> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:56 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets
> bigger (formerlyCan you trust Wikipedia?)
>
>
> Well, as the author of said feature, I've been asking for a
> long time what's the holdup. I'm fairly certain it is, at the
> very least, ready for the planned test phase. I keep asking
> people what should be fixed, but so far (that is, in the last
> few month) noone could tell me the reason it remains turned off.
>
> If parts of it are broken or not up to MediaWiki standard or
> Evil(tm) in some other important way, please, PLEASE tell me
> so I can fix it.
>
> Should I backport it from CVS HEAD to some other branch?
> Which one? Anything!
>
> So far, I've been mostly ignored.
>
> Magnus
Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we
can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands
of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on
this mailing list.
Ed Poor
Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation"
(see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which
revolves around this notion.
While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and
all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic
problem for those of us who hold a more principled
view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi
acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his
POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I
can talk about them if you like). In short, stating
that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though
Reddi claims otherwise.
The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because
"Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the
tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until
I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his
edits, and start unblocking myself.
What to do?
SV
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
In a message dated 11/4/2005 4:06:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alphasigmax(a)gmail.com writes:
I further prove my point that you two are sockpuppets by the fact that
NEITHER of you are able to quote correctly. The fact that I am able to
do so suggests a split personality emerging; so here we have one person
split into two personalities, one of which is pretending to be two
people, the other is noting how similar the other two are (and somehow
managing to write coherently).
Now stop listening to me and get back to pretending to not be not
someone else's sockpuppet who isn't a sockpuppet just because they act
in exactly the same way which conclusively proves that they are indeed a
sockpuppet.
I rest my lack of a case.
My God.
U need a life! And, very possibly, your meds adjusted.
deeceevoice
In a message dated 11/3/2005 7:51:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alphasigmax(a)gmail.com writes:
See, I have proved it! :)
(Of course, I could always be a *third* sockpuppet of these two... ;) )
Silly drivel.
Instigator! :p
deeceevoice
Some time ago, I bemoaned the fact that our poor treatment of
webcomics topics had led to a fork, and that we were going to lose
webcomics contributors.
For those who did not believe me, I point to http://www.websnark.com/
archives/2005/10/on_the_other_ha_13.html
Websnark is one of the three big sites in webcomics commentary. The
writer of that entry, Eric Burns, has an article, his blog has an
article, he maintains two comics, and writes for both of the other
two big sites - Comixpedia and the Webcomics Examiner. He is not an
idiot. He knows what he is talking about on webcomics.
And he's right here. Deletions are being carried out by people who
know nothing about the subject. The opinions of people who do (I will
admit, I am referring to myself - but go ahead and see
[[User:Snowspinner/Webcomics]] if you like - my credentials are
existent here) are being counted the same as the clueless.
Explanations of notability are disregarded - people are making the
assertion that webcomics that are a part of professional syndicates -
the webcomic equivalent of KIng Features - aren't notable. When
linked to the site of a syndicate that clearly lists a comic among
its members, they claim this is not a reliable source.
I don't know how many times I can continue to put this in new and
innovative ways. Deletion is broken. We are making mistakes. Our
mistakes are costing us contributors. They are costing us good
contributors.
We need a solution here. Not hand-wringing and a conviction that we
should come up with a solution. We need a damn solution, and we need
it back before Comixpedia split off in the first place.
Here's a first stab - people with documentable credentials in an area
that would, in the eyes of a reasonable layman, qualify them to make
a decision on the importance of a topic will be allowed to speedy
keep articles in the area of their credentials.
-Snowspinner
In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:57:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alphasigmax(a)gmail.com writes:
He's your sockpuppet (or the other way around), of course! Arguing with
yourself is a great way to prove that you're two different people!
I certainly hope that's not addressed to me.
What an insult! :p
deeceevoice
In a message dated 11/3/2005 7:45:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com writes:
I have no idea what the hell you 2 are talking about, please try to be
more considerate of your audience.
Jack (Sam Spade)
You liken my language to that of a "vaudeville charicature" [sic], and
you've got the nerve to counsel ME to "be more considerate"?
Ha! Go to hell.
U b trippin'.
deeceevoice
I recently recieved this message from a user:
"I'm a regular wikipedia user although i don't have an account here. I think
this site is great and it really helps me with my college work. But I
recently heard of these people that were talking about wikipedia that they
were all programming a hack for it. So after a little while I found it was a
spider to hunt down all the pages links and change them to shocks site links
or something along those lines. I didn't know who to tell so I just thought
I'd tell an administrator as they might know who to tell or what to do. Just
giving an advanced warning so you might be able to do something to protect
this wonderful resourse. Apparently they permenantly change their ip address
using some thing (a bit beyond me). Something like that. I just didn't know
what to do. I hope I didn't embaress myself here. Thanks for your time."
Brett
In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:30:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com writes:
What is a "nutha futha"? I happen to know you can speak rather well,
based on your article edits, why do you insist on communicating like a
vaudeville charicature? Is it some sort of breaching experiment?
Vaudeville?
Why do you insist on being such an idiot?
K