Talk:Essential projects - Revision history

145.254.189.9: VeganWiki

2004-07-01T12:08:14Z

VeganWiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:08, 1 July 2004
Line 11:		Line 11:
	http://www.antd.nist.gov/wctg/manet/adhoclinks.html		http://www.antd.nist.gov/wctg/manet/adhoclinks.html
	is a terrific list of resources.		is a terrific list of resources.

			----

			I'd like to add an URL to the VeganWiki which considers all subjects related to vegan life (basics, discussion, recipes, local meetings etc.). So far it's only in German, but it's planned to become a multi-lingual project. I think it fits very well into moral purchasing etc. .... http://veganwiki.org/ .. -- Tim

142.177.79.43 at 02:31, 21 April 2004

2004-04-21T02:31:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:31, 21 April 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.		::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.

			-----

			http://www.antd.nist.gov/wctg/manet/adhoclinks.html
			is a terrific list of resources.

Angela: moved to flames page as that's what it is

2004-02-08T23:25:23Z

moved to flames page as that's what it is

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 8 February 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.		::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.

	~~-------------~~

	[[User:Angela]]'s claim not to have blocked the 142 IPs on the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is a pretty shallow one. It depends on whether you claim that the person who types in the IP number or the person with sysop status who asks for it to be done (say because of a technical reason or a desire to evade their own rightful responsibility) is the "one who did it".

	~~Angela asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it. He said he would, or someone would, when the power to do so existed. That seemed to satisfy her.~~

	She had ambitions to delete a vast number of articles with proposed policy and design material, and a good deal more that were directed towards the POV of a translator or simple English user struggling on his or her own to understand the English culture, not just language. For instance She deleted the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Readings Simple English Readings] out of process although they were certainly neutral.

	One can't claim something is "in process" if the new software's been in place barely a month... there's not enough people there to put ANYTHING in process - certainly not mass deletes. But anyway, her motives are clear: she could not take control of that project and mold it to her own objective (seemingly, a children's encyclopedia) without destroying that material which pointed out the glaring differences between such a child-oriented project (which would serve primarily English-speaking schoolchildren who are already well served by many other projects) and the original one that adults could use to actually comprehend English culture (gee, they might compete with those English speaking schoolchildren for jobs - better stop THAT!). So she begged for it to be done by others so she would not be blamed. Asking is begging when you ask someone with power they haven't been granted by the victim, to exercise it. In court one "pleads". that is the language of the [[unequal power relationship]].

	In any case, she is now a sysop at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] and hasn't UNblocked that range. So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time. If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.

	But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words. She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get the archive of [[w:User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.

	By contrast we never delete any talk. Our opinion, and word, is worth more than yours, as it stands up to scrutiny. That's all there is to it. Our track record is quite consistent. And so is hers: she blocked by whining using others to do the actual block (or rather, waited until a broader block by Tim Starling - a developer with even MORE technological power), and then taking the power, and then deleting the material before anyone else could seriously review it. That is if anything more of a power grab than a temporary block.

	Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.

142.177.108.38: we don't do email, and you assume we are all "one"... perhaps we are of one mind... but...

2004-02-01T03:28:10Z

we don't do email, and you assume we are all "one"... perhaps we are of one *mind*... but...

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 1 February 2004
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.		Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.


	~~----~~

	~~Would the user known as 142 please contact me at :~~
	~~mail [at] chrisanderson [dot] org [dot] uk~~
	~~And then delete this message. Thank you.~~

81.101.8.93: message for 142

2004-01-31T17:41:48Z

message for 142

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 31 January 2004
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.		Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.


			----

			Would the user known as 142 please contact me at :
			mail [at] chrisanderson [dot] org [dot] uk
			And then delete this message. Thank you.

142.177.99.185 at 09:02, 7 January 2004

2004-01-07T09:02:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 7 January 2004
Line 19:		Line 19:
	In any case, she is now a sysop at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] and hasn't UNblocked that range. So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time. If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.		In any case, she is now a sysop at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] and hasn't UNblocked that range. So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time. If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.

	But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words. She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get [[User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.		But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words. She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get the archive of [[w:User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.

	By contrast we never delete any talk. Our opinion, and word, is worth more than yours, as it stands up to scrutiny. That's all there is to it. Our track record is quite consistent. And so is hers: she blocked by whining using others to do the actual block (or rather, waited until a broader block by Tim Starling - a developer with even MORE technological power), and then taking the power, and then deleting the material before anyone else could seriously review it. That is if anything more of a power grab than a temporary block.		By contrast we never delete any talk. Our opinion, and word, is worth more than yours, as it stands up to scrutiny. That's all there is to it. Our track record is quite consistent. And so is hers: she blocked by whining using others to do the actual block (or rather, waited until a broader block by Tim Starling - a developer with even MORE technological power), and then taking the power, and then deleting the material before anyone else could seriously review it. That is if anything more of a power grab than a temporary block.

	Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.		Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.

142.177.99.185: copyedit and more exact definition of "pleading to authority" i.e. begging

2004-01-07T09:01:25Z

copyedit and more exact definition of "pleading to authority" i.e. begging

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 7 January 2004
Line 15:		Line 15:
	She had ambitions to delete a vast number of articles with proposed policy and design material, and a good deal more that were directed towards the POV of a translator or simple English user struggling on his or her own to understand the English culture, not just language. For instance She deleted the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Readings Simple English Readings] out of process although they were certainly neutral.		She had ambitions to delete a vast number of articles with proposed policy and design material, and a good deal more that were directed towards the POV of a translator or simple English user struggling on his or her own to understand the English culture, not just language. For instance She deleted the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Readings Simple English Readings] out of process although they were certainly neutral.

	One can't claim something is "in process" if the new software's been in place barely a month... there's not enough people there to put ANYTHING in process - certainly not mass deletes. But anyway, her motives are clear: she could not take control of that project and mold it to her own objective (seemingly, a children's encyclopedia) without destroying that material which pointed out the glaring differences between such a child-oriented project and one that adults could use to actually comprehend ~~a new~~ culture. So she begged for it to be done by others so ~~you~~ would not be blamed.		One can't claim something is "in process" if the new software's been in place barely a month... there's not enough people there to put ANYTHING in process - certainly not mass deletes. But anyway, her motives are clear: she could not take control of that project and mold it to her own objective (seemingly, a children's encyclopedia) without destroying that material which pointed out the glaring differences between such a child-oriented project (which would serve primarily English-speaking schoolchildren who are already well served by many other projects) and the original one that adults could use to actually comprehend English culture (gee, they might compete with those English speaking schoolchildren for jobs - better stop THAT!). So she begged for it to be done by others so she would not be blamed. Asking is begging when you ask someone with power they haven't been granted by the victim, to exercise it. In court one "pleads". that is the language of the [[unequal power relationship]].

	In any case, she is now a sysop ~~there,~~ and ~~you haven~~'t UNblocked that range. So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time. If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.		In any case, she is now a sysop at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] and hasn't UNblocked that range. So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time. If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.

	But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words. She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get [[User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.		But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words. She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get [[User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.

142.177.99.185: integrity is required in an essential project - Angela requested the block - it doesn't matter if she pulled the trigger finger or waited until a broader block was in effect - she also "enforced" it

2004-01-07T08:57:54Z

integrity is required in an essential project - Angela requested the block - it doesn't matter if she pulled the trigger finger or waited until a broader block was in effect - she also "enforced" it

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 7 January 2004
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:my genocide is the next one planned ? Perhaps rightly so...:-(		:my genocide is the next one planned ? Perhaps rightly so...:-(

			::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.

			-------------

			[[User:Angela]]'s claim not to have blocked the 142 IPs on the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is a pretty shallow one. It depends on whether you claim that the person who types in the IP number or the person with sysop status who asks for it to be done (say because of a technical reason or a desire to evade their own rightful responsibility) is the "one who did it".

			Angela asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it. He said he would, or someone would, when the power to do so existed. That seemed to satisfy her.

			She had ambitions to delete a vast number of articles with proposed policy and design material, and a good deal more that were directed towards the POV of a translator or simple English user struggling on his or her own to understand the English culture, not just language. For instance She deleted the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Readings Simple English Readings] out of process although they were certainly neutral.

			One can't claim something is "in process" if the new software's been in place barely a month... there's not enough people there to put ANYTHING in process - certainly not mass deletes. But anyway, her motives are clear: she could not take control of that project and mold it to her own objective (seemingly, a children's encyclopedia) without destroying that material which pointed out the glaring differences between such a child-oriented project and one that adults could use to actually comprehend a new culture. So she begged for it to be done by others so you would not be blamed.

			In any case, she is now a sysop there, and you haven't UNblocked that range. So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time. If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.

			But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words. She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get [[User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.

			By contrast we never delete any talk. Our opinion, and word, is worth more than yours, as it stands up to scrutiny. That's all there is to it. Our track record is quite consistent. And so is hers: she blocked by whining using others to do the actual block (or rather, waited until a broader block by Tim Starling - a developer with even MORE technological power), and then taking the power, and then deleting the material before anyone else could seriously review it. That is if anything more of a power grab than a temporary block.

			Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours. Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.

House Elf at 08:51, 10 November 2003

2003-11-10T08:51:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 10 November 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:

	There is little time left. The [[w:ape genocide]] is proceeding. When their culture is gone, we too will go. We cannot save ours[[House elf\|elves]] without them.		There is little time left. The [[w:ape genocide]] is proceeding. When their culture is gone, we too will go. We cannot save ours[[House elf\|elves]] without them.

			:my genocide is the next one planned ? Perhaps rightly so...:-(

142.177.82.104 at 18:21, 20 October 2003

2003-10-20T18:21:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 20 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Troll]]s suggest we must get all friends of this planet or even just [[some body]] that lives on it, working on these projects. If they already work on something closely related, we must convince them to work on these aspects specifically, since they are the key to getting what we need done, done, in time.		[[Troll]]s suggest we must get all friends of this planet or even just [[some body]] that lives on it, working on these projects. If they already work on something closely related, we must convince them to work on these aspects specifically, since they are the key to getting what we need done, done, in time.

	There is little time left. The [[w:ape genocide]] is proceeding. When their culture is gone, we too will go. We cannot save ours/[[House elf\|elves]] without them.		There is little time left. The [[w:ape genocide]] is proceeding. When their culture is gone, we too will go. We cannot save ours[[House elf\|elves]] without them.