If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petition wikipedia to have them stop or to have the page locked. An example of a locked or protected page is the one on Todd Goldman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Goldman -- Enric -======- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the > article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi" > > Well, doesn't look like he does have the patience any more, sadly. > On Meiser's Talk page on Friday, he said he's now going to give up, > exhausted by Patrick Delongchamp's repeated 'delete trolling.' > > So Meiser has spent a long time protecting the entry from this sad > little man on a power trip. Not just Meiser's own work, but the > hours and hours of work of all you others who have added to and > discussed the Wikipedia entry. > > This is what community is for. It's all about consensus and > support. How can we organize to support Meiser, and persuade this > troll to leave it alone? Maybe we can turn the tables and exhaust > Delongchamp instead, show him that more people believe in the fuller > entry than in his destructive, narcissistic little stub. I'm game. > What do you reckon? > > This is a problem on Wikipedia, individuals who use deletion to exert > a kind of tyrannical power over entries. The rule that things must > be from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be corrupted and abused to > mean that everything that is not sourced must be stripped away. > > It's an incredible power, to delete everyone else's entries and just > leave your own. It's a terrible abuse, I think, and achieves the > opposite of what NPOV intended - one view instead of many. To > justify it, Patrick Delongchamp needs to be backed by a community > consensus, which he is not. > > I didn't know this was going on. I wish I had - it's the kind of > thing that should be discussed here. The wikipedia entry always > *used* to be discussed here, however painfully. Usually when > someone was trying to exert too much individual influence. > > At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not > be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. > Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! > > Rupert > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 09:10, Rupert wrote: > > That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog > cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and > his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but > nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in > Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not. > If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights > and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail > > Rupert > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote: > > This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly > fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's > pathetic. I > can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the > article as > his changes usually get deleted within hours. > > - Verdi > > On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Has rather been decimated. > > > > Wow. > > > > Anybody? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog > > > > Jan > > > > -- > > The Faux Press - better than real > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com > > http://twitter.com/fauxpress > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > -- > http://michaelverdi.com > http://spinxpress.com > http://freevlog.org > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
