>From: Anthere <anthere6(a)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>CC: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Could we swap list names please ?
>Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
>Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
>
>WHILE
>
>The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
>the english list to the general list, where it is
>relevant
>
>OR
>
>could we just swap mailing list names since
>discussions relevant on english matter are on the
>general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
>community are on the english list ?
For some reason some weeks ago I was knocked off the wikien-L and ended up
on the Wikipedia-l. Now I am on both and messages seem to go to either or
both even when I think it is going just to the english one.
Mea culpa, Anthere.
lol
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>James-
>
> > What I tried to achieve was a biographical article on MT that covered
>both
> > her positive and negative image and reputations, with the massive detail
> > added in by Eloquence put in a separate page called [[Criticisms of
>Mother
> > Teresa]]
>
>That was a clear violation of NPOV. We do not split away criticisms just
>because the person is question is considered a "saint" by some.
No-one ever proposed doing that, Eric. All that was done was that proper
professional editing was done, with the detailed text that went into
discussions that weren't about MT but about Christopher Hitchens' opinions,
medical procedures, comments by an ex-nun from the Bronx being placed where
it belongs, in a special article that can explore the topic without drowning
a biographical article in minutæ that aren't specifically about the person
the biography is supposed to be about.
Not that there is much point explaining that, as you have no interest in
listening. But everyone else needs to know the truth.
>I tried repeatedly to reach consensus
>with you on this, you refused and insulted me instead (and still do).
So reverting edits to put things into the wrong tense again and again,
deleting attempts to correctly centre text in captions, accusing everyone
who disagreed with your 20K 'criticism' of censorship is your understanding
of what 'consensus' is; 'put up with my 20K or I'll revert any edits you
make!'
>
> > /Mother Teresa with Charles Keating, convicted of fraud in the Savings
>and
> > Loan scandal and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Mother Teresa received
> > over a million dollars in donations from him, which she did not return
>after
> > the conviction. She did, however, send a plea for clemency to Keating's
> > trial judge/
>
>That is a perfectly neutral description of what happened. There are plenty
>of precedents for having comprehensive image captions that do more than
>just say "Mother Teresa, left, with Charles Keating, right", e.g. [[Donald
>Rumsfeld]]. It should be possible for a casual reader to get the necessary
>information what an image is about and why it is reproduced by reading the
>caption. Take a look at any electronic encyclopedia that has space for
>captions, and you will notice that the exact same style is used.
There is this strange tendency when writing in a text that has an
accompanying photo, to write in the text (See photo opposite). For some
strange reason the rest of the planet tends to do that and doesn't feel the
need to write half a book as a caption under every photo, all of it from one
side of the argument.
>
> > Her (MT's) view that abortion is immoral even in cases of rape and
>incest is
> > rigid even by Catholic standards
>
> > As anyone who knows anything about the teachings of various religions on
> > abortion, or who has followed the abortion debates for longer than 5
>minutes
> > knows, the above view is the /standard/ RC view, not a right wing fringe
> > view.
>
>You keep repeating this, but it does not become any more true when you do
>so-- of course opposition to abortion and contraception is the official
>line of the Roman Catholic Church. Obviously, however, not every Roman
>Catholic in a position of power and influence shares that position. MT
>would have been in a perfect position to challenge papal authority on
>these matters, instead she contributed to this deadly campaign that is
>taking a toll among millions of people -- often by lobbying various
>governments for harsher laws against both abortion and artificial
>contraception. That is what the critics complain about, and that view of
>course needs to represented in an article about MT.
If you really believe that you know even less about Catholicism than your
contributions to articles on the topic already suggest. Do you really thing
70 and 80 year old cardinals would suddenly abandon their (IMHO)
questionable theological views on sex because a woman, even MT, urged them
to. And the more you write Eric, the more you come across, as one wikipedian
put it, as someone presenting the case for the prosecution. That is not what
anyone supposedly providing NPOV copy in an encyclopædia article is supposed
to be doing. NPOV means Neutral Point of View. It isn't IGGMOI - I'm Gonna
Get My Opinions In.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
WHILE
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
the english list to the general list, where it is
relevant
OR
could we just swap mailing list names since
discussions relevant on english matter are on the
general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
community are on the english list ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 10:46 US/Pacific, K Forstner wrote:
> Time for the silly question(s). Wasn't the watchlist feature disabled
> some
> time ago?
No. For people with very long watchlists the default time period shown
on [[Special:Watchlist]] has been drastically reduced, that's all.
Also a note:
THERE WILL BE NO FEATURE BY WHICH ARBITRARY PEOPLE CAN VIEW ANYONE
ELSE'S WATCHLIST WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. The idea is very unpopular, and
for good reason.
Hypothetically we could make an opt-in 'public watchlist', but few
people think this would be useful, and you can do more flexible things
by creating pages of links.
More likely we might add a "N users are watching this page" to the page
stats, which is not privacy-invasive but perhaps informative.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Ed writes:
> I would like to have my watchlist publicly viewable,
and I would also
> like to maintain (discreetly) a private,
non-viewable watchlist.
>
> Additionally, I would like to have a publicly
EDITABLE watchlist: like,
> hey Ed please watch this page!
This can already be done. Just create a page in your
userspace with links to
pages that you are "publicly" watching, and click on
Related Changes any time
to see what pages have been edited. This is
essentially a "public watchlist".
Evercat
------
I would like this feature to be discussed on the
proper list
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I would like to have my watchlist publicly viewable,
and I would also
like to maintain (discreetly) a private, non-viewable
watchlist.
Additionally, I would like to have a publicly EDITABLE
watchlist: like,
hey Ed please watch this page!
I'd even like to have multiple watchlists, each with:
* a name
* a setting for publicly viewable, or hidden
* a setting for publicly editable, or personally
controlled
I need an NPOV watchlist, a "users fighting"
watchlist, and a "global
warming" watchlist.
How soon can we get this stuff, Tim/Brion/Magnus and
crew? ^_^
Ed Poor
------
I would like this feature to be discuss on the right
list.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
JTD:
> NPOV requires balence in content.
I disagree. Otherwise, I would have instantly reverted the anonymous
changes to [[Sun Myung Moon]], [[Moonies]], etc. which "unbalanced"
those articles.
I purposely let the balance shift toward the 'anti-Moon' end of the
spectrum. Since then, I have gradually been fixing up the article.
I see no problem with an article about Rev. Moon being 80%, 85%, even
90% about CRITICISMS PEOPLE MAKE about him. There is no reason to revert
such additions, and the 'unbalanced' article doesn't bother me at all.
If any "balance" is needed, we might try to estimate HOW MANY PEOPLE
think a certain way. If this means an article says that 99% of the world
loves Theresa and 1% hate her -- while the article is 1/3 hagiography
(praise) and 2/3 vilification (criticism), what's wrong with that?
As long as the critical POV is attributed to its advocates and
sources...
"Uncle" Ed
Please stop decorating small article with "stub" statements - there is
already engough administrative stuff around the article text.
Short article are not bad per se, and articles looking "long enough"
might be more misleading than a short article. Thus adding "stub"
statements is just stupid.
For comments like "stub" statements use the Talk page of the article.
--
| ,__o
| _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)
<<From En wiki: (General discourse should be here)>>
It strikes me that when things change, they might be
called something different. So while a "watchlist" is
understood as a private affair --( I never use the
damn things myself, anyway --part of what prompted me
to start comment on the potential drag they might have
on the servers --I was right somewhat.)
But anyway it seems to me that there are two distinct
things: *private lists, and *public lists --and having
one of each *might be *better than simply having an
option of "open" or "closed." "Watchlist" would refer
to the private list --the public list would be called
something else. Continuing along these lines could
open up a whole new way to look at WP and how people
interact --conference calls, etc, outside of
attached-to-article talk.
Eh?
~S~
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com