Steve,
That last comment was completely out of line ont eh admin thing. They
accused an entire community of sock puppeting... on the basis of ONE
new user account. There is no cospiracy to sock puppet the issue.
Secondly, there IS NO CONFLICT of interest... again an attack on one
user... and
Spamming the list replying in a different thread?
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey group,
The results are back from Mmeiser's proposed Wikipedia ban of
pdelongchamp.
See what each Wikipedia
Wikipedia for credibility and to compete with established
encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica, requires citation from
authoritative sources. This is usually established media sources
like New York Times, Time Magazine, ABC News, etc. People working on
new developments on the net like
Very useful approach. When I find time, I'll do that.
-- Enric
-==-
http://cirne.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who wants to go through the 3 vlogging books written by this
community
and then jsut cite them in the wikipedia entry.
I apologize for the formatting.
Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to
Patrick Delongchamp.
Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob.
David Howell
to Patrick
show details
12:36 pm (3 minutes ago)
You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote
I apologize.
I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David
Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys.
pat
-- Forwarded message --
From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Vlog
for such an accomplished griefer?
-Original Message-
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick
Delongchamp
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 13:51
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
I apologize
Oh come off it! As far as Im concerned you've dug your own hole by not
making your case properly. Why havent you provided the info the
wikipedia admins asked for? Im glad that attempts to harness the mob
without careful consideration and better, less emotional, stating of
your case, have failed.
Let me clarify a little.
When this issue was posted here, I wsnted to learn more, I wanted the
question marks to disappear, so I could form my own opinion bout
whether Pat is a troll or whether people have the wrong idea about
wikipedia, or a subtle blend of the 2.
I got plenty of posts from
Ive read it till Im blue in the face. Its clear Pat has made a lot of
edits, but Im still waiting for someone to post a specific example of
his behaviour at its worst.
Lets stop being vague, show me some specific info that he deleted,
that he wasnt right to do so.
Because when I try to spend
Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think?
Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd
like to say that after the close following of these
wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the conclusion that a
certain someone has a
Teeny. Weenie. Peenie.
Kisses,
Bekah
(I couldn't
No original research?
Why not?
Why use new media to define new media with a requirement that the
validation come from old media. That's just plain asinine.
David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ive read it till Im
She's right. It's pretty mini.
On 5/3/07, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think?
Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd
like to say that after the close following of these
wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the
As someone who's
- new, as in, been a member of the list a few months
- still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging
- only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list
this is how is seems to me.
People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most
Kary - this is a well thought out and written summaryand it has
no place in this flame war
(I kid, I play, I joke) Very nice reply Kary
Heath
http://batmangeek.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone who's
- new, as in, been a
Great post :) You put it all exceedingly well.
Thanks to Jays constructive approach, Ive joined wikipedia and am on
the talk page. Im doing a lot more reading before I do any daring
edits though. For me, judging by what Ive said here in the last few
days, my personal balancing act will be how to
FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of
pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp
That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support a names
and the
Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used
as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to
the actual wikipedia issues.
Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was
considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being
Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What
does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are published
booksif that isn't relevant then I don't know what is.
Heath
http://batmangeek.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they
werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its
not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia,
probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of
wikipedia, or lead to
OK I mus stop posting here on this topic soon, but just to clarify how
different the detail of wikipedia guidelines can be compared to the
short version. The following is from the conflict of interest page I
just linked to (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) , and I
21 matches
Mail list logo
