On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> In this particular, I am vexed and confused. If the longer article
>> makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are
>> those advocating human dignity here as
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:28 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> In this particular, I am vexed and confused. If the longer article
> makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are
> those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it?
Because people should read the article
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
>> >> wro
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is biased
> then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is
> biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of fact.
> However, you wo
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
> >> wrote:
> >> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
>> wrote:
>> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment
>> is
>> > false (not to mention that it is a slur).
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
> wrote:
> > I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment
> is
> > false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show that
> the
> > article is curated by a
Man, I'm not even for us having an individual article on this-it belongs in the
Rick Santorum or Dan Savage articles-but this relentless barrage of bad faith
assumptions is ridiculous. You're inferring a conspiracy to smear Santorum by
enlarging the article. I hope you realize you're alienating
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment is
> false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show that the
> article is curated by at least one, and probably several, biased
> anti-Santorum co
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Rob wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brian J Mingus
> wrote:
> >
> > Your arguments fail to account for the fact that the article is curated
> by
> > biased anti-Santorum contributors,
>
> Well, you lost me right there. This is a terrible slur on both t
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
>
> Your arguments fail to account for the fact that the article is curated by
> biased anti-Santorum contributors,
Well, you lost me right there. This is a terrible slur on both the
editors of the article as well as all the uninvolved edito
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> (Proposed general rule: if you launch your complaint on Wikipedia
> Review, you're already wrong.)
This is going on my user page.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscri
On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
> The *term* shows him in a negative light, but the *incident* actually
> shows him responding maturely and responsibly.
This is an artificial distinction that happens to fit Wikipedia rules, but not
reality. Spreading the term automatically shows him in
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Carcharoth
wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Carl (CBM) wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth
>> wrote:
>>> I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
>>> serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Part of the process of improving articles involves editing them, and
> that includes removing stuff as well as adding stuff. There are many
> cases of articles at the featured article process (and sometimes at
> the good article level as well) w
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Carl (CBM) wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth
> wrote:
>> I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
>> serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This
>> article appears to be the starting and the ending
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
> serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This
> article appears to be the starting and the ending point. Sometimes
> less is more. State what is needed, and l
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> I believe that you should at least agree that the article should
> be no more than 2-3 paragraphs in length, with a small handful of citations
> to truly authoritative, and perhaps even academic, discussions of the
> subject.
I can agree w
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee
> wrote:
> >>>[...]
> >>> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in
> >>> any
> >>> real-world sense.
>
On 26 May 2011 00:52, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> The common element is promoting a POV.
> But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here; I don't see signs
> of breach of NPOV.
Andreas appears to have a vendetta against Cirt personally, and this
is just pa
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:47, George Herbert wrote:
> We aren't doing anything wrong here. We could, but the actual
> coverage in the actual article is NPOV and does not show Santorum
> himself in a negative manner, because we show Santorum's reasoned and
> mature response for what it was.
+1.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in
>>> any
>>> real-world sense.
>>
>> I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a
>> p
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>[...]
>> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in
>> any
>> real-world sense.
>
> I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a
> person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we have a
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>[...]
> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in any
> real-world sense.
I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a
person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we have and do.
This
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
> If there weren't a tea party movement, we wouldn't have an article on
> the tea party movement.
The tea party movement isn't mainly an Internet campaign, and even the aspects
of it that are Internet-based don't involve attempts to increase its search
engine
This is a mistaken understanding of what "unbalanced" means with respect to
Wikipedia.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
> >
> > Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
> >
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled,
> [[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]].
The fact that it would help is exactly why it's not going to happen--all the
people who are promoting the article beca
On Wed, 25 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
> We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not causing it. Our
> reporting is not making it better, but neither is it making it worse.
We are reporting on the damage *and* causing it. Our reporting *is* making
it worse, by being two of the top Google
On Wed, 25 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
> You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human
> waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term,
> descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts).
No, I am not. I am conflating what the article says a
Actually I'm evaluating them on their appropriateness for a mailing
list. A discussion that would be perfectly in order on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions
looks more like off wiki canvassing to me.
May I suggest that we clo
Presumably we are evaluating the arguments that are not /ad hominem /on
their merits, rather than on the /ad hominem/ basis that their author
elsewhere makes /ad hominem /attacks?
RMF
On 25/05/2011 22:38, David Gerard wrote:
>
> See, at this point you completely blew your credibility in this
>
Fred Bauder wrote:
"The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to
Wikipedia policies."
This is true, however it is also true the editing which conforms the
article to WP policies might fail to resolve the matter.
The revival of Gore Vidal's technique of some 50 years ago,
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up.
>
Jayen466 has a long history of harassing Cirt, an editor who has created
dozens of featured articles on a variety of topic. He has engaged in
widespread forum shopping in an appare
33 matches
Mail list logo
