from_name: Troels Arvin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Sharedance

body:
Hello,

What's the sysadm's consensus about using memcached or Tugela Cache? Is
any of the two being used? - Are the experiences good?

I ran across this today:
http://sharedance.pureftpd.org/
Might be interesting for PHP session storage. Haven't tried it, though.

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Unicode normalization spot-checks

body:
On Nov 11, 2004, at 12:49 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> The full normalization check of Korean text is the worst case for my
> code -- every syllable gets decomposed into constituent parts and
> reassembled, and it can add about a second to the save/preview time
> for a 30k article on my (otherwise unloaded) 2GHz Athlon.

While I would like to improve this further, I've now got a PHP
extension wrapping the ICU library's normalization function working,
passing all my test cases, and most importantly *not* leaking memory.

The extension is much, _much_ faster than the PHP-based looping on
worst cases, and moderately faster on best cases (roman text that's
mostly ASCII and contains no dubious characters).

I've also fixed a memory leak in the wikidiff extension.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041114/dca580c2/attachment.pgp>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Olve Utne

subject: [Wikipedia-l] no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion

body:
Hello Lars A. & everyone else,

This posting has two main parts: First, a reply to your recent posting
quoted below; and then a summary of my arguments in light of, amongst
others, your and Mark Williamson's recent postings; and finally a modified
suggestion with the following main points:

1) Renaming to Norsk (bokm?l) and Norsk (nynorsk)
2) Moving Norsk (bokm?l) to nb:, while KEEPING NO: as an automatic
("shadow") redirect to nb: -- thus parallelling Danish, with dk:> da:,
keeping full continuity through keeping the two current codes; and making
cooperation with nn: politically easier through discrete use of the domain no:.

=====
REPLY
=====

You wrote:
>*Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail*

I will get back to this further down.

>Your mail have  inaccuancies to bokm?l and nynorsk, bokm?l people view
>nynorsk as a pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly hates nynorsk
>(or bokm?l) is teenagers that is forced to learn a different language in
>school, that they don't feel they have any use for (unlike english or
>perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is stronger with the bokm?lusers
>(since nynorsk is smaller and is, in their eyes, less useful).

What you write seems to be pretty much in agreement with what Mark wrote...
I recognise the factual situation from both descriptions -- with yours
maybe describing/articulating the "hatred" from Bokm?l users against
Nynorsk in more local terms (?)

>It was the  same time that part of the norwegian history was romantized,
>the union with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear nigth",
>eventhough this where directly false.

I presume you mean "400-year-night", not "4000-year-night" :)

>Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western and
>the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway with the
>largest population was largely ignored, like the farming areas of eastern
>norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark, Akershus, ?stfold, Buskerud
>and Vestfold) also the northern part of norway was largely ignored.

Aren't Mr. Aasens "Norske Folkesprog" as well as the mid-19th Century
Danish used in Norway both quite far removed from our Nynorsk and
Bokm?l...? Since the 1840s, both Nynorsk (then called Det norske Folkesprog
by Ivar Aasen, later coined Landsmaal, but also actually known as Bokmaal
(!)) and Bokm?l (then near-identical with Danish, later known in its
historically increasingly norvagised form as Rigsmaal and Riksm?l) have
changed very much.
Today's mainstream Nynorsk most closely resembles dialects in relatively
"moderate" dialect areas like Lofoten, Vester?len, eastern parts of
Telemark, parts of Vestfold and Oppland (including Toten).
Today's mainstream Bokm?l is also quite different from the Danish used in
Norway in the mid-1800s, and lies closest to the dialects of middle-class
and upper-class people in the cities of SE Norway -- esp. Oslo and Drammen.

It is true that Nynorsk is currently most commonly used in Sogn og Fjordane
and M?re og Romsdal. However, it is also used to varying degrees most other
places in Norway, and Norwegian literature abounds with authors from both
Bokm?l and Nynorsk.

You wrote about Mark's posting: *Paints "POV" in huge red letters over
Williamsons mail*. I do not agree that Mark is unprecise or skewed enough
in his writing to warrant such an outburst. Whereas I personally think that
one mainly Bokm?l Wikipedia is more constructive than two,

>Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there
>are  none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokm?l (allthough some of them
>speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a endings  (these
>are allowed on bokm?l too). However, the languages are equal in  terms of
>administrative language. But on a national basis bokm?l is more used.

When some of us mention that a large proportion of Norwegians speak a
dialect that is closer to Nynorsk than Bokm?l, we are of course not talking
about "some nynorsk words, like -a endings" (that would include, in fact, a
rather large proportion of Oslo's population), but of dialects which show,
*predominantly*, traits that are closer to the continuum if Nynorsk
morphology than Bokm?l. Such traits include, amongst others:

- different plurals for masculine nouns (-a(r) or -?(r), occasionally
-?(r)), feminine nouns (either merged -e(r) or, like in Swedish -e(r)/-o(r)
depending on the class of each noun) and neutral nouns (mainly -) as
opposed to a generic plural in Bokm?l (-er, with neutral nouns varying
between - and -er)
- forms of personal pronouns that are closer to Nynorsk (such as e(g), ?(g)
rather than je(g) = I; ho, hu rather than hun (she); dykk(~), dekk(~),
dokk(e(r)) rather than dere = you (pl., accusative); etc.)
- forms of verbs that are closer to Nynorsk (such as a higher incident of
strong verbs, ablaut and umlaut forms; and, less significantly, -a in past
tense of verbs were stylistically mainstream Bokm?l has -et)

Of secondary importance is the vowel system, with Nynorsk tending to have
more historical vowels and fewer secondary vowels than Bokm?l. The presence
of many vowels is popularly viewed as "the" characteristic of Nynorsk --
but this trait is actually of less use in this connection.

Forms that are permitted but in practice deprecated in Bokm?l include: -a
in past tense of certain verbs; -a as definite article in plural of neutral
gender  nouns;

You pointed out that some -a endings are permitted in Bokm?l. You did not,
however, mention that these forms tend to be criticised, or even
"corrected" away in practice -- because many (the majority?) of Bokm?l
users find them to be stylistically inappropriate.

>btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokm?l) wiki.

I agree that that could be a risk, and therefore I believe that such a
split *should be avoided at any reasonable cost*.

>And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokm?l or riksm?l, some
>100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where just ~800
>articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of articles in either
>language. Knowing that a large part of this work would fall on me i don't
>cherish this idea, and the fact that it's creating a chaos, two rcs to
>monitor and a devertion of work. Also,  there are no bokm?l grasroot
>movement that wants to do this work, the  people that supports this
>solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary nynorsk atleast).

I believe that once there is a solution that "everyone" agrees on
(including, hopefully, the Wikipedia community as a whole) -- which I hope
will be an adjustment of the current language-based split rather than a
fork within the current no: -- the work of adjusting the language contents
of the Bokm?l version will be relatively easily accomplished. I for one
hereby volunteer to do my share of the job. Even though I seem to have been
coined as a Nynorsk user (and even, to my frustration, as a Bokm?l hater)
by some, I am very interested in

>I vote for a solution where bokm?l keeps no: (but creates a page
>with  reasons to why bokm?l have no:, that's going to get linked from the
>mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes
>to  "norsk (bokm?l)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokm?l.
>
>This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope
>most  parts would be happy with the solution.

The Norsk (nynorsk) vs. Norsk (bokm?l) (without capitalisation of nyn. and
bokm.) renaming is OK with me. Whether the Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia
actually lies on no: or nb: has, as has been pointed out already,
absolutely no significance: The Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia will be exactly as
continuos on nb: as on no:, with absolutely no foreseeable extra work for
its admins and other users, other than an optional long-term bot task of
going through the various wikipedias and automatically changing all [[no:
entrances to [[nb:. Since a change of domain would include a universal
redirect from no: to nb: for a relatively long period (in fact, just
reversing the current situation, there should be plenty of time to do this.

To illustrate the current situation: Please try clicking on this link to
the article "Norge" on nb: (Norway) and see what happens...

http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge

See?  That is how easy the reversal of this would be on the readers! :)

=================
SUMMARY OF REPLY:
=================

A I think a split of the current no: Wikipedia
    should be avoided at any reasonable cost.
B A move of this Wikipedia to nb: would not lead to
    any significant extra work for the admins and users on no:
C If no: is moved to nb: in accordance with a more precise
    implementation of the language codes, then no: should
    be a redirect domain to nb: the way it is today,
    with the main page as the only exception.
D In the event of such a move, bots should be set up
    to go through the other wikipedias and change all [[no:
    and [[:no: codes to [[nb: and [[:nb:
E It seems that the main argument against having Norsk
    (bokm?l) on nb: is an emotional one rather than practical
    (since the move would be very easy to implement and
    would be executed centrally rather than by no: admins)
    or logical (since no: is the country code and the umbrella
    language code, whereas nb: is the specific language code
    for Bokm?l, including Riksm?l).
F Those emotional arguments must be respected, since
    our long-term goals as an international Wikipedia community
    would be adversely affected if there were to be unnecessary
    long-term resentment between the user groups of individual
    projects.

Therefore, my hunch is that we should first try to reach consent about the
underlying factors. Here is what I propose that these are:

LOCAL UNDERLYING FACTORS

- Bokm?l as a written language has more users than Nynorsk
- Bokm?l and Nynorsk are both recognised as official languages in Norway.
- Bokm?l and Nynorsk are linguistically extremely closely connected with
Swedish and Danish.

COUNTRY AND LANGUAGE CODES IN A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE
- The Swedish language Wikipedia,
    primarily serving people in Sweden and parts of Finland,
    has the language code sv: rather than the country code se:
    (which is connected to the use of se: for Northern Sami
    and sa: for Sanskrit)
- The Danish language Wikipedia,
    primarily serving people in Denmark,
    has the language code da: rather than
    the country code dk.
    There is a redirect from dk: to da:
- The Nynorsk language Wikipedia,
    primarily serving Nynorsk language
    users in Norway, has the language code nn:
- The mainly Bokm?l Wikipedia, which started out as
    a mixed Bokm?l/Nynorsk environment with the
    emphasis on Bokm?l (including Riksm?l),
    uses both the country code no:
    (which, when used as a language code,
    includes both Bokm?l and Nynorsk)
    and the language code nb: (as a redirect).

CURRENT SITUATION ON NO:
- The no: Wikipedia is changing its r?le from a generic
    Bokm?l/Nynorsk language wikipedia (albeit with
    almost exclusively Bokm?l contents, as Lars Alvik
    has pointed out) to a specifically Norsk Bokm?l
    language version.
- The new Nynorsk Wikipedia works as an independent
    project and, while fastly expanding, has not had any
    significant effect in terms of disrupting the continuity
    of the no: Wikipedia in general except for there being
    a bit more activity on the Village Pump page than
    usual.

==========================================
MODIFIED SUGGESTION FOR LONG-TERM SOLUTION
==========================================

(This suggestion is based primarily on Lars Alvik's previous suggestion,
with modifications/additions based on arguments that have emerged in the
debate locally on no: and nn: as well as here on wikipedia-l.)

1) The "Norsk" and "Nynorsk" interwiki names are changed to "Norsk
(bokm?l)" and "Norsk (nynorsk)" respectively.

2) The "Norsk (nynorsk)" wikipedia uses the language code nn:

3) The "Norsk (bokm?l)" wikipedia is moved to the proper language code nb:,
with the central Wikipedia developers/admins making sure that the extra
workload on the current no: admins is kept to an absolute minimum. (This
will in effect (see #4) only be an internal reversal of the two domains
already de facto used by the Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia, thus ensuring
maximum continuity.)

4) For reasons of continuity and relative size of community, "Norsk
(bokm?l)" Wikipedia keeps the domain no:, but for reasons of impreciseness
of the term as regards the language situation in Norway, this code will
only be used as a redirect of links and URLs with the code to the
corresponding nb: page. (Thus parallelling exactly the Danish usage of dk:
and da:)

5) The communities on nn: and nb: will commit themselves to implementing
the solution locally, with a special emphasis on information about and
promotion of the other Wikipedia on the "Main" and "Latest edits" page; and
also, to the extent possible, through putting the interwiki link to the
other language first in the list of links in each article.

6) A specific technical solution that has been brought up is the splitting
of the "Donations" link into a locally wikipedia-wide universal link to the
other Wikipedia of the two. This solution, while admittedly clogging up the
quick navigations field slightly, may have positive effects for the local
cooperation, and should therefore be reciprocally applied to the nn: and
nb: wikipedias.

7) In the interest of strengthening the Scandinavian Wikipedia community, I
suggest to implement points 5) and 6) also to sv: and da:, thus
facilitating quick navigation between these wikipedias, effectively
creating a half-integrated article pool of about 83,000 articles (on 14
Nov. at ca 7 AM GMT) and an incitement for each of the four Scandinavian
communities to cooperate and expand.

8) Work towards more integrated multilingual wikipedias through making the
Scandinavian wikipedias a test project for the development of an
interlingual search function limited to a specific pool of wikipedias,
where searches and no-hit events lead to a search within the pre-defined
pool of closely related languages. For Scandinavian, this would include, in
order of community size, sv:, da:, nb:, and nn:.

-Olve

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Salon du Livre Libre -- 18-22 nov 2004

body:
So, I'm involved with a group here in Montreal, Quebec, working on a
Salon du Livre Libre -- a Free Book Faire, highlighting Open Content
books and the public domain.

We'd love to have Wikipedians or Wikimedians come talk during one of our
discussions. Wikimedia is the biggest creator of Open Content reference
works in the world, and we think it'd be great to have representatives
(of varying credentials) talk about what Wikimedia is and how it works.
Especially in Canada, a bilingual country, Wikimedia's concentration on
multilingualism is an interesting issue that should be pointed up.

If anyone's interested in participating in this event, please contact me
or the people listed at the site below:

    http://www.salondulivrelibre.info/

Thanks,

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou                  .O.
http://bad.dynu.ca/~evan/       ..O
evan at bad.dynu.ca                OOO


list: wikien-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.

Fred

> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:26:32 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>
> My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and
> deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits were
> not a delete at all?
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: leercontainer-wikimedia at yahoo.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 24

body:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:06:39 -0500
> From: ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] presentation on Wikipedia goes well!

<snip>

> OpenOffice was very handy as a presentation tool.
> I used the suggested presentation from French and
> edited it and thinned it down for the time I had to

Which presentation? Do you have a link, or contact person. I've used
OpenOffice Impress myself but I there's a good looking Wikipedia
template out there I'd much prefer it instead of my crappy-looking
handwork.

--Guttorm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
I would like to work toward a policy which specified that both parties to a
disputed edit, the one adding it and the one removing it, should be required
to either justify their action with some reference from an accepted source
or drop the dispute.

Fred

> From: "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:49:25 +1100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>
> I have a question: if a revert war happens and the page needs to be
> blocked, should hte material that was removed be readded, or should it
> be taken out and put on the talk page for it to be discussed.
>
> How long should the revert stay for? How can the other party put their
> side forth properly and allow for a compromise, or show that the other
> party was wrong to make the changes they did? How will we guarantee
> fairness?
>
> I say this because a good example is looming at [[Exploding whale]] -
> Mikkalai keeps taking away the phrase ", who described himself as a
> "land-''blubber''" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond
> all believable bounds."" because he says its "bragging", though it
> isn't. I don't think Mikkalai understands bragging, and I don't think
> he's watched the video because it was just straight (humorous)
> reporting! I've taken it to the talk page, but lets say I get reverted
> again without the user talking, should he be allowed to get away with that?
>
> Why not just make a policy that says that the initiator of the original
> edit must justify his edits, and the reverter must take to the talk page
> as soon as they do the revert? Wouldn't that fix a lot of problems?
>
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>> I am personally endorsing and promoting a proposal that the 3 Revert
>> Rule be enforced.  The exact wording of the proposal is:
>>
>> If you violate the 3 revert rule, sysops may block you for up
>> to 24 hours.
>> In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops
>> should treat both sides equally.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
>>
>> I encourage everyone to vote.  I actually even encourage you to vote
>> yes.  This is a long overdue change, and I believe there is strong
>> community consensus for it.  After the poll is finalized, I will back
>> it fully.
>>
>> I discussed the exact wording with several people, and have discussed
>> the revert rule generally with a lot of people, even some of the worst
>> violators.  I don't think we'll have much problem getting this passed
>> quickly.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and
deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits were
not a delete at all?

Jay.


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plagiarism

body:
> Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>

mentioned having seen his first example of plagiarism and says "Sadly,
a huge amount of NYC inner-city high school student are literally
writing at a fourth or fifth grade level, and show zero awareness of
issues such as plagiarism and copyright infringement."

This isn't particularly new and is not limited to inner-city students.
In the 1970s I knew someone who taught a junior high-school class in a
middle-class neighborhood of a Wisconsin town of about 100,000. The
story is long, but the punchline is: "Well, you shouldn't have copied
his lab notes. But if you're going to copy something and you don't want
to be caught, don't make a _carbon_ copy.  But if you do make a carbon
copy, at least be sure you erase the other student's name _completely_.
And don't put it in my in-basket _directly underneath the original._"

When I was a teaching assistant in a lab course, I frequently received
lab notes containing illustrations which students had copied or traced
out of textbooks. I made a big point of saying "If you do copy
something you _must_ say that it's a copy and you _must_ credit it." I
showed them some examples in their textbook that said "after so-and-so"
and "from so-and-so." Interestingly enough, from that point on they
continued to copy illustrations but gave proper credit lines. (They
didn't seem to regard illustrations in lab papers as part of the
factual record, but as some kind of decoration or enhancement).

When I was in high school--and in the eyes of the locals, the only
scope for debate was whether our town, or New Trier, or Newton,
Massachusetts had the very best high school in the entire world--I was
once was in a health class where we all had to write up papers about
something. One fellow-student was very annoyed that he had received a
C+, after he had gotten his father's secretary type it up, neatly,
straight out of the _Scientific American._ (By the way, this was not an
act of arrogance; this was a really nice guy who wasn't fantastically
bright and completely sincere in his puzzlement over his grade).

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: wikiuser at cyber-rights.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

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

>>If Neutrality blocked you, it appears to me that he has every
reason to have done so. Making edits with summaries such as "_//
Opposed nazi
censorship and anti-semitism of users here//_" and "Answered nazi
abuser" as well as extremely controversial edits to articles such
as
[[England]] which are opposed by community consensus and continuing
to
make them agaist consensus - in addition to opnely supporting
Rex071404
and Irismeister, users against whom extensive arbcom cases have
been
made for repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility and "no
personal
attacks" policies, for reasons on which a consensus has been
reached as
to their invalidity - generally do not reflect well on a person and
his
ability to work with Wikipedia (all of the above can be found in
WikiUser's contribution list) and can rightfully be interpreted as "
bad
faith" and "disruptive". I've never encountered you before, so if
you
would like to explain the reasoning behind some of these edits you'
ve
made, please do, but until then I think it can safely be said that
Neutrality's actions were in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole.

I await your defence to the above with interest.

~Grunt (Steven Melenchuk)>>

No you don't. You only wish to abuse me and order me around. You
clearly haven't even read the relevant material and familiarised
yourself with the case before lecturing me and sounding off.

Don't lie and accuse me of: ""bad
faith" and "disruptive". I've never encountered you before, so if
you " it's against the wikipedia guidelines. And I formally
complain of THE WIKIPEDIA user Steven Melenchuk Maliciously acting
in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia in abusing the WIKI MAILING LIST
to abuse me in this way.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.4

wkYEARECAAYFAkGXlRgACgkQxgdf4hnhuOxy3wCfV0cP+NTLx+iNAL0gp0LD7hGzEocA
nA86QXucRM5iDA3HiBMz6ZsQZqBx
=4KDG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mis-use of donated money by Wikipedia user "Neutrality".

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

I SENT THIS WITH MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE but it didn't arrive so here
it is now:

FURTHER He's blocked me, and 350 other computers, for a month with
no
justification whatsoever. SEE BELOW. I want to make a formal
complaint
to The Wikipedia Foundation about him and to formally apply to have
the
viscious abuser "Neutrality" booted off The Wikipedia permanently;
for
mis-using his position, and the $50,000 donated, and therefore
(officially acting as The Wikipedia Foundation's agent) breaking a
Federal law due to his corruptly mis-using these funds.

"Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia.
21:28, 13 Nov 2004, Neutrality blocked #11140 (expires 21:28, 14
Nov
2004) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used
by
"[[User:WikiUser|WikiUser]]". The reason given for WikiUser's block
is:
"'''Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia'''".)
editing in bad faith, personal attacks)

20:22, 13 Nov 2004, Neutrality blocked WikiUser (expires 20:22, 13
Dec
2004) (contribs) (Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt
Wikipedia)"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.4

wkYEARECAAYFAkGXleEACgkQxgdf4hnhuOwlegCfWjt1sBTKzDWHHHEKD831VfljA0UA
oIlkOvyo2jkDVigaGtjo4WJ9IZUy
=6vxx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
>From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:58:16 -0700

>
>Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.
>
>Fred
>
> > From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:26:32 -0500
> > To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
> >
> > My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and
> > deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits
>were
> > not a delete at all?
> >
> > Jay.

The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant
re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of
sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in
order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing
substantive edits.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
My take is that you can see through some, but not all games.

Fred

> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:09:52 +1100
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>
> Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [041114 23:56]:
>> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
>>> My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and
>>> deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits were
>>> not a delete at all?
>
>> Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.
>
>
> You're on the AC, don't tell me you don't immediately see how a dedicated
> POV warrior will game any given system ... I see more stupid AC requests in
> the future.
>
> (That said, here's to 3RR. SUPPORT! SUPPORT!)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Project proposals on meta

body:
I generally agree with Erik on this. Editors added their project on meta
  (or more generally, on one of wikimedia projects), and it should stay
on meta.

As far as I know, Wikicities is not a wikimedia project, and I see no
reason why we would move there information which was given here. At
least no more reason to move it there rather than anywhere else.

Meta is meant precisely to receive such information and proposal. I
object to information be disseminated on several wikis, in particular on
projects which are not ours.

Of course, that does not mean the content of the page can't be copied on
wikicities, and become useful over there. But it should stay on meta,
because it is one of the goal of meta to welcome brainstorming.

This said, the meta page needs clean up so that we can distinguish
between projects which just do not fit our goals, and others potentially
interesting later on.
We could welcome rough polls for each project, and do a short meeting to
decide which ones to move to an archive.

Anthere

Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> Elisabeth-
>
>>Since many people complained to me about Meta being an unusable
>>labyrinth, I'd like to do a little bit of cleanup and wondered if we
>>could just move this list to wikicities (jimbo's pet project where
>>people can set up wikis on their own) and direct new entries on meta of
>>the type "oh there is no wiki on ... what about ...?" to wikicities:
>>http://www.wikicities.com/index.php/Proposed_wikis
>
>
> No, please don't do that. While I like Wikicities, I want Wikimedia itself
> to be and remain at the forefront of exploring new and innovative uses of
> wikis. Discussion is a large part of that. I agree that many of the
> proposals will not have a future as separate projects, but for most of the
> useful ones, I see potential for integration into existing ones. Instead
> of encouraging separate projects, we should systematically explore how to
> integrate good ideas into the Wikimedia framework. What cannot happen
> today may very well happen tomorrow.
>
> NPOV also dictates that we do not give preference to any outside wiki
> hosting company. Why direct the Wikimedia community to wikicities.com and
> not myoo.de or wikidev.net, both of which are run by MediaWiki developers?
> I think a general note about wiki hosting on the talk page is more
> appropriate.
>
> In short, I strongly oppose moving this talk page out of Meta, and even
> more strongly to move it to a specific hosting company.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Single login - decision 2004

body:
Angela a ?crit:
>>The question for the Board is: Given that we have at least two, and
>>possibly three, implementations where there are volunteers, which one
>>should we choose? To me, this seems to be a matter that could be decided
>>by the Board; others have said that a poll will be necessary first. Either
>>way is fine with me - what does the Board say?
>
>
> I don't feel this ought to be a board decision at the moment. I
> suggest a non-binding poll of the community take place first. This can
> be used to inform the developers and also to help to adjust the
> current proposals for single-login. I'd rather the developer committee
> came to a consensus about this issue, based on the results of the
> poll, since it is them who have to create the single login feature.
> There is little point in the board saying make it all magically work
> for an option that is disliked by the community or not likely to be
> coded.
>
> Angela.

I agree with Angela on this.

Anthere

As a side comment, I do not use same password on all my wiki accounts.
I probably still use an old one on a few projects
I recently change the french one due to a security breach in Paris meeting
I use different password for meta and wikimediafoundation because of the
higher risks involved to my password being stolen there

That makes a least 4 different passwords.


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: difficulties

body:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 05:05:33PM +0000, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> I have had difficulties finding a "list" of California legislatures
> from your http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/california.html page.  As
> well, on the sports list of professional sports in California - there
> is no mention of minor league soccer - there are various numbers of
> teams - here's two websites:
> http://prosoccer.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/66078.html ;
> http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/65510.html ; &
> http://www.mpsl.info/teams.aspx
>

Dear Steve,

Firstly, the site you link from, fact-index.com, merely re-uses
Wikipedia content, as Wikipedia's copyright allows it to do; we are
however not responsible for the content of any such re-use.  Often such
sites use old versions of the articles.  Wikipedia's actual article
is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California.

As for your substantive comments, Wikipedia is the creation of its
users.  Every article on Wikipedia is written, revised, and improved
through the collective efforts of people like yourself!  You can fix any
omissions or errors that you come across if you can.  If you can't fix an
article, or don't have the time or inclination, leave a comment on the
article's "discussion page" (you can click on the "discussion" tab on the
top of the article to go to it), so that the people who are interested in
working on this particular article can see your comments.

Thanks for taking the time to contact us.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
                                        http://benambra.org

One of the young bankers at Deer Valley told how he went to buy
a Superman costume for his son's ninth birthday party and found
the label weirdly appropriate: "Wearing this garment does not
enable purchaser to fly".
  -- Tina Brown, salon.com, 2003-03-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


list: commons-l

from_name: Gerrit

subject: [Commons-l] flags

body:
Hello,

Wikimedia Commons currently insists all images to have a free license. I
completely agree with this policy. However, I have a question about the
license of a flag.

A flag is a sort of drawing. If I find a flag somewhere on the internet,
it may not be free. If the flag is correct, and I would create another
correct flag, however, it would be exactly the same, and it would be
free. Legally, drawing the same flag again, pixel for pixel, would alter
its license, wouldn't it?

If so, can I let an image program do this? Suppose I find a correct flag
in .gif format, download it, convert it to .png. It then is a different
flag with the same content. If the license of the source is unknown,
what do I know about the license of the new .png?

It may be a derivative work, but the result would have been exactly the
same if I would have followed the exact instructions at
http://www.freewebs.com/mahabadassociation/flag.html . It confuses me:
can a flag be licensed at all?

regards,
Gerrit Holl.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 14/11 10:25:
	5.0?C   wind 0.9 m/s WNW (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


from_name: Hendrik Brummermann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Ubersetzungsproblem in Deutsch

body:
Matthias Pospiech wrote:
> Raul Mircea Gigea wrote:
>> Entschuldigung. Ich habe es eigentlich _nicht_ korigiert, weil in
>> LanguagesDe.php das schon groSgeschrieben waren, und trotzdem werden sie
>> kleingeschrieben.
>> Ist das vielleicht ein StyleSheet problem ?
> I would suggest to write in english if possible.
> I have no clue what the reason is, however CSS should not be the reason for
> any Up or lowercase letters.

Yes, it is: In the default monobook-skin the navigation is converted to
lower case. The German Wikipedia community, however, decided, that this
is not good and modified the default style on de.wikipedia.org

Paul, add this line to your [[MediaWiki:monobook.css] to disable the
conversation to lower case:

/*Gro?buchstaben in den Navigationsbereichen*/
.portlet h5,.portlet h6,#p-personal ul,#p-cactions li
a{text-transform:none;}

Hendrik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
That is nasty. And can produce a lot of needless work. You have to look at
the changes they made and save them if they have not made it too
complicated, but definitely they are leading you into a trap. If you revert
they have this complaint that you removed useful edits. I guess you have to
balance the situation. If they have created reams of work by combining a
revert with an edit it is their responsibility not yours to do all the extra
work involved. This kind of behavior leads to two versions of the articles.

It's hard for someone not closely following the action to catch this sort of
thing.

Fred

> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:40:32 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>
>
>
>> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:58:16 -0700
>
>>
>> Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:26:32 -0500
>>> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
>>>
>>> My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and
>>> deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits
>> were
>>> not a delete at all?
>>>
>>> Jay.
>
> The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant
> re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of
> sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in
> order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing
> substantive edits.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
At 09:40 AM 11/14/2004 -0500, JAY JG wrote:
>The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant
>re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of
>sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in
>order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing
>substantive edits.

The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what
we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to
fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody
likes to work :).


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Mis-use of donated money by Wikipedia user
	"Neutrality".

body:
wikiuser at cyber-rights.net wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I SENT THIS WITH MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE but it didn't arrive so here
> it is now:
>
> FURTHER He's blocked me, and 350 other computers, for a month with
> no
> justification whatsoever. SEE BELOW. I want to make a formal
> complaint
> to The Wikipedia Foundation about him and to formally apply to have
> the
> viscious abuser "Neutrality" booted off The Wikipedia permanently;
> for
> mis-using his position, and the $50,000 donated, and therefore
> (officially acting as The Wikipedia Foundation's agent) breaking a
> Federal law due to his corruptly mis-using these funds.

Can someone please block this delusional nutjob from posting to WikiEN-l?


from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Requests for new Wikipedias?

body:
As far as new languages are concerned, I'm worried also about
wikisquatters, which can take over inactive wikipedias...

--
Ausir
mailto:fallout at lexx.eu.org
http://fallout.scifi.pl
ICQ 41090834 GG 2730728


from_name: Lars Alvik

body:
P? 14. nov. 2004 kl. 08.19 skrev Olve Utne:

> Hello Lars A. & everyone else,
>
> This posting has two main parts: First, a reply to your recent posting
> quoted below; and then a summary of my arguments in light of, amongst
> others, your and Mark Williamson's recent postings; and finally a
> modified suggestion with the following main points:
>
> 1) Renaming to Norsk (bokm?l) and Norsk (nynorsk)
> 2) Moving Norsk (bokm?l) to nb:, while KEEPING NO: as an automatic
> ("shadow") redirect to nb: -- thus parallelling Danish, with dk:> da:,
> keeping full continuity through keeping the two current codes; and
> making cooperation with nn: politically easier through discrete use of
> the domain no:.
>
>
>
>
> =====
> REPLY
> =====
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>> *Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail*
>
> I will get back to this further down.
>
>> Your mail have  inaccuancies to bokm?l and nynorsk, bokm?l people
>> view nynorsk as a pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly
>> hates nynorsk (or bokm?l) is teenagers that is forced to learn a
>> different language in school, that they don't feel they have any use
>> for (unlike english or perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is
>> stronger with the bokm?lusers (since nynorsk is smaller and is, in
>> their eyes, less useful).
>
> What you write seems to be pretty much in agreement with what Mark
> wrote... I recognise the factual situation from both descriptions --
> with yours maybe describing/articulating the "hatred" from Bokm?l
> users against Nynorsk in more local terms (?)
>
>> It was the  same time that part of the norwegian history was
>> romantized, the union with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear
>> nigth", eventhough this where directly false.
>
> I presume you mean "400-year-night", not "4000-year-night" :)
>

Ofcurse *slaps own head* :P

>
>> Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western
>> and the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway
>> with the largest population was largely ignored, like the farming
>> areas of eastern norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark,
>> Akershus, ?stfold, Buskerud and Vestfold) also the northern part of
>> norway was largely ignored.
>
> Aren't Mr. Aasens "Norske Folkesprog" as well as the mid-19th Century
> Danish used in Norway both quite far removed from our Nynorsk and
> Bokm?l...? Since the 1840s, both Nynorsk (then called Det norske
> Folkesprog by Ivar Aasen, later coined Landsmaal, but also actually
> known as Bokmaal (!)) and Bokm?l (then near-identical with Danish,
> later known in its historically increasingly norvagised form as
> Rigsmaal and Riksm?l) have changed very much.
> Today's mainstream Nynorsk most closely resembles dialects in
> relatively "moderate" dialect areas like Lofoten, Vester?len, eastern
> parts of Telemark, parts of Vestfold and Oppland (including Toten).

> Today's mainstream Bokm?l is also quite different from the Danish used
> in Norway in the mid-1800s, and lies closest to the dialects of
> middle-class and upper-class people in the cities of SE Norway -- esp.
> Oslo and Drammen.
>
> It is true that Nynorsk is currently most commonly used in Sogn og
> Fjordane and M?re og Romsdal. However, it is also used to varying
> degrees most other places in Norway, and Norwegian literature abounds
> with authors from both Bokm?l and Nynorsk.
>
> You wrote about Mark's posting: *Paints "POV" in huge red letters over
> Williamsons mail*. I do not agree that Mark is unprecise or skewed
> enough in his writing to warrant such an outburst.

It was not as much as what we wrote, it was how he wrote it, if you
catch my drift. But in either way it was a derailing of the real
debate.

> Whereas I personally think that one mainly Bokm?l Wikipedia is more
> constructive than two,

Hear hear!

>> Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there
>> are  none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokm?l (allthough some of
>> them speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a
>> endings  (these are allowed on bokm?l too). However, the languages
>> are equal in  terms of administrative language. But on a national
>> basis bokm?l is more used.
>
> When some of us mention that a large proportion of Norwegians speak a
> dialect that is closer to Nynorsk than Bokm?l, we are of course not
> talking about "some nynorsk words, like -a endings" (that would
> include, in fact, a rather large proportion of Oslo's population), but
> of dialects which show, *predominantly*, traits that are closer to the
> continuum if Nynorsk morphology than Bokm?l. Such traits include,
> amongst others:
>
> - different plurals for masculine nouns (-a(r) or -?(r), occasionally
> -?(r)), feminine nouns (either merged -e(r) or, like in Swedish
> -e(r)/-o(r) depending on the class of each noun) and neutral nouns
> (mainly -) as opposed to a generic plural in Bokm?l (-er, with neutral
> nouns varying between - and -er)
> - forms of personal pronouns that are closer to Nynorsk (such as e(g),
> ?(g) rather than je(g) = I; ho, hu rather than hun (she); dykk(~),
> dekk(~), dokk(e(r)) rather than dere = you (pl., accusative); etc.)
> - forms of verbs that are closer to Nynorsk (such as a higher incident
> of strong verbs, ablaut and umlaut forms; and, less significantly, -a
> in past tense of verbs were stylistically mainstream Bokm?l has -et)
>
> Of secondary importance is the vowel system, with Nynorsk tending to
> have more historical vowels and fewer secondary vowels than Bokm?l.
> The presence of many vowels is popularly viewed as "the"
> characteristic of Nynorsk -- but this trait is actually of less use in
> this connection.
>
> Forms that are permitted but in practice deprecated in Bokm?l include:
> -a in past tense of certain verbs; -a as definite article in plural of
> neutral gender  nouns;

I see i've been outgunned...

> You pointed out that some -a endings are permitted in Bokm?l. You did
> not, however, mention that these forms tend to be criticised, or even
> "corrected" away in practice -- because many (the majority?) of Bokm?l
> users find them to be stylistically inappropriate.

criticised? I've never heard of them being criticised, perhaps back in
the 50ies during the samnorsk period, when parents "corrected" their
childerens schoolbooks.

>> btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokm?l) wiki.
>
> I agree that that could be a risk, and therefore I believe that such a
> split *should be avoided at any reasonable cost*.

Hear hear!

>
>> And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokm?l or riksm?l,
>> some 100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where
>> just ~800 articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of
>> articles in either language. Knowing that a large part of this work
>> would fall on me i don't cherish this idea, and the fact that it's
>> creating a chaos, two rcs to monitor and a devertion of work. Also,
>> there are no bokm?l grasroot movement that wants to do this work, the
>>  people that supports this solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary
>> nynorsk atleast).
>
> I believe that once there is a solution that "everyone" agrees on
> (including, hopefully, the Wikipedia community as a whole) -- which I
> hope will be an adjustment of the current language-based split rather
> than a fork within the current no: -- the work of adjusting the
> language contents of the Bokm?l version will be relatively easily
> accomplished. I for one hereby volunteer to do my share of the job.
> Even though I seem to have been coined as a Nynorsk user (and even, to
> my frustration, as a Bokm?l hater) by some, I am very interested in
>
>> I vote for a solution where bokm?l keeps no: (but creates a page with
>>  reasons to why bokm?l have no:, that's going to get linked from the
>> mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes
>> to  "norsk (bokm?l)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokm?l.
>>
>> This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope
>> most  parts would be happy with the solution.
>
> The Norsk (nynorsk) vs. Norsk (bokm?l) (without capitalisation of nyn.
> and bokm.) renaming is OK with me. Whether the Norsk (bokm?l)
> Wikipedia actually lies on no: or nb: has, as has been pointed out
> already, absolutely no significance: The Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia will
> be exactly as continuos on nb: as on no:, with absolutely no
> foreseeable extra work for its admins and other users, other than an
> optional long-term bot task of going through the various wikipedias
> and automatically changing all [[no: entrances to [[nb:. Since a
> change of domain would include a universal redirect from no: to nb:
> for a relatively long period (in fact, just reversing the current
> situation, there should be plenty of time to do this.
>
> To illustrate the current situation: Please try clicking on this link
> to the article "Norge" on nb: (Norway) and see what happens...
>
> http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
>
> See?  That is how easy the reversal of this would be on the readers! :)

Hmm, nice, well, that last demonstration blowed me away, i have no
objections to move no: to nb: (provided no: is a permanent, and then i
mean _permanent_, redirect, perhaps with a exception of a protected
mainpage that states the current situation and offers nice and big
links to either side)

> =================
> SUMMARY OF REPLY:
> =================
>
>
> A I think a split of the current no: Wikipedia
>    should be avoided at any reasonable cost.
> B A move of this Wikipedia to nb: would not lead to
>    any significant extra work for the admins and users on no:
> C If no: is moved to nb: in accordance with a more precise
>    implementation of the language codes, then no: should
>    be a redirect domain to nb: the way it is today,
>    with the main page as the only exception.
> D In the event of such a move, bots should be set up
>    to go through the other wikipedias and change all [[no:
>    and [[:no: codes to [[nb: and [[:nb:
> E It seems that the main argument against having Norsk
>    (bokm?l) on nb: is an emotional one rather than practical
>    (since the move would be very easy to implement and
>    would be executed centrally rather than by no: admins)
>    or logical (since no: is the country code and the umbrella
>    language code, whereas nb: is the specific language code
>    for Bokm?l, including Riksm?l).

