http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LtWinters&action=history
This guy seems more like what I've read about Grawp than Psychonaut.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https:
I don't like this writing that sounds like mind-reading. There's a point
where one of his sock puppets is complaining about Psychonaut, which is one
of his early creations beating himself up.
>> He is more stimulated by seeing his work
>> there, in print, than anything else.
__
wjhon...@aol.com says this does not meet WP:RS. I *meant* to fail WP:RS.
This reminds me that not everyone really perceives jokes, even when, at the
point of this, there doesn't seem to be any possibility of getting a
reliable source. I think you could link to it from WP:BLP and WP:RS, and the
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
>
In a message dated 12/16/2008 7:27:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
brewh...@edmc.net writes:
Jack: (writing) Sara Pratcher, a.k.a. Suzie Gottaknow in a newspaper gossip
column wrote that she has it from reliable sources that Michael Jackson does
Estradiol.>>
---
Fail
As I read their announcement, the intention is to have the Wikipedia
article be non-technical. The first paper being reported there seems
to be appropriate to Wikipedia. But then, its a comprehensive paper,
on a suitable broad topic. If it is their intention to apply ttheir
proposal to imilar paper
Jack has a mother Jill, and Jack is wikipedian that believes everything
written, verifiable, and with a high degree of liklihood is encyclopedic,
even when it comes to [[biographies of living persons]]. In a nutshell, if
it is not permanent legacy information that will hav effects beyond the
de
It would help if the list is posted somewhere, so others who are
reporting can use the list too.
X!
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:58 PM [Dec 16, 2008 ], Jay Litwyn wrote:
> The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to
> Virginia, my
> local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me t
In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thoma...@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?>>
-
The s
> Or *not*.
> {{fact}}
> Repetition only makes something a fact in church.
Sorry, I don't understand your point here.
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?
"Repetition only
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to Virginia, my
local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to the mounties (feds).
Jurisdiction issues, ay. I will make up a list of links to the offenses,
just in case they actually get back to me and request more information.
They
> Or *not*.
> {{fact}}
> Repetition only makes something a fact in church.
Sorry, I don't understand your point here.
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?
"Repetition only
In a message dated 12/16/2008 5:28:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thoma...@gmail.com writes:
Here's the point: these cases are not *few*, they're *common*; >>
-
Or *not*.
{{fact}}
Repetition only makes something a fact in church.
Will Johnson
**Make your life
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:50:28PM -0500, Jonathan Hughes wrote:
> > Of course some people will complain that it's too technical, but
> > that's an issue to take up at WP:PEREN.
>
> I'd imagine a simple solution would be to ask if the authors can tone down
> the technical language a bit. Somethi
>
> From: Carl Beckhorn
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
> To: English Wikipedia
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +, David Gerard wrote:
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> This is very exciting! The first artic
> Some people are in a reactionary mode, regarding a *few* issues, and
> wanting
> to change major systems, based on a few issues. That is not a productive
> stance.
Here's the point: these cases are not *few*, they're *common*; and
they're not jokes, they're serious.
Wikipedia has an ethical
Hi,
So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article
published in this particular journal will need to write an article for
Wikipedia first?
That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Personally, I object to writing any full-blown article on Wikipedia
from conscientious ground
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and
I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could
use a footnote in each of their long
On Dec 16, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I think we could make an exception. This is too promising to impose
> work
> to rule.
Fred, you're too much. This less than a week after you denounce peer
reviewed scholarship in another field as mere opinion! Hilarious!
-Phil
_
In a message dated 12/16/2008 4:17:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mor...@gmail.com writes:
The hard case is when Wikipedia is repeating allegations that we can
source to an offsite source. That's where the serious disagreements
about what to do are taking place.>>
-
Well I think he is... I know that there was a case some time ago where
excessive vandalism came from the IP of an asylum.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2008, at 04:14, Thomas Larsen wrote:
>
> > What amazes me is that this guy, a 19-year-old, whose identity
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM, wrote:
> The exceptions are not "human lives". They are "human discomfort". No one
> is dying.
> You have to have a rather thin skin, or very little real-world experience to
> be greatly annoyed at some vandal calling you a "slimy ass bitch" or
> whatever. It
2008/12/17 Wily D :
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2008/12/16 David Gerard :
>>> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
>>>
Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
to be
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2008/12/16 David Gerard :
>> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
>>
>>> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
>>> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
>>> to be the other way around so the pap
2008/12/16 David Gerard :
> 2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
>> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
>> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
>> summary.
