from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses

body:
On 12/17/05, xkernigh at netscape.net <xkernigh at netscape.net> wrote:
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
> > The 'safe' proposal until now has been to make wikiversity a
> > repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include
> > lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like
> > reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive
> > questions on particular advertisements, etc.
> > ...
> > * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity_%28overview%29
> > *
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
>
>
> This proposal is not 'safe'. Look at the Wikiversity (overview) page
> linked here, then follow any of the six links from "Cell Biology" to
> "Media literacy". They all read like textbooks or introductions to
> textbooks. The C programming course contains "lectures" and "quizzes",
> which together function as a textbook. The pages also contain lists of
> students (instead of authors), but in short, most of the current
> Wikiversity consists of textbooks which must stay at Wikibooks, and not
> become a separate wiki.

I would argue that the reason so much of Wikiversity looks like stuff
that should be on Wikibooks is because it has been developed (and
still resides) on Wikibooks! I wrote the outline on the media literacy
course (which I repeat is a mere outline) and I certainly don't
envision this to be a book-like resource/course.

>
> A 'safe' version of the proposal would include all learning materials
> EXCEPT any that could be found in a textbook, encyclopedia, dictionary
> (or other Wikimedia project).
>
> > *
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
>
> What is interesting about the "modified project proposal" is that it is
> an opportunity to define Wikiversity (or whatever we call this project)
> in a way that does not overlap with Wikibooks, but supports the other
> Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia. I
> like the proposal for "reading groups" where multiple users meet on a
> wiki and agree to read the same (free or non-free) material and discuss
> it; then if they want, they use their knowledge to improve Wikibooks or
> Wiktionary or add citations to Wikipedia. The users learn and
> (optionally) the other Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks gain
> benefits.

I'm glad you agree on this - this is certainly a central idea of mine
(User:Cormaggio) and John's (User:JWSchmidt) thinking on Wikiversity
these days.

>
> Another proposal that I have read about is to have an "index of
> sources". This would not be a collection of free source texts, like
> Wikisource is. This would be a database potentially listing every (free
> or non-free) source that was ever cited in any Wikipedia article or
> Wikibook, and some new sources. What if whenever I wanted more
> information while writing a Wikibook, I could go to "Wikiversity" to
> find interesting books or web sites on my topic?
>
> The problem with both of these proposals is that with the current
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity they share not much. Its as if
> someone just made some random proposals and attached the "Wikiversity"
> name.

The random nature of that page is because of the general diversity of
visions of Wikiversity, as you've already observed. A quick flick
through any of the talk pages on meta or wikibooks is testament to
that. I'd go with the current proposals to get a sense of what is
proposed/envisioned for now.

>
> In fact, there is currently no consensus for what Wikiversity means.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward wrote:
> > Wikiversity currently means different things to different people.
>
> See for example
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moving_Wikiversity_forward#living_boo
> ks where a user actually proposes that Wikiversity should develop
> textbooks!

That misrepresents what John was saying. Nobody is proposing that
Wikiversity is for developing textbooks for itself - though it could
and should be about developing resources in all Wikimedia projects.
There may be some overlap between the projects but Wikiversity doesn't
really fully belong on any one project (eg Wikibooks) and thus
deserves its own. How it delineates itself from other projects remains
to be seen, but I would argue that it should focus on those three
things 1) developing multilingual learning materials; 2) growing
learning communities attached to specific tasks (ie finding sources);
and 3) prompting and hosting research (including but not limited to
Wikimedia projects). This final "object" would already give it a clear
distinction from all other Wikimedia projects. After this, the main
outstanding issue is whether the project should be called
"Wikiversity", given the general consensus (from what I see) that
materials should be available for all learner levels/ages.

Cormac


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses


list: wikitech-l

from_name: hunterda at adelphia.net

subject: [Wikitech-l] Lord of the Ring video  games

body: Do any of you like'' Lord of the Rings''? I am looking for a buddy If so write back.


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Tasks extension can now create tasks upon article
	creation

body:
Due to a suggestion (forgot from whom, though...) the Tasks extension
can now automatically create a task for a newly created article. This
can be configured separately for article creations by logged-in users
and anons (should we allow that again).

Major advantages of this mechanism over the "new pages patrol" are
* tasks are not forgotten, even if noone checked the page for days or
month
* tasks can be closed by logged-in users, so patrols can focus on
unchecked (new) articles

Magnus

P.S.: Thanks to Brion and Hashar for fixes and improvements!


list: wikien-l

from_name: YamiTakashi2 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability

body: I was blocked because i shared a IP


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Tasks extension can now create tasks
 upon article creation

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> Due to a suggestion (forgot from whom, though...) the Tasks extension
> can now automatically create a task for a newly created article. This
> can be configured separately for article creations by logged-in users
> and anons (should we allow that again).
> Major advantages of this mechanism over the "new pages patrol" are
> * tasks are not forgotten, even if noone checked the page for days or
> month
> * tasks can be closed by logged-in users, so patrols can focus on
> unchecked (new) articles

\o/

> P.S.: Thanks to Brion and Hashar for fixes and improvements!

Does this mean it might be active in the near future? :-D

This would also help with making Wikinews a bit more workflow-like,
wouldn't it? Which would avoid unnecessary software forking.

[cc: to wikien-l]

- d.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] more Kennedy assassination fun

body:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > Even speculation and conspiracy theories have sources.
>
>
> Yes. That's what I meant about a good article on this topic needing to
> be absolutely hard-arsed about references.
>
I just checked: we lack articles on either Gary Allen or _None Dare
Call It Conspiracy_. Seeing how many articles there are from the
off-their-medication-fringe, I'm honestly surprised we don't have an
article about the book or the author. (Yet he _does_ mention the
threat of the Bavarian Illuminati, years before Robert Shea and
Robert Anton Wilson ever thought of putting pen to paper.)

For those of you who don't know why I say this, take a look at the
Amazon entry. (Yes, I understand not everyone reading this lives in the
U.S., & some were born after it was first published. And yet we are
diescussing the Kennedy assassination.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899666612/qid=1134869843/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1055198-8693464?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Parascience subst. pseudoscience

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:

>> The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith;
>> "pseudoscioence" does not.

> Assume good faith is a policy about interaction between contributors,
> not content. A neutral point of view assumes neither good faith nor bad.

Yep. Moreover, this talk about trying to purge the word "pseudoscience"
appears to be attempting to push Sympathetic Point Of View.

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
Oh yes it is, according to you, you did nothing wrong. When you do it
again we want to be able to deal with it.

Fred

On Dec 17, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Sam Spade wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
> Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_placed_on_Probation
>
> This is not right.
>
> Sam Spade
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Kurt Maxwell Weber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
"deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in the past
for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I
did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use
of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it
is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).

I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my
behavior; he, however, has not done so.  He simply dismisses it as "bullshit"
and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which
lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid
refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.

I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument
rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is
wrong, then show me why.  If not, then do the right thing and unblock me.
That's all I ask.
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051217/303f3e83/attachment.pgp


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:42:12AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> >"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience fails.
> >
> That's an empty generality.

No, it isn't, because ...

> Science is in the process, not the results.

... science *is* in the process, not the results.  Exactly right!

Calling something "pseudoscience" is not an indictment of the results.
It is a statement about the process:  that the "results" were not come
by using a process which resembles science, despite the proponent's own
claims to the mantle of "science".

When someone presents "scientific astrology" -- Google it; it's a real
expression! -- we are correct to ask, "Where's the science?"  That is to
say, "By what process did you come up with this astrology?  Where are
your data, or observations, or clinical trials, or case studies?  What
is your method?  When did you test your hypotheses?  Which ones did you
reject as false, and why?  Where is your peer review?  How can someone
else replicate your results to test their accuracy?  How would your
results differ if the conditions were different -- say, if Mars were in
trine to Venus instead of Jupiter?"

If the answer to "Where's the science?" is an evasion -- be it "Oh, have
faith!" or "But it's the wisdom of the ancients!" or "The spirits of
lost Atlantis revealed it to me!" or "Astrology is more powerful than
rational thought" or "We don't have to show you no steeenking science"
or "Doesn't it *feel* true?" -- then what we have is indeed fake science
-- or, in a word, pseudoscience.

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


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improve quality by reviewing all new articles

body:
On 16/12/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> > I also read the USA Today article, and the paragraphs that were quoted
> > were not obvious mistakes.  "John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant
> > to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief
> > time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy
> > assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever
> > proven."  "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and
> > returned to the United States in 1984," Wikipedia said. "He started
> > one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly
> > thereafter."
> >
> > None of those mistakes are obvious.
>
> Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh opinions.  But frankly, if
> you don't find those errors to be blindingly obvious, you need to find
> another hobby.  Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you.

I have to jump in here as well, I confess.

Errors that are "blindingly obvious" are ones which are, at a glance,
clearly untrue or impossible to anyone with only a passing knowledge
of the subject.

eg/ "Seigenthaler shot John F. Kennedy" or "X was implicated in the
assassination of Elizabeth II". We all know who shot JFK, we all know
HM is not dead (at least, not as of the time of writing).

Moved to the USSR and returned to the US is plausible though unusual;
it didn't happen often, but there were isolated cases AIUI. Starting a
large PR firm - well, he'd have had to do something notable, and it
sounds believable enough. So those two down...

Saying "...was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy
assassination" is not _obviously_ impossible; we all know the Kennedy
assassination is a very long-debated thing, was a subject of much
speculation at the time, and so forth. So, "was implicated" is not on
the face of it spectacularly wrong.

Then there's Bobby Kennedy. I know who Bobby Kennedy was, and I know
who shot him, I have a vague inkling of why, and if I tried I might be
able to give you a decent half-page summary of RFK's career. I know
that it would seem pretty odd for someone to be implicated in both
assassinations; they're pretty unconnected, so that would seem a
pretty silly thing to me if I noticed it.

But, I suspect, I am somewhat unusual for a twentysomething Briton* in
knowing that - heck, if I gave my brother that sentence, he'd probably
think for a bit and guess that "uh, Bobby Kennedy was the guy sitting
in the car next to JFK?". And a lot of our good editors are a) young
and b) not American; something that is blindingly obvious to you, or
to anyone with a passing knowledge of American history, is somewhat
less likely to be obviously wrong to someone never particularly taught
it, with a vague memory of a name and an event...

(This is less stupid than it sounds - remember, most people only
remember "current events" starting from about ten or fifteen, and - at
least in my experience - tend to not be taught any "history" more
recent than perhaps the War... so I know the politics of the
Douglas-Home government about as well as I know the politics of the
Grey government...)

*I heard a young lady, I believe in her second year at Oxford,
repeatedly assert the other day that the Berlin Wall fell circa 1995.
I was trying very, very hard not to get up and start correcting her in
the middle of the pub... but it's probably indicative.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:28:23AM -0500, Fastfission wrote:
> On 12/17/05, Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu> wrote:
> > OK.  I'm not so sure it was, considering the discussion about
> > falsifiability.
>
> Well, let me be more specific: the meaning, in a general sense, is
> clear. Something which claims to be science but is not science. The
> specifics of how one defines "science" in this sense is not clear, not
> only not on Wikipedia but not even in the larger academic context in
> general, and so things like falsifiability get bandied around as
> possible approaches to this.

OK.  It's just that falsifiability was brought into the discussion as
what looked like a straw man:  I don't recall if it was you or someone
else, but it was introduced in a way which made it seem that I had been
holding it up as a criterion for science, which I wasn't.

(Why does it matter?  Falsifiability applies to claims.  It holds that a
claim which is not falsifiable can't be studied scientifically at all,
since it isn't amenable to testing.  But falsifiability doesn't apply so
well to processes, which is what we're talking about.)

> > I'm not sure I see a wide variety of "requirements" here.  I'm not
> > suggesting any complicated philosophy-of-science laundry list of what
> > makes Good Science, or Normal Science, or whatever.  I'm just saying
> > that we're safe calling it "pseudoscience" when someone parades around
> > under the banner of "SCIENCE" but isn't actually doing anything
> > resembling it.
>
> Again, you're begging the question, which is entirely how one tells
> when one is "resembling it".

Well, that's going to differ from case to case, but basically along the
same route that I've been describing:  find out the *method* by which
the claims in question were arrived at.  As noted before, it isn't about
the results; it's about the method.

"Creation scientists" didn't come up with their claims by observing the
world and participating in a scientific process -- they came up with
them by reading the Bible, for instance.  Reading the Bible is part of
doing theology, but it isn't part of doing science.  We can go to the
proponents and ask (as the Templeton Foundation did) "Where is the
science?"  The answer is, it isn't there.  And that is why it's both
correct and neutral to class "creation science" as pseudoscience.

> Science looks like many things, and whether something resembles it
> depends on whether you stress the similarities or the differences.

Well, sure, that's true.  But that's the very same sort of judgment that
we make when we put an article into any other category:  "Is this
subject more similar to the other things in this category, or more
different?"  It's always possible to find ways to stress the differences
if your motive is to make a subject seem unique and special.

But it seems to me that your argument would lead us to throwing out the
idea of categories entirely, since there are *always* similarities and
differences.  Indeed, I'm not sure how we can write a single categorical
sentence that doesn't invoke the same problem if someone wants to
nitpick.  "Cats are mammals" is a statement of similarity that glosses
over the differences between cats and other mammals, after all ....

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


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK libel law and reusers

body:
On 15 Dec 2005 at 09:04, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> If we insisted on following every law from every jurisdiction on every
> page in the Wikipedia, I think we'd find ourselves with very little
> information left.

Sure... let's follow Muslim law by not including any pictures of
unveiled women... and Chinese law by not mentioning freedom,
democracy, Tianamen Square, or Falun Gong... and there are some
countries that severely restrict the use of Nazi symbols or
literature, so maybe some of the articles on such topics are in
violation.  Various religions and political movements are banned in
various places, so we should delete all articles on politics or
religion to be safe.  Some places have passed or proposed laws
banning even the provision of information about certain sensitive
topics, such as abortion, contraception, or illegal drug use, so some
articles might be illegal on those grounds too.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability

body:
On 15 Dec 2005 at 11:04, <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Waking up one morning to find
> a Wikipedia article exists about you, one that anyone can edit, must
> be a horrible experience quite frankly.

Sometimes, for some people... I'm sure there are others who would
feel honored, and still others who wouldn't particularly care one way
or the other.  This can't be dealt with in a "One size fits all"
manner.

Those who are big-time celebrities, from G. W. Bush to Britney
Spears, will probably expect to be written about online, including
silly rumor-monging, and won't be bothered by it unless it goes
extremely far in the direction of libel or defamation.  Those who
aren't celebrities might feel impressed that somebody would regard
them as important enough to be worthy of a bio in Wikipedia.  Some
who are attempting to become more famous than they currently are may
take the position, "I don't care what they say about me as long as
they spell my name right."  But others will take offense at even the
most innocuous article about them.  You'll find all types out there.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Tasks extension can now create
	tasks upon article creation

body:
Am Samstag, den 17.12.2005, 17:34 +0000 schrieb David Gerard:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > Due to a suggestion (forgot from whom, though...) the Tasks extension
> > can now automatically create a task for a newly created article. This
> > can be configured separately for article creations by logged-in users
> > and anons (should we allow that again).
> > Major advantages of this mechanism over the "new pages patrol" are
> > * tasks are not forgotten, even if noone checked the page for days or
> > month
> > * tasks can be closed by logged-in users, so patrols can focus on
> > unchecked (new) articles
>
>
> \o/
>
>
> > P.S.: Thanks to Brion and Hashar for fixes and improvements!
>
>
> Does this mean it might be active in the near future? :-D

<puppy appearance="cute" eyes="wide">Yes, please. Pretty please!</puppy>

Magnus


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 2 Fund Drive report

body:
The equivalent of $11,557.74 was donated through PayPal on Day 2 of the Fund Drive, an increase of
more than $2000 over Day 1. Only a small amount was donated through Moneybookers on Day 2 (about
$30). I won't get updates on the Dexia and mail donation totals until Tuesday at the earliest.

Here is the PayPal breakdown for Day 2:
AUD 	90.36 	  (67.81 USD)
CAD 	507.95 	  (418.00 USD)
EUR 	2,186.87  (2,656.37 USD)
GBP 	550.20 	  (986.67 USD)
JPY 	24,058.00 (217.36 USD)
USD 	7,211.52
Total 	11,557.74 USD
Copied from: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-17/report/

A great deal of thanks needs to be extended to Brion Vibber, our Chief Technical Officer, for his
implementation of a near real time fund drive tracking bar that is now on top of each page in the
English Wikipedia. Localized versions are planned once more features are added to his tracking
system.

Each of the minor ticks on the bar represent a $25,000 milestone while the 5 major ticks represent
$100,000 milestones. There is no monetary goal to this drive, so more ticks will be added if we
fill the current bar up.

