subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In such an event, what would we do? Semi-protect the entire
> > encyclopedia? Lock the database and quickly install a version control
> > thing, like the germans? Is there anything else? Let's face it,
> > wikipedia is a high-profile target, we need to consider such things.
> >
> > --Oskar
>
> [[WP:BEANS]]

Ohh, no, there can't possibly be any bad person in the world who has
ever heard of a DDoS attack! They don't exist! Infact, I just invented
the term!

> But we don have quite a number of different defence options that would
> handle the senario you talk about.

Like what? This is what I was wondering about. In such an event, is
there any way to defend ourselves and still be the same encyclopedia.


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] Royal Society archives online until December

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1373
>
> Everything back to 1665. Really quite a lot of which is public domain.
> Get downloading.
>

They're also available on JSTOR, if you're at an educational institution.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061011/72a1ea80/attachment.pgp


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> >> But we don have quite a number of different defence options that would
> >> handle the senario you talk about.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Well, we'd certainly turn on the registration captcha, for one thing.

Ehmm, yeah, ehmm, that was pretty obvious

(/me hides in a corner from embarresment)

--Oskar


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]: a proposal

body:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> I don't see it replacing the prescriptive
> policies, but it certainly augments them well.

I was of the same impression early today, but after engaging and
contributing to the proposal, I see great potential and merit in this
attempt, at this point.

-- Jossi


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Liz Kim

subject: [Wikitech-l] !! edit tool bar missing on safari !!

body:
The reason we are unable to upgrade is because of the required php version.
I am not capable of upgrading php on our system.
Any other ways to work around this at all?
Thank you all

On 10/11/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Liz Kim wrote:
> > I am using
> > Mac OS 10.4.8
> > Safari 2.0.4
> > Mediawiki 1.6.7
> >
> > After googling, I found
> > this:http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4663..
> > Seems that it was fixed after 1.6?
>
> You're two major versions behind. Upgrade if you want to see fixes and
> features
> since then.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] Wikinews language coordinator needed

body:
On 10/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But I am not so happy with the concept of a board member deciding to
> delegate a task which is entirely under commmunity oversight.

It was not meant to be a Board-level delegation, but a community
hand-over the way you describe it. Sorry if that was unclear.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
On 10/11/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Following up from a discussion on unblock-en-l...
> >
> > How much effort would it be to add an enhancement to treat blocked
> > user redlink clicks like we currently treat anon user redlink clicks
> > when anon article creation is disabled?
> >
> > We're trying to minimize the number of people who are fundamentally
> > just readers, who click on a redlink and see a block message (mostly
> > AOL users, but it happens to others).  If they click on the "edit" bar
> > and get it, that's fine, but if the default redlink behavior didn't
> > show the block message then that would be great.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> I don't think it would be appropriate to just say "you can't create
> this article because you aren't logged in", when there are more
> reasons as well.  That would imply to the user that if they *did* log
> in, they'd be allowed to create the article, which isn't the case.
> They need to be informed that they've been blocked, preferably as well
> as any other reasons they can't do stuff.

The problem here is that a lot of people "are blocked" who really aren't
specifically... anyone at AOL who hasn't already created a WP account and
consistently logging in, for example, is blocked from editing a significant
fraction of the time, due to rolling AOL vandal IP blocks.

Telling them that they're blocked if they click "Edit" is fine; that's a
clear positive action intending to edit something.

A lot of requests that come in to unblock-en-l are AOL people who had
clicked on a redlink and thought they'd been blocked from reading.

It's not really denying info to a really blocked person; most of the time an
"editor" goes to edit something, they don't start by clicking on a redlink
to create a new article.  A small fraction of the time, yes, but not most of
the time.

I think that accepting that a small fraction of the time, some blocked users
will hit a redlink and stumble a bit more before they find out that they're
blocked, while making nearly all the AOL complaints simply go away, would be
a strong net positive.

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


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 6464

body:
"Travis Derouin" wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions about this bug?
>
> http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6464
>
> More and more users on our site are experiencing it and actually are
> able to edit articles as other users. I can't reproduce it myself,
> unfortunately.
>
> Thanks,
> Travis

I can only suggest you to catch as many data about it as you can. User ids,
sessids, times... If they happen at peak hours, or more or less each X time,
how are the users pairs (afaik it happens on couples)... Bugs hard to
reproduce are very difficult to solve, you know.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com> <452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com> <452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> But "the comparison is simply invalid" was _my_ point. Why are you
>> taking the reasons for pipe organs being important enough to include in
>> an enclopedia and checking to see whether they also apply to a _sex
>> toy_, of all things? It can't possibly apply in a meaningful way.
>
> You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.

But you were the one who took that comparison and said

> I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
> recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
> the fleshlight.  Organists are notable, wankers are not.

You were using the pipe organ article's "justification for existence" to
evaluate sex toys, which is in itself silly regardless of who originally
brought pipe organs up.

>> I don't know. My point is that this was something for interested editors
>> to decide via the standard mechanisms (talk pages, AfD, etc), and that
>> Danny was flat-out wrong to unilaterally deleted it like he did.
>
> Or not, depending.  There is, after all, no measurable damage to
> Wikipedia's reputation from *not* having an article over which two
> apparent spammers are fighting.

Try deleting articles that survive AfD using the argument that it causes
"no measurable damage" _without_ having confusion over OFFICE to stay
the hand of other admins and see how many you can get through before
being reverted.

IMO the mere existence of this current firestorm of controversy and
confusion is evidence enough that something went seriously wrong here.
We should be trying to avoid this kind of thing.

>> Considering that the article was kept by AfD, which I consider to be
>> deletionism-leaning in general, it seems likely to me that there is more
>> to this article than just advertising.
>
> Afd is absolutely not deletionist when it comes to sexcruft.

"Deletionist" is a subjective measure, which is why I made sure to
include "I consider" in that sentence to qualify it.

>> Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?
>
> I think he had them.  Spammers edit warring over product placement.

This is not a criterion for speedy deletion. In the case of an ongoing
edit war just protect the article and wait for the dust to settle before
deciding what to do next.

>> As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is
>> entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.
>
> No, it's always best to wait for clarification.  There is no deadline
> to meet.

Once again, this is _my_ point. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/bf26feae/attachment.pgp


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>
	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>
	<452D2D1C.80003@epoptic.com>

body:
On 10/11/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
> > We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
> > level of human compassion.
>
> {{citation needed}}

[[Social contract]]

To ignore our basic obligations to society would be unconscionable.

Fortunately: our fundamental principles, such as NPOV, align
reasonably well with our obligations to the greater world we live
within.

Were this not the case our efforts would have been predestined to
failure from the beginning.  Man can tolerate many things including
things which disrespect man kind, but this tolerance is always finite.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com> <452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com> <452D1F21.30701@shaw.ca>
	<djrqi2tv4nq0qjriafp80vehrpdpclqjg4@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:43:13 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
>>> level of human compassion.
>
>> Since when? Perhaps you're thinking of Wikinfo's "sympathetic point of
>> view" policy, which is incompatible with NPOV and IIRC the reason why
>> Wikinfo split.
>
> Since Jimbo started wading in and upping the stakes on WP:LIVING.  And
> there is absolutely nothing wring with that.  We recently deleted
> Gregory Lauder-Frost precisely because of that.

There is nothing in that policy about "compassion." "Sensitivity" is
used a number of times, but as far as I see the context implies it means
"be careful" rather than "be nice". Then there's this:

> The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding
> both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

But perhaps most importantly, even if it _did_ mandate that we be
"compassionate" to the subject of the article, this policy doesn't
actually apply to [[Fleshlight]]. Since when is a sex toy a "living person"?

