body:
I did not mean to imply that one should "assume bad faith" in every
instance, of course. Yours sounds like a specific and worthwhile task,
one which could likely be identified as one which could fall into a
"good faith" category.

I'm talking mostly about the many users who upload likely copyrighted
media and plop some sort of PD or fair use tag on it without labeling
the source, and may or may not insert it into an article, and likely
have not searched for "free" alternatives of any sort.

And though I am very much against a media-centric mode of thought in
terms of fair use, I don't think US postage stamps are very high on
the list of copyright dangers. "Assuming bad faith" in terms of
copyright would only mean, as I propose it, assuming that, *in absence
of other reasons to think so*, users who upload copyrighted materials
are likely committing copyright infringement. I think what you are
describing is well within the bounds of the "other reasons to think
so", especially if you explained it to an inquisitive editor in as
sensible a way as you did on this list.

FF

On 9/22/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> You could always ask, and if there are those for whom my upload gallery
> is not blindingly obvious as a holding/tracking area, I could certainly
> add a note to the top of it. Seeing as how I'm the person doing the
> physical labor of preparing the scan and postprocessing the image, I
> don't think it's too much to ask that my process be accommodated, rather
> than "assuming bad faith" as was suggested. I've been very conservative
> on deciding whether any given stamp image was PD or fair use - just
> deleted all the Israeli stamps on commons after researching their
> copyright status for instance - so it borders on the insulting to
> suggest that I don't take any of this seriously.
>
> Stan
>
> Phroziac wrote:
>
> >How would we know if it was uploaded in anticipation? Why do you
> >insist on having it your way?
> >
> >On 9/22/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Kelly Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Several of us are now speedily deleting nonfree images that have no
> >>>article references on the grounds that an image that is not being used
> >>>logically cannot be being used as fair use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I would appreciate it if you would take the trouble to see whether
> >>an image was uploaded in anticipation of article use. For instance,
> >>I often upload postage stamp scans in batches, and it may be a period
> >>of weeks before I write all the articles that will use the uploaded
> >>scans. You're not doing anybody a service by deleting these beforehand,
> >>nor are you incentivizing me to create the articles more quickly or
> >>to write first and upload later - more likely I'll just stop writing.
> >>
> >>Stan
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Frederic

subject: [WikiEN-l] Better tools to fight Wiki vandalism

body:
Le Mercredi 21 Septembre 2005 18:33, Phroziac a ?crit?:
> #en.wikipedia.vandalism on Freenode has this also. Very nice, uses the
> same feed cdvf uses, but filters it to pretty much stuff that is
> mostly vandalism, and shows people reverting.
>
> On 9/21/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You might want to check out CDVF. It has most of that: [[WP:CDVF]]
> >  Ryan

Hi,

indeed CDVF is a really impressive tool.
I don't know its existance, thanks to the author !

But unfortunately it doesn't show directly differences on articles it suppects of vandalism.
In the "Live RC" tab, is there a way to open the latest differences on the suspected article ?


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Jim Breen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] English orthographies

body:
[Gerard Meijssen (Re: [Wiktionary-l] English orthographies) writes:]
>> Jim Breen wrote:
>> >>>Jack & Naree wrote:
>> >>>>An American-English dictionary, and a (Commonwealth) English
>> >>>>Dictionary then.
>> >>>>Otherwise, it has to be all listed as seperate entries.
>> >
>> >Um. What about words that are spelled differently within and
>> >between Commonwealth countries? Or words like accoutrement/accouterment
>> >which are spelled differently within the US?
>> >
>> >Of course they shouldn't be separate entries, but Gerard's
>> >database design seems to be dicating that one.
>> >
>> The fact that words are spelled differently needs to be addressed in one
>> way or the other.

Absolutely.

>> Even in old style wiktionary there needs to be
>> something both at the accoutrement and the accouterment article in order
>> to make them "findable".

Agreed.

>> The English Wiktionary nowadays frowns on the
>> use of redirects so it is more substantial than that.

Yes, in fact it is the frowning on redirects that led me to looking at
the UW proposals. I was looking at the Wiktionary structure to see if it
would be a suitable environment for my Japanese-Multilingual dictionary
database. I ran into a number of problems, one of which was the "no
redirects" policy, and someone suggested I look at UW.

>> In itself there is no value added to the fact that it has its own record
>> in the tables Expression and Word. The words can be connected through
>> SynTrans to the same meaning. They can be related through Relation to
>> say that they are alternative ways of spelling.
>>
>> Consequently, there is nothing special in having both accoutrement and
>> accouterment exist within the database. The thing that is relevant is
>> that they are both shown to the user of the dictionary who looks up
>> either Expression.

Absolutely.

>> When they are alternate spellings within the same
>> Language, they will be seen as such. So as far as I am concerned, this
>> seems to me to be much ado about nothing.

Provided:
(a) the essential information (senses, POS, etymology, etc.) only has to
be entered once, and remains the same for all the spelling and
orthographical variants;
(b) the user, on entering either form, gets the one collection of
information which shows all the alternative forms of the word, then
I really have no objection. I can't understand why they are in different
database records, and in the case of my own JMdict (XML) they aren't,
but then I don't use SynTrans, etc.

>> >>>>Frankly I favour the first option, because to non-American-English
>> >>>>speakers, the American spellings are simply misspellings.
>> >
>> >Well that's news to this non-American-English speaker  8-)} I
>> >don't regard them as "misspellings" at all. Just different.

>> I would regard all accepted words as Expressions. In order to know more
>> about an expression, you have to add more information to enrich the
>> experience. It will be for instance be possible to date the first
>> accepted use of the later spelling.

That's useful (and very often difficult to establish).

>> The etymology is also different.

Not really. I don't know about the languages I don't speak (i.e.
everything apart from English, Japanese, French and a little Latin), but
in general the spelling has little or nothing to do with the etymology.

>> Then again, this may not be of interest to you but it is there for those
>> who find it of interest.

As a lexicographer I am always interested in etymology. I am a bit
mystified by the view that it is somehow coupled to spelling. In the
languages I know, spelling used to be highly fluid and individualistic, and
has only recently been pinned down into recognized norms. In the case of
English, the fact that there are two "schools" of spelling (which only
affect a minority of words) is largely the result of the simplifications
made and promulgated by one man: Noah Webster. Interesting indeed, but
nothing to do with etymology.

Cheers

Jim

--
Jim Breen                                http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,               Tel: +61 3 9905 9554
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia                  Fax: +61 3 9905 5146
(Monash Provider No. 00008C)                ???????@??????


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Juanma Barranquero

subject: [Wikitech-l] Which tables are needed after upgrading?

body:
On 9/22/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> But chances are you
> haven't done this, since you need to set a secret variable and use the
> alternate upgrader script. :)

Hmm, I think if I had done that I would know it ;-)

> Nothing else requires being MyISAM; the InnoDB forcing was probably just
> left out.

OK.

> I'm not sure what exactly is the status of this... but it won't be used
> unless you've enabled interwiki transclusions.

Which I didn't.

Thanks a lot,

                    /L/e/k/t/u


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Funky tricks on de

body:
I saw the featured article start being discussed, but never saw one in
the example article provided. I'm using a monobook skin. Any idea why
it wasn't working?


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Fair use" abuse on user pages

body:
On 9/22/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree completely. Last time I checked, the deletion policy is very much
> so
> biased toward keeping everything by requiring a supermajority to delete.
> It
> should be the other way around whenever a fair use claim is made.
>

Remember that a fair use claim would come under the Copyright policy, which
being a key policy takes precedence over the deletion policy.

In short, if someone makes a fair use claim they should need a consensus to
support it if anything.

Under deletion policy, the rule is "if in doubt, don't delete." The
copyright policy should adopt the reverse approach. Wikipedia is known for
the quality of its product. Let's not ever risk it being known as a
purloiner of other people's hard work.


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funky tricks on de

body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Worldtraveller <wikipedia at world-traveller.org> wrote:
>
>>On the German Wikipedia, I've noticed they've got a nifty trick with
>>templates whereby you can include a button to hide an infobox, in the same
>>way as you can hide a contents box.  See an example down at the bottom of
>>this page:
>>
>>http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematische_Navigation_Deutschsprachige_L%C3%A4nder
>>
>>I don't know of any templates to do the same thing on en:, and when I
>>tried to replicate the code on the German templates it didn't work.  Does
>>anyone know how one might get something similar working on en:?
>>
>
> That is nifty! It seems to be a relatively straigtforward change to
> monobook.js, and then use a version of the
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Navigationsleiste_ohne_Bild (that
> might lead to some heavy transclusion though).
>

The code is located at the end of
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js - look for the
section titled "BEGIN Dynamic Navigation Bars" :)

> PS. I'm crap at these things really, so please someone else comment :P
>

It would be trivial to copy the code across to en:, the same as the
Featured Article Star code was copied around... :)

--
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \


from_name: Phroziac

body:
How would we know if it was uploaded in anticipation? Why do you
insist on having it your way?

On 9/22/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> >Several of us are now speedily deleting nonfree images that have no
> >article references on the grounds that an image that is not being used
> >logically cannot be being used as fair use.
> >
> I would appreciate it if you would take the trouble to see whether
> an image was uploaded in anticipation of article use. For instance,
> I often upload postage stamp scans in batches, and it may be a period
> of weeks before I write all the articles that will use the uploaded
> scans. You're not doing anybody a service by deleting these beforehand,
> nor are you incentivizing me to create the articles more quickly or
> to write first and upload later - more likely I'll just stop writing.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Re: Wikipedia English English

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Rowan Collins" <rowan.collins at gmail.com>
> wrote in message news:9f02ca4c050922054468d07f8a at mail.gmail.com...
> On 21/09/05, Mark Williamson
> <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>"pedestrian crossing" vs "crosswalk" -- we use both here.
>>
>>And "crosswalk" would mean absolutely nothing to a Brit. As wouldn't,
>>I would hazard to guess, a "pelican crossing" to you.
>
>
>
> How about trying to distinguish between these:
> a.. Zebra crossing
> a.. Pelican crossing
> a.. Puffin crossing
> a.. Toucan crossing
> a.. Pegasus crossing
> (no, I'm not joking, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_crossing )

Damn, I need to add Koala Crossing, Emu Crossing, Wombat Crossing...

(Yes, they're real - try http://ln-s.net/7fx)

--
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Auto blocker is bad

body:
I can't see that helping much. I like Tony's idea alot better.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 9/22/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well the problem is that it often hits other editors using the same IP
> > disproportionately. On the other hand, if we stopped autoblocks altogether
> > then I think people would simply take advantage of this to perform
> > logged-out edits if blocked.
>
> So give admins the abilty to turn it on or off depending on the case.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Deer are always out to get us here. It's really really not pretty when
they get hit by cars.

The worst part is when people hit them, leave them in a ditch, and
nobody notices until it starts smelling....

On 9/22/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, here we just have ducks.
>
> But I've seen two kinds of deer ("standing deer" and "kicking deer").
> Apparently in San Francisco, they have crossings for California Quail.
> And I think that in Australia, they have them for kangaroos.
>
> Mark
>
> On 22/09/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Phroziac wrote:
> >
> > >I live out in the boonies and have tractor crossing signs. And there's
> > >this sign with what looks like a guy riding a cow. I think it's
> > >supposed to look like a horse, but it looks like a cow. heh.
> > >
> > Was it udderly correct?
> >
> > Some of these caution signs reflect local circumstances.  I've seen them
> > with silhouettes of alligators in northern Louisiana, or horse-drawn
> > buggies in eastern Pennsylvania.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English

body:
On 9/22/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> Rowan Collins napisa?u:
> Another solution would be something like
>
> "He likes to wear //AmE pants/BrE trousers//", but it looks ugly and
> confusing to newbies.

The software made by Zhengzhu for Chinese has this capability already
with this syntax:

-{language_code1: text1; language_code2: text2; ...}-

So it might be something like this:

-{en-us: pants; en-br: trousers}-

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English

body:
On 9/23/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> > So it might be something like this:
> > -{en-us: pants; en-br: trousers}-
> > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
> Yeah, but it's still confusing to newbies, still looks kinda ugly and
> has been discussed to death...

Don't worry, I don't support the move whatsoever.

Was just pointing out the capability is available in existing software.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


body:
I was actually thinking to create a flowchart for people to easily determine
the copyright status of images, but lacking the legal know-how, I haven't
done it.

Not only would such an aid in determining image status be helpful to people
who are new to legal issues on this, it could also be used as an argument to
not allow images that don't get through this process for being a copyright
infringement or faulty fair use claim.

We should also have a page saying how we should only have limited fair use
images on articles (and not on userpages) where there's no other
alternatives or 1 such image in an article when it explains a lot (again, if
there's no other choice).

--Mgm

On 9/23/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree completely. Last time I checked, the deletion policy is very
much
> > so
> > biased toward keeping everything by requiring a supermajority to delete.
> > It
> > should be the other way around whenever a fair use claim is made.
> >
>
> Remember that a fair use claim would come under the Copyright policy,
which
> being a key policy takes precedence over the deletion policy.
>
> In short, if someone makes a fair use claim they should need a consensus
to
> support it if anything.
>
> Under deletion policy, the rule is "if in doubt, don't delete." The
> copyright policy should adopt the reverse approach. Wikipedia is known for
> the quality of its product. Let's not ever risk it being known as a
> purloiner of other people's hard work.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thank you from AJ Jacobs at Esquire

body:
The Esquire article is finished! You can see the final version at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Improve_this_article_about_WIkipedia

Thanks to everyone who participated.

Here's a thank-you passed on from AJ Jacobs of Esquire:

-----
Hello Wikipedians,

I just wanted to thank you all so much for participating in this
experiment. It was absolutely fascinating. I was riveted to my
computer, pressing refresh every 45 seconds to see the next iteration.
And the next and the next. For the last few days, my wife has been what
you might call a Wikipedia Widow.

I feel like I should submit all my articles to the community to get
them Wikipedia-ized. I can't wait to print this in Esquire magazine.

Thanks again.

AJ Jacobs
----

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams


body:
On 9/23/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> One thought I honestly had on this was to write a little Wikibook on
> fair use and copyright law -- it wouldn't be that hard to write a
> basic primer that you could refer all people who just don't seem to
> get it to. But I haven't had the time.
That's how my rc wiki started...hah.


from_name: Ronald Chmara

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] English orthographies

body:
Sorry, trolls are fun, and I'm bored....

On Sep 23, 2005, at 1:56 AM, Jack & Naree wrote:
> If you search for "American-English" on google, you'll find a long
> list (a
> very long list) of the differences.

Oh, hm, and what "language" did you search google in, prithetell? You
know, they have different languages and all.

> Colour/Color is but a superficial one, but it is important because
> it's a
> fundamental word and article entry.

Oh yes! Let(')s get into wars over this one!

> The issue is that to choose one spelling over the other goes against
> the
> principle that both spellings are equally valid; or that each spelling
> is
> regarded as the correct one (and the other as a foreign one) by
> millions of
> people, in each case.

And this is why you are horribly, horridly, wrong. Your brain lacks
(apparently) the simple understanding that *both* are the only right
spelling, and thus, only both are proper, which is why there is no
proper one.

> There are other issues with other words, phrases or terms.
>  e.g.: if I want to search for "tap", do I redirected to "faucet"?

"do I redirected" is a new one on me ("do I get directed", maybe?)....
but yes, there are variants in english. Travel much?

> If you use the word "faucet" in the British Isles, few people will
> know what
> you mean - even in context (they might think it's a technical term for
> part
> of a tap).

So, uneducated people mean we must have a wikipedia for every grotto?
Village?

> In such a case, it's a foreign word to millions of
> "Commonwealth-English"
> speakers (though not necessarily all), and unintelligible - it has to
> be
> translated.

I come from Arizona. We have a plant there. It's called a Saguaro
(Pronounced sa-wah-ro). Yes, unusual terms will always have to be
translated for people outside of their realm, be it a faucet, plant, or
wind (such as Mariah).

> To illustrate how the English I speak (in England)

Which bears little semblance to the original language...

>  is a different language
> to American-English, I was in Bangkok a couple of years ago, and in an
> internet cafe - a man turned to me and said:
> "What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I
> looked
> back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but speaking
> different
> languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why.

Welcome to language.

Maybe a young man might ask you "what's going down", and you might be
illiterate,  He might ask you "where be the shizznat?" and you might be
illiterate.

You would *still* be the one illiterate in modern english, not he. You
have not kept up on your studies, if you cannot translate the above.

>  It became apparent that we were from different countries, and some
> explaining was required - we had to learn each other's language. We
> were not
> speaking the same language.

You refuse to learn how language changes without prompting, he adopts
and learns. Simple enough.

> Americans might want to call their language "English", but the term is
> inappropriate, because it already exists for a language that is
> autochthonous to England, whence the name comes.

When the englanders and amis can speak english, the world will be much
better. (riiight)

Tat's that you say? The do?
Uh, wi didyn't yu say sew?

People in england, just like people all over the world, have made
english fit their tongues, their lands, their locale.

>  Another term has to be
> created for this offshoot of English,

Which, the brit version? Scots? Brooklyn? (etc. etc.)

>  and the term "American English" is
> used in the OED. So it's reasonable to say that Americans don't speak
> "English", they speak "American-English",

And UK folk don't speak english, so much as they speak a mess of
socially derived variants of the language. Like amis do.

>  which is written often using words
> that look identical or similar, but that does not mean that the
> meaning is
> the same.

Make a wikipedia where every sub-language can define every
colloquialism, regional difference, subculture change?

> Having words which look the same does not mean they are the same.
> The word "color" is spelt

Wow, this is funny. No irony meter here, though... :-)

>  the same in a number of languages:
> American-English, Spanish, Asturianu, Catalan... but not in
> Commonwealth-English.
>  If it's good enough for Google and Gmail to have American-English and
> Commonwealth Englishes (which should probably be unified as
> Commonwealth-English),

You've been fighting for dominance over 800 years. Get over it, you
lost. The "English" can't even figure out what england is, and the
language fragments away, just as the lost empire does. (Note to amis:
this is your fate, too).

But let(')s worry about a U in color/colo(u)r.

>  then it should be good enough for Wikipedia.
>  No offence to all of you who are not native speakers, but this debate
> is
> better had between native speakers - as it would be for any language.

LOL. Outside speakers are less biased. Couldn't have that, could we?

>  I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English
> Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed:
>  English (Commonwealth)
> English (American)

I propose you fork off. The code is there. Go for it.

>  This is in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statement on English;
> it
> also seems fair considering the existence of things like:
> Norwegian (Bokmal) & Norwegian (Nynorsk); Dutch, Limburgish and
> Afrikaans;
> Simple English; Galician and Portuguese; and frankly some Slavic
> dialects.http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

I think those are insane too, and many fed by racial hatred.

I wish they (the racists) would fork off as well.

-Bop


body: What about that picture on [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats]]?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Assume good faith

body:
Hmm, that's true. I assume good faith in real life also, so I don't
really mention it much here.
AND TINC

On 9/23/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always seen [[WP:NPOV]] as the most important rule that Wikipedia
> relies on.
>
> I've always seen [[WP:BOLD]] as the most important rule that the
> community relies on.
>
> I've also seen in recent weeks an increasing reliance on [[WP:IAR]] to
> justify certain controversial decisions.
>
> But something that has been sorely missing is what I've always taken to
> heart whenever I've dropped a note on someone's talk page:
>
> [[WP:FAITH]]
>
> Please, before you decide that you're going to ban someone, delete
> something, claim that someone's in the^W^W^Wthere is a^W^W^Wconspiring
> against you, just take a deep breath, and do the following:
>
> Assume Good Faith.
>
> That's it. And once you've assumed good faith, leave a note on their
> talk page, and walk away. If someone else wants to take it up, they can
> see that you've assumed good faith, and make a decision based on that
> assumption. If you were right, no harm done. If you were wrong, whoever
> takes action will be justified in that action.
>
> But I warn you, whoever takes action without assuming good faith (or
> seeing that the assumption has been disproved), it shall be on your head.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] LZMA compression for dumps?

body:
Pakaran suggested on IRC the use of 7zip's LZMA compression for data
dumps, claiming really big improvements in compression over gzip. I did
some test runs with the September 17 dump of es.wikipedia.org and can
confirm it does make a big difference:

  10,995,508,118 pages_full.xml       1.00x  uncompressed XML
   2,320,992,228 pages_full.xml.gz    4.74x  gzipped output from mwdumper
     775,765,248 pages_full.xml.bz2  14.17x  "bzip2"
     155,983,464 pages_full.xml.7z   70.49x  "7za a -si"

(gzip -9 makes a neglible difference versus the default compression
level; bzip2 -9 seems to make no difference.)

The 7za program is a fair bit slower than gzip, but at 10-15 times
better compression I suspect many people would find the download savings
worth a little extra trouble.

While it's not any official or de-facto standard that we know of, the
code is open source (LGPL, CPL) and a basic command-line archiver is
available for most Unix-like platforms as well as Windows so it should
be free to use (in the absence of surprise patents):
http://www.7-zip.org/sdk.html

I'm probably going to try to work LZMA compression into the dump process
to supplement the gzipped files; and/or we could switch from gzip back
to bzip2, which provides a still respectable improvement in compression
and is a bit more standard.

(We'd switched from bzip2 to gzip at some point in the SQL dump saga; I
think this was when we had started using gzip internally on 'old' text
entries and the extra time spent on bzip2 was wasted trying to
recompress the raw gzip data in the dumps.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050923/cd010f52/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Presumably GFDL will apply when he publishes this in Esquire.

Ec

Kat Walsh wrote:

>The Esquire article is finished! You can see the final version at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Improve_this_article_about_WIkipedia
>
>Thanks to everyone who participated.
>
>Here's a thank-you passed on from AJ Jacobs of Esquire:
>
>-----
>Hello Wikipedians,
>
>I just wanted to thank you all so much for participating in this
>experiment. It was absolutely fascinating. I was riveted to my
>computer, pressing refresh every 45 seconds to see the next iteration.
>And the next and the next. For the last few days, my wife has been what
>you might call a Wikipedia Widow.
>
>I feel like I should submit all my articles to the community to get
>them Wikipedia-ized. I can't wait to print this in Esquire magazine.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>AJ Jacobs
>----
>
>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia English English

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>Can you embed links in that? ...and shouldn't it be en-uk rather than en-br?
>e.g.:
>
>-{en-us: [[pants]]; en-uk: [[trousers]]}-

After running, a person trousers until he catches his breath.

--
  Sean Barrett     | If you want a picture of the future of the
  sean at epoptic.com | World Wide Web, imagine a foot stuck in a human
                   | mouth -- forever. --obrien at rm101.miniluv.gov


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Now, see, for all the people who weren't quite sure whether or not
you're a troll, there's the proof.

Now STFU, before I have to start filling your inbox with links to the
"How about a nice cup of Shut The Fuck Up" advertisement (or, as you
would say, adVURRtissmunt).

Mark

On 23/09/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > If Norwegian can have two wikipedias, then so should English, for the
> same
> > > > reasons.
> > >
> > > Or, alternatively, Norwegian shouldn't have two Wikipedias; if the
> > > situations are as analagous as you imply, I would support their
> > > merger. What Norwegian speakers would have to say on the matter is a
> > > whole other debate (and one of which plenty can probably be found in
> > > the list archives, if you look).
> >
> > The Norwegian issue was discussed extensively.
> >
> > In addition to massive (rather than minor) orthographic differences,
> > Bokm?l and Nynorsk have very different grammars (some examples: the
> > word "I" is "Jeg" in Bokm?l and "Eg" in Nynorsk, the word "not" is
> > "ikke" in Bokm?l and "ikkje" in Nynorsk, even the word "Norway" is
> > "Norge" in Bokm?l and "Noreg" in Nynorsk.)
> >
> > Now, the heart of this issue is: it isn't just a consensus of
> > Americans that has led to the status quo. It is a consensus of people
> > from America as well as from all over the Commonwealth, including but
> > not limited to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New
> > Zealand, India...
> >
> > If you want, you can open a poll on Meta-Wiki. If even 10 established
> > members of any Wikipedia vote in favour of a split, I will be very
> > surprised.
> >
> > Until such time as you open that poll, I respectfully request that you
> STFU.
> >
> >
> make me.
>
> >
> >
> > Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:
> > In such a case, it's a foreign word to millions of
> > "Commonwealth-English"
> > speakers (though not necessarily all), and unintelligible - it has to
> > be
> > translated.
>
> I come from Arizona. We have a plant there. It's called a Saguaro
> (Pronounced sa-wah-ro). Yes, unusual terms will always have to be
> translated for people outside of their realm, be it a faucet, plant, or
> wind (such as Mariah).

What!~? I come from Arizona, and HERE we pronounce it "cigar". In
fact, we also write it "cigar". But it's not a plant. It's something
you smoke. However, we do have a plant which we call "sahuaro". Or
"saguaro". It's confusing.

And one can't forget Mexican food -- apparently a lot of people from
back East don't know how to say "tortilla", "fajita", "tamale",
"quesadilla"... and then of course we have other weird plants like the
cholla. If you tell an out-of-stater to go to "cholla road", they'll
probably be looking for "choya". Even a lot of locals stumble over
"creosote" (I mean, really, nobody talks about creosote as much as
they talk about cholla or saguaro). Or javelina... or... well, we must
have other stuff people don't get. Like the fact that after living
here for 5 years, you should get an Arizona licence plate for your
car... or that right turn on red is legal... or that speed limit signs
are meant to be followed, rather than blown off. Or that 90 degrees is
_not_ hot.

> Maybe a young man might ask you "what's going down", and you might be
> illiterate,  He might ask you "where be the shizznat?" and you might be
> illiterate.
>
> You would *still* be the one illiterate in modern english, not he. You
> have not kept up on your studies, if you cannot translate the above.

Ahh, see, in good old Englalound when they say "Wot's up!!?!!??" they
mean "What's wrong??", not "How are you?", and I'm guessing when they
say "How you hangin'?" they're generally asking it of somebody who's
just been hanged.

> > Americans might want to call their language "English", but the term is
> > inappropriate, because it already exists for a language that is
> > autochthonous to England, whence the name comes.
>
> When the englanders and amis can speak english, the world will be much
> better. (riiight)

I personally think the Amis should continue to speak Amis. I think
it's tragic that they're currently undergoing gradual language shift
to Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese while losing their native language.
Why should they speak English?

I, for one, think Amis is a beautiful language. And really the only
time I've heard it is in that song "Rumadiw kita mapulong"... but it
looks funky when it's written, and that's cool too.

> >  I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English
> > Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed:
> >  English (Commonwealth)
> > English (American)
>
> I propose you fork off. The code is there. Go for it.

I also propose he fork off, or maybe that he go fork himself, where
"fork" is pronounced in an RP way but surrounded by words pronounced
in a Scottish accent.

Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Wikipedia English English

body:
OK, after that e-mail, I think you really need to leave.

Arguing and trolling is one thing, but writing a response in all-caps
is another.

Not only does nobody here agree with you, but you don't seem to be
willing to start a poll on the matter, and you can't even cite a
single other Wiki-an who supports you.

Go fork off from Wikipedia by yourself.

Mark


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Bug 3535] New: Can not login,
	claims cookies are disabled

body:
Are cookies enabled in your MediaWiki configuration, or more
precisely, the local PHP configuration? As the message occurs when
connecting to that, assume that the issue lies with your local
distribution.

Rob Church

On 23/09/05, bugzilla-daemon at mail.wikimedia.org
<bugzilla-daemon at mail.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3535
>
>           Summary: Can not login, claims cookies are disabled
>           Product: MediaWiki
>           Version: 1.5rc4
>          Platform: Macintosh
>        OS/Version: Mac OS X 10.4
>            Status: NEW
>          Severity: normal
>          Priority: Normal
>         Component: User login/settings
>        AssignedTo: wikibugs-l at wikipedia.org
>        ReportedBy: cabi at mit.edu
>
>
> I am running Mediawiki 1.5rc4 with PHP 5.0.5. I can create accounts but cannot login. Error message is "XXX ses cookies to log in users.
> You have cookies disabled. Please enable them, then log in with your new username and password." But I am pretty sure that my cookies
> are enabled. I can login other mediawiki sites. Error persists in both Mac and Windows machines with several different browsers.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikibugs-l mailing list
> Wikibugs-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
>


from_name: Bananeweizen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problem with database downloads

body:
Sravanthi schrieb:
> but in the firstplace i wasn't able to download more that 4GB of total data.

That is a problem of your download client and has been discussed many
times before on this list. So please use another or a more recent version.

BTW: There is a link on the entrance page of the download system (at the
very bottom), which describes this. We should probably have a more
prominent link on _every_ page of the download server to tell people how
to use the downloads to avoid this recurring question.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Importing_a_Wikipedia_database_dump_into_MediaWiki

Ciao, Michael.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Equality

body:
Zephram Stark stated for the record:

> The above is a bold statement that would require considerable risk to implement, but it is exactly the same concept that the founders of my country pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "sacred Honor" to protect.  I submit that my nation, the United States of America, is a success because they did so.

Ohhh ... invocation of American Framers ... must immediately stop
thinking and mindlessly comply ....

> It is possible to write the programming code for Wikipedia so that no administrators are necessary and so that nobody can gain undue influence over an article.  I would be happy to write this code for free if we can all agree that it will be implemented.

<div id="trollfood">
We do not agree, so why don't you prove yourself by just forking off?  I
assure you, once your Utopipedia has eclipsed Wikipedia, we will come
crawling to you on our knees begging you to let us bask in your
brilliance.  Until then, we'll stumble along in our blighted ignorance.
</div>

--
  Sean Barrett     | The universe does not give first
  sean at epoptic.com | warnings or second chances.


body:
1) I don't call people I disagree with barking mad, unless they really
are barking mad. I believe this is the first time in a few months I've
called anyone barking mad, and in the intervening time there have been
plenty of people with whom I've had disagreements. I think most people
on this list would agree that Mr Jack and Naree is "barking mad".

2) Yes, but how many of them? I never said with absolute certainty
that all of those were BS examples, only that much of the list was BS.
None of the examples which I made it clear I was fairly certain were
universal were objected to, and even many of the ones which were
objected to proved a point, for example "autumn" vs "fall": there's
one variant that's understood in both places, and another that is only
understood in one. Which one should be chosen?

3) Mr. Jack & Naree's most recent message is a bit daft ("looks like
he failed"). If he had the sense to check, he would see that that
message was not, in fact, a response to his "troll test" e-mail but
rather to his earlier e-mail which was written in all-caps. And, if it
takes two to troll, why is just about everybody else on this list
calling him a troll? Does that mean that they're all trolls too? And,
of course, this isn't a response to him, but a note to you which is
related to but not in response to his message. And if anyone so
wishes, I invite them to inform Mr Macdaddy that the troll test, from
now on, applies to him as well: if he IS a troll, he'll make another
post to this or related threads; if he ISN'T a troll, he won't.

Mark

On 23/09/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Arguing and trolling is one thing, but writing a response in all-caps
> > is another.
>
> Yes, so much worse than calling somebody you don't agree with "barking
> mad", only to find that the examples you are objecting to are verified
> by a number of other users. Hm...
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
Ahh, and, in addition, due to some technical mishap, I sent my e-mail
before I received his.

Mark

On 23/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I don't call people I disagree with barking mad, unless they really
> are barking mad. I believe this is the first time in a few months I've
> called anyone barking mad, and in the intervening time there have been
> plenty of people with whom I've had disagreements. I think most people
> on this list would agree that Mr Jack and Naree is "barking mad".
>
> 2) Yes, but how many of them? I never said with absolute certainty
> that all of those were BS examples, only that much of the list was BS.
> None of the examples which I made it clear I was fairly certain were
> universal were objected to, and even many of the ones which were
> objected to proved a point, for example "autumn" vs "fall": there's
> one variant that's understood in both places, and another that is only
> understood in one. Which one should be chosen?
>
> 3) Mr. Jack & Naree's most recent message is a bit daft ("looks like
> he failed"). If he had the sense to check, he would see that that
> message was not, in fact, a response to his "troll test" e-mail but
> rather to his earlier e-mail which was written in all-caps. And, if it
> takes two to troll, why is just about everybody else on this list
> calling him a troll? Does that mean that they're all trolls too? And,
> of course, this isn't a response to him, but a note to you which is
> related to but not in response to his message. And if anyone so
> wishes, I invite them to inform Mr Macdaddy that the troll test, from
> now on, applies to him as well: if he IS a troll, he'll make another
> post to this or related threads; if he ISN'T a troll, he won't.
>
> Mark
>
> On 23/09/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Arguing and trolling is one thing, but writing a response in all-caps
> > > is another.
> >
> > Yes, so much worse than calling somebody you don't agree with "barking
> > mad", only to find that the examples you are objecting to are verified
> > by a number of other users. Hm...
> >
> > --
> > Rowan Collins BSc
> > [IMSoP]
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
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: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Problem with database downloads

body:
Sravanthi wrote:
> Hi All,
> I was trying to download sql format data of june 23 2005 full_pages.sql from the following link, but was unable to do that
> http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/
> I have installed wikimedia software on windows and trying to connect the database to that but in the firstplace i wasn't able to download more that 4GB of total data. Please guide me in doing this.. i have even tried on windows server 2003 and it didn't help.
> Anyhelp from you is appreciable and help me in progress of my project.
> Thanks,
> Sravanthi

If you got a FAT32 disk, its maximum file size is 4GByte. You want to
use NTFS.

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


body:
On 9/23/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> You could always ask, and if there are those for whom my upload gallery
> is not blindingly obvious as a holding/tracking area, I could certainly
> add a note to the top of it. Seeing as how I'm the person doing the
> physical labor of preparing the scan and postprocessing the image, I
> don't think it's too much to ask that my process be accommodated, rather
> than "assuming bad faith" as was suggested. I've been very conservative
> on deciding whether any given stamp image was PD or fair use - just
> deleted all the Israeli stamps on commons after researching their
> copyright status for instance - so it borders on the insulting to
> suggest that I don't take any of this seriously.
>
> Stan
>
> Phroziac wrote:
>
> >How would we know if it was uploaded in anticipation? Why do you
> >insist on having it your way?
> >
> >On 9/22/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Kelly Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Several of us are now speedily deleting nonfree images that have no
> >>>article references on the grounds that an image that is not being used
> >>>logically cannot be being used as fair use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I would appreciate it if you would take the trouble to see whether
> >>an image was uploaded in anticipation of article use. For instance,
> >>I often upload postage stamp scans in batches, and it may be a period
> >>of weeks before I write all the articles that will use the uploaded
> >>scans. You're not doing anybody a service by deleting these beforehand,
> >>nor are you incentivizing me to create the articles more quickly or
> >>to write first and upload later - more likely I'll just stop writing.
> >>
> >>Stan
> >>
> You could just add a note to those images to let others know about your
> plans and more importantly tell about the copyright status of the image. If
> both of those are mentioned, deleting admins will check with you before
> deleting anything.
>


body:
On 9/23/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There *was* such a flow chart at one point, or an equivalent of one
> (if it has this, go to B, if not, go to C; and in the end you'd end up
> with "can use it" or "can't"). The problem was that it was confusing
> and rarely ever used.
>
> Thus was my impetus to re-write the tags so that they would be
> self-defining. When incorrectly used they make it clear as such. It
> seems to have been having some small effect, I've been told, but it's
> hard to know for sure.

Maybe it's just me, but when someone is completely oblivious with regard to
> copyright law, how are they going to find out which tag to use if they need
> to read the tag to find out if it fits? Now we've got the automated license
> selector in the upload process, we should have some easy way for noobs to
> determine which one to choose. If the previous system was confusing and
> rarely used, it should've been rewritten to make things easier (as much as
> it's possible with law-related text) and its use should be encouraged more.
> Not having an easy to understand quick read about licenses is the excuse
> people use to upload loads of abusive fair use claimed images. Having such a
> system return makes excuses impossible.

  Mgm


from_name: Brian

body:
Just wanted to ditto the positive experiences with 7-zip. I am happy with
this shift.

Cheers,
/Alterego

On 9/23/05, Domas Mituzas <Domas.Mituzas at microlink.lt> wrote:
>
> > (file name generated through article and revision ID). That would save
> > lots of space in the database, and not interfere with important ongoing
> > operations like revert wars :-) and still keep the "really old" versions
> accessible.
>
> Welcome, Magnus, to Wikimedia. We've been holding our
> archives on ExternalStore servers, which are cheapo Apache
> boxes. Migration is done by compressOld.
>
> Domas
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Auto blocker is bad

body:
>From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
>
>On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can we please get rid of it? The harm rather dramatically outweighs the
>good.
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
>
>
>Yes and no. there are cartian aspects of the auto blocker I'd like to
>see go. 1. The automatic 24 hour extension. 2. The inabilty to switch
>it off if you want to.

It's reasonably good at catching sockpuppets, which are often created when a
primary account is blocked.

Jay.


from_name: Taco Deposit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Equality

body:
On 9/23/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Zephram Stark wrote:
> <snip>
> > The above is a bold statement that would require considerable risk to
> > implement, but it is exactly the same concept that the founders of my
> > country pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "sacred Honor" to
> > protect. I submit that my nation, the United States of America, is a
> > success because they did so.
> >
>
> I submit that trolls who have been banned from Wikipedia have no place
> on the mailing list, either.
>

As Michael Turley points out, Zephram isn't banned from Wikipedia. He's
still editing as of today.

TD


from_name: Jack & Naree

body:
If you search for "American-English" on google, you'll find a long list (a
very long list) of the differences.
Colour/Color is but a superficial one, but it is important because it's a
fundamental word and article entry.
The issue is that to choose one spelling over the other goes against the
principle that both spellings are equally valid; or that each spelling is
regarded as the correct one (and the other as a foreign one) by millions of
people, in each case.
There are other issues with other words, phrases or terms.
 e.g.: if I want to search for "tap", do I redirected to "faucet"?
If you use the word "faucet" in the British Isles, few people will know what
you mean - even in context (they might think it's a technical term for part
of a tap).
In such a case, it's a foreign word to millions of "Commonwealth-English"
speakers (though not necessarily all), and unintelligible - it has to be
translated.
To illustrate how the English I speak (in England) is a different language
to American-English, I was in Bangkok a couple of years ago, and in an
internet cafe - a man turned to me and said:
"What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I looked
back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but speaking different
languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why.
 It became apparent that we were from different countries, and some
explaining was required - we had to learn each other's language. We were not
speaking the same language.
Americans might want to call their language "English", but the term is
inappropriate, because it already exists for a language that is
autochthonous to England, whence the name comes. Another term has to be
created for this offshoot of English, and the term "American English" is
used in the OED. So it's reasonable to say that Americans don't speak
"English", they speak "American-English", which is written often using words
that look identical or similar, but that does not mean that the meaning is
the same.
Having words which look the same does not mean they are the same.
The word "color" is spelt the same in a number of languages:
American-English, Spanish, Asturianu, Catalan... but not in
Commonwealth-English.
 If it's good enough for Google and Gmail to have American-English and
Commonwealth Englishes (which should probably be unified as
Commonwealth-English), then it should be good enough for Wikipedia.
 No offence to all of you who are not native speakers, but this debate is
better had between native speakers - as it would be for any language.
 I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English
Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed:
 English (Commonwealth)
English (American)
 This is in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statement on English; it
also seems fair considering the existence of things like:
Norwegian (Bokmal) & Norwegian (Nynorsk); Dutch, Limburgish and Afrikaans;
Simple English; Galician and Portuguese; and frankly some Slavic dialects.

 On 21/09/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
>
> > In addition to massive (rather than minor) orthographic differences,
> > Bokm?l and Nynorsk have very different grammars (some examples: the
> > word "I" is "Jeg" in Bokm?l and "Eg" in Nynorsk, the word "not" is
> > "ikke" in Bokm?l and "ikkje" in Nynorsk, even the word "Norway" is
> > "Norge" in Bokm?l and "Noreg" in Nynorsk.)
>
> Well, that's a vocabulary difference, not a grammar difference. But I
> believe you that there are also some grammar differences :), although
> the examples you gave look pretty minor to me, like color/colour...
>
> --
> Ausir
> Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
> http://pl.wikipedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Frapper map of wikipedians

body:
shizhao stated for the record:

> Frapper map of wikipedians:
>
> http://www.risingconcepts.com/frapper/wikipedia

Invalid ZIP code?!?  I'm in one of the first ZIP codes ever assigned, in
the heart of one of the biggest cities on Earth!

That is one seriously braindamaged database.

--
  Sean Barrett
  sean at epoptic.com


body:
"note" vs "bill" -- "bill" would probably not be understood in the UK,
WRONG
but referring to them as notes would be understood in the US.
SO WOULD "SAYONARA", BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PART OF THE SAME LANGUAGE.
"maths" vs "math" -- any good encyclopaedia should always say
"mathematics" rather than abbreviating it so lazily.
THE DIFFERENCE STILL EXISTS
"autumn" vs "fall" -- we use them both as synonyms on this side of the
pond. You guys don't?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
"bank holiday" vs "legal holiday" -- I've lived in the US my entire
life, and I've never even heard of the latter
NEITHER HAVE I.
"tick" vs "check" -- not the same thing. a check is a distinct symbol,
as is a tick, and they are two different symbols.
VERB: "TICK A BOX"; "CHECK A BOX" IS NOT USED IN UK
"pissed off" vs "pissed" -- WTF!? first of all, this won't be found in
most encyclopaedia articles. second of all, we say both here.
WE DON'T
"trousers" vs "pants" -- although we consider "trousers" to be a bit
old-fashioned, it will be widely understood here. I did used to think
it meant shoes though.
AGAIN, JUST 'COS IT'S UNDERSTOOD DOES NOT MEAN IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE
"pedestrian crossing" vs "crosswalk" -- we use both here.
WE DON'T.
"store" vs "shop" -- this is probably the lamest one on there.
NO IT ISN'T. THEY MEAN DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
"STORE" IS AN AMERICANISM FOR SHOP.
"chemist" vs "drug store" -- "chemist" isn't common here, but it's
better than "apothecary", which is probably less ambiguous than either
of the other two.
SO, "A DRUG STORE" IN THE UK WOULD ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE POLICE.
"bill" vs "check" -- uhh... we use both.
WRONG AGAIN, THESE ARE VERBS.
".co.uk" vs ".com" -- that's not a linguistic difference. There are
plenty of UK companies that have a .com, as it's supposed to be
international (as opposed to .us)
IS ".GOV" INTERNATIONAL? OR OFFICIAL AMERICAN DOMINATION OF THE INTERNET?
"car" vs "automobile" -- we usually just say "car" here. only people
like you say "automobile".
NOBODY SAYS AUTOMOBILE IN THE UK, NOT EVEN ME.
"jug" vs "pitcher" -- absolut rediculos~!
WHY? EVEN IF IDENTICAL WORDS ARE USED, THEY DO NOT NECESSERY HAVE THE SAME
OR SIMILAR MEANINGS.

I could go on. But I'm getting bored. You're mad. End of story
YES, YOU COULD GO NO BEING WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG, END OF STORY.

I confess I haven't read it all, but half of your "rebuttles" are frankly,
bollocks.


from_name: Roth Philippe

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Change page color

body:
Dear Rowan,

Thank you very much for you answer.
But I took a look and found several changes. We use mediawiki version 1.4.5
- The file Monobook.css doesn't exists. I think it has been replaced by skins/monobook/main.css
- I don't know how and where to place, instructions like those in this file:
.ns-4 * #content { background : #F4F4F4; }
.ns-4 * #p-cactions li { background : #F4F4F4; }
.ns-4 * #p-cactions li a { background : #F4F4F4; }

I found some subs like #contentSub{}, #p-cactions li{} and #p-cactions li a{}.
Is it in these subs that I need to place these instructions? How?

