Hello all,
New here; first post. I'm a longtime Wikipedia user and recent first-time
editor. Had a rather discouraging incident with regard to my first article
on the site, rather an eye-opener as I've attempted to study up on how
things work -- or are supposed to work, and finding out that the
Hi Mr. Goodman,
I think you are talking about me when you mention the genius that sometimes
accompanies valuable and important people who unfortunately tend to put on
displays of individualistic irascibility that are unacceptable. As Manhattan
Samurai, I was one of the best at this. I'm
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:32 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[
User:FT2/RfA
Jon Q wrote:
The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- Come on in! Start writing!
Be bold! Break the rules! and you're heartened by the seeming generosity
of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The
problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Fall_Off_Boy
Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character
who had the similar
My first instinct would be to ask what state of mind the comic writers
were in when creating these characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter-Eater_Lad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_Boy
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
like further reading.
The *character* is in a reliable
On 15/07/2010, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
when
it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a
reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's
something
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
like further reading.
I have a few problems with the above thread too, but perhaps different ones.
Admins will naturally have a strong say in decisions being active
experienced users who have achieved wide respect and are often involved in
abuse and conduct related decisions. But they don't necessarily have special
Fred Bauder wrote:
It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't
confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is,
of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that
sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:22 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a few problems with the above thread too, but perhaps different
ones.
Admins will naturally have a strong say in decisions being active
experienced users who have achieved wide respect and are often involved in
abuse and
I should say, the fact we are willing to discuss not assume is fine.
Obviosuly the harm and upset arising is not.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
(Snip)
The second problem beyond that is the problem of fiddling while Rome
burns. While we potter round discussing
Fred Bauder wrote:
It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't
confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which
is,
of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that
sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
when
it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a
reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's
something you can do:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
whatever. If we wait until this
16 matches
Mail list logo