>
>
> * '''d''', nn,
We need more of these things.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Tue, 12/16/08, David Gerard wrote:
From: David Gerard
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:24 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.
2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton :
> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
> publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before the papers, it needs
> to be the other way around so the paper can be a reference for the
> summary.
* '''d''', nn, v, auto, spam -
__
In a message dated 12/16/2008 2:27:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mor...@gmail.com writes:
WikiEN-l is not the specified place to go if an issue brought to OTRS
or on-Wiki isn't resolved satisfactorily. Thus, I think, nothing can
be gauged about the prevalence of an issue by the level of post
> 2008/12/16 David Gerard :
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>>
>> What could possibly go wrong?
>>
>> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
>
> Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
> publish the wikipedia articles/summari
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:45:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
I'd think that if the exceptions are human lives, you should code for the
exceptions.>>
---
The exceptions are not "human lives". They are "human discomfort". No o
2008/12/16 David Gerard :
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> (Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish the wikipedia articles/summaries before th
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> So far as I can tell, these links are used by humans to denote
> synonimity. Using bots to assert synonimity based on transitivity
> might probabilistically work for at most a few hops. Beyond that, the
> bots will get it wrong too often to be
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:03 AM, wrote:
> What I was referring to, is issues that come *here*, as unresolved, or
> problematic. Viewing the history of this mailing-list we have very few
> *real*
> *substantial* BLP issues. So the natural conclusion is that the vast
> majority
> of OTRS tick
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
What could possibly go wrong?
(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visi
> You should never code *for* the exceptions, only the mode.
I'd think that if the exceptions are human lives, you should code for the
exceptions.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http
For context, here is (so far as I am aware) the last time
semi-protection of BLPs was discussed on-wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_18#Semi-protecting_all_BLPs
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@list
On 16/12/2008, Delirium wrote:
> As a human user of interwiki links, I don't necessarily use them as a
> way of saying "here is an article on the same topic", but "here is an
> article that also covers this topic". I do agree with you in this
> particular case---maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don'
>> The targeted person's reaction is secondary to him. And the targets are,
>> most likely, chosen at random. He is more stimulated by seeing his work
>> there, in print, than anything else. It's like some persons who write
>> graffiti on a wall; they are less interested in the reactions of those
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Alex Sawczynec wrote:
> You know, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. It certainly would solve a lot
> of problems... Semi-protection would keep out the majority of drive-by
> vandalism. Thinking out loud (er, sort of) here, obviously there's a large
> conflict with
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of BLP's
> need to be semiprotected at the very least. I am still thinking
> through the best way to implement such a change, but the current
> sit
Michael here's the point.
Do we have a problem with the *current* BLP process?
That's the question on the table.
Some people are in a reactionary mode, regarding a *few* issues, and wanting
to change major systems, based on a few issues. That is not a productive
stance.
A more productive
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:03 AM, wrote:
> What I was referring to, is issues that come *here*, as unresolved, or
> problematic. Viewing the history of this mailing-list we have very few
> *real*
> *substantial* BLP issues. So the natural conclusion is that the vast
> majority
> of OTRS ti
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:49:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mbimm...@gmail.com writes:
Yeah thanks for making my day Maybe someone should once give you
some stats of OTRS's quality queue... it's rather in the region of 1-2
issues per hour, at the very least.>>
---
I have come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of BLP's
need to be semiprotected at the very least. I am still thinking
through the best way to implement such a change, but the current
situation is not acceptable.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/16/08, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008
On 16 Dec 2008, at 04:14, Thomas Larsen wrote:
> What amazes me is that this guy, a 19-year-old, whose identity is
> known publicly, is willing to risk his future career life by
> engaging in silly, disruptive, petty vandalism that would be common
> from a two-year-old.
It sounds to me as t
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:00 AM, wrote:
> When we have 100,000 BLPs and get one or two issues per month... that's a
> mosquito.
Yeah thanks for making my day Maybe someone should once give you
some stats of OTRS's quality queue... it's rather in the region of 1-2
issues per hour, at the ver
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:03:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sarcasticideal...@gmail.com writes:
What part of "as individual contributors" was confusing to you...>>
--
The part where you wanted to turn "that particular editor" into "us, the
group of editors".
Your p
>> But we (and here I mean "we" as individual contributors) also have the
>> legal and moral right to ensure that we avoid damaging misinformation.
>
>---
>On legal "false". *We* as the collective we have no legal requirement to
>ensure that we avoid damaging misinformation. This
48 matches
Mail list logo
