|
Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.
However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.
|
|
Slim and Will put the smackdown on LaRouche, was: SlimVirgin, back with a vengeance |
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?
|
|
|
|
Cedric |
|
General Gato
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 9:55am) The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?This was at least 110% predictable. As I have said before, lovers of intrigue rarely if ever fall out of love with it. They nearly always revert back to type, even though they occasionally lie low or switch tactics. Remember the "new" Richard Nixon?
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:55am) The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?"Some tidying" can mean anything. Cla68's arbitration evidence did include some misleading edit summaries, but when you add content, the content you add should speak for itself. Meanwhile, you seem unable to give up on the whole LaRouche cluster bomb. To be brutally honest, without Wikipedia I would never have heard of the fool, and I don't especially care.
|
|
|
|
Krimpet |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 402
Joined:
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 1,975
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 4:09pm) Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
The 15 most edited article talk pages are: 1. Talk:Main_Page 86775 2. Talk:Barack_Obama 30115 3. Talk:Sarah_Palin 23755 4. Talk:Global_warming 21823 5. Talk:George_W._Bush 21117 6. Talk:Intelligent_design 20672 7. Talk:Gaza_War 18572 8. Talk:Jesus 17841 9. Talk:Anarchism 17323 10. Talk:September_11_attacks 16194 11. Talk:Prem_Rawat 15946 12. Talk:Evolution 15219 13. Talk:Muhammad 14962 14. Talk:Homeopathy 14313 15. Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo 13985 I'm not that surprised about the main page, or Obama, Bush, Jesus, and Muhammad, but I am very surprised to see Prem Rawat (as opposed to Religion, Christianity, or Hinduism) and Homeopathy (as opposed to Health, Medicine, or Science) on the list.
|
|
|
|
MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).
|
|
|
|
written by he who wrote it |
|
Commie Mutant Traitor
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 431
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 2:55pm) The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there. This post has been edited by written by he who wrote it:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 2:55pm) The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?It won't work to list a series of interviews of LaRouche with Russian or Chinese TV or newspaper journalists, who seem to give him more credibility than the media in the west. You (in the general sense) need to tie those reports into the topics that are more relevant to a general, "encyclopedic" overview of LaRouche's life and politics. If that is done, then it will be harder for anyone to justify removing the information.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 11:30pm) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 4:09pm) Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure. I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:33pm) QUOTE(Krimpet @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 11:30pm) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 4:09pm) Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure. I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful. See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference. I'm not espousing that perspective, but I can see why someone might think so. It's more congruous to expect proportional coverage in a centralized model, but Wikipedia's decentralized model leads to growth in odd topics. This is plain to see, writ small, in the collection of Good Articles and Featured Content.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 3rd September 2009, 12:04am) QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 11:43pm) See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.
Such as this one. Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France.
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(written by he who wrote it @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 4:36pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 2:55pm) The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") Be fair: She did add some material to the lead (details available), so the edit summary was deceptive, but she wasn't sneaking in accusations of fascism: the text was already there. No, she was sneaking in the (non-notable) guy; his accusations of fascism come later in the article.
|
|
|
|
CharlotteWebb |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
|
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:54pm) It is probably also worth noting that the talk page for LaRouche is infrequently viewed at 318 times in July and 1,405 times in August compared to 4,662 times for my talk page. The talk page has only 3,492 edits, which isn't even enough to make the most edited talk page list. All of which seems on par for an article 3,071 hits a day (not even in the top 3,000 for for the site).Only 127 for my talk page. Makes me feel so ronery. Anyway that's just the main biography article. I don't suppose you could get a total figure for all articles/talk-pages related to LaRouche and the LaRouche "movement"? QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 3rd September 2009, 3:43am) See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference.
Yeah it's almost as if we need to actively recruit a bunch of boring, normal people to work on those articles. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 3rd September 2009, 7:19am) QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 3rd September 2009, 1:13am) Yes, someone wrote on the web that the Britney Spears article was (at that time) twice as long as the article on Brittany, a region of north west France. Some enterprising entrepreneur (hello Greg) should start a company in Brittany to manufacture and sell reproductions of medieval armaments. The company, of course, would be named Brittany Spears. I was already taking out a "doing business as" name registration in Nantes, but we were planning to grow and sell asparagus, not pole weapons. Speaking of which, do the Wikipedians who create maps go to some sort of clinic or school for Unhelpful Cartography, or something? This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |