Wik keeps removing "Halloween" from [[October 2003]]; in my part of the world, Halloween was front page news for a week -- there was a great deal of discussion about the decline of Halloween in Europe. Please arbitrate this issue.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
Mr-Natural-Health made the statement that he is a Nazi; he
said this to me on my User page because I am am Jewish.
This is very hateful. He is even sending private hate mail
to people he disagrees with. For instance:
====
To: "RK"
Subject: RK, the Arse!
From: "Mr-Natural-Health" <johnhgohde(a)yahoo.com>
To: "RK"
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:24:06 +0000 (UTC)
You are an Arse! Just thought that you might want to
know. :)
====
It is not just me; in a very short time many in the
Wikipedia community have come to the conclusion that
Mr-Natural-Health is a threat. Please see for yourself by
reading the comments on his User page; every time someone
tries to discuss things with him, he belittles and insults
them, and then attacks them.
Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly stated that he plans on
coming back to Wikipedia with other ISP under false names,
and that he will not let anyone alter his edits. This is
explicit admission of vandalism.
In any case, the edits he makes include gross falsehoods,
distortions, fabrications, and paranoia. I am distubred by
the way that Ec and a few others are defending this
disturbed individual and his "work". I had planned to stay
off Wiki-En for good, but in this case seeing this man
defended, instead of banned, was too much.
A few contributors to Wiki-En forum seem devoid of common
sense; it would be a shame if their lack of sense allowed
Wikipedia to be damaged by allowing wackos free reign.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
I just don't want a to see a situation like the following:
"Yes, we admit we all ganged up on him, but the way he defended himself
against our attack was worse than anything we did to him; so, he should
be punished, and we should all get away scott free!"
I would tread VERY CAREFULLY before advocating any 'princples' that
smack of this, especially in the hearing of any Jewish men or women who
have strong feelings about the Holocaust.
Uncle Ed
"Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> schrieb:
> Halloween is a major holiday, celebration, or whatever in the US, not quite
> as big as Christmas. It is an established fact, not subject to serious
> dispute. Removal of any known, well-established fact from an article where
> it clearly belongs is a serious matter. Hiding behind a claim of triviality
> is not a defense. It is like someone who shortchanges you a nickel every
> time you deal with them.
I hate this attitude. This is what stops some bad Wikipedia articles from getting improved - anything that has been written down once and is true should be kept, however trivial the fact is.
The 'October 2003' page gives news and special occurences during the month of October 2003. In what way is Halloween such? Halloween is each year on 31 October. There's nothing special or newsworthy about 31 October 2003 having been Halloween. 31 October 2003 also was a day that counted 24 hours. That's a known, well-established fact as well. So if I add that to the page it should stay as well?
Andre Engels
Robert asked Toby to stop his "personal attacks" on him.
Toby, as list administrator I would like you to consider whether remarks
like the following really ADD to the discourse, or merely SIDETRACK us
from the actual topic at hand:
"It's a darned good thing that other people noticed MNH before you did,
RK, or it might have been EoT all over again -- where the regular
Wikipedians ignore your charges because you back them up with
exaggerations and biased rhetoric."
Please remember that some people are more sensitive than others. My skin
is thick enough that you could talk to me like that, but Robert has
taken offense.
You could say the same thing, albeit more gently, if you write:
* I think the complaints about MNH are exaggerated. He's not that bad,
because of blah, blah, blah.
Or
* I worry that opposition to MNH is rooted is bias against the /points/
he is making.
Note that both of these approaches criticize IDEAS themselves rather
than any PERSON on this list.
May this provide you food for thought.
Ed Poor
Wikien-l List Administrator
Jimbo wrote:
>Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>> Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page
>> _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
>
>Allowed, yes. Encouraged, no.
That's different from my understanding of how things are intended to
operate. I've been operating on the understanding that articles
themselves strive to attain NPOV, but that in order to achieve that
goal, individual users need a place to express their differing points
of view so that they can work toward a satisfactory synthesis. It
would seem therefore that expression of points of view is actually
_necessary_ on the talk pages. Am I understanding things properly?
>The talk page is supposed to be about the article, about how to
>improve the article. As such, the debate or discussion can be more
>wide-ranging there than in the actual article. But even on the talk
>pages, things work best when people try not to _argue_, but rather to
>_co-operate_ in finding a wording that works well for everyone.
Agreed.
With regard to name-calling and other linguistic abuse on the talk
pages, Jimbo wrote:
>I think we find it completely unacceptable, but at the same time we're
>very slow to do anything about it most of the time.
Is being "slow to do anything" a policy, a custom, or merely lack of
vigilance? I'm asking because I'm trying to better determine policy
for myself. At Disinfopedia, I'm following a "two strikes and you're
out" policy for self-evident vandalism (e.g., insertion of profanity,
flagrantly false information, etc.) The reason I'm making it "two
strikes" rather than one is that sometimes people who happen upon the
site for the first time might make a semi-accidental edit while
they're experimenting with the system to see how it works. I've also
had lots of cases where someone has inserted the word "hi" into an
article and then immediately deleted it. I don't regard that as
vandalism.
We've only recently started to encounter cases of what I consider
"gray areas" -- belligerent behavior from people who don't like
someone else's edits and express themselves through name-calling on
the talk pages. If you find this kind of behavior "completely
unacceptable," does that mean that you would support a policy of
banning users the first time sort of behavior emerges? Would you try
to reason with them first? I think an argument could be made both
ways. Banning them quickly makes a clear statement that such behavior
is indeed "completely unacceptable," and may elevate the overall tone
of discussions and save everyone from aggravation by putting out
flame wars before they have a chance to reach full blaze. On the
other hand, it creates a greater risk of arbitrary enforcement, may
drive away users who have the potential to become worthwhile
contributors, and might even provoke banned individuals to escalate
through other means, such as starting up multiple user accounts or
even attempts at outright hacking.
Jimbo also wrote:
>This is one reason I personally rarely edit, by the way. Not because
>I don't want people to call me a fascist, I really don't care about
>that. But because I would feel compelled to accept bad behavior
>directed towards me that I would not accept when directed towards
>others.
That's an interesting approach. Why do you think that personally
editing would compel you to accept worse behavior directed toward
yourself than you would accept toward others?
In a possibly related vein, Ed Poor wrote:
>Newbies have hardly any influencies on "old hands" such as myself.
>Oh, they can make suggestions and even "vote" on stuff, and if what
>they propose makes sense I'll try it. But if their proposals don't
>make sense to me I /disregard/ them.
>
>I refuse to be tyrannized by a majority or a minority. I follow the
>rules laid down by our PhilosopherKing Jimbo Wales -- or, I do the
>best I can to follow them; I have my occasional lapses, like anyone
>else (Hi, Erik!).
This statement clearly suggests that there is a hierarchy operating
here, with Jimbo as Philosopher King and old hands like Ed enjoying a
status that newbies do not possess. I don't necessarily oppose such a
hierarchy (in fact, I think it's necessary), but is there a sliding
scale of "newbie-ness," so that someone who has been around for a
year like myself is still more of a newbie than someone like Ed, who
has been around longer? Is it also okay for newbies to "refuse to be
tyrannized by a majority or a minority" of old hands? Does Ed's
statement reflect a general custom or policy for the Wikipedia, or is
Ed simply describing his personal practice? And getting back to
Jimbo's statement above, should "old hands" feel an obligation to
some degree of self-restraint along the lines of the self-restraint
that Jimbo imposes on himself? Or is Jimbo's decision to "rarely
edit" a rule that only applies to Philosopher Kings?
I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I think it would
be interesting to see how others answer them.
Toby,
Please stop your personal attacks on me. This list is for
discussion of issues related to the English Wikipedia, such
as the recent spate of attacks and damage by
Mr-Natural-Health (MNH). If you want to insult me, do it
offlist.
I am amazed that MNH's highly disturbing behaviour is being
defended by so many, or at least ignored by so many. It
seems as if there are two Wikipedias. Those Wikipedians who
actually contribute to the articles that MNH contributes to
see him as dangerous. Just see the Talk pages. But here on
the Wiki-En list, a few people bizarrely see him as an ally
in their fight against science. That's unproductive, and in
fact detrimental.
Please take steps to insure the integrity of Wikipedia.
RK
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think
some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former
Problem Users page --
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-…>
Thanks, Brian
At Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:58:24 +0100, Viajero wrote (in part):
>Hi all,
>
>I am afraid I spoke to soon. Mr Natural-Health was initially cowered by
>RK's agressive edits and hostile comments. His first response was several
>anonymous personal attacks against RK on the Talk pages. Then he hit upon
>the idea of listing him (also anonymously) on VfA to be de-sysoped -- only
>to be told that RK wasn't a sysop to begin with.
[snip]
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