I do have support for becoming an admin. I�d like to refer to the below comments posted on my talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172
: BTW, to become an admin, you need to send an email to the mailing list. (Sing out if you don't know how to do this.) You were ''persona non-grata'' there in the early days. Indeed, the reason I originally signed up for the list was to (a) speak in your defence, and (b) make a plea to ban Vera bloody Cruz. (And I firmly believe that time has proved me 100% right on both counts!) But that was quite some time ago, and I'm sure your stocks have risen considerably since then. I'll certainly speak up for you: your contribution to the history sections here has been outstanding. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
Thanks. I have been having major technical problems here. And it has been difficult getting on to wiki. I wrote something on a talk page at 3.30pm today but could only get onto wiki to put it on at 10pm tonight! I got a new digital camera so I spent a couple of days walking around Dublin talking pictures for wiki articles. (See [[Irish Houses of Parliament]]) God what so of wikiholic am I!!! I see the latest of Adam's trolls have disappeared. I think our 'no holes barred' attitude is working. Once he is rumbled, he knows the game is up and we will tolerate no messing! Anyway, thanks for the message. BTW you have my full support in joining admin. [[User:Jtdirl|��REman]] 21:57 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
-----
We've had our differences and I still think you are not able to see your own POV sometimes (especially by selective presentation) but I will not oppose your application for Adminship (however I won't support it either). If Fred can be an Admin I guess you can too. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]
You have my support too. [[User:Danny|Danny]]
Fred Bauder�s charges pertaining to bias are also baseless. To get an idea see the debate on the talk pages of Communist state and China.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
JT wrote:
>....
>On the movie vs film issue, I like the suggestion of
>(movie/film) or (film/movie). Perhaps the solution as
>to which one comes first can be solved
>simply by the rule - put them alphabetically.
Please no. Just keep it simple. Either (movie) or
(film) works. My personal preference is for (movie)
because it is less ambiguous than (film) ("film" has
more than one meaning while "movie" only has one). But
this isn't a strong preference. The /main/ reason why
I think (movie) is better is because this is the term
used for the majority ambiguous movie names already.
If somebody goes to the great deal of effort on moving
these articles to the (film) format then I'll support
that as the standard.
But (film/movie) is madness - newbies will create all
sorts of variants based on this disambiguator.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
) FILETIME=[8591F960:01C3137A]
>
>John Knouse wrote:
>
>>Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass
>>(movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
>>
>>
>Or "(film/movie)", so as to forestall charges of American
>cultural imperialism because "movie" comes first. :-)
>
>Or, use "(movie/film)" and "(film/movie)" as a subtle
>method of differentiating the European-preferred from
>the American-preferred works, heh-heh.
Nice one, Stan. BTW sorry if offence was caused. It was not intended. To be
honest, I never thought it important to use smileys. I am only back on the
net since August and just never got 'into' using smileys. But please do
realise I have a habit of being ironic and sarcastic and take my comments in
that light.
And in case some people think it, I do NOT dislike America. Far from it. I
admire so many things about America - heck, my favourite TV shows are
Fraser, The West Wing and Six Feed Under, which all 'do' irony. But many
people outside the US do have a problem with the attitude (perhaps an
unintended attitude) of 'we know best' with any criticism of anything to do
with the US as being 'anti-american'. The Bush administration has REALLY
rubbed non-Americans the wrong way in a whole range of areas, and that has
impacted on attitudes worldwide towards the US. Wiki does have a tendency
(understandably, given that most of its initial members were American) to
have an american-orientation in many areas. Lists of TV shows that were hits
are exclusively American. An article on First Ladies was really about US
first ladies until I renamed it to clarify that fact. (Those who doing the
page - and did great work - never considered the fact that such a term might
be used outside the US) American linguistic styles like saying 'city name,
country' are prevalent even though that format is not widely used outside
the US. American terms 'movie, automobile' etc are used, even if english
language speakers outside the US don't use the terms and see them as
exclusively American terms.
On the movie vs film issue, I like the suggestion of (movie/film) or
(film/movie). Perhaps the solution as to which one comes first can be solved
simply by the rule - put them alphabetically.
In any case, wikilove (totally non sarcastically and non ironically, BTW
Danny!) :-)
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
I would never have thought that renaming "Young and Innocent (film)" so that
it becomes "Young and Innocent (movie)" -- purely for consistency's sake --
would create such a lengthy debate. What you don't take into consideration
is that there isn't just a world outside the United States: There are also
parts of this planet where ENGLISH is NOT the first language. If you were
living in a small landlocked country such as Austria, where I'm writing from
just now, you'd be appalled at the sheer number of both English and German
words with which you are inundated every single day of your life. We've
arrived at a point where three year-olds say "Tschüs" (German, but certainly
not Austrian for "Bye") when they leave and "cool" if they see something
they like -- all because they have heard it on TV. And now imagine an
Austrian saying, "I'm not putting up with this. They are supposed to say
"Servus" and "nett" or whatever.
And of course you can call an Austrian made-for-TV Film (which is the German
word) a "movie". Where's the problem?
KF
Hello
I am getting really tired of a signed in editor named Or, who works only on the article [[History of Croatia]]. He is erasing material and making it POV. In a previous incarnation, before he got a user name, he also erased the [[Jasenovac]] article. Basically, every day he does this, and every day someone reverts him. Today, I reverted him, he reverted me, someone anonmous blanked the article, and someone reverted to Or's version. It is getting tiresome. I have asked him about his changes in the Talk page, but to no avail. This is also the only article he ever does anything with.
Suggestions anyone?
Danny
It seems most Americans missed the point I was making and don't grasp the
Irish and European use of sarcasm. So let me spell it out.
1. Most non-Americans do not use the word 'movie' and see it as a word
largely unique to America and its exclusive use on wikipedia classic
americocentrism.
2. Most English speakers on the use 'film'. Most Americans don't.
3. Most Americans use 'movie', not film.
The obvious solution is to apply the same approach as we do with British
English and American English. Accept the form used by whoever writes the
article. In some areas on wiki, there are definite rights and wrongs, over
names, titles, references. But here there is no right and wrong, merely
different terms for the same thing. Wiki may well have decided to use
'movie' previously, but that was when wiki was overwhelmingly American in
terms of contributors. The longer it goes on, the more non-Americans will
join, and it hardly helps convince people that wiki isn't americocentric if
they are told they must use the American-English word in preference to their
own. It is already irritating to non-Americans when they create entries to
films in foreign languages that may not have had an American release, only
to find a French language or German language films christened 'movie'. Using
'movie' to describe a European film is as annoying to Europeans as calling
someone from Belgium French is to a Belgian, or calling someone from Ireland
'British' is to the Irish. Or indeed presuming a Canadian is from the United
States is to a Canadian. It is an causing an offence that is unnecessary and
can easily avoided.
As to the reference to 'movie' bring used to describe Hollywood
blockbusters, that is done tongue in cheek by many Europeans to contrast big
budget Hollywood blockbusters to arthouse films or film noir. And I was
mentioning that in a tongue in cheek manner. It used to be said in Europe
that 'Americans don't ''do'' irony'. Seeing the failure to grasp the fact
that what I was saying was sarsasm, I guess that statement seems true after
all. No offence was intended. Obviously we should put different concept of
'sense of humour' and 'irony' on a list of American and European differences
on a wiki list! Wikilove.
JT.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass
(movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
--
John Knouse
jaknouse(a)frognet.net
www.jaknouse.athens.oh.us
+1.740.589.4575
PO Box 1196, Athens, OH 45701-1196
Author - F. P. Jones
English - Experience is that marvelous thing that enables
you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
Quote supplied courtesy of Verba Volant at:
http://www.logos.it/owa-l/press.rol_ml.verbavolant1?lang=en
In a message dated 5/5/2003 6:53:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jtdirl(a)hotmail.com writes:
> It seems most Americans missed the point I was making and don't grasp the
> Irish and European use of sarcasm. So let me spell it out.
>
> 1. Most non-Americans do not use the word 'movie' and see it as a word
> largely unique to America and its exclusive use on wikipedia classic
> americocentrism.
>
> 2. Most English speakers on the use 'film'. Most Americans don't.
>
> 3. Most Americans use 'movie', not film.
>
> The obvious solution is to apply the same approach as we do with British
> English and American English. Accept the form used by whoever writes the
> article. In some areas on wiki, there are definite rights and wrongs, over
> names, titles, references. But here there is no right and wrong, merely
> different terms for the same thing. Wiki may well have decided to use
> 'movie' previously, but that was when wiki was overwhelmingly American in
> terms of contributors. The longer it goes on, the more non-Americans will
> join, and it hardly helps convince people that wiki isn't americocentric if
>
> they are told they must use the American-English word in preference to
> their
> own. It is already irritating to non-Americans when they create entries to
>
> films in foreign languages that may not have had an American release, only
> to find a French language or German language films christened 'movie'.
> Using
> 'movie' to describe a European film is as annoying to Europeans as calling
> someone from Belgium French is to a Belgian, or calling someone from
> Ireland
> 'British' is to the Irish. Or indeed presuming a Canadian is from the
> United
> States is to a Canadian. It is an causing an offence that is unnecessary
> and
> can easily avoided.
>
> As to the reference to 'movie' bring used to describe Hollywood
> blockbusters, that is done tongue in cheek by many Europeans to contrast
> big
> budget Hollywood blockbusters to arthouse films or film noir. And I was
> mentioning that in a tongue in cheek manner. It used to be said in Europe
> that 'Americans don't ''do'' irony'. Seeing the failure to grasp the fact
> that what I was saying was sarsasm, I guess that statement seems true after
>
> all. No offence was intended. Obviously we should put different concept of
> 'sense of humour' and 'irony' on a list of American and European
> differences
> on a wiki list! Wikilove.
> JT.
>
In the original debate, I voted for film, and I still contend that it is the
better term to use. However, a couple of comments to you, JT, to show you
where you are arousing some antagonism here.
1. "Most English speakers use film. Most Americans don't." And what language
is it that Americans speak?
2. These incredible overgeneralizations. Most Americans ... Most Europeans
... Actually, most Europeans don't speak English, at least as a first
language.
3. Tossing around the term Americocentric so liberally. Why is Eurocentrism
any better.
4. Irritating to find a film called a movie? I doubt most Europeans really
care that much. Some might find it amusing. Some might just go with the flow.
I really wonder how many people would be "offended" by that (oh, and I've
worked with the film and television industry in Europe--I even have a BAFTA
nomination under my belt. Yes, they prefer film, but people I know from MIP
probably wouldn't care that much).
5. As you said yourself in an earlier post, the distinction with regard to
films produced in Hollywood is highly subjective. Subjectivity is something
we should avoid.
6. You wrote: "It used to be said in Europe that 'Americans don't ''do''
irony'. Seeing the failure to grasp the fact that what I was saying was
sarsasm, I guess that statement seems true after all. No offence was
intended." For one thing, sarcasm is to irony like movie is to film. And, of
course, we have the sweeping generalizations again. It's old and it's silly.
That said, I think we should reopen the discussion. I would still prefer to
see film--we talk about indie films, film noir, art films, and it kinda jars
me to call them movies. On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for
uniformity in disambiguation. And if we do stick with uniformity--which I
hope for above all else--and if film is the chosen term, it would take a hell
of a lot of work to convert all the films to movies. Are you willing to do
that? I'm not.
So, was your Wikilove ironic or sarcastic?
Peace
Danny
Given the abuse given by DW and Adam to Zoe and others, we really do need to
have some form of control mechanism to stop the constant 'Invasion of the
Trolls'. Adam's latest two personæ seem to have disappeared after being
stood up to. Do we have to keep niavely accepting the good will of people
who constantly come back and do the same as they did in their last
'apparition'. A suggestion:
1. if someone is banned TWICE for their behaviour, they should not be
allowed back at all, unless they contact Jimbo (perhaps publicly on his
page, perhaps privately) to guarantee that they will change their behaviour,
with Jimbo then stating on his page that DW, Adam, Michael or whomever has
indicated they will not resort to their previous behaviour.
2. Where such a guarantee is given, THEN AND ONLY THEN will they be given
the benefit of the doubt and allowed back a third time.
3. If such a guarantee has not been given, once it has clearly been
demonstrated that 'x' user is indeed DW, Adam, Michael etc and they have
been banned twice, then an AUTOMATIC PAGE REVERSION POLICY is followed,
pending their permanent banning. And a person permanently banned will also
be subject to an AUTOMATIC PAGE REVERSION POLICY. That might seem harsh and
might seem costly in so far as it could lose wiki some good contributions,
but only an absolute and clear policy that tells such a troll A PERMANENT
BAN MEANS NOT ONE WORD OF YOURS WILL BE ACCEPTED ON WIKI will work.
Otherwise a permanent ban is useless and simply means 'take a break, then
come back and start hassling users all over again'.
The latest Adam troll invasion was only stopped when people challenged him.
The softly softy approach in his case simply encourages him, especially when
newbies join and, not knowing his 'game', try to be nice and constructive
and end up challenging older wiki people over 'why are you being nasty to
'x'?' (One said that to me recently, only to email an apology later saying
that in his words ''that son of a bitch had had me fooled. You, Zoe, Tannin
and 172 were right. Why did wikipedia let this abhorrent person on again,
given their record?'' If he is banned, why did wikipedia not kick him off
the moment he came on again?)
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
I�d like to apply for administrator's status. [[User:172|172]]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.