from_name: Thommandel at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ha Ha Ha you are so funny Jimbo!! #3 (cleaned)

body:
(Note. In the first copy of this letter links were placed inadvertantly
making it impossible to read. I cleaned them up and am resending this. You may
delete #3)

In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wikipedia at philwelch.net writes:

"I don't  know anything about  cosmology. I do know something about
bias--since  you are biased  towards plasma cosmology, perhaps
neutrality is  perceived by you  as a negative bias? I know that
Wikipedia tends to  avoid giving  undue weight to non-standard  theories."

Hi Phil;

Your reply  is reasonable and adult like. Thanks for that.  However you
seemed to have selected parts of my letter and ignored the important (to  me)

parts. Rather than further confuse the issue, allow me to take it  one point
at a
time.

My main concern is Hubble's regard for  redshift. Cosmological redshift is
one of the three legs that the big  bang theory is based on.  The standard
theory has it that this  observed redshift is Doppler induced, i.e., the
faster a
star is  receding, the more it's light is shifted toward the red. They know
the
light has been shifted because certain spectral lines, frequencies which
absorb  energy, are found to have been shifted. Thus they can tell the  red
light
was  actually a different frequency (color) when it started  out.

In your article about Hubble, it is written and I quote
"Edwin  Powell Hubble, 1889?September 28 ,1953 was an American
astronomer ,  noted for his discovery of galaxies  beyond the  Milky Way  and
the cosmological redshift. Edwin Hubble was one  of the  first to argue that
the red shift of distant galaxies is due to the _Doppler  effect  induced by
the expansion of the universe. He was one of the  leading astronomers of
modern  times and laid down the foundation upon  which physical cosmology now
rests."

They key phrase here is "Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue  that
the
red shift of distant galaxies is due to the _Doppler effect  induced by  the
expansion of the universe."

This is simply not  true.

The controversy revolves around the "cause" of this  redshift.   Remember
that
while the redshift has in fact been  observed, the "cause" for the  redshift
is theoretical.  (It was  achieved by adding "c" the velocity of  light to
the
original  equations) The big bang theory ASSUMES the redshift is  Doppler
induced and  THEREFORE indicates velocity much like the train whistle  changing
in tone  as it passes by you.

In the Journal of the Royal  Astronomical Society of Canada, in a  paper on
the Centennial  Celebration of Hubble's birth, A. Sandage  writes that Hubble
himself did not  consider redshift as an indicator of  expansion, Sandage
wrote:

 "Hubble  concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution  showed a large
departure from  Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect  of redshifts on
the apparent  magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts  were due to a real
expansion. A  different correction is required if no  motion exists, the
redshifts then being  due to an unknown cause. Hubble  believed that his count
data gave a  more reasonable result concerning  spatial curvature if the redshift
correction  was made assuming no  recession.  To the very end of his
writings he maintained this  position, favoring (or at the very least keeping  open)
the model where no  true expansion exists, and therefore that the  redshift
"represents a  hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This  viewpoint is
emphasized  (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae,  (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to
the  criticisms of the 1936 papers by  Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in
his  1937 Rhodes Lectures  published as The Observational Approach to
Cosmology  (Hubble 1937b). It  also persists in his last published scientific paper
which is an account of his  Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953). "

<ref>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html</ref
>
Also in
Hubble?s 1937 book (The Observational Approach To   Cosmology) "Hubble
himself made  it clear that he was very uncomfortable  with the ?recession factor?
being  attributed to him as ?The Hubble  Expansion?." If one just sticks to
the facts, Hubble concluded, "There is  no  evidence of expansion and no
restriction of the time scale, no  trace of spatial  curvature..."

Therefore it is clear that  Hubble DID NOT argue that redshift meant
expansion.  The truth is  that Hubble argued just the opposite, that the
redshift was caused by an  unknown (at that time) mechanism.  And Wikipedia  is
incorrect
stating otherwise.

It was the later cosmologists that argued that  redshift meant  expansion,
not
Hubble.  Your encyclopedia states  in the Hubble section  "Hubble's law is
the
statement in physical  cosmology  that the redshift   in light coming from
distant   is proportional  to their distance. The law was first  formulated by
Edwin Hubble
and Milton  Humason in 1929  after  nearly a decade of observations.
It is  considered the first  observational basis for the expanding space
paradigm and  today serves  as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence
in
support of  the ."

(In the above statement which sounds true, the incorrect part  is "...the
first observational basis...

It was assumed, not observed.)

There is a modern twist in the story  line. In the 197o's William Tifft
observed that the light coming from  distant stars and galaxies is
"quantized."  It
has periodicity.   This observation has been verified and confirmed many
times over.  It   is considered inconsistent with expansion since expansion would
blur out  the  spectral lines. (An alternative explanation  favored by
creationists often  cited by some is that the earth is at the center of the
Universe...)

Now, If I were to go to your articles which make the  statement that Hubble
proved expansion, the inclusion of this comment  by Hubble as reported by
Sandage  would not be accepted.  It was  reverted out of the redshift
article, with
no explanation, reverted  out of the alternative cosmology article with the
explanation that it  is already in the plasma cosmology article, and was
reverted
out of the  plasma cosmology article with the explanation that it is of
historical  interest only.

So, Hubble did not believe that redshift meant expansion,  but as the story
filters down it becomes just the opposite, in some  places (elsewhere)I have
read  something like "Hubble proved that the  Universe is expanding."

The controversy does not exist only in  Wikipedia.  While it is  favorite
characterization by the big bang  folks to regard alternative  cosmological
theories as "fringe theories"  there are many notable figures who  have
disagreed with  the big bang  conjecture. One is Halton Arp, who was forced  to
move to
Germany to  continue his studies.  His works shows that spatially  correlated

galaxies have vastly different redshifts

My complaint is that the  plasma cosmology article is populated by big bang
advocates with their  obvious to me bias toward their theory, a bias which
they
frequently  acknowledge.  It doesn't seem right to me that one advocating a
certain viewpoint can edit the opposing viewpoint in a disparaging manner.
And
when it comes to deleting evidence that runs contrary to their  belief, then
we  have a new area of concern.  Something akin to a  janitor rewriting the
equations on the blackboard at night.

Point two. I did not start this warring.  I started out in good  faith  with
good intentions. But I was insulted, threatened,  intimidated, reverted,
blanked, ridiculed and called just about every  name in the book. (I don't
understand why some think calling names is  effective, it only speaks about
the  name  caller) I am used to  dealing with professionals and professionals
do not  talk in the manner I  have come to know here. It almost seems like the
people,  some
of them  anyhow, are college kids with nothing better to do inbetween
classes.
Professionals do not resort to ad hominum attacks for any reason.  That  is
because an attack on the person only indicates that attacker has no   better
argument going for him. It is an admission of failure.  I am  not  going to
simply
lie down and take it for the sake of civility  because I have  seen very
little of that here.  I will suggest  that your organization  consider
creating a
Wikipolice with the sole  purpose of infiltrating articles in  order to
ferret
out those admins  who are effectively rotting away what was  originally
probably
one of  the best ideas anyone ever thought of.  It is  very dangerous to
assume
that everyone is doing the right thing, especially when  the  operating
philosophy is something like the first comment I heard from  this  list "A
good
Wikipedian can do as he damn well pleases"

Tommy Mandel

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no  evidence whatsoever
that it is not utterly absurd. " ? Bertrand  Russell

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l  mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,  visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 07/05/06, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Ryan: You fail to answer the key question: was she hot?
> -Swatjester

I do not feel qualified to make that sort of a judgment. She also
appears to have made the same assertion about her pure intelligence
on-wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower/WikiSurvey

I'll let that page speak for itself. She'd make a fair point if she
wasn't pushing the "I am incredibly beautiful and intelligent" line,
because we'd be able to stop laughing for a while.

~Mark Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 49

body:
On 06/05/06, julieharding1 at charter.net <julieharding1 at charter.net> wrote:
>  I just spent all day editing a whole section for you Guy.  Your system would not save it for me.  It had to have been at least six hours.  God, I'm tired.  Why did I do it?  My love for English and writing and boy were there a lot of mistakes!  Yet, se la vi.  Snowspinner apologized, so I don't have to report him for cyber-abuse.  Your cite is filled with it though.  Today, I was referred to as: "Boobs."  You are going to lose a lot of very talented people at the rate you're going.
>  P.S. The attachment is just a Goodbye picture of me.  Maybe if you try, you can find and save the whole section I edited today.
>
> ----redhawk1972

Wikipedia is a 'site', not a 'cite'. 'Cite' is a verb. And your
attachment did not reach the mailing list because all attachments are
stripped from emails entering the mailing list.

If you really did try to edit the Main Page, you would have read in
big bold letters at the top of the screen "This page is protected from
editing. ... If the page is fully protected, only administrators can
edit it...."

~Mark Ryan


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Mark Bergsma

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikimedia network restructure: possible interruptions

body:
Later today - around 18.00 UTC - we will be performing network
maintenance to improve network redundancy, reliability and performance.
We hope that this will be more or less transparent, but it's not
impossible that interruptions occur around that time. Of course, we will
try to keep that to a minimum.

--
Mark

mark at nedworks.org


from_name: Jama Poulsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-07

body:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:15:41AM -0700, brion at pobox.com wrote:
> An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:
>
> Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
> Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
> Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
> Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
> Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
> Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
> Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
> Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
> Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
> Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Would it not save some lookup time to show the bugzilla URL directly in the email?

This might also attract some more casual attention to the parser bugs.

Jama Poulsen
http://wikicompany.org


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Criticism sections on bios of living people

body:
A wrote:
> 1. Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?

Usually not.  In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in
order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual
reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog.
Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to
insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog,
into wikipedia as "critics say..."

> 2. If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then
> coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter
> and/or spirit of the project?

Absolutely.  The distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki (or on-project
and off-project) behavior is one we should be careful about, but in
general, the standard is not some rationalistic nonsense but rather
simple good judgment about when someone is behaving badly and disrupting
our work or not.

> 3. Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
> repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant
> hatecruft about a person?

Often they are necessary and important, I think.  But they are also a
magnet for trolls.

> 4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
> What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for
> determining this?

Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail.  What
I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over
and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough.

> 5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this
> kind of criticism in their biographies?

WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so
that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/06, A <jokestress at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
>>> repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant
>>> hatecruft about a person?
>> They are not only valid, in many cases they are necessary.
>
> I beg to differ. In many cases they are not at all necessary. In fact,
> they are often symptoms of the shoddy research, writing, and
> organization that has gone into so many of our most problematic biographies.

I think you are both right.  In many cases they are necessary, and in
many cases they are not necessary. :)

And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a
symptom of bad writing.  That is, it isn't that we should not include
the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated
throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of
random criticisms.

> The guidelines are perhaps adequate, because this is partly a cultural
> issue. But it's been clear for a while that we have serious systemic and
> cultural issues on articles dealing with living people.

Indeed.


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> My main point is that living persons are just as deserving of
> criticism as dead ones. Unlike the dead ones, they have feelings we
> can hurt, so it makes sense to be extra careful about what we say and
> how we say it. The case of Tron on  de.wikipedia.org, however, showed
> that even dead people may have lawyers.

But I think we have many cases where the issue does not even rise close
to the level of involving lawyers but we still have a problem.

In this case, we have what I think can only be described as a
stalker/hate site being elevated by Wikipedia into a status of
"criticism" when the criticism in question does not appear to be about
substantive matters for the most part, but rather primarily about
getting attention through lurid and false innuendo.

And I think we have a culture of trying to include all information, from
whatever source.  What this means is that if you find someone in
Wikipedia about whom we have no "criticism" section, you can probably
launch a hatefilled, incoherent blog of rants ... including personal
criticism of physical appearance, sexuality, family history, etc., and
it could end up the center of a wikipedia "criticism" section... despite
having no objective merit.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

    "Raphael Wegmann" wrote
    > I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to
    > reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with
    > "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."

    Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian. But
    that is really not what is under debate here.

Agree again.  "Working with others" is the context of NPA.  It appears very clearly on that and all policy pages, along with the policies/guidelines considered "Article standards".

Consider this example:  There are politicians in jail convicted of taking bribes.  Admitted, uncontested, and no retrial requested.  If their family and political party join Wiki and complain that it is a personal attack, should we remove it or call it "accepting donations for future personal and political goals"?  Should we call them "controversial allegations"?

Raphael, I don't doubt you that Islam receives a far more negative spin on Wiki than Christianity.  I'll try to reply to some of the detailed aspects later, but my my view regarding article and user interaction policy isn't going to change.  If you want a different "bias" than the current sources, you need to present better (or more equivalent) sources that have a different "bias".  Even then, there's no guarantee it will change, especially if you're correct about the systemic bias.  Those types of biases arise from the people in the majority positions.  I.e., those with consensus.  There's nothing written in the article standard policies that favor one religion over another.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

body:
On 5/7/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
> My view is that unless we try we will never know... The great think
> about WP, is that it has not be tried before. It came to birth under
> the right conditions, and only time will tell if the project is
> successful or not. Yes, we are experiencing birth pains, but that is
> only proof that the project is alive. Yes, we are attracting
> criticism, but that only shows that we are doing something right...
>
> So, I would not put too many limitations. Let it happen. Let people
> contribute, trivia or not. Let time be the judge.
>
> -- Jossi
>

People are becoming disillusioned by the current process which is
liable to vote stacking, as described in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGTraynor&diff=51630848&oldid=51435283

Rather ironically the same person votes on AfD's that I have
participated in with Delete per nom, ignoring the current discussion
that has developed.

Peter


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> On 5/7/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not at all saying that criticisms should be omitted, or a neutral
>> point of view abandoned. But their consolidation into separate
>> "Criticisms" sections is generally undesirable, I would say.
>
> That's more of a question of style than substance, and I agree with
> most of your points. However, "Criticism" sections are definitely
> easier to write than a well-consolidated article. It takes a lot of
> skill to avoid an article that reads like a constant back and forth.

It may be a question of style, but stylistic choices can have
significant and sometimes seriously damaging effects on substance. That
particular path may be easier, which is in fact part of the problem.
When an article starts down a long road that leads to an undesirable
product, it is difficult to back things out and frequently makes more
sense to start from scratch. That's the approach I've had to take on
several occasions. Taking easy shortcuts will never get us good
encyclopedia articles.

It does take some skill to rebuild an article so that things go in the
right direction afterwards. Unfortunately, there seems to be a
considerable shortage of that skill in the community.

--Michael Snow


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 5/7/06, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pfft. I want pictures.
>

If you want to see pictures of attractive women try clearing out all
the fair use vios in [[Category:Fair use magazine covers]]

--
geni


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 07/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/06, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pfft. I want pictures.
> >
>
> If you want to see pictures of attractive women try clearing out all
> the fair use vios in [[Category:Fair use magazine covers]]

Not all of us find collagen-pumped, silicone-breasted slappers
attractive. There is, of course, no accounting for taste.

Rob Church


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/7/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> You know, when you put it that way, I'm not sure the criticism itself
> is even useful.  Shouldn't it be enough to state the facts, and let
> someone decide for themselves whether or not the person is a dictator?
>  "X has been frequently criticised" is a statement I think we should
> avoid.  Quoting prominent figures is fine, mentioning rallys and other
> organized protests is OK.  But just taking a general sentiment and
> applying it to a country, for instance, is not appropriate in my book
> (unless you can cite a poll I'd even say it amounts to
> non-verifiable/original research).

Agree. I was thinking in terms of quotes from the US Secretary of
State or something. Not just "Lots of Americans hate X" :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 5/7/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not all of us find collagen-pumped, silicone-breasted slappers
> attractive. There is, of course, no accounting for taste.
>
>
> Rob Church

Regardless of your taste I'm sure you will find something in there
(well I will conceed the coiverage of men is somewhat more limted).
Of course since many of the magazines have a business moddle based
around attractive women it is likely they have a reasonable idea as to
what is considered attractive.

--
geni


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

body:
On May 7, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I
> think so
> that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.

This is an excellent idea, Jimmmy. I will get started in drawing the
attention of the community to this, and start the process of
reviewing and eventually bringing [[WP:LIVING]] to policy status.

-- Jossi
[[User:Jossi]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 07/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not all of us find collagen-pumped, silicone-breasted slappers
> > attractive. There is, of course, no accounting for taste.
> >
> >
> > Rob Church
>
> Regardless of your taste I'm sure you will find something in there
> (well I will conceed the coiverage of men is somewhat more limted).
> Of course since many of the magazines have a business moddle based
> around attractive women it is likely they have a reasonable idea as to
> what is considered attractive.

At what point did I state I had homosexual interests either? Your
response demonstrates further fallacies; "attractive" is subjective,
and the concept dictates the criteria are determined in the mind of
the individual.

To put this in simple English, because a lot of people here don't seem
to understand words longer than a particular threshold:

"A magazine does not dictate what is attractive."

I wonder who will spot the metaphor relevant to this list?

Rob Church


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Living bios? Won't someone please think of the
	reader.

body:
David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

    about Xeni Jardin; the thing to do in this case is to deal with them
    as we do any POV-pushers. We don't need any new rules, policies or
    guidelines.

We do need fewer, however, or at least a lot less ambiguity.  POV pushers, when they have the majority (consensus), take over the content and the content standards get dumped [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content].  That's not exactly doing the readers any favors.  Maybe we could have an admin group called "admins not afraid to reverse consensus in favor of actual policy".~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 5/7/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/7/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Not all of us find collagen-pumped, silicone-breasted slappers
> > > attractive. There is, of course, no accounting for taste.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Church
> >
> > Regardless of your taste I'm sure you will find something in there
> > (well I will conceed the coiverage of men is somewhat more limted).
> > Of course since many of the magazines have a business moddle based
> > around attractive women it is likely they have a reasonable idea as to
> > what is considered attractive.
>
> At what point did I state I had homosexual interests either?

At what point did I say you did?

> Your
> response demonstrates further fallacies; "attractive" is subjective,
> and the concept dictates the criteria are determined in the mind of
> the individual.
>

It is quite posible to handle the term "attractive" objectively.

> To put this in simple English, because a lot of people here don't seem
> to understand words longer than a particular threshold:
>
> "A magazine does not dictate what is attractive."
>

That would depend on how much importance cultral conditioning has. Any
magazine with playboy style businness model and competant editors is
going to be putting girls who it's target audence would find
attractive on it's front page. If it didn't it would go bust in fairly
short order.

--
geni


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 5 May 2006 at 14:29, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for pointing out that distinction. Back on this issue:
>> Anti-Islam bias (regardless of whether it's systematic or systemic)
>> results in one-sided articles on certain topics, which is IMHO
>> derogatory to an encyclopedia. And putting the JP cartoons in the
>> article increases systemic bias by driving away muslim editors.
>
> But suppressing some content that's otherwise relevant simply because
> it offends some particular group and thus drives them away, is itself
> a form of one-sidedness, in which the group with the thinnest skin
> about such things gets to dictate the content and tone of the related
> articles.
>

I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is
neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it
is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise
(i.e. a linkimage template).

--
User:Raphael1


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote

> But it
> is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise
> (i.e. a linkimage template).

As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia decisions should not be taken on the
basis that someone might be offended.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

    Apropos rules, which are applied consistently. Please compare
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:66.108.42.9
    and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive14#Reports_from_Raphael1_on_cartoon_controversy

I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being reverted are rule violations.  This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice change.  Because the page is in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the copyrights were enforced) really does belong on the page.

My position on censorship is that if we permit this comic to be removed, anything critical or that parodies any religion becomes subject to removal if it offends some of the believers.  If it makes you feel any better, a South Park episode had Bush and Jesus shitting on each other on top of the USA flag.  I can send you the P2P link if you'd like to watch.  I could also submit a couple screen shots under fair use that you could add to the South Park articles.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

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

Daniel R. Tobias stated for the record:

> On 5 May 2006 at 15:45, <julieharding1 at charter.net> wrote:
> [long line re-wrapped]
>
>>You guys are hilarious!  Did you know that all of the emails that
>>have been coming to me today, I've been editing?  All of you
>>intelligent men spell like you're in the third grade.  If there
>>are other women in here, don't tolerate thier behavior!
>
>
> That's "their".  Once again, the "rule" that a message that "flames"
> others for their spelling or grammar is bound to have at least one
> error of this sort itself is proven.
>
> And you should work on your message formatting a little; I often find
> it very hard to tell where the quotes end and your responses begin.
> You should use line lengths of no more than 79 characters (per RFC
> 2822), and leave a completely blank line before and after each
> segment of quote or reply so they don't re-word-wrap into
> incomprehensibility in some end-users' programs.

She's far too intelligent (oh, and beautiful) to bother about formatting
her e-mail legibly.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | So please, oh PLEASE, we beg, we pray, Go
 sean at epoptic.org | throw your TV set away, And in its place you
                  | can install, A lovely bookshelf on the wall.
                  | --Roald Dahl, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEXrjEMAt1wyd9d+URAkvwAJ9AryQJC0eWiNKKXvNGbWyIJUiY2gCfUiMw
VQi5vCJrBuKHT5zCaD6vm8w=
=F89n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/7/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm not at all saying that criticisms should be omitted, or a neutral
> point of view abandoned. But their consolidation into separate
> "Criticisms" sections is generally undesirable, I would say.

That's more of a question of style than substance, and I agree with
most of your points. However, "Criticism" sections are definitely
easier to write than a well-consolidated article. It takes a lot of
skill to avoid an article that reads like a constant back and forth.
When you have warring factions watching over the article like hawks,
it gets even harder.

As for Anthony's point that we should focus on facts rather than
reactions, I agree; however, the facts, the interpretation, and their
relevance are all often in dispute. If you don't actually cite the
people making the claims directly in those cases, policies like NPOV,
verifiability, and "Original Research" will quickly be invoked by
those who'd rather not like to see certain facts mentioned in the
article at all. We turn opinions into facts by attributing them.

My main point is that living persons are just as deserving of
criticism as dead ones. Unlike the dead ones, they have feelings we
can hurt, so it makes sense to be extra careful about what we say and
how we say it. The case of Tron on  de.wikipedia.org, however, showed
that even dead people may have lawyers.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
charles matthews wrote:
> "Raphael Wegmann" wrote
>
>> But it
>> is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise
>> (i.e. a linkimage template).
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia decisions should not be taken on the
> basis that someone might be offended.
>

As far as I'm concerned, WP:NPA, WP:Wikiquette and WikiLove
are the best and most important guidelines Wikipedia has.

--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 07/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > At what point did I state I had homosexual interests either? Your
> > response demonstrates further fallacies; "attractive" is subjective,
> > and the concept dictates the criteria are determined in the mind of
> > the individual.
> ...
> > I wonder who will spot the metaphor relevant to this list?
>
> I'm wondering if anyone will point out the relevance of this whole
> conversation to this list. It's a bit tedious...

A tedious discussion on a tedious mailing list about tedious issues?
Sounds like Wikipedia to me.

Nevertheless, I consider the matter dropped as of now.

Rob Church


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Living bios? Won't someone please think of the reader.

body:
Whether to include a 'criticism' section and what to put in it can be
solved reasonably easily by applying the editorial judgement of
editors of good faith to the question: does it serve the readers of
the article?

It's pretty clear in the xenisucks.com case that there are POV pushers
trying to shove anti-advocacy into the article, and never mind the
interests of someone who reads the article because they want to know
about Xeni Jardin; the thing to do in this case is to deal with them
as we do any POV-pushers. We don't need any new rules, policies or
guidelines.

- d.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 6 May 2006 at 01:34, "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Speaking for myself, the existence of Pokemon is not directly a
> problem. But Wikipedia would certainly be better off if somehow all
> the effort that was expended on Pokemon articles was somehow invested
> in other ways.

However, the people putting in this effort are unpaid volunteers, who
are able to work on what they choose to work on rather than there
being any mechanism by which they can be ordered around.  This will
naturally produce an imbalance in the direction of whatever they
happen to want to work on, which might be Pokemon.

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: amgine at saewyc.net

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
 Commons

body:
On Sun, 2006-07-05 at 01:29 +0200, Daniel Arnold wrote:

> Well there is already a project in Commons perfectly suited for that
case and
> people are working right now in there and I really wonder why people
seem to
> think that an translation effort of Wikimedia Commons needs to be
coordinated
> by a "sub commitee" (sorry if I read that word I read "be aware of
> bureaucracy").
>
> Basically all we need are people that just do things without large
meetings,
> scedules and debates and start working up the tasks at:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_page_maintenance
>
> For sure I appreciate any help but it is more than just that single minor
> important main page that needs to be translated but real help pages like
this
> one:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Arnold
>
I'm really glad to hear you don't need any help in this regard, Arnomane.
The committee is there to offer help if it is needed, not to get in the
way of any project's efforts at translation.

Amgine


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 5/7/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> At what point did I state I had homosexual interests either? Your
> response demonstrates further fallacies; "attractive" is subjective,
> and the concept dictates the criteria are determined in the mind of
> the individual.
...
> I wonder who will spot the metaphor relevant to this list?

I'm wondering if anyone will point out the relevance of this whole
conversation to this list. It's a bit tedious...

Steve


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] An "approved" project ??

body:
Hoi,
I read on the list of "approved" project a proposal for a
bua.wikipedia.org The code bua is NOT an ISO-639 code. The article about
this language on the en.wikipedia is almost a stub. I find the quality
of the requests for many new projects really low. Have a few people,
find yourself a code .. or make one up who cares .. :(

This is not the first time we have projects started where it is assumed
that the facts given are solid. This is definitively another one of them.

I object to the start of this project under this code. As it is for the
special projects committee to accept new language versions or projects,
I urge them to be diligent in the checking of the basic facts.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] An "approved" project ??


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An "approved" project ??


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote

> I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to
> reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with
>   "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."

Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian.  But
that is really not what is under debate here.

Charles


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked IP address

body:
I have to say that with a email name of 'Atlantis Marketing' and a
username of 'extremewealth', I can't imagine you can have been trying
to do anything wrong ...

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

body:
On 5 May 2006 at 15:45, <julieharding1 at charter.net> wrote:
[long line re-wrapped]
> You guys are hilarious!  Did you know that all of the emails that
> have been coming to me today, I've been editing?  All of you
> intelligent men spell like you're in the third grade.  If there
> are other women in here, don't tolerate thier behavior!

That's "their".  Once again, the "rule" that a message that "flames"
others for their spelling or grammar is bound to have at least one
error of this sort itself is proven.

And you should work on your message formatting a little; I often find
it very hard to tell where the quotes end and your responses begin.
You should use line lengths of no more than 79 characters (per RFC
2822), and leave a completely blank line before and after each
segment of quote or reply so they don't re-word-wrap into
incomprehensibility in some end-users' programs.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>     charles matthews wrote:
>     > As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia decisions should not be taken on the
>     > basis that someone might be offended.
>
>     As far as I'm concerned, WP:NPA, WP:Wikiquette and WikiLove
>     are the best and most important guidelines Wikipedia has.
>
> All other things equal, I agree with Charles.  I still have no idea what article you are talking about,
 > but assuming the content is relevant to the article, meets
verifiability, and does not give undue weight
 > to something, the only other question that remains is whether it is
somehow presented with more bias
 > than the sources present it.  The policies/guidelines you mention are
not relevant to article content.
 > They are for dealing with others on Wiki, not how the article is
written or presented.

I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to
reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with
   "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."

Regarding the presentation of the source:
WP presents it equally anti-Islam biased as the original source.

> My advice is  remember this, archive it, and when you are involved in another
article (or some other
 > aspect of the article in dispute) where WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR
favor your position, reference this
 > and make sure that the rules are applied consistently.~~~~Pro-Lick

Apropos rules, which are applied consistently. Please compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:66.108.42.9
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive14#Reports_from_Raphael1_on_cartoon_controversy

--
Raphael


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] A Wikisource Definition

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 5/4/06, amgine at saewyc.net <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Foundation should (and did) describe the projects goals and missions,
>>and approve any modifications of these.
>>
>>
>Wikisource ("Project Sourceberg") was created before the Foundation
>even had a Board. This was during the time when new projects were
>essentially set up when something had to be dumped from Wikipedia.
>People were adding texts like national constitutions to Wikipedia
>verbatim. Hence, the only mission statement I've seen for Wikisource
>is on [[m:Wikisource]]:
>
>"Mission: Allow people to handle primary sources better than
>currently, so that no one gets upset. Maybe that means provide a
>repository for primary sources; maybe that means figure out how to
>improve the Wikipedia interface for linking to outside repositories."
>
There's something very Wiki about the phrase "so that no one gets
upset."  Each of the sister projects was based on some deviation from
the original Wikipedia.  Someone started writing something that did not
belong in an encyclopedia, and there was enough of a positive will to
agree to that and to seek out a better place for that material.  It all
began with Meta as a general place for personal opinions, or material
about our own Wiki-World.

>People get flamed nowadays for even submitting project proposals like
>this. You say I want to "dictate terms". But in actual fact, I want to
>be clear about what the project should _allow_, not so much about what
>it should _prohibit_. I do _not_ want a small group of a handful of
>people to retroactively create a definition that has never been
>written when it should have been. But that is exactly what will happen
>if you leave, for example, the question of whether to allow
>translations to the small, existing community of de.wikisource.org.
>
What a project allows is more important than what it prohibits.  The
old-timer brings a vision formed by history and experience.  This is not
the same as dictating., but I can understand how it can seem that way.
The longer people are here, the more their visions converge, even as the
details of their views diverge.

>There are different scales of community involvement that are
>appropriate for different purposes. Even for an individual page, you
>may see cases where a group of editors is annoyed because someone else
>suddenly opens up a discussion without ever having worked on the page
>or having read past discussions.
>
Yes it's annoying, but it's also a sign of good health.  Just when hard
work has brought an article into NPOV stasis along comes Joe Newbie with
the killer idea that blows that stasis all to hell.  If someone gets
upset that way maybe he should just abondon the sense of ownership that
he feels for the article..

>However, nobody would argue that the people who have worked on a
>single Wikipedia article have some special "right" to make up their
>own policies -- because Wikipedia follows a particular philosophy,
>which, to a certain extent, is even shared across languages. Nobody, I
>hope, would seriously make the case that each language edition of
>Wikipedia should have a different logo symbol (as opposed to the
>subtitle). So these decisions are made on a project-wide level.
>
>And in addition to the project level, there is the Wikimedia level.
>This includes involvement from the entire Wikimedia community, whether
>they have worked on a specific project or not. This is where we decide
>whether to launch a new projects. And in the case of old projects that
>did not go through this process, I think this is where the scope will
>have to be, gently and through a largely consultative process that of
>course involves the existing community, gradually defined or refined.
>
>This has nothing to do with "dictating terms". Some see Wikimedia as a
>group of largely disparate tribes, others see it as a single
>community. It is, however, both. Some decisions are best made locally,
>some globally.
>
Absolutely, but very few need to be made at a global level.

>The ability to make global decisions, to arrive at a single definition
>for a project scope, to consistently enforce free content principles
>and NPOV, and so forth, is one of the reasons to have an organization
>like Wikimedia in the first place. The other key reason I can see is
>to build an ever larger community that is given ever more
>opportunities to do good. Both are negatively affected by excessive
>tribalism.
>
>What else do we need Wikimedia for? Fundraising? The projects would
>probably be more effective in this regard if they could work
>independently, and besides, none is even remotely on the same scale as
>Wikipedia. Wikimedia without a Wikimedia community identity is a
>pointless entity.
>
Wikimedia can be a tool to link the community to the real world.

>I hope "Wikisourcerors" see themselves also as members of the larger
>Wikimedia community. I hope everyone who works on a Wikimedia project
>does.
>
Yes, and that includes a sense of belonging to the other projects even
when you never contribute there by virtue of language or lack of
specific interest.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] A Wikisource Definition


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-08

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 303 of 313 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
On 5 May 2006 at 20:23, <julieharding1 at charter.net> wrote:
[long line fixed]
> Thank you for your formal apology.  I am to assume that someone
> spoke to you about your behavior.  Right now I am enraged.  I just
> spent over six hours editing the front page issues for you guys
> and for some reason, your program wouldn't take it from me.
> Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?
>  Well, I just edited a whole section for you!  Goodnight
>  ----redhawk1972

I'm not sure what, exactly, you were trying to edit (the front page
itself is protected against edits because it would be a particularly
big vandalism target if it were freely editable), but it doesn't seem
like a good idea to spend six hours working on a single set of edits
without ever saving them; there are many ways it could go wrong
(including some with no fault from Wikipedia, like a computer crash
or power failure at your end).  There is also likely to be an edit
conflict if anybody else edits the article in the interim, which
might be why your edits failed to save (it's hard to tell from the
sketchy description you gave).  It's better to make small edits, one
section at a time, saving each one separately.

I looked up the username you gave above, and found this edit history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redhawk1972

As of when I checked, it had only one edit, which seemed to be a rant
with an edit summary that looked like a death threat ("Drop this one
and you're Dead!").  You might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit
if you don't want trouble.

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


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 5 May 2006 at 13:26, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As if common anti-islam bias among the editors weren't enough,
>>even administrators, who outed themselves as free speech extremists
>>on the Image-Display talk page, which has been created for this
>>content dispute, abuse their administrator privilege by simply
>>blocking editors they disagree with.
>>
>>
>
>"Free speech extremists", huh?  Extremism in defense of liberty is no
>vice... :-)
>
>
>
Raphael has filed a frivolous RfC against Cyde for enforcing consensus
on the Jyllands Posten controversy article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2

John


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
A-11 wrote:
>
> 3. Are "criticism" sections valid in general, or do they just become a
> repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant
> hatecruft about a person?
Our article should reflect reality: the principle of "least astonishment"
applies. So if a reader discovers references to some person in a wildly
critical blog, they should be able to come to Wikipedia and discover that,
yes, this person is subject to such criticism, but that the source is
such-an-such a blog and as such not necessarily reliable.

Arriving at our article and failing to discover any such mention might
prompt them to wonder whether the article is strictly accurate (with good
reason); if they are sufficiently paranoid they might suspect that the
"truth" is being suppressed and we all know that such suspicions lead to
sweaty palms and hot-headed edit wars.

4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources?
> What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for
> determining this?
>
Our usual take on blogs is that they are reliable sources as to their own
existence and subject matter and very little else.

There are notable exceptions: there is a chap on LiveJournal for example who
posts extremely knowledgeable and insightful commentaries on Legal Decisions
in the US Court System; he is widely regarded as one of the best such
commentators available and the fact that he uses the excellent facilities
provided by LJ should not detract from that.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Criticism-sections-on-bios-of-living-people-t1569035.html#a4277738
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Raphael Wegmann-2 wrote:
>
> I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is
> neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it
> is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise
> (i.e. a linkimage template).
>
Respect to whom? and for what?

Is this the kind of "respect" which is demanded by teenage muggers who then
proceed to carve up their victims for insufficient amounts thereof?

Not the kind of respect we want to consider paying to anybody IMNSHO: rather
they should be shown the door in short order.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-systemic-bias-t1572938.html#a4277791
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked IP address

body:
On 5/8/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/06, Atlantis Marketing <extremewealth at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't find any edits under this IP address.

It's the user that was blocked, not the IP. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tikiwikiriki

Angela


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/8/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I
> > think so
> > that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy.
>
> This is an excellent idea, Jimmmy. I will get started in drawing the
> attention of the community to this, and start the process of
> reviewing and eventually bringing [[WP:LIVING]] to policy status.
>
> -- Jossi
> [[User:Jossi]]

Very little of WP:LIVING is sutiple policy and most of the stuff that
is is already covered by exting policies.

--
geni


from_name: Cheney Shill

body:
Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:

    On 5/7/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
    > I'd be interested in a case where the content didn't have to undergo any extreme changes and the admins action was opposite of the majority. It doesn't have to be 27-3, but a 15-5 would still be an odd case.~~~~Pro-Lick

    This decision is on Deletion Review for a 14-4 decision.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24#Category:Wold_Newton_family_members

Thanks, Pete.  It looks like Tim! actually followed deletion policy.  The delete nom and votes weren't tied to any specific violation, "fancruft" being the closest, and that wasn't supported very well by the delete voters.  The only error I see is Tim writing there was "no consensus". Tim! seems to view consensus in different terms than most admins.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/7/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> As for Anthony's point that we should focus on facts rather than
> reactions, I agree; however, the facts, the interpretation, and their
> relevance are all often in dispute. If you don't actually cite the
> people making the claims directly in those cases, policies like NPOV,
> verifiability, and "Original Research" will quickly be invoked by
> those who'd rather not like to see certain facts mentioned in the
> article at all. We turn opinions into facts by attributing them.
>
True.  But at the same time, while I'm sure one could find 100 quotes
from celebrities who have called Howard Stern "disgusting", I'm not
sure any of them deserve mention in his Wikipedia article - maybe in
Wikiquote (*).

That said, I'm not sure where to draw the line.  I guess I'm saying
that quoting a pure opinion, where that opinion doesn't naturally lead
in to some pertinent fact, tends to be extraneous.  But I'd have to
think about that more.

(*) Maybe putting them all in Wikiquote and then mentioning that many
celebrities have called him "disgusting", pointing to Wikiquote as the
source, might make sense.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
> I would like to apologize for suggesting that Julie Harding is on
> crack. The term was an unfortunate choice of metaphors to express my
> concern that Ms. Harding's posts were incoherent and nonsensical. I
> have no reason to believe that Ms. Harding is currently or has ever
> been using crack, any other form of cocaine, or any other drug that
> was not prescribed by a licensed medical professional. My sincere
> apologies if my previous e-mail led anyone to think otherwise.
>
Judging from the minor assault upon my in-box, in addition to
the...interesting...messages which have managed to arrive on list, I feel
reasonable certain that if anyone was under the impression that the
inestimable Ms Harding is partaking of any substance, hallucinogenic or
otherwise, it would not likely be your email which was the only basis for
such a judgement.

HTH to sooth your tortured soul; HAND :-)
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Apology-t1567485.html#a4281298
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Craig Whitford

body:
Perhaps the best policy against vote-stacking:
1. Run a checkuser on all accounts that ONLY participate in the AFD concerning
the article.
2. If the checkuser is positive, block the user for sockpuppetteering for a week
and leave note on talk page.
3. Block sockpuppets indefinitely.

This might deal with AFDs on 'fancruft' and other controversial matters... certainly worth a try!

Craig


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

    Cheney Shill wrote:
    > I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation
    > for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being
    reverted are rule violations.
    > This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice
    change. Because the page is
    > in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the
    copyrights were enforced) really
    > does belong on the page.

    WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin
    would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx
    article or any porn from any porn stars article.
    What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations
    are not enforced?

Blanking, whether in whole or "significant parts", is considered vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism.  Also, this is policy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.

You do bring up a good point about the consistency of application, and you probably are correct, but you need actual examples of that happening.  I'd keep in mind that shock material, like goatse images, is considered vandalism unless it's within the context of an article that's clearly about it.  Most people don't know what to expect reading goatse.  An article titled "Extreme sex acts", however, because people know by the title that they aren't entering an article about goats or facial hair, would be allowed a lot more discretion on what is and is not shock, at least as long as it involves sex.  Consider these articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.


from_name: thomas bulliard

subject: [Wikitech-l] lien externe sur un document

body:
Bonjour,

J'utilise wikimedia en intranet et je souhaite faire un lien sur un document
(a t?l?charger) et aussi pouvoir linker un r?pertoire d'un serveur mais
malheureusement je suis tomb? sur l'info qu'il n'?tait pas possible de faire
[files:\\toto\rep\tata.pdf] ou [\\toto\rep\].

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aide:URL  ->  # 1 URL dans les liens externes

Mes documents sont stocker dans des volumes r?seau o? sont placer des
fichiers Template (pour la mise en place d'une m?thodologie de projet).

Pour information, j'ai choisi d'utilis? wiki pour ne pas utiliser de ftp ou
autres... car le contributeur devront upgrader les doc directement dans le
volume r?seau (r?pertoire serveur) via leur browser de fichier.

qqun aurai une solution ? Merci d'avance pour son aide.

Bonne journ?e !!!   que le wiki soit avec vous....


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] add a border (in CSS) in order to emphasise
	indentation

body:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
>>>>> <stevage at gmail.com> writes:

   Steve> On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell
   Steve> <phil.boswell at gmail.com>
   Steve> wrote:

   Steve> Ok, yeah I know about that template, which I find for most
   Steve> practical purposes pretty impractical. Everytime I've tried
   Steve> to use it, either the source of the quotation was already
   Steve> obvious, or I wanted to surround it with ""s or
   Steve> something. In any case, it's a bit cumbersome for a talk
   Steve> page. If a template was the only solution, a very basic
   Steve> style would be my preference - none of this hard-coded
   Steve> quotation author bizzo...

Not sure I understand completely. I can of course wrap my edits in a
talk page, with a
   {{Quotation| You are right}}{{~~~~}}
structure[1]. But
as far as I can see, that cannot easily be indented!

:{{Quotation| You are right}}{{~~~~}}  does not work
{{:Quotation| You are right}}{{~~~~}}  does not work

is a different thing.

So I think for the moment being the CSS entry from the french
wikipedia site seems the best solution.

Uwe Brauer since I use Emacs as an editor, and have a wikipedia mode
for it, it is very easy :)


body:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
>>>>> <stevage at gmail.com> writes:

   Steve> On 5/5/06, Uwe Brauer
   Steve> <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
   >> It would be more logical to do it the other way around > for
   >> indentation with border : for without, but maybe most people
   >> would find that to confusing.

   Steve> Sure, why not. It'd also be great if there was a convenient
   Steve> way of quoting stuff from the article. I still haven't come
   Steve> up with a convention that I'm happy with. You really want
   Steve> something that puts a nice big box around it to make clear
   Steve> what's a quote and what isn't. Something sort of like what
   Steve> happens when you start a line with a space, but without the
   Steve> monospace, and with line wrapping.

Coming back to my original question: the CSS entry  of the french
wikipedia.

    -  Does everybody agree to have such structure for talk pages

    -  Who could add that structure? Which Sys Op?

Uwe


from_name: Steve Bennett

references:
<87psisms1a.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
	<f1c3529e0605050810g198b013al8b4e4e218f06b78@mail.gmail.com>
	<871wv4j0jb.fsf@mat.ucm.es>

body:
On 5/8/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
> Coming back to my original question: the CSS entry  of the french
> wikipedia.
>     -  Does everybody agree to have such structure for talk pages
>     -  Who could add that structure? Which Sys Op?

Personally I find the colours at Fr a bit garish, but in principle I support it.

Steve


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>     Apropos rules, which are applied consistently. Please compare
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:66.108.42.9
>     and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive14#Reports_from_Raphael1_on_cartoon_controversy
>
> I see a block for censorship and another for vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation
 > for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being
reverted are rule violations.
 > This is consistent with what I've seen before, which is a nice
change.  Because the page is
 > in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it if the
copyrights were enforced) really
 > does belong on the page.

WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin
would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx
article or any porn from any porn stars article.
What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations
are not enforced?

> My position on censorship is that if we permit this comic to be removed, anything critical or
 > that parodies any religion becomes subject to removal if it offends
some of the believers.

I don't want the cartoons to be removed. I want them to be moved behind
a link. I'd wish, that Wikipedia distances itself from the incitement of
religious hatred against any religion by either linkimaging such
examples or by putting such examples on articles like anti-Semitism or
Islamophobia.

--
Raphael


body:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
>>>>> <stevage at gmail.com> writes:

   Steve> On 5/8/06, Uwe Brauer
   Steve> <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
   >> Coming back to my original question: the CSS entry  of the french
   >> wikipedia.
   >> -  Does everybody agree to have such structure for talk pages
   >> -  Who could add that structure? Which Sys Op?

   Steve> Personally I find the colours at Fr a bit garish, but in
   Steve> principle I support it.

Yeah right, I agree. Now the question is whom to contact and whom to ask
for the changes??????


subject: [Wikitech-l] Threads: any plans

body:
>>>>> " " == Robert Rapplean
>>>>> <mythobeast at gmail.com> writes:

    > Hi, Uwe.  I've been working on a consensus building tool for
    > this purpose, but if you're just looking for something that will
    > thread conversations it's probably a bit too industrial for your
    > tastes.  The primary problem with threaded message bases is that
    > they encourage completely off-topic conversations under the
    > assumption that people can readily ignore the bits that aren't
    > to their interest.  This assumption is somewhat falacious
    > because the end result is a convoluted conversation structure
    > where finding the on-topic threads becomes increasingly
    > difficult, and important points get burried pretty quickly.
Hi Robert,

Well yeah could be. However right now, I find the wikipedia talk pages
very messy, because sometimes people even sign their messages it is
not clear to whom the respond etc. That is partially caused by the
lack of discipline of the users partially by the lack of tools which
enforces the use of signature and reply-prefix etc.

So even a simple tool, like the CSS entry in the french wikipedia
page, is a first step to get the talk pages better organised.

Your tool is an experiment? Is intended to be included in media wiki?

Regards

Uwe


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting smarter about surnames

body:
Sam Pointon wrote:
> [...]
> If, say,
> we have a template "person", used like {{person|Smith|John Smith|An
> ordinary man who works in an office}} (that is,
> {{person|<<surname>>|<<name>>|<<short desc>>}}) on page [[John Smith
> (person)]], it automatically adds the line:
>
> [...]
>
>

Just dropping a link to the somewhat-related [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] here.

grm_wnr


from_name: Philip Sandifer

body:
I agree with the subject line of this e-mail wholeheartedly.

May I suggest that the best way to prevent vote-stacking would be to
stop voting?

(Someone responds here that we need voting for AfD)

I point out that we don't need voting for AfD, which is why we
changed it away from VfD, and that the proper way to close an AfD is
to look at the arguments and how they adhere to Wikipedia policy, and
remembering that if a bunch of people come from off-site to express
their belief that an article should be kept, THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN
SERIOUSLY, because Wikipedia is for its readers. That doesn't mean
their votes count more, less, or the same as everyone else's, because
AfD isn't supposed to be a vote.

Really, AfD votestacking isn't even the most destructive - we've
always been pretty good at ignoring meatpuppets if we want to, at
times even when we shouldn't. The dangerous votestacking is the "Get
all your friends to pile on to an RfC, RfA, or policy debate."

Which is why we should stop voting on those as well.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
>
> Raphael Wegmann-2 wrote:
>> I have agreed to the linkimage compromise long time ago. IMHO it is
>> neither necessary nor favourable to suppress the cartoons. But it
>> is necessary to show respect by accepting a compromise
>> (i.e. a linkimage template).
>>
> Respect to whom?

Muslims

> and for what?

for being humans as well.

> Is this the kind of "respect" which is demanded by teenage muggers who then
> proceed to carve up their victims for insufficient amounts thereof?

No.

--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
On 5/8/06, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Raphael- I understand and am aware of the controversy regarding the Armenian
> Genocide article. What is the issue with Nanjing (which article, what's the
> problem etc?) I haven't heard of this before now.

I suspect he refers to the [[Nanking Massacre]].

-Matt


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

body:
On 5/6/06, julieharding1 at charter.net <julieharding1 at charter.net> wrote:
> You guys are hilarious!  Did you know that all of the emails that have been coming to me today, I've been editing?  All of you intelligent men spell like you're in the third grade.

>... behavior!

Uh-oh, spaghetti-oh!

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Wiliam J. Clinton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the
Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester,
Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech
and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider
condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia --
behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling
reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing
only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this
paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list
where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when
discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision
of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one
Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally
and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of
the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and
continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community.
I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly
inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no
part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly
deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real
terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people
who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the
impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically
correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term
"mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the
imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the
mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally
disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than
almost any other segment of a society.  More likely to be the victims of
physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly
when their needs are greatest.  In the relatively rare instances when they
have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen,
particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred
power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by
industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More
like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group
sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals
it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly
inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with
children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are
abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so
many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional
impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly
or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such
behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its
values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have
contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything
else could.

User: Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>     "Raphael Wegmann" wrote
>     > I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to be rewritten to
>     > reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with
>     > "Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
>
>     Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian. But
>     that is really not what is under debate here.
>
> Agree again.  "Working with others" is the context of NPA.
 > It appears very clearly on that and all policy pages,
 > along with the policies/guidelines considered "Article standards".
>
> Consider this example:
 > There are politicians in jail convicted of taking bribes.
 > Admitted, uncontested, and no retrial requested.
 > If their family and political party join Wiki and complain
 > that it is a personal attack, should we remove it or call it
 > "accepting donations for future personal and political goals"?
 > Should we call them "controversial allegations"?

Why should any politician, who admitted taking bribes,
complain for that allegation?

> Raphael, I don't doubt you that Islam receives a far more
 > negative spin on Wiki than Christianity.  I'll try to reply
 > to some of the detailed aspects later, but my my view
 > regarding article and user interaction policy isn't going
 > to change.  If you want a different "bias" than the current
 > sources, you need to present better (or more equivalent)
 > sources that have a different "bias".  Even then, there's
 > no guarantee it will change, especially if you're correct
 > about the systemic bias.  Those types of biases arise from
 > the people in the majority positions.  I.e., those with
 > consensus.  There's nothing written in the article standard
 > policies that favor one religion over another.~~~~Pro-Lick
>

There's nothing written in policies, that WP is a democracy,
Ochlocracy or Mobocracy either.

--
Raphael


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikimedia network restructure: possible
	interruptions

body:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Mark Bergsma wrote:
> For those interested, the new setup is described at
> https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/BGP

Woo hoo, and *very* nice writeup.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


body:
On 5/8/06, Craig Whitford <craigwhitford1 at emailaccount.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the best policy against vote-stacking:
> 1. Run a checkuser on all accounts that ONLY participate in the AFD concerning
> the article.

Waste of time we ignore them anyway
> 2. If the checkuser is positive, block the user for sockpuppetteering for a week
> and leave note on talk page.
> 3. Block sockpuppets indefinitely.
>
> This might deal with AFDs on 'fancruft' and other controversial matters... certainly worth a try!
>
> Craig

No established users would not be stupid enough to use such
transparent socks on AFD.
--
geni


from_name: Dan Rosenthal

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Raphael- I understand and am aware of the controversy regarding the Armenian
Genocide article. What is the issue with Nanjing (which article, what's the
problem etc?) I haven't heard of this before now.

-Swatjester

On 5/8/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>
>
> charles matthews wrote:
> > "Raphael Wegmann"  wrote
> >
> >>> So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing
> the
> >>> encyclopedia articles.  As decent people, they will self-censor in
> talk
> >>> page
> >>> discussion.  Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
> >> So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you
> >> can be decent without loosing any informational content?
> >> The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of
> >> readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about
> >> that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending
> >> editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority.
> >> In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia.
> >> If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested.
> >> You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and
> >> a true neutral point of view.
> >
> > Too many assumptions.  I don't know why you think that Christians might
> not
> > be offended, at some things:
>
> I never said so. But since Christians are the majority, their opinion
> will be heard in the poll surveys, that are IMHO carried out way too
> often. Why do you distract the discussion to countries like Armenia or
> Nanjing? I am talking about 1.3 billion people, who happen to be a
> minority on the english language Wikipedia.
>
> [...]
>
> > Actually the only way not to offend anyone is  to avoid all
> controversial
> > topics.  It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the
> kind
> > of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
>
> I disagree. It is possible to present controversial topics in
> a non-offensive way by presenting the differing point of views,
> balancing their weight and establishing a consensus among all
> interested parties. It happens all the time on Wikipedia.
>
> Unfortunately sometimes polls decide how a controversial topic
> should be presented. Thereby Wikipedia will become an Ochlocracy
> resp. Mobocracy, which is bad - even for articles like Armenia
> and Nanjing.
>
> --
> Raphael
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Dan Rosenthal
IWVO National Legislative Director


body:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:24:43PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> > > https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/BGP
> >
> > Woo hoo, and *very* nice writeup.
>
> Part of our network setup is documented? I'm speechless...

Hee.

Having just had to do battle with a Catalyst 3*5*50 at a clients a
couple weeks ago, I was going to ask if anyone could pull the entire
config from the 3560's and post it (sans passwords, of course).

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: Platonides

body:
Je ne suis trop s?re d'avoir comprendu votre probl?me. L'anglais es la
langue plus utilic? dans cette liste, parfois il serait une bonne id?e
faire-la en anglais.

Je crois que tu desires utiliser une URL d'une serveur local.
Tu peux avoir des fichiers dans le wiki et les acceser avec Media: ou Image:
Je croit ?a serait la meilleur id?e.
Tu peux aussi utiliser une lieu du serveur pour avoir ces fichiers, tu as
besoin du http serveur dej? pour le mediawiki, il n'est pas un probl?me.
http://tonserveur/wiki/lieu pourrait avoir un lien au
http://tonserveur/rep/tata.pdf
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aide:URL  te dit la cible est une URL qui
peut commencer par un des pr?fixes Internet usuels : "http://", "ftp://",
etc., ? l'exception de "file://" qui ne marche pas.

-----
>"thomas bulliard" a ecrit:
Bonjour,

J'utilise wikimedia en intranet et je souhaite faire un lien sur un document
(a t?l?charger) et aussi pouvoir linker un r?pertoire d'un serveur mais
malheureusement je suis tomb? sur l'info qu'il n'?tait pas possible de faire
[files:\\toto\rep\tata.pdf] ou [\\toto\rep\].

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aide:URL  ->  # 1 URL dans les liens externes

Mes documents sont stocker dans des volumes r?seau o? sont placer des
fichiers Template (pour la mise en place d'une m?thodologie de projet).

Pour information, j'ai choisi d'utilis? wiki pour ne pas utiliser de ftp ou
autres... car le contributeur devront upgrader les doc directement dans le
volume r?seau (r?pertoire serveur) via leur browser de fichier.

qqun aurai une solution ? Merci d'avance pour son aide.

Bonne journ?e !!!   que le wiki soit avec vous....


body:
On 5/8/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> True.  But at the same time, while I'm sure one could find 100 quotes
> from celebrities who have called Howard Stern "disgusting", I'm not
> sure any of them deserve mention in his Wikipedia article - maybe in
> Wikiquote (*).

I think the normal way this would be handled is you would just say
"has been called disgusting by a large number of celebrities"[1], and
in the footnote, you would say "For example, Winona Ryder [ur], ...."
and just give a couple.

Steve


body:
For the problem of linking to pdf files, the simplest would be getting
the pdf in the right directory and simply linking to it in
[Media:file.pdf] format.

For the problem of linking to directories themselves, I suspect that
there is no convenient solution, other than running another web
server, and using that to interpret the links. Eg, run Microsoft ILS,
and thus create a link to [http://server/wiki/directory], which it
will use to return the contents of the directory. But I don't really
know MediaWiki...

(For spectators, I believe the basic problem is that he wants to link
to directories, but MediaWiki prevents you doing this through a
[file://server/directory] link.)

Steve

On 5/8/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Je ne suis trop s?re d'avoir comprendu votre probl?me. L'anglais es la
> langue plus utilic? dans cette liste, parfois il serait une bonne id?e
> faire-la en anglais.
>
> Je crois que tu desires utiliser une URL d'une serveur local.
> Tu peux avoir des fichiers dans le wiki et les acceser avec Media: ou Image:
> Je croit ?a serait la meilleur id?e.
> Tu peux aussi utiliser une lieu du serveur pour avoir ces fichiers, tu as
> besoin du http serveur dej? pour le mediawiki, il n'est pas un probl?me.
> http://tonserveur/wiki/lieu pourrait avoir un lien au
> http://tonserveur/rep/tata.pdf
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aide:URL  te dit la cible est une URL qui
> peut commencer par un des pr?fixes Internet usuels : "http://", "ftp://",
> etc., ? l'exception de "file://" qui ne marche pas.
>
> -----
> >"thomas bulliard" a ecrit:
> Bonjour,
>
> J'utilise wikimedia en intranet et je souhaite faire un lien sur un document
> (a t?l?charger) et aussi pouvoir linker un r?pertoire d'un serveur mais
> malheureusement je suis tomb? sur l'info qu'il n'?tait pas possible de faire
> [files:\\toto\rep\tata.pdf] ou [\\toto\rep\].
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aide:URL  ->  # 1 URL dans les liens externes
>
>
> Mes documents sont stocker dans des volumes r?seau o? sont placer des
> fichiers Template (pour la mise en place d'une m?thodologie de projet).
>
> Pour information, j'ai choisi d'utilis? wiki pour ne pas utiliser de ftp ou
> autres... car le contributeur devront upgrader les doc directement dans le
> volume r?seau (r?pertoire serveur) via leur browser de fichier.
>
> qqun aurai une solution ? Merci d'avance pour son aide.
>
> Bonne journ?e !!!   que le wiki soit avec vous....
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 5/8/06, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I point out that we don't need voting for AfD, which is why we
> changed it away from VfD, and that the proper way to close an AfD is
> to look at the arguments and how they adhere to Wikipedia policy...

And here we come to the key problem with the entire model: there
_isn't_ an objective policy to deal with these things.  (Certainly
there are some policies, like verifiability, that can be used; but the
lack of consensus for a more comprehensive "notability" policy is the
issue.)  Once you strip away all the arguments about "notability" and
the sea of guidelines and pseudo-guidelines and random acronyms, you
get something like:

* Delete, subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
* Keep, subject _is_ appropriate for an encyclopedia.

which is about as subjective a standard as you can get.  We can
certainly appoint someone to judge the relative arguments and decree
an outcome, but the question is fundamentally one of differing
perceptions of what Wikipedia should strive to be, not one of simply
applying existing policy.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Aphaia

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
	Commons

body:
Hallo,

On 5/7/06, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 07. Mai 2006 02:13 schrieb Anthere:
> > I would like to clarify something, which appears to be misunderstood.
> >
> > Committees (and subcommmittees) do not exist to *replace* local
> > communities to do things. They can help local communities, or not.
> >
> > The primary role of committees is to do what the Foundation should do.
> > It is distinctly different.
>
> I am really sorry for that rant but I am just a little bit frustrated as I
> have advertised our need for translation help countless times in some
> wikipedias (namely de.wp and fr.wp) with limited success and just feared that
> we will be sceduled somewhere and then there will be nice supportive calls
> and again not many more people jump in.

Einverstanden, Freund.
Und so, du wolltest dich nicht enttauschen, DAS ist mein Hauptgrund,
dass ich mit PTsubcom beteile. Es war mir zu muede zu rufen am Wilde,
um Uebersetzer zu sammeln. Sehr lange Zeit. Und ich glaube, du weisst
schon etwas von meinen Versuchen.

Konnte ich vermuten, mein Presanz laesst dich hilflich denken, dass
die sogenannt Committee (feiner Subcommittee) weniger bureaucratisch
ist wie du erst eingedrueckt? Um die Aktivitaeten Foundations zu
hilfen in die Sprachemaesigkeiten, haben wir einfach gefunden, ist
unser Zusammenarbeit sehr benutzbar fuer uns selbst und hoffentlich
fuer andere.

Wir, meine ich hier PTsubcom, haben die Liste von Uebersetzer und
Uebersetzerinnen, und wenn notwendig, konnten wir ihnen fragen, ob sie
jetzt uns helfen wollten, sowohl offentlich als privat.

Es sind auch die Leute, die keine Wikimedianer sein aber uns helfen
wollen mit ihre Uebersetzungen. Solche Leute machten oft Kontakt zu
der Foundation, oder uns PTsubcom, aber vielleicht keinem eigenen
Projekt. So, konnte du mir einstimmen, ist es hilflich uns einem
speciallen Gruppe zu haben, der Uebersetzungen kummelt, oder?

Natuerlich, wenn du - oder die Gemeinde auf Commons nicht wollen,
braucht ihr geholfen zu werden von solche (Sub)communities.

> There are some people that just jumped in there by themselves and just do
> stuff which is really nice. Interestingly these people mainly come from
> "minor languages" (minor either in the aspect of speakers or in the aspect of
> less people from that language in Commons). Perhapes this is due to the fact
> that they just want to support their language and are thus motivated doing
> the work themselves rather than starting a regular political debate like
> Teofilo has done many times before.

Es ist mir Freude zu sehen, dass du so vernuenftig und noch nicht im
Aeger bist. Hoffentlich verstehst du auch, keine auf dieser Liste
behaupten, die Leute auf Commons dumm und sie klug sind, aber, alle
von ihnen - auch ich - wollten euch mitarbeiten, um die Situasionen zu
verbesseln.

Gruss,
--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Peter Ansell

body:
On 5/7/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>    Phil Boswell wrote:
>    >
>    >> On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>    >>> THEN, some admin comes along and says, gee, the vote is 27-3 to delete,
>    >>> but frankly, this bridge guy knows what he is talking about, so I am
>    >>> going to close it with a keep.
>
>    > Please provide links to AfD discussions which contain reasonable arguments
>    > like those suggested which are not then countered by piled-on "nn, delete"
>    > entries; even better would be a "nn, delete" replaced with a "keep" as a
>    > result of listening to reason. I would like to sooth my tortured soul with
>
>    It's old now, but I'm proud of
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Shooting_Fish
>
> First, it doesn't surprise me that finding a case is so difficult.  This case, however, doesn't really fit here as an example:
> 1. They changed the content significantly, essentially an article about a different subject now with only some loose ties.
> 2. The admin decision was still based on the majority vote.
>
> I'd be interested in a case where the content didn't have to undergo any extreme changes and the admins action was opposite of the majority.  It doesn't have to be 27-3, but a 15-5 would still be an odd case.~~~~Pro-Lick

This decision is on Deletion Review for a 14-4 decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24#Category:Wold_Newton_family_members

Peter


body:
On 5/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just another thought - could we consider forcing an AfD to be a
> fact-finding mission about a single question? That is, the nominator
> asserts that the subject is not notable. The comments should all be
> about the notability of the subject - if a cogent argument can be made
> that the subject is notable, then it should be kept. Remarks about
> verifiability, spelling etc would then be kept out of that discussion.

Interesting idea, but I would explicitly exclude verifiability from
that; if we sit for a few days debating notability and then someone
drops by and point out that the subject is a hoax and doesn't actually
exist, we probably don't want too much red tape in the way of deleting
the thing.

Kirill Lokshin


body:
On 5/8/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope. Apart from anything else questions on copyright status are
> always relivant.

Don't you usually point out that copyvios don't need to go through AFD? ;-)

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
 "Raphael Wegmann" wrote

>. WP:NOT censored states:
>   "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful
>    to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or
>    requirements."
> It doesn't state:
>   "It is Wikipedias mission to publish tasteless articles or images
>    and breaking social or religious norms or requirements."
>
> WP:Profanity is more specific in that matter. It states:
>   "Including information about offensive material is part of
>    Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the
encyclopedia articles.  As decent people, they will self-censor in talk page
discussion.  Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.

This is comparable to the common understanding about academic freedom: you
can say anything, independent of the popularity of the opinion.  WP should
be dealing with facts, though.  In both cases, there is a clear
understanding about _how_ you say things, which comes as a responsibility of
the role.  That is a matter of reputation-management rather than policy,
though.

Charles


list: commons-l

from_name: folengo at netcourrier.com

subject: [Commons-l]French village pump (was the status of smaller	languages)

body:
Here's a somewhat longer answer to Brianna's message :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/006995.html

I have recorded in a table, the activity of the village pump on Commons,
the number of administrators, and the date of last edit of the main page
in their language for the various language communities. Here's the link :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teofilo/communities

My conclusion is that although some communities seem to have been
completely inactive in 2006, most of them show at least some small
activity in 2006.

>Help us harass the developers for automatic translation of templates,
>automatic language selection based on browser settings and/or
>drop-down menu for language choice on the main page, for adoption of
>Duesentrieb's proposed category translation scheme via interwikis.
>These are just a few of the proposals that we dream of being
>implemented but have no idea if it will ever happen.

Do you have links ? On bugzilla, maybe ? I have never used the voting
system on bugzilla. Maybe I could, but please tell me which are the
relevant bugs.

Teofilo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teofilo


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On May 6, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Guettarda wrote:

> If you have unpublished photographs taken by a deceased relative
> which you
> wish to use on Wikipedia, how would you license them?  Assuming
> that you
> have survivor rights or permission from other heirs of the
> photographer,
> would it be possible to release them under the GFDL or cc by sa?
> If they
> were taken by, say, your grandfather, and there is nothing in his will
> dealing with "other stuff", would you have to get permission from
> all of his
> surviving children, or their heirs (if the children are deceased)?
> I'm
> assuming here that the photographs are otherwise unpublished, and
> were taken
> recently enough/the person was alive recently enough that they
> would still
> be covered by copyright.

My understanding is that if you're the heir, you inherit all
property, including intellectual property, and can do with it as you
see fit.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not just scrap the concept of a vote entirely, and make it more
> like a judge deciding a case.

Because then the judges (closing admins) have discretionary power,
and in that situation, decisions are made by admin aristocracy, not
consensus.

I'm willing to accept a degree of admin aristocracy, so I consider
this worth consideration. But we should be under no illusions about
what's going on here.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 14:29:35 +0200, you wrote:

>Thank you for pointing out that distinction. Back on this issue:
>Anti-Islam bias (regardless of whether it's systematic or systemic)
>results in one-sided articles on certain topics, which is IMHO
>derogatory to an encyclopedia. And putting the JP cartoons in the
>article increases systemic bias by driving away muslim editors.

And the solution is discussion not edit-warring.  HTH.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG