On 28 May 2006 at 20:43, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> A radical proposal for you all then:
>
> Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to
> a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users
> who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
That would *really* get the critics talking about the "Wikipedia Hive
Mind", wouldn't it?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 28 May 2006 at 00:19, "John Lyden" <rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself,
> Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New
> York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least
> Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> It's all a conspiracy perpetrated by THE CABAL. Fnord.
Waitaminnit... Marvel Team-Up (1st series, 1972-1985) ended at issue
#150 (there were also 7 annuals), while its second series (1997-1998)
was canceled after issue #8. Thus, there was never any #193... or is
there just a conspiracy to cover up its existence? (Source: The
Standard Catalog of Comic Books, Krause Publications, 2002; obviously
part of the conspiracy.)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Hi,
I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my friend know
about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project. Unfortunately
at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face to an
inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my partner
[[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not true. I tried
to explain it on the check user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem.
I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all living at the
same university housing complex and using the same IP's randomly. I
understand that check user made his decision based on that.
I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I can. I
would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are not the
same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
Thank you in advance.
Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to
> change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is
> "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV"
> (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).
Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself,
Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New
York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least
Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
It's all a conspiracy perpetrated by THE CABAL. Fnord.
--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac
On 25 May 2006 at 11:17, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Offensive names are offensive names. Whether you actually intended them that
> way isn't relevant.
That doesn't seem like a fair policy; you seem to believe that it's a
good idea to ban somebody from using the name they wish, even if it's
their actual given name, just because somebody else finds it
offensive for some (culturally-specific) reason.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Hello All,
I wonder if you are able to help unblock my IP. Many months ago I
contributed without creating an account and then decided that it was
more sociable to have an account. I used the account name
createaccount . I know that was a stupid thing to do - at the time I
didn't know your rules for user names and just looked for the nearest
inspiration. The account was blocked by longhair and reading the
rules I understand why.
"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by
"Createaccount". The reason given for Createaccount's block is:
"Username block"." when requesting an unblock as an administrator can
not help you without that information, they might also need your IP
address (82.36.106.161), so give that too if possible."
Because my IP is blocked I cant create a new user name or request a
user name change for createaccount - so for one dumb decision I'm
permanently excluded from contributing.
It may also help you to know that I had some edits reverted because
one of the administrators was concerned that I including to many
links to my own site - which is www.podnosh.com. In every case I was
confident that I was adding links to relevant information. If you
check you should be able to see that my IP has been used for
constructive contributions and I would like a chance to keep doing that.
many thanks
Nick
This is from a talk page of a featured article:
" Beyond which, this is an FA, and FA's really should be treated as more
finalized and finished than general articles, as they have passed through a
form of peer review and have a community endorsement in their present
forms."
Is this view supported anywhere? Should I be more careful when editing a FA,
since it should be supposed that the article is good as it is and does not
need a change?
/habj
I would agree on that. It is OK with me to wait a few more months while
editing on other articles and gain more experience. Please note that, none
of my edits were out of acceptable limits. I took all my edits serious on
Gulen talk page too, as you can easily see from quality of my edits. I
believe this Wikipedia project can be improved further and I am ready and
willing to offer my help.
On the other hand, I canot accept your statements which imply that I am
editing barely to support someone else. With my whole respect, that is not a
kind and good statement. I am not a blind follower of someone and Dr.
Gulerdem who is an adorable person, a gentleman with an unbelievably good
mind did not asked me to back up him on that dispute. It is not something he
can do, and it is not something I could agree on. He mainly introduced the
project to me, in particular pointed out the Gulen article. I thought I can
do something about it myself. I do not know why those people feel animosity
towards Dr. Gulerdem (other than some ideological or religious hatred) but I
think one should consider it as a chance for Wikipedia, if he still wants to
continue on editing.
Thank you for your recommendation and understanding.
Ceyda Lacin
>
>Looking this over, it seems clear that the account was started on
>Wikipedia to participate in the Fethullah G?len controversy (as over
>50% of the edits are on that subject), but that the account holder is
>apparently honestly willing and interested in contributing to Wikipedia
>in other areas. Bringing new users to Wikipedia in order to sway the
>outcome of a controversy is justly frowned upon, however, on this
>evidence alone, I would recommend an unblock if, and only if, the
>account holder agrees to avoid the Fethullah G?len controversy for a
>period of time (at least a few months, and maybe a year).
>
>Jesse Weinstein
>
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
On 27 May 2006 at 19:42, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
> removed an insult on their religious belief.
Vandalism isn't any less vandalism because it is motivated by
religion.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/