Accualy i have an other, quite weak estetic argument, no: and nn: is
right next to each other, compared to nb: and nn: (nl: in between), so
in a alfabetizied interwikilist, nynorsk and bokm?l would get splitted.
Perhaps this would be solved with keeping no: as a commonly used
interwikicode, or perhaps this would create total havoc.

> F Those emotional arguments must be respected, since
>    our long-term goals as an international Wikipedia community
>    would be adversely affected if there were to be unnecessary
>    long-term resentment between the user groups of individual
>    projects.
>
> Therefore, my hunch is that we should first try to reach consent about
> the underlying factors. Here is what I propose that these are:
>
> LOCAL UNDERLYING FACTORS
>
> - Bokm?l as a written language has more users than Nynorsk
> - Bokm?l and Nynorsk are both recognised as official languages in
> Norway.
> - Bokm?l and Nynorsk are linguistically extremely closely connected
> with Swedish and Danish.
>
> COUNTRY AND LANGUAGE CODES IN A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE
> - The Swedish language Wikipedia,
>    primarily serving people in Sweden and parts of Finland,
>    has the language code sv: rather than the country code se:
>    (which is connected to the use of se: for Northern Sami
>    and sa: for Sanskrit)
> - The Danish language Wikipedia,
>    primarily serving people in Denmark,
>    has the language code da: rather than
>    the country code dk.
>    There is a redirect from dk: to da:
> - The Nynorsk language Wikipedia,
>    primarily serving Nynorsk language
>    users in Norway, has the language code nn:
> - The mainly Bokm?l Wikipedia, which started out as
>    a mixed Bokm?l/Nynorsk environment with the
>    emphasis on Bokm?l (including Riksm?l),
>    uses both the country code no:
>    (which, when used as a language code,
>    includes both Bokm?l and Nynorsk)
>    and the language code nb: (as a redirect).
>
> CURRENT SITUATION ON NO:
> - The no: Wikipedia is changing its r?le from a generic
>    Bokm?l/Nynorsk language wikipedia (albeit with
>    almost exclusively Bokm?l contents, as Lars Alvik
>    has pointed out) to a specifically Norsk Bokm?l
>    language version.
> - The new Nynorsk Wikipedia works as an independent
>    project and, while fastly expanding, has not had any
>    significant effect in terms of disrupting the continuity
>    of the no: Wikipedia in general except for there being
>    a bit more activity on the Village Pump page than
>    usual.
>
> ==========================================
> MODIFIED SUGGESTION FOR LONG-TERM SOLUTION
> ==========================================
>
>
> (This suggestion is based primarily on Lars Alvik's previous
> suggestion, with modifications/additions based on arguments that have
> emerged in the debate locally on no: and nn: as well as here on
> wikipedia-l.)
>
>
> 1) The "Norsk" and "Nynorsk" interwiki names are changed to "Norsk
> (bokm?l)" and "Norsk (nynorsk)" respectively.
>
> 2) The "Norsk (nynorsk)" wikipedia uses the language code nn:
>
> 3) The "Norsk (bokm?l)" wikipedia is moved to the proper language code
> nb:, with the central Wikipedia developers/admins making sure that the
> extra workload on the current no: admins is kept to an absolute
> minimum. (This will in effect (see #4) only be an internal reversal of
> the two domains already de facto used by the Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia,
> thus ensuring maximum continuity.)
>
> 4) For reasons of continuity and relative size of community, "Norsk
> (bokm?l)" Wikipedia keeps the domain no:, but for reasons of
> impreciseness of the term as regards the language situation in Norway,
> this code will only be used as a redirect of links and URLs with the
> code to the corresponding nb: page. (Thus parallelling exactly the
> Danish usage of dk: and da:)
>
> 5) The communities on nn: and nb: will commit themselves to
> implementing the solution locally, with a special emphasis on
> information about and promotion of the other Wikipedia on the "Main"
> and "Latest edits" page; and also, to the extent possible, through
> putting the interwiki link to the other language first in the list of
> links in each article.
>
> 6) A specific technical solution that has been brought up is the
> splitting of the "Donations" link into a locally wikipedia-wide
> universal link to the other Wikipedia of the two. This solution, while
> admittedly clogging up the quick navigations field slightly, may have
> positive effects for the local cooperation, and should therefore be
> reciprocally applied to the nn: and nb: wikipedias.
>
> 7) In the interest of strengthening the Scandinavian Wikipedia
> community, I suggest to implement points 5) and 6) also to sv: and
> da:, thus facilitating quick navigation between these wikipedias,
> effectively creating a half-integrated article pool of about 83,000
> articles (on 14 Nov. at ca 7 AM GMT) and an incitement for each of the
> four Scandinavian communities to cooperate and expand.
>
> 8) Work towards more integrated multilingual wikipedias through making
> the Scandinavian wikipedias a test project for the development of an
> interlingual search function limited to a specific pool of wikipedias,
> where searches and no-hit events lead to a search within the
> pre-defined pool of closely related languages. For Scandinavian, this
> would include, in order of community size, sv:, da:, nb:, and nn:.

Where do i sign up? :P


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee election cycle officially started

body:
Although there's been some concern about whether enough qualified
candidates would come forward, those of us helping to plan this election
have decided that it is time to start the process officially. Rather
than decide how many positions we're electing, we have decided to open
the election for candidates to declare themselves. We should soon be
able to tell if there are good candidates capable of filling all of the
vacant seats.

Information about the election is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004

Anyone planning to run should announce their candidacy by posting a
statement to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements

The current timetable is for the election to be held from the 1st to the
15th of December. Candidates should declare themselves before November
30th, but we strongly encourage interested candidates to declare as
early as possible so we can make a sensible decision about how many
positions we plan to fill via this election.

We also still need somebody to serve as election inspector and run the
election. Danny did this last time - is he interested in doing it again?
Somebody else could too, or more than one person. The conditions, I
believe, are that you not vote or be a candidate in the election yourself.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WP:3RR

body:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:

>"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's
>two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts,
>the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
>
>That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people
>are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're
>probably in the wrong.
>
Or you need a bigger posse... :-) It's only a matter of time
before some POV warrior thinks of hiring those ad-clickers in
India to help with the insta-reverting---oops sorry for
suggesting the idea! :-)

Stan


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Special:Export of Special pages

body:
On Nov 14, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Gerrit wrote:
> for special pages, it is not possible to get the source code, because
> they are generated. I am thinking of Recentchanges, Contributions, etc.
> Is it possible to export those pages? It would make parsing easier.

It's not possible because they are generated as HTML, not as wikitext.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20041114/cc9dcc79/attachment.pgp


body:
Hello,

for special pages, it is not possible to get the source code, because
they are generated. I am thinking of Recentchanges, Contributions, etc.
Is it possible to export those pages? It would make parsing easier.

I want to parse my Contributions in order to create some statistics
about them. Yes, I'm aware of Kate's tools, but these do not enable me
to see 1) the size of my changes, 2) the number of Newpages I created.

Without the latter, 'number of edits' doesn't say too much. It is
relatively low for me (User:Gerritholl) because I spent time writing
articles in one go, not doing minor edits for VfD, FAC, etc. I want to
see more meaningful statistics on myself (and others...).

regards,
Gerrit.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 14/11 13:25:
	8.0?C   wind 3.1 m/s NW (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


from_name: Mark Constable

subject: [Wikitech-l] MultiHosting from single source

body:
Hi all, I am wondering if there is any interest in some mods
to enhance MediaWikis ability to be multi-hosted from a
single core of code ?

I've done this a few times now with phpBB2 and Wordpress and
mostly have the "pattern" down on how to do it. I just spent
an hour with MediaWiki and there are not too many changes
involved. Is there any interest in this kind of thing and if
so where is the best place to post the details... wiki, here ?

--markc


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Abuse of his position as Administrator by WIKIPEDIA
	user Neutrality- not what the $50,000 was donated for.

body:
dwdwdwdw at fastmail.fm stated for the record:

 > This is a corrupt mis-use of the $50,000 that people so
 > generously donated recently in 10 days. I'll be writing about it
 > in the submission I'm giving to a Georgia University research
 > study about The Wikipedia and publicising user Neutrality's
 > dirty anti-American misuse of The Wikipedia on notice boards
 > around the world, (BBC's board etc.). The Wikipedia doesn't
 > deserve people to give their time and trouble to it with abusers
 > like "Neutrality" using it as their personal property to abuse
 > people. No wonder so many people have complained and left it in
 > disgust.

 > I want to make a formal complaint to The Wikipedia Foundation
 > about him and to formally apply to have the viscious abuser
 > "Neutrality" booted off The Wikipedia permanently; for
 > mis-using his position, and the $50,000 donated, and therefore
 > (officially acting as The Wikipedia Foundation's agent) breaking a
 > Federal law due to his corruptly mis-using these funds.

I find these sorts of statements to verge perilously close to legal
threats.  While no one associated with Wikipedia (with any authority)
will ever attempt to prevent you from pleading your case anywhere you
feel might benefit you or harm us, we will not allow you to continue to
participate in our project while you are trying to harm us.

> References
>
> 1. file://localhost/wiki/User:Neutrality

We can't see files that are located on your localhost.

--
  Sean Barrett     | UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION
  sean at epoptic.com | of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED,
                   | especially to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.


from_name: Rick

body:
Legal threats are grounds for immediate blocking anyway, so you've just sunk yourself.

RickK

wikiuser at cyber-rights.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I SENT THIS WITH MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE but it didn't arrive so here
it is now:

FURTHER He's blocked me, and 350 other computers, for a month with
no
justification whatsoever. SEE BELOW. I want to make a formal
complaint
to The Wikipedia Foundation about him and to formally apply to have
the
viscious abuser "Neutrality" booted off The Wikipedia permanently;
for
mis-using his position, and the $50,000 donated, and therefore
(officially acting as The Wikipedia Foundation's agent) breaking a
Federal law due to his corruptly mis-using these funds.

"Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia.
21:28, 13 Nov 2004, Neutrality blocked #11140 (expires 21:28, 14
Nov
2004) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used
by
"[[User:WikiUser|WikiUser]]". The reason given for WikiUser's block
is:
"'''Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia'''".)
editing in bad faith, personal attacks)

20:22, 13 Nov 2004, Neutrality blocked WikiUser (expires 20:22, 13
Dec
2004) (contribs) (Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt
Wikipedia)"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.4

wkYEARECAAYFAkGXleEACgkQxgdf4hnhuOwlegCfWjt1sBTKzDWHHHEKD831VfljA0UA
oIlkOvyo2jkDVigaGtjo4WJ9IZUy
=6vxx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for new Wikipedia: Friulian

body:
The only part that needs to come from people who know the language is
the content and the interface translations.

Mark

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:19:45 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> A. Decorte wrote:
>
>
>
> >Hello, I'm the user (Klenje) who was quoted at the beginning in the request;
> >I'm a friulian speaker, I'm active in italian wiki, and there are other friulian
> >people like me outside in the net (don't forget that Friulian is spoken by more
> >than half million people), therefore i think there is the chance for a decent
> >friulian wikipedia to be created; I can show you several site in friulian, and
> >if they aren't more, this is due to the policy of italian government which so
> >far doesn't promote minorities within Italy. Friulian speakers share this
> >problem with sardinian and sicilian ones, but in my opionion wikipedia could
> >help changing this situation; the only risk in creating a friulian wiki is the
> >possibility of vandalism, but every wiki is started from few users and there
> >are many ways to prevent it.
> >
> I don't think that there is wide objection to having a Friulian
> Wikipedia.  The validity of the language is solid.  My own objection to
> the initial proposal was based on the fact that the person doing all the
> promoting did not himself know the language.  The initiative,
> administration and other work to make such a project a success needs to
> come from people who know the language.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WP:3RR

body:
"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's
two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts,
the others still have several to go before they are also banned."

That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people
are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're
probably in the wrong.

--Mark


body:
Why is everybody SO CONCERNED about Wikisquatting?

What happened at na: is still a mystery. As it turns out, the
situation is currently being remedied and it is being converted to
real Nauruan (I have no idea whether it's real Nauruan for sure, but
it sure as hell looks Nauruan to me). I'm not sure what on earth took
place there to start all this, but I'm still thinking perhaps it
wasn't a bad-faith contribution but rather a simple misunderstanding.
Perhaps somebody should try to contact User:Nauru to find out what
went on?

What happened at dz: is tantamount to simple vandalism. It is
marginally possible that the page was in Hmong or Yi or another
language that uses Roman consonantal letters for the transcription of
tones, and it might need looking into.

So far, all cases of Wikisquatting have been caught. All of them have
been caught - by me. And they have all been remedied smoothly
(although in the case of dz:, not replaced with real content)

Gerard, do you have any contacts who might be able to write some real
content in Dzongkha? And at least a passing familiarity with using
Unicode for Tibetan would be preferable.

So it has only happened at two Wikipedias so far, and we don't know
exactly what was going on with it anyways. And both cases were caught,
by ME.

I find it upsetting that had I not done anything about the squatting I
found, there would be no mass hysteria climaxing in almost unanimously
approved suggestions to execute all inactive Wikipedias by firing
squad.

And as of yet nobody has replied to the following basic but important concepts:

What is wrong with the current (not closing or locking small
Wikipedias) system? All cases of squatting were caught and remedied.

How will the new (executing the poor inactive Wikipedias just for
being inactive) policy help? Anybody wanting to squat on a Wikipedia
is just as able to "show interest" for its re-opening and to translate
the user interface to Squatterish, then create heaps of high-quality
articles fraudulently (ie, not in the language they are supposedly
in).

If we need for some reason to be paranoid and filter out all the
WikiSquatters, I can only see the following solutions:

1. Ask an areal linguist if the content is legit (hey wait a sec, if
we have access to this linguist why aren't they actually adding
content???)
* According to Mr Meijssen, this is not feasible (for whatever reason)

2. Permanently delete all inactive Wikipedias and never create a new
Wikipedia again.
* Not a very good idea, but it works better than the current proposal

3. Abandon the project entirely and call the whole thing off as a failure.
* There's no real reason to do this, right now things are going well.
This would be like cutting the nose off to spite the face.

So in conclusion, I will put forth another proposal:

Monthly logs are kept publicly of the checks of inactive Wikis for
vandalism, squatting, and the like, and what actions were taken. In
addition, a list of inactive Wikis is maintained. Thus, if I am doing
a routine check and find that a previously inactive Wikipedia now has
hundreds of non-fraudulent articles and a couple of users and nothing
strange is happening, I can remove it from the list. Also, maintainers
of small Wikipedias who will be away from the computer for a few weeks
or longer could add their Wikipedia so that nothing happens to it
while they're gone.
* Who: Me, others (some guesses at who might be interested include
A-giau/H. Tan Tenn, David Cannon, Pablo Sartxaga, Mustafaa, . . .)

Perhaps those who volunteer to do this and do it for a while without
any problems (ie, aiding spammers or spamming themselves) could be
given a sort of "temporary sysop status" at all inactive Wikipedias
which could be revoked once the Wikipedia became active
(non-fraudulently).

Another possibility that could improve such a proposal is
coordination. That way, no more than 2 people end up checking the same
Wikipedia in a set interval, but no inactive Wikipedia gets past
without being checked. A lot of time and effort could be saved, and
chances are more people would be willing to do it if it didn't amount
to each person checking ALL inactive Wikipedias.

Thoughts?

Mark

"183812 2898, 988 4888580 887 8940152 926, 887 82 982? 408847 387 87
982 8 @189782897? 408847 88 17 8 at 608 8 at 289 '887208198 at 08' 48 at 7 5 889?"
--980@ 1808979, a.k.a. "912"

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:17:55 +0100, Pawe? 'Ausir' Dembowski
<fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> As far as new languages are concerned, I'm worried also about
> wikisquatters, which can take over inactive wikipedias...
>
> --
> Ausir
> mailto:fallout at lexx.eu.org
> http://fallout.scifi.pl
> ICQ 41090834 GG 2730728
>
>


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
I have a question: if a revert war happens and the page needs to be
blocked, should hte material that was removed be readded, or should it
be taken out and put on the talk page for it to be discussed.

How long should the revert stay for? How can the other party put their
side forth properly and allow for a compromise, or show that the other
party was wrong to make the changes they did? How will we guarantee
fairness?

I say this because a good example is looming at [[Exploding whale]] -
Mikkalai keeps taking away the phrase ", who described himself as a
"land-''blubber''" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond
all believable bounds."" because he says its "bragging", though it
isn't. I don't think Mikkalai understands bragging, and I don't think
he's watched the video because it was just straight (humorous)
reporting! I've taken it to the talk page, but lets say I get reverted
again without the user talking, should he be allowed to get away with that?

Why not just make a policy that says that the initiator of the original
edit must justify his edits, and the reverter must take to the talk page
as soon as they do the revert? Wouldn't that fix a lot of problems?

Ta bu shi da yu

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> I am personally endorsing and promoting a proposal that the 3 Revert
> Rule be enforced.  The exact wording of the proposal is:
>
>         If you violate the 3 revert rule, sysops may block you for up
> to 24 hours.
>         In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops
> should treat both sides equally.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
>
> I encourage everyone to vote.  I actually even encourage you to vote
> yes.  This is a long overdue change, and I believe there is strong
> community consensus for it.  After the poll is finalized, I will back
> it fully.
>
> I discussed the exact wording with several people, and have discussed
> the revert rule generally with a lot of people, even some of the worst
> violators.  I don't think we'll have much problem getting this passed
> quickly.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
>
>
>
>


body:
All this is good, however I have a couple of questions.

What would http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg redirect to? It would be
strange for somebody to end up at the nonexistant article :nb:Noreg,
or be re-directed to :nb:Norge only to have to click on the Nynorsk
interwiki link to get to where they wanted to be originally.

Thus I propose there be an additional provision of some sort so that
when article titles are different between nn: and nb: (they aren't
always different), the Nynorsk name on no: redirects to a Nynorsk
article rather than a Bokm?l article.

In addition, I think one extremely important thing regarding promotion
of other Scandinavian Wikipedias is this:

While the Sami language(s) may not be related to sv:/da:/nn:/nb:/,
since they are a national minority in all of these countries
(excepting Denmark), there should be prominently placed invitations in
Sami, if possible (otherwise in the language of the Wikipedia they're
on), to come contribute to the Sami Wikipedias if you can.

Just to make things more complicated (and forseeing a possible future
issue)... currently, TTBOMK, we only have http://se.wikipedia.org/ for
Sami (more specifically N. Sami). Should we create additional
Wikipedias for the other Sami languages/dialects/whatever? If so,
perhaps we should have a notice on the Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish
Wikipedias (don't forget, Finland has Sami people too!) in some sort
of "unified Sami" (which everybody can understand, even if it's not a
standard in everyday use) inviting people to contribute to the
appropriate Sami Wikipedia.

Also I have a sneaking suspicion that, as Norwegians and Swedes and
Finns, the participants in this discussion have some contacts who
speak Sami, and if not they know somebody who has a Sami-speaking
contact or something of the sort.

I thus encourage all such users to STRONGLY URGE (= at gunpoint) any
Sami speakers they know or meet to contribute to the appropriate Sami
Wikipedia. (not really at gunpoint!)

The same goes for the rest of you if you know somebody who can speak a
language of a small or inactive Wikipedia, inform the person that it
exists and urge them to contribute and note that it will be a
significant leap in the history of their language.

If you know someone who speaks a language that there is no Wikipedia
for, CHECK to make sure there is no Wikipedia - there's a good chance
there is one that you just didn't know about - and if there really
isn't one, encourage them to go through the steps to have one created.

And, IF YOU SPEAK such a language, but only contribute to en: or fr:
or de: or af: or hi: etc., I STRONGLY URGE you to promote literacy,
learning, and maintenance of your language by joining that Wikipedia
and actively participating! Please!

Mark

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:11:56 +0100, Lars Alvik <larsal at stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
> P? 14. nov. 2004 kl. 08.19 skrev Olve Utne:
>
>
>
> > Hello Lars A. & everyone else,
> >
> > This posting has two main parts: First, a reply to your recent posting
> > quoted below; and then a summary of my arguments in light of, amongst
> > others, your and Mark Williamson's recent postings; and finally a
> > modified suggestion with the following main points:
> >
> > 1) Renaming to Norsk (bokm?l) and Norsk (nynorsk)
> > 2) Moving Norsk (bokm?l) to nb:, while KEEPING NO: as an automatic
> > ("shadow") redirect to nb: -- thus parallelling Danish, with dk:> da:,
> > keeping full continuity through keeping the two current codes; and
> > making cooperation with nn: politically easier through discrete use of
> > the domain no:.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > REPLY
> > =====
> >
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> >> *Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail*
> >
> > I will get back to this further down.
> >
> >> Your mail have  inaccuancies to bokm?l and nynorsk, bokm?l people
> >> view nynorsk as a pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly
> >> hates nynorsk (or bokm?l) is teenagers that is forced to learn a
> >> different language in school, that they don't feel they have any use
> >> for (unlike english or perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is
> >> stronger with the bokm?lusers (since nynorsk is smaller and is, in
> >> their eyes, less useful).
> >
> > What you write seems to be pretty much in agreement with what Mark
> > wrote... I recognise the factual situation from both descriptions --
> > with yours maybe describing/articulating the "hatred" from Bokm?l
> > users against Nynorsk in more local terms (?)
> >
> >> It was the  same time that part of the norwegian history was
> >> romantized, the union with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear
> >> nigth", eventhough this where directly false.
> >
> > I presume you mean "400-year-night", not "4000-year-night" :)
> >
>
> Ofcurse *slaps own head* :P
>
>
>
> >
> >> Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western
> >> and the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway
> >> with the largest population was largely ignored, like the farming
> >> areas of eastern norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark,
> >> Akershus, ?stfold, Buskerud and Vestfold) also the northern part of
> >> norway was largely ignored.
> >
> > Aren't Mr. Aasens "Norske Folkesprog" as well as the mid-19th Century
> > Danish used in Norway both quite far removed from our Nynorsk and
> > Bokm?l...? Since the 1840s, both Nynorsk (then called Det norske
> > Folkesprog by Ivar Aasen, later coined Landsmaal, but also actually
> > known as Bokmaal (!)) and Bokm?l (then near-identical with Danish,
> > later known in its historically increasingly norvagised form as
> > Rigsmaal and Riksm?l) have changed very much.
> > Today's mainstream Nynorsk most closely resembles dialects in
> > relatively "moderate" dialect areas like Lofoten, Vester?len, eastern
> > parts of Telemark, parts of Vestfold and Oppland (including Toten).
>
> > Today's mainstream Bokm?l is also quite different from the Danish used
> > in Norway in the mid-1800s, and lies closest to the dialects of
> > middle-class and upper-class people in the cities of SE Norway -- esp.
> > Oslo and Drammen.
> >
> > It is true that Nynorsk is currently most commonly used in Sogn og
> > Fjordane and M?re og Romsdal. However, it is also used to varying
> > degrees most other places in Norway, and Norwegian literature abounds
> > with authors from both Bokm?l and Nynorsk.
> >
> > You wrote about Mark's posting: *Paints "POV" in huge red letters over
> > Williamsons mail*. I do not agree that Mark is unprecise or skewed
> > enough in his writing to warrant such an outburst.
>
> It was not as much as what we wrote, it was how he wrote it, if you
> catch my drift. But in either way it was a derailing of the real
> debate.
>
> > Whereas I personally think that one mainly Bokm?l Wikipedia is more
> > constructive than two,
>
> Hear hear!
>
>
>
> >> Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there
> >> are  none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokm?l (allthough some of
> >> them speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a
> >> endings  (these are allowed on bokm?l too). However, the languages
> >> are equal in  terms of administrative language. But on a national
> >> basis bokm?l is more used.
> >
> > When some of us mention that a large proportion of Norwegians speak a
> > dialect that is closer to Nynorsk than Bokm?l, we are of course not
> > talking about "some nynorsk words, like -a endings" (that would
> > include, in fact, a rather large proportion of Oslo's population), but
> > of dialects which show, *predominantly*, traits that are closer to the
> > continuum if Nynorsk morphology than Bokm?l. Such traits include,
> > amongst others:
> >
> > - different plurals for masculine nouns (-a(r) or -?(r), occasionally
> > -?(r)), feminine nouns (either merged -e(r) or, like in Swedish
> > -e(r)/-o(r) depending on the class of each noun) and neutral nouns
> > (mainly -) as opposed to a generic plural in Bokm?l (-er, with neutral
> > nouns varying between - and -er)
> > - forms of personal pronouns that are closer to Nynorsk (such as e(g),
> > ?(g) rather than je(g) = I; ho, hu rather than hun (she); dykk(~),
> > dekk(~), dokk(e(r)) rather than dere = you (pl., accusative); etc.)
> > - forms of verbs that are closer to Nynorsk (such as a higher incident
> > of strong verbs, ablaut and umlaut forms; and, less significantly, -a
> > in past tense of verbs were stylistically mainstream Bokm?l has -et)
> >
> > Of secondary importance is the vowel system, with Nynorsk tending to
> > have more historical vowels and fewer secondary vowels than Bokm?l.
> > The presence of many vowels is popularly viewed as "the"
> > characteristic of Nynorsk -- but this trait is actually of less use in
> > this connection.
> >
> > Forms that are permitted but in practice deprecated in Bokm?l include:
> > -a in past tense of certain verbs; -a as definite article in plural of
> > neutral gender  nouns;
>
> I see i've been outgunned...
>
> > You pointed out that some -a endings are permitted in Bokm?l. You did
> > not, however, mention that these forms tend to be criticised, or even
> > "corrected" away in practice -- because many (the majority?) of Bokm?l
> > users find them to be stylistically inappropriate.
>
> criticised? I've never heard of them being criticised, perhaps back in
> the 50ies during the samnorsk period, when parents "corrected" their
> childerens schoolbooks.
>
> >> btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokm?l) wiki.
> >
> > I agree that that could be a risk, and therefore I believe that such a
> > split *should be avoided at any reasonable cost*.
>
> Hear hear!
>
>
>
> >
> >> And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokm?l or riksm?l,
> >> some 100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where
> >> just ~800 articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of
> >> articles in either language. Knowing that a large part of this work
> >> would fall on me i don't cherish this idea, and the fact that it's
> >> creating a chaos, two rcs to monitor and a devertion of work. Also,
> >> there are no bokm?l grasroot movement that wants to do this work, the
> >>  people that supports this solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary
> >> nynorsk atleast).
> >
> > I believe that once there is a solution that "everyone" agrees on
> > (including, hopefully, the Wikipedia community as a whole) -- which I
> > hope will be an adjustment of the current language-based split rather
> > than a fork within the current no: -- the work of adjusting the
> > language contents of the Bokm?l version will be relatively easily
> > accomplished. I for one hereby volunteer to do my share of the job.
> > Even though I seem to have been coined as a Nynorsk user (and even, to
> > my frustration, as a Bokm?l hater) by some, I am very interested in
> >
> >> I vote for a solution where bokm?l keeps no: (but creates a page with
> >>  reasons to why bokm?l have no:, that's going to get linked from the
> >> mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes
> >> to  "norsk (bokm?l)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokm?l.
> >>
> >> This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope
> >> most  parts would be happy with the solution.
> >
> > The Norsk (nynorsk) vs. Norsk (bokm?l) (without capitalisation of nyn.
> > and bokm.) renaming is OK with me. Whether the Norsk (bokm?l)
> > Wikipedia actually lies on no: or nb: has, as has been pointed out
> > already, absolutely no significance: The Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia will
> > be exactly as continuos on nb: as on no:, with absolutely no
> > foreseeable extra work for its admins and other users, other than an
> > optional long-term bot task of going through the various wikipedias
> > and automatically changing all [[no: entrances to [[nb:. Since a
> > change of domain would include a universal redirect from no: to nb:
> > for a relatively long period (in fact, just reversing the current
> > situation, there should be plenty of time to do this.
> >
> > To illustrate the current situation: Please try clicking on this link
> > to the article "Norge" on nb: (Norway) and see what happens...
> >
> > http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge
> >
> > See?  That is how easy the reversal of this would be on the readers! :)
>
> Hmm, nice, well, that last demonstration blowed me away, i have no
> objections to move no: to nb: (provided no: is a permanent, and then i
> mean _permanent_, redirect, perhaps with a exception of a protected
> mainpage that states the current situation and offers nice and big
> links to either side)
>
>
>
> > =================
> > SUMMARY OF REPLY:
> > =================
> >
> >
> > A I think a split of the current no: Wikipedia
> >    should be avoided at any reasonable cost.
> > B A move of this Wikipedia to nb: would not lead to
> >    any significant extra work for the admins and users on no:
> > C If no: is moved to nb: in accordance with a more precise
> >    implementation of the language codes, then no: should
> >    be a redirect domain to nb: the way it is today,
> >    with the main page as the only exception.
> > D In the event of such a move, bots should be set up
> >    to go through the other wikipedias and change all [[no:
> >    and [[:no: codes to [[nb: and [[:nb:
> > E It seems that the main argument against having Norsk
> >    (bokm?l) on nb: is an emotional one rather than practical
> >    (since the move would be very easy to implement and
> >    would be executed centrally rather than by no: admins)
> >    or logical (since no: is the country code and the umbrella
> >    language code, whereas nb: is the specific language code
> >    for Bokm?l, including Riksm?l).
>
> Accualy i have an other, quite weak estetic argument, no: and nn: is
> right next to each other, compared to nb: and nn: (nl: in between), so
> in a alfabetizied interwikilist, nynorsk and bokm?l would get splitted.
> Perhaps this would be solved with keeping no: as a commonly used
> interwikicode, or perhaps this would create total havoc.
>
>
>
> > F Those emotional arguments must be respected, since
> >    our long-term goals as an international Wikipedia community
> >    would be adversely affected if there were to be unnecessary
> >    long-term resentment between the user groups of individual
> >    projects.
> >
> > Therefore, my hunch is that we should first try to reach consent about
> > the underlying factors. Here is what I propose that these are:
> >
> > LOCAL UNDERLYING FACTORS
> >
> > - Bokm?l as a written language has more users than Nynorsk
> > - Bokm?l and Nynorsk are both recognised as official languages in
> > Norway.
> > - Bokm?l and Nynorsk are linguistically extremely closely connected
> > with Swedish and Danish.
> >
> > COUNTRY AND LANGUAGE CODES IN A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE
> > - The Swedish language Wikipedia,
> >    primarily serving people in Sweden and parts of Finland,
> >    has the language code sv: rather than the country code se:
> >    (which is connected to the use of se: for Northern Sami
> >    and sa: for Sanskrit)
> > - The Danish language Wikipedia,
> >    primarily serving people in Denmark,
> >    has the language code da: rather than
> >    the country code dk.
> >    There is a redirect from dk: to da:
> > - The Nynorsk language Wikipedia,
> >    primarily serving Nynorsk language
> >    users in Norway, has the language code nn:
> > - The mainly Bokm?l Wikipedia, which started out as
> >    a mixed Bokm?l/Nynorsk environment with the
> >    emphasis on Bokm?l (including Riksm?l),
> >    uses both the country code no:
> >    (which, when used as a language code,
> >    includes both Bokm?l and Nynorsk)
> >    and the language code nb: (as a redirect).
> >
> > CURRENT SITUATION ON NO:
> > - The no: Wikipedia is changing its r?le from a generic
> >    Bokm?l/Nynorsk language wikipedia (albeit with
> >    almost exclusively Bokm?l contents, as Lars Alvik
> >    has pointed out) to a specifically Norsk Bokm?l
> >    language version.
> > - The new Nynorsk Wikipedia works as an independent
> >    project and, while fastly expanding, has not had any
> >    significant effect in terms of disrupting the continuity
> >    of the no: Wikipedia in general except for there being
> >    a bit more activity on the Village Pump page than
> >    usual.
> >
> > ==========================================
> > MODIFIED SUGGESTION FOR LONG-TERM SOLUTION
> > ==========================================
> >
> >
> > (This suggestion is based primarily on Lars Alvik's previous
> > suggestion, with modifications/additions based on arguments that have
> > emerged in the debate locally on no: and nn: as well as here on
> > wikipedia-l.)
> >
> >
> > 1) The "Norsk" and "Nynorsk" interwiki names are changed to "Norsk
> > (bokm?l)" and "Norsk (nynorsk)" respectively.
> >
> > 2) The "Norsk (nynorsk)" wikipedia uses the language code nn:
> >
> > 3) The "Norsk (bokm?l)" wikipedia is moved to the proper language code
> > nb:, with the central Wikipedia developers/admins making sure that the
> > extra workload on the current no: admins is kept to an absolute
> > minimum. (This will in effect (see #4) only be an internal reversal of
> > the two domains already de facto used by the Norsk (bokm?l) Wikipedia,
> > thus ensuring maximum continuity.)
> >
> > 4) For reasons of continuity and relative size of community, "Norsk
> > (bokm?l)" Wikipedia keeps the domain no:, but for reasons of
> > impreciseness of the term as regards the language situation in Norway,
> > this code will only be used as a redirect of links and URLs with the
> > code to the corresponding nb: page. (Thus parallelling exactly the
> > Danish usage of dk: and da:)
> >
> > 5) The communities on nn: and nb: will commit themselves to
> > implementing the solution locally, with a special emphasis on
> > information about and promotion of the other Wikipedia on the "Main"
> > and "Latest edits" page; and also, to the extent possible, through
> > putting the interwiki link to the other language first in the list of
> > links in each article.
> >
> > 6) A specific technical solution that has been brought up is the
> > splitting of the "Donations" link into a locally wikipedia-wide
> > universal link to the other Wikipedia of the two. This solution, while
> > admittedly clogging up the quick navigations field slightly, may have
> > positive effects for the local cooperation, and should therefore be
> > reciprocally applied to the nn: and nb: wikipedias.
> >
> > 7) In the interest of strengthening the Scandinavian Wikipedia
> > community, I suggest to implement points 5) and 6) also to sv: and
> > da:, thus facilitating quick navigation between these wikipedias,
> > effectively creating a half-integrated article pool of about 83,000
> > articles (on 14 Nov. at ca 7 AM GMT) and an incitement for each of the
> > four Scandinavian communities to cooperate and expand.
> >
> > 8) Work towards more integrated multilingual wikipedias through making
> > the Scandinavian wikipedias a test project for the development of an
> > interlingual search function limited to a specific pool of wikipedias,
> > where searches and no-hit events lead to a search within the
> > pre-defined pool of closely related languages. For Scandinavian, this
> > would include, in order of community size, sv:, da:, nb:, and nn:.
>
> Where do i sign up? :P
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
For recentchanges and newpages you can use a url such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Recentchanges&feed=rss
to get a somewhat easier to parse format.  This doesn't work for
Special:Contributions though, and I have no idea how hard it would be
to patch Mediawiki to make it work.

Anthony

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:58:15 +0100, Gerrit <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for special pages, it is not possible to get the source code, because
> they are generated. I am thinking of Recentchanges, Contributions, etc.
> Is it possible to export those pages? It would make parsing easier.
>
> I want to parse my Contributions in order to create some statistics
> about them. Yes, I'm aware of Kate's tools, but these do not enable me
> to see 1) the size of my changes, 2) the number of Newpages I created.
>
> Without the latter, 'number of edits' doesn't say too much. It is
> relatively low for me (User:Gerritholl) because I spent time writing
> articles in one go, not doing minor edits for VfD, FAC, etc. I want to
> see more meaningful statistics on myself (and others...).
>
> regards,
> Gerrit.
> [enormous tagline removed]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change

body:
I think it's more likely to make POV warriors use sockpuppets and
thereby force other editors to either let them get away with it or
risk being blocked.  Nobody likes to work, but POV warriors are
generally more willing to work.

Further, the way I interpret the 3RR, if there were 2 different POV
warriors, each reverting to different POV versions, an NPOV warrior
would lose.  Consider the edits:

original version: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel
and the Palestinean Authority.
Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
Palestinean Authority.
Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine.
you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
Palestinean Authority.
Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
Palestinean Authority.
Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine.
you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the
Palestinean Authority.
Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.

In this scenario, the person restoring the NPOV version has broken the
3RR, but the POV revert warriors have not.  Sure, you can try to get
people on your side, but it takes more than twice as many people on
the NPOV side as it does on the POV sides.  Add in a few vandals who
put in "Jerusalem sucksorz!!!!" and give a few of them multiple IP
addresses...

I think the 3RR is a great guideline.  In fact, Jimbo has convinced me
to limit myself to one revert per day in almost all cases.  But to be
a strict rule, I think it has to be perfect, not just good.

Anthony

> The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what
> we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to
> fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody
> likes to work :).


subject: [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

body:
> new names are picked only when necessary. It is somewhat vulnerable to
> trolling, as someone could e.g. register the name Eloquence on a wiki
> where I am not active, and use it for nefarious purposes. The system could
> however make it fairly easy to find out that this is not the same person
> (on the user page: "This user is active on the following wikis: .. under
> these names: ..").

Isn't it possible to allow certain users (maybe anyone with more than
50 edits) to choose to automatically register his/her username on all
available wikis?

As for option 1, I strongly oppose any system which would remove or
change the attribution of users edits without their permission.  This
would almost surely not affect me personally (I doubt there are other
users named "Anthony DiPierro" and even if there are I would assume
I'd have "seniority"), but I consider it unethical to do it to anyone
for any reason.

On a slightly related note, is there any intention to enable the "Real
Name" feature on the wiki?  Again it's not such a big deal for me
personally, as I already use my real name as my username on most wikis
where I contribute, but I can see how "Bob Jones #788888" might want
his real name to appear somewhere in the history information.

> Regards,
>
> Erik

Anthony