Folks, we currently have an edit-war between Anthere and
the world over the Gaia theory article.
But not over the content. This has nothing to do with
content, or with POV. Rather, it has to do with his
bizarre obsession with creating his own names that NO ONE
ELSE in science uses, and urging the creating of multiplw
articles with nearly the same name, and almost the same
content.
I can understand when someone gets into a flame-war or
edit-war when someone rewrites their contributions. But
this is happening when I am NOT rewriting his
contributions, but am merely moving biological scientific
studies out of a social-science discussion, into the
science-section of an article. I think he is threatened by
science maybe? I dunno...
Anthere has created, or supported the creation of:
[[Gaia hypothesis]]
[[Gaia theory]] (lower case t)
[[Gaia Theory]] (upper case T)
[[Gaia theory (biology]]
[[Gaia theory (homeostais)]]
(And a few more!)
And ALL OF THESE are on the same topic. The content is or
was nearly identical!
Being a scientist, I happen to know that no one uses
Anthere's bizarre terminology. All of these articles refer
to the same set of Gaia theories. But Anthere keeps
refusing any consolidation. That's just odd.
Problem 1: The discussion consensus so far has been clear:
Others are also confused about this bizarre naming system,
and want a better naming system. Anthere's fractionated
current system only misdirects anyone trying to learn about
the topic.
Problem 2: It is a violation of our naming conventions to
have nearly identical content, with nearly identical
titles, differentiated by only a lower-case versus
upper-case letter!
Problem 3: Anthere has effectively claimed ownership of the
article, and currently won't let me add anything. Yet
(bizarrely!) he claims that he is being censored. I find
this claim outrageous, as I don't care what he writes. He
can write anything he likes, and I am NOT deleting it. He
is just being paranoid.
Problem 4: Someone has accused me of "SCIENTISM" (whatever
that is supposed to be) for saying that the articles on
this scientific topic should have more science! They also
are asking me to stop preventing them from discussing
religious and mythological views of the topic...but I am
not doing this. I can't stop doing something that I simply
was not doing to begin with!
With concerns,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
How about something like this:
Attention: As with any web-site, children may require parent
supervision.
--
Michael Becker
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7.18
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Kils-Viking thing
Erik Moeller wrote:
> A disclaimer would IMHO send the wrong signal; some people would
> believe
> that we only say this because we have lost control over the content of
> Wikipedia (a totally open site after all) and people are posting
> pornography all over the place. We do not allow pornographic content,
but
> we do allow human knowledge that some people might consider offensive
-- I
> think that goes with the territory.
The wrong sort of disclaimer would certainly send the wrong signal, but
I don't think it's impossible to come up with something soft and
tasteful.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tannin, it seems "has changed lots of articles"
My word I have.
I have taken countless stubs and turned them into carefully researched,
accurate and (dare I ray it) reasonably well-written articles.
Plus made lots of new ones.
In the last fortnight, I've driven well over 1000 kilometres especially
to take pictures of flora and fauna for the 'pedia - and spent a
considerable sum of money on it, I might add.
How about we make that phrase above "and Tannin has WRITTEN lots of
articles", guys?
How many fauna articles have the people who suddenly have so much to
say on this issue written and/or contributed to in a substantial way?
Go on, I challenge you - list them here.
Here is *my* faunal Wikikarma. I suggest that readers go through the
entries listed below looking for errors of fact, or horrible little
stubs (you'll find a couple of stubs, no doubt, but only a couple, and
*they* won't last for long).
ratites
emu
cassowary
kiwi
Little Penguin
Anseriformes
Anatidae
Freckled Duck
storm-petrel
Wedge-tailed Eagle
buzzards
bronzewing pigeons
Brolga
Pelecaniformes
Pelican
Australian Pelican
Ciconiiformes
Threskiornithidae
Megapodidae
Malleefowl
Blue Crane
R�ppell's Vulture
Southern Boobook
Psittaciformes
cockatoos
Lorikeets
Paradise Parrot
pygmy parrot
Southern Boobook
Caprimulgiformes
owlet-nightja
kingfisher
kookaburra
Piciformes
Maluridae
Tui
Pardalotidae
pardalote
Petroicidae
cisticola
Austrakian Magpie
currawong
Mudlark
White-winged Chough
lyrebird
Willie Wagtail
fantai
species
subspecies
Australian birds
Australasian birds
list of extinct Australian animals since 1788
Dasyuromorphia
Thylacine
Planigalinae
Long-tailed Planigale
Common Planigale
Phascogalinae
Numbat
marsupial mole
Tasmanian Devi
Peramelemorphia
bilby
Pig-footed Bandicoot
Diprotodontia
possum
Common Brushtail Possum
Honey Possum
Leadbeater's Possum
Sugar Glider
Feathertail Glider
diprotodon
macropod
kangaroo
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Western Grey Kangaroo
Red Kangaroo
wallaroo
Parma Wallaby
tree kangaroo
Quokka
wombat
Koala
hopping mice
Fawn Hopping Mouse
Dusky Hopping Mouse
Spinifex Hopping Mouse
Dingo.
Platypus
echidna
Virginia Opossum
Monito del Monte
Aardvark
Carnivora
Procyonidae
shrew
otter
Black-footed Ferret
Hare
Short- finned Eel
whale
rorqual
beaked whale
Bryde's Whale
dolphin
skunk
jerboa
rat kangaroo
Which last is what I'm supposed to be working on at the moment, only
I'm having to fend off attacks with one hand and create good new
material with the other. Hardly condusive to productive working
conditions.
And those above are just the entries I have made *substantial*
contributions to, never mind the many hundreds of smaller
contributions. And I'm not even the most prolific contributor to the
fauna section - Jim Frost outproduces me by a factor of two or three.
Have I changed lots of articles? Too right I have. That is what I am
SUPPOSED to do here: change articles for the better. And that is
exactly what I am doing, have been doing for months. Now, can we PLEASE
have some peace and quiet so that I can go do more of it?
Tony
(Tannin)
Hello,
I just came back from a month of absence from Wikipedia and realised,
that lots of article titles about German cities, regions etc. have
been changed from titles WITHOUT umlauts to titles WITH umlauts (e.g.
Moelln is Mölln now). I searched in the naming conventions, but I
didn't find any conventions about this topic. Up to now, I created every
article without umlauts (that means, with ae instead of ä). How should
we handle this in the future? Is there a convention, which I was just
too stupid to find?
And what about the sharp s (ß)? Should it be used in article titles as
well, or should it (as I did so far) be replaced with "ss"?
Mirko (Cordyph)
--
Mirko Thiessen
http://www.mirko-thiessen.de
It was birds *and* mammals, Toby. Run your eye back over the lengthy
discussions two months ago. Just about any post titled "A plea for
sanity ..." and signed by me will do as a starting point, but there
are lots of others. Or simply recall that the entire discussion began
when I'd just spent two full days researching and writing entries on
the hopping mice, only to have them buggerised about by people who,
despite meaning only the best, had made no contribution to them at all.
See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spinifex_Hopping_Mouse for
details.
By the way, the agreed convention is actually nice and simple. Indeed,
it simply follows the same convention that applies to everything else.
(Everything? Everything I can think of, at any rate.)
If the phrase is normally capitalised, then it is always capitalised.
For example:
King George:
page title = "King George"
in-text = "King George".
(OK, we have some arcane naming convention on kings and queens that I
don't fully understand, so it winds up as "George of the United
Kingdon" or something, but I'll look that up if and when I need to know
it, or just ask someone who works on kings and queens all the time -
but you get what I mean: we simply preserve the normal capitalisation)
Spinifex Hopping Mouse:
Page title = "Spinifex Hopping Mouse"
in-text = Spinifex Hopping Mouse"
Ford Mustang:
page title = "Ford Mustang"
in-text = "Ford Mustang"
equally, if the phrase is normally NOT capitalised, then it is always
lower case (bar at the start of a sentence, of course):
corn grower:
page title = "corn grower" (actually rendered as "Corn grower" by the
software, but that can't be helped)
in-text = "corn grower"
New Zealand wrens (not a particular species, a group of six different
species):
page title = "New Zealand wren"
in-text = New Zealand wrens:
sports cars:
page title = "sports car"
in-text = "sports cars"
The executive summary: simply use the correct capitalisation whenever
you use the phrase and you will rarely go wrong.
