, despite not being
paid, nevertheless are trying to make points. True enough.
Fred Bauder
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How about disabling new posts, or forwarding new posts to Wikimedia-l,
making a referral to Wikimedia-l in the info, and leaving the archives
open.
Fred Bauder
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:26:31 +
Carcharoth wrote:
If the moderators of this mailing list are around, would they or
anyone else
And I thought it was just the Baader, Browder, Bauer phenomenon...
Fred Bauder
> On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
>> The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and
>> one
>> would not expect to see it multiple times in
> dyslexic font is visually horribly unappealing
Remarkably irritating font.
Thanks for the heads up though.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailma
> http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/09/writing-biography-in-the-age-of-wikipedia-removing-a-shadow-from-the-life-of-justice-tom-clark/
>
>
> - d.
A edit by User:Awohlgemuth, who judging from his name seems to be Alex
Wohl, author of the blog, seems to address this matter on the [[Tom C.
Clark]] artic
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
> ____
> Von: Fred Bauder
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> CC: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Gesendet: 13:28 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let'
At wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? Perhaps, but hard to start over from
the beginning.
Fred
> Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?
>
> There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can
> recognize from my home wp
>
> Anders
&
"As with other inventions that produced an inferior product at a much
lower price, from the printing press to the steam-driven loom to
Wikipedia, what happens now is largely in the hands of the people
experimenting with the new tools, rather than defending themselves from
them."
http://chronicle.c
> Rick Falkvinge has been writing a book, "Swarmwise", on how the Pirate
> Party organised. He's been posting it a chapter at a time to his blog.
>
> You know how Wikipedia/Wikimedia has (or had) the meme that "voting is
> evil"? This sets out why.
>
>
> http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/01/swarmwis
The problem with open proxies is that anyone can use them; lists of them
are published. They are blocked routinely due mainly to spambots which
create many accounts and insert nonsense, usually with links to dubious
commercial sources.
I recommend you create an anonymous account and edit in that w
gets permission from the suspects family. Because if the
> suspect has children the children could get bullied in school. Or
> identify the suspect if he/she has no children or family.
>
> On 4/22/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> There is extended discussion in England and Wales regar
.
Fred
> On 26 April 2013 05:19, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory they are then taken
>> out
>> of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone
>> should be removed from the higher category such as American nov
categories.
Fred
> That doesn't necessarily follow. Surely female American novelists
should appear in both categories.
> On 25 Apr 2013 23:14, "Sarah" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Fred Bauder
wrote:
>>
>> > What subcategories would Ameri
What subcategories would American men novelists go into? of course women
would also go into them. By centuries would be one set of subcategories;
and genre: mystery, western, adventure, fantasy, etc.
Hard to see this as a deliberate slight.
Fred
> Wikipedia's overwhelmingly male user-editors be
There is extended discussion in England and Wales regarding whether
journalists should identify suspects that have been arrested.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/21/press-intrusion-name-suspects
See also
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_ii.pdf
Fred
_
Within any field there is a general consensus regarding which textbooks,
references, and journal articles are authoritative, or at least
important. Those who teach or write in the field are familiar with these
and can be of great help in identifying them.
Fred
> I think of interest to this discus
> The point being that those who actually use incivility as a wedge to
> divide the community are quite well aware of that, and this is what
> needs to be stamped out as disruption, not intermittent breakdowns of
> the civility code.
>
> I saw a recent study suggesting, alarmingly, that online man
> Don't get your panties in a bunch, David. "Quote-mining"? What is this,
> Usenet?
He was probably there... He's an old coon dog and won't chase a rabbit.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing li
> Right--and this would make all the difference. I am teaching a college
> class for which an optional assignment is to learn to edit in Wikipedia.
> Most of the students have had good experiences. Only a few have felt
> "incivility consciously as a tactic. " We discuss this in class and a
> few
>
relations person who is candid.
