| |
|
  |
Wingnut gets Adminship, Wingnut Embarrasses WP, ...the gift that keeps on giving to WP's enemies |
|
|
| One |
Tue 14th October 2008, 1:32pm
|

Postmaster General
       
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th October 2008, 3:21am)  Savage's books are notable regardless of the absurdity of Savage's views. Since JzG isn't American, he may not realize how notable Savage is; if I didn't live here, I'd probably have trouble believing it myself...
Mmm, yes. If you weren't listening to talk radio, the sudden mainstream importance of illegal immigration 2.5 years ago would have been totally baffling. There was no notable incident, no sensible reason to make immigration Congress' top priority after years on the back burner. It was talk radio that beat the issue until it monopolized the Senate, and influenced the 2006 election. Savage liked to say he was in the front of that pack, attacking Bush for being pro-illegal before other talk radio hosts. But yeah, stupid tag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
Tue 14th October 2008, 4:33pm
|
Fat Cat
     
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995

|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 14th October 2008, 2:31pm)  QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th October 2008, 4:21am)  Savage's books are notable regardless of the absurdity of Savage's views. Since JzG isn't American, he may not realize how notable Savage is; if I didn't live here, I'd probably have trouble believing it myself...
Notable in America, perhaps, Notable globally? No. Herein lies a key problem of Wikipedia. Should all English soap opera characters have articles? I would say only if their notability outside of their fictional environment can be proved. Though I realise my first sentence would lead to a mass deletion spree. the article wasn't the point, the BLP attack in the edit summary was. fwiw, the book was a best-seller in the US for more than just a week or something, so it's "notable". I don't think all English soap opera characters have won awards or equivalent. gary weiss on the other hand wrote 2 books that never made the NYT list, and has written a couple of cover stories for Business Week. So notability is relative on WP. The book could be rolled in the "wingnut"'s BLP. Where JzG could then continue to violate more BLP policies there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rhindle |
Tue 14th October 2008, 4:46pm
|

Senior Member
   
Group: Contributors
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon 30th Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Member No.: 6,834

|
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 14th October 2008, 9:33am)  QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 14th October 2008, 2:31pm)  QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th October 2008, 4:21am)  Savage's books are notable regardless of the absurdity of Savage's views. Since JzG isn't American, he may not realize how notable Savage is; if I didn't live here, I'd probably have trouble believing it myself...
Notable in America, perhaps, Notable globally? No. Herein lies a key problem of Wikipedia. Should all English soap opera characters have articles? I would say only if their notability outside of their fictional environment can be proved. Though I realise my first sentence would lead to a mass deletion spree. the article wasn't the point, the BLP attack in the edit summary was. fwiw, the book was a best-seller in the US for more than just a week or something, so it's "notable". I don't think all English soap opera characters have won awards or equivalent. gary weiss on the other hand wrote 2 books that never made the NYT list, and has written a couple of cover stories for Business Week. So notability is relative on WP. The book could be rolled in the "wingnut"'s BLP. Where JzG could then continue to violate more BLP policies there. Controversial people can create a template for defamation for non-controversial, less notable people it appears. Savage is not going to get much sympathy from anyone so many things that could be said about him will not be addressed as it would be for others. Other editors will see this and believe this is the norm and do it elsewhere and either defame more people or become confused as to why attacks are allowed in one place but then unacceptable in others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
Tue 14th October 2008, 9:32pm
|
Fat Cat
     
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995

|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 14th October 2008, 6:03pm)  QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th October 2008, 6:51pm)  QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 14th October 2008, 6:34pm)  QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 14th October 2008, 6:32pm)  Nothing to see there - he's discussed where he works and what he can see. What is newsworthy is proof that there is a Wikipedian with a career - kudos to the man - or woman.  How "bad" an accusation is the phrase "wingnut" anyway? It doesn't appear to be anything actionable. Presumably it is a derivative of having a screw loose - not very bad at all, but typical childish Guy "What's wrong with calling someone a cunt?" Chapman rather than the wise and measured response that should be expected of an admin. The bears shit in the woods comment is a typical IT guy showing awareness of other cultures  According to Wiki itself (  ), wingnut it an abbreviation of "right- wing nut-job". Nice. So is there a list that WP editors that refer to of which real-life people can be called "wingnut" (crazy) and which ones can't, by WP editors, inserting their own personal opinions on such matters? For example, I've seen usenet postings from the 90's by a verified lil GW email address where he talks about his Alky Anon meetings. Can WP editors put "shut it, you drunk!" on an edit comment on the lil 'GW Autobiography page? Or is it just the JzG's and Gerards of the world, with their cute English colloquialisms, also known as the "c_nt", "fuck", "twat" trifecta, that are on the OK list to do so? Just so WP editors can be clear of who BLP applies to and who it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Wales Hunter |
Wed 15th October 2008, 12:54am
|

Hackenslasher
    
Group: Regulars
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun 30th Dec 2007, 11:29pm
Member No.: 4,319
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 14th October 2008, 10:32pm)  So is there a list that WP editors that refer to of which real-life people can be called "wingnut" (crazy) and which ones can't, by WP editors, inserting their own personal opinions on such matters?
For example, I've seen usenet postings from the 90's by a verified lil GW email address where he talks about his Alky Anon meetings. Can WP editors put "shut it, you drunk!" on an edit comment on the lil 'GW Autobiography page? Or is it just the JzG's and Gerards of the world, with their cute English colloquialisms, also known as the "c_nt", "fuck", "twat" trifecta, that are on the OK list to do so?
Just so WP editors can be clear of who BLP applies to and who it doesn't.
None of that would be actionable, in my opinion, however out of place such comments may be, though my training is in tabloid journalism (a few yards from Guy's IP address, incidentally) so my views on such things are biased. Wikipedia is a better place for people like Guy, though. Without the pages and pages of cruft, which he so loathes, there would be less kids and other unsuitable editors to drift across to BLPs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |