The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:42 am

sashi wrote:One interesting case is El C.

please, don't start me on that looneytoon. Probable Israeli government employee or some other pro-Israel extremist with political axes to grind. A true "insider".

Remember that he was kicked by Jimbo in 2006 over the pedophile userbox crap, and Fatass Mark Pellegrini resysopped him a few days later. Then El C stopped doing much of anything in 2009, was desysopped in 2011 (at his own request!), and resysopped 2 months later. Then he was desysopped in 2013 for inactivity, begged for resysop, and it was done. Then he basically disappeared until early 2017. Now he's grinding and reverting on no apparent schedule with long periods of inactivity. Shared account probably...............

A well-run or sane organization would NOT have shit like this happening. And the world will never know who El C is, until someone chains Jimbo or a WMF minion to a chair and threatens them with a hunk of 2x4. The chances of THAT happening are close to zero.

User avatar
WantedToHelp
Sucks Noob
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:40 am

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by WantedToHelp » Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:00 am

This is the main reason I'm here. In very good faith I tried to start a new article. I spent a lot of time researching details, using historical newspapers, etc. I put it together as a draft and put it into their "submission" process. After a few days I got a response from some "approval Nazi" that my article has no verifiable resources backing it up. But it did! I had links to newspaper articles which presented the event as news back when it happened. I had references to academic books written by established experts on the subject, with entire chapters dedicated to the event I was addressing. I sent it in again, specifically pointing out the references. Again...the same "approval Nazi" declared "insufficient citation." And that's all.

So screw them. If they want a few big-headed Wikipedia hacks to turn away people who are trying to honestly expand the knowledge base, let them deteriorate into whatever closed-society club they're destined to become.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by Abd » Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:50 pm

WantedToHelp wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:00 am
This is the main reason I'm here. In very good faith I tried to start a new article.
While the article may have had reliable sources, this post certainly has nothing verifiable, and we cannot tell if the user was screwed over by some "munchkin," or was clueless about creating an article and about the creation process and how to manage it -- and how to appeal if necessary. Instead, just a useless complaint, a waste of time for everyone.

Link to the draft? Title of the article? User name? Who criticized the article? (That is all that is reported, and any editor can be wrong, and so what? Want to help Wikipedia and abandon that because of some idiot? What? Learn to communicate!

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 am

WantedToHelp wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:00 am
This is the main reason I'm here. In very good faith I tried to start a new article. I spent a lot of time researching details, using historical newspapers, etc. I put it together as a draft and put it into their "submission" process. After a few days I got a response from some "approval munchkin" that my article has no verifiable resources backing it up. But it did! I had links to newspaper articles which presented the event as news back when it happened. I had references to academic books written by established experts on the subject, with entire chapters dedicated to the event I was addressing. I sent it in again, specifically pointing out the references. Again...the same "approval munchkin" declared "insufficient citation." And that's all.
Well, sorry to repeat myself, but I (or several other people here) could have warned you this might happen. So which of their spergie manchildren was this "munchkin" anyway? I might have studied him for the book in the past.

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by Strelnikov » Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:51 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 am
WantedToHelp wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:00 am
This is the main reason I'm here. In very good faith I tried to start a new article. I spent a lot of time researching details, using historical newspapers, etc. I put it together as a draft and put it into their "submission" process. After a few days I got a response from some "approval munchkin" that my article has no verifiable resources backing it up. But it did! I had links to newspaper articles which presented the event as news back when it happened. I had references to academic books written by established experts on the subject, with entire chapters dedicated to the event I was addressing. I sent it in again, specifically pointing out the references. Again...the same "approval munchkin" declared "insufficient citation." And that's all.
Well, sorry to repeat myself, but I (or several other people here) could have warned you this might happen. So which of their spergie manchildren was this "munchkin" anyway? I might have studied him for the book in the past.
"Munchkin" was one of the things Badmachine set into the board, it's why I write "NSDAP" or "National Socialist" for N A Z I.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
L00sr
Sucks Noob
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:47 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by L00sr » Thu Jan 02, 2020 5:11 am

WantedToHelp wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:00 am
This is the main reason I'm here. In very good faith I tried to start a new article. I spent a lot of time researching details, using historical newspapers, etc. I put it together as a draft and put it into their "submission" process. After a few days I got a response from some "approval munchkin" that my article has no verifiable resources backing it up. But it did! I had links to newspaper articles which presented the event as news back when it happened. I had references to academic books written by established experts on the subject, with entire chapters dedicated to the event I was addressing. I sent it in again, specifically pointing out the references. Again...the same "approval munchkin" declared "insufficient citation." And that's all.

So screw them. If they want a few big-headed Wikipedia hacks to turn away people who are trying to honestly expand the knowledge base, let them deteriorate into whatever closed-society club they're destined to become.
Name names. :twisted:

badmachine
None
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by badmachine » Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:35 pm

Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:51 pm
ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 am
WantedToHelp wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:00 am
This is the main reason I'm here. In very good faith I tried to start a new article. I spent a lot of time researching details, using historical newspapers, etc. I put it together as a draft and put it into their "submission" process. After a few days I got a response from some "approval munchkin" that my article has no verifiable resources backing it up. But it did! I had links to newspaper articles which presented the event as news back when it happened. I had references to academic books written by established experts on the subject, with entire chapters dedicated to the event I was addressing. I sent it in again, specifically pointing out the references. Again...the same "approval munchkin" declared "insufficient citation." And that's all.
Well, sorry to repeat myself, but I (or several other people here) could have warned you this might happen. So which of their spergie manchildren was this "munchkin" anyway? I might have studied him for the book in the past.
"Munchkin" was one of the things Badmachine set into the board, it's why I write "NSDAP" or "National Socialist" for N A Z I.
if it's some doodad that replaces a censored word with another (like kiwifarms substitutes "exceptional" for "retard") then it isn't me. i'm curious what word "munchkin" replaces. :?

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by Strelnikov » Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:01 pm

badmachine wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:35 pm
Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:51 pm
ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 am


Well, sorry to repeat myself, but I (or several other people here) could have warned you this might happen. So which of their spergie manchildren was this "munchkin" anyway? I might have studied him for the book in the past.
"Munchkin" was one of the things Badmachine set into the board, it's why I write "NSDAP" or "National Socialist" for N A Z I.
if it's some doodad that replaces a censored word with another (like kiwifarms substitutes "exceptional" for "retard") then it isn't me. i'm curious what word "munchkin" replaces. :?
The word n a z i. You can't call people n a z i s on this software for some reason.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:29 pm

sorry guys, it seems that the newest versions of PHPBB have the word filter enabled by default. And I have NO idea how to disable it.....wait.....hah, found it.

Nazi, neo-nazi and nazism were the ONLY words in the filter. Removed. Now you may call each other Nazis all day long. ;)

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit

Post by Abd » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:32 pm

phpbb.coom/community
ACP, Posting tab, Word censoring, Add new word.

Post Reply