Tony
(Tannin)
Ec
I am sorry that this debate is getting so heated. There has been a compromise
reached, and I can't see the necessity to upset it.
The capitalisation style is not restricted to field guides. It is standard in
indubitably serious profession publications and organisations such as the
British Ornithological Union, British Birds Rarities Committee, Birds of the
Western Palearctic, Handbook of Birds of The World, Handbook of Australian and New
Zealand Birds, Ibis etc.
Also Charles Sibley's DNA-DNA scientific papers use capitalisation, and you
can't get much more serious than that (incidently, he also wrote and
illustrated the best current guide to the birds of North America).
The main exceptions to capitalisation are paper encyclopedias and their
on-line versions. The serious point I was making earlier was that the nature of
wikien means that there have to be compromises, as there are on spelling and
vocabulary issues, and the nature of some of the articles. If we want this project
to be like Brittanica, why bother competing?
As you are aware, my main interest is birds, but mammals, as far as I can
see, follow the same conventions. I don't know enough about other taxonomic
groups to go to the wall on them. I can't see why the people who write the articles
can't get on with using the agreed consistent style without it upsetting
those who don't, on the whole, write the articles
Jim
There WAS an attack, Stan. Did you miss it?.
It was a unilaterial, sustained, and deliberate attempt to flout the
naming conventions that we have already discussed and agreed on long
since. One particular "contributor" (who, needless to add, has no known
track record of adding to the fauna articles) went on a one-man revert
rampage, even stooping to cut & paste page moves. This went on for
several hours and succeeded only in wasting a great deal of the time of
genuine contributors. (Not just me.) It took the combined efforts of
several Wikipedians to restore the sometimes quite ugly hacks.
We have long since decided on naming conventions for birds and mammals.
The question is what are we doing with reptiles, fish, and other taxa?
The sooner that is decided on, the sooner we can stop wasting time on
jaw-jaw and get on with improving the 'pedia without distraction and
without fear of having to re-do masses of stuff.
And without a repetition of Monday's vandalisim, I trust.
Tannin
You would not get jumped on, Stan. You would be made very welcome
indeed: the American birds section is very weak at present and there is
heaps that needs doing there. Come on over and help out.
Tannin
In a message dated 04/06/03 11:48:07 GMT Daylight Time, fredbaud(a)ctelco.net
writes:
> The only problem I can see with this policy (which is that in titles the
> proper name in English of a species is capitalized) is that links from text, to
> link directly, would have to also be capitalized in that text. This is
> contrary to the usual usage, as species names are not proper nouns and ought not
> to be capitalized in text.
>
> Fred
>
If you look at the majority of the fauna articles, the text links are there,
or potentially there if a link has not been made. Try [[hummingbird]] or
[[whale]] for example. One practical problem with reverting from the current policy
is that literally thousands of text changes would have to be made (with the
additional problem that some would still be partially capitalised, eg Wilson's
Phalarope, because of the proper name.
hope this helps
Jim (jimfbleak)
Eclecticology manages, somehow, to thow in the phrase "is completely
contrary to any spirit of compromise" to a post above.
This is an extraordinary thing to say when he is fresh back from -
let's not put too fine a point on it here - unilaterial vandalisim on a
major scale, even stooping to cut-and-paste page moves.
Mate, there is ALREADY a well-established compromise, has been for
quite some time, which, although it is not by any means completely
satisfactory to me or to many of the other fauna people, has been
honoured by everybody except YOU.
An anon or a newbie who behaved as you did the other day would have
had his IP blocked immediately.
So please don't insult people like Jim - who, by the way, has done far
more work on fauna than you ever will, and who has behaved with decency
throughout - by bandying that "compromise" word around as if it was
your own invention, and as if you you were willing to abide by the
terms of the compromise which you knew all about the whole time.
The fauna pages were an area of the 'pedia where there was no longer
any contention, and no ill-feeling. Until your unilaterial "I don't
care about the consensus, I'm going to do it my way" decision the other
day, it was an area where everybody was working together happily and
productively. Now, PLEASE, get out of the road and let those of us who
are doing the work *do* the work.
Tony
(Tannin)