Okay, perhaps this being the Internet and all I shouldn't ask that
question...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061011/3baf5cf3/attachment.pgp


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight and the Voice

body:
On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:58:33 -0700, "George Herbert"
> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's not particularly suprising that searches through mainstream press
> >don't catch many sex-related brand names.  Most sex-related products
> >don't show up in mainstream press.
>
> A product review in Loaded or Playboy would be fine, I don't insist on
> the New York Times.  Any three or four non-trivial *independent*
> articles focusing primarily on the subject will do.
>
> 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
>

Folks,

How about this list of mentions available through Google News Archives?

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Fleshlight&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

Regards

Keith Old


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Impossible!

body:
> From: Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>> ...when you try to explain "it's a website the readers can edit",
>> some people immediately go OH NOEZ and list every obvious reason
>> it can't possibly work and the enterprise is provably doomed.
>
> "People who believe a thing to be impossible should not stand
> in the way of those who are doing it."

All together now... in four-part harmony

"But the world is full of zanies and fools
Who don't believe in sensible rules
And because those daft and dewy-eyed dopes
Keep building up impossible hopes
Impossible! things are hap'ning ev'ry day."

--Oscar Hammerstein II


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf.

body:
 "George Herbert" wrote

> There's a difference?

Irony: :-;

Sarcasm: No, of course, there is _no difference_ at all. If you are at the bottom of a pond. And talking only to fellow tadpoles. In semaphore. With your tail. And then your tail falls off, leaving you without a viable means of communication. Then and only then does the distinction between sarcasm and irony become a distinction without a difference. I have been teaching this to frog-faced pupils like you for forty years and you still haven't got the point.

Charles

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


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 11/10/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yet somehow it keeps working, pretty much. This is because every
> > single one of the doomsday scenarios has happened and keeps happening
> > and we've learnt to deal with them as part of the normal course of
> > events.

> We thought that about Usenet spam too, once.
> We lost that one.

Usenet is presently much smaller but still going. The current Cabal
("OK YOU WANTED A CABAL NOW YOU'VE GOT ONE!") are working on how to
get people back from web boards. I volunteered to work on an AJAX
version of slrn, God help me ...

(And the spam is a lot less. Particularly if you apply vicious
filtering to Google Groups, who are now the biggest spam problem site
on Usenet and really couldn't give a shit. "Do no evil" apparently
doesn't include uncaring negligence.)

- d.


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
On 10/11/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Following up from a discussion on unblock-en-l...
>
> How much effort would it be to add an enhancement to treat blocked
> user redlink clicks like we currently treat anon user redlink clicks
> when anon article creation is disabled?
>
> We're trying to minimize the number of people who are fundamentally
> just readers, who click on a redlink and see a block message (mostly
> AOL users, but it happens to others).  If they click on the "edit" bar
> and get it, that's fine, but if the default redlink behavior didn't
> show the block message then that would be great.
>
> Thanks.

I don't think it would be appropriate to just say "you can't create
this article because you aren't logged in", when there are more
reasons as well.  That would imply to the user that if they *did* log
in, they'd be allowed to create the article, which isn't the case.
They need to be informed that they've been blocked, preferably as well
as any other reasons they can't do stuff.

Tangential question: why is User::isBlocked a public method
altogether?  Why not just run everything through a generic
permissions-checker method, and return an array of reasons (rather
than "false" as with User::isAllowed) if that's the answer?  That
would ensure consistent handling of blocked vs. other reasons
*everywhere*, which I should think would be desirable.  It would also
ensure that people got the full story as to why they couldn't do
something, rather than a single reason of multiple.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Opera

body:
On 10/11/06, stonedsly at gmail.com <stonedsly at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the opera browser banned by Wikipedia?
>
Uh, basically, I'd say no, it isn't...
Michael
> If so, I want to know the reason.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Opera

body:
stonedsly at gmail.com wrote:
> Is the opera browser banned by Wikipedia?
>
No? What makes you think Opera would be "banned" by Wikipedia? If I
understood you correctly, you can't open Wikipedia in Opera browser.
Well, I just tried it myself and it works. If I have made a false
assumption, I apologize.
> If so, I want to know the reason.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Cheers ;)
Filip


body:
On 10/11/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason we are unable to upgrade is because of the required php version.
> I am not capable of upgrading php on our system.
> Any other ways to work around this at all?
> Thank you all

Manually applying
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=13689 to
your install would probably work (assuming no major intervening
changes, which I doubt there were).


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

body:
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>> And if the line break after the /ref tag adds a space it's no problem
>> since that's usually intended anyway.
>
> Uhhh, no. This is a very very very bad assumption. At least 80% of my refs
> do NOT appear in a place where a break is appropriate.

The only situation I can think of where it's not appropriate to have a
space _after_ the ref is when there's a string of multiple references
grouped together. What situations are you thinking of?

>> I don't like this idea much, it seems likely to make the references a
>> lot more "fragile" than they currently are.
>
> I can't imagine a LESS stable system than the one we have currently! One
> missplaced char in the tags and the rest of the article disappears!

Actually, IMO it's much better to have errors like that than errors that
 "silently" break things. Having a big chunk of article disappear, or
having it appear in a hashed-up form down in the references section (as
often happens when I typo a </ref>) is obvious and indicates the
location of the error quite easily. Under the old {{ref}} templates I
would often find ref links with no note text, orphaned note text without
references to it, and refs pointing to the wrong notes, all of which
looked completely normal and could only be identified as problematic by
clicking on the links and noticing that they didn't take you anywhere.

Under the current cite.php system the "quietest" way a ref can break is
to not have any text associated with it, which results in a blank note
down in the references section. This is still pretty obvious. Just the
other day I went and fixed three of them in the [[2006 Israel-Lebanon
conflict]] page. It was easy to spot them despite there being nearly 200
other references in that article.

> There's a basic rule here that is best known in the computer industry:
> longer code contains more errors. By separating the ref "markers" from the
> ref "body" the main article text becomes smaller and easier to read. This
> will lead to LESS errors with refs. It will also mean that cutting and
> pasting will not lead to the sorts of errors we see today where someone
> moves a para containing a placeholder to an earlier ref and the entire ref
> system stops working again.

That's an exaggeration, only that _particular_ ref stops working in that
case. And the failure results in a highly noticeable blank reference,
making it obvious that it needs fixing.

>> If you've referenced a large
>> block of text this way then one could easily wind up cutting and pasting
>> chunks that might break the citations, and it goes back to the {{ref}}
>> template's old problem of having to change two separate sections of the
>> article when adding or removing a reference.
>
> This is a valid concern, but was the problem worse than the terrible mess we
> have now?

I've converted a lot of {{ref}}/{{note}} articles over to the new ref
system in the course of my travels through Wikipedia and I'd estimate
something like a quarter of the articles with non-trivial numbers of
references in them had missing or orphaned references. In the case of
cite.php I can only recall two articles requiring major reference repair
work (both of which had been split out of the article [[Hugo Chavez]]).
Doesn't seem very terrible to me.

> It seems to me the only reason this doesn't work now is because the original
> ref body must appear before all references to it. If this were changed one
> could do refs any way they want, as well as fixing the problem with editing.

It would make it harder to track down where the ref's actual text was,
though.

I suppose making your proposal an optional variation to the existing
system wouldn't be too bad, though there'd be some extra work cleaning
up old orphaned references that had gone "invisible" through disuse but
were still tucked away in the article's source code. Yet another
tidy-bot, I suppose.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061011/cd46dc5c/attachment.pgp


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Unblock for English Wikiepdia in China

body:
On 10/11/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/06, mingli yuan <mingli.yuan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many people reported that English Wikiepdia is unblocked in China.
> > We are waiting for more infomation about the unblock.
>
> A triumph for the policy of masterly inactivity, I see ;-)
>
> (There's some suggestion that en.wp is partially blocked in Singapore,
> however; there was a post on en.wp's village pump about it which I
> can't seem to find now. Swings and roundabouts.)

It would seem incredibly unlikely that it'd be blocked.

A friend in SG just tried and said it was fine to access from there.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Opera

body:
Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 10:08:55 PM, Filip wrote:

> stonedsly at gmail.com wrote:
>> Is the opera browser banned by Wikipedia?
>>
> No? What makes you think Opera would be "banned" by Wikipedia? If I
> understood you correctly, you can't open Wikipedia in Opera browser.
> Well, I just tried it myself and it works. If I have made a false
> assumption, I apologize.

Opera works in Wikipedia. I've been using exclusively Opera for
editing Wikipedia since 2002 and never had any problems. :-)


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>How many non-trivial independent sources are there for fleshlight?
>Mainstream publications?  Has it been reviewed in Loaded?  Or is it
>just advertising plus a load of "hur hur, look at that, that's so
>smutty, hur hur"?
>
>The inflation of this to the level of some product of transcendent
>global importance is patently absurd.
>
>
Nobody is claiming it's of transcendent global importance, merely that
it's important enough to merit a mention, either in an article by itself
or in passing in a larger article about male-targetted sex toys (I favor
the latter, unless more verifiable material turns up).  It's been
mentioned relatively recently (the past two years) in _Wired_, _The
Village Voice_, and a few Seattle-area local papers, all of which claim
that it's famous/infamous.  I don't have good access to a good archive
of media going back further than 2 years (my university's Lexis-Nexis
subscription only covers that period), so I don't have data on whether,
for example, it was discussed in media of the 1990s.

You also seem to be focusing on how interesting the object is, which
neglects the fact that sociology is a legitimate and integral topic for
encyclopedia articles.  The object may well be boring, but if it's
caused an interesting response in society, that's worth writing about.
(See [[moral panic]] for some more straightforward examples of that sort
of thing.)

>>Personally, I have no idea whether Fleshlight is notable or not without
>>doing further research I probably don't care to perform. But that's what
>>talk page debates, AfD, RfC and such are for. We have ways of reaching
>>community consensus on such things.
>>
>>
>
>Sure.  Debate it.  But let's wait until we have all the facts before
>starting, rather than second-guessing Danny and crying that the sky is
>falling because one wank-o-matic got deleted.
>
>
The disagreement is that Danny unilaterally deleted it, without first
engaging in *any* discussion, and after it had actually come up before
on AfD and kept.  There are occasional articles that I think should be
deleted but which most people disagree with me on, but I don't go around
unilaterally deleting them, because that would be a misuse of my admin
status.

-Mark


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>
	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>But "the comparison is simply invalid" was _my_ point. Why are you
>taking the reasons for pipe organs being important enough to include in
>an enclopedia and checking to see whether they also apply to a _sex
>toy_, of all things? It can't possibly apply in a meaningful way.

You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.

>> How many non-trivial independent sources are there for fleshlight?
>> Mainstream publications?  Has it been reviewed in Loaded?  Or is it
>> just advertising plus a load of "hur hur, look at that, that's so
>> smutty, hur hur"?

>I don't know. My point is that this was something for interested editors
>to decide via the standard mechanisms (talk pages, AfD, etc), and that
>Danny was flat-out wrong to unilaterally deleted it like he did.

Or not, depending.  There is, after all, no measurable damage to
Wikipedia's reputation from *not* having an article over which two
apparent spammers are fighting.

>Considering that the article was kept by AfD, which I consider to be
>deletionism-leaning in general, it seems likely to me that there is more
>to this article than just advertising.

Afd is absolutely not deletionist when it comes to sexcruft.  It's
really hard to get rid of any sex-related article - look at all those
Google hits!  Must be notable.  Hence we have abysmal articles like
donkey punch on which sane editors essentially give up trying to apply
any standard of quality whatsoever.

>Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?

I think he had them.  Spammers edit warring over product placement.

>As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is
>entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.

No, it's always best to wait for clarification.  There is no deadline
to meet.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>
	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>
	<452D1F21.30701@shaw.ca>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:43:13 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
>> level of human compassion.

>Since when? Perhaps you're thinking of Wikinfo's "sympathetic point of
>view" policy, which is incompatible with NPOV and IIRC the reason why
>Wikinfo split.

Since Jimbo started wading in and upping the stakes on WP:LIVING.  And
there is absolutely nothing wring with that.  We recently deleted
Gregory Lauder-Frost precisely because of that.

>> The bad faith was directed at Danny, in my view.  There is a world of
>> difference between "hey, Danny, what's the story here?" and "ZOMG! You
>> deleted fleshlight! The encyclopaedia is suddenly of no value to
>> humanity" or words to that effect.

>No, this is simply wrong. I was responding to you accusing Jeff Raymond
>of bad faith when he called your argument "a load of hooey." Danny's
>actions weren't the subject here.

Jeff was making judgments which I consider were personally
antipathetic to Danny.  I feel no compunction in calling him on it.  I
have a long history of civil disagreements with Jeff, and I would like
to point out that it was me who nominated him for adminship (a
nomination which failed for largely bogus reasons in my view).

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal with
	defamitory article?

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:51:06 +0100, "Oldak Quill"
<oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

>What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?

Too many people falling over each other to get their POV into the
article, is one thing.

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


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] Ogg videos that aren't.

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> It would appear that about 11% of the Ogg videos on commons aren't Ogg
> at all, they mostly seem to be renamed AVI and the like...
>
> Is there any reason I shouldn't run through all these and transcode
> them in mass to Ogg/Theora?
>

So long as there's no reason to doubt the licensing claims, and you can
do it with no discernable loss of quality... go for it.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061011/83a57167/attachment.pgp


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-12

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 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 421 of 437 tests (96.34%) FAILED!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal
 with	defamitory article?

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:51:06 +0100, "Oldak Quill"
><oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What do you suggest is wrong with the article as it stands?
>>
>>
>Too many people falling over each other to get their POV into the
>article, is one thing.
>
It's one of those mind-boggling articles that is bound to confuse anyone
unfamiliar with Hindu theological thinking.  The title does use the word
"University".  This suggests to me that this should be an article about
a school as an institution.  The theological explanations really belong
in a different article.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
On 10/11/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem here is that a lot of people "are blocked" who really aren't
> specifically... anyone at AOL who hasn't already created a WP account and
> consistently logging in, for example, is blocked from editing a significant
> fraction of the time, due to rolling AOL vandal IP blocks.
>
> Telling them that they're blocked if they click "Edit" is fine; that's a
> clear positive action intending to edit something.
>
> A lot of requests that come in to unblock-en-l are AOL people who had
> clicked on a redlink and thought they'd been blocked from reading.

Any message for an AOL block should make it 100% crystal-clear that
the block has nothing to do with them, will be very temporary, and
will only stop them from editing, not reading.  If it doesn't, change
the block message.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>
	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>
	<452D2D1C.80003@epoptic.com>
	<e692861c0610111657y2d9655a1h78faa47d8c6191c2@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> > Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:
> > > We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
> > > level of human compassion.
> >
> > {{citation needed}}
>
> [[Social contract]]
>
> To ignore our basic obligations to society would be unconscionable.
>
> Fortunately: our fundamental principles, such as NPOV, align
> reasonably well with our obligations to the greater world we live
> within.
>
> Were this not the case our efforts would have been predestined to
> failure from the beginning.  Man can tolerate many things including
> things which disrespect man kind, but this tolerance is always finite.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Wikipedia-l] Opera

body:
Is the opera browser banned by Wikipedia?

If so, I want to know the reason.