Fred Bauder
> I am looking for a Wiki representative to assist in a change that needs
> to be made to Tom Strickland's Wikipedia
> page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Strickland>. I need assistance
> because he requested that his page be l
> On 14 April 2013 14:29, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Pretty much everything that's fucked up about Wikipedia is emergent
>> behaviour of people being a problem
>
>
> I think you mean "failure of management".
> ___
When we had a manager, Larry Sanger, he w
> Looking more at this, it seems that Wales has been given "credit" for
> exactly this intervention:
>
> "Wales has, in the past, instructed Wikimedia's system administrators to
> implement software changes that constitute de facto Wikipedia policy
> changes. For instance, in December 2005, in resp
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>> Once the herd got going, no one had much affect.
>
> Managing the herd is what leaders were for.
>
> --
> gwern
> http://www.gwern.net
In hierarchical organizations; Wikipedia is, more or less, horizo
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Fred Bauder
wrote:
>> Jimbo and Angela did not play a significant role in debates over
inclusion and deletion
>
> Indeed, that was my point. I don't think they did anything, or
> intended anything of the kind, but they chose not to
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>> Jimbo and Angela did not play a significant role in debates over
>> inclusion and deletion
>
> Indeed, that was my point. I don't think they did anything, or
> intended anything of the kind, but they chose
> Why do you never hear complaints from inclusionists about Star Wars
> articles being deleted? Because so many were deleted that the involved
> editors finally bit the bullet and escaped to Wikia, and the only ones
> that are left are either ones onboard with rigid constrictive policies
> or have
;> adhere to their preferred philosophy is something that shows a deep
>> psychological tendency to rape kittens.
>> >
>> > That'll elevate the debate, I'm sure.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Fred Bauder
>> wrote:
>> > Obviou
Obviously toilet training is involved. That is the source of the anal
personality. Need a study of toilet training of future editors...
Fred
> Some recent musings reminded me that I never did find a good answer
> for an old question of mine: does anything predict whether an editor
> will lean tow
>
> The problem he apparently trying to solve is that sites like Wikipedia
> and YouTube are "kind of noisy". As problem statements go, it lacks a
> certain specificity...
I know what he means though. The snarling nonsense we sometimes encounter
on mailing lists or during editing disputes could f
More a failure of nerve; when he did not attract experts in the field he
gave authority to 2nd rate people. Present company excepted, of course.
Fred
> The plan for Citizendium worked? First time that's ever been asserted.
> It worked in the sense a plan was developed, but the plan was indeed
>
Internet scrubbing as a business:
http://english.caixin.com/2013-02-19/100492242_all.html
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
lots of pretty pictures of similar things
No
Fred
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Carcharoth
> wrote:
>> It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work
>> with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I
>
> Yeah, I wonder if there is equally a pr
"Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with
as many or as few images as appropriate." seems right.
Fred
> Hi all,
> Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of
> touch.
>
> Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the "image use policy".
> S
> On 14 February 2013 15:15, Nathan wrote:
>
>> That job ad is so awesome I had to save it for posterity. Work as a
>> programmer slash executive assistant, for free! Be available 24 hours a
>> day
>> at a moments notice! Weekends off? Forget it! Mediocre candidates need
>> not
>> apply! Work for
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 06:55:33 -0700 (MST), Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Clearly, it is.
>
> So is anybody going to do anything about it? Should Wikimedia Legal
> be notified?
I cc'd them earlier, but here is another.
Fred
___
Wi
Clearly, it is.
Fred
> I just ran into this Twitter account:
>
> https://twitter.com/Wikipedia411
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-
> On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> by at least occasional publishing of information about in in
>> contemporary
>> reliable sources.
>
> That's not strictly tenable, as the range of history is so vast that
> contemporary historians only ever write about
>>> If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
>>> notable, no?
>>
>> No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
>> significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is
>> irrelevant.
>
> My bad. My comment was based on the apparentl
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F
>>
>> How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]],
>> [[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time and got l
> I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
> Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
> knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
> to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
> which rates do people have access to it?
Wikipedia is a summary of generally accepted knowle
It's a problem. Information about the current status of these projects
may have fallen off so much that little or nothing can be obtained from a
notable source. So you are left with the splash and little else. No
obituary available.
Fred
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_an
As you evidence, the matter is notable to a significant portion of the
population.
As to how someone else can consider the matter not notable, perhaps
speciation is occurring...
Fred
> How is the very likely possibility of infidelity "relative trivia"? I
> consider it fairly relevant to a sectio
orthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
>>> all,
>>> in a gossip tabloid rag?
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell
>>
> on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>> Depends on reliability of the source and notabilit
Seems marginal, but it's not oversightable, for several reasons: It has a
reasonably reliable source (The National Enquirer has a good track record
in this area of interest); the subject and his date are public figures;
suppression would only make it worse.
The only part I have trouble with is the
> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
>
> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> cheating
> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
>
> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
> all,
> in a gossip tabloid rag?
All useful, interesting, or authoritative links on the subject of an
article should be included in "external links and further reading",
including important primary sources, open courses, and published books.
> Hi all,
>
> Here is something I've been thinking about lately. Do we have a policy
> or
> Re Fred's comments about giving VIPs VIP treatment.
>
> We can't simply assume that everyone we encounter on the Internet is who
> they claim to be. Doing that would be a recipe for abuse of a lot of VIPs
> and just as worryingly lots of other people as well.
>
> We should treat everyone with cou
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Charles Matthews <
> charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> If something gets into OTRS and is from
>> a household name, it would be sensible to have it passed to someone
>> with a
>> lot of experience, but I don't know if that is part of the system.
>>
>
>
> How exactly? On OTRS we handle much more sensitive private info :-)
>
> Tom Morton
Checkuser may be employed in either instance if there is a good reason,
such as an apparent sock puppet or abuse of multiple accounts.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
> As far as I can tell, outsiders like to have someone central to
> approach, e.g. the email address.
> - d.
VIPs expect to deal with another VIP, with authority to get things fixed,
with a word, even if the rules have to be bent a bit. That is the way of
the world. We, particularly a random com
> why should they
> bother
> politely pointing someone to OTRS, much less spend time and effort trying
> to be diplomatic themselves?
>
> Sxeptomaniac
Because they are decent capable people, take pride in doing a good job,
and are concerned about the accuracy and reputation of Wikipedia.
Fred
It seems I have not posed this as a question. The question is how could
we better handle VIP subjects who give us feedback, attempt to edit
either themselves or through an agent, or contact OTRS?
For example, could we assign some diplomatic people to handle such
situations, I've noticed CBS does t
It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing Roth.
Fred
>>
> Fred, it's very difficult to keep track of mailing list threads if you
change the subject each time you post - this makes several in the last
couple of days on the same topic.
>
> Can you keep them all under th
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
>> The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its
>> ohmigod
>> you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that,
>> yes,
>> you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from
>> authority). It would
If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving
treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone
to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems
in their article.
The thing is, VIPs generally get VIP treatment, personal a
The exercise of privilege is not usually called bullying, nor, when its
prerogatives are denied are its holders called victims.
Wikipedia does accord privilege to authority but only published authority.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wi
> On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, "Risker" wrote:
>>
>> In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
>> prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes
> been
>> stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that
>> has
>> some form of ne
"Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger has launched a campaign against the
online encyclopedia for content filters to be put in place."
Part of being a reference work. There are aspects of reality that are
offensive or disturbing. I think we've made considerable progress on this
matter in terms of rem
> It's not that there is bad behaviour that's okay with men and not okay
> with
> women. It's that women may notice it earlier or be more upset by it, more
> likely to be seen as "thin-skinned," rather than legitimately sensitive.
