Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page! - Sinclair

This is a discussion on Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page! - Sinclair ; I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the above to the CSS ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

  1. Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!



    I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use
    of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual
    newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the
    above to the CSS disambiguation page, and then created it.

    Almost immediately, some scumbag (a C64-lover no doubt marked it for
    speedy deletion on the grounds of it being "not notable enough"!

    So, could anyone who can be arsed [That'll probably be Lister and Alex
    Farlie's cat then -- Ed] kindly go to Wikipedia (link above) and add
    their own arguments to the page's Talk page. We must save our
    Wikipedia outpost! [Why? -- Ed] [To stop the Commies getting it all
    their own way -- 2nd Ed]


  2. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Apr 18, 1:39 pm, korax1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    > I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use
    > of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual
    > newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the
    > above to the CSS disambiguation page, and then created it.
    >
    > Almost immediately, some scumbag (a C64-lover no doubt marked it for
    > speedy deletion on the grounds of it being "not notable enough"!
    >
    > So, could anyone who can be arsed [That'll probably be Lister and Alex
    > Farlie's cat then -- Ed] kindly go to Wikipedia (link above) and add
    > their own arguments to the page's Talk page. We must save our
    > Wikipedia outpost! [Why? -- Ed] [To stop the Commies getting it all
    > their own way -- 2nd Ed]


    I think you pretty much shot yourself in the foot with this comment on
    the initial page:

    "Because this gives a somewhat limited range of discussion, there
    tends to be a lot of off-topic discussion, particularly of
    confectionery and of children's television."

    Though that pretty much sums up this group and why I dont post much on
    it anymore

    BIll H


  3. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Apr 18, 2:20 pm, Bill H wrote:
    > On Apr 18, 1:39 pm, korax1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > >

    >
    > > I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use
    > > of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual
    > > newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the
    > > above to the CSS disambiguation page, and then created it.

    >
    > > Almost immediately, some scumbag (a C64-lover no doubt marked it for
    > > speedy deletion on the grounds of it being "not notable enough"!

    >
    > > So, could anyone who can be arsed [That'll probably be Lister and Alex
    > > Farlie's cat then -- Ed] kindly go to Wikipedia (link above) and add
    > > their own arguments to the page's Talk page. We must save our
    > > Wikipedia outpost! [Why? -- Ed] [To stop the Commies getting it all
    > > their own way -- 2nd Ed]

    >
    > I think you pretty much shot yourself in the foot with this comment on
    > the initial page:
    >
    > "Because this gives a somewhat limited range of discussion, there
    > tends to be a lot of off-topic discussion, particularly of
    > confectionery and of children's television."
    >
    > Though that pretty much sums up this group and why I dont post much on
    > it anymore
    >
    > BIll H


    Their argument pretty much sums it up:

    CSD A7 - article about a person, group, company, or website that does
    not assert the importance of the subject. You can put {{subst:nn-warn|
    page name}} -- ~~~~ on the user's talk page, or, if it seems that
    someone has created a user page in the encyclopedia section instead of
    their user page, you can use put {{subst:Userfy warning|page name}} --
    ~~~~ on their talk page.


  4. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On 18/4/07 19:29, Bill H wrote:
    > On Apr 18, 2:20 pm, Bill H wrote:
    >> On Apr 18, 1:39 pm, korax1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use
    >>> of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual
    >>> newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the
    >>> above to the CSS disambiguation page, and then created it.
    >>> Almost immediately, some scumbag (a C64-lover no doubt marked it for
    >>> speedy deletion on the grounds of it being "not notable enough"!
    >>> So, could anyone who can be arsed [That'll probably be Lister and Alex
    >>> Farlie's cat then -- Ed] kindly go to Wikipedia (link above) and add
    >>> their own arguments to the page's Talk page. We must save our
    >>> Wikipedia outpost! [Why? -- Ed] [To stop the Commies getting it all
    >>> their own way -- 2nd Ed]

    >> I think you pretty much shot yourself in the foot with this comment on
    >> the initial page:
    >>
    >> "Because this gives a somewhat limited range of discussion, there
    >> tends to be a lot of off-topic discussion, particularly of
    >> confectionery and of children's television."
    >>
    >> Though that pretty much sums up this group and why I dont post much on
    >> it anymore
    >>
    >> BIll H

    >
    > Their argument pretty much sums it up:
    >
    > CSD A7 - article about a person, group, company, or website that does
    > not assert the importance of the subject.