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Why doesn't \boxtimes work in wikipedia or in
	wikiversity?

body:
> On Wikisophia it works:
> http://wikisophia.org/wiki/User:Hillgentleman

     We're  using  a  superset  of AMS-LaTeX, HillGentleman,
which may be available on Wikipedia, et al. when we roll out
the new WikiTeX.  (Thanks to Erik's advocacy.)

     Before  then, however, it will have met Tim and Brion's
stringent security-criteria.

Best, Peter

--
Peter Danenberg                                           .
wikisophia.org                                           ..:


from_name: HillGentleman

body:
On Wikipedia \boxtimes doesn't work:
http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillgentleman

Nor on Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Hillgentleman

On Wikisophia it works:
http://wikisophia.org/wiki/User:Hillgentleman


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposed guidelines in our IRC channels

body:
Why would the foundation want to be the controlling
organization?  I question that WMF would ever want to
assume responsibilty for these IRC channels.  However
even if there is some good reason to do so in the
future, why would this be a good idea to do so now?
What sort of infastructure is in place for handling
this new-found responsibility?   Is there a list
somewhere of exactly which channels we are talking
about?

Birgitte SB

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

> On 12/10/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And I don't think #wikipedia channel policy as
> proper topic here on
> > foundation-l. Wikipedia-l is supposedly better to
> fit?
>
>
> It is on topic if it's to be the controlling
> organisation per Freenode.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:30 PM, bksimonb wrote:

> I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know
> Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also
> looking
> for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to
> where best to
> channel time and energy into this.

One think you can do is establish basic talk-page discipline (you can
ask an admin to assist you), a follows:

     * Discuss the article, not the subject;
     * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
     * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its
proponent is;
     * If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

Ask all editors involved to abide by these simple rules, and you may
have a chance. Be firm, and ask all involved editors to make a public
statement on the talk page about their intention to abide by such
talk-page discipline. Only then proceed. If you need time to
accomplish this, we could protect the article until such a time as
there is consensus about abiding by these simple rules.

Another thing you can do is apply the "less is more" rule. In my
experience in these cases, the shorter the article, the easier it is
to maintain NPOV.  Reducing the article by 50% will be very helpful.

Lastly, you may consider splitting the article, one article dealing
with the theological aspects of the movement, and another article
dealing with the organizational aspects.

Hope this helps,

-- Jossi


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
On 10/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What if one of these people wrote a script and installed it on all of
> their bots so that they register an account and then randomly attack
> and vandalise articles? I mean, there could be literally thousands of
> edits flowing in every minute. Not only would this probably make the
> servers screech to a grinding halt, it would cause huge damage to the
> content of the site.
>
> In such an event, what would we do? Semi-protect the entire
> encyclopedia? Lock the database and quickly install a version control
> thing, like the germans? Is there anything else? Let's face it,
> wikipedia is a high-profile target, we need to consider such things.
>
> --Oskar

If such a thing became a problem, we could have a developer do an emergency
shutdown of the database while the damage is assessed and a more permanent
solution is sough to avoid further damage.

Mgm


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

subject: [Foundation-l] Ray Noorda, Founder of Novell Dies at 82

body:
He was deeply loved also by CNE/CNI all over the world.
RIP.

Roberto (Snowdog)

>
> Mr. Raymond Noorda, founder of Novell and pioneer of the networking
> industry, passed away this morning in his home in Orem, Utah surrounded
> by his close family.  He was 82.  He was deeply loved by all of us here
> in Utah.
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

------------------------------------------------------
BANCA MEDIOLANUM cerca Family Banker. Invia il CV a www.familybanker.it
http://click.libero.it/mediolanum2


from_name: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
It's unlikely that any utterly fresh new insights on this topic are going to come to light.

Many have expressed their own points of view with great clarify. Danny has been party to the discussion and he has either heard and understood these points of view, or he has not. Either way, it is unlikely that further reiteration will change that much.

Similarly, the discussion may or may not influence his future activities, but whatever that influence may be, it is probably complete, and extending the discussion will probably not have much affect on his future actions.

I suggest the topic be put to rest.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 11/10/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Given that these mailing lists are available to be read by potential
>>adversaries, it's probably not a good idea to speculate here about what
>>those countermeasures might be...
>>
>>
>One important point that escapes many is that when you try to explain
>"it's a website the readers can edit", some people immediately go OH
>NOEZ and list every obvious reason it can't possibly work and the
>enterprise is provably doomed. Wikipedia cannot possibly work in
>theory.
>
>Yet somehow it keeps working, pretty much. This is because every
>single one of the doomsday scenarios has happened and keeps happening
>and we've learnt to deal with them as part of the normal course of
>events.
>
We've even learned to cope with the chronically paranoid.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Goldammer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Opera

body:
2006/10/11, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com>:
> Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 10:08:55 PM, Filip wrote:
>
> > stonedsly at gmail.com wrote:
> >> Is the opera browser banned by Wikipedia?
> >>
> > No? What makes you think Opera would be "banned" by Wikipedia? If I
> > understood you correctly, you can't open Wikipedia in Opera browser.
> > Well, I just tried it myself and it works. If I have made a false
> > assumption, I apologize.
>
> Opera works in Wikipedia. I've been using exclusively Opera for
> editing Wikipedia since 2002 and never had any problems. :-)
>

+1 No problems with that. Which version of Opera do you use? --~~~~


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>[[User:Instant Karma]] recently made a posting to [[User Talk:Jimbo
>Wales]] titled "The End Is Nigh", making a series of demands of
>Wikipedia (such as the removal of most sex-related material, the
>addition of an attempt to keep minors out of whatever remains in that
>area, and the removal of most pop-cultural stuff including reducing
>mention of Star Trek to a single article).  It concluded with a
>threat of unspecified retribution of a "Doomsday Machine" nature
>which would allegedly result in the destruction of Wikipedia.  Just
>thought you ought to know that we're allegedly all doomed now... :-)
>
It would be consistent with the tone set by this user to inform him that
Jimbo is in direct communication with God, and that he has been warned
by The Man Himself that anyone who advocates quick karmic fixes is
evidently a false prophet of Karma.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>
	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610111531p2190af6dj6bc6b18a090c66c1@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:31:35 -0700, "Silas Snider"
<swsnider at gmail.com> wrote:

>I was responding to the implication that the standard for inclusion
>was "...the project is not measurably
>poorer as a result, it being trivially easy to find the product on the
>internets should one be so inclined."

Ah, I see.  But there is a single root authority for fleshlight, the
maker; there is no one root authority for pipe organs, and there are
several centuries of history to cover as well.  When every decent
sized church in Europe has a fleshlight we'll have the conversation
again, eh  :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>
	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com>
	<452D9EDE.3000201@shaw.ca>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:48:14 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.
>
>But you were the one who took that comparison and said
>
>> I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
>> recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
>> the fleshlight.  Organists are notable, wankers are not.
>
>You were using the pipe organ article's "justification for existence" to
>evaluate sex toys, which is in itself silly regardless of who originally
>brought pipe organs up.

No, I was pointing out why the comparison is invalid.  You appear to
be asserting that my pointing out that the comparison was invalid, was
invalid.  I disagree.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452DB049.7010403@hackish.org>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:02:33 -0400, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
wrote:

>Nobody is claiming it's of transcendent global importance, merely that
>it's important enough to merit a mention, either in an article by itself
>or in passing in a larger article about male-targetted sex toys (I favor
>the latter, unless more verifiable material turns up).

I don't have any problem with a merge either.  I *do* have a problem
with the massive over-reaction to the deletion of this one product of
strictly limited significance.

Maybe if I wasn't married I would view it as more important.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>
	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>
	<452D1F21.30701@shaw.ca>
	<djrqi2tv4nq0qjriafp80vehrpdpclqjg4@4ax.com>
	<452DA1F0.7050203@shaw.ca>

body:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:01:20 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>There is nothing in that policy about "compassion." "Sensitivity" is
>used a number of times, but as far as I see the context implies it means
>"be careful" rather than "be nice".

Words like respect and human decency have also been used.  Whatever,
we owe it to people to at least hear their concerns.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal
	with	defamitory article?

body:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:16:33 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>It's one of those mind-boggling articles that is bound to confuse anyone
>unfamiliar with Hindu theological thinking.  The title does use the word
>"University".  This suggests to me that this should be an article about
>a school as an institution.  The theological explanations really belong
>in a different article.

I think that's likely more than half the problem.

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


body:
I really do think your suggestion that  that "the
people who run the channels organise themselves to
agree on the rules for the benefit of all, and enforce
them according to the parts of the rules that detail
that"  is a good one.  However I do not know that the
people who run the channels subscribe to this list, if
anyone runs them at all.  Before you do anything to
start organize the writing of these rules, you first
need to identify who are "the people who run the
channels" or aleast identify all the channels.

Regarding the list of IRC channels on en.WP the
correct title is [[en:Wikipedia:IRC channels]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_Channel

I do not believe this nomenclature is standardized
enough that you can guess where all the channels are
based off of that list and langauge codes.  And the
list may be considered good by wikipedia users but I
find it very limited as far as other projects.

Here is what I think you need to do to accomplish your
broadest goals.  Make an inclusive list of channels
you wish to cover with clear guidelines as to why such
a X channel is included and other channels are not.
Visit every channel and annouce the project to work
out these guidelines by adding it to the header.  Make
sure you add this annoucement in the proper language.
Then develop these guidelines on Meta with as full
participation as you can manage to get.  If everyone
is able to participate in the development of the
guidelines and consensus is reached then they will be
invested in following them.  Then there should be no
need to enforce them at any level.

As far as Jimmy denouncing #wikipedia.  If this is
your main concern, you should probably follow Aphaia's
suggestion and take this to wikipedia-l.  But to take
Jimmy's opinion of that one channel and make that a
foundation for rules for the whole spectrum of IRC is
mistake IMHO.  And in any case this is only on-topic
here if, as david said, WMF is going to be the
controling organization per Freenode.  From your
answer to me I do not believe this is your intention.

Birgitte SB

--- Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:

> > Why would the foundation want to be the
> controlling
> > organization?  I question that WMF would ever want
> to
> > assume responsibilty for these IRC channels.
> I'm not saying that we enforce these rules at a
> foundation level, but
> I'm using this list because I feel the issue affects
> users from all
> the projects. I'm suggesting that the people who run
> the channels
> organise themselves to agree on the rules for the
> benefit of all, and
> enforce them according to the parts of the rules
> that detail that,
> hopefully.
>
> > However even if there is some good reason to do so
> in the
> > future, why would this be a good idea to do so
> now?
> Jimbo Wales denounced #wikipedia - I think that
> suggests we're are
> doing something wrong.
>
> > What sort of infastructure is in place for
> handling
> > this new-found responsibility?   Is there a list
> > somewhere of exactly which channels we are talking
> > about?
> The English Wikipedia has a good list, and you can
> substitute language
> codes to find most of the others: [[en:IRC
> channels]]
>
> Thanks,
> S
>
> On 12/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Why would the foundation want to be the
> controlling
> > organization?  I question that WMF would ever want
> to
> > assume responsibilty for these IRC channels.
> However
> > even if there is some good reason to do so in the
> > future, why would this be a good idea to do so
> now?
> > What sort of infastructure is in place for
> handling
> > this new-found responsibility?   Is there a list
> > somewhere of exactly which channels we are talking
> > about?
> >
> >
> > Birgitte SB
> >
> > --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/10/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I don't think #wikipedia channel policy as
> > > proper topic here on
> > > > foundation-l. Wikipedia-l is supposedly better
> to
> > > fit?
> > >
> > >
> > > It is on topic if it's to be the controlling
> > > organisation per Freenode.
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> 	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but
> only wisdom is liberty
> 		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>Bryan Derksen
>
>
>>It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the
>>company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their
>>article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of
>>thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral
>>point of view.
>>
>>
>We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
>level of human compassion.  Here I think we can accommodate the
>company's concerns by redirecting to artificial vagina, which means
>that their Google presence will not be tainted by directly associating
>their product with competitors.
>
There's nothing wrong with mentioning competitors.  If we describe a
product, we can also add links to similar products from other
companies.  I have no problem with describing any product or company, or
using a company's advertising as verification of what they say
themselves about their own products.  If the information comes from
company flyers we need to say that too.  This alone does not mean that
we are advertising the product because we also accept impartial reports
about the product, or competitors' claims as equally worthy of
inclusion.  If these other claims are less than flattering, too bad for
them.  When it comes to controversial products we should support the
reader's right to receive a neutral picture of the product.

Since we do not accept advertising we have no contractual obligation to
say only good things about the company.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Inclusion of unmaintainable articles

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>"Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>should Wikipedia keep articles which the community is unwilling to maintain?
>>
>>
>For what value of "the community"?
>
"Unwilling" is still open to interpretation.  Failure to maintain does
not imply unwillingness.

Ec


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 12/10/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:

> And I don't think #wikipedia channel policy as proper topic here on
> foundation-l. Wikipedia-l is supposedly better to fit?

It is on topic if it's to be the controlling organisation per Freenode.

- d.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

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

Delirium stated for the record:

> I think it's a combination of things, including lingering resentment
> over WP:OFFICE.  If it had been a less prominent admin who deleted it
> out of process, it would probably have been summarily restored and never
> come up on the mailing list.
>
> -Mark

Careful, Mark.  When I made that last point, I was curtly informed that
I was "laughably" wrong.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I am a senior philosophunculist on active duty.
 sean at epoptic.com | Haven't you studied amphigory? Gad, what they
                  | teach in schools these days! ---Jubal Harshaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFLoDz/SVOiq2uhHMRAt0RAKDcCb1+jD4bh4DI2nONwK6RhETqtQCgonns
9I50nCzpbEOJD6tGRkERWzw=
=306T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

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

>"George Herbert" wrote
>
>
>>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?
>>
>>
>Good question.
>
>I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
>
If the only information we have about them is the NASDAQ listing we have
a relatively uninformative stub.  In most cases a little digging can
probably find more information in the legally required filings for
public corporations.  If the supporters of a company aren't willing to
do that little bit of research even the hardest core inclusionists can't
help them.

>It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
>
Private corporations are not listed on NASDAQ, and you cannot buy their
shares on the open market.

>People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.
>
Not at all, but for the fact that the amount of information that we now
have is very limited.  If it's going to be their only source of
information you're right on the same level as using Wikipedia references
on term papers.  Having good NPOV information may not help a person to
decide what equities to buy, but it can certainly influence him in
deciding which equities _not_ to buy.

Such information on companies is one of our most seriously
underdeveloped areas of knowledge.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
>
>
>>Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?
>>
>>
>I think he had them.  Spammers edit warring over product placement.
>
Shouldn't a decision to keep or delete be based on the article itself,
and not on who is doing the editing?

>>As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is
>>entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.
>>
>>
>No, it's always best to wait for clarification.  There is no deadline
>to meet.
>
Excellent observation.  There is rarely a real need to rush in deleting
anything.

