[WikiEN-l] Re: Gaia edit wars

Tue Jul 1 19:00:16 UTC 2003

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Good advice here.  Both are good people.  Can we let
> this chill
> awhile until everyone's in a better mood about it?
> 
> Julie Kemp wrote:
> 
> > Um . FWIW, here's my suggestion.  RK and Anthere
> both leave the topic
> > alone for a period of 2 months.  Just leave it. 
> In the 'Pedia and on
> > this list.  Get on with something useful.  Neither
> is a troll, and
> > neither is displaying the kind of behavior that
> has heretofore ended in
> > a ban.  In fact, both are longtime contributors
> who have helped produce
> > really good articles (notwithstanding the fact
> that I seem to remember a
> > few other nasty edit wars involving one of them,
> complete with unfounded
> > accusations of vandalism). 

Right. You could have said my name.
I very very very much regret what I said that time.
But what I most regret is that I brought the attention
of the list on the subject, then many people were
critical of him, and because of this and me, he
decided to leave Wikipedia.

This is just the strongest regret I have of 18 months
being there. Believe me.

And please also believe, that unless I am totally
drunk, I will not repeat the mistake. Ever.

> > 
> > Anyway, just leave the bloody topics alone.  Let
> other people look at
> > them for a while.  Maybe let people less
> personally involved use their
> > judgement.  Either that, or start buying us all
> mass quantities of
> > antacid.

I note that his article was saved. Which mean the
uncomplete one, with a wrong and misleading
introduction. I deeply regret that. I regret it,
because readers will see something wrong. And because
other editors will edit an uncomplete article. What I
just did what to put in this place the whole content
we had on the topic. So that other users could judge
whether it belong there or not.

I will be clear

RK and I disagreed on two things

He wanted one article while I wanted 2.

Now there is only one. Point for him. Me out

He wanted to remove non scientific view, politics and
such from the article, when I claim it was important
they be there

Now, only science is left. point fo him. Me out

Since I agreed on the first point, and since the
second problem was a problem of content to keep or to
remove, I think it would have been nice to keep the
problematic content, so that people could jugde. Well,
the content is not there.

RK got all he wanted. I lost on absolutely every
point. He has no reason to complain now, the article
is all what he wanted. Thank you for very much.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com