body:
Just to be clear, here's a few diffs I don't consider vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Green_Footballs&diff=prev&oldid=79121694
- Adds a link to event in question, and more information on term coined by
the site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=79117149
- Information on the "free personality test" that the Church of Scientology
uses. The same sources are used on the [[Oxford Capacity Analysis]] article
we have, and the sources have not been challenged. I cannot in good
conscience term this "vandalism" or "POV Pushing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rehabilitation_Project_Force&diff=prev&oldid=79117872
- Expands the list of accusations which have been leveled at the Scientology
Rehabilitation Project Force, but it includes a source. Without challenging
the source, I can't consider this vandalism either.

There are other edits I would consider POV pushing, but here's the thing:
that is NOT an excuse to institute an indefinite block. That's a reason to
teach the user about our policies and try to get them working as a
productive editor.

And yes, I know full well we've had problems on Scientology articles in the
past. Our controversial articles attract new users all the time, because
controversy attracts eyes, and there's no doubt Scientology is highly
controversial as well as being stirred up by the South Park controversy.

But as I see this case, it's a classic example of violating BITE. There was
no welcome message or anything posted to either user, and the same
hair-trigger admin was involved in both cases.

To post such a dismissive analysis? I won't question your good faith or
motivation, but I have to question the validity of your claim.

Parker

On 10/8/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And I disagree with your assessment. Non-righteous block, fraudulent claim
> of "vandalism only" account, edits had sources including sources brought
> from other articles on wikipedia that have not been challenged.
>
> Parker
>
> On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:50:40 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> > <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The "original" account was claimed to be NoLongerScieno (blocked for
> > >"name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter.
> > >Possible sockpuppet? Certainly.
> > >Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe.
> > >Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to block for
> >
> > >being a sockpuppet of a username block? Definitely.
> >
> > I reviewed the edits of both accounts, 100% vandalism (POV-pushing).
> > Righteous block.  Next case, please.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.

references:
<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061501q3e961858tb31c5415d5e735bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<477AE57E-96FC-46E0-9728-B61861D63677@mac.com>
	<tcgii2dihuo0t3i2vrd8g366s9r9l9jiam@4ax.com>

body:
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I agree.  Also, it is easier to fix from within than by taking
> pot-shots from the sidelines. Mind, I'm rather disquieted by what has
> happened to Tony Sidaway of late, and I'm not sure how I feel about
> the way the project can apparently no longer accommodate SPUI,
> although I suspect that may be just a fit of pique at losing a
> long-running and very heated argument.

I hope SPUI will be back; he doesn't play well with others, but he is
a fountain of knowledge about what he's interested in.  I also don't
particularly like the way I've seen people justify dismissing him as a
'troll' and thus unworthy of respect.

Tony - well, I'll be circumspect about that case, but - Tony is not
good at defusing tense situations, and he's  demonstrated that
repeatedly.

-Matt


references:
<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<477AE57E-96FC-46E0-9728-B61861D63677@mac.com>
	<tcgii2dihuo0t3i2vrd8g366s9r9l9jiam@4ax.com>
	<B45D8EFA-AE6C-4B28-845E-A58A96794CB1@mac.com>

body:
On 10/8/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
> There is a general distrust of dynamism,
> and this is a cultural flaw here which I am
> happy to do my bit to neutralise.

I'm glad.

Related it a trend towards ... the validation and amplification of
hurt feelings (perhaps there's a better way to word that?).
Inevitably feelings will get hurt sometimes;  like all online forums,
it's easy to misunderstand, easy to speak rash words, easy to be
thoughtless.  I think that part of 'assume good faith' - the part that
gets forgotten - is about forgiving others for things, about believing
that others (especially long term contributors) mean well even if they
occasionally have boneheaded moments, about that almost-forgotten
"wikilove" concept, not seen much of late.

Part of it is because, as the project grows, it gets easier for one's
voice to be ignored and easier for one to never even notice that
something is being done until it's done.  Some people feel personally
slighted when not consulted.  It's not deliberate, people.  And
frankly, since the project's so huge, we are going to have to make
decisions without consulting all 1000 admins and all the active
contributors.  (Almost) no decision on Wikipedia is forever binding,
so we don't need to sink into organisational paralysis out of fear
that people won't be getting their say.

-Matt


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Comments on the new wikipedias

body:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> The practice of using codes that are made up and that are not
> distinguishable from ISO-639 codes is against the terms of use.

"Terms of Use"?  Of *what?

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
> >And deadminning is a much bigger deal than adminning by its nature.
> >
> That alone is a problem.  The hoops that one must jump through to become
> an admin establish it as a big deal, even when we say it isn't.
>

The hoops have gotten bigger and bigger over time.

It used to be, someone who'd been around and reliable had a shot.

Now, you have to get some group behind you (a pov pushing group or
otherwise) to pad the vote count, you have to have not raised the ire of
certain self-proclaimed "vandal fighters" by contradicting their
trigger-happy and incivil behavior, and you have to satisfy an increasingly
mind-bogglingly high edit count requirement.

But every time we bring this up, the debate goes on for about a week, and
then it vanishes and nothing is ever done.

Parker


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] I Am the Very Model of a Modern Wikipedian

body:
I've placed a wikified version of my song on my userpage, including
two new lines (one of the stanzas was too short in the original):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: habj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for editing refs?

body:
2006/10/5, Maury Markowitz <maury_markowitz at hotmail.com>:
> I'm trying to be the good wikipedian and adding lots of on-topic refs, but I
> find editing them to be extremely difficult and error prone. IMHO the actual
> "body" of the ref should definitely not be placed in the article body, where
> it is now, as this makes reading the source difficult, to say the least.

Agreed. At least it should be possible to put a line break before and
after the reference tags, to help the eye distinguish between the text
and the ref and make the source text more readable. I have tried that,
but it puts a space between the text and the little superscript letter
that tells which source supports the statements. I guess I will
continue doing that when working on a text, then remove the line
breaks.

Another problem, when editing a text with refs in them, is that it is
not always clear exactly what is covered by the ref. A ref in the
middle of a sentence is usually obvious, it supports just a small part
of that sentence and usually one single fact. A ref in the end of a
paragraph could however refer to the whole paragraph, the last
sentence, or the last fact in the last sentence. This is seldom a
problem when only reading a text with references in it. However, I
have more than once refrained from shuffling the contents of a text
about out of fear for introducing errors in the citations.

For the future, could we imagine a citation system where the pair of
reference tags enclose the portion of the text that the source refers
to? The text of the reference itself then needs to be put someplace
else. A source text that in the current system looks something like
this

The plant A growns in Spain. It needs much sun and water, and its
leaves are sometimes used as herbal medicine. It belongs to the genus
Spirk and is usually considered related to the plant B,<ref>Peter
Plimp, The succulents of the Mediterranian, Scrottie Publishing House,
2003</ref>, although this is debated. There are many subspecies of A,
of which some are edible. The subspecies X is bla bla, Y is bla bla
and Z is bla bla. The notion that A actually belongs to the genus
Scrubbicus, which is completely unrelated to B, is supported by a
small numbers of researchers including Thomas Tipp. Recently (June
2006), Salomon Smith and coworkers discovered new facts that support
this hypothesis although these data are controversial.
<ref>[http://www.controversy.com Aron Assont on the Smith data,
controversy.com]</ref>

could maybe look something like this

The plant A growns in Spain. It needs much sun and water, and its
leaves are sometimes used as herbal medicine. It belongs to the genus
Spirk and
<ref=Plimp> is usually considered related to the plant B,</ref>
although this is debated. There are many subspecies of A, of which
some are edible. The subspecies X is bla bla, Y is bla bla and Z is
bla bla.
<ref=Assont>The notion that A actually belongs to the genus
Scrubbicus, which is completely unrelated to B, is supported by a
small numbers of researchers including Thomas Tipp. Recently (June
2006), Salomon Smith and coworkers discovered new facts that support
this hypothesis although these data are controversial. </ref>

This version contains more precise information on how the text relates
to the sources used. Academic texts are not this precise with their
references, but those texts will not be shuffled about by several
people after the original author published it. Also, the academic
standard for annotation of sources within text was created for print
not the internet - they don't have the possibility.