Ec


from_name: Evan Martin

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki as Google Ads keyword

body:
On 10/3/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Don't Install Mediawiki - PBwiki.com - We can host your wiki
> > securely, backed up and guarded 24/7."
> >
> > yay!
>
> Cute.  I'm pretty sure that's against Google policy, though: "If your
> ad text contains competitive language regarding other companies,
> support for this claim must be displayed on the landing page for your
> AdWords ad." <https://adwords.google.com/select/guidelines.html#C11>
> "Use specific keywords that accurately reflect your site."
> <https://adwords.google.com/select/guidelines.html#R3>  (As to the
> latter, that only applies if you're sure it was "MediaWiki" and not
> just "wiki" that it was triggering off.)
>
> Not that I think anyone cares.  :)

Google cares!  ;)

Though it took a while, I've brought this issue to the relevant
people's attention.


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Birgitte SB wrote:

>I really do think your suggestion that  that "the
>people who run the channels organise themselves to
>agree on the rules for the benefit of all, and enforce
>them according to the parts of the rules that detail
>that"  is a good one.  However I do not know that the
>people who run the channels subscribe to this list, if
>anyone runs them at all.  Before you do anything to
>start organize the writing of these rules, you first
>need to identify who are "the people who run the
>channels" or aleast identify all the channels.
>
>Regarding the list of IRC channels on en.WP the
>correct title is [[en:Wikipedia:IRC channels]]
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_Channel
>
>I do not believe this nomenclature is standardized
>enough that you can guess where all the channels are
>based off of that list and langauge codes.  And the
>list may be considered good by wikipedia users but I
>find it very limited as far as other projects.
>
>
>Birgitte SB
>
>
I would have to agree that this list is far from complete in terms of
what is being done with other Wikimedia projects, as I know of at least
four other channels frequented by Wikibooks users that are not listed.

I completely agree with all that Birgitte wrote in this reply.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
henna wrote:

>On 10/12/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Birgitte SB wrote:
>>
>>
>>I would have to agree that this list is far from complete in terms of
>>what is being done with other Wikimedia projects, as I know of at least
>>four other channels frequented by Wikibooks users that are not listed.
>>
>>
>>
>
>try this instead:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels
>
>
>

OK, that took care of one of the channels I was thinking of... now three
more to go.

Yes, I do know this is a wiki page and I could add them in if I wanted to.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:02:33 -0400, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Nobody is claiming it's of transcendent global importance, merely that
>>it's important enough to merit a mention, either in an article by itself
>>or in passing in a larger article about male-targetted sex toys (I favor
>>the latter, unless more verifiable material turns up).
>>
>>
>
>I don't have any problem with a merge either.  I *do* have a problem
>with the massive over-reaction to the deletion of this one product of
>strictly limited significance.
>
>Maybe if I wasn't married I would view it as more important.
>
>
I think it's a combination of things, including lingering resentment
over WP:OFFICE.  If it had been a less prominent admin who deleted it
out of process, it would probably have been summarily restored and never
come up on the mailing list.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] jello

body:
FYI:

I'm always pleased when our CBC makes reference to Wikipedia.

This afternoon, after playing Tom Lehrer's "New Math", they refered to
our note about his invention of the jello shot.  What more evidence do
we need for the usefulness of such information.

Ec


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Sean Whitton wrote:
>> However even if there is some good reason to do so in the
>> future, why would this be a good idea to do so now?
> Jimbo Wales denounced #wikipedia - I think that suggests we're are
> doing something wrong.

I would not say that I have ever "denounced" #wikipedia.  I go there
sometimes myself.  It's a bit too noisy for me.  And sometimes too
juvenile.  But I have not denounced it.

 From freenode's point of view, Wikimedia is the organization for the
Wikipedia and Wikimedia channels.  We have always had a fairly light and
loose connection with freenode and irc channels in general, because irc
is irc, and takes care of itself.

--Jimbo


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
Changing page rendering depending if user is blocked or not won't happen. It
would break page caching (this appeared before but asking to change 'edit'
into 'view source').


from_name: Maury Markowitz

body:
>The only situation I can think of where it's not appropriate to have a
>space _after_ the ref is when there's a string of multiple references
>grouped together. What situations are you thinking of?

When the next character is a period or comma.

Maury


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
On 10/12/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Changing page rendering depending if user is blocked or not won't happen. It
> would break page caching (this appeared before but asking to change 'edit'
> into 'view source').

Can you be more precise about "breaking page caching"? Purely
hypothetically, it would be possible to store two different caches for
each page, one for blocked users and one for everyone else, right? Or
is this one of those "the amount of work required far outweighs the
benefit" situations?

Steve


from_name: Sean Whitton

body:
> Why would the foundation want to be the controlling
> organization?  I question that WMF would ever want to
> assume responsibilty for these IRC channels.
I'm not saying that we enforce these rules at a foundation level, but
I'm using this list because I feel the issue affects users from all
the projects. I'm suggesting that the people who run the channels
organise themselves to agree on the rules for the benefit of all, and
enforce them according to the parts of the rules that detail that,
hopefully.

> However even if there is some good reason to do so in the
> future, why would this be a good idea to do so now?
Jimbo Wales denounced #wikipedia - I think that suggests we're are
doing something wrong.

> What sort of infastructure is in place for handling
> this new-found responsibility?   Is there a list
> somewhere of exactly which channels we are talking
> about?
The English Wikipedia has a good list, and you can substitute language
codes to find most of the others: [[en:IRC channels]]

Thanks,
S

On 12/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why would the foundation want to be the controlling
> organization?  I question that WMF would ever want to
> assume responsibilty for these IRC channels.  However
> even if there is some good reason to do so in the
> future, why would this be a good idea to do so now?
> What sort of infastructure is in place for handling
> this new-found responsibility?   Is there a list
> somewhere of exactly which channels we are talking
> about?
>
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/10/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And I don't think #wikipedia channel policy as
> > proper topic here on
> > > foundation-l. Wikipedia-l is supposedly better to
> > fit?
> >
> >
> > It is on topic if it's to be the controlling
> > organisation per Freenode.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


from_name: Mike O

subject: [Wikitech-l] Template Oddities

body:
I'm finding some odd template behavior after importing articles from Wikipedia. Here's an example snippet from the John Lennon page - the infobox on the right side had what appear to be HTML tags visible, but when viewing the source code I see that < and > chars have been translated to < and > which explains why they show up looking like HTML, but doesn't explain how I get the software to not translate those chars:

John Lennon

The HTML source looks like this:

<big>John Lennon</big>
<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="3">

I think I have all the same extensions installed (I could be wrong though, I checked Special:Version page and they appear to match save for a few things that seem to not be available to the public) so I wonder why this happens. Anybody know? If it is a missing extension then which one? Or maybe it's a config setting?

Mike O

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Merger of 'conflict of interest' pages?

body:
The newly-named pages [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] and [[Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest]] have now been proposed for a merge. See discussion at the Talk page of the latter.

I don't really like the idea of the minatory tone of the latter page being at all softened. I would like it to be quite clear how little interest there is on our side, in having people think that editing with a major conflict of interest is somehow negotiable. In the cases that really matter (commercial promotion and spin-doctoring, not pathetic vanity) negotiation is not what we want or need.

Charles

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

references:
<38a7bf7c0610111522k59d7109fof0bafa5c9267cb5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<eglg4b$d9s$1@sea.gmane.org> <eglhk0$ir2$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/12/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> We could give *all* red links a different URL than other editing methods.
> Then we could check blocked status when the red link URL is requested, and
> display an edit form or error message as necessary.

That sounds good actually. Red link meaning "edit this new page" has a
cute wikiness about it, but can be fairly impractical. If we did this,
we could also implement some kind of last-ditch attempt to locate the
page with searching. Thus, avoiding the problem where a redlink caused
by incorrect case (eg, [[foo city]] instead of [[Foo City]]) ends up
as a duplicate article...

Steve


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer: Simetrical

body:
Simetrical now has svn write access.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Edit links have gone crazy

body:
On 10/12/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
> I know there was talk here (or maybe on Bugzilla - I forget) about improving
> the edit links, and I guess someone is working on it, because currently they
> are screwed on en and mw.org (and presumably all other WM wikis - not
> checked).
>
> They are appearing above the heading, i.e. at the bottom of the preceeding
> section to the one they apply to... which is _incredibly_ confusing!  It
> even confused me - a long-time editor...
>
> I'm sure someone is working on this right now, but they may not be aware
> that the changes are live.

That was me borking up in one of my first commits, last night.  I
unhardcoded the section edit link style and moved it to stylesheets,
but didn't bump the stylesheet number, so the old cached versions were
being used, resulting in no style for the edit links.

Brion bumped the numbers up on Monobook and then resynchronized, so
this should be fixed in Monobook now (it is for me, anyway).  I just
bumped up the numbers for all the other skins, so those will be fixed
in the next resync.  (Actually, I missed at least one, but Brion just
bumped that up, so it should all be good.)

Does the problem still occur?  It appears to be working correctly for me now.


from_name: Aphaia

body:
My suggestions are:
* since #wikimedia* channels are highly operational oriented ones,
managements criteria for them and community channels have not to be
necessarily same, and the management of the former would be better to
those who set the channels. (I don't find any reason the Wikimedia
community oversee #wikimedia-meeting, for example)
* A certain IRC policy are supposedly effective and feasible not to
apply "all wikimedia channels" but channels in the same language such
policy is discussed and determind in maximum. As well particular
Wikimedia projects, each irc channel community are self-determinative
and strongly based on cultural background of the society their
language is used.

And I don't think #wikipedia channel policy as proper topic here on
foundation-l. Wikipedia-l is supposedly better to fit?

On 10/11/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> JamesF is basically the 'uberop' for the channels; he can get network
> staff to do whatever he deems necessary. Under that, organisation is
> thin on the ground as JamesF delegates the jobs to high-access
> chanops. This makes sense so that he can handle hostname cloaks, and
> is the idea of a group contact from freenode's perspective.
>
> I hadn't heard Jimbo's statement before now. #wikipedia can be rough,
> but there are a lot of good people in it too. We can improve!
>
> S
>
> On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/10/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> >
> > > For the moment, I have no idea how enforcable/!official these
> > > guidelines are going to be. I suggest that we worry about that after
> > > we actually have some, because the channel operations structure is too
> > > ad hoc to make assumptions on how it will work. This is just an idea,
> > > something that I hope people will adopt.
> >
> >
> > I understood the Foundation or Jimbo or someone had expressly disowned
> > #wikipedia as the hellhole it is (but a sorta comfy hellhole all the
> > same, y'know) but that the Foundation is, for Freenode purposes, the
> > controlling organisation for everything else starting #wikipedia or
> > #wikimedia. I could of course be dead wrong on this, but if I am I'd
> > welcome correction.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
>        ?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
>                sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061012/6ee27575/attachment.diff


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com> <452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com> <452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com> <452D9EDE.3000201@shaw.ca>
	<192si2dom7u5ub1v2pvgi3oct4jl9el956@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> No, I was pointing out why the comparison is invalid.  You appear to
> be asserting that my pointing out that the comparison was invalid, was
> invalid.  I disagree.

Whereas I thought I was asserting that you were using the invalid
comparison to invalidate Fleshlight's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Oh
the humanity.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061012/cbec8473/attachment.pgp


from_name: henna

body:
On 10/12/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
>
> >I really do think your suggestion that  that "the
> >people who run the channels organise themselves to
> >agree on the rules for the benefit of all, and enforce
> >them according to the parts of the rules that detail
> >that"  is a good one.  However I do not know that the
> >people who run the channels subscribe to this list, if
> >anyone runs them at all.  Before you do anything to
> >start organize the writing of these rules, you first
> >need to identify who are "the people who run the
> >channels" or aleast identify all the channels.
> >
> >Regarding the list of IRC channels on en.WP the
> >correct title is [[en:Wikipedia:IRC channels]]
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_Channel
> >
> >I do not believe this nomenclature is standardized
> >enough that you can guess where all the channels are
> >based off of that list and langauge codes.  And the
> >list may be considered good by wikipedia users but I
> >find it very limited as far as other projects.
> >
> >
> >Birgitte SB
> >
> >
> I would have to agree that this list is far from complete in terms of
> what is being done with other Wikimedia projects, as I know of at least
> four other channels frequented by Wikibooks users that are not listed.
>

try this instead:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels

--
"Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but
unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com> <452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452DB049.7010403@hackish.org>
	<5b2si2l8tc48cgeof9hu2a2e3k21te9ngl@4ax.com>
	<452E7EBB.9010702@hackish.org> <452E80F3.4090206@epoptic.com>

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> Delirium stated for the record:
>
>> I think it's a combination of things, including lingering resentment
>> over WP:OFFICE.  If it had been a less prominent admin who deleted it
>> out of process, it would probably have been summarily restored and never
>> come up on the mailing list.
>
> Careful, Mark.  When I made that last point, I was curtly informed that
> I was "laughably" wrong.

Well, it's certainly the reason _I_ got involved as much as I have.

In other Fleshlight news, I see the article's moved from DRV to AfD
again and has been stubbed.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061012/6d37875b/attachment.pgp


from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject: [Wikitech-l] Does Special:MIMEsearch has any function on MW wikis?

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

Does Special:MIMEsearch still has any function on MW wikis? If I enter
"image/jpg" or similiar I get an empty list. Since weeks...

How does it work? If this special site has no function anymore please
disable it.

Raymond.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFLokDp+qUcbEr56YRAgnDAJ4h7aLLxIjfkVhrKDgZ9qVBBwQrVgCdGv6/
BchE8/EXi2IQJl5ioOhGqkk=
=H0nw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com wrote:
> It's unlikely that any utterly fresh new insights on this topic
> are going to come to light.
>
> Many have expressed their own points of view with great clarify.
> Danny has been party to the discussion and he has either heard and
> understood these points of view, or he has not. Either way, it is
> unlikely that further reiteration will change that much.
>
> Similarly, the discussion may or may not influence his future
> activities, but whatever that influence may be, it is probably
> complete, and extending the discussion will probably not have much
> affect on his future actions.
>
> I suggest the topic be put to rest.

Well, I'd still like to see some actual policy clarification come out of
this. For exmaple, [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] says:

> If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny
> is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.

I think it would be better at this point to declare that Dannyisme and
Dannyisme _alone_ is the Office account, and that nobody should have any
obligation to double-check whether a plain old Danny action is
Office-related. If Danny subsequently accidentally uses the wrong
account for an edit it'd be his bad, not anyone else's, and nobody
should be at risk of a surprise thwacking for reverting it. Or even
better, also change the Dannyisme account to some less ambiguous name
like [[User:Office Action]] to divest it of its "Dannyness" entirely.

Just kicking around some ideas for how to prevent future problems along
these lines, since [[Fleshlight]] itself appears to be heading back into
conventional editing territory now.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061012/50cfa91f/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jimmy Collins

body:
Welcome buddy!

Cheers Jimmy

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Gesendet: 12.10.06 10:35:51
> An: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Betreff: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer: Simetrical

> Simetrical now has svn write access.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
That meta page is probably the list I had in mind, thank you for
pointing it out. As you say, it is thin on the ground with other
projects, so I'd appreciate people who know these channels adding them
in.

Birgitte, you're right about spreading it to channel topics. I think
some organisation of translation of something like "Help develop the
new Wikimedia IRC channel guidelines at [[m:IRC guidelines]]" is
necessary. I assume it won't be too hard for me to dig around meta and
find translators; it's not something I've had to do before.

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I would not say that I have eve1r "denounced" #wikipedia.  I go there
> sometimes myself.  It's a bit too noisy for me.  And sometimes too
> juvenile.  But I have not denounced it.
>
>  From freenode's point of view, Wikimedia is the organization for the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia channels.  We have always had a fairly light and
> loose connection with freenode and irc channels in general, because irc
> is irc, and takes care of itself.

Okay, I can understand that I may have phrased that a bit harshly. I
didn't actually see it myself and was going on the comments made by
David Gerard above. I'm interested in your thoughts on IRC taking care
of itself - I agree that to a certain extent it does, but I think we
can make it /better/ by developing material through other mediums.

I think we can make this work.
S

On 12/10/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> henna wrote:
>
> >On 10/12/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Birgitte SB wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>I would have to agree that this list is far from complete in terms of
> >>what is being done with other Wikimedia projects, as I know of at least
> >>four other channels frequented by Wikibooks users that are not listed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >try this instead:
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels
> >
> >
> >
>
> OK, that took care of one of the channels I was thinking of... now three
> more to go.
>
> Yes, I do know this is a wiki page and I could add them in if I wanted to.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> [[User:Instant Karma]] recently made a posting to [[User Talk:Jimbo
> Wales]] titled "The End Is Nigh", making a series of demands of
> Wikipedia (such as the removal of most sex-related material, the
> addition of an attempt to keep minors out of whatever remains in that
> area, and the removal of most pop-cultural stuff including reducing
> mention of Star Trek to a single article).  It concluded with a
> threat of unspecified retribution of a "Doomsday Machine" nature
> which would allegedly result in the destruction of Wikipedia.  Just
> thought you ought to know that we're allegedly all doomed now... :-)
>

Haven't I heard this one before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:216.148.246.134

It caused quite a stir, but September 1, 2004 passed without incident. Hey,
maybe it's the same guy! OMG, maybe he's actually *got* a network of proxies
and compromised machines this time! The end is nigh!

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Damian Finol

body:
Hello,

Like the message I left to James F, a few weeks ago I had a college
professor who joined the IRC channel when he needed help (I'm talking
about the Spanish Wikipedia channel #wikipedia-es) and the amount of
profanity, childish behavior and more led him to tell me "Wikipedia
isn't a serious project" which I replied "The IRC Channel is not the
same as the Wikipedia" and then he pointed the page at Wikipedia-es
where it says to join the channel as "official" support, to which of
course I had to concede.

I don't think that setting some rules to be followed on the IRC channels
is bad, it's upping the quality of the conversations and channels; is
not, sometimes stop goofing around, but maybe make it a little more
serious, removing profanities and related things.

Regards,

Damian Finol
Maracaibo, Venezuela.


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Edit links have gone crazy

body:
I know there was talk here (or maybe on Bugzilla - I forget) about improving
the edit links, and I guess someone is working on it, because currently they
are screwed on en and mw.org (and presumably all other WM wikis - not
checked).

They are appearing above the heading, i.e. at the bottom of the preceeding
section to the one they apply to... which is _incredibly_ confusing!  It
even confused me - a long-time editor...

I'm sure someone is working on this right now, but they may not be aware
that the changes are live.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]: a proposal

body:
On 11/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> In response to the concerns about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and
> previous concerns expressed about NOR and V, I've put up a proposal
> that No original research and Verifiability be combined into one new
> content policy: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
>
> The policy in a nutshell would be that "All material published by
> Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

This appears to be simply restating the spirit of the previous two
policies as I understand them.

Which probably suggests it's on the right track...

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

> I'd still like to see some actual policy clarification come out of
>
>this. For exmaple, [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] says:
>
>
>>If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny
>>is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.
>>
>>
>I think it would be better at this point to declare that Dannyisme and
>Dannyisme _alone_ is the Office account, and that nobody should have any
>obligation to double-check whether a plain old Danny action is
>Office-related. If Danny subsequently accidentally uses the wrong
>account for an edit it'd be his bad, not anyone else's, and nobody
>should be at risk of a surprise thwacking for reverting it. Or even
>better, also change the Dannyisme account to some less ambiguous name
>like [[User:Office Action]] to divest it of its "Dannyness" entirely.
>
>Just kicking around some ideas for how to prevent future problems along
>these lines, since [[Fleshlight]] itself appears to be heading back into
>conventional editing territory now.
>
I don't know if that will be acceptable; it sounds too much like common
sense. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>	<452E7BA7.3030601@telus.net>
	<452EFC18.5000101@gmail.com>

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>>There's nothing wrong with mentioning competitors.  If we describe a
>>product, we can also add links to similar products from other
>>companies.
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>It wasn't even competitors that they were arguing with though - it was
>distributors and affiliates.
>
That doesn't sound like they have a very healthy business climate.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 12 Oct 2006 at 18:50, Geoff Burling <llywrch at rdrop.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be
>>trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just
>>as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But
>>if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded
>>person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it
>>to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get
>>back to working on articles.
>>
>>
>I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
>also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
>
The only problem with that solution is the paradox that when you tag it
it's no longer what it's tagged to be.

Ec


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
On 12 Oct 2006 at 18:50, Geoff Burling <llywrch at rdrop.com> wrote:

> I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be
> trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just
> as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition. But
> if someone figures out a really good answer for how a literal-minded
> person can tell when someone else is being sarcastic, could they email it
> to me? I'd like to participate more in this discussion, but I must get
> back to working on articles.

I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

>Am I the only one who envisions the possibility that most of the people
>who voted for this rule could be banned for various lengths of time for
>sarcasm? And what would then prevent all of the people who voted no -- &
>who were, um, careful not to be sarcastic during this period -- from
>holding another vote & repealing this rule?
>
>I guess no one wants to raise this question because it might appear to be
>trolling. I hope not, because it raises some issues that I feel are just
>as important as many of the arguments in favor of this prohibition.
>
By having Wikipedia's own 18th Amendment we could protect people from
becoming drunk with power.

Ec


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
> On 10/12/06, Platonides  wrote:
>> Changing page rendering depending if user is blocked or not won't happen.
>> It
>> would break page caching (this appeared before but asking to change
>> 'edit'
>> into 'view source').
>
> Can you be more precise about "breaking page caching"? Purely
> hypothetically, it would be possible to store two different caches for
> each page, one for blocked users and one for everyone else, right? Or
> is this one of those "the amount of work required far outweighs the
> benefit" situations?
>
> Steve

I'm not a cache expert, i can't give very accurate answers, but i'd say the
devs will
gladly implement this system for you... as far as you give them the hardware
to double
our caching ability :-)

Tim Starling: Good point. We could then choose to send them either to
'action edit' or
'action view for 404'. Though a new arrive message might be preferable, in
order to
avoid "You can create this page" links on noarticletext.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
Platonides wrote:
> Changing page rendering depending if user is blocked or not won't happen. It
> would break page caching (this appeared before but asking to change 'edit'
> into 'view source').

We could give *all* red links a different URL than other editing methods.
Then we could check blocked status when the red link URL is requested, and
display an edit form or error message as necessary.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikitech-l] Template Oddities

body:
> "Mike O" wrote:
> > I think I have all the same extensions installed (I could be
> > wrong though, I checked Special:Version page and they appear to
> > match save for a few things that seem to not be available to the
> > public) so I wonder why this happens. Anybody know? If it is a
> > missing extension then which one? Or maybe it's a config setting?
> >
> > Mike O
>
> The difference is probably that you don't have tidy enabled while wikipedia
> has. MW shouldn't give such different output if bewing tidied or not, but
> it's another matter.

Thanks, that was the issue, tidy was not enabled.

Mike O

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-13

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 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 421 of 437 tests (96.34%) FAILED!