> In
> an environment that had more women, certain kinds of sensiti
> For academics "personal communication" is
> indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this
> type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all
> round.
>
> Charles
Really, I don't know why a personal communication would not be sufficient
for us, provid
ing to make a few points
> about the process.
> --Kathleen
>
> She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line of
> thought.
>
> Fred
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>
>> > On 8 September 2012 14:21,
> The point is that the number of women editors is far smaller than men.
> Is this not true, based on the statistics?
> I am giving some reasons why many capable new contributors may withdraw
> due to the response they receive from some editors.
> Every woman is not Molly Ivins and when women leav
Everybody here who contributes runs into a brick wall from time to time
and has to give up regarding some matter. The factual basis of the theory
about gender you're advancing is not established; as everyone experiences
the same frustrations.
I've tried to edit certain articles controlled by point
> On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook wrote:
>
>> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for
>> moderation;
>> then this gets posted.
>> Is there something one does to be unmoderated?
>
>
> Everyone starts moderated. I clear the mod queue each morning and
> unmoderate th
> So you're suggesting he is lying about that?
>
> The words he quotes seem genuine. But I can't identify where they came
> from; not OTRS??
>
> Tom
Sounds like OTRS, perhaps the ticket is in his spokesman's name.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN
> I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone;
> he
> is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should
> give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his
> artistic
> life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are t
This is the comment I made to The New Yorker article:
If you, or anyone else, has a similar problem please contact the
Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Directions are on that page in
Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team We are
sorry this matter was not handle
We've had a problem with courtesy for a long time; the entire internet
has. We're one of the few organizations that has made a concerted and
determined effort to address it, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html
Fred
> No it doesn't.
>
> I'll give you good odds on me be
We need to treat all subjects and potential subjects of articles with
respect and take their complaints seriously. An OTRS referral might have
helped. The material is not oversightable, but would fall within reports
of article errors.
Fred
> ...there is the issue of authentication. On the
> inte
> Fred, you say" Roth is an elderly man googling" and I am wondering if
> there
> is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list
> become unfit to drive?
> Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this
> moment..to dismiss him as "an elderly man
> On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth
> wrote:
>
>> I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption
>> that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in
>> principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the
>> editorial process works, that
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797
>
> "Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit"
>
> "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia
> entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its
> end."
>
> Has this been mentioned on any o
> In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that "getting a sense of
> the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is
> precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia.
> Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment,
> appropriate."
>
> On
>> Making the blog-rounds, there was a Utah court case that includes
>> surprisingly lengthy (and generally positive) discussion on whether and
>> when to cite Wikipedia in court decisions:
>>
>> * http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fire_insurance081612.pdf
>>
>> See footnote 1 (page 5) in th
> Making the blog-rounds, there was a Utah court case that includes
> surprisingly lengthy (and generally positive) discussion on whether and
> when to cite Wikipedia in court decisions:
>
> * http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fire_insurance081612.pdf
>
> See footnote 1 (page 5) in the major
>
>> On 03/07/2012, at 5:01 AM, Andrew Gray
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 July 2012 08:08, Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>> As Kudpung notes, it'd be lovely if we had some kind of issue-tracking
>> system, but in practice we probably don't have the number of people
>> needed to handle that...
>
> You mean li
> On 3 July 2012 12:27, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> That would have been Wikipedia:Content noticeboard However, hardly
>> anyone
>> used it or monitored it, so it was a neglected corner. We need central
>> places which are used and monitored even if the stuff on them i
> Does anyone know of a central location for article content queries and
> requests?
That would have been Wikipedia:Content noticeboard However, hardly anyone
used it or monitored it, so it was a neglected corner. We need central
places which are used and monitored even if the stuff on them is not
> http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/1959
All too familiar. A shit that can write a featured article is A-OK.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm
> http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/04/doctors-use-but-dont-rely-totally-on-wikipedia/
>
> "According to recent research that has been shared with Wikimedia UK,
> use of Wikipedia for medical information is almost universal among a
> sample of doctors. Many of them praise its accuracy, but they are
The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
articles or not, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the
subject has the powe
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
>> BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
>> developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
>> barking mad territory.
