an unwitting elitist.
cheers,
kq
wikikarma: [[Economy of Portugal]] (another paste)
Hi Zoe,
I've a serious allegation to make about a fellow Wiki. I wrote a page on the
Irish Potato famine which became rather controversial with two people. One
of them threatened to revert any changes I made, and make sure I could not
revert his changes back.
He rewrote one section of the page in a decidedly POV, dodgy historical way.
When I tried to revert, I found that many of the earlier versions had been
vandalised, by him, so as to ensure that either I could not revert to them
or that if I did, the page would be so littered with POVs (his
interpretations of what he thinks my POVs are!) as to be pulled off.
Here's an example of one of the paragraphs vandalised. The changes he made
are in capitals.
One issue which divides the perspective of Ireland on the history of the
Famine from some BOGUS attitudes among the FAKE Irish - living abroad, is
the claim, made by some of the latter, that the Famine amounted to genocide
by the British against the Irish. Few Irish historians accept such a
PATENTLY FALSE definition, which would imply a deliberate policy of
extermination. While all are agreed that the British policies during the
Famine, particularly those applied by the ministry of [[Lord John Russell]],
were somewhat misguided, perhaps ill-informed and frequently
counter-productive, with Professor Joe Lee calling what happened a
'holocaust', [9] Irish, British and American historians of the cailbre of
Professors [[F.S.L. Lyons]], John A. Murphy, Joe Lee, Roy Foster, and James
S. Donnelly, Jr, as well as historians Cecil Woodham-Smith, Peter Gray, Ruth
Dudley Edwards and many others have long dismissed claims of A DELIBERATE
POLICY OF genocide. PERHAPS MORE THAN A STRONG BELIEF.
I spotted this paragraph by chance. I saw other dodgy add ons as well. I had
to go back to the version before he began his first of a series of
(seemingly innocent) changes (announcing how he was correcting a spelling or
a grammatical mistake, etc) to find a version that had not been vandalised.
The person responsible is Stevertigo.
What should we do about this? It is one thing to row over interpretation,
but to deliberately vandalise earlier versions so that they cannot be used
or would get pulled as being POV, is astonishing. I know how annoyed many of
us are with 172, but at least (as far as I know) all he does is revert
versions, not vandalise earlier versions as well so that no one can revert
his revertions. I don't fancy having to stand guard over an article most
people are happy with, all because some twat is determined to find some way
of screwing it up
If this is the standard of behaviour that Stevertigo is bringing to Wiki,
then he should be banned.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
In a message dated 1/17/2003 1:03:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com writes:
> Vera has also made the dubious additions of information on the
> transportation history of the Philippines in the 1940s (e.g. how many
> cars there were, etc.) and several other Philippines pages (though the
> one on its military history was interesting &probably useful too).
>
Unfortunately, I believe that most of the military history Vera wrote was
lifted from other sources, though modified slightly (which in some cases
changed the meaning). I gave an example or two in the Talk page of one of the
articles.
Danny