/habj


from_name: François Patte

subject: [Wikitech-l] tex math does not work

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

Bonjour,

I try to put somme math formulae in a wiki text and the result is not
the one expected: the formula is displayed in teX notation
<math>\sqrt{2}</math> diplays \sqrt{2} in html...

thanks.
- --
Fran?ois Patte
UFR de math?matiques et informatique
Universit? Ren? Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFKNIWdE6C2dhV2JURAmI9AKCSx63FS2DUQPEYWJ072IPq2d4MJQCggJNA
j+Tn5T907505LVJhG3ewrTI=
=sm/S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Encyclopaedias ... how long do their entries need to
	be???

body:
This is a theme I always wanted to take up ... so now I wrote what I
think on my blog and I would like to know your thoughts.

-------- Original message --------

This is one of these questions. When it comes to wikipedia
<http://wikipedia.org> many people immediately think about long articles
about each topic. Considering the multitude of encyclopaedias you can
find in a book shop one thing is obvious: entries can range from one
sentence to full pages.

Now people often complain that the encyclopaedias of regional language's
wikipedias do have many stubs and just some long articles - well: I
would compare these to the kind of encyclopaedias that give you basic
information on many topics in just one or two volumes. I would not
compare them to the big ones like Britannica, Brockhaus etc.

Of course over time you will find single articles that get longer,
others will remain short for a long time, but ... well ... does it
really matter? I'd say no - because Wikipedia is not in concurrence with
anyone to my opinion - people put us into a concurrence position, but we
are not, because the way each language version is built and works is so
unique.

Fact is: one can only write about what he/she knows or translate ...
well being a professional translator I really avoid to translate also in
my free-time if I don't have to. Not having much time to contribute I
normally care about the almanac + some stubs related to the almanac ...
much more is not possible (see the main page
<http://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paggena_prencepale> of the Neapolitan
wikipdia for the historical events I normally work on). Another thing I
of course care about is notions on the city I live in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiori> and that in various languages.

Everyone of us editors have something particular they care about ... and
I believe that is great - and it is exactly what wikipedia is about:
collecting the knowledge of everybody and put it into one huge
encyclopaedia.

----

Originally posted on: http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your time!

Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Stephen Streater

body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:01, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> David Boothroyd wrote
>>
>>
>>> In February, blocked wrongly for a
>>> non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken
>>> an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was
>>> punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that
>>> was closed.
>>>
>>> Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was
>>> tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being
>>> dragged up again.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, you can have forgiving, and you can have transparent, but you
>> may not be able to have both at once.
>>
> Why not?
>
>>> 2) If ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status,
>>> excluding
>>> self-administered recalls, then how does it cope with low-level but
>>> persistent admin misbehaviour? ArbCom is much better at dealing with
>>> egregious single incidents.
>>>
>>>
>> But that comment is in tension with the previous point.
>>
>> If there is persistent incivility by someone, and there is a case
>> brought, then everything from the year dot can in principle be
>> brought up. Everyone should bear in mind that the site has an
>> elephant's memory.
>>
> Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than
> six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.

Wouldn't this allow people to never learn?
They could just start again every six months.


body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:07, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> "Parker Peters" wrote
>>
>>
>>> I am
>>> not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this
>>> time that
>>> you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
>>>
>>>
>> You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
>>
>> Can we throw this guy off the list now?
>>
> That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been
> saying.

Yes - even if he has behaved badly
in other contexts, and by publishing
a private email, people can still look
at his arguments with an open mind.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to clear the air re SlimVirgin's accusation.

body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:48, Nathan wrote:
>

> Thanks,
> Nathan (User:Nathanrdotcom)
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Are you nathandotcom or nathanrdotcom?


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Wikitech-l] tex math does not work

body:
Fran?ois Patte wrote:
> Bonjour,
>
> I try to put somme math formulae in a wiki text and the result is not
> the one expected: the formula is displayed in teX notation
> <math>\sqrt{2}</math> diplays \sqrt{2} in html...
>
> thanks.

Are you sure you installed the appropriate extension?

Filip


from_name: Will

body:
He's Nathanrdotcom

On 08/10/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:48, Nathan wrote:
> >
>
> > Thanks,
> > Nathan (User:Nathanrdotcom)
> > Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> Are you nathandotcom or nathanrdotcom?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Insight into users' behaviour

body:
Here's an extract of a conversation between myself and a friend which
(hopefully) highlights why good UI design is important to encourage
contributions.

[13:03] Roman: argh how do I upload a new version of an image without
re-typing all of that text on the upload form?
[13:04] Timwi: I don't think you need to retype it all
[13:04] Roman: i really expected an "upload new version" link on the
image page
[13:05] Roman: I can't expect it to preserve the text fields if I don't
type anything
[13:06] Roman: see, i wanted to make a tiny improvement to an image
that's already there, but now I won't do that because it's too hard


from_name: George Herbert

references:
<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<477AE57E-96FC-46E0-9728-B61861D63677@mac.com>
	<tcgii2dihuo0t3i2vrd8g366s9r9l9jiam@4ax.com>
	<42f90dc00610081156pc42e475t41e8d00e6e06cb3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<a5jii25nncikulrfqpa1pbnjls4lfu5ui9@4ax.com>

body:
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:56:03 -0700, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> I'm not very good at defusing tense situations either.  But I tend not
> to try.  Tony is, on the other hand, possessed of pretty good
> instincts in respect of content and has a long history of spotting and
> correcting obvious errors in the deletion process.

I think I saw Tony comment that only a few things he'd done for many
months had both truly required the admin bit and not been
controversial, and that he thought he could still do nearly as much
good, with much less controversy, without it.  I am hopeful that he
follows through and does stay actively involved.

I think we're clearly seeing a bunch of smoke settling from pushback
on "problem admins" getting very serious.

The results are a mixed bag - I would not have suggested Tony give up
his admin bit, I would not have recommended Kelly Martin leave,
especially given that she wasn't the source of the problem she got
caught up in.  I am quite glad that Fred came up with "No action taken
for excessive zeal" for the Arb case Mongo was caught in, and that
everyone including him accepted that after a bit more heat.

I certainly don't like some of the trolls taking this as some sort of
victory.  But complaints have been building for some time.

Ultimately, "customer service" skills are probably becoming
increasingly important for WP admins.  Part of that will be an
increasing need to step back from an incident and have someone else
handle it more often, rather than stay involved when it may be
increasing tension rather than reducing it.

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>OTOH, technology accumulates fanboys. I pay close attention to
>>[[:en:Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[:en:Casio Exilim]]. I particularly
>>keep the former in good shape because I buy and sell them on eBay
>>(which is how come I took the photos of quite a few of the camera
>>models) and the table full of model info is a fantastically useful
>>reference to *me*.
>>
>>
>Worth remembering.  It is hard to find a kind of product that SOMEONE
>isn't geeky about.  When researching what vacuum cleaner to buy, I
>found some really scary vacuum-cleaner nerds, including people who
>wired UK-compatible 240-volt sockets in American homes in order to use
>British appliances ...
>
That rewiring won't be that difficult if you accept the fact that North
American household voltage is 110 volts, which doubled will give 220
volts.  220 volt outlets are standard for air conditioners, kitchen
ranges and clothes dryers.  If you wire a kitchen outlet according to
code you will have a split circuit with one part at +110v. and the other
at -110v.  Joining the two will give 220v.

Proper 220v. outlets will have different pin configurations which also
vary according to the amperage to prevent having things plugged into the
wrong outlet.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


body:
On 10/8/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Stephen Streater wrote
>
> > If this project becomes boring,
> > interesting people won't contribute.
> >
> > There is a general distrust of dynamism,
> > and this is a cultural flaw here which I am
> > happy to do my bit to neutralise.
>
> There is something to this. We still need 'be bold!'. There are probably still substantial areas of content to open up, and the pioneers need something less plodding than just mumbling policy as a mantra.

I agree that there are large areas of content to open up which still
remain.  Materials science and engineering are areas I didn't really
know were as weak as they are until relatively recently (I didn't
really look at them all that much, i have all the reference books
memorized...), for one example.  I'm sure that others are noticing
such things around the edges.

Putting content in isn't boring me; the stress of some of the
"administrative stuff" is boring me, and I can't get away from paying
attention to that because things keep coming up which are arguably
important.

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


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

references:
<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061501q3e961858tb31c5415d5e735bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140610071531u4feceee5icb62f89b74254eee@mail.gmail.com>
	<46d9b7490610071651q58363448r3a2327d95a7b5cfc@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:51:16 -0500, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

>Except that the admin involved never went back and re-did the good edits.

Too bad.  Asking people to go back and check every single edit is just
multiplying the disruption caused by the idiots.  If editors on the
individual articles want to review and reinstate the rolled back edits
then that is up to them.

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


body:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:50:40 -0500, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

>The "original" account was claimed to be NoLongerScieno (blocked for
>"name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter.
>Possible sockpuppet? Certainly.
>Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe.
>Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to block for
>being a sockpuppet of a username block? Definitely.

I reviewed the edits of both accounts, 100% vandalism (POV-pushing).
Righteous block.  Next case, please.

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


from_name: Angela

body:
On 10/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> I just happened to get the muse for a topical song... enjoy!  (NOTE:
> This is my original work, and I hereby release it under GFDL in case
> anybody wants to make some sort of use of it.)

See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Web_Encyclopedia_Song

Angela.


body:
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> The major problem with SPUI is that he is utterly convinced that he is
> right.  This is fine as long as he is, it is unambiguous, and he can
> prove it.  As you say, he does not play well with others.

I suspect also if you could prove he was wrong, he'd be OK about it -
but that when it's a matter that is subjective, you cannot prove him
wrong.  I don't think his position on road naming was per se wrong -
both sides' positions were largely reasonable and sensible, but not
compatible.  It's simply that he saw absolutely no reason why he
should not get his way or accept a way he didn't see as ideal even if
it had more support.

> I'm not very good at defusing tense situations either.  But I tend not
> to try.  Tony is, on the other hand, possessed of pretty good
> instincts in respect of content and has a long history of spotting and
> correcting obvious errors in the deletion process.

Tony has good instincts when it comes to being on the right side of an
issue.  He's bad, however, at convincing others of it without pissing
them off.

-Matt


references:
<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610080923j175b507buc4613bc2824e2f4a@mail.gmail.com>
	<46d9b7490610080935j2f6c4eb1g51d525cc49f19c9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<apgii2lfrhdl058m2og9clubcdsss7ij0k@4ax.com>

body:
>
> >There are other edits I would consider POV pushing, but here's the thing:
> >that is NOT an excuse to institute an indefinite block. That's a reason
> to
> >teach the user about our policies and try to get them working as a
> >productive editor.
>
> Except that the username makes it perfectly plain that this is a
> reincarnation.

Then it should be blocked as a username block, and appropriate messages
sent, no?

That the blocking admin did nothing to inform the user of the fact that it
was a username block the first time, makes it problematic, no?

  I leave it to the admins active on that particular
> article to identify who is the puppet master here, but it is more than
> plausible that this is a lock-evading sock of an unrepentant POV
> pusher.

Plausible? Perhaps. But we Assume Good Faith here, not act trigger-happy on
anything we can come up with that we call "plausible."

  I recently had a very calm and civil discussion with an
> editor who got blocked in similar way, I asked his patience while we
> ran CheckUser and thanked him for it when I had enough evidence to
> unblock.

Nobody was civil to this user, and nobody asked his patience or anything;
they just went gung-ho attacking.

  The blocking admin was content to admit the mistake.

A rarity, but good to hear.

  It's nice to assume good faith, but sometimes when yet another "brand new
> user" pops up it can be asking a bit much.

It's policy.

  Sure, we make mistakes,
> but by far the most common mistake is extending too much benefit of
> the doubt to people who are simply not here to help build a neutral
> encyclopaedia.

I disagree. I think the most common mistake is the refusal to extend good
faith and the refusal to be civil in all instances.
 Parker


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com stated for the record:

> Stephen Streater wrote
>
>
>>It's easy
>>for long timers to forget that the system was
>>much simpler when they joined.
>
>
> To the extent of hardly being a system. No categories, for example. No 3RR. No ArbCom. I wasn't around when you could get to be an admin just by asking ... Wikimoney - might have some rarity value now, like Tsarist bonds ...

Admin, pshaw.  You could get on the /ArbComm/ just by volunteering.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot
 sean at epoptic.com | like women. You just have to read the manual
                  | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFKXLf/SVOiq2uhHMRAltlAJwOtJzviE6sxcvAIzWv00UM2wd8aACg72QU
r3NuXoxMS+pUEF2TbYiA4pc=
=IAp7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


references:
<46d9b7490610060531g2371021q8d9d37ed4805b9ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061501q3e961858tb31c5415d5e735bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>

body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 13:44, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:50:40 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The "original" account was claimed to be NoLongerScieno (blocked for
>> "name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter.
>> Possible sockpuppet? Certainly.
>> Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe.
>> Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to
>> block for
>> being a sockpuppet of a username block? Definitely.
>
> I reviewed the edits of both accounts, 100% vandalism (POV-pushing).
> Righteous block.  Next case, please.

The right to complain never meant
the right to get your way. The trick
is to stop complaining when you're
wrong, rather than to move around
annoying ever more people.

At least some of this discussion has
been interesting, but I still think the
system is less broken than some
people make out.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia

body:
Yorian wrote:
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to
> use content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
>  website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia
> as a source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is
> it okay to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very
> clear on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't
> answer this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I
> can't afford a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations

> If you want to use Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/web
> sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow
> the GFDL. If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you
> must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed
> at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying.
>
> If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content,
> this entails the following:
>
> * your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
> * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B),
> and
> * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material
> (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is any
> of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text,
> the html web pages, xml feed, etc.)
>
> You may be able to partially fulfill the latter two obligations by
> providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article
> hosted on this website. You also need to provide access to a
> transparent copy of the new text. However, please note that the
> Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship
> information and a transparent copy of articles. Therefore, you are
> encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent
> copy with your derived works.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061008/6a43a658/attachment.pgp


body:
Yorian wrote:
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to
> use content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
>  website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia
> as a source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is
> it okay to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very
> clear on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't
> answer this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I
> can't afford a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations

> If you want to use Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/web
> sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow
> the GFDL. If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you
> must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed
> at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying.
>
> If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content,
> this entails the following:
>
> * your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
> * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B),
> and
> * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material
> (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is any
> of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text,
> the html web pages, xml feed, etc.)
>
> You may be able to partially fulfill the latter two obligations by
> providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article
> hosted on this website. You also need to provide access to a
> transparent copy of the new text. However, please note that the
> Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship
> information and a transparent copy of articles. Therefore, you are
> encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent
> copy with your derived works.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061008/6a43a658/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Yorian wrote:
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to
> use content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
>  website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia
> as a source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is
> it okay to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very
> clear on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't
> answer this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I
> can't afford a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations

> If you want to use Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/web
> sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow
> the GFDL. If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you
> must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed
> at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying.
>
> If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content,
> this entails the following:
>
> * your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
> * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B),
> and
> * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material
> (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is any
> of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text,
> the html web pages, xml feed, etc.)
>
> You may be able to partially fulfill the latter two obligations by
> providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article
> hosted on this website. You also need to provide access to a
> transparent copy of the new text. However, please note that the
> Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship
> information and a transparent copy of articles. Therefore, you are
> encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent
> copy with your derived works.

Hope that helps,
--
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/20061008/6a43a658/attachment.pgp>


body:
Yorian wrote:
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to
> use content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
>  website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia
> as a source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is
> it okay to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very
> clear on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't
> answer this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I
> can't afford a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations

> If you want to use Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/web
> sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow
> the GFDL. If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you
> must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed
> at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying.
>
> If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content,
> this entails the following:
>
> * your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
> * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B),
> and
> * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material
> (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is any
> of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text,
> the html web pages, xml feed, etc.)
>
> You may be able to partially fulfill the latter two obligations by
> providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article
> hosted on this website. You also need to provide access to a
> transparent copy of the new text. However, please note that the
> Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship
> information and a transparent copy of articles. Therefore, you are
> encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent
> copy with your derived works.

Hope that helps,
--
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/20061008/6a43a658/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Richard Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<4526A4BA.20608@gmail.com> <45285D5F.9050607@hackish.org>
	<jmiii2p2cujpsck5ljacrif36d1pvoo1tc@4ax.com>

body:
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:07:27 -0400, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
> >> have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
> >> could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
> >> page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny
>
> >That seems kind of silly.
>
> Not at all.  The only way they can ensure that the "advertising value"
> of "their" article is not diluted is to delete it, what with this
> being a wiki and covered by GFDL.  Danny did the only thing which
> could possibly achieve their stated aim within policy.
>
> Guy (JzG)

So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?

-Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


subject: [Wikitech-l] tex math does not work

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

Filip Maljkovic a ?crit :
| Fran?ois Patte wrote:
|
|>Bonjour,
|>
|>I try to put somme math formulae in a wiki text and the result is not
|>the one expected: the formula is displayed in teX notation
|><math>\sqrt{2}</math> diplays \sqrt{2} in html...
|>
|>thanks.
|
|
| Are you sure you installed the appropriate extension?

In my browser? or in my prefences page? In this later case, i tried all
options... In the first question (browser) what extension? I'm using
galeon or firefox 1.5.

- --
Fran?ois Patte
UFR de math?matiques et informatique
Universit? Ren? Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFKP9bdE6C2dhV2JURAlSYAKDMkWA+ISVTmDOnlZA7fNHR+fIrzgCgpueV
ViHKmKQhDKwz55YETk5r+BM=
=iIRx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Vernes Seferovic

subject:
[Foundation-l] Bosnian WikiNews translations complete,
	ready for launch

body:
The Bosnian WikiNews translations have been completed by mostly myself
(User:Kseferovic) and another user (User:Emx). I ask that the Bosnian
WikiNews be launched. All of the text has been checked for spelling and
gramatical errors. We would like the typical domain (bs.wikinews.org) be
opened for us. Everything is complete from templates to pages. We are ready
for launch.

(The Pre-Launch site said we had to post here in order for the WikiNews to
be launched)

Thank you and Greetings, User:Kseferovic

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kseferovic

_________________________________________________________________
Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live
Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features


subject: [Foundation-l] Bosnian WikiNews (WikiVijesti) link

body:
I forgot to add the link to the Pre-Launch site:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_language_pre-launch#Bosnian

Thank you, User Kseferovic

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline


subject: [Wikitech-l] problems

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

bonjour,

I have many problems today:

1- footnotes are not working: blah blah blah<ref>coin coin coin</ref>
gives only one as an exposant after last "blah" and no footnote...

2- Whatever my efforts are to write while logged in, the result appears
as if I was "anonymous": only my today IP number is given....

This sucks me!

Thanks for help.

PS I try to finish some page on
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C4%81skara_II

- --
Fran?ois Patte
UFR de math?matiques et informatique
Universit? Ren? Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFFKQDWdE6C2dhV2JURAs/6AJ9phg5yE81S+jwQ1FOuWejrBxOIgwCYnnl8
N5Zkn1lQeLUnFrH2UGx/JA==
=xJ7z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
... Wait, who comes up with these? "Spongewilly Squarewheels"? ...
--NSLE

On 08/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> > On 10/8/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> >>> I just happened to get the muse for a topical song... enjoy!  (NOTE:
> >>> This is my original work, and I hereby release it under GFDL in case
> >>> anybody wants to make some sort of use of it.)
> >> See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Web_Encyclopedia_Song
> >
> > Or even http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editor's_Song or
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfA_Candidate's_Song
> >
>
> ... or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Song
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Wikitech-l] italic in links

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

Filip Maljkovic a ?crit :
| Fran?ois Patte wrote:
|
|>Bonjour,
|>
|>I have a problem that I can't solve: when I want to purt a word in
|>italic in a link, the link doesn't work anymore...
|>
|>ie.
|>
|>[[Contenu de la Lilavati]]  works
|>
|>[[Contenu de la ''Lilavati'']] doesn't work: iit is displayed "verbatim"
|>with the two square brackets and Lilavati is in italic though.
|>
|>Thank you.
|>
|
| That's expected. Syntax for italics can't be within a link like that.
| Try [[Contenu de la Lilavati|Contenu de la ''Lilavati'']]

This is a "half solution": the link is correct but not the title of the
page it refers to: italics do not appear in the title of the page.

- --
Fran?ois Patte
UFR de math?matiques et informatique
Universit? Ren? Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFKQIDdE6C2dhV2JURAkH8AJ9IllANKviQz+w07pUMQ+21ohgAWACgyAYK
efScpZ/PE66DzKJe7NPzPWE=
=flX0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] italic in links

body:
"Fran?ois Patte" a ?crit:
This is a "half solution": the link is correct but not the title of the
page it refers to: italics do not appear in the title of the page.

This is the expected behavior. The page title is unformatted text. And even
when we could expand it to the heading of the page, what would you do with
the browser title bar?


body:
"Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> There's an "Upload a new version of this file" link right there on the
> page, it's just a question of whether the current place is the best.
> Perhaps when looking at a media page, the "upload file" link in the
> toolbox could be replaced with or supplemented by a link to upload a
> new version?
>
> --
> Stephen Bain

I don't think this is the problem, but the fact that the image upload
summary automatically becomes the text of the new page, so users asume that
if they upload a new version, the new summary will replace the previous
text, which is not. So he wants to preserve the original text and thinks he
needs to retype all the image page text.
I have seen this but on the opposite way. People which want to update the
page text and reupload the same image over it (thus not changing it).

First upload: Text goes to summary and image page.
Next uploads: Text appears only on summary.

Platonides


subject: [Wikitech-l] problems

body:
"Fran?ois Patte" a ?crit:
>bonjour,

>I have many problems today:
>1- footnotes are not working: blah blah blah<ref>coin coin coin</ref>
gives only one as an exposant after last "blah" and no footnote...

You need to put <references/> on the place you want the footnotes to appear
e.g. after "Footnotes" but before "External links"

>2- Whatever my efforts are to write while logged in, the result appears
>as if I was "anonymous": only my today IP number is given....

Have you logged in? ("Cr?er un compte ou se connecter" on the top right
corner) Do you have cookies enabled?

