from_name: A. Nony Mouse

body:
Oh give me a fucking break and stop lying.

"If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views."

Been there. Seen that. Once you have "moderated" someone, they're never
heard from again. It doesn't matter if they send a one-line "I agree with
user X" email, it NEVER fucking makes it through moderation.

This is ALL about censorship. You do it solely to ensure that dissent is
never heard, the exact same thing you did to Marmot for dissenting about the
way Admins cover up each other's crimes.

I'll freely admit that YOU could construe what I said as personal attacks.
You know what? They were also the truth. Just as what I'm saying NOW is the
truth, but you'll try to ban me for it anyways.

That's why I'm anonymous. Because I don't trust 90% of this list's
membership not to go hunting through the Wikipedia userbase trying to find
my account and block it out of spite.

Civility will be had when you start behaving civilly yourselves. The way you
have treated Yoder, the way you have treated Marmot, and the way you treated
Kurita77 were anything BUT civil.

Oh wait, I forgot. Policy only fucking matters when there's an admin
wielding it. And heaven forbid that a user point out when the Admins are
acting like a bunch of power-mad thugs, or even come to this list with a
good-faith request to get their account back.

"I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
requests."

You've already destroyed community participation on the mailing list, so I
don't see how I could do any more damage than you've already done. Like I
just said, you'll get my respect back when you stop acting like a bunch of
power-mad thugs and start acting like Wikipedians again.

A.Nony Mouse

>From: Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
>Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:57:17 +0800
>
>For the public record, this user is not "booted off the list". Rather,
>he or she is mdoerated, with postings to be approved by moderators.
>Here is an email I sent to this anonymous user:
>
>----
>
>You (and your other two accounts) have been moderated on WikiEN-l
>because you were rude and abusive to others. The WikiEN-l mailing list
>information page is at the following URL:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>You must have seen this page to subscribe your accounts to the mailing
>list. You will notice down the bottom it says "[u]sers who are
>extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by
>the [mailing list] administrators". As I am sure you will freely
>concede, your messages were very rude towards certain other
>subscribers of the mailing list. Here are a couple of examples from
>your messages:
>
>"you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways"
>"Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him
>long enough to speak."
>"running around like a complete fat fool"
>"you idiots spend your time jerking off"
>"power-mad cretins"
>
>In view of this extreme lack of civility on your part, you are hereby
>moderated on this mailing list. Any messages you now send to the
>mailing list will be held for approval by one of the list's
>moderators. If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
>they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
>what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
>conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views.
>
>If, however, you continue to create new anonymous accounts (we're up
>to 3 now), I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
>approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
>participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
>undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
>requests.
>
>~Mark Ryan
>WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator
>
>
>
>
>On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <tempforcomments3 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they
>booted
> > me off the list for speaking truth to power.
> >
> > You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.
> >
> > Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
> > circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.
> >
> > Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat
>fool,
> > screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her. She gets
>some
> > sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.
> >
> > The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to
>anyone
> > involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts get in
>the
> > way of their witch hunts.
> >
> > Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis
>enough
> > for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
> > self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
> > applauding.
> >
> > I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.
> >
> > An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it,
>and
> > all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't even
> > MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I checked
>the
> > log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.
> >
> > Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved
>in
> > his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well you
> > shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names  rather than
>paying
> > attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.
> >
> > And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new user
> > comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for the
>crime of
> > knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do anything wrong
>but
> > you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends him crank emails,
>and
> > before you know it we have a user screaming profanities.
> >
> > Not his fault. YOUR fault.
> >
> > There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
> > power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone
>who
> > dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my Wikipedia
> > account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know you WAY too
>well
> > for you to claim otherwise, JT.
> >
> > Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND that
>you
> > actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner circle
> > jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't doing you
>any
> > favors.
> >
> > A. Nony Mouse.
> >
> > >>
> > >and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be
>interested in
> > >seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would support
> > >your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much better
>than
> > >these unceasing tireless rants.
> > >
> > >-Jtkiefer
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info!
http://meegos.msn.ie


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
> But it DOES function that way and it IS an intentional feature.  It is
> to stop people block-evading.

How is logging into your normal account (the one that the block was
placed for the in the first place) and hitting edit a block evasion?
That's like saying you're evading an arrest warrant by presenting your
real id to the police when they ask for one.

That's exactly what it did, I hit edit a couple times while logged in
as User:Njyoder to reread the block page and to see if it still showed
the source and it auto-renewed.  That's NOT intentional as it serves
no purpose whatsoever.

The purpose is to prevent them from using sock puppets and to prevent
them from logging off and doing it, not to renew it when they log in
with their main account.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Simple English Wikipedia - Requesting a rethink

body:
"always the possibility of using NLP software" does not imply that the
software already exists.

Also, you said "unable to locate software that does RELIABLE machine
translation..." does this mean you were able to locate software that
did unreliable machine translation? I'd be interested.

Mark
On 02/07/05, Andrew Venier <avenier at venier.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >If there really is a need for "simple" language use, there is always
> >the possibility of using NLP software to intelligently convert
> >articles from normal English to Ogden's Basic English;
> >
> This idea is interesting, but I am unable to locate software that does
> reliable machine translation from standard English to Ogden's Basic
> English.  Is there a specific resource you could point me to?
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
On 7/2/05, David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders at btinternet.com> wrote:

> I think some Wikigames can be ok, but a Wikicity may be needed. That said,
> they do little harm to Wikipedia, as long as there aren't too many.

The key words being "as long as there aren't too many." If they're not
cut short now they'll continue to grow until they are harming
wikipedia. They're already creating disharmony between the
"pro-gamers" and the the "anti-gamers". IMO a wikicity especially for
wikigames would give the people who like these games a place of their
own without having to bother about people wanting to delete the game
pages.

If I was into the games, I'd take Jimbo up on the offer and start
migrating right now.

--Mgm


from_name: Dan Grey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Live 8 and the In the news box

body:
It would be nice if any admins reading this could update the In the news box:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates#Suggested_additions

Dan


body:
Hi Servien,

Please check out
http://s87257573.onlinehome.us/ks/index.php?title=HP_op_Platt&variant=ks-de
and tell me what you think of the conversion.

It's obviously not perfect but I'm still working on it.

Any tips for improvements (ie, specific spelling errors) are welcome.

Mark

On 02/07/05, Servien Ilaino <nl2b at europe.com> wrote:
> Sorry it's suppose to be
> http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Servien/Heufdbladsyde
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Servien Ilaino"
>   To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>   Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage
>   Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:11:47 -0500
>
>   >
>   > Hi,
>   >
>   > I requested Dutch-Low Saxon a few weeks ago and I kind of made my
>   own
>   > mainpage for Wikipedia (if it ever gets created that is...) but
>   anyway...
>   > for people who like to check it out here is the link:
>   > http://nds.wikipedia.org/Bruker:Servien/Heufdbladsyde
>   >
>   > Please post any suggestions and stuff, like to read some comments.
>   >
>   > Question: On Wikipedia-L posts are mostly grouped together, but how
>   do
>   > you do that? (messages below each other like on wikipedia ": and ::
>   and
>   > :::" to show those are the replies. I hope you kind of understand
>   it
>   > because I don't really know how to explain it myself haha.)
>   >
>   > Servien Ilaino!
>   >
>   > --
>   > ___________________________________________________________
>   > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
>   > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>   >
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > Wikipedia-l mailing list
>   > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>   > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
Wouter Steenbeek wrote:

> once more: Do you really want those vandal bot operators to go on at
> their own will and make the whole project crush? Yes or no?

No they will not crush the whole project unless they unite themselves.
Which can be savely said they will not.

> Oh my God, with fools like those, we MUST return to the Nupedia
> structure sooner or later!
> Wouter

Thanks for calling me a fool.

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Simple English Wikipedia - Requesting a rethink

body:
On 7/2/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> Funny, and I thought there was already widespread concensus to get rid
> of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it even its original
> initiator and most enthusiastic supporter (Angela?) is by now convinced
> that the project was a failure and that the idea was unsound.

Not so much unsound as never really developed. What is the point of
the wiki? There was never any agreement on whether it was for learners
of English as an additional language, or whether it was for children.
The way some of it is written, it may even be for English speaking
adults with literacy difficulties.

With no shared goal amongst those participating, I can't see the
project ever being successful. Other than Netoholic, there are no
users who regularly work on this wiki. There have been some over the
last few years, but no one who has stayed with it. I was never exactly
an enthusiastic supporter. I just looked after it for a while.

I'd prefer the project be changed entirely to reflect something more
like what was suggested at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids>
(in all languages). People wanting to write simple versions of
existing English Wikipedia articles can focus on simplifying the lead
sections of those. Having that on a separate wiki has not proved
useful, whereas having something that is written by and for children
may be different enough from the main Wikipedia to warrant its own
project.

Angela


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to get whitelisted ? (Re: Blocked yet AGAIN!)

body:
Walter van Kalken schreef:
> Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the [http://www.sorbs.net
> SORBS] DNSBL. You cannot create an account
>

From;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proxy_blocking#Information_given_to_blocked_users

"Directing users to a mailing list, where they can ask to be
whitelisted, may be better than directing them to SORBS."

Where/how can an user be whitelisted?

This is to be abel to give support to the users from the the Dutch
Wikipedia.

Walter
--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
Nathan,

I'm a bit puzzled by your angered reaction. You're making it sound like
I was expressing some sort of grudge against you. I assure you I don't.
Please calm down a bit.

> Strange then that 99% of the people on the talk page for "no personal
> attacks"

99% of the people on that page are hardly representative of 99% of the
population of the Earth, especially seeing as the remaining 1% is much
more likely to be on Wikipedia in the first place.

> Also, there is no Wikipedia policy against hurting peoples' feelings.

People usually prefer to work in an environment in which they are not
exposed to things that hurt their feelings. It is normally considered an
unwritten rule of society to avoid hurting other people's feelings (this
is called "civility"). It is also normally considered an unwritten rule
to avoid personal attacks -- but since we have had contributors in the
past who apparently didn't know this, we have created the page
[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]].

> The policy is against personal attacks only, whether or not it hurts
> someone's feelings is entirely irrelevent.

Not really -- the policy was set up precisely *because* personal attacks
hurt people's feelings and therefore make Wikipedia a less enjoyable
experience.

> Now following your premise, we can *never* criticize another
> Wikipedian again without using totally politically correct,
> walking-on-eggshells language.

That is correct; that would be the ideal situation. A dispute on
Wikipedia should ideally always centre around content issues, and never
a Wikipedian's person. Unfortunately, not all Wikipedians can always
control their temper enough...

> You couldn't accuse someone of being a troll

Indeed I would prefer if people not do this, even when they are right.
Trolls, too, are people with feelings that can be hurt, and I don't
think anybody would want to be called a troll. (I'm restricting myself
to people who have been on the Internet enough to know what a "troll" is
in the Internet sense.) Nevertheless, many people often feel justified
in using this personal attack against people on the mailing list,
especially when most other participants on the mailing list agree with
them. This does not mean that it is the right thing to do.

>>Nathan appears to belong to the 1% of people who have a low EQ
>>(empathisation quotient) which enables him to comment in an insulting
>>way without realising the effect it has on other people, solemnly
>>believing that he's "only telling the truth". Most of the abusive
>>ranters I see on this list are like that.
>
> Your accusation of me being abusive

There was no accusation of you being abusive. You're reading too much
into it.

> and having a low EQ hurts my feelings.

I apologise if it does. I guess it was na?ve of me to assume that you
would find this revelation as useful as I did.

> Ooops, I guess that puts you in that 1% too!

Here you are making the assumption that I would have placed myself in
the 99%. However, I never did. You are also making the assumption that I
think the 1% are necessarily bad people, just because they have a low
EQ. I never said this either. (In fact, personally, I find people with a
low SQ much worse ;-) but fortunately, they're rare on Wikipedia!)

> Now this is a very good
> example of hypocrisy, he just got done saying that "personal attacks"
> (as in applying a label to someone's behavior) is wrong, then just
> proceeded to do it himself right now!

Whether something is a "personal attack" is often a subjective thing --
some people might not object to being called a hypocrite, while others
do. Similarly, some people may or may not object to having their low EQ
pointed out to them. I didn't expect that you would consider it a
personal attack, as I would not have thought that you would consider a
low EQ a bad thing.

Unfortunately, there is no deterministic algorithm that universally
classifies any statement as either a "personal attack" or not. For
someone with such a strong tendency towards systematisation rather than
empathisation, such an algorithm would be very useful, almost essential.
But alas, it doesn't exist. Given that Wikipedians tend to be human
beings with feelings, it is nevertheless necessary to get a feel for it
if you want to interact with them in a civil and pleasant way...

>>Wikipedia is one of those online communities that tend to attract these
>>kinds of people, so the percentage of them is higher here than in the
>>general population. Unfortunately, even, these kinds of people tend to
>>be more dedicated editors, since high-EQ people tend to have more of a
>>real life.
>
> Wow, you just attacked me by saying I don't have a life, where does
> the hypocrisy end?

I didn't say you don't have a life. You're reading into it again. The
term "real life" is usually used to refer to social interaction with
other people outside the Internet and computers. I'm sure you have a
life, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's primarily an online/Internet life.

>>Once you start to try defining "personal attack", you'll begin to
>>realise how hard it is; then maybe you'll begin to understand how hard
>>it must be for someone who doesn't have the intuitive ability to
>>classify remarks as "personal attacks".
>
> Well you don't seem to have an intuitive ability to do it either,
> since you just engaged in several "personal attacks" against me.  You
> even proceded to call the many people on the "no personal attacks"
> talk page low EQ having, abusive people for wanting a definition.

I don't think many people here will disagree that the average EQ is
quite a bit lower on Wikipedia than in the general population (nor do I
think many people will consider that a bad thing). It is no surprise
that the average EQ on [[Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks]] is even
lower. The average SQ is probably correspondingly higher, hence why
people are seeking clarification (in the form of a deterministic
algorithm) of what constitutes a "personal attack".

Also, since you're such a fan of logic, surely you will understand that
just because I said that most of the abusive people on the mailing list
seem to have a low EQ, it doesn't follow that everyone with a low EQ
must automatically be abusive. So no, I didn't call anyone "abusive"
except for those people that are abusive.

> Apparently, Timwi is one of the great enlightened ones who knows
> better than those obviously inferior people on the talk page who agree
> with me that it's not clear what constitutes a personal attack.

It is pretty obvious that most people know better than you what
constitutes a personal attack, but I didn't say that I was one of them.
In fact, in my previous posting I actually agreed with you that it's not
clear what constitutes a personal attack -- except to people with a high
enough EQ that they have an intuitive feel for it.

> In any case, if you're relying on "intuition" it means that you're
> probably not relying on logic, which is a very, VERY bad thing when
> you're talking about a policy.  If a policy can't be based on logic,
> then it shouldn't exist.

Yes, this is the stereotypical systematiser's thinking. Rules and
policies must be based on precise, defined axioms. They must be logical,
structured, deterministic, predictable, and algorithmic. I normally tend
to agree with that. Unfortunately humans aren't logical, much less
predictable and algorithmic. Especially whether a true statement is seen
as offensive/an insult/a "personal attack" is incredibly unpredictable.
I understand that in your mind this makes the policy quite unfair: how
can you follow a rule that is unpredictable? Well, you see, even the
empathisers make mistakes: they sometimes accidentally insult each
other. But their empathisation skills (usually) make them aware of it
after the fact, and they tell them that they should apologise, even if
their original statement was true, to alleviate the other person's hurt
feelings. And then the other person's empathisation skills will tell
them that the first person is really sorry and didn't mean to hurt their
feelings. Then they can be friends again. And both have learnt a lesson!
The next time the same person won't make the same mistake again because
now they know that the relevant statement can be taken as an insult.

> That said, it IS possible to define it if you are an objective
> thinker with a high IQ.

Only if the thing you are trying to define is something purely
objective, which unfortunately the issue of personal attacks isn't.

> I also love your assumption that personal attacks should be defined in
> terms of how hurt people's feelings are rather than how
> counter-productive they are to Wikipedia.

The two things are strongly correlated.

Timwi


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Can someone suggest a rephrasing of "Be liberal in what you accept,
> and conservative in what you send" which will not get misunderstood as
> speaking of anything political?

"Be tolerant in what you accept, and careful in what you send."

But the bit about trying neither to hurt others nor to be hurt works,
too.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Bill Konrad

subject: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power

body:
"Dan Grey" <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why don't people just give trolls what they deserve?
>
> Do us all a favour, and when people post here only looking for
> trouble, give them what they deserve - the silent treatment.

Indeed, one recently prolific poster to this list has earned the distinction
of being the first person added to my blocked user list -- it'd just too
tedious sifting through the drek.

