→Barnstar: new section |
→Barnstar: Sockpuppetry |
||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your input at Digwuren RFAR and overall actions to protect the values of Wikipedia. People like you make the difference! [[User:Suva|Suva]] <small>[[User_talk:Suva|Чего?]]</small> 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your input at Digwuren RFAR and overall actions to protect the values of Wikipedia. People like you make the difference! [[User:Suva|Suva]] <small>[[User_talk:Suva|Чего?]]</small> 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
Well Estonians story is simple. Most of them came when the Russian media attack started against Estonia during the [[Bronze soldier of Tallinn]] incident. Some articles were really horrible at the time, Estonian flag under [[Estonia]] was replaced with nazi german one all the time, etc. Many editors came in. Some old editors were drawn into the spin, etc. The first sock/meatpuppetry accusations came from the fact that estonian editors were quite same minded. Estonian media gave detailed updates on situation and many people like myself were also in the center of the situation so saw the incidents with their own eyes. So there was not much room for debate if someone wrote that the soldier was dismantled sawn to pieces peed on or what ever as we knew it wasn't and thats why we all reverted that. So as people knew something for sure they ofcourse acted the same. |
|||
When the so called Established Editors came into frame the things got more serious and they tried to eliminate some opposing editors. They succeeded on some cases. Mostly humble editors who were here before to edit encyclopedia not to battle. Others didn't give up so easily. Now as the things have cooled down a bit, the editors are quite hard working and Estonia related articles are better than they have ever been. |
|||
Estonian (and now Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, etc.) editors are also observing each others work to assist where necessary. It's sometimes happens that they also meet at AFD's and other votes for similar reason. Some editors are also available on #wikipedia channel so we have held discussions there. I can't speak for other editors because I don't know, but I don't have any sockpuppets and I don't think any other one has any either. |
|||
The RFCU process makes me a bit sad. I shuffled over some old RFCU cases and the methodology they use seems like extremely unreliable. It seems they use some very mean statistics in style: 1) Assuming every 1000000th person in world is editing english wikipedia. 2) Assuming estonia has 1.4m people. 3) Estonia can have 14 wikipedians. 4) As the threshold is already exceeded, every new wikipedian must be a sockpuppet of the earlier editors. [[User:Suva|Suva]] <small>[[User_talk:Suva|Чего?]]</small> 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:25, 24 September 2007
You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today. |
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you. |
---|
Please add new comments in if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance. |
---|
Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (moved 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (moved 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (moved 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (moved 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 (moved 20 March, 2007), Archive 17 (moved 17 May, 2007), Archive 18 (moved 30 July, 2007)
If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either:
at my discretion
DYK (24 August)Open Source DirectoryPreTender submitted eve-wiki to the CCP fansite list months ago and I've tried again and also on the Open Directory project. Can you help? Wikipedia weekly interviewHi there, I noticed that you are an extremly high contributor to FA and was wondering if you would like to be interviewed for an upcoming episode of Wikipedia Weekly? I would be interested in talking about why you are involved in WP, what areas are you specifically involved in, the Polish wikipedia community and their specific issues. Does this sound interesting? I hope to hear from you soon. Witty Lama 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Has it happened yet? The lama should have paired you with Ghirla.....well, we need take #2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The Ep is now up and going. Enjoy. Witty Lama 06:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC) DYKeve wikihi ive set up a wiki for my corporation on the eve wiki sit but im a bit of a noob and cant link it 2 the correct catagory (pc corps) i think it should meet the standerd but no doubt my corpmates will wish 2 c*ap all over my hard work and edit it as they see fit so if it isnt plz dont flag it for delition right away thanks MURDAH/Scivi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.150.63 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Space Cadet is in troublesHi, I think you might be interested in this Space Cadet in troubles. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Front page day is pudding dayOh, dear, the lead is turning into a pudding. This is a perfect example of how articles deteriorate. Someone adds a superfluous detail to the lead ("several calls to do so"). Someone else decides, without reading the rest of the article, where that point is expanded and referenced, to add a "citation needed" tag. Someone else comes along and helpfully references the point, adding all sorts of other details too, just to nail it home, without taking into account the need for a sense of proportion in the lead or the fact that all this is already covered and referenced in the body of the article. And the lead now says that the Soviets delayed because Warsaw hadn't yet fallen, whereas the body of the article gives a number of reasons from a range of sources. I don't think I'll try and sort this out until after the 24 hours, because good concise prose in the lead is a fine art and cannot be attempted while swatting flies, with one foot in a swamp. This experience convinces me that maybe it's best to cite everything in the lead in future: some people obviously don't realise that it's a deliberate style choice not to cite too much in the lead, particularly those people who start editing the lead before they've read the whole article. :(. qp10qp 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Jan CzyńskiHello Piotrus. My Polish being effectively non-existent, can you tell me if pl:Jan Czyński was in Paris in the 1830s. I assume so - "great emigration" I did understand. I'm trying to figure out if he is the person who co-authored a book called Le Roi des Paysans (published in Paris in 1838). My Belgian source calls this person Jean Czynski. Many thanks in advance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
DYKGACWhat a refreshing thought.[1] --Poeticbent talk 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Lack of respect for WP:UEThat where real disruptions lies. M0RD00R 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC) KievJust renominate it - and I think you might title the nomination Kiev 2 - there should be details on the page.--danielfolsom 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Enlightenment TemplateHi! Terribly sorry to spam you, but, remembering your interest in the Template:Enlightenment, I thought you might be interested to know that I have started a discussion on the inclusion criteria; it would be great if you came over to Template talk:Enlightenment to take part. --AVIosad(talk) 13:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Something for you I guesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy#Why_no_mention_of_Poland.3F --HanzoHattori 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC) fair useHi Piotrus, is still fair use in apply ? I have an article without image where is not possible to obtain public domain image. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Question for youPlease see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin 2. Is it possible to obtain a text and or translation of the article referring to him? If you will check the history of this and related articles, you will see why there is a certain skepticism about both the accuracy of the facts related and the extent to which he encyclopedia article supports them. DGG (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Antoni Julian NowowiejskiA {{prod}} template has been added to the article Antoni Julian Nowowiejski, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the AfD nomination of Antoni Julian NowowiejskiDid you knowBarnstar
Well Estonians story is simple. Most of them came when the Russian media attack started against Estonia during the Bronze soldier of Tallinn incident. Some articles were really horrible at the time, Estonian flag under Estonia was replaced with nazi german one all the time, etc. Many editors came in. Some old editors were drawn into the spin, etc. The first sock/meatpuppetry accusations came from the fact that estonian editors were quite same minded. Estonian media gave detailed updates on situation and many people like myself were also in the center of the situation so saw the incidents with their own eyes. So there was not much room for debate if someone wrote that the soldier was dismantled sawn to pieces peed on or what ever as we knew it wasn't and thats why we all reverted that. So as people knew something for sure they ofcourse acted the same. When the so called Established Editors came into frame the things got more serious and they tried to eliminate some opposing editors. They succeeded on some cases. Mostly humble editors who were here before to edit encyclopedia not to battle. Others didn't give up so easily. Now as the things have cooled down a bit, the editors are quite hard working and Estonia related articles are better than they have ever been. Estonian (and now Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, etc.) editors are also observing each others work to assist where necessary. It's sometimes happens that they also meet at AFD's and other votes for similar reason. Some editors are also available on #wikipedia channel so we have held discussions there. I can't speak for other editors because I don't know, but I don't have any sockpuppets and I don't think any other one has any either. The RFCU process makes me a bit sad. I shuffled over some old RFCU cases and the methodology they use seems like extremely unreliable. It seems they use some very mean statistics in style: 1) Assuming every 1000000th person in world is editing english wikipedia. 2) Assuming estonia has 1.4m people. 3) Estonia can have 14 wikipedians. 4) As the threshold is already exceeded, every new wikipedian must be a sockpuppet of the earlier editors. Suva Чего? 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |