body:
That's cool, Brion.
What is this MediaWiki, where can I find
documentation?

The best idea would be to have two interfaces to a
single article base. The Romanian interface ro.wiki,
in Latin script, and a mo-cyr.wiki or ro-cyr for the
Moldovans who are still using cyrillic. Is this
possible?

If yes, then this should be discussed with the people
on ro.wiki. On mo.wiki there are currently just a few
vandals.

Dpotop

--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > At this moment the requirement is that two
> articles on the same topic in
> > different scripts and identified as such can
> coexist on one system. The
> > ability of converting from one script to the other
> like for Chinese is
> > something different.
>
> Indeed, those are different and unrelated things,
> and both already
> possible with MediaWiki today.
>
> > As long as there is no automated lossless
> > conversion from Latin to Cyrillic and from
> Cyrillic to Latin AND the
> > orthography used, MediaWiki does not provide the
> required functionality
> > for Romanian/Moldovan.
>
> That's a third thing, and an implementation detail
> for the given
> language (eg, already implemented for Serbian, etc).
> Nor is it related
> to the 'Multilingual MediaWiki' proposal.
>
> > One of the things MLMW will also do is allow for
> the linking from one
> > article to another within the same wiki similar to
> the current interwiki
> > functionality. This is one aspect where MLMW helps
> when multiple scripts
> > are used.
>
> You can already do that, of course, either manually
> (perhaps with a
> helpful template), or using the interwiki system
> itself.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Rates near historic lows -
$200,000 mortgage for $660/ month -
http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Barcex

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: Commons needs patrollers and future admins

body:
I'm talking about people that has been enforcing the same policy as Commons
has on the Spanish Wikipedia previously. At es: we have been enforcing an
"only free material" policy for two years, while uploads were closed just a
few months ago. Being able to learn how to perform the same task in Commons
is easy: just learn how to use a few templates and you are ready.

In Commons I have deleted more than 1.500 pictures and nobody (but obvious
vandals) have complained about. I one case I restored about 20 images
deleted because nsd/nld because the user kindly asked and gave good reasons:
deletin an image is no big deal, it can be restored. I think I'm I useful to
Commons, but of course I don't know how to use every single template and
procedure available.

So I'm not asking to remove the 200 edits policy, I'm asking people (like
you) to support the nomination of these experienced people from es: as
Commons admins.

Barcex

2006/11/15, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> On 11/14/06, Barcex <lv.cabc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll post a similar message in the Spanish Wikipedia list. In fact I was
> > asking some current es: admins about that, but they wonder to be
> rejected
> > because they have not enough edits on Commons. I suggest as criteria to
> be
> > open to accept Spanish Wikipedia admins that have many contributions
> there
> > and were fighting image vandalism also before uploads were closed a few
> > months ago.
>
> Admins don't have a monopoly on doing good work. :)
>
> I think it's important enough that admins be well invested and
> integrated into commons practices, and it's easy enough to become an
> admin on commons (~200 edits) that I wouldn't be inclined to support a
> fast path at this time.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061115/35827067/attachment.htm


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brad Patrick

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do
	we serve?

body:
I was sloppy and using shorthand.  Commons has differently licensed
material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which
licenses are acceptable.  That should not be controversial, even to
you, Anthony.

On 11/15/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 11/14/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's
> > GFDLed.
> >
> > But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're
> > referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
> >
> And therein lies one of the big problems, as what constitutes "the
> icky all-rights-reserved stuff" is much harder to define and explain
> to people than "copyrighted media".
>
> Simply referring to "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" as
> "copyrighted" only serves to confuse people more.  I hope that's not
> what was happening here.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Anthony wrote:
> > > > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> > > >> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> > > >> not cool immediately.
> > > >>
> > > > Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> > > > is not limited to public domain material.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ... permission to stab him, please?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > > Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> > > "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> > > Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

body:
On 15/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:

> > You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image
> > experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them
> > quickly is from the spanish wikipedia.

> Admin != knowledgable about copyright. We learnt that on enwiki.

Which is why geni suggests getting those who are.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: GerardM

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] POV-push on meta by admin User:Millosh in policy
	draft

body:
Hoi,
Calling the difference between Cyrillic script and Latin script anything but
significant is brain dead. Expecting that this agitation against the
existence of the http://mo.wikipedia.org will lead anywhere does not lead
anywhere. As I said in a previous post, I can safely say that the Moldovan
Cyrillic orthography will continue to be recognised in applicable standards.

Personally I am of the opinion that as a consequence the main page of the
mo.wikipedia can be restored to being a normal mainpage. I do recommend it
to be properly protected against people who are not willing to accept what
is not in line with their point of view. It has been discussed with some
other members of the language subcommittee.

What Millosh wrote on Meta about Moldovan is something that I would support.
I expect that the language subcommittee supports it as well.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 11/15/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I understand rules.
> But you, [[User:Millosh]] you invent your rules AND
> your arguments. You blocked me on meta, when I tried
> to edit your proposal, and without giving sources for
> your affirmations.
>
> This is POV-pushing by an admin, [[User:Millosh]].
>
> And the edit was not related to the proposal, but to
> the examples illustrating that proposal.
>
> Where did you get that information? Where is it
> stated, for the Moldovan nation, that:
> 1. "nation/ethnicity not well established, in the
> process of assimilation with Romanian nation"
> 2. "significant orthography difference between
> Moldovan Cyrillic script and Romanian Latin script"
>
> This is your POV, and you are pushing it with admin
> powers, [[User:Millosh]], in a proposal of wikipedia
> policy.
>
> [[Dpotop]]
>
>
>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do
 we serve?

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>>> not cool immediately.
>>>
>>>
>> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
>> is not limited to public domain material.
>>
>>
>
> ... permission to stab him, please?
Hoi,
All if not most material is copyrighted PD is not. We want material on
Commons that is Freely licensed which is a separate thing. So close but
no cigar.
Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Getting rid of "best before"

body:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
templates and the message they convey.

Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
than that.

What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
reason.

Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
image resurrection capability, should calm this.

Magnus

[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
[2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php


from_name: Jon Harald Søby

subject: [Foundation-l] More stewards...

body:
(Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])

I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
"might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
and there was no problem then ? and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
the steward r?le since then.

If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
generally second Angela's post.

On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
>
> Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
> a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
> who run for the Board.
>
> Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
>
> On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> > position.
> >
> > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > influence in certain situations.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > S
> >
> > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status to do
> > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one mentionned
> > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > >
> > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > >
> > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not simplify
> > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example, after
> > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > >
> > > Ant
> > >
> > >
> > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
> > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > >
> > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
> > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
> > > > seems a little strange.
> > > >
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
> > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
> > > >>
> > > >>Please see here:
> > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > >>
> > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
> > > >>removed.
> > > >>
> > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
> > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
> > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
> > > >>
> > > >>Ant
> > > >>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > > >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >         ?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
> >                 sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Brad Patrick
> General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> 727-231-0101
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


subject: [Foundation-l] More stewards...


list: wikien-l

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia glossary

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Stub - An article with more categories than it has words.

Sadly, I've been finding a lot of stubs lately that have several stub
templates yet have _no_ categories. Very annoying, it's almost like
having a bunch of templates whose contents read "this article belongs to
category Foo" that people put in articles instead of _actual_ category
links. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061115/839bccec/attachment.pgp


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the
	WikimediaFoundation

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 11/15/06, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Personally, I dislike the new vision statement. The older one had the exact
>>same meaning, and was much "catchier"; the current proposal sounds too
>>corporate.
>
>
> There were two primary reasons for the changes:
>
> 1) We're not only about access, but also about participation. A
> read-only wiki is not very interesting. We saw "share in" as a phrase
> that could transport many meanings.

Nod. If you can come up with another way of expression that "share in",
it will be interesting to look at.

But the big change indeed is an attempt to reflect the reality of what
WE are trying to do.
We are not seeking only to feed the world with
information/knowledge/content; we are also collecting and organising
this knowledge. And the collection is not restricted to a happy few, but
is an open and collaborative process.

> 2) Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially
> misleading for such an ambitious claim. Given how fucked up the
> situation still is in much of the developing world, we need to be
> careful not to come across as pretentious.

yup.

Ant


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] On style sheets

body:
> I would
> certainly /not/ use a separate "beta-test" wiki if it isn't Wikipedia,
> because that's extra work and it's boring compared to Wikipedia. I'm
> sure at least 90% of the users feel that way.

Fair point, and I think you're right in that test wikis maybe aren't used as much as they could be, mostly because their limited
content means they're just not very interesting to use.

> I really like that idea. I would use such a beta instance and report
> problems as I find them (which is the purpose of a beta-test).

But from what Tim was saying, I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong here) that the idea was to have a test wiki which
would be updated as one of the last steps before rolling a software update out onto the cluster. The beta site would be updated, and
then there would be a quick smoke test by the person doing the roll out ("does the front page look normal?", "do a few other pages
look normal?"), and if nothing abnormal was observed, then it would be rolled out onto the cluster.

As a consequence of this, from a tester's point of view, you'd normally only have a window of a few minutes in which the software
you were testing differed from the software elsewhere.

Basically this setup would be useful as a quality-control checklist item to the person doing the rollout; however it would not be
useful for beta-testers, because you're not actually beta-testing anything new (apart from in the brief few minutes before rollout).

So if you want to use the bleeding edge, report issues found, and act as an early-adopter who gives early-warning feedback on
changes before they reach the general population, then I think this may not be what you're looking for.

Of course, I could have misunderstood what was being proposed.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Carl Witty

subject: [Wikitech-l] Java becomes Open Source, what next?

body:
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 21:50 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Carl Witty <cwitty at newtonlabs.com> wrote:>
> > "... we can provide (audited) java classes for anything performance
> > critical..."
> > Really?  Including fluid dynamics simulators, rigid-body kinematics with
> > collision detection, Game of Life simulators, and chess-playing
> > programs?  These are just a few possibilities for (the
> > performance-critical part of) educational applets that I came up with
> > off the top of my head; I'm sure there are many more.
>
> Um. I promise that Game of Life will not be a problem. I've coded a
> game of life simulation in freeking qbasic on a 286 which was faster
> than the screen refresh rate.

Using what size grid?  Would it have been that fast on Paul Rendell's
Game of Life Turing Machine (1714 x 1647 cells)?  What if you want to
run much faster than the screen refresh rate ("what will this pattern
look like after a million generations")?

> Fluid dynamics, rigid-body kinematics, and chess...  I'm not sure if
> you are more confused by how slow 'not performance critical' is or if
> you have totally unrealistic expectations about what is needed to
> educate people.  People not only learned but conducted serious science
> with software in these fields on the computers of a decade ago, even
> with interpreted languages far slower than what we'd use today... I
> wouldn't expect a modern interpreted language to be any slower...

I contend that the performance requirements for serious science are far
less than the performance requirements for an educational applet.  A
scientist will be willing to spend a lot of time carefully designing
small experiments that will test a hypothesis, and then spend a week
running the experiment; if an applet takes more than a minute to set up
an experiment and get results, you'll lose a lot of viewers (a couple of
seconds is a much more desirable time).

I guess partly it depends on the goals for these applets.  Do we want to
reach only people who are "captive" (studying this material for a
course, or intensely curious about the material) or do we also want to
try to "grab" people who are only mildly curious?

Perhaps my particular examples were poorly chosen, but I'm having a hard
time believing that there are no examples where a
more-than-an-order-of-magnitude improvement in speed would make a
significant difference in the educational impact of an applet.

> When I played with jython before it was about half the speed of
> cpython (without psyco) on the same code, with a simmlar difference
> compared to raw java.

I'm having a hard time parsing your sentence, but I think you're saying
that cpython is about as fast as raw Java?  That's going to depend
heavily on your workload.  I realize it's a bad idea to draw conclusions
from a small set of flawed benchmarks, but I'm going to try anyway
(attempting to be conservative).  Looking at
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python&lang2=java indicates to me that Python is comparable in speed with Java when most of the time is spent doing things that Python has C libraries for (regular expression matching, hash tables, arbitrary precision arithmetic), but that Python is much slower than Java (more than an order of magnitude) at doing things like fluid dynamics, where the inner loop has a lot of floating-point math and is not sped up by libraries.

> Moreover, I hope you realize that the limiting factor for any of this
> will be authoring the code. If a poor security model or editing model
> keeps us from tapping into the public at large we will not do well.

Definitely true!

> > The JVM-based interpreter may still be the right thing to do, but people
> > need to be aware that there are whole realms of creative educational
> > possibilities that are far less feasible with that approach.
>
> I don't understand your argument.
> Java classes + an available interpreter can not be slower than java
> classes alone.

If you require that Java code be heavily audited, and that interpreted
code only needs to be lightly audited, and if your supply of people
willing and capable of doing heavy auditing is limited, then you'll end
up with slower code than if you allow lightly audited Java code.

> > How does a Java applet go about asking for more privileges?  Is that
> > something we can easily audit to avoid (for instance, by checking .class
> > files to make sure they only use standard Java classes and methods that
> > are in a whitelist, not to include reflection)?
>
> It's not easy to audit if we're working with bytecode, ... if we're
> working with sourcecode thats another matter.

In the specific case of auditing that only classes and methods from a
whitelist are used, I still think that the easiest method is to write an
automated tool that examines the .class file.  Other kinds of auditing,
of course, are totally infeasible on the bytecode, and require source
code.

> > If the embedded-in-JVM interpreters let you interact with Java, then you
> > will probably be able to write scripts that ask for more privileges; and
> > that can't be fixed by outlawing reflection, since the interpreter has
> > to use reflection.  For this reason, compiled Java may actually be
> > easier to secure than an interpreter.
>
> You control what methods they can access by what you choose to expose,
> and you don't like the interpreter otherwise much with the VM.  This
> is why jython is currently a non-starter (and in general, python has
> been difficult to lock down).

I would think that most JVM-based interpreters would use reflection to
allow access to arbitrary Java classes and methods; this would normally
be considered an advantage, and would be a big selling point ("allows
seamless integration with Java!") for the interpreter.

> > Can we write our own security manager, ensure that all calls to
> > uploaded .class files are "wrapped" by our security manager, and
> > implement our own restrictive security policy that way?
>
> You have to have signed code to hook in as a security manager.. but
> lets assume we could:
>
> This would do nothing to stop mistery meat code from displaying
> penises every second tuesday. The only way to handle that is to keep
> size down, readability up, and always work with source.

True.  But that has nothing to do with whether we allow raw Java or
whether we require some sort of interpreter.

> In any case, it's pointless to debate what loft applications we'd
> exclude with a particular implementation when none of these pieces of
> software currently exist.

As long as we're not setting policies now that will be difficult to
change later...

Carl Witty


from_name: Steve Sanbeg

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Labeled Section Transclusion
	(need	feedbackoncurrentstatus!)

body:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:15:19 +1100, Nick Jenkins wrote:

[snip]

>
> I've had a second quick look, and something separate is this:
>
> In [[Main Page]] I have a bit of the page that contains:
> ------------------------------------
>

>
>

> ------------------------------------
>
> Then in another page I have:
> ------------------------------------
> {{#lst:Main Page|ownage}}
> ------------------------------------
>
> The result is that on saving or previewing that page, I get a JavaScript popup dialog box saying "Ownage!".
> That should not happen; instead what I should get is the following non-executable HTML in the output:
> ------------------------------------
>
<script>alert("Ownage!");</script>
>

> ------------------------------------
>
> Related to this and probably the same issue, is that if there is an image <gallery> wrapped in
 tags, then the image
> gallery should display on the page that includes it via the {{#lst)).
>
> All the best,
> Nick.

Oh, that's not good.  Setting noparse=>false in the return will fix that,
but will also cause it to change the edit section links to point to the
main document.  I expect there's no way to get those right and resolve the
edit sections correctly without some enhancement to the parser, such as
allowing the parser function to return a title, or call back into the
extension when it's done parsing.

Although at least that doesn't change the syntax, like when this
enhancement was hooked directly into the parser, so maybe that could be
done.

Thanks
  -Steve


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia

body:
On 11/15/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> The Portuguese Wikipedia has disabled new uploads because the civil war
> started (and maintaned) by some users up today don't have produced a new
> vote to review the copyright policy to allow ou permanently disallow fair
> use images,
[snip]

When we have problems with contributors who are unable to understand
important aspects of our agenda like Free Content we must solve that
problem through more communication.

So it is with much sadness that I view your decision to avoid unfree
content by forcing the use of commons. Communication is most effective
when it comes from someone close, from someone trusted, or from
someone respected. Communication is best understood when it comes from
someone who speaks your language.

If you were unable to educate some members of your own community about
free content, then I fear commons will have no hope of educating these
people because commons is no better at speaking your langauge, no
better known to your users, and probably no better respected.

Such changes will only shuffle around and not solve the problems. See:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Policy draft: Wikimedia projects are not the
	place for national constitution

body:
And of course Dpotop igores the real mowiki and creates his own fantasy. :-)

Mark

On 15/11/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That's cool, Brion.
> What is this MediaWiki, where can I find
> documentation?
>
> The best idea would be to have two interfaces to a
> single article base. The Romanian interface ro.wiki,
> in Latin script, and a mo-cyr.wiki or ro-cyr for the
> Moldovans who are still using cyrillic. Is this
> possible?
>
> If yes, then this should be discussed with the people
> on ro.wiki. On mo.wiki there are currently just a few
> vandals.
>
> Dpotop
>
>
> --- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > At this moment the requirement is that two
> > articles on the same topic in
> > > different scripts and identified as such can
> > coexist on one system. The
> > > ability of converting from one script to the other
> > like for Chinese is
> > > something different.
> >
> > Indeed, those are different and unrelated things,
> > and both already
> > possible with MediaWiki today.
> >
> > > As long as there is no automated lossless
> > > conversion from Latin to Cyrillic and from
> > Cyrillic to Latin AND the
> > > orthography used, MediaWiki does not provide the
> > required functionality
> > > for Romanian/Moldovan.
> >
> > That's a third thing, and an implementation detail
> > for the given
> > language (eg, already implemented for Serbian, etc).
> > Nor is it related
> > to the 'Multilingual MediaWiki' proposal.
> >
> > > One of the things MLMW will also do is allow for
> > the linking from one
> > > article to another within the same wiki similar to
> > the current interwiki
> > > functionality. This is one aspect where MLMW helps
> > when multiple scripts
> > > are used.
> >
> > You can already do that, of course, either manually
> > (perhaps with a
> > helpful template), or using the interwiki system
> > itself.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sponsored Link
>
> Rates near historic lows -
> $200,000 mortgage for $660/ month -
> http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: samuli at samulilintula.net

body:
> On 11/14/06, Samuli Lintula <samuli at samulilintula.net> wrote:
>> I would like to introduce you to CommonTasks
>> <URL:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CommonTasks>.
>>
>> It isn't ready but the talk page has a list of maintenance work people
>> can
>> do even without being admins. It also has some instructions. Like I
>> said,
>> it isn't ready, and I'm sorry I have lately been too busy to push it
>> forward even though other people liked the idea. But in time...
>>
>
> You want experenced and active admins. Something everyone is short of
> to do non admin maintenance tasks includeing adding welcome templates?
> This does not seem to be a reasonable use of rescourses.

Bots add welcome templates.

People check that new users make their uploads properly (licenses,
information, categories). 80 % on new users do it wrong. 80 % of "bad
images" come from new users.

--
Yst?v?llisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] On style sheets

body:
Nick Jenkins wrote:
>> I really like that idea. I would use such a beta instance and
>> report problems as I find them (which is the purpose of a
>> beta-test).
>
> But from what Tim was saying, I think (and someone please correct me
> if I'm wrong here) that the idea was to have a test wiki which would
> be updated as one of the last steps before rolling a software update
> out onto the cluster. The beta site would be updated, and then there
> would be a quick smoke test by the person doing the roll out ("does
> the front page look normal?", "do a few other pages look normal?"),
> and if nothing abnormal was observed, then it would be rolled out
> onto the cluster.

That's what test.wikipedia.org is now; but of course it doesn't contain
any real content so it's boring. :)

The issue we've got here is with unexpected interactions with customized
CSS and JavaScript on each of several dozen large, active wikis (and
hundreds more smaller ones). That's a lot tougher to smoke-test because
the custom styles and the funny layouts aren't *on* the test site.

What is suggested is having test site(s) which show the actual content
from the main sites.

There's a couple possible ways to handle this:

1) Have a read-write copy that periodically repopulates its dataset from
a live site. Probably pretty safe.

2) Have a read-only configuration pulling live data from the live
database on the main server. Hopefully safe if no information-leakage
bugs, but less to test.

3) Have a read-write configuration using live data with alternate new
code. Potentially very unsafe.

For instance we could have copies of, say, English and German Wikipedia
that refresh the current-version data each week.

The question then is frequency of code updates.

One reason we don't automatically update code is security and data
safety: sometimes new code includes XSS or SQL injection vectors, unsafe
code that could corrupt data, or simply inefficient code that could
pound the databases too hard. Waiting for at least some review to take
them live provides some additional safety (though certainly some such
problems don't get caught during that time).

Understandably we may be a bit reluctant to relax this rule if the
code's running on live data, or even on alternate data on the same machines.

If we had a long development cycle before deployment (something we've
tried to do before), then a beta period with duplicate sites would make
a lot of sense. I've seen other big sites like Slashdot do this; users
are asked to hit the copy site running the new software for a few days
and work out problems, then the test data vanishes when the real upgrade
happens.

test.wikipedia.org was originally populated with a subset of English
Wikipedia data to do exactly that.

We never really got the testing we needed when we tried that, though;
most problem reports didn't come until after the big upgrade happened --
and then we had to spend the next month chasing down bug after bug after
bug.

That sort of thing is why we abandoned that development model and moved
to continuous integration, with smaller changes going live pretty
quickly and being tuned.

Unfortunately these silly style-type issues are disproportionately
disruptive because of their visibility.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Ejdzej Wikipedysta

body:
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.

If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say,
100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)

--
Wikipedysta:A.J.


from_name: Sean Whitton

subject: [Foundation-l] More stewards...

body:
Surely all power really flows from the devs, using the stewards as a channel?

S

On 15/11/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if we
> have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad,
> anyways.
>
> On 11/15/06, Jon Harald S?by <jhsoby at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > (Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])
> >
> > I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
> > "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
> > candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
> > reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
> > and there was no problem then ? and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
> > the steward r?le since then.
> >
> > If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
> > Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
> > generally second Angela's post.
> >
> > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> > > aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> > > 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> > > Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> > > the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> > > actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> > > individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
> > >
> > > Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
> > > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
> > > who run for the Board.
> > >
> > > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
> > >
> > > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> > > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> > > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> > > > position.
> > > >
> > > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> > > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > > > influence in certain situations.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> > > > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status
> > to do
> > > > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one
> > mentionned
> > > > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> > > > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> > > > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not
> > simplify
> > > > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example,
> > after
> > > > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> > > > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really
> > need
> > > > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not
> > automatically
> > > > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming
> > Jimbo
> > > > > > seems a little strange.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > S
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some
> > stewards
> > > > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more
> > stewards.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Please see here:
> > > > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> > > > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards
> > will be
> > > > > >>removed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment
> > on
> > > > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may
> > not be
> > > > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be
> > reconfirmed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Ant
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > > > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >         ?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom
> > is liberty
> > > >                 sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brad Patrick
> > > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> > > 727-231-0101
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Jon Harald S?by
> >
> > Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> > Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> > MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
> > Skype - jon.harald.soby
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net


subject: [Foundation-l] More stewards...


subject: [Foundation-l] Remove/Disable Move and Edit Tabs...

body:
Possibly because they don't like our editing propaganda when just reading ;)

S

On 15/11/06, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can Anyone suggest how to remove/disable the Move,Edit and History Tabs.Iam using Monobook skin...
>
> Edit [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]]
>
> Add the code:
>
> #ca-edit, #ca-history, #ca-move, #ca-viewsource
> {
> display: none
> }
>
> This will make the edit, history, move and view-source tabs always
> invisible.
>
> Why you wish to do this is a mystery, but that's one solution.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia glossary

body:
Astroturfing?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overuse of {{fact}}, redux

body:
On 11/15/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> > Yeah, I hate that. Why not just use {{unsourced}}, it is just a good a
> > warning (better, even), and not at all as annoying.
>
> How about we give a class to template:fact so that people could add
>
> #cite-request  {
>    display: none;
> }
>
> to their skin's CSS and make them vanish, if they're sufficiently
> annoyed by them? That way everyone's preferences can coexist.

I'm more concerned about how it looks to readers, not to people who
know how to edit their skin settings.

Angela


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Fair use" images of living people

body:
On 11/15/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> Fastfission wrote:
> > Our fair use policy states -- correctly, I think -- that we should not
> > use fair use for generic images and should remove any non-licensed
> > images which can be reasonably re-created as free images. The goal
> > behind this was to discourage unnecessary invocations of the fair use
> > clause, as well as to encourage free content to be created whenever
> > possible.
> >
> > That's all well and good. But does this mean that NO images of people
> > who are currently alive can be used under "fair use"? After all, if
> > they are alive, potentially one could take a picture of them and
> > license it as GFDL.
>
> I actually raised the question of this (the "realistically replaceable"
> part, to paraphrase) at the talk page, and was surprised to find out that
> this had nothing to do with possible legal ramifications, but rather just
> to direct behavior.  Obviously, available free > fair use, but I'm not
> convinced such activity is in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
> Fair use = better than nothing, as long as the rationales are clear and
> we're not put in legal hot water.
>
> -Jeff
>
> --
> If you can read this, I'm not at home.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Is there somewhere in the wiki where discussions about Fair Use
images' appropriateness can go?  I'm having a dispute with someone
over fair use of a manufacturers' web PR photo  of a relatively rare
aircraft, and I don't know how to get more wikipedia-copyright-expert
people's review of the question.

Thanks.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

body:
On 11/15/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
> that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
> templates and the message they convey.
>
> Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
> etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
> the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
> equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
> than that.
>
> What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
> this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
> information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
> have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
> reason.
>
> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.
>
> Magnus
>
>
> [1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
> [2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

Actually, the template said "the image  WILL be deleted" ...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-Soviet&oldid=3049387


subject: [Wikitech-l] On style sheets

references:
<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEJHJEAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<455AF2F5.1090104@pobox.com> <ejfu28$bi8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 11/15/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > 3) Have a read-write configuration using live data with alternate new
> > code. Potentially very unsafe.
>
> It would be "potentially very unsafe" only if you place completely
> untested code on it. I thought the idea was to place code on it that
> would otherwise have already gone out to the live site. Surely it's much
> safer to beta-test it first than to push it live immediately. In other
> words, I see it as an _addition_ to the development process you are
> already using, and it would catch problems such as the CSS/JavaScript
> one you mentioned before it goes live.

I was hoping that there was a clear enough boundary between "database
interaction stuff" and "other wiki code" that we could perhaps update
the other stuff without touching the (potentially harmful) database
interaction stuff.  But sifting around the source a bit is making me
more nervous about that.

Operationally, how do you handle it if you do upgrades that require
database changes?  What are the existing DB upgrade and rollback
procedures?

Thanks.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Florian Straub

body:
"Magnus Manske" <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote on Wednesday, November
15, 2006 10:05 AM:

> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.

I had the same idea yesterday :)

Combined with a SHORT and MULTILINGUAL message automatically posted ONCE on
the talk page of the user who uploaded it and maybe even combined with email
the user would be awesome. The message could say that the image was deleted
because ....  and that it could be restored if the uploader posts a message
at ...

That bot could deleted the nld-category of today - 10 or something and we
would have much less work.

If we'd even combine that bot with a delinker bot, it would be like a dream
came true.

Regards,

Flo


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 11/15/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was sloppy and using shorthand.  Commons has differently licensed
> material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which
> licenses are acceptable.  That should not be controversial, even to
> you, Anthony.

No, it isn't.  What's controversial is which licenses are indeed acceptable.

Anthony


body:
On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there somewhere in the wiki where discussions about Fair Use
> > images' appropriateness can go?  I'm having a dispute with someone
> > over fair use of a manufacturers' web PR photo  of a relatively rare
> > aircraft, and I don't know how to get more wikipedia-copyright-expert
> > people's review of the question.
>
> Better than discussion is closure: Since it's a "web PR photo" I
> assume the manufacturer is still in business.  Contact them and ask
> them to release the image under a free license.   Success rate for
> this isn't fantastic, but a quick email (we have boilerplates) costs
> you nothing, and if they agree (make sure their reply copies the
> permissions queue) the argument is closed.

I'm a couple of steps ahead of you on that, but they haven't responded
to the email in a week.  II'm going to call their PR/Media Relations
department and ask about it when I get a chance.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
geni wrote:
<snip>
> You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image
> experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them
> quickly is from the spanish wikipedia.

Admin != knowledgable about copyright. We learnt that on enwiki.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061115/b44ff3fd/attachment.pgp


from_name: Luiz Augusto

body:
Sorry for posting it in another thread, I subscribed back to this list only
to post this message: since the early of 2005 the Portuguese wikis invites
to all users upload files *only* in Commons, because Portuguese wikis accept
*only* free images.

The Portuguese Wikipedia has disabled new uploads because the civil war
started (and maintaned) by some users up today don't have produced a new
vote to review the copyright policy to allow ou permanently disallow fair
use images, resulting in a project that accept only free images with only a
small amount of sysops verifying if a image have source or not, and a
largest amount of sysops don't do anything related to this (and some users
mixing up the newbies saying something like "the source of origin from a
image isn't necessary if fair use is accepted")

In any case, the bug 7742 [1] isn't fully filled. The Portuguese community
has voted to disable new upload *and* replace the upload link by the link to
a help page explaing what is the Wikimedia Commons and how to use it.

[1] http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7742


from_name: Felipe Ortega

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Missing articles in
	enwiki-latest-pages-meta-history.xml.7z?

body:
Hi Pierre.

There is a little file in the same page with a dump of the (hopefully) complete list of article titles for that dump (enwiki-latest-all-titles-in-ns0.gz). That file only contains the title for the article pages (those in the main namespace, for the ns=0).

BTW, check that the dump process didn't failed at some point... Check that the total count of lines in table page agrees with the total number of articles displayed in the web page for that dump. I've experimented some problems with another languages for that reason

So far, so good. Nevertheless, if you check this list you can read previous messages about fails and pitfalls in the dump process. It's a fact that the dump process for the bigger languages, specially for english, is not working very well.

I'm currently trying to decompress that same version of the dump. When it finish, we could double check our evidences... In case it is suspicious we could try with a previous dump.

Regards.

Felipe.

Pierre Senellart <pierre at senellart.com> escribi?: Hi,

It seems that some articles are missing from the full dump of
Wikipedia-en with revisions enwiki-latest-pages-meta-history.xml.7z
(dating from August 26): I can't find an entry for "France" or "United
States" for instance. The fact that it is 5.1GB, while previous dumps
from July are more than 6GB may be another indication of this fact (I
haven't downloaded them yet, so I can't be sure).

Does anyone know why these entries are missing? More importantly, would
there be a way to be certain that the dump is truly complete before
making it available for download? Is there a dump somewhere that has all
articles with their revisions?

Thanks,

--
Pierre Senellart
pierre at senellart.com
http://pierre.senellart.com/
Tel. (work)   : +33 1 72 92 59 29
Tel. (home)   : +33 1 42 55 13 38
Tel. (mobile) : +33 6 73 96 82 89
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

---------------------------------

LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y m?viles desde 1 c?ntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com


subject: [Commons-l] Getting rid of 'best before'

body:
> 2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
>> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
>> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
>> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
>> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
>> image resurrection capability, should calm this.
>
> If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say,
> 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)

I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)

But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared
tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged
images:
1. Vandalism tagging (rare)
2. Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art)
3. Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion.
This is the most common group.

These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea.
Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent
better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.

--
Yst?v?llisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula


subject: [Commons-l] Uploading files beyond the size limit

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 14/11/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I once wrote a function for the upload page where you upload a file by
>> giving its URL. There were some security concerns about malicious
>> servers, which I think I fixed, but then, as usual, nothing happened.
>> Should still be in there, for anyone interested. Lemme see... ah yes;
>> set $wgAllowCopyUploads=true in LocalSettings, and be done with it.
>
>
> I shudder at the thought of this being enabled on Commons unless such
> uploads are somehow marked for particular urgent attention - it sounds
> like an even easier way to upload copyright violations.
>

Amongst my rights in the database:

<r>import</r>
<r>upload</r>
<r>upload_by_url</r>

Import and upload by URL are both admin-only AFAICT, and neither are
enabled.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061115/339798cd/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jerome Banal

subject: [Foundation-l] Dual-Licensing Wiktionary :fr ?

body:
Hello,

We had a small chat at Wiktionary fr: since a few days about moving /new/
edits made on Wiktionary fr (and others some other are interested) to dual
licensing GFDL - CC-by. After a small discussion with Anthere about whether
we could be allowed to do it and how, she advised me to come and talk with
you all.

So maybe a little explanation of the reasons and consequences would be
useful.

The main reason we have in mind for discussing it is to have a better
cooperation with the project WiktionaryZ, which is dual-licensed as
specified above. It basically means that we can take its content under GFDL
license, but that they can take only contents that are under GFDL and CC-by
at the same time. Which is not our case.

Some people thinks that helping WiktionaryZ reusing our content would make
them progress faster, and in return, that their progresses would help us
making progress in the future in several possible ways (software part, data
part...).

What would be the consequences about this license modification ?

* A site license somewhat more complex. Edits prior to the date of change
would have to remain GFDL only (unless specific agreement with users), new
edits would be dual-licensed. This is not awful: people can still reuse the
whole Wiktionary as if it was GFDL-only. CC-by is just a bonus.

* As this is not a CC-by-SA (incompatible with WiktionaryZ), Wiktionary
content could be taken, possibly modified and redistributed under any
compatible licence with CC-by, which is about all as long as you give
attribution, including non-free licenses (but of course, the original
remains free so it should not be a big deal).

* Import from Wikipedia and other GFDL-only projects will not be possible
without prior agreement with past contributors. These imports are not
insignificant but remain limited in amount and often in quality.

* If we have to negotiate importing external source, we would have to
request dual-licensing, as WiktionaryZ needs to, right now. CC-by is more
free (I know, it's paradoxical; see it as "there are less restrictions,
including the one to keep derivative free") than GFDL so it may be more
difficult, as it is possible that the original authors can't get the
enhancements made by someone else back in their own work due to a different
license choice.

So there are good points (better collaborative work with WiktionaryZ) and
bad points (probably more difficult reusing of some external sources -like
some other GFDL dictionaries- which brought a good amount of articles in the
past and of derivative works).

OK, I think that's the picture. What do you think about it? Should
Wiktionary users start a poll on their projects? On Meta? Or does that just
sound bad to you?

Thanks all,
Jerome Banal


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia glossary

body:
On 15/11/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> For those of you who haven't been keeping up, here are some handy definitions:

"The Devil's Wiktionary"...

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Policy draft: Wikimedia projects are not
 the	place for national constitution

body:
Jacky PB wrote:
>> At the risk of going off-topic, there is an
>> interesting paper on this
>> topic by the guy who does Omniglot. See:
>>
>>
> http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/revolutionary_scripts.htm
>
>
> Nice article. The part on the "Moldovan language" is a
> succinct and NPOV presentation of the problem. The
> author is not affiliated with either part. Citations
> are given.
>
> Dpotop1
Hoi,
It is indeed a good presentation of many linguistic issues. It
explicitly says that both the Moldovan and the Trans Sinistrians have
made it a violation to use anything but "their" script. It also makes it
quite clear that the middle ground is denied by both parties. The
article explains that politics and the use of different scripts can and
does lead to a growing apart of what used to be a languages continuum.

Given the article there is no denying that both the Latin and the
Cyrillic script are used for what is still considered to be one
language. It provides absolutely no argument why we should not support both.

Thanks,
    Gerard


from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Semi-protection

body:
Anthere schrieb am 14.11.2006 12:42:
> Is that a general trends in all languages wikipedias ? Or only english
> wikipedia ?
>
> Are other projects using semi-protection liberally as well ?

Take a look at the following stats here:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avatar/protected.php

(I don't collect historical data (yet).)

Bye, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 15/11/06, Jerome Banal <jerome.banal at gmail.com> wrote:

> We had a small chat at Wiktionary fr: since a few days about moving /new/
> edits made on Wiktionary fr (and others some other are interested) to dual
> licensing GFDL - CC-by. After a small discussion with Anthere about whether
> we could be allowed to do it and how, she advised me to come and talk with
> you all.

GFDL has long been considered a really awful licence for a wiki (it's
suited to large slow-changing software manuals with only a few
authors) and many people have spoken about switching to CC-by-sa ...
but it would be such a huge task to do so that no-one's managed it on
a Wikimedia project yet.

So if you can do it on one small project, that would be useful for
seeing what the rest of us would need to do to achieve the same ...

I'm not sure about CC-by for the reasons you state. Why did
WiktionaryZ choose CC-by rather than CC-by-sa?`

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Semi-protection

body:
On 15/11/06, Tim 'avatar' Bartel <wikipedia at computerkultur.org> wrote:

> Take a look at the following stats here:
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avatar/protected.php

Warning: mysql_result() [function.mysql-result]: Unable to jump to row
0 on MySQL result index 2 in /home/avatar/public_html/protected.php on
line 101
The SQL query wasn't able to execute
error: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that
corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use
near ' protected=0, semiprotected=0 WHERE lang='en'' at line 1
errno: 1064
query:

- d.


from_name: Johannes Ernst

subject: [Wikitech-l] AntiSpoof issues

body:
Is this a good time to mention that there's a very nice OpenID
extension to MediaWiki?

