| Revision as of 05:28, 20 February 2007 editJance (talk | contribs)3,137 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:03, 6 February 2008 edit undoRandom832 (talk | contribs)12,146 edits ←Blanked the page | ||
| (526 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| class="messagebox small-talk" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Random832/Archive 1--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| {{archivebox|{{archive list}}}} | |||
| == How come the 'citecheck' at ]? == | |||
| :''<small>Discussion still active 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| Hello Random832. Could you add a small comment to ] about what you are looking for here? Not everyone at RSS follows the ] page, and I imagine your template must have some connection to what's going on there. ] 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's my proposed revision of the ] paragraph called 'RSS Creation'. In this version I've removed your 'citation needed' about R.V.Guha because I try to confine myself to what the current references say. Before I replace this I'd like to get your opinion. In particular, the last sentence may receive scrutiny since it seems to credit Dave Winer with something: | |||
| :<blockquote>RDF Site Summary, the first version of RSS, was a successor of the ] created by ] of ]. A feature known as RSS (RDF Site Summary) was introduced by a Netscape press release in March 1999 for use on the ] portal. Users were invited to submit descriptions of their content, created using RSS, which apparently would serve as a semantic description of their individual websites, so that Netscape could build an index of their website contents. This version became known as RSS 0.9.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://my.netscape.com/publish/help/quickstart.html |title=My Netscape Network: Quick Start |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20001208063100/http://my.netscape.com/publish/help/quickstart.html |archivedate=2000-12-08 |publisher=] |accessdate=2006-10-31 }}</ref> In July 1999, responding to comments and suggestions, ] produced a prototype tentatively named RSS 0.91<ref>{{cite web |url= http://web.archive.org/web/20001204093600/my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-spec-0.91.html |title=RSS 0.91 Spec, revision 3 |author=Libby, Dan |date=] |publisher=] |accessdate=2007-02-14 }}</ref> (RSS standing for Rich Site Summary), that simplified the format and incorporated parts of Winer's Scripting News format. This they considered an interim measure, with Libby suggesting an RSS 1.0-like format through the so-called Futures Document.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://my.netscape.com/publish/help/futures.html |title=MNN Future Directions |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20001204123600/http://my.netscape.com/publish/help/futures.html |archivedate=2000-12-04 |publisher=] |accessdate=2006-10-31 }}</ref>Libby's RSS 0.91 spec uses the word 'syndication' which was not found in the Netscape press release of March, 1999. This might suggest that the Guha-like semantic indexing of entire web sites was being replaced by or augmented by a Winer-like series of pointers to newly added content items.</blockquote> | |||
| :Please let me know your opinion. ] 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fake message boxes== | |||
| :Thank you for your advice that the world's not going to end tomorrow. It comes as a great relief after talking to a friend, who said that we're only one random meteor hit away from that very thing happening. No doubt we will find out later today. However, I didn't say there was a "frenzy", just "a lot of pressure". I would not wish to continue in the former state, but the latter is not unusual, as the admin to user ratio decreases daily. I think it is time to take a wikibreak not when there is "a lot" of pressure, but when there is "too much" pressure. I can assure you that there was a good reason at the time why I did need to access his page (though I don't recall exactly what it was) or I would not have done so. ] 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Embezzlement case == | |||
| So how does a lawyer's wikipedia editing threaten her more than, say, having to file her name and address on court pleadings? Beats me. Especially since that same lawyer has been blogging about her wikipedia editing. -- ] 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==THIS IS STALKING== | |||
| I should not have to explain my desire or need for privacy. PERIOD. This is a WIkipedia policy, as well. AND THERE IS A REASON FOR IT. | |||
| You asked what I did for a living, and why it could possibly matter that a link is placed here to my ''and my husband's'' real name. Both my husband and I are attorneys. If there is never a problem with publicizing one's identity, why does WIkipedia even bother with a privacy policy? Heck, why not just put my address in here too? Misplaced Pages is read by a huge number of people. If you don't think this is a problem, then you really need to go read some of the results of publishing names like this. For my uncle and his family, the publication in the wrong place of his name resulted in the near loss of life of his entire family. His house was burned down by arson. <p> | |||
| Ted's only interest in banning me now, is because he hates lawyers, and hates any edit of "his" articles that he has contorted in the past to be nothing but a tort reform rant. | |||
| If you think I am so deserving of a "permanent ban", why don't you go look at some of the articles I have edited? Look at ] for example, and look at its history. Look at what I edited and added. Then tell me that I am deserving of a ban, now, 6 months or more after my altercation with an admin, over another hit piece on a lawyer. This little game by Ted is th e most outrageous thing I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. Unbelievable. Go look on the An/I where I explained what some of my edits were. Then look at them. Tell me you think I should be banned. I really want to know. WHy don't you go talk to Sarah, who is an admin and knows all my history - she even had been one involved in an RFC "on me". Oh I forgot, Ted thinks she and I are good friends because she objected to his harassment and stalking of me. My only question is what the hell is wrong with admins on WIkipedia? Is it not obvious to you what is going on? Good God.] 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||