>>
>> No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
>
> I would suggest as
> Just a quick straw poll:
>
> When was the last time you looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for
> use in your own writing? And not to tell someone else they were wrong
> about something.
>
> Me, I can't remember. I think I *have*, but it would have been years ago.
>
>
> - d.
I have no need t
> On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>
>> I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
>> media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic.
>> The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if
>> you're caught with *what other
> Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the
> Facebook page:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
>
> I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising.
>
> I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
> media person), Ri
> n Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Carcharoth wrote:
>> [Some say] "Notability, once attained, does not diminish."
>
> Unfortunately, WP:N says that too. What you're saying makes sense, but
> it is
> contradicted by our policies. If someone can meet the requirements for
> notability at one moment in time, the
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>
>> Goes too far. A Procrustean Bed.
>
> Really?
>
> What about this proposal?
>
> "In light of such examples, I think its high time to start a
> discussion on whether to amend Wikipedias BLP pol
> I'm posting here an argument I made in a recent AfD, explaining why I
> think more stringent notability requirements are needed for
> biographical articles:
>
> "The right point to assess someone's notability and write a definitive
> article about them is at that point (or sometimes when they ret
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
>
>> As an admin who closes a fair few AfDs, and as a human being who isn't
>> a big fan of loudmouthed ideological posturing, I have to say that I
>> rather like such topic areas.
>
> Well, there is currently an AfD in progress that is looking
> Does anyone agree with me that the inclusionists are more numerous than
> the deletionists around the deletion discussions?
>
>
> A
Sure, there can only be one Crinch.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
> I suppose we're in favour of it. I note that [[digital inclusion]] is a
> redlink, for the reason that it was a redirect to [[e-inclusion]]; which
> went down under a PROD in October of last year, as "[[WP:OR|Original
> research]] about a [[WP:NEO|non-notable neologism]]". Something of a
> disas
> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/
>
Subject of a thread on foundation-l
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-February/subject.html
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsu
> http://savageminds.org/2012/01/19/wikipedia-encyclopedias/
>
>
> - d.
Note that citing references is forbidden; proof Wikipedia is not a real
encyclopedia.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
> I decided I hadn't reviewed a featured article candidate for a while
> and Russell T Davies (writer of the Doctor Who reboot) was there.
> Figured I'd give it a go.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_T_Davies
>
> I invite you to look, with reasonable care, at references 1 to 97.
>
> Now, no
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sam Blacketer
> wrote:
>> There might be some editors who want to start an immediate
>> investigation to
>> search for the members of this 'team' but I think that would probably
>> be a
>> waste of time which would put suspicion on a large number of innocent
>> ed
> Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi
> Moore.
Heh, fact washed primary source.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mai
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, The Cunctator
> wrote:
>> Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates.
>>
>
> That's not true as a blanket statement. Conventionally FOIA refers to
> the federal open records law, but there are others (under many names,
> including FOIA) at the state level in most sta
"...more reliable than Demi Moore herself."
Such a conclusion is nonsense.
To take a personal example, no amount of examination of my birth
certificate, or publication of its contents, is going to result in me
changing my name to what it says.
Fred
_
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
>>> Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that
>>> her own
>>> birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement
>>> because
>>> the "reliable sources" say otherwise.
>> And, per that talk page, they've got some pr
>
> I can quite see why people do think Wikipedia "Byzantine", which is the
> basic message of what we are talking about. Probably trainee medics curse
> the immune system as unreasonably complicated. The metaphor doesn't seem
> to
> me either too defensive or too stretched. I think we should bear
1 - 100 of 511 matches
Mail list logo