See in action here:
     http://openid.net/wiki/

On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:17, Timwi wrote:

> Mark Clements wrote:
>> "Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:ejd0fd$pug$1 at sea.gmane.org...
>>
>>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can we think of a good way to impliment "interactive
>>>> intervention" in
>>>> mediawiki which neither adds weird backend requirements (works with
>>>> the nonpersistantness of php) or odd client requirements (no
>>>> java or
>>>> the like).
>>>>
>>>> The idea is that we have hundreds of people in IRC.. many people RC
>>>> patrolling.   There are *many* sorts of activities which
>>>> software can
>>>> mark as suspect but which require judgement.  Is there a reasonable
>>>> way for us to get that judgement in real-time?
>>>
>>> But that's easy... [long suggestion snipped]
>>
>> This requires that the user supplies an e-mail address - not
>> currently a
>> requirement, so far as I know...
>
> Do you have any better ideas?
>
> Note that it is still perfectly possible to register without an e-mail
> address if you don't trigger the anti-spoof system, which I would hope
> would be the vast majority of cases. If someone is determined to
> have a
> certain username because it's their Internet handle (and not because
> they're trying to impersonate someone), they normally wouldn't mind
> supplying at least a temporary e-mail address.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, there's no reason to be paranoid.  Yes, there will always
>> be vulnerabilities, but they'll be doubly limited by the approval
>> process *and* the sandbox.  We aren't distributing arbitrary machine
>> code, we're distributing Java, which as far as I know can't do
>> anything like take over your computer or wipe your hard drive.
>> Running arbitrary Java is not to my knowledge a real security risk, at
>> least no more than arbitrary JavaScript (which can spy on you to an
>> extent), and this Java won't even be arbitrary: it will be vetted
>> first, however imperfectly.
>
> You are mistaken about the nature of Java code.  Java code can do
> anything code in any other language can do (can we say
> java.lang.Runtime, please?); all it takes to escape the security
> context is one user clicking "OK" to the "give this applet
> permissions?" question that comes up when a signed applet is signed
> with an unrecognized certificate. Most people will click "OK" on that
> dialog.  This is even true for applets; escaping the standard security
> context merely requires a touch of social engineering.
>

A la. "this does really cool stuff, but um you need to click ok because
I didn't feeling like paying evil corporations money".

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061115/d3f5d451/attachment.pgp>


body:
Hi

On 11/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/15/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > The Portuguese Wikipedia has disabled new uploads because the civil war
> > started (and maintaned) by some users up today don't have produced a new
> > vote to review the copyright policy to allow ou permanently disallow
> fair
> > use images,
> [snip]
>
> When we have problems with contributors who are unable to understand
> important aspects of our agenda like Free Content we must solve that
> problem through more communication.
>
> So it is with much sadness that I view your decision to avoid unfree
> content by forcing the use of commons. Communication is most effective
> when it comes from someone close, from someone trusted, or from
> someone respected. Communication is best understood when it comes from
> someone who speaks your language.

Ok, I mentioned the civil war and now I need to explain it. In the past, a
troll has discovered that Portuguese Wikipedia up to 2004 is a very smallest
community and have started to atack all past decisions, including the image
policy. Imagine a troll in a very very controversial subject... Imagine some
users needing to change a policy and having a troll of your spokesperson...
Civil war has started, some users has left from the Portuguese Wikipedia,
and newbies that not undertand what is Free Culture instead to read the
documentation reads the troll pages about the """fair use""".

If you were unable to educate some members of your own community about
> free content, then I fear commons will have no hope of educating these
> people because commons is no better at speaking your langauge, no
> better known to your users, and probably no better respected.

Now the problem is another. The problem today is newbies that don't read
documentation, like in all wikis, including the native speakers of English
that don't read the documentation about image policy and don't undertand
what is really free and what isn't free. The civil war is now dormant,
specially after the upload disable. Commons have a biggest structure to host
images and the basic documentation is translated or going to be translated.
But the users don't RTFM

Such changes will only shuffle around and not solve the problems. See:
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY
>
>
Yeah, but Wikipedia (neither Commons) don't have anything related to newbies
that don't understand the copyright property and don't RTFM. And the biggest
problem is upload of images with no source and no license tag (and Commons
have a bot to discover images with no tag). And this isn't exclusively
related to Portuguese, Spanish or any another language.

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


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
>> acceptable.
>
> On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and
> threatening and still the copyvios come.
>
> Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want
> their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
>

Now *that* is a mixed metaphor!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061115/fe47d301/attachment.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
>> acceptable.
>
> On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and
> threatening and still the copyvios come.
>
> Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want
> their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
>

Now *that* is a mixed metaphor!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061115/fe47d301/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
>> acceptable.
>
> On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and
> threatening and still the copyvios come.
>
> Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want
> their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
>

Now *that* is a mixed metaphor!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061115/fe47d301/attachment.pgp>


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
>> acceptable.
>
> On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and
> threatening and still the copyvios come.
>
> Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want
> their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
>

Now *that* is a mixed metaphor!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061115/fe47d301/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia glossary

body:
lol!

funny read though!

On 11/15/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Michael Snow wrote:
> > Stub - An article with more categories than it has words.
>
> Sadly, I've been finding a lot of stubs lately that have several stub
> templates yet have _no_ categories. Very annoying, it's almost like
> having a bunch of templates whose contents read "this article belongs to
> category Foo" that people put in articles instead of _actual_ category
> links. :)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>> not cool immediately.
>>
> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> is not limited to public domain material.
>

... permission to stab him, please?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061115/f5645314/attachment.pgp


body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>> not cool immediately.
>>
> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> is not limited to public domain material.
>

... permission to stab him, please?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061115/f5645314/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>> not cool immediately.
>>
> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> is not limited to public domain material.
>

... permission to stab him, please?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061115/f5645314/attachment.pgp>


body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>> not cool immediately.
>>
> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> is not limited to public domain material.
>

... permission to stab him, please?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061115/f5645314/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
Fastfission wrote:
> Our fair use policy states -- correctly, I think -- that we should not
> use fair use for generic images and should remove any non-licensed
> images which can be reasonably re-created as free images. The goal
> behind this was to discourage unnecessary invocations of the fair use
> clause, as well as to encourage free content to be created whenever
> possible.
>
> That's all well and good. But does this mean that NO images of people
> who are currently alive can be used under "fair use"? After all, if
> they are alive, potentially one could take a picture of them and
> license it as GFDL.

I actually raised the question of this (the "realistically replaceable"
part, to paraphrase) at the talk page, and was surprised to find out that
this had nothing to do with possible legal ramifications, but rather just
to direct behavior.  Obviously, available free > fair use, but I'm not
convinced such activity is in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
Fair use = better than nothing, as long as the rationales are clear and
we're not put in legal hot water.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
Hoi,
The question is not whether they are separate languages, the question is
are they mutually exclusive. At this moment MediaWiki does not support
two scripts in one installation. This will become possible when the
coding for Multilingual MediaWiki has been finished and integrated in
MediaWiki proper. When this is possible, it is TECHNICALLY possible to
have one wiki with two scripts but can I trust you to leave the Cyrillic
content in peace?

What Millosh wrote on Meta is not false information. If anything you are
pushing your POV. For you it is not acceptable that there is a
http://mo.wikipedia.org. The ferocity in the arguments is such that I do
not believe that we will have any time soon after the completion of MLMW
a unified wiki for all the forms of the greater Romanian language.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Jacky PB wrote:
> Hello GerardM,
>
> I am glad you agree with this source, because it says
> 1. Moldovan from Bessarabia=Romanian
> 2. Moldovan from Transnistria=Romanian with different
> script.
>
> So, it's not a question of different languages, but
> one of biscriptality for a single language called in
> two different ways for political reasons.
> This is what wikipedia should do: a biscriptal wiki.
>
> And, coming back to the fact that meta:User:Millosh
> blocked me on meta. What you wrote in your message
> makes me think that Millosh is indeed wrong, and that
> you should:
> 1. Unblock me, because I corrected false info.
> 2. Block Millosh, who pushed his POV using admin
> rights in an improper way.
>
> Dpotop
>
>
> --- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Jacky PB wrote:
>>
>>>> At the risk of going off-topic, there is an
>>>> interesting paper on this
>>>> topic by the guy who does Omniglot. See:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/revolutionary_scripts.htm
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice article. The part on the "Moldovan language"
>>>
>> is a
>>
>>> succinct and NPOV presentation of the problem. The
>>> author is not affiliated with either part.
>>>
>> Citations
>>
>>> are given.
>>>
>>> Dpotop1
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> It is indeed a good presentation of many linguistic
>> issues. It
>> explicitly says that both the Moldovan and the Trans
>> Sinistrians have
>> made it a violation to use anything but "their"
>> script. It also makes it
>> quite clear that the middle ground is denied by both
>> parties. The
>> article explains that politics and the use of
>> different scripts can and
>> does lead to a growing apart of what used to be a
>> languages continuum.
>>
>> Given the article there is no denying that both the
>> Latin and the
>> Cyrillic script are used for what is still
>> considered to be one
>> language. It provides absolutely no argument why we
>> should not support both.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     Gerard


subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering

body:
SJ wrote:
> This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you
> know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the
> dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric.  most notably the green
> region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not
> quite parallel).   As long as the newly revisited commons logo is
> being considered
>
> Can this be fixed?  Should it be?  Does this asymmetry cause just
> enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind?  ...and
> causes them to do crazy things?  ...and causes them to run out and
> snap free-content photos of celebrities?
>

Oh come on, it's not as bad as the Mediawiki logo... :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061115/eca775f4/attachment.pgp


body:
SJ wrote:
> This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you
> know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the
> dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric.  most notably the green
> region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not
> quite parallel).   As long as the newly revisited commons logo is
> being considered
>
> Can this be fixed?  Should it be?  Does this asymmetry cause just
> enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind?  ...and
> causes them to do crazy things?  ...and causes them to run out and
> snap free-content photos of celebrities?
>

Oh come on, it's not as bad as the Mediawiki logo... :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061115/eca775f4/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
SJ wrote:
> This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you
> know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the
> dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric.  most notably the green
> region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not
> quite parallel).   As long as the newly revisited commons logo is
> being considered
>
> Can this be fixed?  Should it be?  Does this asymmetry cause just
> enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind?  ...and
> causes them to do crazy things?  ...and causes them to run out and
> snap free-content photos of celebrities?
>

Oh come on, it's not as bad as the Mediawiki logo... :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061115/eca775f4/attachment.pgp>


body:
SJ wrote:
> This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you
> know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the
> dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric.  most notably the green
> region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not
> quite parallel).   As long as the newly revisited commons logo is
> being considered
>
> Can this be fixed?  Should it be?  Does this asymmetry cause just
> enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind?  ...and
> causes them to do crazy things?  ...and causes them to run out and
> snap free-content photos of celebrities?
>

Oh come on, it's not as bad as the Mediawiki logo... :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061115/eca775f4/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Sexual harassment in Wikipedia

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>From http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
>
>
>>It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data
>>collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the
>>CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users
>>with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
>>
>>1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from
>>   law enforcement
>>2. With permission of the affected user
>>3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his
>>   designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
>>4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or
>>   bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve
>>   technical issues.
>>5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving
>>   in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting
>>   of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to
>>   relevant Internet Service Providers
>>6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or
>>   safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
>>
>>Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such
>>information under any circumstances, except as described above.
>>
>>
I'm glad that you reminded us of exactly what these said.  The one
glaring absence from these rules, except for Number 3 (which allows
Anthere (but not Jimbo ;-) !?) to receive information), is that none
identify "to whom".  This is likely an area where the rules need to be
tighter than most, because of the possible effects on a person's rights
beyond Wikimedia.  As the present issue shows, the rights in question
may also include the rights of non-Wikimedians.


subject: [Wikitech-l] DB problems today?

body:
We having a bad MySQL day?  I've been having intermittent problems on and off...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 11/9/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>legality of the activity, and it is not our place to start making
>>judgements about legality.  Civil rights and free speech are important,
>>and if it means having to tolerate occasional idiotic speech that's a
>>very small price to pay.
>>
>>
>We're past due for another line in WP:NOT:
>
>Wikipedia is not an anonymity service.
>
I don't think that that is a place where such a rule would help.

>Generally we work to increase the privacy of editors because it is the
>ethical thing to do and it furthers our interests.
>When someone attacks our users with frightening threats of violence or
>otherwise behaves in ways which are obviously harmful and malicious we
>should disclose their information as appropriate for the protection of
>our users and the betterment of our community... and this is for the
>same reasons as the above: it is the ethical thing to do and it
>furthers our interests.
>
>We are under no obligation to provide protection to people who wish to
>cause harm to others.
>
We don't really disagree.  It's all a matter of perspective.  The
primary rule should remain that we respect the privacy and anonymity of
the user.  Anything that deviates from that is an exception.  Exceptions
should be very specific.  Rules should derive from ethics, but the two
are not the same thing.

>Although a certain degree of "thick skin" is required for us to avoid
>wasting time on every idiotic troll, this would appear to go far
>beyond the line.
>
Those with thin skins just don't last lang.

Ec