Platonides


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Commons delinker for all wikis

body:
Platonides wrote:
> There's been for several weeks a request to run CommonsDelinker on all
> wikies,  exempted from local bot policies.
> As a second step after the CommonsTicker, it would go through the wikis to
> remove the redlinks produced by deleted images which are not properly
> removed. The object is avoiding commons admins to do the cleaning on the
> +700 wikis.
>
> Communities may give it or not the bot flag, as they want to have it shown
> or not. They can also reject it, but then it's up to them doing the
> delinking.
> Until now it has got strong support. If it isn't known in your wiki, you
> should probably inform them. No explicit notify will give them
> CommonsDelinker by default.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/CommonsDelinker
>
Hoi,
It may be that you have requested this somewhere. And it may be that
this was at this very mailinglist, but when you want to ask ALL the
wikis than it is an effort that is blind sided because there is more to
all these wikis than just wikipedia. I am sure that I did not notice
anything like this on the wiktionary mailing list.

Consequently I do not know how you measure support ..

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
I've copied this back to wikien-l, as some of this is going to get
more specific for en.wikipedia than the foundation, though there are
some points for both in my reply.  People may want to edit followups
if they're not cross-appropriate.

On 10/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>[...]
> Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
> paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
> that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.
> That's a very serious problem, especially in an era when we are seeing
> increasing attention paid to "how to manipulate wikipedia for the good
> of your client" by the lower dregs of the PR industry.

I think we've been missing something.

This is happening because of the law of supply and demand.  Wikipedia
is important enough now that companies see not being listed as being a
Real Problem.  Not really understanding Wikipedia, they're willing to
pay someone some money to fix that problem, and someone's willing to
accept money to do it.

I think that companies are right, that Wikipedia is important enough,
and not being listed is legitimately an actual marketing / PR /
customer information seeking problem for them.

So, what can we structurally do to resolve the problem that they're
seeking to use an ethically challenging commercial method to fix their
lack of entries?

I just went perusing through
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_Economics#Business

A lot of those are on first inspection not notable, but a lot of them
are quite notable.  How long have they been sitting on the list?

Should we give them a better entry point than wandering around, trying
to figure out what Requested Articles is and where it is, and then
figuring out how to add themselves to the list?

Would it be unethical for a business to charge $25 or $50 to add a
requested article entry, along with a bunch of reference source links,
but not create or edit an article directly?

Are en wikipedia's notability standards appropriate still?  There are
around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
loosened up?  Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
million total articles?  Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
enough notability?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>>> I just happened to get the muse for a topical song... enjoy!  (NOTE:
>>> This is my original work, and I hereby release it under GFDL in case
>>> anybody wants to make some sort of use of it.)
>> See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Web_Encyclopedia_Song
>
> Or even http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editor's_Song or
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfA_Candidate's_Song
>

... or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Song

--
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/20061008/a9c852ff/attachment.pgp


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 10/8/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > I just happened to get the muse for a topical song... enjoy!  (NOTE:
> > This is my original work, and I hereby release it under GFDL in case
> > anybody wants to make some sort of use of it.)
>
> See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Web_Encyclopedia_Song

Or even http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editor's_Song or
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfA_Candidate's_Song

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>Here's an extract of a conversation between myself and a friend which
>>(hopefully) highlights why good UI design is important to encourage
>>contributions.
>
> There's an "Upload a new version of this file" link right there on the
> page

I totally knew that someone would reply saying just that. I really don't
know how I could make myself any more clear. This is NOT about uploading
files. This is NOT about the presence or absence of any particular link.
This is about UI design in general, and how its neglection costs
Wikipedia contributions.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] italic in links

body:
Platonides wrote:
>
> This is the expected behavior. The page title is unformatted text.

It is possible to remove the page title (cf. Wikipedia [[Main Page]])
and then stick a

	= Contenu de la ''Lilavati'' =

at the top of the article.


body:
On 10/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Song

And just to make sure you have absolutely everything,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Humor_songs_and_poems

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Parker Peters" wrote

> You're spending a lot of time attacking the messenger. In my experience, the
> only time people do that is when they are afraid of the message.

I'm not at all afraid of the message, in the form that out of 1000 admins, some may not be doing it right.

> P.S. Take a chill pill, ok?

Yes, well some 'messengers' get attacked because they have annoying personalities. In my experience, that is. Or for top-posting, or bad threading, or not editing messages in such a way as to help the reader read them. Or in fact for a myriad things that get in the way of sensible discussion.

Charles

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


from_name: Stephen Streater

body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 17:35, Parker Peters wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=79117149
> - Information on the "free personality test" that the Church of
> Scientology
> uses. The same sources are used on the [[Oxford Capacity Analysis]]
> article
> we have, and the sources have not been challenged. I cannot in good
> conscience term this "vandalism" or "POV Pushing."

I took the "free" Scientology test. Taking it was free,
and then they marked it. They were very annoyed
when I wouldn't pay for the result.


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
The ISO-639 have terms of use..
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 10/8/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > The practice of using codes that are made up and that are not
> > distinguishable from ISO-639 codes is against the terms of use.
>
> "Terms of Use"?  Of *what?
>
> Cheers,
> -- j
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth
> jra at baylink.com
> Designer                          Baylink                             RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87
> e24
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647
> 1274
>
>         "That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
>           they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie;
> _Fast_Women_
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton"
> <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
>
> Nope.  Fleshlight demand editorial control.  We can't give them that.
> The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being
> ruined is by not carrying it.

Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's
"advertising value"?

--
== 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: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
On 10/8/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> It used to be, someone who'd been around and reliable had a shot.
>

Still true.

> Now, you have to get some group behind you (a pov pushing group or
> otherwise) to pad the vote count,

not so.

> you have to have not raised the ire of
> certain self-proclaimed "vandal fighters" by contradicting their
> trigger-happy and incivil behavior,

How long have you been a Bobby Boulders sock?

> and you have to satisfy an increasingly
> mind-bogglingly high edit count requirement.
>

nah that has been pretty steady for months.

> But every time we bring this up, the debate goes on for about a week, and
> then it vanishes and nothing is ever done.

Well of course. So far it appears that RFA is the worst system except
for all the others.

--
geni


references:
<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061501q3e961858tb31c5415d5e735bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<477AE57E-96FC-46E0-9728-B61861D63677@mac.com>

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:06:40 +0100, Stephen Streater
<sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:

>At least some of this discussion has
>been interesting, but I still think the
>system is less broken than some
>people make out.

I agree.  Also, it is easier to fix from within than by taking
pot-shots from the sidelines. Mind, I'm rather disquieted by what has
happened to Tony Sidaway of late, and I'm not sure how I feel about
the way the project can apparently no longer accommodate SPUI,
although I suspect that may be just a fit of pique at losing a
long-running and very heated argument.

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


body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 19:27, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:06:40 +0100, Stephen Streater
> <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> At least some of this discussion has
>> been interesting, but I still think the
>> system is less broken than some
>> people make out.
>
> I agree.  Also, it is easier to fix from within than by taking
> pot-shots from the sidelines. Mind, I'm rather disquieted by what has
> happened to Tony Sidaway of late, and I'm not sure how I feel about
> the way the project can apparently no longer accommodate SPUI,
> although I suspect that may be just a fit of pique at losing a
> long-running and very heated argument.

I suppose it shows peer pressure works.

Unfortunately, it's also another step towards
blandness. If this project becomes boring,
interesting people won't contribute.

There is a general distrust of dynamism,
and this is a cultural flaw here which I am
happy to do my bit to neutralise.


body:
On 10/8/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's also another step towards
> blandness.

Don't worry there are still plently of ah interesting editors around
some of them admins.

--
geni


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 10/8/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The ISO-639 have terms of use..

"Terms of use" generally indicates some kind of binding agreement.  It
would be better to say that the practice is against standards or
nonconformant or something.


references:
<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610080923j175b507buc4613bc2824e2f4a@mail.gmail.com>
	<46d9b7490610080935j2f6c4eb1g51d525cc49f19c9d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:35:04 -0500, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

>There are other edits I would consider POV pushing, but here's the thing:
>that is NOT an excuse to institute an indefinite block. That's a reason to
>teach the user about our policies and try to get them working as a
>productive editor.

Except that the username makes it perfectly plain that this is a
reincarnation.  I leave it to the admins active on that particular
article to identify who is the puppet master here, but it is more than
plausible that this is a lock-evading sock of an unrepentant POV
pusher.  I recently had a very calm and civil discussion with an
editor who got blocked in similar way, I asked his patience while we
ran CheckUser and thanked him for it when I had enough evidence to
unblock.  The blocking admin was content to admit the mistake.  It's
nice to assume good faith, but sometimes when yet another "brand new
user" pops up it can be asking a bit much.  Sure, we make mistakes,
but by far the most common mistake is extending too much benefit of
the doubt to people who are simply not here to help build a neutral
encyclopaedia.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:07:27 -0400, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
wrote:

>> Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
>> have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
>> could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
>> page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny

>That seems kind of silly.

Not at all.  The only way they can ensure that the "advertising value"
of "their" article is not diluted is to delete it, what with this
being a wiki and covered by GFDL.  Danny did the only thing which
could possibly achieve their stated aim within policy.

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


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton"
> > <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
> >
> > Nope.  Fleshlight demand editorial control.  We can't give them that.
> > The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being
> > ruined is by not carrying it.
>
> Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's
> "advertising value"?
>

We don't.

In addition, this sets a pretty bad precedent. What if GM comes along and
demands the same, on the grounds that our coverage of certain events in the
past hurts the "advertising value" of their automobiles?

I'd rather set the precedent that a company with an entry has no control and
has no grounds to have anything other than basic vandalism-protection (such
as permanent semiprotect) than to go along deleting entries based on this
kind of thing.

I know Danny had the right intentions, I just don't agree with the decision.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser

body:
The new rules at CheckUser demand a code letter.  The code letters
available *do not* include checking the identity of apparent socks
being used to astroturf a POV.  I have no problem with requiring
credible evidence before asking for CheckUser but it does rather
stymie the process of confirming sockpuppetry outside of closed votes.

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


references:
<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>
	<477AE57E-96FC-46E0-9728-B61861D63677@mac.com>
	<tcgii2dihuo0t3i2vrd8g366s9r9l9jiam@4ax.com>
	<42f90dc00610081156pc42e475t41e8d00e6e06cb3d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:56:03 -0700, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I hope SPUI will be back; he doesn't play well with others, but he is
>a fountain of knowledge about what he's interested in.  I also don't
>particularly like the way I've seen people justify dismissing him as a
>'troll' and thus unworthy of respect.

The major problem with SPUI is that he is utterly convinced that he is
right.  This is fine as long as he is, it is unambiguous, and he can
prove it.  As you say, he does not play well with others.

>Tony - well, I'll be circumspect about that case, but - Tony is not
>good at defusing tense situations, and he's  demonstrated that
>repeatedly.

I'm not very good at defusing tense situations either.  But I tend not
to try.  Tony is, on the other hand, possessed of pretty good
instincts in respect of content and has a long history of spotting and
correcting obvious errors in the deletion process.

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


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser

body:
On 08/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> The new rules at CheckUser demand a code letter.  The code letters
> available *do not* include checking the identity of apparent socks
> being used to astroturf a POV.  I have no problem with requiring
> credible evidence before asking for CheckUser but it does rather
> stymie the process of confirming sockpuppetry outside of closed votes.

Wasn't discussed on checkuser-l, but I can fully understand Uninvited
going ahead and setting it up that way. If you think as "requests for
checkuser" as "requests for magic wiki pixie dust truth serum" you
will get a better idea. (And the solution isn't more checkers.)

I've noted on [[WT:RFCU]] that it may or may not need its own code
letter, as WP:ANI is a less than satisfactory place to send requests
of that sort. Also cc'ing this to checkuser-l.

- d.


body:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 21:32, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

> Stephen Streater wrote
>
>> If this project becomes boring,
>> interesting people won't contribute.
>>
>> There is a general distrust of dynamism,
>> and this is a cultural flaw here which I am
>> happy to do my bit to neutralise.
>
> There is something to this. We still need 'be bold!'. There are
> probably still substantial areas of content to open up, and the
> pioneers need something less plodding than just mumbling policy as
> a mantra.

I'd like something along the lines of:
an editor should expect to come across
the existence of one existing policy or
guideline for the first time every 100
or so edits.

If we have too steep or long a learning
curve - by for example needing to know
fifty pages of policy, guidelines and process
to get started - content people will be put off
at the expense of process people. It's easy
for long timers to forget that the system was
much simpler when they joined.


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
I have some serious problems with all of this.

The article was created in 2004, and its first version was obviously
not advertising. It had three AfDs deciding to keep it.

I recognize that the company's demand of editorial control absolutely
cannot be met. But I am gravely concerned that the Foundation
Office's response to such a demand is to delete the page outright and
salt the earth. Whether we keep an article or not should not be based
on whether the article's subject has been a problem for us. The
community has repeatedly indicated a desire to keep [[Fleshlight]],
and the claim that the page was created for promotional purposes is
demonstrably untrue. For the Office to unilaterally delete it marks
an unfortunate and dangerous turning point in the relationship
between the Office and the community.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >

On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton"
>> <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the
>>> page?
>>
>> Nope.  Fleshlight demand editorial control.  We can't give them that.
>> The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being
>> ruined is by not carrying it.
>
> Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's
> "advertising value"?
>
> --
> == 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Dan Li

subject: [Wikitech-l] Opening a WP page in a frame

body:
On 10/8/06, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the reason for this behavior...

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7431#c1

> ...and what's the easiest way to get around it?

Not sure. Open a new window or maybe even load the content with XMLHttpRequest?

Regards,
  - Dan Li


body:
Stephen Streater wrote

> If this project becomes boring,
> interesting people won't contribute.
>
> There is a general distrust of dynamism,
> and this is a cultural flaw here which I am
> happy to do my bit to neutralise.

There is something to this. We still need 'be bold!'. There are probably still substantial areas of content to open up, and the pioneers need something less plodding than just mumbling policy as a mantra.

Charles

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


body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:25:57 -0500, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Except that the username makes it perfectly plain that this is a
>> reincarnation.
>Then it should be blocked as a username block, and appropriate messages
>sent, no?

No.  A username block is for an inappropriate username.  This block
was for inappropriate behaviour.  And to be honest I don't see a lot
of point in arguing about it anyway - it's a difference which makes no
difference.

>Nobody was civil to this user, and nobody asked his patience or anything;
>they just went gung-ho attacking.

Except that the edit history shows nothing but tendentious editing,
and the username strongly implies that this is a reincarnation of
another (presumably banned as tendentious) editor.  Blocking stops the
problem behaviour, and there was no evident good editing to be lost by
blocking.  So arguing about it is pointless: it's a righteous block of
a POV pushing vandal.  And if by some miracle the problem editor
repents we can always unblock.  Do not forget the stress and
inconvenience caused to other editors by POV-pushing vandals, or the
angst caused by well-meaning editors trying hard to accommodate the
views of POV-pushing vandals trying to insert ridiculously biased
content.  POV warriors are a plague on the project and we should cheer
loudly every time we hound one out.

>  It's nice to assume good faith, but sometimes when yet another "brand new
>> user" pops up it can be asking a bit much.

>It's policy.

Policy does not require us to be naive in the face of the blindingly
obvious.

>I disagree. I think the most common mistake is the refusal to extend good
>faith and the refusal to be civil in all instances.

So you say.  I believe otherwise.  Feel free to begin a debate on the
admins' noticeboard, which is in my view the appropriate venue for
philosophical debate about admin actions in the abstract.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] tex math does not work

body:
You need to install an extension for it if you're trying it on your own
wiki. If you are talking about a wikimedia project, it's already installed.
On your preferences, you should try  "Toujours produire une image PNG" (at
least until it works).
You may be gettting the Tex because your browser doesn't display the image
( \sqrt{2} is the alternative content for the image). Your browser should be
configured to display images, even from external sites (if not, you won't be
able to see any image, so you would have noticed :P ).
Check you can see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/f/5/ef5590434a387b3c4427e09d5b08baaf.png
Sometimes filters block some images.

And i do see it http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Platonides  :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton"
<richholton at gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
>> >> have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
>> >> could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
>> >> page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny

>> Not at all.  The only way they can ensure that the "advertising value"
>> of "their" article is not diluted is to delete it, what with this
>> being a wiki and covered by GFDL.  Danny did the only thing which
>> could possibly achieve their stated aim within policy.

>So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?

Nope.  Fleshlight demand editorial control.  We can't give them that.
The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being
ruined is by not carrying it.

I was going to include a comment along the lines of us making a better
fist of it than them, but thought better of it...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:20:17 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> The new rules at CheckUser demand a code letter.  The code letters
>> available *do not* include checking the identity of apparent socks
>> being used to astroturf a POV.  I have no problem with requiring
>> credible evidence before asking for CheckUser but it does rather
>> stymie the process of confirming sockpuppetry outside of closed votes.

>Wasn't discussed on checkuser-l, but I can fully understand Uninvited
>going ahead and setting it up that way. If you think as "requests for
>checkuser" as "requests for magic wiki pixie dust truth serum" you
>will get a better idea. (And the solution isn't more checkers.)

I don't have any problem bringing along the correct type of shrubbery,
but excluding astroturfing socks outside of !votes seems to be
shooting ourselves in the foot; if anything, astroturfing a viewpoint
in mainspace is *more* damaging to the project than it is in a !vote,
especially since in a !vote such actions are usually pretty
transparent.

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


body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:56:35 -0700, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> I'm not very good at defusing tense situations either.  But I tend not
>> to try.  Tony is, on the other hand, possessed of pretty good
>> instincts in respect of content and has a long history of spotting and
>> correcting obvious errors in the deletion process.

>Tony has good instincts when it comes to being on the right side of an
>issue.  He's bad, however, at convincing others of it without pissing
>them off.

Most of the time I think they needed to be pissed off.  The people
Tony aggravated are, in many cases, process wonks, adhering to process
in the face of a self-evidently bad result for the project. What Tony
did was in effect to point out the absurdity of their position; yes he
did it in a confrontational way (I think he likes a bit of drama,
myself) but I almost invariably found his reasoning entirely
persuasive.

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


from_name: Nyenyec N

body:
Hi,

I'm working on a tool that helps automating aspects of image license
checking in Wikipedia (developing it for HuWiki).

The idea is to show an unchecked image page in a frame and a list of
available actions in another frame.

However I realized that it's not straightforward to show a Wikipedia
page in a frame at all, it automatically takes over the top frame
after loading.

I've seen that
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Flacus/Wikipedia_Interwiki-Link-Checker/en
does some dark magic rewriting the page contents but do I have to do that too?

What's the reason for this behavior and what's the easiest way to get around it?

Thanks,
nyenyec

Example:

<html>
<frameset rows="50%,50%">
  <frame src="about:blank" />
  <frame src="http://en.wikipedia.org" />
</frameset>
</html>


body:
"Gerard Meijssen" wrote:
> Hoi,
> It may be that you have requested this somewhere. And it may be that
> this was at this very mailinglist, but when you want to ask ALL the
> wikis than it is an effort that is blind sided because there is more to
> all these wikis than just wikipedia. I am sure that I did not notice
> anything like this on the wiktionary mailing list.
>
> Consequently I do not know how you measure support ..
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM

Support is measured as the as the votes given on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/CommonsDelinker

I wasn't the was which requested it, I simply gave this up here as this is
the international mailing list, trying to reach as many projects as
possible. This also appeared on Wikizine 43.
You are encouraged to copy this into the wiktionary mailing list, and
wikisource's, and wikinews, wikiuniversity... and also on your local
language (please translate!) wikials-l, wikiar-l, wikida-l, wikide-l,
wikien-l, wikieo-l, wikies-l, wikifi-l, wikifr-l, wikihi-l, wikiia-l,
wikiis-l, wikiit-l, wikija-l, wikimk-l, wikinl-l, wikino-l, wikipl-l,
wikiru-l, wikisa-l, wikisv-l, wikita-l, wikiskan-l And also on as many
hundreds of Village pumps as you want.

No matter what is done, there will still be wikis not noticing. So the
support must be measured from those which spoke at time...
In fact, there wasn't necessary to inform all the wikis or get ther support.
This could arrive as do all the software updates. Trunk has updates everyday
and communities are not asked if they want each revision or not.

If you can improve it, please explain how. I see you message quite obscure:
"you are doing this wrong" :S


body:
On 08/10/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:

> If we have too steep or long a learning
> curve - by for example needing to know
> fifty pages of policy, guidelines and process
> to get started - content people will be put off
> at the expense of process people. It's easy
> for long timers to forget that the system was
> much simpler when they joined.

I came along in early 2004 and am reluctant to call myself a "long
timer", but I seem to be compared to many. It seemed a lot simpler.

Policy and process has to be trivially derivable from the very few
fundamental processes, or people won't be able to remember it. NPOV,
NOR, V, AGF, NPA. And let's add BITE. That's six pieces of jargon, but
six is enough to remember. Six fundamental policies, you could write
above your monitor for continuous reference.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

>"Parker Peters" wrote
>
>
>>P.S. Take a chill pill, ok?
>>
>>
>Yes, well some 'messengers' get attacked because they have annoying personalities. In my experience, that is. Or for top-posting, or bad threading, or not editing messages in such a way as to help the reader read them. Or in fact for a myriad things that get in the way of sensible discussion.
>
I can see where some of these practices can be annoying, but when you
let them take on a priority greater than the "sensible discussion" you
condemn yourself to not understanding anything.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser

references:
<jtiii25vd3p70k2gu9muiebok6027u29j0@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140610081220w3bb2e8e1uc7a5ac6dacc205d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<oqqii2ti724uaa6que5kpir1l47udpb3cf@4ax.com>

body:
On 08/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> I don't have any problem bringing along the correct type of shrubbery,
> but excluding astroturfing socks outside of !votes seems to be
> shooting ourselves in the foot; if anything, astroturfing a viewpoint
> in mainspace is *more* damaging to the project than it is in a !vote,
> especially since in a !vote such actions are usually pretty
> transparent.

I think Uninvited is on this list ...

(<whisper>If you're a known not-batshit person, some checkers will
listen to important requests</whisper>)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>It used to be, someone who'd been around and reliable had a shot.
>
>Now, you have to get some group behind you (a pov pushing group or
>otherwise) to pad the vote count, you have to have not raised the ire of
>certain self-proclaimed "vandal fighters" by contradicting their
>trigger-happy and incivil behavior, and you have to satisfy an increasingly
>mind-bogglingly high edit count requirement.
>
>But every time we bring this up, the debate goes on for about a week, and
>then it vanishes and nothing is ever done.
>
Did you seriously expect that it would be otherwise this time?  Cleaning
it up will take bold and courageous action by someone of fairly high
stature.

Ec


from_name: François Patte

subject: [Wikitech-l] problems

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

Platonides a ?crit :
| "Fran?ois Patte" a ?crit:
|
|>bonjour,
|
|
|>I have many problems today:
|>1- footnotes are not working: blah blah blah<ref>coin coin coin</ref>
|
| gives only one as an exposant after last "blah" and no footnote...
|
|
| You need to put <references/> on the place you want the footnotes to
appear
| e.g. after "Footnotes" but before "External links"

OK! this is solved.

|
|
|>2- Whatever my efforts are to write while logged in, the result appears
|>as if I was "anonymous": only my today IP number is given....
|
|
| Have you logged in? ("Cr?er un compte ou se connecter" on the top right
| corner) Do you have cookies enabled?

Yes everything is fine: I logged in, I have a "cookies enabled"
configuration... I think that the problem comes from "Tab" navigation,
often, I use a new tab to see (or modify) a page, maybe in that case the
fact that I am logged in does not follow to the new opened tab...

- --
Fran?ois Patte
UFR de math?matiques et informatique
Universit? Ren? Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFKWx/dE6C2dhV2JURAkneAKCDa4pBLk/+gVjEMVv6r5krwL0gmgCgqHSg
5n8Z500+spycuSfX7JdWEZ4=
=GIUL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 10/8/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Here's an extract of a conversation between myself and a friend which
> (hopefully) highlights why good UI design is important to encourage
> contributions.

There's an "Upload a new version of this file" link right there on the
page, it's just a question of whether the current place is the best.
Perhaps when looking at a media page, the "upload file" link in the
toolbox could be replaced with or supplemented by a link to upload a
new version?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>David's action that I questioned was only the most recent example. And I
>will make no apologies for questioning a user's conduct, because we are
>supposed to question conduct that we don't agree with.
>
My own complaint about the David reference had nothing to do with the
specific differences.  It's really a problem with examples generally.

When one undertakes to talk about a serious problem and uses a reference
to an incident with a specific person, an unfortunately large proportion
of readers will glom onto the personal reference and talk about it to
the exclusion of the point one is trying to make.

Ec


body:
Stephen Streater wrote

> It's easy
> for long timers to forget that the system was
> much simpler when they joined.

To the extent of hardly being a system. No categories, for example. No 3RR. No ArbCom. I wasn't around when you could get to be an admin just by asking ... Wikimoney - might have some rarity value now, like Tsarist bonds ...

Charles

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


body:
Stephen Streater wrote:

>On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Parker Peters" wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am
>>>>not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this
>>>>time that you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
>>>
>>>Can we throw this guy off the list now?
>>>
>>>
>>That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been
>>saying.
>>
>>
>Yes - even if he has behaved badly
>in other contexts, and by publishing
>a private email, people can still look
>at his arguments with an open mind.
>
Exactly, and tossing somebody from the list also tosses out any
possibility of finding a consensus because a significant POV in the
argument would be missing

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
On 08/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Alison Wheeler wrote:

> >Whilst it might be accurate I doubt it wuold be sensible. Those who hadn't
> >thought of it might see this clause and believe we were condoning such
> >activity and go search for someone whereas before they might not have even
> >thought of it.

> There is that.  :-)
> In a broader context, rules that prohibit relatively uncommon behaviours
> can be an inspiration to evildoers.

[[WP:BEANS]]

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser

references:
<jtiii25vd3p70k2gu9muiebok6027u29j0@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140610081220w3bb2e8e1uc7a5ac6dacc205d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<oqqii2ti724uaa6que5kpir1l47udpb3cf@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140610081519h70919363h9c8d8c1ee0bc8c84@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:19:22 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>(<whisper>If you're a known not-batshit person, some checkers will
>listen to important requests</whisper>)

I've only had one situation where what I thought was a reasonable
request was turned down, and that was a user who was pleading
innocence, and CheckUser would likely have cleared them.  In the end
the blocking admin and I agreed that an unblock was OK, but it would
have been quicker and clearer with CheckUser.  As to whether I am
batshit or not, that rather depends on the phase of the moon...

The reason for the comment is that a good-faith editor has come to me
for advice regarding apparent astroturfing by what look very much like
socks of a non-banned editor.   Remembering back to the Jason Gastrich
case, we had several socks confirmed by CheckUser and blocked, and
that formed an important part of the ArbCom case.

As stated before, I think it is wholly reasonable to require credible
evidence of a case to be answered.

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


body:
Stephen Streater wrote:

>On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:01, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But that comment is in tension with the previous point.
>>>
>>>If there is persistent incivility by someone, and there is a case
>>>brought, then everything from the year dot can in principle be
>>>brought up. Everyone should bear in mind that the site has an
>>>elephant's memory.
>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than
>>six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.
>>
>>
>Wouldn't this allow people to never learn?
>They could just start again every six months.
>
Sometimes.  Remember though that the really bad actors will have enough
activity in the last six months so that we won't need to go back any
further.

Acting badly, going away for six months, and coming back with the same
silliness probably takes more self-discipline than most of the bad ones
have.

We all have moments when we lose it and call our opponent a stupid
asshole, but not on any regular basis.  What should concern us most are
the ones who show a regular pattern of abuse.

Ec


subject:
[Foundation-l] Ensuring veracity of articles based on
	print	sources

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew Gray wrote
>>
>>>It would be simpler just to toss the name into copac.ac.uk or
>>>catalog.loc.gov and see if it appears! But this still doesn't tell us
>>>anything beyond "I am claiming this book supports me".
>>>
>>>
>>Absolutely!   And that claim is only sometimes a hoax.  It can as easily
>>be a good-faith misinterpretation of the information.
>>
>>
>But of course.
>
>The problem is, the original proposal here was to deal with people
>making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith action. But the suggested
>system is a system that is equally suceptible to being gamed in
>bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a false claim with regards
>to a reputable (but hard to identify) work. Done.
>
>So instituting this system wouldn't deal with the bad-faith people in
>any way, and just create vast amounts of (admittedly automatible, but
>still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't really help the
>project, it just plasters around the original problem...
>
>
>>>It still doesn't get past the fact that I belive David when he says
>>>"This band does indeed appear on page seventeen of Australian Indie
>>>Rock Monthly, August 1979", but am slightly less inclined to believe
>>>the unknown chap claiming he's found something earthshattering in a
>>>1937 issue of a Russian underground newspaper...
>>>
>>>
>>It takes a long time to build trust, and there are still many long
>>standing Wikipedians whose judgement I would question on some issues but
>>I would trust on others.  I'm sure we all keep personal lists of that
>>source.  The newbie who quotes the 1937 Russian newspaper in support of
>>his point could very well be right.  It would a gross assumption of bad
>>faith to reject his citation solely on the basis that he is a newbie.
>>
>>
>Oh, indeed. It's just... there's a difference between "assuming good
>faith" and "assuming trust"
>
To me what it all comes down to is that absolutely everything needs to
be fact checked and re-checked, but that may be a total impossibility.
So we have to priorize our checking.  Counterintuitive material,.
negative comments about a person and familiarity with the author are all
going to be factors in establishing our priorities.  From the checker's
perspective, familiarity with the subject matter and access to sources
are also going to be factors.

Ec


references:
<egaq0d$l7s$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f30e42de0610080633j7c91f7a2y3d2f5e86d61e56ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<egb9bm$2f0$1@sea.gmane.org> <egbvjt$k6$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 08/10/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Our upload interface came under some heavy criticism from a usability expert
> at Wikimania hacking days. The point was well taken by the dev team, and we
> discussed ways to improve it at the time. In particular, we proposed to
> implement a wizard-style interface allowing upload to either commons or the
> local wiki.
> The timeframe for implementing this is probably on the order of months,
> assuming it's left to me to implement. I have some other things to do first.

Obviously, the volunteers to implement it have of course posted to the
thread just before you ;-p

- d.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-09

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

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 Template infinite loop... 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: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 420 of 437 tests (96.11%) FAILED!