Let's all thank everybody who donated on this day by reading their comments.
See: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-17/detail/

Here are some that caught my eye (I wish I could list more):
"This is an amazing website." by Brian Reilly
"Pour la r?ussite d'un des plus beaux projets de ce mill?naire..." by anonymous
"This site is everything the web promised to be." by anonymous
"Proof that collaboration can work" by anonymous
"who thought this idea up is a genus" by Michelle Collins
"ich verwende wikipedia unz?hlige Male im Jahr; dieser Dienst ist vorbildlich. keep it up :)" by
Alexander Stromer
"one of the best projects on earth" by anonymous
"As soon as I get a job I'll donate a lot more!" by alex adamson
"Frei zugaengliches Wissen: grossartige Sache" by Marc zur Oven
"For man's knowledge is only as great as its accessibility." by shawn strider
"Thanks for collecting world's intelligence" by Masashi Sano
"Wikipedia has been invaluable to me as a college student who returned to school after 25 years!"
by anonymous
"parab?ns e obrigado por tantas ajudas" by anonymous
"Wikipedia is the history of the future!" by LUZIAN WILD
"S?o iniciativas como a Wikipedia que nos d?o esperan?a de que nosso lindo planetinha azul ainda
tem salva??o." by Marcus Salmeron
"Knowledge should belong to humanity" by Paul Patton
"Wikipedia ist nett." by anonymous
"Don't stop! Keep on doing what you're doing." by Carl Juhnke
"I think Wikipedia is going to be an important part of this planet's future." by Nathan Russell
"Fight the good fight" by anonymous

And my personal favorites:
"for making the internet not suck" by Kristoffer Dahl
"You're better for my brain than 10 Frappucinos!" by anonymous
"Vandal-fighting's like a video game to me. Makes sense to me that I donate 50 dollars to keep the
site alive!" by Jay Converse
"Love this site. More accurate than cable news!" by jay gazlay
"Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur" by John Horth
"This better get me laid...." by Steve Yeago

Daniel Mayer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Day 2 Fund Drive report


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

>Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
>"deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in the past
>for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I
>did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use
>of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it
>is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).
>
>I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my
>behavior; he, however, has not done so.  He simply dismisses it as "bullshit"
>and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which
>lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid
>refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
>
>I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument
>rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is
>wrong, then show me why.  If not, then do the right thing and unblock me.
>That's all I ask.
>
>
I have unblocked you, because this seems clearly inappropriate,
especially given that the user has had a conflict with you in the past.
Except for clear cases of vandalism, blocks of this sort should not be
unilaterally made without an Arbitration Committee ruling.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Esquire article has been published

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> Dealing with the recent Nature study, for example, is it more neutral
> to throw in out of the blue that "Wikipedia is almost as accurate as
> Britannica" or would something along the lines of "Britannica remains
> more accurate than Wikipedia" be better?

Well, to stick to sourceable claims in the form of direct quotes, we
could say:
-- According to the journal _Nature_, "Wikipedia comes close to
Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries"
[http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html].

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
I was blocked because i have that IP thing I think the methods of blockign
should be changed.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Christmas presents, or: MediaWiki, reloaded

body:
Here are some of my suggestions:
1) Name pages "Task:Main_Page/Cleanup" or
"Task:Main_Page/Cleanup/20051225" with a fallback such as
"Task:Main_Page/Cleanup/20051225_2"
or "Task:Main_Page/Cleanup/R3m0t" or something! I think date would be best.
2) Alias "Special:Assignments" to the
"?title=Special:Tasks&mode=myassignments" behaviour. :)
3) "Search
Tasks	Cleanup Wikify Rewrite Delete Create Write (No selection here
will search all task types.)
Status	Open Assigned Closed Won't fix
Sort	Oldest first"
Remove the text "(No selection here will search all task types.)" (but
keep the related behaviour) and also tick all the task types by
default to prevent ambiguity. Then again, if somebody wants to filter
by task... well, perhaps you should wait for somebody to agree or
disagree with me before implementing it.
4) So will you write a feature to allow admins/trusted people to edit
the task types? :)

On 11/12/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Ho-ho-ho,
> The third one I talked about, but noone saw it yet, so here it is: Task
> management! (you gonna love this!)


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> Even speculation and conspiracy theories have sources.

Yes. That's what I meant about a good article on this topic needing to
be absolutely hard-arsed about references.

- d.


from_name: Arbeo M

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Obstetrician needed for 7 new Wikipedias

body:
?var wrote:

  >That still doesn't avoid the problem of

>1. Us allocating a site under a SIL code or some draft ISO spec
>2. ISO allocating a code that equals the SIL code for a different
>language or the ISO changing its mind in the final revision of its
>standard
>3. Us having to deal with the mess

>Which is why I think it would be a good idea to put languages that
>don't have *official* ISO codes or only have SIL codes under some name
>that defenetly won't conflict with future ISO allocations.

  Me too, I believe those codes will be taken over as they are now when ISO 639-3 will become official. But then again, believing is not knowing, of course.

  I'm not sure if using caps for subdomain names will prevent more confusion than it will possibly cause to many users.

  A while ago, when this issue was discussed at Wikipedia-l somebody (could've been me, not sure...) suggested to use locally defined four-lettered codes for languages that don't have ISO codes yet. Thus, any potential interference with future ISO codes (in other words: "mess") could definitely be avoided. Plus it's probably more user-friendly than those somewhat clumsy three-plus-three letter codes.

  Arbeo

---------------------------------
Sarah Connor, Moshammer oder Papst Benedikt ? die Top-Suchen 2005.


from_name: Maru Dubshinki

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Penny Arcade sends up Wikipedia

body:
>
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > Christopher Larberg wrote:
>
> > Anyone know what, specifically, Tycho's upset about? The rant indicates
> > it's something that he posted got deleted. A friend of mine who reads
> > Penny Arcade gave me a vague description of it that suggests to me that
> > it _should_ have been deleted, but extra eyes never hurts.
>
> My understanding was that it was sparked by the starting article for
Tycho's Elemnstor wiki
was deleted in an AFD
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elemenstors )
and he was pissed off by it.

~Maru


from_name: Ivan Krstic

body:
Arbeo M wrote:
> I'm not sure if using caps for subdomain names will prevent more
> confusion than it will possibly cause to many users.

This is technically infeasible, which prompted dammit's comment, whose
point Gerard seems to have missed. Please don't discuss it as an actual
option.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | 0x147C722D


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: why doesn't the internal editor break lines at
	column 72

body:
Well all the mail clients do it without a problem, right?

BTW I don't like variable fonts for editing, they are good for
printing but not for writing.


body:
Am Samstag, den 17.12.2005, 20:16 +0000 schrieb Tomer Chachamu:
> Here are some of my suggestions:

Thanks, feedback is always welcome :-)

> 1) Name pages "Task:Main_Page/Cleanup" or
> "Task:Main_Page/Cleanup/20051225" with a fallback such as
> "Task:Main_Page/Cleanup/20051225_2"
> or "Task:Main_Page/Cleanup/R3m0t" or something! I think date would be best.

I think it's best they stay "Task:" plus task number:
* If they include the page title, what if the page is moved?
* If they contain the task type, they become ambiguous
Originally, the task type was part of the name, but I changed that to
the current style.
Additionally, detailed information is given in the "Task:" page header
about original page, task type, etc.

> 2) Alias "Special:Assignments" to the
> "?title=Special:Tasks&mode=myassignments" behaviour. :)

Could do. But why?

> 3) "Search
> Tasks	Cleanup Wikify Rewrite Delete Create Write (No selection here
> will search all task types.)
> Status	Open Assigned Closed Won't fix
> Sort	Oldest first"
> Remove the text "(No selection here will search all task types.)" (but
> keep the related behaviour) and also tick all the task types by
> default to prevent ambiguity. Then again, if somebody wants to filter
> by task... well, perhaps you should wait for somebody to agree or
> disagree with me before implementing it.

That would mean if I want to search for a single task type, I'd have to
unckeck all the others (I'm sure there will be more in a live version
than in my demo implementation).
The notice can be altered or removed through the usual
"MediaWiki:Message" mechanism.

> 4) So will you write a feature to allow admins/trusted people to edit
> the task types? :)

I'm not sure that there's a point in editing them. However, it might be
good if admins could remove them in case an initial comment contains
copyright violations, or "yo mother"-style texts ;-)

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Esquire article has been published

body:
http://www.smartmoney.com/esquire/index.cfm?Story=20051215wikipedia

Presumably the print version is available soon or now.

- d.


from_name: Stephane Bortzmeyer

body:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 01:25:04PM -0800,
 Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote
 a message of 95 lines which said:

> Generally you write your text in a text editor widget with soft line
> wrapping (line breaks are inserted in the display, not in the text,
> during editing), the final newlines are added when you save or send
> the message, fixing the line length.

This is not the only solution. Modern email clients use soft line
wrapping even when sending, with format=flowed (RFC 3676, 3.1
"Paragraph Text" and later) to avoid lines over the SMTP limit of 1000
characters (RFC 2821, 4.5.3.1 "Size limits and minimums").


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] Uploading really big files

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

For MediaWiki (not necessarily Wikipedia), sometimes you want to upload
really big files. An HTTP upload isn't necessarily the best way to do
this, especially if it's lots of really big files (tar gzip them and
uplaod via ftp then telnet in and unpackage).

If you do that, then you've got a bunch of files sitting on the
webserver. Now we've got to link them into the wiki.

How would I do that?

