This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 10 January 2006 (→3RR Freenet: no). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:10, 10 January 2006 by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) (→3RR Freenet: no)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Hello. Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have started a discussion there to help other wikipedians make up their mind about the reference you wish to include in Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I also included my opinion. Please let us have your brief opinion there. --Edcolins 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
And so I did, with the result people complain I don't do it on a registered nick with its own talkpage. ;-) One correction, though; the matter at hand is specifically about the inclusion of the link to the blog in regard to a citation, which was asked for by another poster. I do not claim the reference should be included an sich; that would depend on the question whether or not there is still felt a need for that citation.
If some NPOV-people (which excludes some posters ;-), like most sysops, would conclude there is no need for that particular citation, then obviously, logic would dictate that reference (as a citation) is not needed anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs)
Although I removed the blog link from Freenet, and I am an admin, I wanted to remind you that admins have no special control over article content. You have as much say about the article content as I do. However, I don't think that links to blogs are appropriate to add to the article, nor is original research. Since the consensus appears to lean towards removing the blog link, please respect other users' wishes. Thanks. Rhobite 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi rhobite. thnks for taking the time to explain things. I am aware that admins don't have control on itself, it was just that I tried to come to an agreement between me and someone who felt criticised or doesn't like me or what I write. Since we both are probably biased, I sensed an admin would be better of dealing with it. However, I DO want a consistent behaviour, even (and especially) from an admin.
Thus, concerning the criticism, I'm left rather baffled: when I put a link as reference, it is deemed irrelevant; if I put the criticism on the wiki, it gets deleted because it has no references... seems like catch 22, if you ask me.
As for the 'consensus'... please note that the vast majority of those that reverted come from only 2 IP-addresses, BOTH show they haven't done anything besides making those freenet-reverts (indicating they were only created for that purpose, and are probably the same person behind it). One would be hardpressed to make a substantiated claim that that constitutes a consensus.
But, as I said, regardless: there must be consistency. I'm willing to abide by your judgement, but if the criticism isn't allowed because of lack of references, then the big parts of the controversy and other paragraphs should be deleted too, because I see no references or source-mentionning there neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs)
Please understand that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. That means it is not a place to vent your grudges or promote your views. Also, please sign your talk entries with "~~~~", which will make it easier to follow these discussions. Thanks. Haakon 18:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm fully aware it's not a soapbox, but those rules should not be misused as dogmatic slogans neither, which, I think, is being done here (at least partly). It would strike most people as hypocritical if one refuses criticism on the wiki because it is without references, and one refuses the references, because they are not 'notable'. In that case, one could say all forms of criticism are not notable (which is easy in the case for subjects which are popular or very specific/technical), and one never has to allow neither criticism on the wiki, nor links who link to a different, critical argument or viewpoint (and thereby reducing the NPOV of the article, in fact).
An NPOV article should at least state there *is* criticism and what kind, period. This is quite normal; for instance, in the case of the CP controversy, no specific references are given, nor are any references weighted on their 'notability', yet, it is included nevertheless, because the fact that there *is* a problem with it, is recognised. Acting as if there is no such thing, because one happens to disagree with an author or his criticism, is rather nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs)
Let me be clear about this: I'm getting fed up with this kind of hypocritical and biased way some people (actually no more then 2 or 3) try to get rid of any criticism of Freenet, nay, even refusing to acknowledge there is criticism. All the nonsense about 'not a soap-opera' does nothing to change the fact that, time and again, my efforts to reach a compromise so the pro's and cons of the freenetproject were both represented (and thus creating a more NPOV article) have been met with disdain and hypocrisy. It is denied that there *exists* criticism, even. One deals with this on the perfidious grounds that no references or sources exists, and when those are given, one claims they are not 'noteable' (even when the article in question was noted by tenthousands, because it was a slashdot-article). And when the site is notable, as the freenthelp-wiki, it is claimed it's not allowed because I gave the links to the sources (even when it's a *wiki*, so what the f- does it matter if I put the source-links there? Every goddamn surfer can make it, so then it wouldn't be me, and the links would suddenly allowable?!)). Thus, a perfect catch-22.
As one can see, the whole 'discussion' really amounts to not allowing any mentionning that there is criticism on the freentet-project, and whatever I will do or say, those people who are biased, are still going to be biased and find some excuse to get rid of any criticism. It doesn't help that most of those people are involved or fan of the project, and are too blinded to allow even the most remote mentionning of existing criticism. But then again, this is what bias does. The latest example of the hypocritical nature of the persons involved, is the fact that, in the interest of compromise and editor-peace, I agreed to abide by the edits made by a wiki-admin. This was very frustrating, because the edits watered down all worthwhile criticism and hardly contained anything else then the acknowledgement that criticism exists on the Freentproject. But well, an agreement was an agreement, so I stuck with it.
Ofcourse, no-1 else did, including the one who made that edit. So, apparently, *I* am the only one expected to bide with the agreements made, but whenever the other side doesn't like it anymore, they unilateraly decide that they don't have to keep their own agreements or the compromise reached.
Well, I have enough of this. If people have no interest in keeping to their agreements or compromises, and refute the same thing they themselves agreed and edited - then neither am I. The watered-down acknowledgement of the criticism made by the wikiadmin earlier is the *bare minimum* I'm prepared to go; reverting that compromise is not acceptable to me, because it comes down to biased censorship by people which are hardly neutral, and even come back on their own agreed-on edits. Even when hell freezes over, I *will* continue to revert it to the minimal NPOV version that included the mentionning of the critcism. I've been trying to negotiate about this edit for ages now, and always got fooled around. Well, this is non-negationable anymore, since you've shown you're not interested in providing a true NPOV article.
Three revert rule
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Rhobite 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
3RR Freenet
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Freenet. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Tom Harrison 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your account is still active, you are just blocked from editing articles for 24 hours. You would like me to remove the block imposed above. Here are some details:
- first revert, undoing Rhobite's edit
- second, undoing Haakon's edit
- third, undoing Rhobite's edit
- fourth, undoing Rhobite's edit
- I am not persuaded by the reasons you cite, and I will not remove the block early. Whether or not anyone else broke a rule, you clearly did, and you did so after being warned on your talk page. Tom Harrison 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |