body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/19/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>>That's nice, dear. Now, as for the actual question ...

> Again, quit being a jerk and perhaps people will be willing to work on it.

Who bit whose head off for asking if a planned feature was in progress?

Is there anyone here who knows how image undeletion is going? If images
are undeletable then the explosive touchiness exhibited by Gregory in
this thread will be greatly defused.

- d.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

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

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

> I'm sometimes amazed at how much work various people are willing to expend
> on categorizing & recategorizing stubs. I can't help think that the effort
> expended on moving an article labelled {{bio-stub}} to (say)
> {{German-bio-stub}}, then {{German-scientist-bio-stub}}, then suplimented
> with tags like {{biologist-stub}} & {{European-woman-stub}}. Having a
> project like this for these kinds of people to expend their need for
> organization would be A Good Thing.

We have one.

> (And for the record, when I find an article with more than one stub tag
> attached, I always reduce the number to one. Don't like it? Then turn
> the stub into an article, & we'll both be happy.)

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. Different stubs are subcategories of different
parent categories. Someone from a wikiproject about content will often
go into that project's stub category and start work on stuff they find
there.

That is: the sort of stub is actually as important as that it's a stub.

 > When I used to do New Article Patrol on a regular basis, I found myself
> wikifying new articles, rather than tagging them for deletion. (Despite
> the kill-happy reputation of AfD, I found it far easier to subject these
> articles to a scrubbing than listing them.) Then I saw David Gerard's
> comment about 90% of new articles were dreck, & started to suspect my own
> judgement. So I lost interest in that chore.*

I didn't say 90%, I said 20-30%!

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating

body:
SJ wrote:

> I'm not a huge fan of prefilled templates, but this is a great use for them.
> So... for users who aren't logged in, provide such a template, perhaps
> with extra introductory comments -- everyone else gets a user
> preference (off by default) that they can toggle to get the same (with
> fewer introductory comments)?

Same template, *on* by default. This is for newbies. Note this was a
logged-in editor.

- d.


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Biographies of living persons - new draft guideline

body:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>
> It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline -
> you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is
> details.

I like it.  I'll see if I can improve.

-Matt


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Wikitech-l] uppercase quirk in logs

body:
Here's an interesting one. I was checking the block log on en: for a
certain user to see if they had been blocked, and the log indicated
they hadn't been. But checking the log for the blocking admin, it
showed that the admin apparently had blocked the user.

The thing is, the admin had blocked User:example, with a lowercase
first letter. But it's only possible to search the logs with
uppercase, ie User:Example, presumably because en is set to have
uppercase first letters.

So my question is, does the block still work if the admin types the
username with lowercase?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for a status of Regular User

body:
On 12/20/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Not really, but I think a lot of us are casting about for some
> > alternatives. I am looking at it as a possible arbitration committee
> > remedy.
>
> In that case I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think what he means is creating a new user group (maybe called
"trusted" or something) which has privileges to edit some articles
which have been protected. There would also need to be more levels of
protection, so admin-only, admin-and-trusted, unprotected. Is this
what you mean?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: charles matthews

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

body:
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

> Neutrality does not imply that we should try to become a permanent and
> extensive record of all pleasant and unpleasant facts or allegations
> about living persons who are not particularly notable.

What I would like to see written into biography policy is 'understatement'.
The messy divorce, for the most part and still under NPOV, can just be a
divorce.

Charles


body:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd really really like anon page creation switched back on.
>
> (a) A prefilled template would give guidance to editors of goodwill;
> (b) editors of bad will are just creating accounts to write rubbish with anyway.

It's not like we make it very hard to create an account anyway, so I agree.

Do you think prefilled templates should be switched on by default for
established users? (those existing prior to implementing this feature,
that is).

-Matt


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Skins for deletion: Amethyst

body:
"Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote in
message news:43A72831.5080100 at pobox.com...
> If there's no objection, I'm going to remove the Amethyst skin from the
> default
> set. It's very buggy, and also, um, kinda ugly IMHO. :)

How difficult would it be to re-create as a MySkin specification?

I tried it via
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=amethyst>:
* the logo text is reversed, or something funny
* the tabs are colliding with the logo
* the sitenotice is colliding with the tabs
* links are in bright yellow, which is almost unreadable against a white
ground, which is what the central panels use
* can't find the go/search box
* "cite this page" goes to a monobook page
* actually all the links would do so: shouldn't it decorate the links with
the "useskin=amethyst" action?

I really like the little icons. Is it possible to add those to monobook, via
personal CSS?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Brian

subject: [Wikitech-l] Yet another reason to have a "stable article" system

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Magnus Manske wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       I have already implemented most of this as an extension.
>>>> Exceptions:
>>>> * Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? To save space into the DB?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No. I just didn't see the point of having multiple stable versions. One
>> will do just fine.
>> Also, the "stable version" concept will be confusing to newcomers.
>> Suppose you get the stable version by default, and decide to edit it.
>> You'll be served the source text of the current version. WTF?
>> *Several* stable versions will be even more confusing, with little
>> benefit.
>>
>>
>
> We will probably need to have the ability to rate versions as being
> "stable version candidates", otherwise it will be difficult to move
> from an older stable version to a newer.
>
> By being able to rate/tag a newer version as a stable version
> candidate, it could then be voted/rated/approved to either eventually
> become the next stable version, or to be supplanted by another
> candidate. Users should be able to see not only the history of all
> versions, but of (say) all versions ever marked as stable, or the
> larger set of versions marked as candidates for stability.

For simple things like spelling errors, this system would be way too
complicated for approving a newer stable version.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: which html constructs are evil

body:
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote in
message news:43A701CC.2020809 at web.de...
> Uwe Brauer wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Some articles bear the label: this page needs to be wikified, also it
>> looks not much different to a standard wikipedia page.
>> My question is which html constructions are considered as evil?
>>
> All of them, according to wikimarkup purists.

...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and thoroughly
documented) <blockquote> makes much more sense than a simple ":"
indentation. Maybe we should make it a requirement that you read the Help
page on legitimate markup before you're allowed to summarily revert
formatting :-)

Maybe...I should put it into a template [runs and hides behing Magnus ;-]
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


body:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd really really like anon page creation switched back on.
>
> (a) A prefilled template would give guidance to editors of goodwill;
> (b) editors of bad will are just creating accounts to write rubbish with anyway.

It's not like we make it very hard to create an account anyway, so I agree.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Defamatory Biographies - another
	problemloomingforWikipedia?

body:
"Bryan Derksen" <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote in
message news:43A6F5E0.7040809 at shaw.ca...
> Phil Boswell wrote:
>>I was going to suggest that {{lifetime}} and/or {{lived}} could be
>>modified so that the death date was optional, and lack thereof would put
>>the article into [[Category:Living people]], but given the recent furore
>>over conditional templates, maybe now is not the time...:-(
>>Also, I note that these templates have been listed for instant
>>Substitution, so the information wouldn't actually stick anyway :-(
> What? Why, and where? The whole reason I use those templates instead of
> just putting in categories is for their potential future mutability, for
> _exactly_ the possibility you just mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_substitution#Article
namespace

I discovered it when I found myself converting a pair of birth/death
categories in the saem article again, and discovered that a bot was goind
around SUBSTituting them according to the guidline on that page.

Let discussion ensue :-)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is it welcome to recal my case in waiting ?

body:
I've unblocked you, as I think the initial block wasn't warrented, and was
either way an over reaction. However, I have asked for a sock puppet check
to be run for your username, which may clear some things up a bit.

I'm also a little confused, as I couldn't find your initial block. Hopefully
another admin will tell me if I made a mistake anywhere.

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

On 12/20/05, l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Messieurs-Dames,
>     With no reaction since Friday, my case for block-lifting is now buried
> in the crowd of messages in WikiEN-l, and I'm wondering if the many people
> here still have it in mind.
>
>     I'm pasting it below for an easier catch 'on the fly' by the
> interested wiki-admin, as it is to be found in my user Talk page as well (l?
> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Omnivore_Sobriquet .)
>     The blocker was one Jayjg, who posted in wikien-l mere motivations,
> adressing a truncated version of my case, on 'points' that were indeed
> already adressed in the truncated part. (plus wild claims on the
> 'biographed''s behaviour.) That was Friday at 18:23 GMT, and it's pasted
> further below.
>     Then one Sam Fentress (Asbestos) posted a comment somewhat favorable
> to my case, although furthering on the truncated version. Same Friday at
> 20:11 GMT, pasted further below.
>     Then nothing, while I had finally my corrections posted here Saturday
> 14:27 GMT, which I paste at bottom although it doesn't add much, just saying
> to take my full text into account.
>
>     I must stress also that I had received no warning whatsoever prior to
> the block., which is an 'infinite' block.
>
>     In addition, I figure that I have no way of knowing whether the block
> is lifted, so I regularly hit some 'edit' button for a check. Do not resume
> imaginating 'fashions' about this, please.
> IP changes everytime, the last being 86.194.140.6
>
> So here you are folks, I just wondered about the 'noisy silence' going on
> about my case here; in my view, it has been a fast misjugdment from one of
> yours, that could be settled swiftly.
> Yours,
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 17:18 (i.e. 16:18 GMT)
>
> [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked.
>
> My complaint about being blocked.
>
> Friday, 16 December 05
>
>                 Messieurs,
>
> I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked
> from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
>
> My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
>
> My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got
> blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
>
> "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
> The reason given is:
> revert sockpuppet"
>
> Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line
> :
>
> "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
> articles; that is what your edits consist of.
>
> Jay. "
>
> Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been
> auto-generated.
>
> I'm writing here to argue my case:
>
>
>
> By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to
> only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a
> basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue
> that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of" any
> behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for
> the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for
> purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely of
> his own guessings on invented trends.
>
> More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play
> when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses.
>
> Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not
> hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I
> acknowledge here challengeable Ancient R?g?me ways, p?roraisons, and
> short-lived privilege abuses.
>
>
>
> However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help,
> to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they
> are:
>
>                 Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually,
> early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an
> edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre from
> the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and certainly
> not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of the
> controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction
> paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version
> seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the
> behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had
> been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki
> guidelines.  My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', that
> it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only remains
> to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical
> conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting
> was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the
> hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be surprised,
> do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent some
> weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in
> endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points.
> Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a
> dryer comment for these.
>
> Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here.
> But humans always appreciate !
>
>
>
> Please 'unblock' me at once.
>
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 19:22
>
> >From: "l'Omnivore Sobriquet" <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
> >My complaint about being blocked.
> >
> >Friday, 16 December 05
> >
> >                 Messieurs,
> >
> >I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked
> from
> >Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
> >
> >My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
> >
> >My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I
> got
> >blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
> >
> >  "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
> >The reason given is:
> >revert sockpuppet"
> >
> >Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single
> line
> >:
> >
> >  "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
> >articles; that is what your edits consist of.
> >
> >Jay. "
>
> The userid made exactly two edits, both of them reverts of the same page,
> Israel Shamir.  It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page
> of the article in question, and certainly appeared to be a revert
> sockpuppet.  Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has
> been
> consistently vandalizing it, in ways with which we have become all too
> familiar.  He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the
> article for him on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:
>
> From: Israel Shamir <ishamir at ...>
> Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:12 pm
> Subject: Wiki ish314
>
> Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war
> over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as
> dominated by philosemites as any other media, and they consistently
> demonise
> me in the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir When I, or
> some
> friends correct their most blatant lies, they change it back in no time at
> all. Afterwards, they refer to their own lies as if it is an objective
> source. Everybody can add, remove and edit any entry in the Wiki. I call
> those who has available time to make an effort and to re-conquer the site
> from philosemites. Shamir
>
> Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
> userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from : Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com>
>
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 21:10
>
> While I think it's quite likely that this user was recruited by Shamir,
> and
> also that he has edited before, I don't think one can say for sure whether
> he is a sock puppet -- you're better off having a developer check that.
>
> But as for blocking because he came to Wikipedia with an aim in mind... if
> we blocked every user who arrived at Wikipedia because of a bone to pick
> or
> a view to push, we'd be down the vast majority of our contributors. The
> only
> applicable policy is WP:NPOV, and you don't get blocked for a first
> offence
> under that. I wouldn't ever unblock without knowing the whole story, but I
> don't think I agree with this block's reasoning.
>
> Sam
>
> On 12/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>         [edited, same as above. l'O.S.]
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from : l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
>
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 21:46
>
> Objet : Re: [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked. Now you
> cancompare...
>
> hello, quick amendments:
>
> "It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page of the article
> in question"
>     This has been well explained in the following of my message, it is a
> fine wiki-ethical usage all along. This is a truncation you're reading,
> rely
> on full version instead. (posted here 40 minutes before Jay's, your time)
>
> "and certainly appeared to be a revert sockpuppet"
>     It wasn't, and didn't appear as such then, as I explained in my
> message.
> Please don't  resort to "it's our experience that..." kind of argument;
> we're not meant to guess. The number of possible logical cases of
> behavours
> identical to mine while not being a internet sockpuppet is so high that in
> 25000 years time one still wouldn't have digested it. That you are 'not
> used
> to forsee' such or such is of no importance, concerning the veracity of
> being a such said sockpuppet. It may change a bit for the explanation of
> Jay's behaviour yes, reacting to some 'well known pattern', well known by
> a
> particuliar 'Wikipedia' staff and time etc., but changes stricly nothing
> on
> whether it is actual sockpupetting, created solely for the... etc.
>
> "Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been
> consistently
> vandalizing it"
>     Not at all. See talk, see history; Shamir just intervened some three
> or
> five times if memory serves, weeks or months ago, civil and compliant at
> that. In fact we have one, possibly multiple, swift reverts from Jayjg
> and/or this Denis Diderot fame-seeker (shame-finder) without one word of
> an
> explanation, I repeat, without one word of explanation.
>
> "He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the article for
> him
> on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:"
>     It makes no mention of reverts.
>
> "Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
> userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind. > Jay."
>     Black magic again.
>
> I'm not wild-eyed by this all comrades, and Jay is not the devil
> incarnate.
> But I'm hurt and there should not be such a quasi-fetichist way for a
> wiki-reaction.
> So I'm waiting for good outcome, so I'm patient.
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
>     [edited, idem - l'O.S.]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Day 1 Fund Drive report

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> And my personal favorite: "I call you my husband's mistress because
>> you get his attention much of the time..." by anonymous
>> "^_^" by anonymous
>
> Also my husband's favorite...
> He is actually thinking of a "speech" at next wikimania, focusing on
> the sociological impact of Wikipedia on families and in particular on
> spouse...

One possible comeback to that would be to suggest a Wikipedia user name
for the new baby. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Shyamal

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross page data 'embedding'  feature

body:
Hi folks,

This feature request is surely not new but I would be interested to know its
status.

Is there a way by which data (text/media) from one wikipedia page (SOURCE) can
be 'embedded' into another page (DESTINATION) such that there is merely a
reference on the DESTINATION page which reflects changes in data on the SOURCE
page.

Such a feature would for instance allow different kinds of views and
organizations of the same SOURCE data. As an example one could have one page
with a table of populations for each of the countries in each year. And the
Country pages on wikipedia would have their infoboxes referencing data from this
page.

thanks
Shyamal
ps: Please leave any response for me on my english wikipedia talk page
en:User:Shyamal


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

> Hi all,
> I made a proposal for a validation system at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aoineko/Validation.
> Any comment are welcome!

I have already implemented most of this as an extension. Exceptions:
* Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.
* History highlighting is not yet implemented.

Why is this not in use?
* Pages with templates are not stable. One has to cache the template
versions at the moment they are declared stable/valid.
* Tim is working on his own implementation.

Magnus


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

body:
I find that hard to believe when you consider that there are several
languages that use the devanagari script, and the transliterations
involve distinguishing sound differences that are not phonemic in
European languages.  Some romanizations also involve diacritics that are
not used for any European languages such as dotted consonants.  Let's
not make the situation seem simpler than it actually is.

Ec

Alin Dosoftei wrote:

>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 :)
>>
>>


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience

body:
--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> This proposal to purge the word "pseudoscience"
> smacks of Sympathetic
> Point Of View. We don't do that here.

This thread has gone long enough and proponents of the
term "pseudoscience" have been somewhat successful at
muddling the issue of the term and the normal
application of NPOV, and claiming there is some choice
between using a pejorative and using a crackpot
terminology. No doubt this is due to our history of
fending off various crackpots and so forth, and hence
a defacto deference to SPOV may be justified. But I'd
like to see people actually admit that there is such a
deference, and that this influences the interpretation
of NPOV.

They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on the
use of relatively neutral terms, and that while the
term "pseudoscience" has its place, and its not clear
that it doesnt have too much of a place in Wikipedia.
Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in
writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the
term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any
discussion around the term in a way which makes NPOV
writing difficult.

People on this list seem to have come around to the
point of agreeing with this basic point, but because
change requires effort, have simply fallen to defacto
positions, and some even seem to have
backwards-crafted their arguments in a way which make
NOR seem to be more important than NPOV. That itself
is a SPOV claiming NOR to be greater than NPOV.

For the pro-SPOV crowd to claim changing
"pseudoscience" is contradicting NOR is about as much
of an irrational circularly-supported argument Ive
ever heard. (Science by definition is the institution
by which all "research" is measured, and which even in
its most important research can often only be
generally communicated to the general or
non-specialist public.) The argument that POV terms
shift over time is a long-term one and is not valid in
this context.

In this case, I dont think its either original
research or overly sympathetic to point out the
problems with creating an institutional prejudice of
accepting a non-scientific term "pseudo-science" as a
neutral term for any non-science. Naturally, the other
side likes to argue that deference to science is close
enough to NPOV for most cases. But there should be
some explicit statement that Wikipedia NPOV has indeed
a defacto policy of defaulting to SPOV.

NPOV trumps NOR. Does "pseudoscience" violate NPOV? If
so, saying other terms cross NOR fails if the term
itself can be substituted at this time and if the
costs are covered by the benefits to NPOV.

-Stevertigo

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses

body:
On 12/20/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
[snip]

> I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the
> other projects is that it is about process while the others are about
> product.
>
> In considering your suggested three foci I thinkl that as long as we
> can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks.
> The third is very far ahead of where we are.  It would be absolutely
> forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research  rule.  Making
> that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be
> an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review.
> Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could
> take place.

Well, I think peer review would grow out of having research hosted on
Wikiversity. But until the research is peer reviewed, it shouldn't be
considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia/books. I personally
think the Wikimedia community is hampered by not having recourse to
publishing research somewhere within Wikimedia (even though we all do
- in Wikibooks!)

>
> Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at
> "growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks.
> Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses  leaves too much room
> for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by
> traditional universities.  The top down development of a course by a
> "teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done.  It does
> nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process.  "Courses"
> are about the teacher rather than the learner.

I agree that top-down course development shouldn't be where we're
going, but I just meant that learning communities generally have to
have some sort of goal (ie writing a good article, exploring the pros
and cons of advertising, etc.) - that's all.

>
> The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners
> at all levels and all ages.  That's what universality is all about.
> It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate.  It's
> about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who
> know a little bit less.  I think that it's very encouraging that kids
> can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers.  A book that I
> recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and
> Literacy" by James Paul Gee.  He analyzes video game playing in terms of
> 36 "Learning principles".  The first of these is the "Active, Critical
> Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment
> (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and
> presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive,
> learning."

Absolutely - the wiki-format is entirely geared towards active,
critical learning. Learning by doing - experiential learning. That's
the kind of learning that I'm personally talking about when I talk
about wikiversity - not the acquisition and repetition of facts.

>
> Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be
> about learning, and how it happens.  If it is to have any such thing as
> a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.

Sounds good (I had already thought of this). Would you be willing to
help out? (I am..)

Cormac

>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses


subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
The new Review extension, which replaces the Validation feature, can be
seen in all its overwhelming beauty at

http://magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php

That site also features the Tasks extension.

Magnus


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On 12/17/05, Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu> wrote:
> "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.

Those who label themselves as "creationist scientists" are happy to go
to great pains to show that 1. nobody really approaches the world with
a "truly" open mind, but must, by definition, have some preconceived
idea of what there is to be found and how to look for it (an assertion
well asserted by psychologists as well as philosophy and history of
science), and 2. that they also use empirical evidence, they also use
external review, they also are happy to set up little experiments. It
can be very difficult telling the two apart.

But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we
verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods?
Sounds like original research to me.

Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more
reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.

> 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 ....

And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science
textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an
individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original
research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification
of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any
responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with
THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should
do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees
it this way.

FF


body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> i all,
>>> I made a proposal for a validation system at
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aoineko/Validation.
>>> Any comment are welcome!
>>
>>
>> I have already implemented most of this as an extension. Exceptions:
>> * Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.
>
>
> Why? To save space into the DB?

No. I just didn't see the point of having multiple stable versions. One
will do just fine.
Also, the "stable version" concept will be confusing to newcomers.
Suppose you get the stable version by default, and decide to edit it.
You'll be served the source text of the current version. WTF?
*Several* stable versions will be even more confusing, with little benefit.

>
>> * History highlighting is not yet implemented.
>>
>> Why is this not in use?
>> * Pages with templates are not stable. One has to cache the template
>> versions at the moment they are declared stable/valid.
>> * Tim is working on his own implementation.
>>
>> Magnus
>
>
> What is the opinion of the community about the validation feature? The
> French community heard from news-paper Jimbo wants this kind of
> feature in the future but we wondering if there is already any roadmap
> or some kind of official plan. Am I right if I say the article
> *reviewing* (public grade) is an interred concept?

There's the Review feature, which replaces the current Validation
feature (which is already in the code, but inactive). See my other mail
on this list for that.

Let's call the one we're talking about "stable version", shall we?

>
> In what way the Tim's implementation differ from yours?

The major difference I can see is that there's no working demo of it
right now :-)

Magnus


from_name: George Jenkins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken 'Create Account' Page

body:
Sorry in advance if this is posted to the wrong place.

It appears to me that the page in which to sign up to Wikipedia is
broken
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup).
(As I have never used this page before its hard to say) It appears that
the fields to enter a username and password are missing.

Could someone redirect me or this message to someone who may know about
this.

Cheers, George.

=======================================================================
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended
addressee.  It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be
the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or
lost by reason of this transmission.
If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our
apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no
other act on the email.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been
 altered or corrupted during transmission.
=======================================================================


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Namespace changes ready for code review

body:
On 12/19/05, Jonathan Leybovich <jleybov at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > == Future features ==
> >
> > Some ideas for things that could be implemented:
> >
>
> Also, perhaps add a 'Review' flag for namespaces so that pages within it
> are reviewable or not using Magnus's page review feature.

Magnus's Rewiew extension is just that, and it doesn't make sense to
make special considerations for extension in the main code by
definition. If extensions want something from the main codebase their
authors can add hooks to the main code and modify things with those
hooks.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] POSSIBLE SECURITY FLAW IN INDEX.PHP (Cross-Scripting)

body:
Tom Markle wrote:
> You need to take steps to prevent malicious scripting- currently various
> forms of
[snip]
> That runs locally and uses basic javascript to change the 'wpEdittime' var
> to a few seconds before current time could be used to coordinate disruptive
> attacks.

Client-side code is, naturally, not under our control, so there's not anything
to "prevent".

If you're referring to offsite form submissions automated with JavaScript, we
already have protection in place to prevent this for registered users. At most
it would be an annoyance for unregistered accounts as there's no security issue
-- you can already submit edits as an unregistered visitor.

Since the protection requires maintaining session state, requiring it for
anonymous editors would also cut out users who don't accept cookies.

> I know that it is a simple matter to fix entries, but it is a
> simpler matter to stick a
> if(getenv("HTTP_REFERER")='207.142.131.202'){}else{//fail handler}
> or similar line in the submit function.

Referrers are utterly unreliable: first, the client can always falsify them.
Second, requiring it will cut out anyone using a privacy proxy.

-- 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/20051220/38b0f5d1/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Yaroslav Fedevych

references:
<87ek49j5y6.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <43A701CC.2020809@web.de>
	<do8i3i$i3q$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:14:06AM -0000, Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote in
> message news:43A701CC.2020809 at web.de...
> > Uwe Brauer wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> Some articles bear the label: this page needs to be wikified, also it
> >> looks not much different to a standard wikipedia page.
> >> My question is which html constructions are considered as evil?
> >>
> > All of them, according to wikimarkup purists.
>
> ...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and thoroughly
> documented) <blockquote> makes much more sense than a simple ":"
> indentation. Maybe we should make it a requirement that you read the Help
> page on legitimate markup before you're allowed to summarily revert
> formatting :-)
>
> Maybe...I should put it into a template [runs and hides behing Magnus ;-]

When I consider what can be taken as legal wiki markup (when, say,
writing a  "third-party" wikicruncher), I have a general rule of thumb
that everything per XHTML DTD inside <body>...</body> except <style>,
<script> and maybe  <object> must be parsed properly and considered
legal; plus all those nice and not so nice quirks carefully piled onto
each other by wikimedians for years.

When I write my own wiki pages (not on wikipedia), I generate wiki markup
wherever possible, except that '' and ''' irritate me, as well as having
no wiki way to do multi-paragraph list items.

--
    * I think we all need to take our teachers with multiple grains of
	salt. They have, after all, figured out their stuff at a much slower
	pace than they try to teach us. Something is bound to get lost in
	that process.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
> On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>> Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
>>
>>> Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
>>> The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
>>> reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
>>> Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
>>> a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
>>>
>> And with stable versions, that would change how?
>> (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
>>
>> Magnus
>
>
> Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable
> versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going
> against the principle of Wikipedia.

Articles are continuously edited over time. As time goes on, ever-newer versions
will be marked as the stable version which is first shown to the public.

If that means "no-one could edit them", then we already have that model! You
can't change a given revision on Wikipedia; you can only make a new revision
based on it.

But even worse, today when we freeze an article to show a stable revision,
*nobody* can edit it except an elite cabal of sysops. Is that "open"? Is that
"free"?

Do you really think it's better for us to *forbid everybody* from editing pages
instead of finally doing what we've talked about for years and *allowing
everybody* to edit them and let the "first-glance" stable versions move forward
to catch up after a review?

I say we *allow everybody* to edit. That means making the stable-version system
that's been planned since 2002 but put off until the project matured more.

-- 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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20051220/aa7710dd/attachment.pgp


from_name: sydney poore

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>>It's not like we make it very hard to create an account anyway, so I agree.
>>
>>Do you think prefilled templates should be switched on by default for
>>established users? (those existing prior to implementing this feature,
>>that is).
>>
>>-Matt
>>
        Yes! A large number of Wikipedia editors are not making quality
        articles, today. Remedial help is needed.

        Sydney Poore
        Go Bengals!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Export pages

body:
Federico Paparoni wrote:
> Can someone tell me where i can find a DTD of the XML produced by "Export
> pages" ?

Some docs of some sort:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Export

XML Schema:
http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.3.xsd

-- 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/20051220/ff73234c/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was quite surprised to see today in the Wikipedia Signpost that
>the semi-protection policy had passed and I hadn't even heard
>a poll was conducted on it.
>
>I think it's really important that everyone is notified in a much more
>organised manner about such important policy chances.
>
>Now, the reason I'm writing here is because of the looming "stable
>versions" policy. I think this is a policy that contravenes the principles
>of Wikipedia, and I've raised this on the talk page
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions)
>It would be great if other people could comment on this policy.
>
>Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
>The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
>reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
>Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
>a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
>
>About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous
>users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then
>that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However,
>let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new
>policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension
>the success, of Wikipedia.
>
>At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal
>policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't
>been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring
>errors, etc.
>
>Let's maintain Wikipedia's liberty!
>
One is often hard pressed to know what policy really is.  Often it is
nothing more than a few policy wonks agreeing to something on a page
somewhere.  As long as they attach the word "policy" and nobody objects
they draw the conclusion that there is general approval.  If you weren't
aware that this was happening, too bad.

People obsessed with policy often tend to be very shortsighted, or they
will draft policies to deal with obvious problems but without
considering the effect of those policies on people who were never part
of the problem.  In other words policies designed to cope with a small
minority are at the expense of the great majority.

Preventing anonymous users from writing new articles may have been fine
as a short term solution, but we need to find better ways for long term
solutions.  There are too many ways around that short term solutions
anyway.  We do need to have versions of an article declared stable and
documented, but not at the expense of preventing the wiki's natural growth.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Media in Africa conference

body:
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
> > Dear all, I'm passing along details of a conference in London next
> > March on "The media and social change in Africa" (details below).

Myself (User:Cormaggio) and Kasper (User:Guaka) are interested in
collaborating on a paper. I've added initial details at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Media_in_Africa_conference_paper -
please add topics or ideas, or even some content..

Cormac

> >
> > I wonder if any Wikimedian(s) would like to participate in this
> > conference. I haven't followed many African projects but a quick flick
> > through Swahili (:sw) and Bambara (:bm) Wikipedias' Recent Changes
> > show some activity.
> >
> > Cormac
> >
> >
> >
> >>CAMRI Africa Media Series: 2006
> >>The Media and Social Change in Africa Conference,
> >>25th March 2006, 9am-5pm, University of Westminster, London, UK
> >>
> >>This is a 1st Call for Papers for a one-day CAMRI Africa Media Conference
> >>on 'The Media and Social Change in Africa'. In what ways are the media
> >>changing Africa? What role do the media have in a changing Africa? In
> >>countries from Egypt to South Africa, Kenya to Zimbabwe, Cameroon to
> >>Nigeria, Rwanda to Morocco, the 'media', defined as widely as possible,
> >>mediate old and new African social realities. Processes of mediation
> >>elicit reactions and patterns of change in Africa and, more importantly,
> >>in the media sectors. The shift from pre-colonial, colonial to
> >>post-colonial social formations has been reflected and affected by changes
> >>in media and communication. The media have been harbingers of African
> >>social change and are strongly implicated in the change processes taking
> >>place in Africa. Traditional and modern communication patterns are
> >>increasingly overlapping with mass mediation. Africa now has different
> >>kinds of media serving many kinds of purposes. Individual papers may,
> >>amongst other topics, focus on the:
> >>
> >>?                     Media's Role in Pre-Colonial, Colonial and
> >>Post-Colonial Africa
> >>?                     Media and Modernisation in Africa
> >>?                     Changing Media Institutions and Production cultures
> >>?                     Social Cultural Changes, Continuity and the Mass Media
> >>?                     Media and Changing Individual, Local and National
> >>Contexts
> >>?                     Changing Media and Changing African Lifestyles
> >>
> >>Papers are invited on Media and Change in Africa. The deadline for
> >>abstracts is 15th February 2006. Those whose papers are accepted will be
> >>notified by 28th February 2006. Completed papers (not more than 6000
> >>words) must be e-mailed to us not later than 15th March 2006. Send
> >>200-word abstracts to Winston Mano at:
> >><mailto:manow at wmin.ac.uk>manow at wmin.ac.uk
> >>
> >>Fees:
> >>Unwaged/Students:                 ?10
> >>Non-Students:                         ?20
> >>Fees cover registration, conference pack, lunch, coffee and tea.
> >>
> >>Contact Persons:
> >>Dr Winston Mano
> >>Africa Media Series
> >>Communication and Media Research Center (CAMRI)
> >>University of Westminster, Harrow Campus
> >>Watford Road, HA1 3TP, UK
> >>Phone: 0044 (0) 2079115000 Ext. 4427
> >>Email: manow at wmin.ac.uk
> >>___________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] I just did another interview - Dublin NewsRadio 106,
	2:20pm.

body:
On 12/19/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm now really hoping someone captured the audio stream, or that it's
> retrievable at a later date!
>

They do something called podcasting, but I can't work out whether your
talk would be in any of the clips.

http://www.newstalk106.ie/podcasting.html


from_name: l'Omnivore Sobriquet

body:
Messieurs-Dames,
    With no reaction since Friday, my case for block-lifting is now buried in the crowd of messages in WikiEN-l, and I'm wondering if the many people here still have it in mind.

    I'm pasting it below for an easier catch 'on the fly' by the interested wiki-admin, as it is to be found in my user Talk page as well (l? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Omnivore_Sobriquet .)
    The blocker was one Jayjg, who posted in wikien-l mere motivations, adressing a truncated version of my case, on 'points' that were indeed already adressed in the truncated part. (plus wild claims on the 'biographed''s behaviour.) That was Friday at 18:23 GMT, and it's pasted further below.
    Then one Sam Fentress (Asbestos) posted a comment somewhat favorable to my case, although furthering on the truncated version. Same Friday at 20:11 GMT, pasted further below.
    Then nothing, while I had finally my corrections posted here Saturday 14:27 GMT, which I paste at bottom although it doesn't add much, just saying to take my full text into account.

    I must stress also that I had received no warning whatsoever prior to the block., which is an 'infinite' block.

    In addition, I figure that I have no way of knowing whether the block is lifted, so I regularly hit some 'edit' button for a check. Do not resume imaginating 'fashions' about this, please.
 IP changes everytime, the last being 86.194.140.6

So here you are folks, I just wondered about the 'noisy silence' going on about my case here; in my view, it has been a fast misjugdment from one of yours, that could be settled swiftly.
Yours,
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 17:18 (i.e. 16:18 GMT)

[WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked.

My complaint about being blocked.

Friday, 16 December 05

                Messieurs,

I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.

My IP address is 83.205.136.21.

My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :

 "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
The reason given is:
revert sockpuppet"

Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line :

 "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting articles; that is what your edits consist of.

Jay. "

Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been auto-generated.

I'm writing here to argue my case:

By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of" any behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely of his own guessings on invented trends.

More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses.

Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I acknowledge here challengeable Ancient R?g?me ways, p?roraisons, and short-lived privilege abuses.

However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help, to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they are:

                Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually, early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre from the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and certainly not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of the controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki guidelines.  My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', that it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only remains to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be surprised, do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent some weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points. Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a dryer comment for these.

Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here. But humans always appreciate !

Please 'unblock' me at once.

l'Omnivore Sobriquet

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

from JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com>

vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 19:22

>From: "l'Omnivore Sobriquet" <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
>My complaint about being blocked.
>
>Friday, 16 December 05
>
>                 Messieurs,
>
>I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from
>Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
>
>My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
>
>My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got
>blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
>
>  "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
>The reason given is:
>revert sockpuppet"
>
>Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line
>:
>
>  "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
>articles; that is what your edits consist of.
>
>Jay. "

The userid made exactly two edits, both of them reverts of the same page,
Israel Shamir.  It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page
of the article in question, and certainly appeared to be a revert
sockpuppet.  Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been
consistently vandalizing it, in ways with which we have become all too
familiar.  He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the
article for him on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:

From: Israel Shamir <ishamir at ...>
Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:12 pm
Subject: Wiki ish314

Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war
over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as
dominated by philosemites as any other media, and they consistently demonise
me in the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir When I, or some
friends correct their most blatant lies, they change it back in no time at
all. Afterwards, they refer to their own lies as if it is an objective
source. Everybody can add, remove and edit any entry in the Wiki. I call
those who has available time to make an effort and to re-conquer the site
from philosemites. Shamir

Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind.

Jay.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

from : Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com>

vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 21:10

While I think it's quite likely that this user was recruited by Shamir, and
also that he has edited before, I don't think one can say for sure whether
he is a sock puppet -- you're better off having a developer check that.

But as for blocking because he came to Wikipedia with an aim in mind... if
we blocked every user who arrived at Wikipedia because of a bone to pick or
a view to push, we'd be down the vast majority of our contributors. The only
applicable policy is WP:NPOV, and you don't get blocked for a first offence
under that. I wouldn't ever unblock without knowing the whole story, but I
don't think I agree with this block's reasoning.

Sam

On 12/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:

        [edited, same as above. l'O.S.]

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

from : l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>

vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 21:46

Objet : Re: [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked. Now you cancompare...

hello, quick amendments:

"It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page of the article
in question"
    This has been well explained in the following of my message, it is a
fine wiki-ethical usage all along. This is a truncation you're reading, rely
on full version instead. (posted here 40 minutes before Jay's, your time)

"and certainly appeared to be a revert sockpuppet"
    It wasn't, and didn't appear as such then, as I explained in my message.
 Please don't  resort to "it's our experience that..." kind of argument;
we're not meant to guess. The number of possible logical cases of behavours
identical to mine while not being a internet sockpuppet is so high that in
25000 years time one still wouldn't have digested it. That you are 'not used
to forsee' such or such is of no importance, concerning the veracity of
being a such said sockpuppet. It may change a bit for the explanation of
Jay's behaviour yes, reacting to some 'well known pattern', well known by a
particuliar 'Wikipedia' staff and time etc., but changes stricly nothing on
whether it is actual sockpupetting, created solely for the... etc.

"Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been consistently
vandalizing it"
    Not at all. See talk, see history; Shamir just intervened some three or
five times if memory serves, weeks or months ago, civil and compliant at
that. In fact we have one, possibly multiple, swift reverts from Jayjg
and/or this Denis Diderot fame-seeker (shame-finder) without one word of an
explanation, I repeat, without one word of explanation.

"He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the article for him
on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:"
    It makes no mention of reverts.

"Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind. > Jay."
    Black magic again.

I'm not wild-eyed by this all comrades, and Jay is not the devil incarnate.
But I'm hurt and there should not be such a quasi-fetichist way for a
wiki-reaction.
So I'm waiting for good outcome, so I'm patient.
l'Omnivore Sobriquet

----- Original Message -----
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>

    [edited, idem - l'O.S.]


body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:

>On 12/19/05, Jonathan Leybovich <jleybov at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>== Future features ==
>>>
>>>Some ideas for things that could be implemented:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Also, perhaps add a 'Review' flag for namespaces so that pages within it
>>are reviewable or not using Magnus's page review feature.
>>
>>
>
>Magnus's Rewiew extension is just that, and it doesn't make sense to
>make special considerations for extension in the main code by
>definition. If extensions want something from the main codebase their
>authors can add hooks to the main code and modify things with those
>hooks.
>
>
What *would* make sense would be to add a way for extensions to add/set
parameters to a namespace. That would cover all database/import/export
functions once, so no need for an extension (any extension) to do this
over and again.

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

>
>Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
>The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
>reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
>Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
>a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
>
>
And with stable versions, that would change how?
(Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)

Magnus


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken 'Create Account' Page

body:
The page looks fine to me.
What browser and operating system are you using and what are your
current security settings? Also, do you allow Javascript and cookies?

Mgm

On 12/19/05, George Jenkins <gvj11 at student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Sorry in advance if this is posted to the wrong place.
>
> It appears to me that the page in which to sign up to Wikipedia is
> broken
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup).
> (As I have never used this page before its hard to say) It appears that
> the fields to enter a username and password are missing.
>
> Could someone redirect me or this message to someone who may know about
> this.
>
> Cheers, George.
>
> =======================================================================
> This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended
> addressee.  It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be
> the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or
> lost by reason of this transmission.
> If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our
> apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no
> other act on the email.
> Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been
>  altered or corrupted during transmission.
> =======================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Magnus Manske:
> The new Review extension, which replaces the Validation feature, can be
> seen in all its overwhelming beauty at
>
> http://magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php

Hey, this could actually work! I like that it's now in a box in the
sidebar. The color codings could use some work - black on dark red isn't
really readable. But I do like the idea of having a color-coded history.

Erik


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>
>
>> Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have already implemented most of this as an extension. Exceptions:
>>> * Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.
>>>
>> Why? To save space into the DB?
>>
>
> No. I just didn't see the point of having multiple stable versions. One
> will do just fine.
> Also, the "stable version" concept will be confusing to newcomers.
> Suppose you get the stable version by default, and decide to edit it.
> You'll be served the source text of the current version. WTF?
> *Several* stable versions will be even more confusing, with little benefit.
>
>
We will probably need to have the ability to rate versions as being
"stable version candidates", otherwise it will be difficult to move from
an older stable version to a newer.

By being able to rate/tag a newer version as a stable version candidate,
it could then be voted/rated/approved to either eventually become the
next stable version, or to be supplanted by another candidate. Users
should be able to see not only the history of all versions, but of (say)
all versions ever marked as stable, or the larger set of versions marked
as candidates for stability.

-- Neil


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:14:06AM -0000, Phil Boswell wrote:
> > ...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and thoroughly
> > documented)
 makes much more sense than a simple ":"
> > indentation. Maybe we should make it a requirement that you read the Help
> > page on legitimate markup before you're allowed to summarily revert
> > formatting :-)

Well, I would think that reading a lone ":" as equivalent to
"
" (or something else sensible), if that could be
implemented sanely, would be preferable; but I'm not sure that people
sprinkling big ugly "
...
" blocks in the
middle of wikitext is all that good an idea.

But then, I guess I tend towards "wikimarkup purism", in that I like
to think of wikitext as completely independent of HTML, and all
"borrowings" from one to the other as somewhat unfortunate.

On 20/12/05, Yaroslav Fedevych <jaroslaw at linux.org.ua> wrote:
> When I consider what can be taken as legal wiki markup (when, say,
> writing a  "third-party" wikicruncher), I have a general rule of thumb
> that everything per XHTML DTD inside ... except


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> Actually you misunderstand me. When you mix standards and the
> difference between those standards disappears because of restraints
> that YOU are under, it means that what you do is not up to standard.
> Consequently it cannot be said that we implement the ISO-639 codes.
> When we adopt the ISO-639-3 codes we have the SIL information
> included. It is a custom to keep the two character ISO-639-1 codes as
> well. This is in my opinion the only way out of this mess. NB We have
> been using these codes already for over a year in Wiktionary.
>
> Yes I know. URL's are case insensitive. We can implement ISO-639-3 and
> we should do this. NB there are even standard formats to indicate that
> a certain script is used as there are ISO codes for those too (ISO
> 15924).
>
> So we either adopt a standard and do it right or we should not say
> that we adopt a standard. If you want an official statement as to the
> stability of the ISO-639-3, I think that I can get you that.

One also needs to remember that ISO 639-3 still reserves a block of
codes beginning with the letter "q" tha are user defined.  These can be
used for languages that are not included in the standard.  The languages
where that would be needed are not going to be the most popular or best
known, and are unlikely to become big wikia.  If at some future time
thay are given a standard code conversion should not be a huge operation.

Ec


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Foundation-l] "Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any
	other APA/APPI content." um, wtf?

body:
Below is from [[:en:WP:ANI]]. What on earth? How does "fair use"
magically not apply?

- d.

DSM-IV-TR Copyright question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder
There is a question being raised concerning whether the reproduction
of DSM-IV-TR criteria on several articles without permission from the
APA constitutes breach of copyright and whether the administration of
Wikipedia could or should seek the relevant permissions or the removal
of such text? Personally I should like to request the permissions be
sought --82.195.137.125 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

    I have responded to this at the relevant talk page, and suggested
that relevant quotations are within the bounds of fair use. Other eyes
may be welcome on that issue. Dragons flight 21:20, 17 December 2005
(UTC)

        [Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,
original forwarded to permissions at wikipedia.org):

            We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our
content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not
want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have
complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM
material or any other APA/APPI content.

        I find this a LITTLE bit scary in it's wider implications
--82.195.137.125 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

            Also completely wrong. Of course it fucking applies.
Perhaps they could work with the National Gallery on this one - David
Gerard 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

                [Better idea David could you see your way to making
your case to them (I have already made mine)? Here is contact page
http://appi.org/permissions.cfx and post any results here? (repeating
on your talk page). "Inclined" is, to my mind, a word that is still
open to negotiation --82.195.137.125 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]


from_name: Nathaniel Sheetz

subject: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>Do you think prefilled templates should be switched on by default for
>established users? (those existing prior to implementing this feature,
>that is).

Sure, why not?  We have to add categories and level two headers to our
articles, just like everyone else.  And if they don't like it (which I
wouldn't exactly understand), give them the option to turn it off.

Nathaniel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable
> versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going
> against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted,
> which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it
> would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the
> principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits
> would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy,
> there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version
> would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would
> become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the
> editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored
> version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an
> article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits
> to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become
> incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal,
> takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature
> becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a
> peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.
>
> I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are
> only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from
> banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions,
> are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to
> combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes
> first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.
>
> Ronline
>
>
No, I believe that the core values are that Wikipedia is intended to
be/become an encyclopedia, and that it should be free, as in freedom to
use and make derivative works (and to fork, if necessary). Freedom to
edit is hugely important, but secondary to those core goals.

Having stable versions, and using those as a basis for moving forward,
achieves all of these goals, with the primary two foremost. Thinks how
open-source software gets made: anyone can contribute patches, but not
everyone has CVS commit, and releases are in turn made of selected sets
of patches (not necessarily the most recent ones, either).

If we get it wrong, then the policy can always be changed back, or, at
the very worst, someone can still fork the project, and the two styles
of development can continue to cross-pollinate.

The virtue of the multi-version approach is that it allows both the
"pure-Wiki" and the "sifter" approaches at once, but without forking the
project.

-- Neil


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
Hi,
  I agree with the need to make editing easier and to provide more
direction to newbies. Whatever template is used, it should guide them
through the notions that the article should be in at least one category,
should probably have a stub template, and may belong to one or more
wikiprojects. Not in a way that would intimidate a user who just wants
to contribute "something", but in a way to help someone who has an hour
or two to devote to their subject.

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SJ
> Sent: Tuesday, 20th December 2005 6:28 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating
>
>
> I'm not a huge fan of prefilled templates, but this is a
> great use for them.
>
> So... for users who aren't logged in, provide such a
> template, perhaps with extra introductory comments --
> everyone else gets a user preference (off by default) that
> they can toggle to get the same (with fewer introductory comments)?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken 'Create Account' Page

body:
Hi,
  It works for me in firefox 1.0.7 and IE 6.0, so you might be having
some browser related issue?

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of George Jenkins
> Sent: Monday, 19th December 2005 11:43 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken 'Create Account' Page
>
>
> Sorry in advance if this is posted to the wrong place.
>
> It appears to me that the page in which to sign up to Wikipedia is
> broken
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&t
ype=signup).
(As I have never used this page before its hard to say) It appears that
the fields to enter a username and password are missing.

Could someone redirect me or this message to someone who may know about
this.


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Biographies of living persons - new draft guideline

body:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on
> this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for
> those who don't like their biography.

Do you think that paragraph should be rewritten to be wholly from the
perspective of how current editors should behave?  If so, we should
create a new document from the perspective of 'So, you find someone's
written about you on Wikipedia ...'

And [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] is not it, at least not in its current form.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Digital Universe

body:
> What's worrying is the number and calibre of the experts they seem to
> have attracted -
> http://www.manyone.net/about/directors/
> http://www.manyone.net/about/advisors/
> http://www.manyone.net/about/foundation/

What do you mean by "worrying"? What looks potentially "worrying" to me
there is that the "advisors" are all politicians of various types, as
opposed to academics. So at first glance it's hard to see if a basis for
neutrality is there.

Steve


from_name: Blackcap

subject: [WikiEN-l] {{fact}}

body:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> I think it has every right to be annoying. It also makes it clear to the
> reader "ah, that's not verified. Oh yes, this is a work in progress,
> isn't it."
>

I like it too... still, the lack of square brackets drives me nuts. Ah well,
maybe I'll fix it when I have a minute.

--
[[User:Blackcap]]


from_name: Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

body:
Well, just to get the ball rolling, I created a possible version at
[[Wikipedia:New article template]] (or should it have been on meta?). We're
you thinking of something along those lines?

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

On 12/20/05, Nathaniel Sheetz <spangineer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt Brown wrote:
>
> >Do you think prefilled templates should be switched on by default for
> >established users? (those existing prior to implementing this feature,
> >that is).
>
> Sure, why not?  We have to add categories and level two headers to our
> articles, just like everyone else.  And if they don't like it (which I
> wouldn't exactly understand), give them the option to turn it off.
>
> Nathaniel
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Brian wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>> Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>>> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Magnus Manske wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       I have already implemented most of this as an extension.
>>>>> Exceptions:
>>>>> * Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.
>>>>
>>>> Why? To save space into the DB?
>>>
>>> No. I just didn't see the point of having multiple stable versions. One
>>> will do just fine.
>>> Also, the "stable version" concept will be confusing to newcomers.
>>> Suppose you get the stable version by default, and decide to edit it.
>>> You'll be served the source text of the current version. WTF?
>>> *Several* stable versions will be even more confusing, with little
>>> benefit.
>>
>> We will probably need to have the ability to rate versions as being
>> "stable version candidates", otherwise it will be difficult to move
>> from an older stable version to a newer.
>>
>> By being able to rate/tag a newer version as a stable version
>> candidate, it could then be voted/rated/approved to either eventually
>> become the next stable version, or to be supplanted by another
>> candidate. Users should be able to see not only the history of all
>> versions, but of (say) all versions ever marked as stable, or the
>> larger set of versions marked as candidates for stability.
>
> For simple things like spelling errors, this system would be way too
> complicated for approving a newer stable version.

The issue of having multiple stable versions seems different from how
stability is determined.  If version A is stable there should be a
simpler routine to follow when a new version that has only such minor
differences is made stable.  But then I could also as: "why version A
was considered stable if it had spelling mistakes?"

Ec


body:
Actually, while I don't think that it needs to go as far as having a wizard,
I'd be for a bit of New article Edit Box re-structuring:

How about a box that asks for the articles category (with a link beside it
taking you to a pop-up category navigation) and a check-box for stubs?

We could also have a series of boxes for See Also's, External Links and
References. Maybe if the user doesn't put in a references, their given a
pop-up box letting them know that they really ought to use them.

Of course, this would be rather more work for the developers than simply
adding some text to the edit box.

Thoughts?

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

On 12/20/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it worth having different templates for different sorts of articles?
> Is it worth having a wizard?  "Is this an article about a person, place,
> event...?" "So it's a person.  Are they alive or dead?" "Great, what
> field are they most known in?" "Sport, eh? American, British, Jamaican?"
> Take that far enough and it could spit out half the article, with
> relevant templates, categories, stubs and pointers for you to read the
> guidelines for that type of project.
>
> Is this the road we want to go down?
>
> Steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam
> > Fentress (Asbestos)
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20th December 2005 8:41 PM
> > To: preparing at psu.edu; English Wikipedia
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating
> >
> >
> > Well, just to get the ball rolling, I created a possible
> > version at [[Wikipedia:New article template]] (or should it
> > have been on meta?). We're you thinking of something along
> > those lines?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: which html constructs are evil

body:
"Rowan Collins" <rowan.collins at gmail.com>
wrote in message news:9f02ca4c0512200548k7ea50e24x at mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:14:06AM -0000, Phil Boswell wrote:
> > ...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and thoroughly
> > documented) <blockquote> makes much more sense than a simple ":"
> > indentation. Maybe we should make it a requirement that you read the
> > Help
> > page on legitimate markup before you're allowed to summarily revert
> > formatting :-)
> Well, I would think that reading a lone ":" as equivalent to
> "<blockquote>" (or something else sensible), if that could be
> implemented sanely, would be preferable; but I'm not sure that people
> sprinkling big ugly "<blockquote>...</blockquote>" blocks in the
> middle of wikitext is all that good an idea.

I tend towards liking "least surprise". <blockquote> is obviously for
tagging a block which is quoted from somewhere. If you haven't noticed (and
surprisingly many have not, no matter how long they have been on Wikipedia),
<blockquote> introduces indents on **both** margins. It also allows the use
of CSS styling. It is almost never needed to nest them.

The ":" syntax appears to be purely for successively indenting questions and
replies in conversations: any other usage seems to be serendipitous. It is
actually implemented as <dd> tags within nested <dl> containers. For those
lucky enough not to have much exposure to HTML, that is actually intended
for use as a "Definition List". The seldom used "; :" syntax, which produces
a bold header followed by an indented paragraph, is actually the correct way
to use the <dl> and <dd> tags.

Just to check, everybody does know that they are actually writing in HTML,
using a rather esoteric shorthand, right? :-)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] {{fact}}

body:
I think it's kind of annoying. If you need a citation, ask for it on the
talk page.

On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> May I just say that I really, really like [[Template:Fact]].
>
>
> - 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
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Yet another reason to have a "stable article" system

body:
Hi all,
I made a proposal for a validation system at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aoineko/Validation.
Any comment are welcome! (here or on the talk page, in French, English
or Japanese).
Regards,

Aoineko / Guillaume Blanchard

Brian wrote:

> The article on Christmas is set to be on the Main Page on December 25th.
> It used to be Featured quality. That was a year ago. Since then, it
> has had 600 major edits, 500 other edits, and is nearly unreadable.
>
> Compare the originally Featured version to the current version:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas&diff=32012542&oldid=8777491
>
>
> Now, it is up for FARC:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Christmas
>
>
> To prevent stagnated articles from being presented as "top quality" on
> the Main Page, there seems to be two solutions: set a time limit for
> Featured Articles, which requires them to be renominated on FAC if
> they become too different from their original Featured versions; or,
> implement the "stable article" option that Tim Starling has talked
> about, which would allow admins to set a "last good version" to be
> presented to the public at all times, while the real version is
> somehow edited "behind the scenes". As productive edits pile up,
> admins can set a newer version as the "last good version".  While this
> can still result in an article being drastically-changed, it is much
> more likely to be changed for the better in the long run.
>
>
> brian0918
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


from_name: Cormac Lawler

body:
On 12/20/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm now really hoping someone captured the audio stream, or that it's
> > retrievable at a later date!
> >
>
>
> They do something called podcasting, but I can't work out whether your
> talk would be in any of the clips.
>
> http://www.newstalk106.ie/podcasting.html

I just checked what I could subscribe to through iTunes and there's no
mention of this show, so i didn't bother. I'll email them and see if
they have an archive.

Cormac


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: which html constructs are evil

body:
>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Boswell  writes:

   >> Uwe Brauer wrote:
   >>>
   >> All of them, according to wikimarkup purists.

   Phil> ...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and
   Phil> thoroughly documented)
 makes much more sense
   Phil> than a simple ":" indentation. Maybe we should make it a

Right, I find the : and :# :* especially annoying since, they only
work for one single (long line) but not for a paragraph. That's why I
prefer much

over : etc. So I understand correctly the use of such constructs and

Is ok?

Uwe Brauer


from_name: Mark Gallagher

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

body:
G'day John,

> But if there is no published criticism of the nun, it certainly would
> not be POV to exclude the (obviously unsourced) criticism, no? NPOV is
> about representing all the different POVs about a subject without
> favouring any of them. If it so happens that there is only one
> (published) POV of a subject, then representing only that POV would be
> neutral, no? :-{

I disagree with your characterisation of NPOV.  What you've described is
not neutrality, but "journalistic balance" --- represent all points of
view, no matter how batshit, equally, favouring none.  Balance is the
friend of liars and frauds everywhere.

We strive to be neutral, and *truthful*.  That means we must give
different points of view different weight.  If Lyndon LaRouche says he's
one of the most important politicians in the world, but everyone else
thinks he's a dangerous lunatic quietly building himself a cult, we
should not be giving the two opinions equal time.

<many snips />

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/207 - Release Date: 19/12/2005


from_name: Fl Celloguy

body:
Apologies for my ignorance, but could someone explain what a pre-filled
template is? Is it just having default text in the create new article page?
I must have missed the beginning of the discussion. Thanks!

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The issue of having multiple stable versions seems different from how
> stability is determined.  If version A is stable there should be a
> simpler routine to follow when a new version that has only such minor
> differences is made stable.  But then I could also as: "why version A
> was considered stable if it had spelling mistakes?"

I hope that's not a serious question. :)

Humans are fallible. In the real world, some mistakes will make it all the way
to the printers', despite multiple reviews and proofreads. When somebody finally
catches them (after you've got a room full of boxes ready to ship out to
schools), you mark them down for reference and fix them in the next printing.

A stable-marked wiki page of course is faster to fix than a printed pamphlet or
book, since you can declare a new version stable at any time instead of waiting
until the 10,000 copies you printed up are used.

-- 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/20051220/260987cb/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Chip Berlet

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel law

body:
For those who asked, this is the website from which the legal summaries
were obtained.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/casedigest/icd_results.cfm?keyword1=defamatio
n&topic=Defamation

Van Buskirk v. New York Times

Loutchansky v. The Times Newspapers Limited

Sabbato v. Hardy

Schneider v. Amazon.com Inc

I inadvertantly cut off the source information when I pasted in the
summaries in my post.  My mistake.  Apologies. So thanks and credit go
to Perkins Coie, LLP, Attoneys at Law.

In most instances the useful case law summaries from the law firm's
website trace back to original source documents and analyses.

Cberlet


from_name: Sam Korn

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] "Fair Use does not apply to DSM
	material or any other APA/APPI content." um, wtf?

body:
I think David meant to send this to WikiEN-l, rather than WikimediaUK-l.

--
Sam

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] "Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or
any other APA/APPI content." um, wtf?
To: wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org, foundation-l at wikimedia.org

Below is from [[:en:WP:ANI]]. What on earth? How does "fair use"
magically not apply?

- d.

DSM-IV-TR Copyright question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder
There is a question being raised concerning whether the reproduction
of DSM-IV-TR criteria on several articles without permission from the
APA constitutes breach of copyright and whether the administration of
Wikipedia could or should seek the relevant permissions or the removal
of such text? Personally I should like to request the permissions be
sought --82.195.137.125 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

    I have responded to this at the relevant talk page, and suggested
that relevant quotations are within the bounds of fair use. Other eyes
may be welcome on that issue. Dragons flight 21:20, 17 December 2005
(UTC)

        [Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,
original forwarded to permissions at wikipedia.org):

            We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our
content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not
want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have
complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM
material or any other APA/APPI content.

        I find this a LITTLE bit scary in it's wider implications
--82.195.137.125 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

            Also completely wrong. Of course it fucking applies.
Perhaps they could work with the National Gallery on this one - David
Gerard 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

                [Better idea David could you see your way to making
your case to them (I have already made mine)? Here is contact page
http://appi.org/permissions.cfx and post any results here? (repeating
on your talk page). "Inclined" is, to my mind, a word that is still
open to negotiation --82.195.137.125 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]
_______________________________________________
Wikimediauk-l mailing list
Wikimediauk-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

--
Sam