Bkonrad


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: IRC and freenode

body:
Angela wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Then why doesn't Wikimedia just donate to Freenode? :-p
>
> Because our donors have been given the impression the money was going
> towards Wikimedia's own servers and not to third parties.

Oh, so you have defined the purpose for Wikimedia donations too
narrowly. I wouldn't have thought the purpose was restricted to hardware
only. If it was something general like "to help the Wikimedia projects"
or whatever, then certainly helping our fellow IRC network falls under
it because it helps Wikimedians and therefore indirectly helps Wikimedia.

Timwi


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
For the public record, this user is not "booted off the list". Rather,
he or she is mdoerated, with postings to be approved by moderators.
Here is an email I sent to this anonymous user:

----

You (and your other two accounts) have been moderated on WikiEN-l
because you were rude and abusive to others. The WikiEN-l mailing list
information page is at the following URL:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

You must have seen this page to subscribe your accounts to the mailing
list. You will notice down the bottom it says "[u]sers who are
extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by
the [mailing list] administrators". As I am sure you will freely
concede, your messages were very rude towards certain other
subscribers of the mailing list. Here are a couple of examples from
your messages:

"you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways"
"Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him
long enough to speak."
"running around like a complete fat fool"
"you idiots spend your time jerking off"
"power-mad cretins"

In view of this extreme lack of civility on your part, you are hereby
moderated on this mailing list. Any messages you now send to the
mailing list will be held for approval by one of the list's
moderators. If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views.

If, however, you continue to create new anonymous accounts (we're up
to 3 now), I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
requests.

~Mark Ryan
WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator

On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <tempforcomments3 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they booted
> me off the list for speaking truth to power.
>
> You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.
>
> Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
> circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.
>
> Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat fool,
> screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her. She gets some
> sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.
>
> The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to anyone
> involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts get in the
> way of their witch hunts.
>
> Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis enough
> for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
> self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
> applauding.
>
> I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.
>
> An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it, and
> all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't even
> MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I checked the
> log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.
>
> Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved in
> his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well you
> shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names  rather than paying
> attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.
>
> And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new user
> comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for the crime of
> knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do anything wrong but
> you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends him crank emails, and
> before you know it we have a user screaming profanities.
>
> Not his fault. YOUR fault.
>
> There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
> power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone who
> dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my Wikipedia
> account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know you WAY too well
> for you to claim otherwise, JT.
>
> Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND that you
> actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.
>
> Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner circle
> jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't doing you any
> favors.
>
> A. Nony Mouse.
>
> >>
> >and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be interested in
> >seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would support
> >your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much better than
> >these unceasing tireless rants.
> >
> >-Jtkiefer
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Menchi

subject:
[Foundation-l] Proposal for a new project: Wikipedia Historical
	Atlas

body:
I realize that we get a new proposal about once a week, so I'll make
this simple and clear. I think it would be extremely helpful and a great
innovation to create a wiki-based historical atlas.  Here's why.

An historical atlas would be useful: it would provide viewers with
visual portrayals of political and cultural change that Wikipedia cannot
explain in the most long-winded history article.

An historical atlas would be innovative: as far as I know there has only
been one previous computer-based historical atlas, and its price kept it
out of the reach of viewers. Paper-based atlantes lack the animation
that a Web or software-based atlas could provide. Additionally, unlike
any paper-based atlas, you could cross-reference map keys to Wikipedia
entries.

An historical atlas would be an active project: Like Wikipedia, it
provides immediate results-- you can see your changes on a map. You
can't copyright facts of history, so any contributor could take
information from a paper atlas and mark it up.

An historical atlas would supplement Wikipedia, making it easy to
generate standardized maps for any country at any point in history.

Here are some previous atlantes individuals have compiled:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm
  This site demonstrates how useful an historical atlas can be.
http://www.clockwk.com/
  This $90 software is something like what I hope the project could
  become.

The only obstacle to this project is actually writing the software. I
would think this would require a standard vector-based format and
process used for a website, which can be downloaded as offline software.
Changes to the map would also require some sort of user-friendly vector
setup.

I welcome any comments or criticism.

Ashibaka


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: How to get whitelisted ? (Re: Blocked yet AGAIN!)

body:
Op 30 jun 2005 07:26 (vervalt op indefinite) blokkeerde Gebruiker::
69.90.135.67 (bijdragen) (de-blokkeer) (Auto-added for persistent
vandalism; possible open proxy.)

Auto-blocks done by an user "User:" whit the reason "(Auto-added for
persistent vandalism; possible open proxy.)"

What system is this? The return of [[User:Proxyblocker]] ?

--
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


from_name: Fastfission

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Yet another post on homeopathy as pseudo-science (hey,
	it beats the other topic going on here...)

body:
> So, some people start with active ingredients, don't dilute
> them out of existence and still call it homeopathy - presumably
> to make use of homeopathy's "good name". I'd argue that it isn't
> really homeopathy but I'll admit that it confuses the issue. The
> "like helps like" theory, as it is applied by homeopaths, is
> pseudoscience. Perhaps not quite as egregious an example as
> "water can remember stuff you put in it", but still pseudoscience.

The "scientific" formulation of "life helps like," as I've heard it,
is simply "symptoms to diseases are actually signs of the immune
system attempting to work. Rather than stifle them, one should
encourage them." So, for example, when you have a cold, rather than
take medicines to force your runny nose to stop running, one should
take things which encourage the nose to run more: the running is a
sign of the nose trying to purge out whatever you caught, and blocking
it up only prolongs the disease period itself.

Now I'm not saying that's correct at all as a medical model but
formulated *as such* you can see why it was not dismissed as total
quackery by my professors. Of course the diluted aspect is clearly
pure unscientific nonsense.

Anyway, I'm no expert on homeopathy or alternative medicine, so I'm
not going to comment too much further on this, I'm just relaying what
was relayed to me, but it seems to hold fairly well. Hence
"homeopathic nasal spray" will actually make your nose run more than
it did before, as anyone who has tried it will attest. But anyway,
this may have been "diluted" several times from the original
practitioners to the formulation I gave above, and may in fact contain
a marginal amount of the original input, to use a metaphor. ;-)

FF


body:
Why don't people just give trolls what they deserve?

Do us all a favour, and when people post here only looking for
trouble, give them what they deserve - the silent treatment.

Dan

On 02/07/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calling someone a "fascist hag" is not a crime either,
> but it is obnoxious namecalling that should not belong
> on this list.  We shouldn't tolerate such trollish
> behavior in the name of "dissent".
>
> Geoffrey Bell truetheatertype at gmail.com:
>
> Wait wait wait...I haven't been watching this list
> like a hawk, and maybe
> we're talking about two different people, but I don't
> see any trolls, only a
> dissenter. And dissent is not a crime, of course.
>
> On 7/1/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this
> list?
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
On 7/2/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on
> Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow.
<  As for referring to the people who oppose these games and
> tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Killjoy

By the way, if you are vehemetly against these games, or people
playing N degrees of separation, do you really want to be associated
with the Department of Fun?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FUN#Members

> Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even

I'm not sure that intense game-playing on the wiki is a great thing.
And we can all imagine marginal ways in which doing anything but
concretely building the encyclopedia -- editing one's own user page,
adding to BJAODN, fooling around with personal CSS or javascript
settings, chatting with friends about non-encyclopedic subjects --  is
'wasteful'.

But the interesting question is, to what extent being able to relax
and take a break on-wiki *is* beneficial to the project.  Perhaps we
can discuss that; does leaving content-free "Welcome back!" messages
for others indicate one is not interested in the project's goals?

--
++SJ


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
Just read, don't edit.

Fred

On Jul 2, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

>> But it DOES function that way and it IS an intentional feature.
>> It is
>> to stop people block-evading.
>>
>
> How is logging into your normal account (the one that the block was
> placed for the in the first place) and hitting edit a block evasion?
> That's like saying you're evading an arrest warrant by presenting your
> real id to the police when they ask for one.
>
> That's exactly what it did, I hit edit a couple times while logged in
> as User:Njyoder to reread the block page and to see if it still showed
> the source and it auto-renewed.  That's NOT intentional as it serves
> no purpose whatsoever.
>
> The purpose is to prevent them from using sock puppets and to prevent
> them from logging off and doing it, not to renew it when they log in
> with their main account.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Nathan J. Yoder
> http://www.gummibears.nu/
> http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: IRC and freenode

body:
On 7/2/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> Oh, so you have defined the purpose for Wikimedia donations too
> narrowly. I wouldn't have thought the purpose was restricted to hardware
> only. If it was something general like "to help the Wikimedia projects"
> or whatever, then certainly helping our fellow IRC network falls under
> it because it helps Wikimedians and therefore indirectly helps Wikimedia.

I didn't mean to imply that it was only for hardware, but that when it
was spent on hardware, people will expect that it is spent on our own.
Not everyone supports freenode's fundraising efforts, so if funding is
to go to that, they should be told so before making their donation. It
would be useful if those people who object would explain their
objections on this list since I'm not aware of anyone, other than
Gregory, who has made their objections to this public.

Angela.


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Yet another post on homeopathy as pseudo-science (hey,
 it beats the other topic going on here...)

body:
> The Apollo moon landing article is mostly about
> what is most widely considered by *relevant authorities*
> to be true -- it doesn't matter if 60% of the world
> population doesn't believe it happened that way if 99%
> of scientists do, in my opinion, as this sort of knowledge
> is firmly within the domain of scientists to provide the
> best answers on. So they get the "unmarked" POV.

Well put.

> [I]t would be best if someone with authority
> (cough cough, Jimbo) would put out a decree saying,
> "Wikipedia should strive for NPOV as much as
> possible, but if there are questions as to which
> direction to lean in terms of very subtle unmarked
> POV, it should lean towards the POV of the relevant
> scientific community."

Seconded. You have a flair for understatement.

> The need to have some meaning indicates we will
> have to perhaps sometimes have some statements
> which are less neutral than others.

Beautifully put - I think I'll quote this statement
on my user page if you don't mind :)

> [T]he question of whether certain aspects of homeopathy (not the
> diluting part, but the other "like helps like" part) is unclear.

As long as you end with diluting your solution so there's
not a single molecule left of the original substance the
other aspects of your methodology are fairly irrelevant to
the efficacy of the results.

I will have to admit that a small part of the homeopathic
"remedies" you can buy are not so diluted. And again, a
small part of *those* may include some active ingredients.

So, some people start with active ingredients, don't dilute
them out of existence and still call it homeopathy - presumably
to make use of homeopathy's "good name". I'd argue that it isn't
really homeopathy but I'll admit that it confuses the issue. The
"like helps like" theory, as it is applied by homeopaths, is
pseudoscience. Perhaps not quite as egregious an example as
"water can remember stuff you put in it", but still pseudoscience.

I still maintain that classifying homeopathy as pseudo-science
makes Wikipedia a more useful encyclop?dia. (Marginally of course.)

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts on the process of requesting adminship

body:
On 6/30/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> I have come to realise that our current process of requesting adminship
> is at a sharp contrast to the wiki model in general. I have come to
> believe that we are not following our own principles that we so highly
> value.

This was a lovely essay, Timwi.

There is no fundamental reason not to apply soft security to
adminship.  A few technical changes which should be made to allow
this:

1) Prevent permanent image deletion.
2) Provide much better (and more visible) feedback mechanisms for the
whole community to see what has been deleted - both revisions of
articles and revisions of images.  These things should show up on
watchlists, for instance, with links to their deleted histories.
2.1) Those SPECIAL cases in which there is some deleted personal
information that the whole wide world shouldn't see, should be dealt
with specially.  They should not prevent active users from browsing or
commenting on the bulk of deleted revisions/images.
2.2) There should be additional feedback mechanisms highlighting
anything that /is/ deleted permanently; with meta-information visible
to all.

And a few social changes : If you reduce hard security, you do have to
increase soft security.
* It would become normal for admins who crossed a line to be
admonished and forced to stop using admin powers for a short while,
just as good users are sometimes blocked for a short while.
* There would be a page for people to discuss users who shouldn't be admins.
* If an admin were admonished, the person who nominated that admin
should be also; people should take responsibility for their
sponsorships

One final thing I would like to stress : we take in all manner of
people who *can't write* and, by allowing them to try for weeks and
months, in the presence of good models, we teach them.  People who
have never been good writers become skilled at writing crisp, neutral,
encyclopedic prose... even if they still can't write a decent letter
to their parents.
Ond of the advantages of making adminship more open would be that more
people would learn to be skillful, neutral administrators.

--
++SJ


from_name: Guaka

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Fulfulde Wikipedia [was:Request for a
	Wikipedia in Cebuano]

body:
> > Somehow the ng's look like normal n's on my screen. Maybe there's
> > something wrong with my font stuff, or with Debian's or XFree's in
> > general.
>
> Doesn't surprise me. Use Windows.

I haven't yet found a free version of Windows. Free as in freedom and in
free beer.


body:
There's a great idea.  Simply finding a way to identify which set of
historical maps to animate together would be interesting; a default
naming scheme identifying the region and year?   I will add that there
is already some kind of web-based software for wiki-style 'modifying
path-segments' on a line-sketch, which is used on a geo-wiki I visited
recently (I can't remember which one; it was based in London I
believe).

See also Magnus's work : http://magnusmanske.de/wikimaps

Developing image-manipulation software that stores the edit history to
an image, and lets anyone open and modify its borders and fill-colors
-- and add text -- via a browser, would be a fascinating project.  I
would be happy to see such a project begin with low-resolution,
light-weight images and simple shapes...

Menchi, I see you added this to the list of proposed projects on meta;
perhaps you can help put it into the context of the other map
proposals.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_proposals_group#Geography

SJ

On 7/2/05, Menchi <ashibaka at comcast.net> wrote:
> I realize that we get a new proposal about once a week, so I'll make
> this simple and clear. I think it would be extremely helpful and a great
> innovation to create a wiki-based historical atlas.  Here's why.
>
> An historical atlas would be useful: it would provide viewers with
> visual portrayals of political and cultural change that Wikipedia cannot
> explain in the most long-winded history article.
>
> An historical atlas would be innovative: as far as I know there has only
> been one previous computer-based historical atlas, and its price kept it
> out of the reach of viewers. Paper-based atlantes lack the animation
> that a Web or software-based atlas could provide. Additionally, unlike
> any paper-based atlas, you could cross-reference map keys to Wikipedia
> entries.
>
> An historical atlas would be an active project: Like Wikipedia, it
> provides immediate results-- you can see your changes on a map. You
> can't copyright facts of history, so any contributor could take
> information from a paper atlas and mark it up.
>
> An historical atlas would supplement Wikipedia, making it easy to
> generate standardized maps for any country at any point in history.
>
> Here are some previous atlantes individuals have compiled:
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm
>   This site demonstrates how useful an historical atlas can be.
> http://www.clockwk.com/
>   This $90 software is something like what I hope the project could
>   become.
>
> The only obstacle to this project is actually writing the software. I
> would think this would require a standard vector-based format and
> process used for a website, which can be downloaded as offline software.
> Changes to the map would also require some sort of user-friendly vector
> setup.
>
> I welcome any comments or criticism.

--
++SJ


from_name: Robert Brockway

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Fulfulde Wikipedia [was:Request for a Wikipedia
	in Cebuano]

body:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Timwi wrote:

> If you want only "free", then don't complain that the "free" operating
> systems don't have the functionality you need ;-)

Free as in freedom - one of the pillars on which Wikipedia stands :)

Cheers,

Rob

--
Robert Brockway B.Sc.
Senior Technical Consultant, OpenTrend Solutions Ltd.
Ph: +1-416-669-3073 Email: rbrockway at opentrend.net http://www.opentrend.net
OpenTrend Solutions: Reliable, secure solutions to real world problems.
Contributing Member of Software in the Public Interest http://www.spi-inc.org


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5

body:
Ahhh!

Please, no!

Wikijunior's been struggling as it is in getting writers, and we've concentrated only on three subjects. Any sort of specialty encyclopedia isn't going to work, and even if it is, it's going to distract from Wikijunior, my pet, which we *need* to get done before December, or loose US$10000.

My personal preference is just keeping Simple English Wikipedia as is, for learners of the language. There's millions and millions of potential readers, I'll even investigate promoting the site to immigration organizations if we keep it as is.

Nick Moreau
"Zanimum"

I'd prefer the project be changed entirely to reflect something more
like what was suggested at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids>
(in all languages). People wanting to write simple versions of
existing English Wikipedia articles can focus on simplifying the lead
sections of those. Having that on a separate wiki has not proved
useful, whereas having something that is written by and for children
may be different enough from the main Wikipedia to warrant its own
project.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> The issue is that games can exist entirely in parallel to
> encyclopedia-building.

If users are spending twenty minutes a day on Wikipedia, *editing*,
and learning to use MediaWiki's arcane template and table syntax, that
cannot be 'entirely in parallel' to encyclopedia building.  They have
already overcome the greatest barrier to contribution.

> For example, the user who created the
> "Wikipedia:Wikigames" project (since redirected) has never made a single
> edit to a Wikipedia article. When the fun activity becomes the primary
> focus and the encyclopedia becomes incidental, a line has to be drawn.

This is a user who was just introduced to wikis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASandbox%2FChess&diff=12671363&oldid=12638158

...and is feeling addicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wikitine

It seems likely that once s/he tires of on-wiki games (which is
admittedly difficiult, considering what an adrenaline rush our new
gaming platform is), with a positive view of the local community, this
will be a natural outlet for other notes and work...  Which is what
we're here for, right?  One minor edit and a dozen friendly user:talk
comments far outweigh any negative aspects of playing out four games
of wikichess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMTGsets&diff=14496451&oldid=13573452

> If games have to be started in the Wikipedia: namespace, instead of the Sandbox...

Well, we both want to see this happen.

--
++SJ


from_name: Carlos

subject: [Wikitech-l] Language problems in es:wiki

body:
Since some weeks, messages in es:wiki alternate between our customized
[[es:Especial:Allmessages]] and the defaults in LanguageEs.php. We
thought it was a temporary situation, because of the upgrades (?), but
we are using the new version now, and the problem continues.

Can this please be fixed? We would like that only the customized
messages are used.

(If this is the wrong place to complain, please redirect me to the right
one.)

Thanks.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
> Ambi's
> silly argument that the auto-reblock bug was an intentional feature
> (it's definitely not--even bishonen thought it didn't function that
> way)

But it DOES function that way and it IS an intentional feature.  It is
to stop people block-evading.

Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> A parallel community grows in that section of Wikipedia of people who
> primarily play games.

I would pay good money to hear someone talk about the rise of
wiki-gaming as an internet phenomenon.  Maybe this is a novel
fundraising idea?

> There are people who, in spite of our best efforts, will never
> become useful contributors to the site.

We've encountered a few, and have entire chapters of process on how to
handle them.  You'd rather filter them out in advance, according to
some set of profiles?

> post-discovery discouragement may no longer work, because these users
> have their Wikigames ghetto to return to and come back from, where rules
> like NPOV are as relevant as Schopenhauer is to the Furry fandom.

You think this is different from the "Child-love article cluster" ghetto?
If the notion of a wikigames ghetto that were attractive to people who
didn't already admire and use the encyclopedia weren't funny, I would
be more worried.  Let's wait until we actually have a problem -- say,
more than 10% of game-playing users who are not also active wiki
contributors or newbies -- and then see what's going on.

The very fact that wikigames have cropped up - when there are so many
instant-gratification sites online to play these games - is
fascinating.  I think it may be good for the community; you don't.
Let's see where it is going before judging it!

SJ


body:
Carlos wrote:

> Since some weeks, messages in es:wiki alternate between our customized
> [[es:Especial:Allmessages]] and the defaults in LanguageEs.php.

Well, it seemed some weeks, but after tracking the first messages about
the issue, it was only one week. Approx. since 26 june or shortly before
or after.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Yet another Wiki mailing list : WikimediaUS-l

body:
Phyzome threw together a mailing list in May of the people who came to
the East Coast meetup in DC, to discuss a potential US Wikimedia
chapter.   If you are interested in the subject, don't worry, you
haven't missed anything; there have only been one or two posts to the
list so far.

There is now a public mailing list, WikimediaUS-l, for these
discussions.  You can sign up here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l

Cheers,
   SJ


from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
> Just read, don't edit.

That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been
doing that in the first place as it's a bug.  Obviously, I wouldn't
have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Privacy policy,
	law and guessing identitites of anon users

body:
Nyenyec N (nyenyec at gmail.com) [050702 12:26]:

> Is it against the privacy policy or the law to:
> 1a) publicly claim that an anon user is the same as a logged in User
> when they take part in policy violations such as 3RR
> 1b) publicly claim that they are the same person when they haven't
> violated any policies yet
> 2) publish a list of IP addresses assumed to belong to a user who have
> already violated policy (3RR, personal attacks)

On en:, we do any of these. If I do an IP check and see that a user is
using an IP as a sockpuppet, then too bad for them.

Using an IP for violating policy is taken to mean you've lost your right to
privacy on that matter. You don't get to hide behind it.

- d.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
In a message dated 7/2/2005 10:07:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik_moeller at gmx.de writes:

10% of  active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing
nothing  else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the
reasons I  cited, late intervention is not an option -- particularly
since those 10%  will then become vocal opponents of any such
intervention, citing  precedent and lack of consensus. The problem needs
to be stopped at its  very root now. You have presented no single
plausible argument why this is  not so.

Thank you, Erik, for intervening in this. I support your  position
wholeheartedly. To wait until this gets out of hand before  attempting to intervene is
not only ridiculous--it endangers Wikipedia.

Danny


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 7/2/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/07/05, Bill Konrad <bkonrad123 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > "Dan Grey" <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why don't people just give trolls what they deserve?
> > >
> > > Do us all a favour, and when people post here only looking for
> > > trouble, give them what they deserve - the silent treatment.
> >
> > Indeed, one recently prolific poster to this list has earned the distinction
> > of being the first person added to my blocked user list -- it'd just too
> > tedious sifting through the drek.
> >
> > Bkonrad
>
> Crikey, I've only been on the list a few weeks and I already have,
> erm, several filters :-).
>
> To Rob - it's not turning the other cheek. Trolls only post to get a
> reaction - the fundamental truth is that it's pure attention seeking,
> how ever it's dressed up on the surface.
>
> Ignore them - totally - and they don't get they want, they very
> rapidly get bored, and bugger off :-)
>
>
> Dan

Keep in mind, however, that this is probably the rudest possible thing
you can do.  It's really important to apply this only to the very
worst of trolls.

In my observation, most mailing list trolls become trolls on the basis
of a real concern, the anger over which is greatly inflated by
repeated dismissal or ignorance of their concerns by those they
perceive to be in power.  Frequently, this starts as a tiny little
issue, but inflates even more rapidly as insults and accusations (of
being a troll, sockpuppet, etc.) are applied.

If we explain patiently why the concerns are being dismissed or
ignored, <i>without ever insulting the questioner</i>, even if it
takes four or five times, far fewer would become trolls in the first
place.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creationism and pseudoscience

body:
Leif Knutsen wrote:

>I think that if a field of inquiry, or a theory if you will, is to be called "pseudoscience," then it has to be explained by what criteria it is distinct from "real" science or protoscience.  And then the rebuttal from those who believe it is real science must be presented as well.
>
>The argument for creationism (which I don't buy) is that the fossil record and other physical evidence leaves unanswered questions in the "theory" of evolution.  Hence, they argue, you can't reject creationism as a valid form of scientific inquiry.  The fallacy is that if one explanation doesn't explain everything, then all other explanations are equally valid.
>
"God created the universe," and "Creationism is a pseudoscience" are
both hypotheses, and as such both should be subject to hypothesis
testing.  For a "sciense" to be a pseudoscience it must fall rigorously
within a formal definition of the term.  More simply put the fallacy is
"If A implies B, then not A implies not B".

>I think it is important to have an article about pseudoscience, but it would be more interesting and readable, and less contentious, if we omitted examples altogether.
>
Possibly.  It's a reasonable suggestion, but avoids the problem that
people put all manner of material under this heading.  A strictly
correct article based on the philosophy would satisfy the purists among
us, and chase away everybody else on both sides of these arguments.

Ec


from_name: Timwi

body:
Guaka wrote:
>>>Somehow the ng's look like normal n's on my screen. Maybe there's
>>>something wrong with my font stuff, or with Debian's or XFree's in
>>>general.
>>
>>Doesn't surprise me. Use Windows.
>
> I haven't yet found a free version of Windows. Free as in freedom and in
> free beer.

If you want only "free", then don't complain that the "free" operating
systems don't have the functionality you need ;-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> 10% of active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing
> nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the

No, 10% of users who have ever played one of these games.  Or a single
active editor who at some point "plays games and nothing else".  Right
now, the body of wikipedians is making perhaps a hundred edits a week
to game pages.  That's comparable to the number of edits we have to
pokemon-project stubs.

And the reason that a site like the wikicities game-site won't succeed
is that wikigames are mainly amusing if you know the other site-users,
and have other reasons to work together there!  They aren't much fun
compared to other game forums unless you're already using the site.
Even the user you imagine is 'only playing games' right now is
doubless using the encyclopedia regularly.

> intervention, citing precedent and lack of consensus. The problem needs
> to be stopped at its very root now. You have presented no single
> plausible argument why this is not so.

There are so many interesting ideas that one can stop with an
exaggerated brinkmanship scenario like this.  I don't think a
hard-security policy of "stopping things at their roots," when nothing
problematic has happened, is efficient... unless you are omniscient.

--
++SJ


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> It's not like testing is all love and flowers.. generally if you run
> your own tester you can expect a fair number of angry emails as your
> probes trigger off peoples stupid personal firewalls. Perhaps that
> would be mitigated if we only executed that test if  someone failed
> the SORBS list... a quick freshmeat search yields a half dozen proxy
> testers that we could use.

I expect the SORBS list to have IP numbers along with port numbers. To
test if such a combination is still an open proxy, you need only one
probe. Given that the combination is on the SORBS list, nobody should
have grounds to complain. But to test if an IP is an open proxy, you
need to try all sorts of possible port numbers; *this* is often
construed as "port-scanning" and regarded as condemnable.

We already have a proxy tester that does the latter. It is disabled for
exactly this reason.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
On 7/2/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > 10% of active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing
> > nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the
>
> No, 10% of users who have ever played one of these games.  Or a single
> active editor who at some point "plays games and nothing else".

Sorry, to clarify what I meant : If you look at the people who
'actively' play wikigames, however you define those games and that
description, I think that most of them will always be active
contributors elsewhere on-wiki, who are blowing off steam.  That seems
fine to me.

If 10% of these 'active' players, at any point, are *not* also editors
and contributor, but are addicts "from the gaming ghetto" who can't
get enough, then -- even though some of these addicts may be reformed
and become good users, and even though they aren't directly hurting
the development of the project -- we may have a problem.

If even a single active editor falls into the clutches of the
ghetto-dwellers, and stops editing movie stubs for love of wikigames,
then too we have a problem.

--Sj


from_name: Theo Clarke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
Be sympathetic in your reading and careful in your writing.

Theo

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:55:34 +0100, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>?Can someone suggest a rephrasing of "Be liberal in what you accept,
>?and conservative in what you send" which will not get misunderstood
>?as?speaking of anything political?


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power

body:
-Snowspinner

On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

>> You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to
>> prevent people from just creating a new account.
>>
>
> Yes, which why this isn't functioning properly.  It should only renew
> it if the person tries it while not logged in or if they create/use
> another account (a sock puppet) to try to edit (in other words--if
> they try to evade the block). That's not what I was doing though, I
> was logged in as User:Njyoder the entire time and didn't realize until
> later that by hitting 'edit' it automatically renewed it.

Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and
fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.

-Snowspinner


body:
In general, I think calling someone a fascist hag and a complete fat
fool is trolling. Or, at the very least, unquestionably unacceptable.

-Snowspinner

On Jul 2, 2005, at 12:24 AM, Geoffrey Bell wrote:

> Wait wait wait...I haven't been watching this list like a hawk, and
> maybe
> we're talking about two different people, but I don't see any
> trolls, only a
> dissenter. And dissent is not a crime, of course.
>
> On 7/1/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this list?
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/2/05, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> What purpose does this serve? It builds adminship up into some sort of
> huge thing that it isn't. If you generally behave yourself and make a
> few good edits, you become an admin. It really isn't very hard.
[snip]

No. Doing the proposed would make adminship less of a big deal,
becuause it would cause adminship to eventually include all
trustworthy users.

Adminship stopped being about being a well behaved editor and not
abusing the tools long ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Uncle_G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eequor_%282nd%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ScudLee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pedant


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily
	broken

references:
<42C33447.50301@pobox.com>	<9a878c4405062923081aa5dea@mail.gmail.com>	<42C3A302.20205@pobox.com>
	<42C3C7A2.5090006@softhome.net>	<42C3CBF0.1080401@yahoo.it>
	<42C3F179.7010405@softhome.net>	<1b98bebe05063008403161d6b@mail.gmail.com>	<42C43C9B.1040304@gmail.com>	<op.ss7ncmh22okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>	<42C4F0B5.70806@gmail.com>
	<op.ss8woamw2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>

body:
Muke Tever wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Muke Tever wrote:
>>
>>> In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
>>> one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
>>> is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
>>> "spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the
>>> Wiktionary
>>> is useless for this.
>>
>>
>> When a word is correctly spelled in several ways, every alternative is
>> as good as the other and deserve its own article. It should therefore be
>> abundantly clear that they are correct. As a consequence of the massive
>> rename action many thousands of redirects have been created words like
>> "Lightbulb" are now correct because there is a redirect ?? So the
>> spelling of a sentence like: "A Lightbulb Is Typically Found In A
>> Lamp."  is apparantly correct?? I think not.
>
>
> Capitalization is separate from spelling (though both are parts of
> orthography). Your sentence is spelled correctly, though capitalized
> unusually.
>
> In any case, free capitalization of words is quite common--it occur in
> titles of works ("Antique Lightbulbs of the Early 19th Century"), in
> advertising ("Save Today on Great Unbeatable Prices"), in any case
> where a word is given a special kind of emphasis ("it wasn't just a
> smell, it was a Smell"), is used as a title of address ("you're not
> listening to me, Mother"), is made into a proper noun ("he was a
> Zealot"), etc., and formerly also optionally of nouns in general.
>
> One of the most venerated documents in our country begins:
>      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
>      perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity,
>      provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare,
>      and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
>      do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
>      of America.
>
> The only words never take normal capitalization are those that are
> decreed
> to be so from technical context, such as "pH" or 'sinensis' in "Alligator
> sinensis."

Capitalization can be a function of either the word or its context.
Wiktionary only needs to be concerned with the former.  It would seem
that the drafters of the Declaration of Independance took a little
liberty with their emphases,  and that's not unusual in preambles.  I
don't know why you abject to the lack of capitalization in "defence".

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific
	POV

body:
On Jul 2, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

>> Most?  I would say that the creationists are a significant
>> minority; I
>> don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
>>
>
> About 40% believe it, but the opinion of the general population isn't
> relevent when it comes to scientific matters--it's the opinion of the
> relevent parts of the scientific community that matter.
>
> I should also note I love timwi's qualifier of "most" which isn't
> based on actual statistics and is just a blatant attempt at America
> bashing deeply hurts my feelings (see Wikipedia:No personal
> attacks).

Don't worry - your attempt at bitchy rules lawyering makes me want to
go read your contributions recently for the barest hint of a personal
attack so I can ban you. (see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to
illustrate a point).

-Snowspinner


from_name: David 'DJ' Hedley

body:
I think that the inthenews box in general is in a state of, well, problems.
In the past week or two theres been a couple of copyvios on there - One
blatant copyvio, Ahmedinezhad.jpg, was on there for three days and added
back again after being taken off. Theres also possibly a bit of bias to US
events there, too - Often news only relevant to the US is on there, which
isn't 'big news' to the rest of the world at all.

On top of that, its occasionally slow to be updated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Grey" <dangrey at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Live 8 and the In the news box

It would be nice if any admins reading this could update the In the news
box:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates#Suggested_additions

Dan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Simple English Wikipedia - Requesting a rethink

body:
I had a quick look at recent changes there and received the impression
that they have an active community.  Perhaps the best place for this
discussion might be at their equivalent to a Village Pump.

Even accepting the premise that the project was initially ill conceived,
one cannot treat it as a dormant project..
Ec

Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:

>David's analysis of the state of the SE Wikipedia is quite an accurate one and I would agree with almost all of his arguments. And - like Mark - I do believe that a "rethink" should eventually result in the phasing out of the Simple English Wikipedia.
>
>Simple: doesn't work well. Of course, that is a fact it shares with many existing but more or less dormant Wikipedias. More severe however is the "lack of focus and ... lack of direction", like David put. I would even dare to say it lacks a purpose altogether, at least one conforming with Wikipedia's general aims.
>
>At http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia one reads that it "has been started as a response to the need for English learners". Fine, but Wikipedia was never meant as a language course. WP is an encyclopedia, i. e. a place where knowledge is gathered and can be accessed. Furthermore, Wikipedia is committed to providing knowledge in people's _native_languages_. Hence, there is no need for a Wikipedia for those with a limited command of English (or German, French, Spanish ...).
>
>I just don't see why we should continue the Simple English Wikipedia.
>
>Boris
>
>
>wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 29.06.05 01:16:39:
>
>The subject of Simple English Wikipedia has came to the mailing list before,
>but after reading talk pages there and seeing the dormancy of Recent Changes
>(bar a few persistent users, and the odd anon editor) I feel it is time to
>suggest a rethink, or at least look into the direction of Simple English
>Wikipedia.
>
>Simple English Wikipedia currently has 4,157 articles, the vast majority of
>which fail to extend further than three sentences in length. There are a few
>administrators, Netoholic being the most active of them. There is a small
>user base, but unlike some language Wikipedias where this results in a small
>and persistent community, the small user base at Simple English often have
>their priorities understandably set on the main English Wikipedia.
>
>The SE Wikipedia currently has a lack of focus, and a lack of direction.
>Indeed, it claims to cater for multiple groups of people, which simply isn't
>working:
>
>"It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different people with
>different needs: students, children, and translators."
>
>The description there, taken from
>http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia, is too
>ambiguous to encourage any regular contributors to the Wikipedia. Whereas
>with the main Wikipedias there is a ultimate cause of creator 'the sum of
>all human knowledge', Simple English doesn't have a goal, as its not aiming
>for anything specifically.
>
>The aims of students, children and translators, to me, is wrong on all
>counts. I've read a few articles on Simple English, and the variation and
>way of writing is at times so belittiling that I wonder why such a project
>exists. This quote from the talk page sums it up perfectly:
>
>"One thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that people act like
>this is supposed to writted towards children, talking down to them and such,
>when in fact Wikipedia Jr. is there to handle that - this should be aimed at
>just reposting English articles in a simplified and standardized version of
>English, as opposed to the "baby talk" many of the articles are crammed
>with.
>Simple: A problem I have with this website is that there is a website like
>it that is already here - Wikipedia Junior. I think that this website should
>be for people from another country who are learning English, not small
>children. This website talks to its people badly."
>
>Simple English Wikipedia is, in reality, never going to be used by babies or
>small children - Infact, unleashing such persons onto Wikipedia is dangerous
>(as proven by our Recent Changes list :p ). Wikijunior, which is in
>development, caters for the young market and has a focus to not talk down to
>people. When I read Simple English trying to explain racism, I felt like it
>was dumbing me down. Anyone capable of using Wikipedia normally can use
>normal Wikipedia, whilst Simple English is not going to be used by 4 or 5
>year olds. Children is a bad thing to aim at. Aiming at translators is
>similiarly odd, because a translator wouldn't be a translator if their
>English wasn't fluent.
>Simple English Wikipedia needs to, in my opinion, have a huge rethink. It
>should be aimed at persons wanting to practice their English by reading it,
>and should be an aid for those learning it as a foreign language. Simple
>English should read simply, but not so simply that it puts down the reader.
>People contribute to Wikipedias for a reason, and for a goal - Simple
>English has no goal, so theres no clear reason for editors to contribute to
>it. A look at recent changes shows that.
>
>Without a rethink and a real discussion into the direction, policies and
>descriptions of Simple English Wikipedia, it had mayswell be deleted. Simple
>English was the second Wikipedia I visited, after main English, and I
>believe it will be the same for many others. It doesn't reflect well on
>Wikimedia Foundation to have a Wikipedia in such a bad state, and in the
>English language - Quality over quantity isn't necessarily always true, but
>in the case of having Wikimedia Foundation projects and Wikipedias, it is.
>Simple is way too out there to stay as it is; a rethink is needed.
>


body:
> Don't worry - your attempt at bitchy rules lawyering makes me want
> to go read your contributions recently for the barest hint of a
> personal attack so I can ban you. (see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt
> Wikipedia to illustrate a point).

Wow, how incredibly childish.  At least now we have it on record it
that you're trying to find an excuse for banning me.  I hope you're
kidding here, since you would be violating WP:POINT which you stated
there by attempting to do that, as well as breaking various other
wonderfully ambiguous policies.  I hope that was some odd joke
referencing yourself as violating it, because I've done nothing that
falls under WP:POINT.

I keep seeing defenses of bad behavior with admins under the guise
that they occassionaly make mistakes, but that is a far cry from
deliberately and very intentionally going out of their way just to
retaliate against someone and disrupt Wikipedia.

I should also note that I am crying buckets of tears over calling my
behavior bitchy, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

> Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and
> fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.

This is also childish and misses the point.  It seems like you don't
think admins should admit when they make false accusations and instead
should blame the person who a bug caused a problem for for said bug
existing.

That's not even high school level, that's like elementary school
childish behavior.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
I'll just direct you again to what Angela said. Obviously it's not inactive...

Mark

On 02/07/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I had a quick look at recent changes there and received the impression
> that they have an active community.  Perhaps the best place for this
> discussion might be at their equivalent to a Village Pump.
>
> Even accepting the premise that the project was initially ill conceived,
> one cannot treat it as a dormant project..
> Ec
>
>
> Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
>
> >David's analysis of the state of the SE Wikipedia is quite an accurate one and I would agree with almost all of his arguments. And - like Mark - I do believe that a "rethink" should eventually result in the phasing out of the Simple English Wikipedia.
> >
> >Simple: doesn't work well. Of course, that is a fact it shares with many existing but more or less dormant Wikipedias. More severe however is the "lack of focus and ... lack of direction", like David put. I would even dare to say it lacks a purpose altogether, at least one conforming with Wikipedia's general aims.
> >
> >At http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia one reads that it "has been started as a response to the need for English learners". Fine, but Wikipedia was never meant as a language course. WP is an encyclopedia, i. e. a place where knowledge is gathered and can be accessed. Furthermore, Wikipedia is committed to providing knowledge in people's _native_languages_. Hence, there is no need for a Wikipedia for those with a limited command of English (or German, French, Spanish ...).
> >
> >I just don't see why we should continue the Simple English Wikipedia.
> >
> >Boris
> >
> >
> >wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 29.06.05 01:16:39:
> >
> >The subject of Simple English Wikipedia has came to the mailing list before,
> >but after reading talk pages there and seeing the dormancy of Recent Changes
> >(bar a few persistent users, and the odd anon editor) I feel it is time to
> >suggest a rethink, or at least look into the direction of Simple English
> >Wikipedia.
> >
> >Simple English Wikipedia currently has 4,157 articles, the vast majority of
> >which fail to extend further than three sentences in length. There are a few
> >administrators, Netoholic being the most active of them. There is a small
> >user base, but unlike some language Wikipedias where this results in a small
> >and persistent community, the small user base at Simple English often have
> >their priorities understandably set on the main English Wikipedia.
> >
> >The SE Wikipedia currently has a lack of focus, and a lack of direction.
> >Indeed, it claims to cater for multiple groups of people, which simply isn't
> >working:
> >
> >"It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different people with
> >different needs: students, children, and translators."
> >
> >The description there, taken from
> >http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia, is too
> >ambiguous to encourage any regular contributors to the Wikipedia. Whereas
> >with the main Wikipedias there is a ultimate cause of creator 'the sum of
> >all human knowledge', Simple English doesn't have a goal, as its not aiming
> >for anything specifically.
> >
> >The aims of students, children and translators, to me, is wrong on all
> >counts. I've read a few articles on Simple English, and the variation and
> >way of writing is at times so belittiling that I wonder why such a project
> >exists. This quote from the talk page sums it up perfectly:
> >
> >"One thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that people act like
> >this is supposed to writted towards children, talking down to them and such,
> >when in fact Wikipedia Jr. is there to handle that - this should be aimed at
> >just reposting English articles in a simplified and standardized version of
> >English, as opposed to the "baby talk" many of the articles are crammed
> >with.
> >Simple: A problem I have with this website is that there is a website like
> >it that is already here - Wikipedia Junior. I think that this website should
> >be for people from another country who are learning English, not small
> >children. This website talks to its people badly."
> >
> >Simple English Wikipedia is, in reality, never going to be used by babies or
> >small children - Infact, unleashing such persons onto Wikipedia is dangerous
> >(as proven by our Recent Changes list :p ). Wikijunior, which is in
> >development, caters for the young market and has a focus to not talk down to
> >people. When I read Simple English trying to explain racism, I felt like it
> >was dumbing me down. Anyone capable of using Wikipedia normally can use
> >normal Wikipedia, whilst Simple English is not going to be used by 4 or 5
> >year olds. Children is a bad thing to aim at. Aiming at translators is
> >similiarly odd, because a translator wouldn't be a translator if their
> >English wasn't fluent.
> >Simple English Wikipedia needs to, in my opinion, have a huge rethink. It
> >should be aimed at persons wanting to practice their English by reading it,
> >and should be an aid for those learning it as a foreign language. Simple
> >English should read simply, but not so simply that it puts down the reader.
> >People contribute to Wikipedias for a reason, and for a goal - Simple
> >English has no goal, so theres no clear reason for editors to contribute to
> >it. A look at recent changes shows that.
> >
> >Without a rethink and a real discussion into the direction, policies and
> >descriptions of Simple English Wikipedia, it had mayswell be deleted. Simple
> >English was the second Wikipedia I visited, after main English, and I
> >believe it will be the same for many others. It doesn't reflect well on
> >Wikimedia Foundation to have a Wikipedia in such a bad state, and in the
> >English language - Quality over quantity isn't necessarily always true, but
> >in the case of having Wikimedia Foundation projects and Wikipedias, it is.
> >Simple is way too out there to stay as it is; a rethink is needed.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


body:
> Yup. I intend to use the arbcom ruling to its full extent.
> Basically, you will behave civilly or you will find yourself able to
> make roughly one edit a day. And I will be watching your
> contributions carefully.

Well you've setttled any doubts about whether or not admins get off on
the "little" power that they have, congratulations.  It's too bad we
don't have equally immature, higher up admins to do the same to you
when you act uncivilly.  There's also the irony of this action you're
taking here being a violation of WP:POINT.

I just love the double standard here.  Apparently unless an admin does
something extreme, they should not only not get blocked, but they
should keep their admin status.  But if I make anything that could be
construed as a "personal attack", I get blocked.  It's kind of strange
that the admins are held to a _lower_ standard than the users are.

P.S.  Reply to the list, not just me.  You don't see them mailed
through the list yet because they haven't been through moderation yet.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Ashibaka

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Proposal for a new project: Wikipedia Historical
	Atlas

body:
Sorry for spoofing myself as the Wikimedia user Menchi, that was an old
nickname I had before Ashibaka.

Erik:
>  First of all, I'm not convinced this needs to be a separate project

Well, some sort of SVG map tool could just integrate right into
Wikipedia, but that would make quite a mess with articles or even
namespaces trying to coordinate the maps.

Come to think of it, the amount of programming that would have to be
done on this makes it seem like a full-time company job. Since I'm not a
programmer, maybe I should just wait on the other two mapping projects
first.

Ashibaka


subject: [WikiEN-l] And this is why personal attacks need to be defined

body:
Lesson of the day, calling an admin's (but probably not a regular
user's) behavior disingenuous is a 'personal attack.'

Here's the direct quote which snowspinner deliberately looked for and
blocked me for out of spite: "In any case, I just love how the admins
here are trying their absolute best to disengenuously change the
process in order to ensure their continued status."

That was from a discussion on the RfA talk page about whether or not
blank oppose votes (And other oppose votes decided to be invalid for
whatever reason) shouldn't be counted in votes for new admins.

Talk about a act of bad faith and an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to
make a point!

I propose a question: what's the politically correct version of
suggesting that someone's intentions are not honest?  "I think that
maybe, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that this idea
may be promoted, by some admins, as a less-than-honest method of
trying to keep themselves in power.  Again, I apologize if I'm wrong
and will make a goat sacrifice if I have hurt anyone's feelings in
saying this."

Maybe I should start keeping a list of all the "personal attacks" that
admins use, but then that list itself might be seen as a "personal
attack" using this warped bizzaro-logic.

Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in
place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so
yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
I think that bug has been fixed to prevent this from happening again,
though I understand your frustration that it happened in the first place.

-Jtkiefer


subject: [WikiEN-l] e-mails to wikien-l being dropped

body:
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder at energon.org) [050701 09:36]:

> So out of the entire history of the mailing list, you decide to do
> this just now?  Uh huh.

Yep. People's patience has run out with noise.

>  I had only sent about 3 e-mails so far and
> you all of a sudden decided to start censoring.  Regardless of my
> "personal attacks" my e-mails were still perfectly on-topic and had
> legitimate questions.  Censoring them isn't going to make me e-mail
> less, it's going to make me e-mail more in response to this nefarious
> behavior.

If we have to moderate all new accounts, we will.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder at energon.org) [050703 00:33]:

> There's no policy on Wikipedia saying you have to be Mr. Nice Guy.

[[Wikipedia:Civility]]

> So let me get this straight about the real policy: if you're in favor
> with the admins and you make an accusation of hypocrisy with an
> accusation, it's ok, but if you're not, you get banned.  Gotcha.

The rules are explicitly different for Nathan J. Yoder; that's what a
short-leash personal attack parole, such as you've been put on, means.  Any
admin feels you've made a personal attack, *ZAP*. Having run out of words,
we've had to resort to [[B. F. Skinner]] and the lessons of Professor
Cattleprod.

If you really don't want the choke chain to bite, I strongly suggest doing
your best not to say anything that could *conceivably* be taken as a
personal attack, since you don't have much of a feel for what is and isn't.

You're quite capable of writing sensible, well thought-out emails that
contribute quality to the discussion, you sent one today and one yesterday.
This is the only reason you haven't just been kicked off.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder at energon.org) [050703 00:58]:

> I guess they just don't like valid criticism.  They'll let idiots go
> on asinine, insulting tirades soley because they want the idiots to
> make themselves look bad, but when a dissenter presents valid
> criticism, they just can't take it.

Yes. We're probably hopeless cases that you should give up on.

- d.


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
Good point. My guess is that the games make users happy, and thus more
priductive, long term. The wikipedia is a mean and rude place (the
meanest, rudest, clique-iest place I've been since middle school).
Maybe these games (which I will probably never participate in) do more
good than bad, assuming the people who play them are happy and nice.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 7/3/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> > Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on
> > Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow.
> <  As for referring to the people who oppose these games and
> > tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack.
>
> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."
>
>     http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Killjoy
>
> By the way, if you are vehemetly against these games, or people
> playing N degrees of separation, do you really want to be associated
> with the Department of Fun?
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FUN#Members
>
>
> > Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even
>
> I'm not sure that intense game-playing on the wiki is a great thing.
> And we can all imagine marginal ways in which doing anything but
> concretely building the encyclopedia -- editing one's own user page,
> adding to BJAODN, fooling around with personal CSS or javascript
> settings, chatting with friends about non-encyclopedic subjects --  is
> 'wasteful'.
>
> But the interesting question is, to what extent being able to relax
> and take a break on-wiki *is* beneficial to the project.  Perhaps we
> can discuss that; does leaving content-free "Welcome back!" messages
> for others indicate one is not interested in the project's goals?
>
>
> --
> ++SJ
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Muke Tever

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Capitalization can be a function of either the word or its context.
> Wiktionary only needs to be concerned with the former.  It would seem
> that the drafters of the Declaration of Independance took a little
> liberty with their emphases,  and that's not unusual in preambles.  I
> don't know why you abject to the lack of capitalization in "defence".

'sic' is not an objection.  It is the Latin word for 'so, thus'
and is used to indicate that an unusual feature of a quoted text is
present in the original--i.e. 'it was thus given'--and is not due to
editorial oversight. The unusual feature of 'defence' is that it is the
only noun in that preamble that is not capitalized--all the other ones
are; the point being that the framers of the Constitution[1] were
writing English where nouns are regularly capitalized. This is not a
feature of emphasis, and was carried on through even mundane regions
of subsequent text:

      Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the
      several States which may be included within this Union, according
      to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding
      to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
      Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
      three fifths[sic] of all other Persons.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

Current en.wiktionary practice _will_ require separate articles for
[[number]] (modern practice) and [[Number]] (former practice), which
I don't think is at all reasonable; redirecting from [[Number]] to
[[number]] would be a thinkable alternative (and is what happens
currently), but even the removal of these redirects has its advocates.

If capitalization is as integral to spelling as the advocates of this
recent move have been insisting, then to divorce [[number]] from
[[Number]] is to rob us of our linguistic history.

If the Bund f?r vereinfachte rechtschreibung [sic] were to have its way
and la Germanophonie were to do away with the obligatory capitalization
of nouns, what would de.wiktionary do with [[kind]] and [[Kind]]?  This
is not a hypothetical situation, as this has already happened in English
and the Scandinavian languages, and is something Wiktionary _has to
document_, as 'all words in all languages' implies 'in all ages' as well.

	*Muke!
[1] The text quoted was not the Declaration of Independence, however
topical it would have been to post it about now.
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/