If that's not a feature, any pointers on where to start hacking to get
this to work?
- --
 Edward Z. Yang      Personal: edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com
 SN:Ambush Commander Website: http://www.thewritingpot.com/
 GPGKey:0x869C48DA   http://www.thewritingpot.com/gpgpubkey.asc
 3FA8 E9A9 7385 B691 A6FC B3CB A933 BE7D 869C 48DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDpNygqTO+fYacSNoRAr/6AJ9sdRmls4DyBKyYrZo3C4rv7VuYxwCfZakt
edv3vDz0VydjN0rpyNi1e9c=
=UVJn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
> Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
> "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in the past
> for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I
> did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use
> of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it
> is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).

That you were blocked is not a misjustice.  I question whether four
months was a reasonable time, however.  If Delirium hadn't already
unblocked you, I would have shortened your block to one week.  Since
I'm a nice woman, I won't reblock you.

Kelly


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Am Samstag, den 17.12.2005, 21:40 +0100 schrieb Magnus Manske:
> > 4) So will you write a feature to allow admins/trusted people to edit
> > the task types? :)
>
> I'm not sure that there's a point in editing them. However, it might be
> good if admins could remove them in case an initial comment contains
> copyright violations, or "yo mother"-style texts ;-)

Admins can now delete tasks. The action is logged.

Magnus


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Script conversion for Vlax Romany Wikipedia

body:
On 12/6/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> > The conversion is very consistent in that each Devangari
> > symbol represents the one and the same letter or diphthong in the Latin
> > Romany alphabet.
> > Thanks,
> > Ronline
>
> If there is 1-to-1 correspondence for converting in both directions
> then yes, it's possible.

... and not so big amount of exceptions :)


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
Dammit! We missed one fact (the # of Britannica articles that is)!
Well, I don't know about you, but I'll be kicking myself all day that
I can't use the "If this article had been published on wikinews..."
argument in good conscience again.

Other than that, it's a fun read :D

Oskar

On 12/17/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> http://www.smartmoney.com/esquire/index.cfm?Story=20051215wikipedia
>
> Presumably the print version is available soon or now.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
>From: Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
>
>Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>
>>Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
>>"deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in the past
>>for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future
>>if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated
>>that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he
>>claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an
>>explanation, see
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).
>>
>>I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change
>>my behavior; he, however, has not done so.  He simply dismisses it as
>>"bullshit" and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes
>>the claim (which lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that
>>should he provide a valid refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
>>
>>I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument
>>rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument
>>is wrong, then show me why.  If not, then do the right thing and unblock
>>me.  That's all I ask.
>>
>>
>I have unblocked you, because this seems clearly inappropriate, especially
>given that the user has had a conflict with you in the past.  Except for
>clear cases of vandalism, blocks of this sort should not be unilaterally
>made without an Arbitration Committee ruling.

I disagree.  Calling someone a "deletionist vandal" (or any other kind of
vandal) is clearly a personal attack, particularly when the people in
question are not doing what Wikipedia defines as vandalism.  WP:CIVIL and
WP:NPA are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and judicious use of temporary
blocks for editors who defiantly refuse to abide by these policies has a
salutary effect, hopefully on the blocked editors, but if not on them, then
on everyone subjected to their attacks, and on Wikipedia itself.  If
Wikipedia is to succeed, it must be a place where people of good faith
*want* to edit, not a poisonous cesspool of incivility and attacks that any
right-minded person would naturally want to avoid.

Jay.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

> Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
> "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in the past
> for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I
> did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use
> of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it
> is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).

Of course it's a personal attack. Furthermore, a personal attack in an
edit summary is particularly ill-favoured, because it can't be easily
redacted.

> I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my
> behavior; he, however, has not done so.  He simply dismisses it as "bullshit"
> and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which
> lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid
> refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.

Kurt's standards of "proof" and "refutation" are famed on #wikipedia,
and are part of why he was banned from there for a long while and is now
allowed back on precisely as long as he's not being a PITA (particularly
including not evangelising for Objectivism in any way whatsoever). This
is actually working tolerably well.

> I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument
> rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is
> wrong, then show me why.  If not, then do the right thing and unblock me.
> That's all I ask.

If you can't see why repeatedly calling someone a vandal is a personal
attack, I must confess I'm at a loss at how to get it through to you,
and fully support the use of Skinner-box techniques. I've seen them work
well enough before in such cases.

- d.


from_name: V. Ivanov

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan,
	are written in cyrillic ?

body:
> Let's say what tomorrow the en.wikipedia would be in japanese script,
> because of some ppl what write english language using japanese
> symbols, and someone will call to revert it back to the real script,
> latin, would he be a nationalist extremist too ?

That's a bad example. A better one would be about all Englishmen
choosing to write in Japanese characters, while some wikipedians
choose to use Latin script on. :)
The alphabet issue is not always so easy, as you try to put it: there
is at least too wikipedia editions that chose not to use official
script: the Tatar and the Belorusan.

2005/12/10, Field Nothing <fieldtheory2 at hotmail.com>:
>
> >Stop talking nonsense about my country. ;)
> Well, Russia supports Transnistria, think of how people from Moldova
> perceive it.

Well, are there any "worse people" living over there in Transnistria? :)
Have you ever thought of their feelings, emotions, goals?
I've talked to some people from there as well as from South Ossetia --
I don't see why these people or their decisions might be ignored...

2005/12/15, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com>:
> A compromise solution, in my opinion:
> 1) Move all the mo.wikipedia content to a mo-cyr.wikipedia.
> 2) Remove Node_us' administrative powers over mo.wikipedia and give
> him the Administrator privileges on mo-cyr.wikipedia. Thus he
> conserves the Administrator status over the Wikipedia that he created
> (in the sense of having most contributed to it).

Yes, seems a good idea; I've talked about it once. I agree, it might be fair.

Sl. Ivanov

--
Esperu cxiam!


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
On 12/18/05, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_placed_on_Probation
>
> This is not right.
>
> Sam Spade

When was the last time 3 admins (outside arbcom) agreed on anything?
It shouldn't be too hard to avoid disrupting the functioning of
Wikipedia.

--
geni


from_name: Nathan Reed

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikinews-l] Collaborative reporting: QuakeAID and
	the "class action lawsuit"

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
Date: Dec 17, 2005 10:30 PM
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Collaborative reporting: QuakeAID and the "class
action lawsuit"
To: wikinews-l at wikimedia.org

(I would appreciate it if someone could forward this to wikipedia-l,
since I am no longer subscribed there.)

You may have heard about the "class action lawsuit" against Wikipedia
(http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org - .com is a parody). You may also
have heard that this "lawsuit" is linked to [[QuakeAID]], an alleged
charity soliciting donations for earthquake victims. You may know that
Wikipedians have raised many doubts about the legitimacy of this
charity, and have linked it to a convicted fraudster, Greg Lloyd Smith.

Finally, you may be aware that "QuakeAID" is publishing, through its
associated BAOU.com / OfficialWire site (currently still indexed by
Google News), one article after the other against Wikipedia. A recent
one has described Wikipedia as a breeding ground for pedophiles, and is
linked to another recently created campaign website, Wikipedophilia.com.
(You probably do not know that the same news wire also publishes stories
endorsing Holocaust deniers Z?ndel and Faurisson.)

More is probably to come. BAOU.com, "QuakeAID"'s parent company, seems
to be trying to do everything possible to discredit Wikipedia, after
Wikipedia has discredited QuakeAID. I think it's time for them to learn
that wikis have teeth.

This is a very, very serious issue and not just some troll setting up
anti-wiki websites. QuakeAID has been, for some time, listed in major
charity directories, and people wanting to donate money for the 2004
tsunami victims were sent there. I don't know how much money they
received, but it must be substantial.

_If_ this charity is a fraud (and that part is _not_ certain at this
point), it's a large scale operation (registered with the IRS), and the
person running it should be put behind bars. So if you've ever fancied
yourself a private detective or investigative reporter, this is your chance:

Wikinews is conducting a full and thorough investigation into all
matters related to QuakeAID and BOAU.com. I have tried to accumulate all
the information in Wikipedia and elsewhere in one place, but I will not
have time to commit myself beyond this. So this will either sink or swim
with your involvement. If the evidence is solid, we can publish this
story, and send a nice dossier to the FBI. If we don't do anything,
BAOU.com will continue its anti-wiki campaign, or disappear quietly.

If you do want to join the effort of researching this, please visit:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Story_preparation/Wikipedia_class_action_lawsuit_linked_to_possible_earthquake_charity_fraud

If this URL breaks, use:

http://tinyurl.com/bh9m2

This is a historic chance for the Wikinews, Wikipedia and blog
communities to work together. Let's not screw it up.

Erik


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_placed_on_Probation

This is not right.

Sam Spade


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
On Dec 18, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>> Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using
>> the phrase
>> "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in
>> the past
>> for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the
>> future if I
>> did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated
>> that use
>> of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he
>> claims that it
>> is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).
>
> That you were blocked is not a misjustice.  I question whether four
> months was a reasonable time, however.  If Delirium hadn't already
> unblocked you, I would have shortened your block to one week.  Since
> I'm a nice woman, I won't reblock you.

I am not a nice woman, and have reblocked for a week.

-Phil


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
JAY JG wrote:

> I disagree.  Calling someone a "deletionist vandal" (or any other kind
> of vandal) is clearly a personal attack, particularly when the people
> in question are not doing what Wikipedia defines as vandalism.
> WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and judicious
> use of temporary blocks for editors who defiantly refuse to abide by
> these policies has a salutary effect, hopefully on the blocked
> editors, but if not on them, then on everyone subjected to their
> attacks, and on Wikipedia itself.  If Wikipedia is to succeed, it must
> be a place where people of good faith *want* to edit, not a poisonous
> cesspool of incivility and attacks that any right-minded person would
> naturally want to avoid.

A 4-month block for personal attacks is clearly something within the
purview of the Arbitration Committee, and not individual admins to
decide, *especially* not individual admins who have had past
disagreements with the user in question.

Even MrNaturalHealth was not blocked summarily without going through the
normal process, so I see no reason to start allowing such nonsense now.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
>From: Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>
>>I disagree.  Calling someone a "deletionist vandal" (or any other kind of
>>vandal) is clearly a personal attack, particularly when the people in
>>question are not doing what Wikipedia defines as vandalism.  WP:CIVIL and
>>WP:NPA are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and judicious use of temporary
>>blocks for editors who defiantly refuse to abide by these policies has a
>>salutary effect, hopefully on the blocked editors, but if not on them,
>>then on everyone subjected to their attacks, and on Wikipedia itself.  If
>>Wikipedia is to succeed, it must be a place where people of good faith
>>*want* to edit, not a poisonous cesspool of incivility and attacks that
>>any right-minded person would naturally want to avoid.
>
>
>A 4-month block for personal attacks is clearly something within the
>purview of the Arbitration Committee, and not individual admins to decide,
>*especially* not individual admins who have had past disagreements with the
>user in question.
>
>Even MrNaturalHealth was not blocked summarily without going through the
>normal process, so I see no reason to start allowing such nonsense now.

I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather on
the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks.  That
said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless
personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to
resort to the Arbitration Committee.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
Where is his evidence of my having done that? For what reason this
persecutory malevolence? The fact that I disagree w his judgement in
my regards? Is that the worst of my offences?

Sam Spade

On 12/18/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/05, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_placed_on_Probation
> >
> > This is not right.
> >
> > Sam Spade
>
> When was the last time 3 admins (outside arbcom) agreed on anything?
> It shouldn't be too hard to avoid disrupting the functioning of
> Wikipedia.
>
> --
> 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
>


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:37:04AM -0500, JAY JG wrote:
> I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather on
> the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks.  That
> said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless
> personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to
> resort to the Arbitration Committee.

OK, I don't see consensus here -- even a few admins seem to think this
block was way out of line.  So "community consensus" doesn't pass here.

Let's keep in mind that there's no basis in Wikipedia policy for using
blocks as a punishment; and neither administrators nor arbitrators have
the authority to punish.  The purpose of blocking is to prevent harm to
the project, not to bring down retribution upon a person.

So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an
immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack
of consensus?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
>From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu>
>
>On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:37:04AM -0500, JAY JG wrote:
> > I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather
>on
> > the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks.
>That
> > said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless
> > personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to
> > resort to the Arbitration Committee.
>
>OK, I don't see consensus here -- even a few admins seem to think this
>block was way out of line.  So "community consensus" doesn't pass here.
>
>Let's keep in mind that there's no basis in Wikipedia policy for using
>blocks as a punishment; and neither administrators nor arbitrators have
>the authority to punish.  The purpose of blocking is to prevent harm to
>the project, not to bring down retribution upon a person.
>
>So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an
>immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack
>of consensus?

Again, I have not commented on whether the *length* of this specific block
was justified, but rather on the *concept* of blocks for personal attacks
(and these were clearly unrepentant personal attacks).  Please keep these
concepts separate. There is clearly a consensus for blocking this individual
for *some* period for continually making these attacks.

Jay.


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Fwd: [Wikinews-l] Collaborative reporting: QuakeAID
	and the "class action lawsuit"

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
Date: 18.12.2005 05:30
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Collaborative reporting: QuakeAID and the "class
action lawsuit"
To: wikinews-l at wikimedia.org

(I would appreciate it if someone could forward this to wikipedia-l,
since I am no longer subscribed there.)

You may have heard about the "class action lawsuit" against Wikipedia
(http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org - .com is a parody). You may also
have heard that this "lawsuit" is linked to [[QuakeAID]], an alleged
charity soliciting donations for earthquake victims. You may know that
Wikipedians have raised many doubts about the legitimacy of this
charity, and have linked it to a convicted fraudster, Greg Lloyd Smith.

Finally, you may be aware that "QuakeAID" is publishing, through its
associated BAOU.com / OfficialWire site (currently still indexed by
Google News), one article after the other against Wikipedia. A recent
one has described Wikipedia as a breeding ground for pedophiles, and is
linked to another recently created campaign website, Wikipedophilia.com.
(You probably do not know that the same news wire also publishes stories
endorsing Holocaust deniers Z?ndel and Faurisson.)

More is probably to come. BAOU.com, "QuakeAID"'s parent company, seems
to be trying to do everything possible to discredit Wikipedia, after
Wikipedia has discredited QuakeAID. I think it's time for them to learn
that wikis have teeth.

This is a very, very serious issue and not just some troll setting up
anti-wiki websites. QuakeAID has been, for some time, listed in major
charity directories, and people wanting to donate money for the 2004
tsunami victims were sent there. I don't know how much money they
received, but it must be substantial.

_If_ this charity is a fraud (and that part is _not_ certain at this
point), it's a large scale operation (registered with the IRS), and the
person running it should be put behind bars. So if you've ever fancied
yourself a private detective or investigative reporter, this is your chance:

Wikinews is conducting a full and thorough investigation into all
matters related to QuakeAID and BOAU.com. I have tried to accumulate all
the information in Wikipedia and elsewhere in one place, but I will not
have time to commit myself beyond this. So this will either sink or swim
with your involvement. If the evidence is solid, we can publish this
story, and send a nice dossier to the FBI. If we don't do anything,
BAOU.com will continue its anti-wiki campaign, or disappear quietly.

If you do want to join the effort of researching this, please visit:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Story_preparation/Wikipedia_class_action_lawsuit_linked_to_possible_earthquake_charity_fraud

If this URL breaks, use:

http://tinyurl.com/bh9m2

This is a historic chance for the Wikinews, Wikipedia and blog
communities to work together. Let's not screw it up.

Erik
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

--
An eternity is very, very long, especially towards the end


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
"Karl A. Krueger"  wrote
>
> So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an
> immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack
> of consensus?

You may have a point.  I suggest that, having brought it to the attention of
this list, and having had some sympathetic replies, you do not press your
case.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
> It was Kurt, not Karl, who brought this matter up, IIRC.
>
> John Lee

Right, my mistake.

Charles


body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

> I just checked: we lack articles on either Gary Allen or _None Dare
> Call It Conspiracy_. Seeing how many articles there are from the
> off-their-medication-fringe, I'm honestly surprised we don't have an
> article about the book or the author.

You know what the canonical answer to that one is ...

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Uploading really big files

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:

> For MediaWiki (not necessarily Wikipedia), sometimes you want to upload
> really big files. An HTTP upload isn't necessarily the best way to do
> this, especially if it's lots of really big files (tar gzip them and
> uplaod via ftp then telnet in and unpackage).

I dunno about the problems of large files over HTTP, but Commonist
handles multiple files nicely:

    http://www.djini.de/software/commonist/

It's graphical and needs Java. But presumably it would be a Simple
Matter of Programming to write a command-line one in Perl or whatever.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone's ever come up with a web-based
upload interface for multiple files that doesn't suck ... if someone
knows of one, I have a few people I really want to point at it!

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:

>>Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
>>"deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.  He has blocked me in the past
>>for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I
>>did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use
>>of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it
>>is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).

> That you were blocked is not a misjustice.  I question whether four
> months was a reasonable time, however.  If Delirium hadn't already
> unblocked you, I would have shortened your block to one week.  Since
> I'm a nice woman, I won't reblock you.

Although Kurt is IME notoriously hard-of-clue in these matters, short
sharp 12-to-24-hour blocks (applied like a cattle prod) have worked well
in similar cases to impart a working simulation of clue, at least on the
"don't do that or it'll hurt" level. It's short enough to be felt but
not long enough to give up hope. Kurt is not actually stupid and he
knows lots about lots of stuff, but his level of social interaction
needs raising; it would be a good thing for him to be on Wikipedia if he
can stop with the bad interactions.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
JAY JG wrote:

> I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather
> on the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks.
> That said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in
> endless personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without
> need to resort to the Arbitration Committee.