    That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
    assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
    using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
    contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.

    --
    Graham Lee
    http://www.thaesofereode.info

  5. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Apr 19, 2:22 am, Graham J Lee
    wrote:
    > On 18/4/07 19:29, Bill H wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 18, 2:20 pm, Bill H wrote:
    > >> On Apr 18, 1:39 pm, korax1...@gmail.com wrote:

    >
    > >>>
    > >>> I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use
    > >>> of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual
    > >>> newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the
    > >>> above to the CSS disambiguation page, and then created it.
    > >>> Almost immediately, some scumbag (a C64-lover no doubt marked it for
    > >>> speedy deletion on the grounds of it being "not notable enough"!
    > >>> So, could anyone who can be arsed [That'll probably be Lister and Alex
    > >>> Farlie's cat then -- Ed] kindly go to Wikipedia (link above) and add
    > >>> their own arguments to the page's Talk page. We must save our
    > >>> Wikipedia outpost! [Why? -- Ed] [To stop the Commies getting it all
    > >>> their own way -- 2nd Ed]
    > >> I think you pretty much shot yourself in the foot with this comment on
    > >> the initial page:

    >
    > >> "Because this gives a somewhat limited range of discussion, there
    > >> tends to be a lot of off-topic discussion, particularly of
    > >> confectionery and of children's television."

    >
    > >> Though that pretty much sums up this group and why I dont post much on
    > >> it anymore

    >
    > >> BIll H

    >
    > > Their argument pretty much sums it up:

    >
    > > CSD A7 - article about a person, group, company, or website that does
    > > not assert the importance of the subject.

    >
    > That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
    > assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
    > using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
    > contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.
    >
    > --
    > Graham Leehttp://www.thaesofereode.info- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Entry is gone now - no one defended it?


  6. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Apr 19, 7:22 am, Graham J Lee
    wrote:

    > That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
    > assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
    > using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
    > contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.


    I've had contributions deleted as "original research" despite their
    containing no trace (that I can fathom) of (a) originality or (b)
    research. I suspect that in this context "original research" means "I
    don't like this contribution, so I'll make up a bullet-proof 'reason'
    for deleting it".


  7. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:22:29 +0100, Graham J Lee
    wrote:

    >That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
    >assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
    >using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
    >contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.


    I've today edited my user page on Wikipedia, only to have it reverted
    by some clueless idiot because I made my edits without logging in!
    (Because of their suspect editorial policies, I make a point of not
    logging in unless I absolutely need to in order to do the edit.)



  8. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    korax1214@gmail.com wrote:
    > I've had contributions deleted as "original research" despite their
    > containing no trace (that I can fathom) of (a) originality or (b)
    > research.


    Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
    page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
    the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
    containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
    copyright violation.

    A similar policy applies to usernames. Even as I write this, there's
    probably someone out there arguing that the name 'Korax1214' should not
    be allowed as it appears to be a random collection of letters and
    numbers. But don't even think of changing it to something that's bold,
    memorable and makes a clear statement about your identity, because then
    it will be blocked for being potentially offensive to a hypothetical
    person who disagrees with the statement you're making.

    (I signed up with the username Slovakia, which is a nickname I'd been
    given around that time. But then somebody else with a country for a
    username got into an argument about nationalism, which meant that I was
    clearly a troublemaker as well, because I could potentially use my
    username to potentially cause offence in a potential argument about the
    status of Slovakia (hey, it's a contentious topic you know. The
    secession from Czechoslovakia might have been totally peaceful, but that
    was only 15 years ago and anything could happen. And apparently there
    was some war there 60 years ago. Gasp!) that I might potentially want to
    take part in. And the same went for the user 'Jordan', who couldn't even
    escape the attention of this eagle-eyed admin by his cunning ruse of
    *actually being called Jordan in real life*.)

  9. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:32:18 +0100 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
    to MC Matthew Westcott:

    > Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
    > page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
    > the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
    > containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
    > copyright violation.


    It's the usual moderation dictatorship masquarading as a democracy. I
    get around it all by not actually having a username on Wikipedia, you
    don't need one anyway unless you're starting articles (in which case
    you may as well stand in a crowded public place with a sign saying
    "kick me"[1]).

    Chris
    [1] Which I daresay is a far more productive use of time than
    bothering writing articles that will be deleted in a matter of
    minutes.


    --
    +-------------------------------------------+
    | Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
    | http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk |
    | Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
    +- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+

    DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.

  10. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    Hello,

    I'm a modest editor at Wikipedia and I would like to address some
    criticism
    some of you have been throwing at it. My intent is not to troll this
    newsgroup; if you want me to go away, I will.

    Anyway, it is a very common misconception that Wikipedia is the wiki
    about
    everything and anything that anyone can edit. And it is a very sad
    misconception since people expect to be able to talk about anything
    and
    publish it on the top10 web site of the Internet without any
    scrutinity, and
    are intensely disappointed, claiming that Wikipedia has double
    standards.

    The reality is that Wikipedia is an open content encyclopedia in the
    form of a
    wiki that everyone is welcome to *improve*. What consistutes an
    improvement is
    defined by various guidelines and policies, and consensus on
    discussion pages.

    "Wiki" is not synonymous with Wikipedia -- there are numerous of other
    wikis
    that have different goals and different standards.

    Encyclopedias do not publish original information ("original
    research"), they
    summarize existing knowledge published elsewhere. Wikipedia in
    particular has
    set its criteria for inclusion to "verifiability" -- all content on
    Wikipedia
    has to be supported by a reliable source (as defined on
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS), or it may be removed if anyone
    challenges
    it. Note that this is "verifiability", and not "truth". More
    information at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V (verifiability policy)

    This leads to the question of notability -- if multiple reliable
    sources on a
    topic cannot be produced, then a verifiable article cannot be written.
    To
    establish notability, it suffices to *list* such sources. More
    information at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N (notability guideline). As already
    pointed
    out by Bill H, the criteria for speedy deletion is *not* "this topic
    is
    non-notable", it says "this article does not assert notability."

    In addition to being notable and verifiable, Wikipedia entries must
    also be
    neutral. Articles about organizations and communities in particular
    need to be
    verifiable, since there is a big chance that they would be written by
    people
    part of the organization who might have a conflict of interest; if the
    claims
    cannot be verified then they will likely to be biased in favor.
    Entries on
    these kinds of topics, whose notability is not established, are
    normally
    deleted.

    Now, not every verifiable, notable and neutral topic/entry is
    inherently
    encyclopedic; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...kipedia_is_not

    That was a very brief introduction into the core ideas of Wikipedia.
    Noboody
    said that writing an encyclopedia article was easy. By all means, if
    you
    you dislike others scrutinizing your work then by any means, do not
    edit.

    Given that the number of articles on the English Wikipedia has
    exceeded 1.75
    million, *someone* must be getting their articles in.

    Finally, note that the majority of edits made on the English Wikipedia
    are by
    normal users with no administrative powers whatsoever. If you disagree
    with
    them, why not discuss it?

    > If you _do_
    > assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
    > using weasel words.

    And how is that bad? It's an invitation to improve the entry. Noone is
    forcing
    *you* to dot it. If you disagree with a tag, you can always discuss it
    on the
    talk page of the article, or asking the editor in person. Other
    editors are
    people and make mistakes too.

    > On
    > the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
    > containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
    > copyright violation.

    Yes, if it contains the exact same phrases, and if you didn't make it
    clear
    that you were quoting someone. If it wasn't a copyright violation and
    was
    deleted, then you can rightfully request undeletion at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPELREV

    > It's the usual moderation dictatorship masquarading as a democracy.

    Wikipedia is not [masquerading as] a democracy:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

    However, neither is Wikipedia a dictatorship. These policies have been
    developed through a consensus between editors. You are welcome to
    challenge
    any of the policies and guidelines on their respective discussion
    ("talk")
    pages. Your arguments are considered based on their merit, not your
    power.

    Now, this long essay would have been unnecessary if people took their
    time
    getting acquainted with what Wikipedia is and what it is not, or even
    trying
    to find out *why* their entry was considered inappropriate for
    Wikipedia. All
    of this, and more, is documented. If you have any questions, I can
    answer them
    to my best knowledge.


    Regards,
    intgr


  11. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    Sorry for the broken wrapping, my text editor wraps at 78 characters. :
    (

    intgr


  12. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    wrote:

    > if you want me to go away, I will.


    See ya!

    Eq.



  13. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Apr 20, 9:32 pm, Matthew Westcott wrote:
    > Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
    > page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
    > the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
    > containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
    > copyright violation.


    The "it's definitely not Stonkers" bit has been deleted from the
    Stonkers page by some American idiot (who ironically complains on his
    user page about Wikipedia being spoiled by idiotic edits done by
    "people who don't know what they're doing" -- I think said user page
    should be a redirect to the "pot, kettle, black" page) on the grounds
    that it's "not notable" -- and this despite my providing a link to a
    Google search on this very newsgroup which returns over 100 hits from
    a variety of sources; how much more "notable" can anyone want? Or is
    it because, according to Wikipedia, this newsgroup Officially Doesn't
    Exist?

    I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
    notable".


  14. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    korax1214@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
    > On Apr 20, 9:32 pm, Matthew Westcott wrote:
    >> Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
    >> page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
    >> the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
    >> containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
    >> copyright violation.


    > The "it's definitely not Stonkers" bit has been deleted from the
    > Stonkers page by some American idiot (who ironically complains on his
    > user page about Wikipedia being spoiled by idiotic edits done by
    > "people who don't know what they're doing" -- I think said user page
    > should be a redirect to the "pot, kettle, black" page) on the grounds
    > that it's "not notable" -- and this despite my providing a link to a
    > Google search on this very newsgroup which returns over 100 hits from
    > a variety of sources; how much more "notable" can anyone want? Or is
    > it because, according to Wikipedia, this newsgroup Officially Doesn't
    > Exist?


    Isn't it even possible to add a LINK to the newsgroup on the zx spectrum
    page? (you know, at the bottom "outside links" section?)
    It is a vast resource of speccy info, nostalgia and crisp flavours after
    all. And it's been around a heck of a lot longer than wiki itself. (any
    wiki, the entire wiki thing wasn't invented 14 years ago)

    > I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
    > notable".


    Aye.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  15. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:56:55 GMT da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
    to MC :

    > Isn't it even possible to add a LINK to the newsgroup on the zx spectrum
    > page?


    Apparently this is possible. Whether it will stay there is another
    matter. As I've linked it to news:comp.sys.sinclair I suspect it
    won't.

    Chris


    --
    +-------------------------------------------+
    | Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
    | http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk |
    | Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
    +- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+

    DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.

  16. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On 23 Apr, 10:56, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    > korax1...@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
    >
    > > I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
    > > notable".

    >
    > Aye.


    spike. Read the post...

    ....read the post again...

    ....then read the post another few times...

    THEN, and only then, consider if it's REALLY worth responding with an
    "aye".


  17. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    W Marsh did eloquently scribble:
    > On 23 Apr, 10:56, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    >> korax1...@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
    >>
    >> > I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
    >> > notable".

    >>
    >> Aye.


    > spike. Read the post...


    > ...read the post again...


    > ...then read the post another few times...


    > THEN, and only then, consider if it's REALLY worth responding with an
    > "aye".


    Oh smeg off you insufferable arsehole.
    That wasn't all I replied with and you ****ing well know it.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  18. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    On 3 May, 16:57, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    > W Marsh did eloquently scribble:
    >
    > > On 23 Apr, 10:56, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    > >> korax1...@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:

    >
    > >> > I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
    > >> > notable".

    >
    > >> Aye.

    > > spike. Read the post...
    > > ...read the post again...
    > > ...then read the post another few times...
    > > THEN, and only then, consider if it's REALLY worth responding with an
    > > "aye".

    >
    > Oh smeg off you insufferable arsehole.
    > That wasn't all I replied with and you ****ing well know it.
    > --
    > __________________________________________________ _________________________*___
    > | spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
    > |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    > | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    > | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---


    Oh, annoyingly you're right (Google Groups highlighted the entire
    first half of the message as if it was all quoted). So I APOLOGISE.

    Still, copy and paste it for me ready for the next time you do the
    same thing you criticised Lister for. Thanks!


  19. Re: Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!

    W Marsh did eloquently scribble:
    > Still, copy and paste it for me ready for the next time you do the
    > same thing you criticised Lister for. Thanks!


    And what did I criticise lister for?
    Replying with nothing but a single word?
    Or ruining a joke with a misplaced oo-err?

    GOD you're pathetic. Just drop it.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ Reply to Thread