body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> In 12/6/06, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:
>>> Michael Snow wrote:
>>>
>>> Traditional list etiquette encourages that approach, yes, although
>>> really I think the odds have more to do with how the message is crafted
>>> than with whether it is delivered publicly or privately. Here it was a
>>> difficult balancing act. It is evident that at least some people do not
>>> see much of a problem, perhaps not surprising since bias and
>>> discrimination often operate in subtle and systemic ways. As a result,
>>> it is sometimes necessary to publicly call out examples.
>>>
>>> However, Snowdog is a valuable part of the community and has a good
>>> reputation, so I wasn't happy to be so critical. I did try to "play the
>>> ball, not the man" (sexist idiom, but the right gender in this case) by
>>> focusing on the comment itself and what was offensive about it. I am
>>> thankful that he continues to participate, with good grace and in a
>>> constructive fashion. A "botched joke" may cost John Kerry the chance to
>>> run for President again, but it shouldn't cost anyone the chance to post
>>> again to this list.
>>>
>>> --Michael Snow
>> Well, it was clear to me, from the beginning, that the issue of the thread
>> was gender bias and sexist remarks. So basically my "sexist joke" was a
>> field test (I'm not so stupid to make such comments in a place where those
>> comments are in discussion).
>>
>> Working primarily on the italian Wikipedia, and since this issue has
>> started on en.wiki (on which I do not follow the ongoing discussions), I
>> wanted to realize quickly, and maybe brutally, how this kind of things are
>> felt. So thanks Michael for your public reply, and you all forgive me if I
>> used you as Guinea-pigs.
>
>
> Wait, you were being *deliberately* inflammatory?
>

I suspect that, like my infamous post to wikien-l that started this
whole mess, he didn't think that anybody would take him seriously.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061207/52f852e7/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia 10th most popular website in the Netherlands

body:
In a research into the most popular websites in the Netherlands for the year
2006, Wikipedia was the largest gainer in the top-20, going up from 45 to
10. The measurement was based on monthly reviews of the sites visited (at
least once) by most internet users. Number 1 Google was visited by 76% (in
2005: 70%) of the internet users, number 2 startpagina by 59% (in 2005:
67%).

The top-20:
1. (1) google.nl
2. (2) startpagina.nl
3. (4) marktplaats.nl
4. (6) msn.com
5. (5) detelefoongids.nl
6. (3) msn.nl
7. (7) postbank.nl
8. (15) bol.com
9. (8) speurders.nl
10. (45) wikipedia.org
11. (11) rtl.nl
12. (12) rabobank.nl
13. (17) nu.nl
14. (10) ebay.nl
15. (9) anwb.nl
16. (28) routenet.nl
17. (21) telegraaf.nl
18. (105) weblog.nl
19. (20) wehkamp.nl
20. (19) ns.nl

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
Oh, that's unfortunate.  Certainly there must be some valid content, no?

--Ryan

On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
>
> Well, it made me chuckle.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 06/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Sage Ross" wrote
>
>>> A little grist for the mill, blog posts by feminist academics who
>>> are Wikipedia outsiders or near outsiders:
>>> http://badgerbag.typepad.com/badgerbag/2006/08/feminist_histor.html
>>>  http://smg.typepad.com/smg/2006/09/wiki_wiki.html
>
<snip>
>> People who scan WP and say 'change that, or that, or that ...' may
>> never actually get into the pool and edit. The learning curve is
>> probably much less steep on the non-core articles, rather than
>> articles on the 'major topics' (I wouldn't advise anyone to start
>> on any of the top few hundred articles by hits.) Another thing:
>> this collection of comments does pick up on the spottiness of the
>> 'notability' criteria.
>
>
> AFD causes public relations problems shock! Ogg Theora at 11.
>

Also, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061207/125be4b1/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
Matt R wrote:
> --- Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We do not get to define the terms of the gender debate.
>> We do not get to insist that we have a gender-neutral space
>
> Wikipedians (including men) can insist that WikiChix may not discriminate on
> gender if they use Foundation resources.
>

... which they're no longer doing, so it's a moot point.

> Further, males have every right to comment on the approach of WikiChix, and on
> gender issues in general, without being insulted or flamed for it.
>

Good. Everyone, regardless of gender, has every right to comment on the
approach of WikiChix, and on gender issues in general, without being
insulted or flamed for it.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061207/1ddbc639/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] What does the "undo" link do?

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> On 07/12/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ummm....how is that diferant than rollback?
>
> Because rollback isn't a straightforward revert, despite looking like
> one in a lot of cases.
>

Internally, rollback has special magical powers involving
wikimagicpixiedust, and must be kept out of the hands of the unwashed
masses.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061207/8116c692/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 2:53 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
>
> Well, it made me chuckle.
>
> Steve

Me too, but no laughing out loud.

Fred


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 12/7/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> That only proves he can get pictures of dozens of celebrities.
>
> Unless you have some reason to believe that those dozens are typical of
> celebrities in general and it's as easy to get pictures of the rest as it
> is to get pictures of those, it proves nothing.
>
> I can walk into a bookstore and come out with a stack of $1 books.  Does that
> mean that given any particular book, you can probably find it for $1?

It was claimed that we can not get free pictures of celebs that don't
visit award events, at least without stalking. I pointed out free
pictures of celebs (some of which do not visit award events) which
were, presumably, created without stalking.

I never argued that it was easy, only that it being hard doesn't make
it necessarily impossible.  If you have an argument why a specific
free image isn't possible then you can make that argument for using an
unfree image, ... such an argument should be accepted by the standing
policy. (so long as you're actually arguing that it's not possible,
rather than arguing that it's not easy)


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Unblock-en-l] Unblock - Problems

body:
On 12/7/06, John Doe <phoenixoverride at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 85.234.128.0/20
> 85.234.144.54/31
> should handle the issue. Betacommand
>
> On 12/7/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oooh, good. Didn't know you subscribed to this list. :) Essjay's
> > original block was on 85.234.128.0/19 , the address we seem to be
> > friends with is 85.234.144.53
> >
> > On 12/7/06, John Doe < phoenixoverride at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can do the blocks of a range if you tell me what should NOT be
> > > blocked I can nail the rangeblock just right. Betacommand
> > >
> >

So doing the CIDR blocks is the only way?

To be pedantic and fully complete, we'd want:
85.234.128.0/20
85.234.144.0/27
85.234.144.32/28
85.234.144.48/30
85.234.144.52/32

== gap for unblockee at 85.234.144.53/32

85.234.144.54/31
85.234.144.56/29
85.234.144.64/26
85.234.144.128/25
85.234.145.0/24
85.234.146.0/23
85.234.148.0/22
85.234.152.0/21

Unless I missed a bit or bits somewhere doing this in head and on fingers.

This seems like we should automate something; either a netblock minus
exceptions interface tool to autogen the CIDR blocks from a top range plus
some exceptions, or adding in an explicit "unblock this IP" override and
have any CIDR block range lookup check the unblock override before returning
blocked or not.

Nobody does Cisco ACLs or BGP routing this way the hard way if they can help
it... and our admins by and large aren't network geeks.

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


body:
On 12/7/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> >
> > This seems like we should automate something; either a netblock minus
> > exceptions interface tool to autogen the CIDR blocks from a top range
> plus
> > some exceptions, or adding in an explicit "unblock this IP" override and
> > have any CIDR block range lookup check the unblock override before
> returning
> > blocked or not.
>
> As I understand it (and _please_ correct me if I'm wrong), single-IP
> blocks currently override range blocks (and autoblocks).  Thus, as a
> partial workaround, we could place an anon-only block (with account
> creation permitted) on the specific IP, allowing logged-in users to edit
> from it.
>
> Ideally, there should perhaps be some way to place a "null block" that
> would do nothing except override less specific blocks.  But in practice,
> the workaround using an anon-only block seems almost as good to me.
>
> The block message should, of course, say something like "please log in
> to edit from this IP address".

Ok.  That makes sense; can someone confirm that's the behavior?

It will probably save some time and sanity on the unblock-en-l members...

Thanks.

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


from_name: SunWind

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How skin code in QuickTemplate::Execute func be
	rendered?

body:
Hey ,all
    I had put my skin code in function execute() of subbclass
inherited from QuickTemplate,i'm confused when generating html page, how
these
   code within execute func be rendered? anyone give  ideas
about call flow?

thanks
  wind
_________________________________________________________________
???? Windows Live Mail?
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 07/12/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rollback is one click and the edit is rolled back. Undo takes you to an edit
> screen that *when saved without changes* rolls back the edit.

As I've mentioned before in this thread, that isn't the whole case;
rollback *will* revert more than one edit where there's a sequence of
edits by the same contributor.

In that respect, it's much more powerful.

Rob Church


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia 10th most popular website in the
	Netherlands

body:
On 12/7/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a research into the most popular websites in the Netherlands for the year
> 2006, Wikipedia was the largest gainer in the top-20, going up from 45 to
> 10. The measurement was based on monthly reviews of the sites visited (at
> least once) by most internet users. Number 1 Google was visited by 76% (in
> 2005: 70%) of the internet users, number 2 startpagina by 59% (in 2005:
> 67%).

I'm curious: would this be the list of the top 20 websites in .nl, or
the top 20 websites in Dutch, in .nl?  (ie is usage of en. from .nl
included in the wikipedia.org figure here?)

--
Abi


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
On 12/7/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a research into the most popular websites in the Netherlands for the year
> 2006, Wikipedia was the largest gainer in the top-20, going up from 45 to
> 10. The measurement was based on monthly reviews of the sites visited (at
> least once) by most internet users. Number 1 Google was visited by 76% (in
> 2005: 70%) of the internet users, number 2 startpagina by 59% (in 2005:
> 67%).

Hi, is there a source for these findings?

Mathias


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
It does appear to be more of a "cleanup" issue - It was speedied as
nonsense, then as article re-creation.

Ryan Wetherell wrote:
> Oh, that's unfortunate.  Certainly there must be some valid content, no?
>
> --Ryan
>
> On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
>>
>> Well, it made me chuckle.
>>
>> Steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
How is it nonsense? I read it and it doesn't look nonsensy, though it wasn't
that good of an article either.

On 12/7/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> It does appear to be more of a "cleanup" issue - It was speedied as
> nonsense, then as article re-creation.
>
>
> Ryan Wetherell wrote:
> > Oh, that's unfortunate.  Certainly there must be some valid content, no?
> >
> > --Ryan
> >
> > On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
> >>
> >> Well, it made me chuckle.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
As I said, I would have removed the speedy tag and replaced with cleanup.

James Hare wrote:
> How is it nonsense? I read it and it doesn't look nonsensy, though it wasn't
> that good of an article either.
>
> On 12/7/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>> It does appear to be more of a "cleanup" issue - It was speedied as
>> nonsense, then as article re-creation.
>>
>>
>> Ryan Wetherell wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, that's unfortunate.  Certainly there must be some valid content, no?
>>>
>>> --Ryan
>>>
>>> On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
>>>>
>>>> Well, it made me chuckle.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
On 12/7/06, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't matter, which es: are we speaking about...
> The same idea came up recently on the wikitech-l mailing list, and I
> strongly support it.
>
> I think it could be started, by copying the English Wikipedias Tools and
> bots pages to a central place, and then people from all over (including en)
> could start adding their own, and making translations, creating simple
> how-to (how-to use XY script, how to localise XY script, and not really a
> how-to: How to improve this script, and who can help improving it)
>
> Any other ideas
>

The en version already aquired stuff from de. Still needs to be
transalated though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Not_English

--
geni


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_in_Star_Trek
>
> Most of the sources appear to be episodes.  I explained how
> interpreting episodes is original research, and asked for some more
> sources.  So they went and cited more episodes.  Either I am
> completely wrong here or someone needs to go and explain to these
> people patiently but in words of one syllable that "cite your sources"
> does not mean name the episode in which you saw the plot device which
> leads you to conclude something.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

I fail to see how sources could exist for articles like this. Either
the situation needs to be accepted (my preference) or the articles
are out (a shame).

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
Ok, I have a couple of sources and attempted to restore to do a
re-write, and it has screwed up. It might be my browser, which is giving
me trouble. I would appreciate someone taking a look - thanks.

Puppy wrote:
> As I said, I would have removed the speedy tag and replaced with cleanup.
>
> James Hare wrote:
>
>> How is it nonsense? I read it and it doesn't look nonsensy, though it wasn't
>> that good of an article either.
>>
>> On 12/7/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It does appear to be more of a "cleanup" issue - It was speedied as
>>> nonsense, then as article re-creation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ryan Wetherell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, that's unfortunate.  Certainly there must be some valid content, no?
>>>>
>>>> --Ryan
>>>>
>>>> On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it made me chuckle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
Oops never mind. It was my browser. It restored but didn't refresh
correctly.

Puppy wrote:
> Ok, I have a couple of sources and attempted to restore to do a
> re-write, and it has screwed up. It might be my browser, which is
> giving me trouble. I would appreciate someone taking a look - thanks.
>
> Puppy wrote:
>> As I said, I would have removed the speedy tag and replaced with
>> cleanup.
>>
>> James Hare wrote:
>>
>>> How is it nonsense? I read it and it doesn't look nonsensy, though
>>> it wasn't
>>> that good of an article either.
>>>
>>> On 12/7/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It does appear to be more of a "cleanup" issue - It was speedied as
>>>> nonsense, then as article re-creation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ryan Wetherell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, that's unfortunate.  Certainly there must be some valid
>>>>> content, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it made me chuckle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 06/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do think there is significant systemic bias in terms of what things
> > tend to be nominated for deletion, however.  Not the biggest source of
> > systemic bias by any means, as you point out.
>
>
> I suspect it's often systematic bias, i.e. a deep conviction that
> certain areas of coverage should be killed and anyone disagreeing must
> be clueless or a troll.

*However*, it's worth noting that whilst this is a form of systemic
bias, it's not usually related to the major fields where we actually
worry about our systemic bias.

(By which I mean: we worry about systemic bias over non-western
regions and cultures, over gender issues, etc... but our "deletion
systemic bias" is about schools and Western pop-culture cruft)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
There is nothing wrong with watching the episodes, recording what happens,
then putting that in the article and citing the episode as the source. (For
example, watching Picard punch Worf then writing in the article "In the
episode ___ Picard punches Worf (source)" is okay.)

However, watching the episodes then fiddling with it so you get other stuff
in addition would constitute original research.

On 12/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_in_Star_Trek
>
> Most of the sources appear to be episodes.  I explained how
> interpreting episodes is original research, and asked for some more
> sources.  So they went and cited more episodes.  Either I am
> completely wrong here or someone needs to go and explain to these
> people patiently but in words of one syllable that "cite your sources"
> does not mean name the episode in which you saw the plot device which
> leads you to conclude something.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
On 12/7/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett writes:
> >Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got
> >deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the
> >person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential
> >deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently
> >bizarre redirect...
>
> As I was doing, but didn't get the chance to finish before the redirect
> actually got deleted. It was only 'apparently bizarre' if one didn't
> bother to check why it was there. As I'm not in the habit of going round
> redirecting numbers to people, ought not a little bell to have rung with
> questions of "Why this number?" and "Why this person?"?

Isn't this water under the bridge? You screwed up with a silly edit summary;
the admin should have respected your hold tag. You made the first mistake.

But now everything's been fixed, so what's the big deal?

Shocking as it may seem, not everyone knows you or your editing habits.


subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 07/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Public buildings is a clear case, but I think the main problem lies with
> > pictures of people.
> > Unless you want to commit a felony and stalk them, it's pretty much
> > impossible to get non-fair use images for small time actors who don't visit
> > premieres or award ceremonies.
>
> The dozens of celbs (major and minor) uploaded to commons by user
> Towpilot serves as a fine counter example.
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Towpilot&page=
> )

Indeed, Towpilot is an example of exactly the sort of person we should
be reaching out to - professional or semiprofessional freelance
photographers, with personal image archives, who're willing to release
some of that material under a free license.

(I wish my grandfather's archives hadn't burned in the seventies...
almost a century's worth of professional photographic negatives.
*sigh*)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thank you. People who argue that primary sources are Evil drive me batty.

On 12/7/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_in_Star_Trek
> >
> > Most of the sources appear to be episodes.  I explained how
> > interpreting episodes is original research, and asked for some more
> > sources.  So they went and cited more episodes.  Either I am
> > completely wrong here or someone needs to go and explain to these
> > people patiently but in words of one syllable that "cite your sources"
> > does not mean name the episode in which you saw the plot device which
> > leads you to conclude something.
>
> Episodes are perfectly valid sources, but they are primary sources, so
> have the same issues as any other primary source. (Basically, they're
> only useful for stating facts, any interpretation needs to cite a
> secondary source.)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_in_Star_Trek
>
> Most of the sources appear to be episodes.  I explained how
> interpreting episodes is original research, and asked for some more
> sources.

Interpreting, maybe. Citing, no.

So they went and cited more episodes.  Either I am
> completely wrong here or someone needs to go and explain to these
> people patiently but in words of one syllable that "cite your sources"
> does not mean name the episode in which you saw the plot device which
> leads you to conclude something.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING
	articles)

body:
My comments were only about theory. I haven't ever looked at the article in
question.

On 12/7/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> No new posts, so I'm taking the liberty of summing up.
>
> At one end of the spectrum Charles Matthews doesn't see the need for
> mentioning the blog in the text of the article. However, if I discern
> his views correctly, he sees it as insignificant rather than violating
> policy. His was the only voice against including the blog in the text.
>
> Guy Chapman accepts inclusion in the text, but objects to the link on
> grounds of WP:EL and WP:BLP.
>
> Supporting linking are myself, Ryan Wetherell, Luna, The Cunctator,
> and Steve Bennett from the list. In addition two recent editors to
> the article, Catchpole and The Golux, have either put the blog link
> back in or commented in favour of it. (In fairness, Jossi has also
> removed the link citing WP:EL and WP:BLP)
>
> Although Charles Matthews argued against the significance, he did
> accept that linking to partisan sources was possible providing there
> was "a 'shield' of NPOV" in the article.
>
> I sum this up as consensus in favour of including the mention in the
> text, and including the link.
> --
> David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
> david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
> dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Bence Damokos

subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
It doesn't matter, which es: are we speaking about...
The same idea came up recently on the wikitech-l mailing list, and I
strongly support it.

I think it could be started, by copying the English Wikipedias Tools and
bots pages to a central place, and then people from all over (including en)
could start adding their own, and making translations, creating simple
how-to (how-to use XY script, how to localise XY script, and not really a
how-to: How to improve this script, and who can help improving it)

Any other ideas

Bence

On 12/7/06, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/6/06, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heuuu I do think there was a misunderstanding :)
> >
> > I'm not speaking of translation in here (for the
> > project/comitee/whatever the name), in fact we would need the help of
> > translator, but the main goals are to centralize idea, solutions to
> > recurrent problem, listing tools (translate it when needed), etc...
> > not translation at all...
> >
> > Actually, the closer commitee to this project should be the
> > "Communication Commitee" on some goal. The closer project would be
> > [[:Communitas]], but it's a born-dead one. Then what do we have to
> > centralize tools and bots and solutions? We have a huge community,
> > plenty of people who has many ideas and... we all stay in our project,
> > not trying to work all together. Sorry but in a such project you
> > should have somewhere to coordinate a little. Some gave me the answers
> > "there is meta:" Ha yeah? Is it? So where? and then no answer. It
> > seems that people are "nearly" reluctant to try stuff...
> >
> > In this way, I'll be bold. I know some spanish guys liked the idea, so
> > I'm gonna do it by myself on a personnal subpage :). If it's the only
> > way to have it :)
> > --
> > schiste
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> Interesting, as in spanish wikipedia is where I?ve seen most people
> reluctant (yet not opposed) to work on meta. Some (admins) even said
> they're distrustful of foundation related stuff, and I've also been
> told by several regular users that, I should stop being so active on
> other wikis if I wanted to be considered a vaued contributor :P
>
> I don't know why this happens, maybe it's a residual from the
> Enciclopedia libre fork mindset.
>
> So.. are speaking of the same es: ?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


from_name: Darko Bulatovic

subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
Bence Damokos wrote:
> It doesn't matter, which es: are we speaking about...
> The same idea came up recently on the wikitech-l mailing list, and I
> strongly support it.
>
> I think it could be started, by copying the English Wikipedias Tools and
> bots pages to a central place, and then people from all over (including en)
> could start adding their own, and making translations, creating simple
> how-to (how-to use XY script, how to localise XY script, and not really a
> how-to: How to improve this script, and who can help improving it)
>
> Any other ideas
>
> Bence
>
>
Very good idea.

Darko


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
"Andrew Gray" wrote

> > I suspect it's often systematic bias, i.e. a deep conviction that
> > certain areas of coverage should be killed and anyone disagreeing must
> > be clueless or a troll.
>
> *However*, it's worth noting that whilst this is a form of systemic
> bias, it's not usually related to the major fields where we actually
> worry about our systemic bias.
>
> (By which I mean: we worry about systemic bias over non-western
> regions and cultures, over gender issues, etc... but our "deletion
> systemic bias" is about schools and Western pop-culture cruft)

I don't see much of AfD these days. But I'd guess bad English in an article is probably still a cause for nominations. That would exacerbate systemic bias, for evident reasons about non-native speakers of English being contributors in areas where we are light on coverage.

Charles

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 12/7/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> But:
>
> 1) Fair use has not been defined as any sort of harm, only that it's
> contrary to an eventual goal.
>
> 2) We already allow fair use, thus implying that it's really not harmful
> at all.
>

Nyet. By that logic Cyanide is not toxic since it appears in some
commonly eaten food.

> A photo of a building in the town over is an "unfree" image on Wikipedia
> currently.  I can't get over to said building to take a picture until,
> say, next Saturday.  The "unfree" picture harms nothing.  It does not
> detract from the project's goal, it does not harm anything.  Furthermore,
> said building is an architectural wonder, with unique arches and windows.
> Removal of the image until next week does harm to the project, as the
> unfree image illustrates the object in ways words simply cannot.  The
> unfree image, in this case, is not harming at all, but rather helping.
>

Are we talking wikipedia only, non comercial use only or claimed fair
use because I'm haveing a hard time seeing how any fair use claim
could be legit. In which case it is a copyvio. Copvios are a dirrect
threat to wikipedians and depending on how courts find wikipedia.

--
geni


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

body:
> And since [[Draconity]] itself has already been recreated as a redirect,
> what is the point of keeping the history deleted anyway? The article's
> inaccessible to readers either way. As long as an article isn't deleted
> for copyright or libel reasons, if we've got a redirect sitting there we
> might as well preserve the article history in case something salvageable
> is discovered in there one day.

I have restored the article history for [[Draconity]].

Unfortunately, I can already foresee people coming and arguing that "the
article has been up on AfD and the decision was to delete", and it
annoys me already.


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

references:
<1u6hn21ko1dm1begbmvoacnigs4ta6d00r@4ax.com>
	<a4359dff0612071521p261a8001h60eb1ff708d7d297@mail.gmail.com>
	<3n8hn2hs9eefbtvppjbftb1r1bt5pnvf0l@4ax.com>
	<a4359dff0612071536g7cf1ac53re7d5295e5dba4e02@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/7/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Or indeed "Dialogue reveals that a court-martial may be convened in
> > the absence of any JAG officers by three presiding command-level
> > officers".
>
> That sounds fine to me. If something is specifically stated in an
> episode, then it can be used in the article with the episode as a
> primary source.

Moreover, the court martial was actually convened in such a fashion
during the episode, so this is an instance of poor wording that
appears to be OR rather than actual original research.

In regards to the rest of the article, I'm kind of torn here.
Obviously we need sources for comparisons or claims of influence.  On
the other hand, if a fictional trial obviously resembles a US military
court martial, why can't we just say that?


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Mathias Schindler schreef:
>
> Hi, is there a source for these findings?
>
> Mathias

This is the source;
http://www.multiscope.nl/organisatie/nieuws/berichten/top-20-sites-van-2006.html

It is a top 20 of the most popular "Nederlandse websites". Is not clear
or the mean with "Nederlandse websites" websites in the Dutch language
or websites from the Netherlands. Both is possible from the used word.

I believe the mean websites in Dutch that are most popular in the
Netherlands.

For Wikipedia it is explicitly about the Dutch language version.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
On 12/7/06, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> That English page doesn't seem like the hive of collaboration, discussion,
> sharing and learning.
>
> Anyway I support Birgitte's idea too.
>
> Though I don't speak German, this page looks promising, as a source for new
> ideas (even for enwiki):
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin
>

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Heh!

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba

Well, it made me chuckle.

Steve


body:
On 12/7/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> And more seriously, you have to load an extra two pages to undo, in
> fact exactly the same number of pages as for a manual revert, plus you
> get to enter an edit summary.  This makes it less well suited for
> abuse, at least in theory.

Perhaps we could even encourage admins to use undo rather than revert
in a number of situations where the reason for their reversion is not
absolutely crystal clear. Reverting anything other than clear-cut
vandalism carries an unpleasant odour...

Steve


body:
On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we could even encourage admins to use undo rather than revert
> in a number of situations where the reason for their reversion is not
> absolutely crystal clear. Reverting anything other than clear-cut
> vandalism carries an unpleasant odour...

Replace "revert" with "rollback".

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
On 12/6/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather
> bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the
> article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with
> a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put
> a {{hangon}}).

Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got
deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the
person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential
deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently
bizarre redirect...

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
Hi!
That English page doesn't seem like the hive of collaboration, discussion,
sharing and learning.

Anyway I support Birgitte's idea too.

Though I don't speak German, this page looks promising, as a source for new
ideas (even for enwiki):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots , might also contain some useful
bots, but the real gems are harder to spot amongst all the interwiki bots.

Anyway I'm sure almost all wikis have something they could teach us.

Bence

On 12/7/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
>
> > Bence Damokos wrote:
> > > It doesn't matter, which es: are we speaking
> > about...
> > > The same idea came up recently on the wikitech-l
> > mailing list, and I
> > > strongly support it.
> > >
> > > I think it could be started, by copying the
> > English Wikipedias Tools and
> > > bots pages to a central place, and then people
> > from all over (including en)
> > > could start adding their own, and making
> > translations, creating simple
> > > how-to (how-to use XY script, how to localise XY
> > script, and not really a
> > > how-to: How to improve this script, and who can
> > help improving it)
> > >
> > > Any other ideas
> > >
> > > Bence
> > >
> > >
> > Very good idea.
> >
> > Darko
> >
>
> I also think this is a good idea.  Don;t just limit
> this to scripts, I think discussion of techniques
> would be good also.  One suggestion is to make an
> effort to split things up by technical ability.  A lot
> of smaller projects do not have very many technically
> skilled people. And most technical people seem to lump
> tools together even a few of them need much less
> experience to use than others.  If the page pointed
> these editors to things that they might able to use
> based on skill level it would be even more useful I
> think.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Bug 8100] <p> in message

body:
> It would be useful if you gave the exact name of the message.

That brings up another problem, how is the user to figure that out?!
Here we see in an uselang=en dump, which doesn't have the bug, that
the page we are looking has all the trappings of the real
Current_events page, and unless one looks closely, one thinks it is
the Current_events page.

   $ w3m -dump 'http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php?title=Current_events&oldid=9999999999999&uselang=en'
   Current events

   From ??

   Jump to: navigation, search

   The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named
   "Current events,oldid=2147483647".

   This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page
   that has been deleted.

   If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please
   report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.

   Retrieved from "http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php?title=Current_events"

And not even in the HTML source can one find the message name you
want. Any additional bugs I mention please report, if worthy.

OK, looking through Allmessages I dug it up:
$ w3m -dump http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php?title=????:Missingarticle\&action=raw
????????"$1"?

<p>???????????????????????????????

<p>????????????????????????
????URL???????????

The problem must be they forgot to close the <p>'s, so the 2nd one
ends up rendered. Ah ha! So do validate all your HTML before making
releases. You could probably cat(1) together all the items on
Allmessages, and send it all to the validate(1) program.

By the way, in
http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php?title=??:Allmessages&uselang=en
one can click on a link offered,
http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php?title=????:Missingarticle/en&action=edit
but that won't get us anywhere, nor will
http://localhost/mediawiki/index.php?title=????:Missingarticle/en&action=raw
Indeed, the /en is not working.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Two greasemonkey scripts needing a good home

body:
Hi all,
  I developed these while I was in France and kept thinking I would
get around to polishing them off and delivering them to a mass
audience. However, I got distracted, so I'm hoping someone here might
find them interesting, develop them or at least polish them off and
make them widely available or something.

Anyway, they're linked from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/greasemonkey

EnhanceHistory is the cool one - it lets you see a visual history of
an article, by showing the actual text that was added (green) or
deleted (red) in each revision, with a tiny bit of context. However,
it has always had problems with the diffing algorithm. I tried 3
different publicly available javascript diffing algorithms, and each
had a different problem: extreme slowness, inaccuracy, or occasional
hangs (the one I'm currently using). Fortunately, replacing the diff
algorithm is very easy, if you know a better one, there's a simple
function call that needs to be replaced.

FilterWatchlist lets you temporarily hide certain categories of
entries from your watchlist. It's mostly been made redundant by
changes to monobook.js, but it might serve as a base for more
interesting customisations...or something.

For the confused, Greasemonkey is a client-side javascript running
extension to FireFox...it would be a nice idea to convert greasemonkey
scripts to browser-independent additions to monobook.css/js...

For any questions/comments, feel free to contact me here or on WP.
Thanks,
Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
Well, I guess the problem is twofold:
Meta is not well known enough, and its not a big help either if the creators
of local resources don't know, where to share their work.
Its actually a bit in need of clean-up : half of the skins should be on
mediawiki.org, shouldn't they?

Bence

On 12/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/7/06, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > That English page doesn't seem like the hive of collaboration,
> discussion,
> > sharing and learning.
> >
> > Anyway I support Birgitte's idea too.
> >
> > Though I don't speak German, this page looks promising, as a source for
> new
> > ideas (even for enwiki):
> > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
I take it back, not half, just the last section..., so its not a so bad
place after all, just its not known to all...

Maybe a Meta awareness program, is what we really need?

On 12/7/06, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I guess the problem is twofold:
> Meta is not well known enough, and its not a big help either if the
> creators of local resources don't know, where to share their work.
> Its actually a bit in need of clean-up : half of the skins should be on
> mediawiki.org, shouldn't they?
>
> Bence
>
>
> On 12/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > On 12/7/06, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > That English page doesn't seem like the hive of collaboration,
> > discussion,
> > > sharing and learning.
> > >
> > > Anyway I support Birgitte's idea too.
> > >
> > > Though I don't speak German, this page looks promising, as a source
> > for new
> > > ideas (even for enwiki):
> > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin
> > >
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
On 5 Dec 2006 at 10:08, "Gregory Kohs" <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:

> Alphax makes the common mistake of confusing the "submission" with the
> "submitter".  All public relations workers are not welcome to edit in
> Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of their writing, or even whether
> independent non-paid editors in good standing have personally vetted the
> content before it's posted.

I'd expect that if such people do their editing on topics on which
they don't have any conflicts of interest, they wouldn't have any
problem.

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

body:
Timwi wrote:
>> And since [[Draconity]] itself has already been recreated as a redirect,
>> what is the point of keeping the history deleted anyway? The article's
>> inaccessible to readers either way. As long as an article isn't deleted
>> for copyright or libel reasons, if we've got a redirect sitting there we
>> might as well preserve the article history in case something salvageable
>> is discovered in there one day.
>
> I have restored the article history for [[Draconity]].
>
> Unfortunately, I can already foresee people coming and arguing that "the
> article has been up on AfD and the decision was to delete", and it
> annoys me already.

Since there are potentially legal issues involved here (I'm not a lawyer
but the GFDL seems pretty clear on this matter), perhaps it would be
reasonably straightforward getting the deletion policy amended to
prevent this kind of history loss. Strict adherence to rules can work
both ways.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061207/03f26b56/attachment.pgp


from_name: David Boothroyd

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
Steve Bennett writes:
>Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got
>deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the
>person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential
>deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently
>bizarre redirect...

As I was doing, but didn't get the chance to finish before the redirect
actually got deleted. It was only 'apparently bizarre' if one didn't
bother to check why it was there. As I'm not in the habit of going round
redirecting numbers to people, ought not a little bell to have rung with
questions of "Why this number?" and "Why this person?"?
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_in_Star_Trek

Most of the sources appear to be episodes.  I explained how
interpreting episodes is original research, and asked for some more
sources.  So they went and cited more episodes.  Either I am
completely wrong here or someone needs to go and explain to these
people patiently but in words of one syllable that "cite your sources"
does not mean name the episode in which you saw the plot device which
leads you to conclude something.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles)

body:
No new posts, so I'm taking the liberty of summing up.

At one end of the spectrum Charles Matthews doesn't see the need for
mentioning the blog in the text of the article. However, if I discern
his views correctly, he sees it as insignificant rather than violating
policy. His was the only voice against including the blog in the text.

Guy Chapman accepts inclusion in the text, but objects to the link on
grounds of WP:EL and WP:BLP.

Supporting linking are myself, Ryan Wetherell, Luna, The Cunctator,
and Steve Bennett from the list. In addition two recent editors to
the article, Catchpole and The Golux, have either put the blog link
back in or commented in favour of it. (In fairness, Jossi has also
removed the link citing WP:EL and WP:BLP)

Although Charles Matthews argued against the significance, he did
accept that linking to partisan sources was possible providing there
was "a 'shield' of NPOV" in the article.

I sum this up as consensus in favour of including the mention in the
text, and including the link.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

references:
<1u6hn21ko1dm1begbmvoacnigs4ta6d00r@4ax.com>
	<a4359dff0612071521p261a8001h60eb1ff708d7d297@mail.gmail.com>
	<3n8hn2hs9eefbtvppjbftb1r1bt5pnvf0l@4ax.com>
	<249hn25vj83chqi22t0eaam9rgb4gh71mu@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> And indeed:
>
> "In the Cardassian legal trials are entirely a formality and only have
> a ceremonial function. The verdict is determined long before the
> actual trial is held. The person prosecuted learns what he or she
> allegedly committed at the trial."
>
> Which is a generalisation based on a single episode.  Is it
> universally true? Do we care?

Actually, I remember the episode and it _is_ universally true.
Characters declare this explicitly on screen, explain the philosophy
behind why it is that way, and describe other aspects of Cardassian
jurisprudence in great detail as well. It was a very
legal-system-centric story.

I am not an expert on law, but I am somewhat of an expert on Star Trek. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061207/d1d752b3/attachment.pgp


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_in_Star_Trek
>
> Most of the sources appear to be episodes.  I explained how
> interpreting episodes is original research, and asked for some more
> sources.  So they went and cited more episodes.  Either I am
> completely wrong here or someone needs to go and explain to these
> people patiently but in words of one syllable that "cite your sources"
> does not mean name the episode in which you saw the plot device which
> leads you to conclude something.

Episodes are perfectly valid sources, but they are primary sources, so
have the same issues as any other primary source. (Basically, they're
only useful for stating facts, any interpretation needs to cite a
secondary source.)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:21:32 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

>Episodes are perfectly valid sources, but they are primary sources, so
>have the same issues as any other primary source. (Basically, they're
>only useful for stating facts, any interpretation needs to cite a
>secondary source.)

They are valid sources for "Kirk was prosecuted by JAG in episode
''foo''"

They are not valid sources for "Military law is influenced by the
actual Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)" based on comparing the
code as described in the cited episode with the UCMJ,

Or for "One aspect of Starfleet legal procedure which is hardly
explored is the concept of Captain's Mast. Only on two occasions, over
a 30 year period, is a brief mention made of this and then, only in
action and not by name."

Or indeed "Dialogue reveals that a court-martial may be convened in
the absence of any JAG officers by three presiding command-level
officers".

Memory Alpha loves this kind of thing, apparently.  I think we could
safely leave it to them...

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


body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:11:05 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Guy Chapman accepts inclusion in the text, but objects to the link on
>grounds of WP:EL and WP:BLP.

No, I think that inclusion of the Times-sourced reference does not
violate [[WP:BLP]], but I consider that the entire thing violates
[[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]].

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

references:
<1u6hn21ko1dm1begbmvoacnigs4ta6d00r@4ax.com>
	<a4359dff0612071521p261a8001h60eb1ff708d7d297@mail.gmail.com>
	<3n8hn2hs9eefbtvppjbftb1r1bt5pnvf0l@4ax.com>

body:
And indeed:

"In the Cardassian legal trials are entirely a formality and only have
a ceremonial function. The verdict is determined long before the
actual trial is held. The person prosecuted learns what he or she
allegedly committed at the trial."

Which is a generalisation based on a single episode.  Is it
universally true? Do we care?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:27:18 -0500, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

>Interpreting, maybe. Citing, no.

Sure.  In episode ''foo'', Kirk is court-martialled.  Perfectly
acceptable.  Drawing inferences about the legal systems from observing
the trials in the episodes?  Not so good.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> They are valid sources for "Kirk was prosecuted by JAG in episode
> ''foo''"

Agreed.

> They are not valid sources for "Military law is influenced by the
> actual Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)" based on comparing the
> code as described in the cited episode with the UCMJ,

Agreed.

> Or for "One aspect of Starfleet legal procedure which is hardly
> explored is the concept of Captain's Mast. Only on two occasions, over
> a 30 year period, is a brief mention made of this and then, only in
> action and not by name."

I'm not sure on that one. It's borderline.

> Or indeed "Dialogue reveals that a court-martial may be convened in
> the absence of any JAG officers by three presiding command-level
> officers".

That sounds fine to me. If something is specifically stated in an
episode, then it can be used in the article with the episode as a
primary source.

> Memory Alpha loves this kind of thing, apparently.  I think we could
> safely leave it to them...

We have completely different aims to Memory Alpha, there's not point
even comparing.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> "In the Cardassian legal trials are entirely a formality and only have
> a ceremonial function. The verdict is determined long before the
> actual trial is held. The person prosecuted learns what he or she
> allegedly committed at the trial."
>
> Which is a generalisation based on a single episode.  Is it
> universally true? Do we care?

It could be written better ("In Episode X a Cardissian legal trial is
shown to be entirely a formality..."), but the episode is a valid
source. I don't care if you care or not - how much people care doesn't
appear anywhere in Wikipedia policy that I know of.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>Or for "One aspect of Starfleet legal procedure which is hardly
>>explored is the concept of Captain's Mast. Only on two occasions, over
>>a 30 year period, is a brief mention made of this and then, only in
>>action and not by name."
>>
>>
>I'm not sure on that one. It's borderline.
>
Since there are only two such occasions it should not be difficult to
identify the two episodes.

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING
 articles)

body:
Guy Chapman writes:
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:11:05 +0000, David Boothroyd
><david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  >Guy Chapman accepts inclusion in the text, but objects to the link on
>  >grounds of WP:EL and WP:BLP.
>
>No, I think that inclusion of the Times-sourced reference does not
>violate [[WP:BLP]], but I consider that the entire thing violates
>[[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]].

It's interesting that you should choose this moment to announce
your conversion to this view, which you had previously mentioned as
merely a fallback position. For what it's worth, the first time an
edit war broke out over the Tim Ireland issue, it did dominate the
article: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&oldid=60181758
for one example of an old revision, most of which is taken over either
by reporting the blog or its contents. This did cause problems with
undue weight, until on June 30th one very helpful editor came in and
researched a much longer article. Modesty forbids me from saying
who exactly this much maligned editor was.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

>We have completely different aims to Memory Alpha,

Or at least some of us do :-)

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


body:
The Cunctator writes:
>My comments were only about theory. I haven't ever looked at the article in
>question.

Fair enough, but the issue was whether the link was unacceptable on
strict application of policy - ie unacceptable in theory. If acceptable
in theory, then it becomes a matter of individual judgment as to whether
the link actually goes in, and here it is my judgment (for one) that
it should do.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>"In the Cardassian legal trials are entirely a formality and only have
>>a ceremonial function. The verdict is determined long before the
>>actual trial is held. The person prosecuted learns what he or she
>>allegedly committed at the trial."
>>
>>Which is a generalisation based on a single episode.  Is it
>>universally true? Do we care?
>>
>>
>It could be written better ("In Episode X a Cardissian legal trial is
>shown to be entirely a formality..."), but the episode is a valid
>source.
>
The episode would be a valid source for how Cardassian law was applied
in that episode, but even in fiction one should resist the temptation to
generalize.  Such bad habits could too easily be adapted to the real
world.  If the episode makes a specific statement about Cardassian law
that would be an entirely different matter.  "Shown to be" can be
problematic because it can harbour a veilled POV.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Rob wrote:

>In regards to the rest of the article, I'm kind of torn here.
>Obviously we need sources for comparisons or claims of influence.  On
>the other hand, if a fictional trial obviously resembles a US military
>court martial, why can't we just say that?
>
It won't be "obvious" to those who are unfamiliar with the operations of
a US military court martial.

Ec


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-08

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Running test Simple <ref>, no <references/>... FAILED!
Running test Simple <ref>, with <references/>... FAILED!
Running test <ref> with a simple template... FAILED!
Running test <ref> with a <nowiki>... FAILED!
Running test <!--comment--> in a <ref> (bug 5384)... FAILED!
Running test <references> after <gallery> (bug 6164)... FAILED!
Running test {{REVISIONID}} on page with <ref> (bug 6299)... FAILED!
Running test Blank ref followed by ref with content... FAILED!
Running test Regression: non-blank ref "0" followed by ref with content... FAILED!
Running test Regression sanity check: non-blank ref "1" followed by ref with content... FAILED!

  10 previously passing test(s) now FAILING! :(
      * Simple <ref>, no <references/>
      * Simple <ref>, with <references/>
      * <ref> with a simple template
      * <ref> with a <nowiki>
      * <!--comment--> in a <ref> (bug 5384)
      * <references> after <gallery> (bug 6164)
      * {{REVISIONID}} on page with <ref> (bug 6299)
      * Blank ref followed by ref with content
      * Regression: non-blank ref "0" followed by ref with content
      * Regression sanity check: non-blank ref "1" followed by ref with content
Passed 441 of 471 tests (93.63%)... FAILED!


from_name: Jesse Martin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Blocking Open Proxies

body:
Dear Travis,

Yep.

Yours sincerely,
Jesse Martin
(Meta admin 'Pathoschild')

> From: "Travis Derouin" <travis at wikihow.com>
> Great,
>
> What are you using to block these proxies? Just the standard blocking
> functionality in Mediawiki?
>
> Thanks,
> Travis
>
>


from_name: Christophe Henner

subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?

body:
Last mails making me feel better.

This project depend on communication with communities, I'm gonna move
the page to the main ns and start to work today (I just have to found
a name (whateverthenamewillbe is nice to me but not really informative
^^). For the few first days I'll just try to set up the organisation
of the page (if anyone want to help she/he is more than welcome) than
when it's ready I'll try to put a message on all the project I can
saying (mainly)
"Hey, this page has been created on meta in order to help everybody
and share what each community have done alone" blabla and by this way
I hope contributors will come to help, and perhaps in the same come on
meta :)

--
schiste


subject: [Foundation-l] Community project?


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
George Herbert wrote:
>
> This seems like we should automate something; either a netblock minus
> exceptions interface tool to autogen the CIDR blocks from a top range plus
> some exceptions, or adding in an explicit "unblock this IP" override and
> have any CIDR block range lookup check the unblock override before returning
> blocked or not.

As I understand it (and _please_ correct me if I'm wrong), single-IP
blocks currently override range blocks (and autoblocks).  Thus, as a
partial workaround, we could place an anon-only block (with account
creation permitted) on the specific IP, allowing logged-in users to edit
from it.

Ideally, there should perhaps be some way to place a "null block" that
would do nothing except override less specific blocks.  But in practice,
the workaround using an anon-only block seems almost as good to me.

The block message should, of course, say something like "please log in
to edit from this IP address".

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[Foundation-l] Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election
	Process

body:
On 12/8/06, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <stephanie at sosdg.org> wrote:
> In an election, when you can't say how you really feel about someone,
> thats a problem. Just because I'm friends with someone does NOT mean I
> think their suitable for arbcom, steward, board, or even adminship. I
> should be able to vote without risk to friendships, or the influence of
> various wikipedia cabals.

A lot of people seem to be voting conscience in the arbcom election.
Some very well known people have gotten a lot of negative votes,
including from people who I percieve as their friends in the admin and
senior editor community.

If you truly believe that your vote needs to be not attrbuted, then
it's perfectly fair play to create a second account and not vote from
your known account.  As long as you don't double-vote, it's perfectly
"legal" and completely functional at disguising you.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Proposal for an improved user rights page

body:
Rotem Liss wrote:
>
> * Checkboxes instead of lists, mainly because it's possible to disable
> them separately while it's not possible in lists.

Hmm?  It's certainly possible to disable options separately in a select
box: see for example <http://vyznev.net/misc/disabled-option-test.html>.

Mind you, pre-selected disabled options don't work quite as you'd
expect, at least not in all browsers: they can still be deselected by
clicking another option.

One solution could be a list of checkboxes in a scrollable <div>, using
the CSS "overflow: auto" property (and an explicit height in ems); see
for example <http://vyznev.net/misc/scrollable-checkbox-list.html>.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it (and _please_ correct me if I'm wrong), single-IP
>> blocks currently override range blocks (and autoblocks).  Thus, as a
>> partial workaround, we could place an anon-only block (with account
>> creation permitted) on the specific IP, allowing logged-in users to edit
>> from it.
>
> Ok.  That makes sense; can someone confirm that's the behavior?

Just tested it on my local test wiki, and it works just like I thought.
  I should really have done that already in the first place.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] Welcome to our three new board members

body:
Congratulations Kat, Oscar, and Jan-Bart!

I found Jan-Bart's talk at Wikimania to be one of my
favorites.  Anyone involved in Incubator should
solicit his advice on "fledging" new wiki's if they
have not already done so.  He has a very good idea of
how to set-up a successfull new community and several
examples of mistakes that can lead to failure.

Birgitte SB

--- florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:

> Dear Community,
>
> A few days ago, I wrote you a "short" email to give
> you feedback on the last board meeting, which
> occured in Florida. Reference:
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011869.html
>
> As I promised, we welcome today 2 new board members,
> whom most of you already know, Mindspillage and
> Oscar (also known irl as Kat Walsh (us citizen,
> lady), Oscar van Dillen (dutch citizen, gentleman).
> Welcome to you both.
>
> Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board,
> effective 15th of december. At this date, he will be
> replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.
>
> I would like first to give a special thank you to
> Tim Shell, whom I did not know at all 2 years ago,
> and whom I learned to appreciate. Tim has seen the
> birth of Wikipedia, be part of the first 4 years of
> life of the Foundation, and I hope he will keep an
> oldbie eye on it. Thank you Tim, and prosit (tchin,
> sant? etc...).
>
> Let me introduce you Jan-Bart. We wanted to choose a
> more external guy, who could have another view on
> our whole organisation. You may consider him
> external, since he hardly has any edits  :-) , was
> not member of any of the internal cabal mailing
> lists... so, it is our first attempt to introduce
> the "outside" in here.
> At the same time, he is not a stranger. Many of us
> already met him, he was at the two wikimania. And
> several of us have been talking with him quite a bit
> in the past. Most recently, he got involved in the
> ED search committee (so, was unofficially already
> acting as an advisory board member). His name came
> as an evidence to us.
> He is a young man of 36 (which is still younger than
> I). Married, two kids. Dutch (which means we have
> two dutch guys on the board...). He studied Business
> Administration at the Rotterdam School of Management
> (which may definitly be an asset in our
> organisation). He works for Kennisnet Foundation,
> THE dutch organisation for ICT use in Education.
>
> Jan-Bart put a short bio about him on meta:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jan-Bart
>
>
> So... I hope it is all good news for everyone. I am
> really glad we make that step. Welcome Kat, Oscar
> and Jan-Bart. And thank you Tim.
>
> Ref:
>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_expansion
>
> Ant
>
> aka Florence Devouard
> ChairChick of Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


from_name: Stephanie Erin Daugherty

subject:
[Foundation-l] Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election
 Process

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>>
>> Hoi,
>>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
>> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
>> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
>> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
>> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
>> people who know them from their native projects.
>>
>>
>
> ... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
> Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.
>
That will happen regardless... however, with secret ballots, people are
more inclined to form their own opinions, and are empowered to act on them.

>
>> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
>> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
>> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
>> chance for you to know him like I do.
>>
>
> Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
> more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
> you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.
>
>
Voicing of opinions are a healthy part of the process political process.
However, to be truly free elections, we need secret ballots.
For every one person that will publicly oppose a given candidate, there
are probably 10 others that feel as strongly, but don't want those views
to be make public.

The same goes, although not as strongly, for supporting.

> Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
> are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
> it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
> we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
> like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
> you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
> for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
> who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.
>
>
In an election, when you can't say how you really feel about someone,
thats a problem. Just because I'm friends with someone does NOT mean I
think their suitable for arbcom, steward, board, or even adminship. I
should be able to vote without risk to friendships, or the influence of
various wikipedia cabals.
>> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
>> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
>> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
>> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
>> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
>> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
>> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>>
My refusal to vote in this election has to do with the fact that were I
to vote my conscience, I cannot do so without causing
my decisions being openly questioned and argued, and that were I to vote
as I feel I should, quite a few people would be offended.


from_name: david at election.demon.co.uk

body:
Alphax writes:
>
>Hello! Politician discussing what gory details should be in the article
>about another politician! Conflict of interest, anyone?

Now that really does annoy me. Whatever happened to "This user is a
Wikipedian and seeks to eschew other ideologies while building an
encyclopedia"? I don't suppose the three featured articles I wrote about
politicians, which have never been impugned for their neutrality,
occurred to you?

If it is held that no-one who is actively involved in politics should be
contributing to articles about other people actively involved in politics,
then that would would really be the end of my contribution and of many
others, of the whole basis of WP:AGF, and of the founding principle of
Wikipedia that everyone is welcome to come in and leave their own biases
at the door.

I would reconsider that statement, if I were you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
With respect to sources for Star Trek episodes: how did the
contributing editors have access to those episodes?

I've said before and still feel that if the episodes are available on
commercially purchasable videos, they have been "published" in a way
that is comparable to a print book.

So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to
published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or
publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which
the line of dialog or event occurs.

Citations (with page numbers for print sources, or timings for video)
serve two related purposes. First, if you do not actually plan to
verify the citation, the fact that a timing is supplied is evidence
(assuming good faith) that the contributing editor consulted the
source rather than relying on memory. Second, if you do wish to
verify the citation, it means that once you have obtained a copy of
the source you can verify the citation with a reasonable amount of work.

A typical print book that is in print can be purchased for a modest
but not negligible sum and can be acquired in days to weeks. In or
out of print, depending on its obscurity, it may be available in a
few hours at a local public library, available in days through
interlibrary loan, or available only in big research libraries.

In most cases the amount of money and time required to access a DVD
is comparable.

If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then
IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that
describe the episode are fine.


body:
Guy Chapman writes:
>On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:44:17 -0500, "david at election.demon.co.uk"
><david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Now that really does annoy me. Whatever happened to "This user is a
>>Wikipedian and seeks to eschew other ideologies while building an
>>encyclopedia"?
>
>Yes, you've said that before.  But the fact remains that you are a
>party political activist editing articles on politicians, and
>frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this
>is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either,
>so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your
>own writing (which would only be human, after all).

Directly contrary to your repeated claims I have not been sanctioned
for POV editing. There was no such finding in the arbitration case.
Moreover Irishpunktom eventually agreed that he and I had produced a
balanced article in the end.

What has often happened is that I have turned a mass of POV into
something more closely approximating an encyclopaedia article, and
found myself roundly criticised for it solely because the other editor
found out my political affiliation and assumed I must be biased - not
because they could impugn the merit of the edits but because "well you
must be". That was always unfair and was one of the reasons I changed
my user name and broke the link to my article.

I note that you, Guy, have made the same unsupported allegation. I also
note you now admit to being a member of a different party to me. Hmm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


from_name: James Hare

body:
Welcome, Kat, Oscars, and Jan-Bart!

May you be effective trustees and benefit the Wikimedia Foundation.

On 12/8/06, florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Community,
>
> A few days ago, I wrote you a "short" email to give you feedback on the
> last board meeting, which occured in Florida. Reference:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011869.html
>
> As I promised, we welcome today 2 new board members, whom most of you
> already know, Mindspillage and Oscar (also known irl as Kat Walsh (us
> citizen, lady), Oscar van Dillen (dutch citizen, gentleman). Welcome to you
> both.
>
> Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board, effective 15th of december.
> At this date, he will be replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.
>
> I would like first to give a special thank you to Tim Shell, whom I did
> not know at all 2 years ago, and whom I learned to appreciate. Tim has seen
> the birth of Wikipedia, be part of the first 4 years of life of the
> Foundation, and I hope he will keep an oldbie eye on it. Thank you Tim, and
> prosit (tchin, sant? etc...).
>
> Let me introduce you Jan-Bart. We wanted to choose a more external guy,
> who could have another view on
> our whole organisation. You may consider him external, since he hardly has
> any edits  :-) , was not member of any of the internal cabal mailing
> lists... so, it is our first attempt to introduce the "outside" in here.
> At the same time, he is not a stranger. Many of us already met him, he was
> at the two wikimania. And several of us have been talking with him quite a
> bit in the past. Most recently, he got involved in the ED search committee
> (so, was unofficially already acting as an advisory board member). His name
> came as an evidence to us.
> He is a young man of 36 (which is still younger than I). Married, two
> kids. Dutch (which means we have two dutch guys on the board...). He studied
> Business Administration at the Rotterdam School of Management (which may
> definitly be an asset in our organisation). He works for Kennisnet
> Foundation, THE dutch organisation for ICT use in Education.
>
> Jan-Bart put a short bio about him on meta:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jan-Bart
>
>
> So... I hope it is all good news for everyone. I am really glad we make
> that step. Welcome Kat, Oscar and Jan-Bart. And thank you Tim.
>
> Ref: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_expansion
>
> Ant
>
> aka Florence Devouard
> ChairChick of Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in
	WP:LIVING	articles)

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

David Gerard stated for the record:

> I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
> that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
> you want.
>
>
> - d.

Wandering off topic, but: I'm not really surprised.  Some of the rudest
people I've met have been politicians.  My wife and I had dinner at Bill
Simon's home while he was running for Governor of California.  When my
wife mentioned where she worked, he went straight into a rant about how
he hated that company.  Needless to say, he lost more than one vote (and
later the election, but we can't take full credit for that).

Many politicians act like there's a difference between The People (whom
they woo) and mere individuals (whom they scorn).  Generally, those are
the less-successful politicians.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A day without sunshine is like night.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFeYcu/SVOiq2uhHMRAhXSAJ9Ut+P3okak2y0AVdbj/hgzGjr7NgCfV4cA
NbvFK/BBedcOY6//U9KD0rc=
=wjfd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Guy Chapman writes:
>What I said was that *you are a party political activist editing
>articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict
>with other editors*. That does not imply that you are either right or
>wrong, only that your style of editing, combined with your known
>interests and choice of articles, causes conflict.

I think disingenuousness is unbecoming, Guy, and your meaning was quite
plain. The point you have been making has not been about "right or
wrong" but about your insinuations, for which you have been unable to
produce any actual evidence, that I am advancing my own POV. You refer
to "my known interests" when what you mean is the POV you perceive me as
having. However, your perceptions have been and are wrong. That is
very objectionable. I doubt you or anybody else can accurately discern my
opinions from reading my edits.

>See also above, where your use of a deliberately misleading edit
>summary is used to make accusations against others.

No it isn't. I was just having a light-hearted joke with the edit
summary (no-one could write a long article about 338,171), and commenting
that it would be no bad thing if speedy patrollers should look into
things a bit more before jumping to delete. That's an implicit criticism
but I wouldn't go further than that. It's a mistake I have made myself
once (Catpiano).

>Nor do you appear to know who your friends are - I was against any
>sanction when you edited Peter Tatchell in defiance of your ArbCom
>ban, for example, and I unblocked you as soon as you undertook to stop
>the edit war on this article.

Given all you have said about me, you have a strange definition of
'friend'.

In every case where I have been blocked, the situation has been resolved
in favour of the position I was advocating. If I come across as forceful
in making a case, this is because I believe the case has great force.
I am also undeterred by the prospect of being blocked. You can actually
change that approach in an instant if you want to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

references:
<1u6hn21ko1dm1begbmvoacnigs4ta6d00r@4ax.com>
	<a4359dff0612071521p261a8001h60eb1ff708d7d297@mail.gmail.com>
	<3n8hn2hs9eefbtvppjbftb1r1bt5pnvf0l@4ax.com>
	<a4359dff0612071536g7cf1ac53re7d5295e5dba4e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<45791723.8010707@telus.net>

body:
On 12/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Since there are only two such occasions it should not be difficult to
> identify the two episodes.

Ah, but how do you source the fact that it isn't seen in any other episodes?
This is not a facetious question by the way.

Do we have something against academic fraud: such as, say, adding
something as a "Source", apparently without having read it, or even
having a good idea of its contents from other sources,

--
Abi


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Unless you have some reason to believe that those dozens are typical of
> > celebrities in general and it's as easy to get pictures of the rest as it
> > is to get pictures of those, it proves nothing.
> It was claimed that we can not get free pictures of celebs that don't
> visit award events, at least without stalking. I pointed out free
> pictures of celebs (some of which do not visit award events) which
> were, presumably, created without stalking.
>
> I never argued that it was easy, only that it being hard doesn't make
> it necessarily impossible.

That's nitpicking tiny nuances of wording in conversational English.

He could very well mean that it's impossible for most celebrities, not for
every celebrity in existence.

It's obviously possible to get free pictures of *some* celebrities, but
given a random celebrity, that random celebrity is probably not one of them.


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] Astroturfing -- fabricating your own sources

body:
Assuming your summary of events is accurate, it seems that the source isn't
neutral. That being the case, I'm of the opinion that it might be reliable
in some cases, but not in others. For example, I doubt you'd find many
objections to using a company's own information page, when looking for the
date a company was founded; for more complex or potentially controversial
information, however, getting information from third party, neutral sources
is probably preferred.

If one particular user keeps adding the source, and seems to be adamant
about it, they might a single-purpose account.  You could consider an RfC to
determine an appropriate course of action.

That all assumes, of course, that what you've said here is correct and fair.
And that's difficult to check without more info, but I think you wanted to
keep the discussion theoretical.

Knocked by the Economist? Ouch. :p

-Luna

On 12/8/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>
> Let's suppose we have a small country in a forgotten corner of the world.
>
> And let's assume that a local English-language website appeared out
> of nowhere, with no ads, hosted on the same server with official
> government sites (even the same IP!), has obviously the same
> designer and uses the same software with those government sites.
>
> That news source could even disagree with the government on minor
> point, in order to look independent and reliable. The only references
> in the mainstream press (e.g. The Economist) call it an "astroturfing"
> attempt of the government.
>
> Would you call this source "reliable", worthy to be used as for
> references in Wikipedia?
>
> And if there's a wikipedian who really loves this source, who agrees
> almost 100% to it and adds it to dozens of articles, reverting any
> attempt to remove it, what should we do?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Guy Chapman writes:
>It really does not matter at all what your interpretation is of the
>content outcome when you are blocked, the fact that you *were*
>blocked, several times, for revert warring and other disruptive
>behaviour, is an indication that your manner of interaction with
>others needs work, and that you have, as yet, failed to accept that
>fact.

Let me ask a single simple question, and anyone else feel free to
pitch in with the answer.

Suppose I do the "work" suggested above, what good will it do me?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:48:08 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>No, I think that inclusion of the Times-sourced reference does not
>>violate [[WP:BLP]], but I consider that the entire thing violates
>>[[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]].

>It's interesting that you should choose this moment to announce
>your conversion to this view, which you had previously mentioned as
>merely a fallback position. For what it's worth, the first time an
>edit war broke out over the Tim Ireland issue, it did dominate the
>article: see
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&oldid=60181758
>for one example of an old revision, most of which is taken over either
>by reporting the blog or its contents. This did cause problems with
>undue weight, until on June 30th one very helpful editor came in and
>researched a much longer article. Modesty forbids me from saying
>who exactly this much maligned editor was.

David, it is not "interesting" that I should "choose this moment",
since you just started a new thread to which I replied.  Therefore it
is no more "interesting" than that you chose "this moment" to try once
again to get your own way.

Nor is it any kind of sudden conversion.  I looked at the content
initially as a [[WP:LIVING]] issue and a revert war on a biography,
once that problem was solved through the involved parties settling
down to talk instead of edit-war, I looked at it in terms of the merit
of inclusion overall.  "Blogger hates MP, pictures at eleven" does not
seem to me to be much of a claim, and the fact that media coverage
appears not to extend beyond local colour during the election itself
rather reinforces that view.  I don't think I'm the only one with that
view.

And I still don't like linking attack blogs from biographies.  I think
it is asking for trouble.

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


body:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:52:59 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>If acceptable
>in theory, then it becomes a matter of individual judgment as to whether
>the link actually goes in, and here it is my judgment (for one) that
>it should do.

And mine that it should not.  Impasse.  Note that I am also a member
of an opposing political party (though not an activist), so neither
David nor I can claim absolute neutrality here.

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