Kicking Kurt off the wiki would be a net negative IMO. Lesser measures
should get him to behave.

- d.


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates

references:
<439A1430.5050100@thingy.apana.org.au>
	<dnk5ht$8e6$1@sea.gmane.org><dnkdt4$8af$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0512141434370.22021@sara.aronsson.se>

body:
"Lars Aronsson" <lars at aronsson.se> wrote in
message news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0512141434370.22021 at sara.aronsson.se
> Phil Boswell wrote:
>> Now that I have taken another look at it, I think that it is
>> actually doing something extremely clever. The wikicode is:
>>
>> {{{else{{{test|}}}|{{{test{{{test|}}}|{{{then|}}}}}}}}}
>
> For quite some time (1973-1993 or so), the Unix/Linux commands
> test(1), true(1) and false(1) were stand-alone programs that
> required the fork(2) and exec(2) of a new process, after which the
> shell would check their exit status.  In modern Unix shells (such
> as bash(1)) these are built-in commands, which makes their
> frequent use in scripts a lot more efficient.
>
> Why not give up this {{{if}}} template craziness and implement a
> basic set of programming logic operators (if, for, foreach, while,
> switch, ...) in the wiki syntax?  Programming logic embedded in
> textual content is well-known from languages like PHP.

See [[m:User:AzaToth/Logic]] which is
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:AzaToth/Logic

Many thanks to Carl (aka AzaToth)!

--
Adrian
[[en:User:Adrian Buehlmann]]


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Wednesday 14 December 2005 15:36, Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Lars Aronsson" <lars at aronsson.se> wrote in
> message news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0512141434370.22021 at sara.aronsson.se...
>
> > Phil Boswell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why not give up this {{{if}}} template craziness and implement a
> > basic set of programming logic operators (if, for, foreach, while,
> > switch, ...) in the wiki syntax?  Programming logic embedded in
> > textual content is well-known from languages like PHP.
>
> Why not indeed?
>
> Someone explain to this good gentleman some of the history of this
> particular little scenario while I go and bang my head against a nice
> soft wall ...

Exactly. This would replicate the "macro-in-document" scenario, and we all
know what that leads to...

May I remind everyone wanting programming logic in text documents (aka
wiki pages) on this little gem:

	http://namb.la/popular/tech.html

You have been warned.

Tels

- --
 Signed on Sun Dec 18 11:23:52 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "One man in a thousand is a leader of men, the other 999 follow women"
 -- Groucho Marx

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ6U5UHcLPEOTuEwVAQHyPgf8CEl7O56ApHBHakBq6ViCcFgCLwERe/Yz
3vzjWUt1xctxPb+LAOLBKX3aAKlijB+hCuwIitp0hZkOsNBA1LIVSKe/LdRe4t5+
8MRdzHFpSxc0iv7ri3r3bzv4R1NpKyTTfyzI/vlmDvbBDuYrqPXAwwfW9CGlfnDS
Eu8lpVk1tNi+DJXCf6uYEE2kkVCQPFUFJxBYDBJPAYwHtku5K3mQVxjAlMMyIa+c
uPqFAJtbX3d/A8yfVU51IrnsULVqcYxzy1WhxBizMB0C1SawETmca328OC9xUtTi
mJye+AwX+DY/nmoGyG/1KPgx0R7NMC7uIz2m/XWto0wMEXZ9WR1M/w==
=5Sgl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
On 12/18/05, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Where is his evidence of my having done that? For what reason this
> persecutory malevolence? The fact that I disagree w his judgement in
> my regards? Is that the worst of my offences?

You have nothing to worry about then.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On 12/17/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Sam Korn wrote:
> >> On 12/16/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> >>> [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
>
> >> But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
>
> > And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
>
>
> You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.

The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term.  Whether a
topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing.  Who determines
whether the scientific method has been followed?  Not us!  That would
be original research, and asserting a point of view.  Yes, sometimes
it will be obvious.  However, most of the time it will not be.  The
proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they
are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific
method!

Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist
point of view.  This is one of those occasions.

--
Sam


from_name: stevertigo

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I know it seems drastic, but there was not > one
source cited.

{{sofixit}}, dont {{fuckitup}}.

> Basically it was just the sort of chatting > we used
to do in the Navy. We called it
> scuddlebutt.

No, its called "scuttling other peoples work in the
name of policy." Citing sources is a requirement, but
its not a prerequisite. Volunteers are not on a
schedule and there is no timeframe nor deadline for an
article's development. The article needed to be there.
Its there due to the work of the
"off-their-medications" and retired set to whom
Wikipedia owes its early existence.

Deletionism is evil when it makes claims to being an
editorial decision. Willy on Wheels could have done
the same thing. The issue (for anyone who considers
making any change to any artice) is: are you helping
to develop it or are you claiming to be in an
editorial position to simply scuttle it?

Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:

> Geoff Burling wrote:
>
> > I just checked: we lack articles on either Gary Allen or _None Dare
> > Call It Conspiracy_. Seeing how many articles there are from the
> > off-their-medication-fringe, I'm honestly surprised we don't have an
> > article about the book or the author.
>
>
> You know what the canonical answer to that one is ...
>
Well, my non-canonical stement would have been along the lines of
"I didn't see an article on this, so I went ahead & wrote a stub. But
I'm surprized that it hadn't been written yet."

Feh. I should have remembered that expeirnce has proven that the best
way to get an information hole fixed on Wikipedia is to loudly announce
that "This topic is indisputably non-noteable & I will SPEEDILY DELETE
any articles about it." Within 6 weeks not only will the article exist,
but will often be considered as a FAC.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Template:Policylist

body:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Policylist

This was created and put on the main policy pages as a guide to newbies.
It was HUGE before and promptly ended up on TFD. The consensus so far
appears to be to keep it because it's a nice idea, even if the form of
it at the time was horrible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Policylist&oldid=31820069

I've just been hacking on it and I think I've improved it greatly. It
might even be useful. But further hacking on it is needed. Please see
the talk page:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Policylist

- d.


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Donation

body:
Hoi,
On the Dutch Wiktionary user:Marcel had the good sense to add the word
"donatie". I have included a pronunciation and the missing translations
from the English Wiktionary (I have my doubts about the translation in
Yiddish). Subsequently I copied the data to the Italian Wiktionary.

Now that we need a lot of money to give our favourite resource a
brilliant future, could we not make sure that we get a REALLY big amount
of translations to this word.. The trick is that in order to do this, we
have to collaborate :) It would be one way of showing that we care :)

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: sydney poore

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Defamatory Biographies - another problem looming for
	Wikipedia?

body:
Keith Old wrote:

We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of
contemporarybiographies especially of controversial figures. In
particular, we need to ensure that our articles are scrupulous in citing
sources. We need to giveinstructions to recent changes patrollers to be
on the lookout forbiographies making negative claims without proper
sourcing.

>Regards
>Keith Old
>
    I agree. After the biography of David Hager was categorized as
    rapist in error, I began a _quick_ survey of crime related articles.
    I am looking for deliberate misclassification that might be called a
    hoax or grudge, as well as good faith misreads of the categorization
    criteria. I?ve given special attention to articles about living
    people and those with no obvious evidence of conviction. After about
    14 days, I?ve surveyed Category:Rapists, Category:Incest,
    Category:Child sexual offenders, Category:Cannibalism,
    Category:Executed murderers, Category:Child killers.

    On the whole, the quality of the crime articles are the same as
    other types of articles. Overall, I think it is reasonable to assume
    good faith. Some articles are part of projects and are above
    average. The biggest problem is lack of sources. I fixed some of the
    articles, but most I tagged as unreferenced. Some of the time, I put
    requests on User pages for sources, even stubs. So far, most of the
    tagged articles are still unverified. Nevertheless, I think this
    task is not futile because editors are responding to the tags and
    requests.

    Still many more crime categories to go. And all these articles need
    to be fact checked.

    Sydney


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
> validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature" and
> is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
> SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3 module.
> The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion peace of
> mind :-)

OK ... any idea on time for this one?

*sigh*

(and avoiding the XSS vulnerabilities of the last one?)

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature" and
is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3 module.

The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion peace of
mind :-)

This new extension uses the already existing "validate" table in the
database. I though it a waste of time and energy to replace it.

This initial version (in CVS, "Review" directory, "extensions" module)
currently lacks many features of the Validation function. But, I have
managed to place the review data in the sidebar, making reviews faster
and, IMHO, more intuitive.

The sidebar display lacks the ability to comment the review. Also, you
cannot see your old review data for that page. Should I add a Special
page similar to the Validation tab? Or would that just be confusing?

There will, of course, be statistic pages, as known from the Validation
function.

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
>What I am worried about is defendants being punished based on having
disagreed with the outcome of their cases. That is something I won't
tolerate.

Sam Spade

Ummm ... do you have difficulty with people being treated more leniently if
they quietly accept what is handed down to them?  I don't see us as really
having a punitive regime, at the ArbCom level (I'm not discussing admin
actions - with 700 admins you'll get some things that are regrettable).  All
this judicial language is founded on assumptions that are hard to defend -
there is certainly no right to edit a collaborative website, and punishment
takes the form of exclusion only from the heavy work of building the site.

Charles


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
charles matthews wrote:

> "Karl A. Krueger"  wrote
>
>>
>> So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an
>> immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack
>> of consensus?
>
>
> You may have a point.  I suggest that, having brought it to the
> attention of this list, and having had some sympathetic replies, you
> do not press your case.
>
> Charles
>
It was Kurt, not Karl, who brought this matter up, IIRC.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [WikiEN-l] more Kennedy assassination fun

body:
--- Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> YAKWAICM5GBP.

Yes, Mark. Very well said.

Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
What I am worried about is defendants being punished based on having
disagreed with the outcome of their cases. That is something I won't
tolerate.

Sam Spade

On 12/18/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/05, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Where is his evidence of my having done that? For what reason this
> > persecutory malevolence? The fact that I disagree w his judgement in
> > my regards? Is that the worst of my offences?
>
> You have nothing to worry about then.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Kurt Maxwell Weber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely.  He and David Gerard
both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology,
motives, and intentions.

As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
1) Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as such?
2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?

I think (1) is obviously "yes" if for no other reason than that the
consequences of it being "no" would be totally unacceptable to anyone
seriously interested in creating a worthwhile encyclopedia; it is (2) that is
the contentious part.  I am honestly convinced that deletionists are vandals;
there are many who think otherwise.

All I ask is that it either

 (a) it be demonstrated that deletionists are not vandals (see my argument at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman&oldid=30896997#Deletion_IS_vandalism.2C_even_by_the_.22official.22_definition
to find out why I think they are), in which case it would be safe to unblock
me immediately (although I would understand a block of up to a week--I'd
prefer a week after the particular incident in question, of course, but I can
also understand the week beginning on the day it is put in place) because I
am not intellectually dishonest and I do not engage in behavior I know is
wrong, or

 (b) that it be accepted that deletionists are vandals (or that at least it be
accepted that this particular argument for why deletionists are vandals has
not been refuted, in which case it is not known one way or the other--because
after all, lack of refutation does not constitute, in and of itself,
constitute proof), in which case I should of course be unblocked outright.

The thing is, karmafist and David Gerard have justified their actions that "it
is not acceptable to call someone a 'vandal' simply because he disagrees with
you"--and they are correct.  What is incorrect is their assumption that I am
calling deletionists "vandals" simply because I disagree with them--this is
not the case; I am calling them "vandals" because I am honestly convinced
that they are (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will change both my thinking
and behavior) They may insist otherwise, but they are wrong.
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051218/17dbd8c3/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
On 12/18/05, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> What I am worried about is defendants being punished based on having
> disagreed with the outcome of their cases. That is something I won't
> tolerate.

As the Pythian oracle said: know thyself.

--
Sam


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
> validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature" and
> is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
> SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3 module.
>
> The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion peace of
> mind :-)

Please, please try to follow existing code conventions this time. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051218/a3b249e4/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Alin Dosoftei

body:
Well, there are no exceptions, for every devanagari letter there is a latin
letter and conversely.

On 12/18/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/6/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> > > The conversion is very consistent in that each Devangari
> > > symbol represents the one and the same letter or diphthong in the
> Latin
> > > Romany alphabet.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ronline
> >
> > If there is 1-to-1 correspondence for converting in both directions
> > then yes, it's possible.
>
> ... and not so big amount of exceptions :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 3 Fund Drive Report

body:
Copied from:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4/Day_3
-------------------------------------------------------------

The equivalent of $16,285.68 USD was donated through PayPal on Day 3 of the fundraiser.  This is
an increase of $4727.94 over Day 2 and also an all time record for a single day in any fund drive
we've ever had. The previous record was $14,085.10 and was set on 24 August 2005 during our last
fund drive.

Here is the PayPal breakdown for Day 3:

 AUD    382.44    (287.02 USD)
 CAD 	1,007.10  (828.75 USD)
 EUR 	2,486.35  (3,020.14 USD)
 GBP 	612.22 	  (1,097.89 USD)
 JPY 	41,992.00 (379.40 USD)
 USD 	10,672.47
 Total 	16,285.68 USD

Copied from: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-18/report/

==Selected donor comments==
Let's all thank everybody who donated on this day by reading their comments.
:See http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-18/detail/

Here are some that caught my eye (many great comments could not be included here):
*"Wikipedia is my browser's home page" by Maneesh Sahu
*"I am pleased to be able to contribute to what may be the most significant project in human
history." by Conrad Dunkerson
*"Wikipedia is the best website on the internet!" by Peter McGinley
*"Ich finde die Idee und vor allem das Ergebnis beeindruckend. Ich nutze es oft. Weitermachen!" by
Hermann Herz
*"Love Wikipedia! Most visted website on my computer! Keep up the good work!" by Ian Thompson
*"ma plus fid?le r?f?rence" by Celine Racicot
*"Wikimedia projects have helped me dozens of times. Now I'd like to help Wikimedia back." by
Asahiko Matsuda
*"Aidons la poursuite du savoir!" by Jacques Tremblay
*"Wikipedia is symbolic of what our modern society must be. Keep up the good work!" by Andrew
Engelbrecht
*"This site has allowed me to tap into the knowledge of experts in subjects from the most trivial
to the profound - thank you for this opportunity!" by Samantha Line
*"Wikipedia is one of the best things that happend to the world in the last years." by anonymous
*"F?r Freies Wissen" by Werner Stefan
*"Wikipedia has helped me so much. I can't let anything happen to it." by Anthony White
*"My Christmas present to Wikipedia!" by Tom Maisey
*"I'll do whatever it takes to keep Wikimedia from corporate takeover." by anonymous
*"in loving memory of Άναξιμένης" by Michael
Linksvayer
*"Wikipedia gives me renewed faith in humanity." by anonymous
*"Life without Wikipedia would not be the same" by Mark Nathans
*"Bravo !" by anonymous

Some of my personal favorites:
*"Knowledge is priceless" by Gregory Cain
*"When I get rich I'll donate more! Thank you." by Efrem Rensi
*"Education is the only equalizer" by anonymous
*"for my children" by Asa Canaway

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Day 3 Fund Drive Report


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 3 Fund Drive Report


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
Aw, man, I was gonna go and reblock you for a week again, but now you
went and started wikilawyering, and now I can't, in good conscience.
You totally should have shut the hell up for once! Oh well.

-Phil

On Dec 18, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

> karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely.  He and
> David Gerard
> both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my
> psychology,
> motives, and intentions.
>
> As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
> 1) Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as
> such?
> 2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?
>
> I think (1) is obviously "yes" if for no other reason than that the
> consequences of it being "no" would be totally unacceptable to anyone
> seriously interested in creating a worthwhile encyclopedia; it is
> (2) that is
> the contentious part.  I am honestly convinced that deletionists
> are vandals;
> there are many who think otherwise.
>
> All I ask is that it either
>
>  (a) it be demonstrated that deletionists are not vandals (see my
> argument at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman&oldid=30896997#Deletion_IS_vandalism.2
> C_even_by_the_.22official.22_definition
> to find out why I think they are), in which case it would be safe
> to unblock
> me immediately (although I would understand a block of up to a
> week--I'd
> prefer a week after the particular incident in question, of course,
> but I can
> also understand the week beginning on the day it is put in place)
> because I
> am not intellectually dishonest and I do not engage in behavior I
> know is
> wrong, or
>
>  (b) that it be accepted that deletionists are vandals (or that at
> least it be
> accepted that this particular argument for why deletionists are
> vandals has
> not been refuted, in which case it is not known one way or the
> other--because
> after all, lack of refutation does not constitute, in and of itself,
> constitute proof), in which case I should of course be unblocked
> outright.
>
> The thing is, karmafist and David Gerard have justified their
> actions that "it
> is not acceptable to call someone a 'vandal' simply because he
> disagrees with
> you"--and they are correct.  What is incorrect is their assumption
> that I am
> calling deletionists "vandals" simply because I disagree with them--
> this is
> not the case; I am calling them "vandals" because I am honestly
> convinced
> that they are (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will change both my
> thinking
> and behavior) They may insist otherwise, but they are wrong.
> --
> Kurt Weber
> <kmw at armory.com>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
> Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
> "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.

Actually, you were blocked for one month by Zoe.

Please try to report the truth henceforth.

Kelly


from_name: Michelle

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
We're getting more and more of these emails every day to the helpdesk --
everyone and their brother is screaming libel and demanding we delete
everything remotely related to them, their brother and their pet pig
once removed.  Fun.  Think it'll die down after a while or are we in for
constant legal threats from now on?

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[HelpDesk-l] Libelous communications
Date: 	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:10:42 -0600
From: 	skip davis <emdavis at texas.net>
Reply-To: 	Help desk for questions about Wikimedia projects
<helpdesk-l at Wikimedia.org>
To: 	helpdesk-l at wikimedia.org

Greetings!

I am an attorney and I represent a young lady, an actress whose name is
Maria Ford.

I took a look at your website after Ms. Ford retained my firm to
investigate and
determine whether your operation (Wikimedia and Wikipedia)  publicizes
false and misleading, and/ or otherwise incorrect
information regarding Ms. Ford.  From our investigation, I have
concluded that your website does indeed publish materially false
information regarding Ms. Ford.

Specifically:
You publish an incorrect birthdate for Ms. Ford
You publish other incorrect biographical information regarding Ms. Ford.

Now that you know by my admonition to you above, that this information
you publish is *patently false,* I hope that you will follow what I
recommend as the simple resolution of this Libel situation:
that you remove all reference to Ms. Ford from your website.

If you persist and continue to patently publish false and misleading
information that continues to be injurious to my client, then Ms. Ford
will be
forced to seek measures to enforce her rights against your libel,
including any and all remedies available under both State and Federal laws.
I attached an article from CNN.com that I am certain your legal
department is aware.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

It is the holiday season, so I urge you to act in the spirit and do the
right thing immediately.
If however upon the New Year 2006 no action has been taken on your part,
then we will be having a much different conversation immediately thereafter.

If you have any questions at all,  please feel free to contact me.

Major Edmund M. "Skip" Davis
Attorney at Law
PO Box 201123
Austin, TX 78720
Phone and Fax: 512.331.2828

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: file:///C|/DOCUME%7E1/JARETH/LOCALS%7E1/TEMP/nsmail.txt
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051218/80fecc91/attachment.txt


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
That is a red herring. Your thinking about everything backwards. I
have a problem with being given punishment based on having disagreed w
the arbcom.This website has no right to my labour, which I will
withdraw as long as this insult is maintained.

Sam Spade

Ummm ... do you have difficulty with people being treated more leniently if
they quietly accept what is handed down to them?  I don't see us as really
having a punitive regime, at the ArbCom level (I'm not discussing admin
actions - with 700 admins you'll get some things that are regrettable).  All
this judicial language is founded on assumptions that are hard to defend -
there is certainly no right to edit a collaborative website, and punishment
takes the form of exclusion only from the heavy work of building the site.

Charles


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Defamatory biographies--a response

body:
Going through some of the recent emails on WikiEN, I noticed an email
discussing how to respond to a lawyer's letter to the help desk, asking that the
biography of an actress (Maria Ford) be taken down because it contained
inaccurate material. In the event that you receive such emails from lawyers  claiming
to represent living individuals, I ask that you do NOT answer. Instead,  send
them to the OTRS queue. Alternately, send the email to me at
_danny at wikia.com_ (mailto:danny at wikia.com) . I will then be able to handle  it immediately or
forward it to the appropriate people.

Danny


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
Goes to the foundation of course, but not to panic - every shyster in
existence is going to see $$$ opportunities, and make all kinds of
overreaching accusations, as the lawyers on this list have reminded
us before. It's pretty hilarious to think that a mistaken birthdate
is libel!

Just watch, at some point some dimwit is going to try to insert
the false info themselves as a sort of blackmail. One more reason
to revert all unsourced edits!

Stan

Michelle wrote:

> We're getting more and more of these emails every day to the helpdesk
> -- everyone and their brother is screaming libel and demanding we
> delete everything remotely related to them, their brother and their
> pet pig once removed.  Fun.  Think it'll die down after a while or are
> we in for constant legal threats from now on?
>
> Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [HelpDesk-l] Libelous communications
> Date:     Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:10:42 -0600
> From:     skip davis <emdavis at texas.net>
> Reply-To:     Help desk for questions about Wikimedia projects
> <helpdesk-l at Wikimedia.org>
> To:     helpdesk-l at wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> Greetings!
>
> I am an attorney and I represent a young lady, an actress whose name
> is Maria Ford.
> I took a look at your website after Ms. Ford retained my firm to
> investigate and
> determine whether your operation (Wikimedia and Wikipedia)  publicizes
> false and misleading, and/ or otherwise incorrect
> information regarding Ms. Ford.  From our investigation, I have
> concluded that your website does indeed publish materially false
> information regarding Ms. Ford.
>
> Specifically:
> You publish an incorrect birthdate for Ms. Ford
> You publish other incorrect biographical information regarding Ms. Ford.
>
> Now that you know by my admonition to you above, that this information
> you publish is *patently false,* I hope that you will follow what I
> recommend as the simple resolution of this Libel situation:
> that you remove all reference to Ms. Ford from your website.
>
> If you persist and continue to patently publish false and misleading
> information that continues to be injurious to my client, then Ms. Ford
> will be
> forced to seek measures to enforce her rights against your libel,
> including any and all remedies available under both State and Federal
> laws.
> I attached an article from CNN.com that I am certain your legal
> department is aware.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html
>
> It is the holiday season, so I urge you to act in the spirit and do
> the right thing immediately.
> If however upon the New Year 2006 no action has been taken on your
> part, then we will be having a much different conversation immediately
> thereafter.
>
> If you have any questions at all,  please feel free to contact me.
>
>
> Major Edmund M. "Skip" Davis
> Attorney at Law
> PO Box 201123
> Austin, TX 78720
> Phone and Fax: 512.331.2828
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>HelpDesk-l mailing list
>HelpDesk-l at Wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-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
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
On 18 Dec 2005 at 20:12, Michelle <jareth at crimsonblade.net> wrote:

> We're getting more and more of these emails every day to the helpdesk
> -- everyone and their brother is screaming libel and demanding we
> delete everything remotely related to them, their brother and their
> pet pig once removed.  Fun.  Think it'll die down after a while or are
> we in for constant legal threats from now on?

Some of these threats and demands are totally ridiculous... I looked
at that actress's article, and its history, and while various "facts"
(possibly incorrect) have been added and deleted over time, I didn't
see a single thing that could possibly be considered libelous or
defamatory.  Getting somebody's birthdate wrong is hardly libel.
Nevertheless, if any fact is wrong, we should certainly fix it.  But
demanding that all references to the person be removed is not
something this lawyer has any business doing.

Here's my list of people, companies, and organizations I know of that
have raised some sort of complaint or objection regarding the
articles about themselves, presented with no value judgments as to
whether the complaints were justified and whether the actions taken
by these parties in furtherance of the issues and the response by
Wikipedians were reasonable.  (The "complaint or objection" ranges
from mild comments on the talk page about how big a pain it is to
police one's own article, to making threats to sue everybody involved
and/or get them arrested as terrorists; from trying to constructively
edit one's own article to a more desirable state, to vandalizing and
blanking it; from talking in forums about Wikipedia problems, to
putting up an Wikipedia-critical website, to raising a ruckus in the
mainstream media.)

* [[1.800.Vending]]
* [[Chip Berlet]]
* [[Bogdanov affair]]
* [[Jorn Barger]]
* [[Daniel Brandt]]
* [[John Byrne]]
* [[Alan Dershowitz]]
* [[Harlan Ellison]]
* [[Maria Ford]]
* [[Lucianne Goldberg]]
* [[Ashida Kim]]
* Gary LaVerne, re [[Charles Whitman]]
* [[John Lott]]
* [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]
* [[Harry Palmer (Avatar)]]
* [[alt.romath]]
* [[Jack Sarfatti]]
* [[Barbara Schwarz]]
* [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]]
* [[Israel Shamir]]
* [[Sollog]]

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

body:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
> > validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature"
> > and is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
> > SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3
> > module. The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion
> > peace of mind :-)
>
> OK ... any idea on time for this one?

May I commend Magnus for his tenacity in this much-needed feature of
mediawiki - which I have not tried. Maybe the plugin will make that easier.

Is there anyone else working on validation for mediawiki ?

Cheers,   Andy!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed policy on biographies: input sought

body:
[[User:WAS 4.250]] and I have been working on a proposed policy
regarding Wikipedia biographies at [[Wikipedia:Biographies on living
persons deserve a special sensitivity]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity

It deals with the need to be respectful of subjects, which policies
are particularly important, what they say, and what to do in the event
of a legal threat. Any input would be appreciated, particularly from
editors who are familiar with [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]], who have worked
a lot on biographies, who have legal backgrounds, members of the
arbcom who have dealt with some of these issues recently in cases, and
editors who themselves have Wikipedia entries and who know what it
feels like to be the subject of a biography.

Sarah