"Robert" <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
> Why is the Wikibot replacing all instances of the phrase
> "Black Panther" with a redirect to the article on
> [[murder]]? This seems very unjustified.
>
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikibot
Could you please specify a page where this has happened? From
things like the edit summary I might be able to see what's going
on (a bug in the bot, misuse of the bot or human edits trying to
hide as bot edits).
Andre Engels
Why is the Wikibot replacing all instances of the phrase
"Black Panther" with a redirect to the article on
[[murder]]? This seems very unjustified.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikibot
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
All I can suggest is mediation.
If you and Leumi /both/ agree, I will make a formal offer to mediate.
I've already begun a mediation re: [[Silesia]].
See:
* [[talk:Silesia]]
* [[Silesia (moderated)]] - a six word stub
* [[talk:Silesia (moderated)]]
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Lir wrote:
> I would like to become a mediator.
Get some experience at mediating.
You'd be extra good at it, because you know exactly the sorts of
verbiage that pisses people off; so you could coach users NOT to make
the same mistakes YOU made. (Note: that's my secret - I profit from my
mistakes, and use my never-ending history of failure as a source of
what-not-to's.)
Uncle Ed
John asked:
> Meanwhile, what are bits like Monaco, the Vatican,
> Nauru, etc etc etc called?
>
> Microstates?
I think they're called "principalities" -- at least Monaco is.
I hope this ends up with an article explaining all the types of
political sovereignty, starting with the biggest (population and/or
area), and descending to the tiniest.
Last year someone started writing about [[enclave]]s and exclaves.
Your other question is interesting, too. See [[Kurdistan]] for an
ethno-cultural group with no sovereignty; even though /-stan/ means
"country", there is no country called Kurdistan; the Kurds are spread
out among northeast Iraq, and a couple of other adjoining areas.
It starts getting REALLY complicated when speaking of groups having
nationalistic aspirations.
Meanwhile, what are bits like Monaco, the Vatican, Nauru, etc etc etc called?
Microstates?
Then what's the micro-term for the other meaning of nation, as in an ethno-cultural group?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: aridd <aridd(a)wanadoo.fr>
Date: Monday, December 8, 2003 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: Micronation (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Question)
>
> Cunctator, that is the most widely accepted definition of a
> micronation, yes. They're also referred to as "fifth world
> nations". I'll bow out now. Thank you all for giving this some
> thought.
> Kind regards,
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> Message du 08/12/03 14:22
> De : The Cunctator
> A : English Wikipedia
> Copie à :
> Objet : Micronation (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Question)
> On 12/8/03 7:06 AM, "sannse" wrote: > Jake wrote: > >> I find
> people's use of "Micronation", especially as in the
> [[Micronation]] >> article, terribly inconsistent- the only way
> I've ever seen it used > outside >> of Wikipedia (Note the "I've
> seen", don't list Google results of other > uses, >> I'm sure they
> exist) is to refer to very small nations that actually exist >>
> and have some degree of legal recognition (even if it's just that
> they're >> islands outside any other nation's territory):
> [[Sealand]], North Dumpling >> (Dean Kamen's island, near Long
> Island- has a non-aggression pact with the >> US signed by then-
> President George H.W. Bush), and several dozen others. >> However,
> many people seem to use the term to describe entirely fictional >>
> entities with no territory. I would simply call these "Fantasy
> nations", >> "Imaginary nations", or something like that, as the
> prefix micro- makes no >> sense in that context. >> >> -- Jake > >
> The [[micronations]] article makes a distinction between
> "micronations" and > "microstates", but I've no idea if this is a
> common way of using the words. > I've never come across the
> concept before this, so am probably using it > wrong. The main
> promoter in print of the term "micronation" to refer to small
> nation-like groups without official recognition is this Wired
> Magazine article from March 2000:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.03/kingdoms.html Until a more
> precise term comes along, one might as well call Talossa a
> micronation. Micronations, also known as counternations and
> ephemeral states, consist of one or more people united by the
> desire to form and/or inhabit an independent country of their own
> making. All micronations have governments, laws, and customs; the
> main distinguishing factor is whether their citizens want to
> establish a physical home country and seek international
> recognition, or whether, as is the case with Talossa, they're
> happy just to pretend.
> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing
> list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:22:14AM +0000, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
>
> Which reminds me (to everybody):
> Has anybody with that power checked the IP logs for MNH's edits
> to see if this might be somebody that we've met before?
> He was quick to point to the weaknesses of our banning procedures
> and seemed to understand the political wisdom of focusing on RK.
>
I would like to echo this request. He strikes me as sometbody who is
uncannily familiar with the subtleties of Wikipedia politics for a
newbie.
Viajero wrote:
>I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository
>for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which
>has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural
>Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and
>likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality.
>
>Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative
>medicine]] talk page:
Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page
_supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
Actually, what are the terms of allowed discourse on talk pages? I've
had a user recently on the Disinfopedia who hasn't done any damage to
actual articles, but he has made a number of nasty remarks on talk
pages, accusing other users of "paranoid ravings" and referring to me
personally as a fascist. I've been operating on the assumption that
even intemperate remarks like this should be acceptable if they are
limited to comments on talk pages. At what point do Wikipedians draw
the line on this sort of thing?
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------
Toby wrote, incredulously:
> Given the context of this post, it would appear
> that Ed thinks that people are ganging up on RK,
> and then we're trying to excuse this because RK
> reacted badly.
No, Toby, you got the cart before the horse.
Rather, I think what happened the last time is that:
(1) People ganged up on RK (or it seemed that way to him)
(2) He defended himself (in a way people thought was inexcusably bad)
(3) They used his 'defensiveness' as an excuse to ban him
I am not saying that people used (2) to defend (1), but that they used
(2) to defend (3).
Oh, what's the use! No one listens to me anyway. Cunctator picks apart
everything I say and ignores my main points just because I don't start
right. Erik (on the talk page) puts words in my mouth.
I guess it's time for me to start threatening to "resign" again. How
long has it been since my last 'threat'? Mav, are you keeping track?
Ed Poor