Many thanks in advance for your kind help and have a nice day,
Proth

>The ns-x are already there, as are the namespaces - Talk:, User:,
>Wikipedia: etc. Each has a number used inside the software (0 for the "main"/"article" namespace, 1 for "talk", etc), and
>these appear in the source of pages as CSS selectors. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace for more.
>
>Perhaps the best explanation is by example:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.css contains code to make everything except articles have a blue background; >it starts by making everything blue, and then changes "ns-0" (articles) back to
>white:
>
>#content {
>    background: #F8FCFF; /* a light blue */ }
>
>.ns-0 * #content {
>    background: white;
>}
>
>[it goes on to do this for things like the background of the tabs at the top, so they fit better]
>
>http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.css takes a more long-winded approach, and defines a default "sky blue"
>background but then overrides it for each namespace one by one:
>
>/* Couleur par d?faut */
>#content { background : #F8FCFF; }  /* bleu ciel */ #p-cactions li { background : #F8FCFF; } #p-cactions li a { background : >#F8FCFF; }
>
>/* Couleur de fond des articles */
>.ns-0 * #content { background : white; } .ns-0 * #p-cactions li { background : white; } .ns-0 * #p-cactions li a {
>background : white; }
>
>[and so on for ns-1, ns-2, ns-3, etc]
>
>HTH
>--
>Rowan Collins BSc
>[IMSoP]


body:
of the differences. Colour/Color is but a superficial one, but it is
important because it's a fundamental word and article entry.
The issue is that to choose one spelling over the other goes against the
principle that both spellings are equally valid; or that each spelling is
regarded as the correct one (and the other as a foreign one) by millions of
people, in each case.
There are other issues with other words, phrases or terms.
 e.g.: if I want to search for "tap", do I redirected to "faucet"?
If you use the word "faucet" in the British Isles, few people will know what
you mean - even in context (they might think it's a technical term for part
of a tap).
In such a case, it's a foreign word to millions of "Commonwealth-English"
speakers (though not necessarily all), and unintelligible - it has to be
translated.
To illustrate how the English I speak (in England) is a different language
to American-English, I was in Bangkok a couple of years ago, and in an
internet cafe - a man turned to me and said:
"What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I looked
back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but speaking different
languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why.
 It became apparent that we were from different countries, and some
explaining was required - we had to learn each other's language. We were not
speaking the same language.
Americans might want to call their language "English", but the term is
inappropriate, because it already exists for a language that is
autochthonous to England, whence the name comes. Another term has to be
created for this offshoot of English, and the term "American English" is
used in the OED. So it's reasonable to say that Americans don't speak
"English", they speak "American-English", which is written often using words
that look identical or similar, but that does not mean that the meaning is
the same.
Having words which look the same does not mean they are the same.
The word "color" is spelt the same in a number of languages:
American-English, Spanish, Asturianu, Catalan... but not in
Commonwealth-English.
 If it's good enough for Google and Gmail to have American-English and
Commonwealth Englishes (which should probably be unified as
Commonwealth-English), then it should be good enough for Wikipedia.
 No offence to all of you who are not native speakers, but this debate is
better had between native speakers - as it would be for any language.
 I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English
Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed:
 English (Commonwealth)
English (American)
 This is in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statement on English; it
also seems fair considering the existence of things like:
Norwegian (Bokmal) & Norwegian (Nynorsk); Dutch, Limburgish and Afrikaans;
Simple English; Galician and Portuguese; and frankly some Slavic dialects.

On 22/09/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 21/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You really are barking mad, aren't you?
> > The vast majority of those aren't even real differences.
>
> I think that is more than a little over-harsh. Declaring that the
> differences don't exist is exactly the kind of attitude purists like
> Jack object to.
>
> Of course, it's amazing how many "Americanisms" end up being accepted
> to the point that you don't even notice any more - my mum still
> cringes at whichever of "fill in" and "fill out" came over from the
> US, but I don't even notice the difference. In contrast, "write me"
> instead of "write to me" still jars horribly whenever I encounter it.
> Who knows what will change in the future, but there are certainly many
> differences there.
>
> Another point worth noting is that a lot of the US forms would be
> easily understood - if it was realised from context that the speaker
> was American - because of the large amount of US mass media
> encountered in the UK. But that doesn't make them part of British
> English - somebody else has mentionned not talking about your "fanny"
> [which if you weren't aware means vagina in the UK] already, so I will
> just expand on it by pointing out how [childishly] amusing the concept
> of a "fanny pack" is...
>
> > "note" vs "bill" -- "bill" would probably not be understood in the UK,
> > but referring to them as notes would be understood in the US.
>
> So, it's a difference. "Bill" would in fact be likely to be understood
> as "request for payment" - what is known in the US as a "check".
>
> > "bill" vs "check" -- uhh... we use both.
>
> In the UK, a "bill" is never a banknote, and a "check" is never
> anything to do with money. We have "cheques", which are the things you
> write on and sign to pay for something, but that's something different
> again.
>
> > "autumn" vs "fall" -- we use them both as synonyms on this side of the
> > pond. You guys don't?
>
> No, we don't. Next question?
>
> > "tick" vs "check" -- not the same thing. a check is a distinct symbol,
> > as is a tick, and they are two different symbols.
>
> Although I agree that they're different symbols, I think the idea of
> "checking a box" rather than "ticking" it does sound distinctly
> American to the British ear. Like "fill in"/"fill out", it may well be
> forgotten in a generation which is which.
>
> > "pissed off" vs "pissed" -- WTF!? first of all, this won't be found in
> > most encyclopaedia articles. second of all, we say both here.
>
> Yes, and in Britain, we *don't* use both. "Pissed" means "drunk";
> newspapers quoting New Orleans' mayor recently had to clarify that he
> had publically declared himself "pissed [off]", to avoid confusion
> over him drinking on air...
>
> > "trousers" vs "pants" -- although we consider "trousers" to be a bit
> > old-fashioned, it will be widely understood here. I did used to think
> > it meant shoes though.
>
> So, once again, how is this "not a real difference"? You could never
> make that mistake growing up in, say, Southern England, because
> "trousers" is simply the single, normal, and unambiguous word for
> them. "Pants", meanwhile, are unambiguously what you call
> "underpants", another fun cause for confusion.
>
> > "pedestrian crossing" vs "crosswalk" -- we use both here.
>
> And "crosswalk" would mean absolutely nothing to a Brit. As wouldn't,
> I would hazard to guess, a "pelican crossing" to you.
>
> > "chemist" vs "drug store" -- "chemist" isn't common here, but it's
> > better than "apothecary", which is probably less ambiguous than either
> > of the other two.
>
> A "drug store", if we weren't subjected to so much US media, would
> sound like somewhere which sold illegal substances - we don't tend to
> talk about "drugs" when we just mean "medicines".
>
> > ".co.uk" vs ".com" -- that's not a linguistic difference. There are
> > plenty of UK companies that have a .com, as it's supposed to be
> > international (as opposed to .us)
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Auto blocker is bad

body:
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>
> > In general, some form of autoblocking is necessary or blocked
> > users will be able to simply log out and conitnue editing.
> >  Carbonite
>
>If they do, they can be blocked again, or their IP blocked.

Assuming you know for sure that it is them.  But of course, you can't know
that if you don't know their IP, or if they use a sockpuppet.  And not
everyone is an admin to be able to block sockpuppets when they show up.

>Frankly, I am confused
>as to what the upside in all this is.If a user sneakilly logs in
>anonymously and makes acceptable edits, who cares? And if they resume
>where they left off or otherwise make trouble, that will be pretty
>obvious, won't it? They can simply be blocked then, and their IP
>blocked if there appears a need.

You'd think, wouldn't you?  And yet, that's not always the case; quite often
all sorts of IPs and new accounts show up to revert for someone who is
blocked, all insisting that they are not sockpuppets at all, but merely
disintersted third parties who happened to stumble on to the conflict and
decided that their first edit should be a revert.  One person who has been
consistently e-mailing this list (including today) was involved in exactly
such a war, and insists to this day that none of the IPs and new accounts
were sockpuppets.

Jay.


body:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > 1) I don't call people I disagree with barking mad, unless they really
> > are barking mad. I believe this is the first time in a few months I've
> > called anyone barking mad, and in the intervening time there have been
> > plenty of people with whom I've had disagreements. I think most people
> > on this list would agree that Mr Jack and Naree is "barking mad".
>
> I disagree.

Yes, but you're not most people...

> > 3) Mr. Jack & Naree's most recent message is a bit daft ("looks like
> > he failed"). If he had the sense to check, he would see that that
> > message was not, in fact, a response to his "troll test" e-mail but
> > rather to his earlier e-mail which was written in all-caps. And, if it
> > takes two to troll, why is just about everybody else on this list
> > calling him a troll? Does that mean that they're all trolls too? And,
> > of course, this isn't a response to him, but a note to you which is
> > related to but not in response to his message. And if anyone so
> > wishes, I invite them to inform Mr Macdaddy that the troll test, from
> > now on, applies to him as well: if he IS a troll, he'll make another
> > post to this or related threads; if he ISN'T a troll, he won't.
>
> Who else agrees that he's a troll?

Lars Aronsson and Ray Santoinge do, at least as far as I know, and I'd
be very surprised if nobody else did.

Mark


body:
Sean, click "not in the us", and then enter "Cityname, United States
of America".

I got an e-mail from my good friend Kim Jong-Il about this, too.
Apparently when he tried to add himself to the Bambi-lovers' frapper
map, it told him that  "Pyongyang, Korea" was invalid. He then tried
"Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and it told him
that "Pyongyang, People" was invalid even though that isn't what he
entered. He then tried "Pyongyang, North Korea", since due to its
being hosted in the US, the Frapper site would most likely be under
the control of Southern Korean seperatist propaganda trying to
convince it that there were two Koreas. That was invalid. Eventually,
he figured out that it was to be "Pyongyang, Korea (North)". How
counterintuitive was that?

Poor Jong-Il. Now, if only there were a Frapper map of DPRK citizens.
It would be empty.

Mark

On 23/09/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> shizhao stated for the record:
>
> > Frapper map of wikipedians:
> >
> > http://www.risingconcepts.com/frapper/wikipedia
>
> Invalid ZIP code?!?  I'm in one of the first ZIP codes ever assigned, in
> the heart of one of the biggest cities on Earth!
>
> That is one seriously braindamaged database.
>
> --
>   Sean Barrett
>   sean at epoptic.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Equality

body:
On 9/23/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
> >Zephram Stark wrote:
>
> >> The above is a bold statement that would require considerable risk to
> >> implement, but it is exactly the same concept that the founders of my
> >> country pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "sacred Honor" to
> >> protect.  I submit that my nation, the United States of America, is a
> >> success because they did so.
>
> >I submit that trolls who have been banned from Wikipedia have no place
> >on the mailing list, either.
>
>
> That's not strictly true because wikien-l is in fact the official
> sewage pipe for en: Wikipedia. We chuck 'em if they get *really* bad
> (Enviroknot trolling under whatever names) or stupid or obnoxious
> (Skyring, who did the one thing he was asked not to do). Zephraim is
> still on moderation, though.

The last email from Jayjg on this list indicated that he isn't blocked
from Wikipedia, which I would expect to be the first natural
consequence of being banned.

What is the correct status?  Is Zephram Stark blocked or banned?

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Any usage stat?

body:
Hi!

A few days ago there was a usage stat at

http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/logwood/logwood.php?site=en.wikipedia.org

where you could get a list of the top 100 most viewed wikipedia articles
(a lot of sexual related articles but also other stuff). Unfourtunately
I have not saved this page - does anyone have a copy or can you please
switch it on again? I just need a list and a date so I can cite it in my
paper and compare it it with the most edited articles.

Thanks a lot,
Jakob


list: foundation-l

from_name: Traroth

subject: [Foundation-l] RFC on project proposal in development -- Wikicracy

body:
Same question as for Wikispecies : Why do you want to
separate it from Wikipedia ?

Traroth

--- "Robert S. Harrison III"
<robert_harrison at sbcglobal.net> a ?crit :

> Hello all,
>
> My name is Robert Harrison and I am in the process
> of
> developing a project proposal. I would like to
> request
> comments on it from anybody and everybody.
>
> The main workspace for this idea is located on my
> user
> sub-page at:
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_Harrison/Wikicracy
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
>
> Robert S. Harrison III
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
T?l?chargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 9/23/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm really not
> in favor of putting "fair use" at all as an option on the auto-license
> selector -- if you're new enough to not be able to navigate WP:ICT and
> make sense of it, you shouldn't be uploading copyrighted material yet,
> period. In my opinion.

I'm strongly opposed to having any "license" options that state,
imply, or suggest that the image is being used on Wikipedia *as a
whole* as "fair use".  The license listed for images which can only be
used on Wikipedia as fair use should be called "nonfree" (or something
equivalent) or even "unlicensed" and should state that the image is
not licensed for use on Wikipedia.  A separate tag should then be
added to indicate that the image's use *on a specific article* is fair
use.

Too many people have the blanket attitude that, e.g., "bookcovers are
fair use" or that "DVD covers are fair use", and that's just not
right.  Having "fair use" as a license option encourages this wrongful
and problematic thinking.

Kelly


body:
Pawe? Dembowski stated for the record:

>>>Who else agrees that he's a troll?
>>
>>Lars Aronsson and Ray Santoinge do, at least as far as I know, and I'd
>>be very surprised if nobody else did.
>>Mark
>
> I certainly do.

Either a troll, or barking mad ... or, of course, both.

--
  Sean Barrett
  sean at epoptic.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Wikicommerce

body:
--- Corum O' Fallamhain <corumsmail at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikitrade
>  I have proposed a new Wiki site called Wikitrade, Wikicommerce, Wikimoney,
> or WIkibusiness. A while ago, a number of proposals were made (Wikiproducts,
> Wikineur, and Trade Standard) that had a similar notion. Then I had an idea:
> why don't we have a Wiki (NPOV, of course) devoted to all aspects of trade
> and commerce? This could incorporate issues related to globalisation and
> serve as a source of information about consumer products, stock markets, and
> commodity prices, etc. It could also serve as a source of information about
> investment conditions in a given country.

And having all that in Wikipedia would be a bad idea why?

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Wikicommerce


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On 23/09/05, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are cookies enabled in your MediaWiki configuration, or more
> precisely, the local PHP configuration? As the message occurs when
> connecting to that, assume that the issue lies with your local
> distribution.

Rob, please note that Bugzilla does not offer an e-mail interface. The
reply-to header on bug notifications is set to send things to the
wikitech-l list, where this message finds itself. I've copied your
comment onto the bug report where I presume you intended it to end up.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Change page color

body:
On 23/09/05, Roth Philippe <philippe.roth at epfl.ch> wrote:
> Thank you very much for you answer.
> But I took a look and found several changes. We use mediawiki version 1.4.5
> - The file Monobook.css doesn't exists. I think it has been replaced by skins/monobook/main.css

The page MediaWiki:monobook.css is part of the "MediaWiki namespace" -
a part of the database where each page represents a part of the
interface which can be customised, with any user with "sysop"/"admin"
rights able to edit them just like a normal wiki page. See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:MediaWiki_namespace

If mediawiki:monobook.css doesn't exist, just create it; it will be
included after the basic skin files you've found, so should override
them. Just copy and paste the code into it from the French or English
Wikipedias, and experiment. (Beware caching issues; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache )

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Equality

body:
On 9/23/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Zephram Stark stated for the record:
>
> > The above is a bold statement that would require considerable risk to implement, but it is exactly the same concept that the founders of my country pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "sacred Honor" to protect.  I submit that my nation, the United States of America, is a success because they did so.
>
> Ohhh ... invocation of American Framers ... must immediately stop
> thinking and mindlessly comply ....
>
> > It is possible to write the programming code for Wikipedia so that no administrators are necessary and so that nobody can gain undue influence over an article.  I would be happy to write this code for free if we can all agree that it will be implemented.
>
> <div id="trollfood">
> We do not agree, so why don't you prove yourself by just forking off?  I
> assure you, once your Utopipedia has eclipsed Wikipedia, we will come
> crawling to you on our knees begging you to let us bask in your
> brilliance.  Until then, we'll stumble along in our blighted ignorance.
> </div>

So the guy wants a more libertarian Wikipedia.  So he's not very
concise about stating his view.  No big deal.  It's also obvious that
a consensus doesn't support his view, but in stating it, he hasn't
hurt anyone.

I don't see the point of your response.  It does no good at all.

"Courtesy in the face of any insult" is a useful concept.  "Courtesy
in the face of any troll" works well, too.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 9/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe it's just me, but when someone is completely oblivious with regard
> to copyright law, how are they going to find out which tag to use if they
> need to read the tag to find out if it fits? Now we've got the automated
> license selector in the upload process, we should have some easy way for
> noobs to determine which one to choose. If the previous system was confusing
> and rarely used, it should've been rewritten to make things easier (as much
> as it's possible with law-related text) and its use should be encouraged
> more. Not having an easy to understand quick read about licenses is the
> excuse people use to upload loads of abusive fair use claimed images. Having
> such a system return makes excuses impossible.

Well, the paradox about the fair use tags is that they are sorted by
*media* but fair use is about *use*. So, in an ideal world, with ideal
tags, if one knows the media, one can use the correct tag, which
itself will be self-descriptive about the use.

An example: Hapless, well-intentioned user notices that book covers
seem to be allowed on Wikipedia, and uploads an image of a cover of a
book. They look at WP:ICT (or just copy from another bookcover
description), and see there is a template for {{bookcover}}, which
they use.

If they read the template, they will see that it says, "Book covers
are thought to be fair use on Wikipedia when they are low-resolution
and illustrate the book in question or are used for critical
commentary on the cover itself, and anything else may be copyright
infringement" or something along those lines. The reader says, "Oh no,
my cover was high res!" and goes back and changes it. Or they say,
"Oh, I guess I can't use this book cover just to illustrate the object
depicted on the cover!" or something along these lines, which affects
their use. Or, another, equally hapless but well-intentioned user sees
this image and the tag, and says, "Hey, I don't think this image is
being used correctly, because the image is being used in such-and-such
a way" and flags it as a questionable instance of the fair use claim
(simple methods to flag things for review by less hapless users are
being developed).

Anyway, that was my original idea. The goal is to make it so that both
the *selection* of the tag and the *applicability* of the tag should
be easy for someone without a clue about copyright law. And they don't
even need to become educated in the law one bit to properly tag images
or spot poorly used images. Such is my hope and theory. I'm really not
in favor of putting "fair use" at all as an option on the auto-license
selector -- if you're new enough to not be able to navigate WP:ICT and
make sense of it, you shouldn't be uploading copyrighted material yet,
period. In my opinion.

The problem with the original flowchart was that it was focused on the
wider question of "fair use" as a legal question. It ended up with a
"score" of how "fair use" something was which was opaque and had no
equivalent in the legal world.

I'm more in favor of a list of simple proclamations. Such as:

1. If it can be remade "freely", do so instead. You can request
graphics to be drawn [[here]] and photographs [[here]].
2. If it is a significantly higher resolution than would be needed to
illustrate it in a Wikipedia article, downsize it. [[Here]]'s an
explanation of how to do this.
3. If the image from a source which makes its money solely from
selling images, you probably shouldn't use it.
4. If reproducing the image on Wikipedia could in any reasonable way
seriously impact negatively the future sales of the copyrighted
product it is from or depicts, don't use it. A large part of whether
something is "fair use" is whether it has a negative effect on the
potential market of an image.
... etc.

No jumping around. The goal would be to make something even more
specific than the usual "criteria for deletion", but for copyrighted
images in particular. That way relatively hapless users could say,
"Hey, this isn't allowed under our fair use policy, because it
violates rule number 4". Disputes over the content and validity of the
rules would be of course up for consensus but hopefully would be
largely decided by people with some basic knowledge of "fair use" law.

I apologize for the long and overly theoretical e-mails... seminars
are back in session, so I spend most of my days obfuscating and trying
to appear overly intellectual. It's a hard habit to break. ;-)

FF


from_name: Caroline Ford

body:
I think it's a general greeting. Maybe similar to "How are you?" in British
English.

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerrit Holl
Sent: 23 September 2005 12:31
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] English orthographies

Jack & Naree wrote:
> "What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I
> looked back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but
> speaking different languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why.

Can someone explain this one for me - not a native speaker?
I don'n know what "What's up?" can mean other than "What's the matter?",
"What's the problem?". I don't understand.

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-09-23 13:19:54   17.3 degrees Celsius ( 63.1F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date: 22/09/2005


body:
disagree, but don't have the time to...

On 21/09/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 21/09/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The name is not misleading. It's called English because it's the
> language of
> > the English ethnolinguistic group in the nation of England.
> > That's academically accepted, end of story.
>
> Not really - I'd say it's called English by a historical accident; it
> could as well be described as "Franco-Latinate-Norse-Anglo-Saxon", the
> people as "Romano-Celtic-Norman-Anglo-Saxons", and the "nation" as
> "the Union of Normandy, Anglo-Saxony and the Daneland" [the Danes
> being the Vikings who spoke Old Norse]
>
> At best, it's called English because for a while it was only spoken in
> the area known as "England" - before spreading to Scotland, Ireland,
> the New World, and the British Empire. Did it cease to be English the
> moment it reached India? Of course not. And plenty of words were
> brought back to England having been incorporated into the language in
> these other places; were they only part of English when they reached
> the shore at Dover? Or, perhaps, when they reached the ears of
> Londoners? I see no reason to declare so.
>
> If there were no longer any such disctinguishable place as "England"
> (not so hard to imagine, given suggestions that areas like Cornwall,
> or "The North" around Yorkshire, could be separate nations with in the
> United Kingdom) it would not suddenly mean there was no such language
> as "English".
>
> Indeed, depending on your definition, this "English ethnolinguistic
> group" probably inhabits either the whole of the British Isles,
> including Scotland, and probably Ireland; or it only covers a fraction
> of what is currently considered the "nation" of England, historically
> centred around the educational and commercial triangle of Oxford,
> Cambridge and London. It seems arbitrary in the extreme to include a
> Cornish farmer and a Yorkshire miner in such a definition, but exclude
> a middle-class family from Edinburgh.
>
> > If Norwegian can have two wikipedias, then so should English, for the
> same
> > reasons.
>
> Or, alternatively, Norwegian shouldn't have two Wikipedias; if the
> situations are as analagous as you imply, I would support their
> merger. What Norwegian speakers would have to say on the matter is a
> whole other debate (and one of which plenty can probably be found in
> the list archives, if you look).
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 21/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If Norwegian can have two wikipedias, then so should English, for the
> same
> > > reasons.
> >
> > Or, alternatively, Norwegian shouldn't have two Wikipedias; if the
> > situations are as analagous as you imply, I would support their
> > merger. What Norwegian speakers would have to say on the matter is a
> > whole other debate (and one of which plenty can probably be found in
> > the list archives, if you look).
>
> The Norwegian issue was discussed extensively.
>
> In addition to massive (rather than minor) orthographic differences,
> Bokm?l and Nynorsk have very different grammars (some examples: the
> word "I" is "Jeg" in Bokm?l and "Eg" in Nynorsk, the word "not" is
> "ikke" in Bokm?l and "ikkje" in Nynorsk, even the word "Norway" is
> "Norge" in Bokm?l and "Noreg" in Nynorsk.)
>
> Now, the heart of this issue is: it isn't just a consensus of
> Americans that has led to the status quo. It is a consensus of people
> from America as well as from all over the Commonwealth, including but
> not limited to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New
> Zealand, India...
>
> If you want, you can open a poll on Meta-Wiki. If even 10 established
> members of any Wikipedia vote in favour of a split, I will be very
> surprised.
>
> Until such time as you open that poll, I respectfully request that you
> STFU.
>
> make me.

>
>
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 22/09/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The software made by Zhengzhu for Chinese has this capability already
> > with this syntax:
> > -{language_code1: text1; language_code2: text2; ...}-
> > So it might be something like this:
> > -{en-us: pants; en-br: trousers}-
>
> ...and shouldn't it be en-uk rather than en-br?

Actually, Andrew was closer: it's en-gb, because RFC 3066 defines it
as an ISO 639 language code (en for English) plus an ISO 3166 country
code (GB meaning, confusingly, the UK; I'm glad the IANA ignored this
and gave us .uk for our domains)

For the really curious:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 23/09/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> > ...and shouldn't it be en-uk rather than en-br?
>
> Actually, Andrew was closer: it's en-gb, because RFC 3066 defines it
> as an ISO 639 language code (en for English) plus an ISO 3166 country
> code (GB meaning, confusingly, the UK; I'm glad the IANA ignored this
> and gave us .uk for our domains)

Pedant moment: we did get .gb domains, though they got deprecated
quickly and replaced with .uk ones. IIRC, about the only people who
used them were BT and DERA.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Auto blocker is bad

body:
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>
>I understand, but how does the auto-blocker help w that?

Well, you're right in that it doesn't help with those sophisticated enough
to have a bunch of different "independent" IPs show up to revert for them.
However, it does help with those who simply create a new account when
blocked (assuming the don't change IP as well, which many don't do).

Jay.


from_name: Gerrit Holl

body:
Jack & Naree wrote:
> "What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I looked
> back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but speaking different
> languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why.

Can someone explain this one for me - not a native speaker?
I don'n know what "What's up?" can mean other than "What's the matter?",
"What's the problem?". I don't understand.

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-09-23 13:19:54   17.3 degrees Celsius ( 63.1F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.


body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> Can you embed links in that? ...and shouldn't it be en-uk rather than en-br?
> e.g.:
>
> -{en-us: [[pants]]; en-uk: [[trousers]]}-

My locale is set to en_GB. Another variant there.

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-09-23 13:29:58   17.4 degrees Celsius ( 63.3F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
This is incorrect.

In DPRK, there are two Internets.

One is the Internet that is mostly only accessable to government
officials and rich people for a fee, ie, that of teh outside world.

The other Internet is a sort of Korea Wide Web, with content carefully
monitored by censors, where North Koreans can look things up. Hotels,
restaurants, schools, the government, etc., may have KWW websites
generally.

Mark

On 23/09/05, Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
> hi,
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I got an e-mail from my good friend Kim Jong-Il about this, too.
> > Apparently when he tried to add himself to the Bambi-lovers' frapper
> > map, it told him that  "Pyongyang, Korea" was invalid. He then tried
> > "Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and it told him
> > that "Pyongyang, People" was invalid even though that isn't what he
> > entered. He then tried "Pyongyang, North Korea", since due to its
> > being hosted in the US, the Frapper site would most likely be under
> > the control of Southern Korean seperatist propaganda trying to
> > convince it that there were two Koreas. That was invalid. Eventually,
> > he figured out that it was to be "Pyongyang, Korea (North)". How
> > counterintuitive was that?
>
> Very counterintuitive - North Korea does not have any internet
> connection.
>
> Gerrit.
>
> --
> Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
> | Current temperature   05-09-23 19:49:58   11.6 degrees Celsius ( 52.9F) |
> --
> Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
Well, I wouldn't say I "know him". He's more of an acquaintance,
really. You know, a friend of a friend.

;p

Mark

On 23/09/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> You know Kim Jong-Il?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Stephen Forrest

body:
On 9/23/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English
> Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed:
>  English (Commonwealth)
> English (American)

Presumably the English (American) Wikipedia would accept American
spellings only.  Would the English (Commonwealth) wikipedia be
tolerant of all spellings by so-called "English (Commonwealth)"
speakers?  For example, would it accept "nationalization", "eggplant",
"curb" (n.), and "tire" (n.)?

If not, then this truly is linguistic imperialism, because at present
I can contribute to Wikipedia and not be subject to an explicit
general policy which "corrects" my spelling, while in your proposed
scheme I could not, as I use neither American nor British orthography.

Steve


from_name: Alphax

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 22/09/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would greatly approve of that.  IMO there is no fair use for a
>>nonfree image outside of article space (excluding the temporary use of
>>one in a user sandbox for an article under development).
>
>
> Oh, there's *probably* some plausible uses in Wikipedia: space, but in
> the general case I concur.
>

I remember chasing up whoever it was that put the graffiti image on
[[WP:VIP]] because it didn't have an info on copyright, and it turned
out to be a {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} (effectively, CC-BY).

--
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \