from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
KWH wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:13:40 +1100
>>From: Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem
>>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Message-ID: <44222074.1030207 at student.canberra.edu.au>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>>
>>G'day Mark,
>>
>>
>>>On 3/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can't we just start by asking for a software upgrade that doesn't
>>>>accept images without a source? Hiding the link also makes uploading
>>>>harder for regular contributors who don't remember links and use the
>>>>side bar for easy access and for newbies who do care abou copyrights.
>>>
>>>All that will do is force users to provide whatever the software is
>>>looking for as a "source".  We're seeing this already with copyright
>>>tags: people are sticking license tags, usually "fair use" and
>>>"CopyrightedFreeUse" license tags, on images in a desperate attempt to
>>>keep the images safe from the "no license" patrol.  You can see this
>>>in the responses to OrphanBot's notifications: many are of the form
>>>"What license tag should I stick on my image to keep it from being
>>>deleted?".
>>
>>This sort of thing used to irk me terribly, until I stumbled across
>>something approaching Enlightenment.  If we assume good faith, the
>>answer is obvious: the user isn't lying in a desperate attempt to
>>violate copyrights and get us in trouble; he's (it is usually a he)
>>merely confused and caught up in process fetishism.
>>
>>Images aren't deleted because they don't have a tag: they're deleted
>>because they have no source and their copyright status is unclear, and
>>we've decided not to take the risk of keeping such images around for no
>>good purpose.  But if I, or any other person trying to crack down on
>>copyvios, try to explain the situation to a newbie, we say: "you need to
>>place a tag on this image".  Is it any *wonder* he gets confused?  What,
>>will any tag do?  Any source is appropriate, right, even if that source
>>says "all rights reserved, do not steal our images or we'll steal your
>>thumbs, and what use will your precious Gameboy be then, eh?"?
>>
>>We confuse what the tags mean with the tags themselves.  I have the same
>>problem with other templates, like the {{testn}} warnings: we aren't
>>warning people, we're slapping a template on their page
>>(congratulations!  You're the 100th RC patroller to tag this page this
>>year!  Has it occurred to you that this talkpage already contains 99
>>identical boilerplate warnings, and what effect that has on a growing
>>lad?), and likewise with images.
>>
>>
>>>When trying to solve the image problem, there are some fundamental
>>>things you need to keep in mind:
>>>*Joe User doesn't care about "correct"
>>>*Joe User doesn't care about "copyright"
>>>*Joe User doesn't care about "source"
>>>*Joe User doesn't care about "policy"
>>>All Joe User wants is pictures in his article.
>>
>>Bingo.  And he's not being malicious in that; he's being human (or
>>possibly a magpie).  We need to explain to him *why* he can't have his
>>picture; "because it hasn't got the right tag" just doesn't cut it.
>>
>>When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I
>>and a few other people said so".  Learning the *reason* why we do
>>things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them
>>to others, is vital.
>>
>
>
> Spot on, but I would add - Joe User /can/ have an image in /his/
> article.

By "his article" I assume you mean "article on Joe User" - if that's not
what you meant, please see [[WP:OWN]].

--
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: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060324/6550ab97/attachment.pgp


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2006 at 1:16, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For those who missed it, I've put my segment up:
>>
>>http://static.rocknerd.org/david/radiowales-q0-mono.ogg
>>
>>Ogg Vorbis, 2,311,827 bytes.
>
>
> The program mistakenly refers to "Wikipedia.com"; it's actually a
> noncommercial dot-org.
>

David kinda corrected him - /he/ used the correct URL :)

--
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: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060324/a09d8ec3/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
Keith Old wrote:
> On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Seen this?
>>
>>
>>http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
>>
>>You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!
>>
>>At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
>>to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...
>>
>>And they're clearing this at US$20:
>>
>>
>>http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247
>>
>>Anyone with dreams of a printed Wikipedia 1.0 should look at this and
>>think how we can get there.
>>
>
> I can actually have access to the academic edition through the Canberra
> public library system for free through my Library card. For me, Britannica
> is the free encyclopedia that I can't edit. It comes in handy for
> researching articles from time to time though.
>

Free as in beer, you mean. I've heard that 1911 was the best though, and
that lots of stuff that /was/ in that version has been trimmed or
removed since, due to a lack of paper.

--
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: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060324/47398d0d/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>That's a very important point.  Simply saying, "because it's policy"
>>gets people to dig in their heels.  Many of these are young guys who are
>>then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the
>>lawn.  They are testing their independance all the way.
>>
>>
>Maybe just saying "so we don't get sued" would be simpler than saying
>it's policy?
>
>
Probably not.  Suing and courts have no connection with their reality.

Ec


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chatroom libel ruling

body:
In message <44242C9C.30501 at telus.net>, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org> writes
>slimvirgin-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org wrote:
>
>>Interesting ruling from the High Court in England, which could have
>>implications for our talk  pages.
>>http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html
>>
>>
>What makes this case less important is that the defendant failed to
>defend the case, and the result was in effect a default judgement.
>

Or else her solicitor may have advised her that there simply /was/ no
defence, and to try to contest it would simply have incurred large
amounts of further legal expenses which she would have to pay (remember
- she would have to pay both her own legal expenses and the
plaintiff's).

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
But if you are citing this idea from published material it is no longer
a novel idea.
Ec

Fred Bauder wrote:

>Now you are getting into citing published material. However, doing so
>to advance a novel idea would remain original research.
>
>Fred
>
>On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Steve Block wrote:
>
>
>>So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example
>>citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original
>>research,
>>yes?
>>
>>Steve Block
>>
>>


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] 7-year old pool shark: notable or not?

body:
G'day Mgm,

> I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
> tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
> trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
> like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
> article.
>
> Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
> it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.

If there's a few news reports on him, I'd find it interesting.

Besides, dude, you're asking on the *mailing list*.  Just sit back and
wait for the cries of "deletionist vandal!" to reach fever pitch, and
the article's a shoo-in for the 'paedia.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.0/290 - Release Date: 23/03/2006


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Our Featured Article of the Day Contains Probable
 Copyright Violations

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Neil Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>geni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery
>>>>>>>itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the
>>>>>>>subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those
>>>>>>>images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It
>>>>>>>has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not
>>>>>>>been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a
>>>>>>>copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article.
>>>>>>>It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
>>>>>>>2. It's on the frickin' main page right now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use
>>>>>>>and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most
>>>>>>>Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use
>>>>>>>review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public
>>>>>>domain?  It was released in 1935!!!  1935 + 70 = 2005.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
>>>>>
>>>>>Further details:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=42060761&oldid=41976931
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee
>>>>of the German government. The talk page for the article cites
>>>>http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyPropertyAct1953pt1.cfm
>>>>"Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of
>>>>Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in
>>>>Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party"  The 70 year clock for
>>>>government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made
>>>>public.  The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of
>>>>foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy
>>>>properties.  The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
>>>>
>>>>What "wrong country" are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German
>>>government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny
>>>this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf
>>>being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.
>>>
>>>
>>See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.pdf
>>
>>There is no reason why this would not also apply to Mein Kampf.  The
>>state goverment of Bavaria claims that it owns the copyright, although
>>at least one Swedish court has denied that claim while simultaneously
>>saying that it was still protected even if the owner could not be
>>identified.  The net effect is that the German language edition is in
>>the public domain in the United States.  All four English translations
>>are still protected.  The three American ones were all properly renewed
>>for the Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston.  Murphy, the British
>>translator, IIRC died in 1946, and his version would thus be protected
>>until the end of 2016.  A person with a lot of time on his hands could
>>safely do a new translation that could be released under GFDL. :-)
>>
>>
>Doesn't this fall under the scope of Project Gutenburg?
>
I don't know about Project Gutenburg's criteria for inclusion, but I
would see nothing wrong in having this included in Wikisource.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-25

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

Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!

Passed 299 of 301 tests (99.34%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

body:
Mikkerpikker wrote:

>>We don't "prove" anything. We just take his claim out of the article.
>>
>>Ryan
>>
>>
>
>I think the point is we *can't* simply take the claim out because it
>satisfies [[WP:V]]. And since there are no rebuttals that does satisfy
>[[WP:V]] the article in question becomes POV by virtue of the fact
>that there are no views cited to challenge it.
>
That's not logical.  If there are no views expressed  that challenge the
premise, it necessarily represents the Neutral Point of View. A
rebutting argument that is not verifiable is as good as no argument at all.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
Hello,

the following wikipedias have been created:

nds-nl
rmy
lij
bat-smg
map-bms
ksh
pdc
vls
nrm
frp
zh-yue
tet
xal
pap

See also
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_requests_for_new_languages&oldid=310831

Regards,

JeLuF

--
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


subject: [Wikitech-l] New wikipedias created


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides

body:
Interesting conversation topic! Speaking for myself, I have never,
ever used a portal. I have *seen* them, and thought "that's not for
me". Categories...well...occasionally in moments of boredom they're
good for finding similar information, but the sub-category problem
almost totally defeats their worthfulness IMHO.

For me, infoboxes are totally where it's at. An example I know well is
the {{queen}} template, which links to every Queen album and member,
and some of their more popular songs. That's the kind of direct link
from this page to another similar page that I appreciate for
*browsing* Wikipedia, rather than specifically searching for
something.

As for an "editor's guide", I think the Wikiprojects are probably the
closest you get. Thinking about contribution something about a music
group? Check out Wikiproject:Music. Contributing about Melbourne?
Wikiproject:Melbourne. They set standards, track progress, guide
people to areas that need better coverage, and generally are the place
to ask questions about a whole broad area.

Steve

On 3/24/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't seen a portal that really achieves what I am talking about - they
> are good entrees to the subject, but they are really information guides.
> One of the best WikiProjects I know is the Cricket WikiProject (which
> actually has a pretty good Editors Guide, though not exactly along the lines
> of what I am thinking of, at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/contribute.  The
> Cricket Portal is really impressive, and it points to the WikiProject, but
> only secondarily.  In addition, creating a Portal simply for the purpose of
> pointing readers towards an "editors' guide" dilutes the Portal idea.  Even
> starting a WikiProject just to create an editors' guide seems to be a bit
> cart-before-horse.
>
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
geni wrote:

>On 3/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I thought we were talking about a call from someone who has just
>>experienced a personal tragedy.  You offer them automated responses from
>>Big Brother to emphasize the insignificance of what they are feeling.  I
>>would hardly want to live in a world that is so insensitive to the human
>>condition.
>>
>>
>You already live in that world (try calling whatever your local
>equiverlent of the inland revinue is. We are not the samaritans.
>
What does Inland Revenue have to do with it?  Your attitude suggests
that you would be an excellent employee there..  In the past we have had
calls from people threatening suicide, and it sounds as if you support
treating them as though we were IR.  That sounds bloody disgusting to me.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The image problem: a silly proposal

body:
Alright, here's what we do:

1. Disable image uploads across all projects.
2. Move all images to somewhere else until they are verified.
3a. Only allow administrators to upload images, and hope that admins
have a decent grasp of copyright law.
3b. Have all images be handled by the Wikimedia Office and/or the
permissions queue of OTRS.

Would it fix anything?

--
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: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060325/96110f94/attachment.pgp


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides

body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 23:21, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Interesting conversation topic! Speaking for myself, I have never,
> ever used a portal. I have *seen* them, and thought "that's not for
> me". Categories...well...occasionally in moments of boredom they're
> good for finding similar information, but the sub-category problem
> almost totally defeats their worthfulness IMHO.
>
> For me, infoboxes are totally where it's at. An example I know well is
> the {{queen}} template, which links to every Queen album and member,
> and some of their more popular songs. That's the kind of direct link
> from this page to another similar page that I appreciate for
> *browsing* Wikipedia, rather than specifically searching for
> something.
>
> As for an "editor's guide", I think the Wikiprojects are probably the
> closest you get. Thinking about contribution something about a music
> group? Check out Wikiproject:Music. Contributing about Melbourne?
> Wikiproject:Melbourne. They set standards, track progress, guide
> people to areas that need better coverage, and generally are the place
> to ask questions about a whole broad area.

Odd. I occasionally look at portals, but categories are my first choice.

As far as I can see infoboxes really suck and I hate them, and will
never
add or edit one.

Projects are rather variable, mostly informal interest groups seem to
arise.

But hey in an infinite encyclopaedia anything can happen...

Justinc


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
On 3/21/06, wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com
<wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia from a university connection
> for over three months now, since the IP block stops traffic from the
> entire state of Maine's library/school system. Are four-month blocks
> really an accepted part of policy, for a system that blocks
> established users along with anonymous users from contributing?

Could you tell us what IPs this is regarding?

-Matt


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [060325 00:02]:
> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
> > You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!

> How they can continue to improve their product and make a profit with those prices is a bit
> concerning.

Simple answer: they've been in the red for fifteen years ... they're
currently privately held by a rich enthusiast. (Sort of like British car
companies, which are regularly bought by a rich enthusiast who rapidly
becomes rather less rich, then selling it to another rich enthusiast ...)

> Hopefully this is just a special and not a sign that EB is becoming desperate in the face of
> Encarta and the growing use of the Internet as people's first stop for reference information.

I'm telling everyone I know. I really want to see EBI's faces when all
these people buy an EB DVD and tell them they heard about it from
Wikipedia.

> BTW, I a bit disappointed in what I got ; all this time we?ve been putting Britannica on some kind
> of pedestal and yet almost all the articles I?ve looked at were stubs whose only value to me would
> be to help improve lead sections in our articles. And most of those had corresponding Wikipedia
> articles that were longer, often much longer. Length and size are not everything (accuracy for one
> is also very important), but I was expecting more meat for something I pay for.

A lot of EB's reputation is mystique: who can afford US$3000 for the
legendary encyclopedia? But lots of people can afford $25. From what you
say, they might be surprised to find how good it really is or isn't.

> Don't take my word for it ; buy the DVD and see for yourself. It certainly is worth the money now
> and something almost all of us can afford. You should also consider buying the Concise edition -
> it is great reference to check against to make sure lead sections cover the most vital points of a
> topic. I've found that EB?s introductory sections in their regular articles are not a good model
> for our lead sections.

The point for me in buying the Concise edition is that it's the sort of
thing we'd want from a single-volume Wikipedia 1.0, so may be a useful
model in terms of paper per topic and so forth.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060325 00:08]:
> On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
> > You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!

> They appear to be trying to undercut us. They also appear to be suceeding.

Undercutting? I'd say it's the price point for an DVD encyclopedia. The de:
DVD is EUR10,- (about US$12). Encarta is US$45. The regular price of the EB
DVD is US$50. If we put up ISOs of a finished product en:, US$10 plus
postage sounds like a price point someone could sell them at for
convenience (4.7GB is slooow even on common present broadband) and a small
profit.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
Steve Bennett (stevage at gmail.com) [060324 23:28]:

>   I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and
> attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in
> Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various
> words ending in "-cruft".

You appear to be asking for a cure for blithering idiocy. There is no cure
for such, particularly on AFD.

(No doubt someone on AFD will claim this is a "personal attack." If so,
please detail who it's an attack on.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg

body:
Steve Bennett (stevage at gmail.com) [060323 20:46]:
> On 3/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > For those who missed it, I've put my segment up:
> > http://static.rocknerd.org/david/radiowales-q0-mono.ogg

> For me, the sound keeps fading in and out, especially early on? Is
> this just me (with my prejudice against .ogg), or does anyone else get
> this?

It's just you ;-p

I made a .wav capture of the RealAudio, then cut it to length in Audacity
(http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ - damn cool program), then made that into
an Ogg. I listened to both the .wav and the Ogg and couldn't hear much
difference on earbud headphones. I can email you a higher quality MP3 if
you like - drop me a line to dgerard at gmail.com .

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg

body:
David Gerard (dgerard at gmail.com) [060323 12:16]:

> For those who missed it, I've put my segment up:
> http://static.rocknerd.org/david/radiowales-q0-mono.ogg
> Ogg Vorbis, 2,311,827 bytes.

Apparently there's no mailing list for cy:. But I chatted with Telsa on IRC
about this a coupla nights ago and she says she'll shop the URL around the
Welsh Nationalist-inclined bloggers, which may help recruitment for cy:.

Telsa also says the big problem with cy: is that it's really badly written
for the most part ... basically, that it needs some native speakers who are
good writers to give it a top-to-bottom revision and set the standard.
Which is actually quite feasible with 4,000 articles, if the editors can be
found. I know no Welsh myself or I'd dive in ...

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
Who blocked you? What is the stated reason?

Fred

On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:10 AM, wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com wrote:

> I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia from a university connection
> for over three months now, since the IP block stops traffic from the
> entire state of Maine's library/school system. Are four-month blocks
> really an accepted part of policy, for a system that blocks
> established users along with anonymous users from contributing?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Public Library of Science

body:
Another matter. The images in the PLOS articles may sometimes not be
covered by the Creative Commons license used by the article.

Fred

On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> PLoS is a great resource. My favorite example for the value of free
> content research is actually an example of a PLOS/Wikipedia synergy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Natural_tool_use_by_all_the_.
> 22great_apes.22
>
> The photos demonstrating natural tool use by a female gorilla come
> from a PLoS Biology journal. Such use of photos by researchers in
> Wikipedia is of course only possible because of the free license. The
> synergies will only increase as we and others create new projects like
> Wikiversity where they can emerge.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Assuming you have published a book on the subject, yes. This is
obvious nonsense, as you note. But it often applies to articles about
living persons, whose 5 minutes of fame is often some trouble they go
into. That may be the only published material on them. This creates a
quite unbalanced article despite following Wikipedia policies.
Information about the quiet peaceful and uneventful life they have
lived is not acceptable as there is no published source.

Fred

On Mar 25, 2006, at 6:22 AM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>
>> That's not logical.  If there are no views expressed  that
>> challenge the
>> premise, it necessarily represents the Neutral Point of View. A
>> rebutting argument that is not verifiable is as good as no
>> argument at all.
>>
>
> ...so if I claim that there are gigantic hyperintelligent aliens
> made of
> lime jello living on a giant pumpkin orbiting Alpha Centauri and that
> they have five hands and one foot, and no-one makes a verifiable
> rebuttal, then my claim, being the only published view on the subject,
> represents the Neutral Point of View about hyperintelligent aliens
> made
> of lime jello?
>
> I don't think that's quite what you meant.
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals?

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Some might get literal about the term country, and argue that
> Wikipedia is not a country.  But if we are not a country, what the
> hell are we doing declaring wars.

Wikipedia is a community. However, I am one that believes that the
dimensions of an online community and its related phenomena exist in a
different state then any country. Perhaps, that seems absurd to some
that look upon computers as a mere object, and it appears appropriate to
include jurisdiction of the any country to any computer within it.
However, there is a correlation between what computer do and what the
human body can do also. The politics on computers may one day create a
rude-awakening to those concerned about their own human ability. In
essence, related to the previous quote about leaders that drag the
people along, a war on computers is a war on people. Computers were
originally just people (see [[computer]]).

Some might get literal about the term "computers."

Don't declare war on vandals... teach,  education, provide something of
interest for them to get involved into the community.

Jonathan


list: foundation-l

from_name: Benjamin Webb

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
	wishes to become a wiki project

body:
Angela,

I'd noticed that you'd menationed the specialised software on wikitree.org,
I'd just be intereseted to know what you think about the specialised
software of Rodovid <http://rodovid.org> and what you, as someone high up
the the foundation, think about it becoming a foundation project.

Thanks,
Benjamin Webb

On 25/03/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/25/06, michael_irwin at verizon.net <michael_irwin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > So Wikiversity has received authority to proceed?
>
> Not yet. The Board suggested the proposal be revised, and this is now
> in the hands of the Special projects committee.
> (<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee>)
>
> > Has any wikimedia project ever been approved by the Board by following
> > the advertised policies and procedures?
>
> Wikinews.
>
> > Do they (the geneology project) have competing projects initiated at
> > wikicities.com?
>
> I don't see the one at Wikicities as a competing site. A geneology
> wiki needs specialised software, which wikitree.org has made a start
> on. The wikicity is using the standard MediaWiki software, and was
> originally meant to be about sufi chains, not a general geneology
> site.
>
> Angela
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: samson schneider

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Langage

body:
I Would like to see the addition of a non-wiki formatting of an english HyperText Markup Language

---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
On 3/21/06, wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com <
wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
> I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia from a university connection
> for over three months now, since the IP block stops traffic from the
> entire state of Maine's library/school system. Are four-month blocks
> really an accepted part of policy, for a system that blocks
> established users along with anonymous users from contributing?
>
>
It's a shared IP, and that block is too long for a shared IP. What's the IP?


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] We don't need editors' guides,
	we need better ways to find things

body:
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides
> Is there such a thing as editors' guides to specific areas?
>
> For example, the Trinidad and Tobago article attracts people all
> the time
> who add "new" information which is already contained in some
> subarticle.
> They don't expect the level of depth of Trinidad and Tobago
> articles that
> exist, so they just add something that's "missing", probably
> unaware of what
> exists.

I think there's a better way to frame the problem. The problem is
when people look for information in the way they expect to look for
it, under the heading where they expect to find it, they aren't
finding it.


from_name: Servien Ilaino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
YEEEAAAH!! Finaly!! :D

Serv

2006/3/25, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com>:
>
> WOO HOO!!!
> Thanks so much for that!
>
> 2006/3/25, Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de>:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > the following wikipedias have been created:
> >
> > nds-nl
> > rmy
> > lij
> > bat-smg
> > map-bms
> > ksh
> > pdc
> > vls
> > nrm
> > frp
> > zh-yue
> > tet
> > xal
> > pap
> >
> > See also
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_requests_for_new_languages&oldid=310831
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JeLuF
> >
> > --
> > Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
> > "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>Let's start by renaming that thread.
>Just because a single admin can cause problems doesn't mean there's an
>"admin problem". That implies all of them abuse their powers which is
>totally untrue.
>
Your essential premise is valid, but that smaller number who abuse their
powers manage to generate enough distrust to go around.

Ec


from_name: Brian

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
 wishes to become a wiki project

body:
To gain a bit more interest, you might talk to the people in this category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_genealogists

Angela wrote:

>On 3/25/06, Benjamin Webb <bjwebb67 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'd noticed that you'd menationed the specialised software on wikitree.org,
>>I'd just be intereseted to know what you think about the specialised
>>software of Rodovid <http://rodovid.org> and what you, as someone high up
>>the the foundation, think about it becoming a foundation project.
>>
>>
>
>That looks good too, and I've no opinion on whether Rodovid or
>Wikitree is using a better approach. Perhaps there are aspects of each
>that should be included. I'm also wondering whether Wikidata will fit
>into this somehow, or whether the structure you're using on Rodovid
>replaces that.
>
>The last time a genealogy wiki was seriously proposed as a Wikimedia
>project, there was little interest, and few answers to the questions I
>asked at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipeople>.  What
>software to use and what to do with the Sep11 wiki still need to be
>addressed. However, it is one of the proposals that comes up most
>often, so perhaps there is interest there, certainly from editors, but
>is there enough interest from developers to give this project the
>software changes it would need?
>
>Angela.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


body:
>The software Benjamin has written himself looks quite solid and reasonably feature complete to me. I
>don't see why he would need to attract interest from developers when he's obviously quite a
>proficient one himself. Wikimedia could certainly benefit from Benjamin's expertise, if we could win
>him over, but I'm not sure what benefit Benjamin expects to derive from Wikimedia. Whether or not
>this is a Wikimedia project, Benjamin will have to do most of the development and promotion himself.
>Hosting costs should be small during startup, easily covered by donations. If he can avoid
>Wikimedia's bureaucracy and run the project himself, why not do so?
>
>-- Tim Starling
>
Fortunately, in the genealogy world, there is a huge online presence. It
would be as simple as posting a well-written message to numerous
genealogy mailing lists to increase the user base.


subject:
[Foundation-l]  Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
 wishes to become a wiki project

body:
I would suggest you keep in touch with the people in this category to
raise interest in the project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_genealogists


subject:
[WikiEN-l] False accusations of Sock Puppetry by Ambi,
	David Gerard etc

body:
Hi Darren,
  I'd sort of wondered when you'd show up on this list. Welcome!

> Yesterday, I was blocked from using Wikipedia on the grounds that I am a
> sockpuppet master of two accounts, 2006BC and AChan.
>
> There is a big problem with this. They are two living, breathing people who
> had previously already identified themselves on their user page and
> elswehere.

I note that in DG's block report, he actually says "Darren Ray is
User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed
different people, although they appear to have edited from each
others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks'
accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks."

So, what's your point?

> They have both already complained about this separately although Ambi, her
> friend David Gerard and others are sticking to their guns despite the
> absurdity of their position being pointed out. Ambi is a former member of
> the Arbitration Committee, and her friend David Gerard seems enjoy a similar
> high position. Has anyone else had experience of dealing with these people?

Yes, David Gerard is a nice, extremely fair and respected senior admin.

> I don't know what to do other than to request to be unblocked but it seems
> that there is little likelihood of justice being done.

Well, let's see. You've been editing a range of Wikipedia articles for
a long time to attempt to discredit an auditor, clean your name,
remove references to the name of the property deal you signed, and
make allegations of conflicts of interest against returning officers
at the Melbourne University Student Union. Not only that, you've been
editing under a number of different accounts, feigning consensus with
two close friends and accusing everyone who tries to work on the same
articles of hiding behind a "pseudonymous/anonymous" cloak, defaming
you, or being politically motivated. And now, after a huge number of
warnings, you've been blocked. If there is an injustice here, you'll
have to point it out to me.

> Ambi had previously filed a Request for Arbitration against me and I was
> going to respond with one relating to her abusive conduct and POV editing.

That's not like you to hold back. Not unwelcome, but not like you either.

> I would appreciate any ideas people had about what to do. My knowledge of
> Wikipedia policies is pretty good in theory but has clearly come up short in
> practice as I have been completely banned for no good reason.

In your "pretty good" knowledge of Wikipedia policies, you obviously
missed this one (from [[WP:NOT]]:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and
advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

   1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can
report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to
approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or
start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your
favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic
point of view" for every article.
   2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17,
2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about
themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is
difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly
abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to
articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly
unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.

You could probably also brush up on [[WP:CIVIL]], and even
[[Wikipedia:Talk pages]]. Remember:

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would
be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In
the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this
can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.
Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a
joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message),
except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when
both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However,
reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a
block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without
answering consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially
true for vandalism warnings.

...

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism
or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk
page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to
remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid.

There are plenty of people here who will be more than happy to point
out more policies or guidelines that may be relevant.

Steve


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
As far as I know, although there is a "standard romani", it doesn't
totally bridge all Romani languages as it intends (it is apparently
based mostly on Kalderash), and is not intelligible to diverse
varieties such as Ursari, Sinte, or Baltic.

I don't think it's right for any single language to claim to be "*the*
Romani language", I think rom.wp should be a portal.

mark

On 25/03/06, Alin Dosoftei <desiphral at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> But the proposed code name is rom. not rmy. which is only for the Vlax
> Romani dialect. Is it because I forgot to change it at the Meta page for
> requests? Vlax was the first proposal but then the test changed to Standard
> Romani and I made the changes from rmy to rom wherever I found the older
> code.
>
> Also in English it is favoured the spelling Romani instead of Romany,
> because this is the way the other Indo-Aryan languages are spelled: Hindi,
> Bengali, Marathi, Kashmiri etc. The Romani dialects are spelled also like
> this: Drindari, Erli, Jambashi etc. and even the dialects of other languages
> spoken by Roma (with only Romani vocabulary) like Pogadi. *Romany* look
> awkward together with other Indo-Aryan languages.
>
> On 3/25/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just a question - none of the Wikipedias so far seem to have a localised
> > interface. The Romany Wikipedia (code RMY) has a nearly fully-translated
> > localisation file at:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
> >
> > (This file still contains some Romanian-language fragments)
> >
> > Once this file is fully translated, how is it possible to update the
> > interface?
> > Neither me nor the native Romani user, Desiphral, know how to use the CVS
> > system.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ronline
> >
> > 2006/3/25, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > YEEEAAAH!! Finaly!! :D
> > >
> > > Serv
> > >
> > >
> > > 2006/3/25, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > WOO HOO!!!
> > > > Thanks so much for that!
> > > >
> > > > 2006/3/25, Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > the following wikipedias have been created:
> > > > >
> > > > > nds-nl
> > > > > rmy
> > > > > lij
> > > > > bat-smg
> > > > > map-bms
> > > > > ksh
> > > > > pdc
> > > > > vls
> > > > > nrm
> > > > > frp
> > > > > zh-yue
> > > > > tet
> > > > > xal
> > > > > pap
> > > > >
> > > > > See also
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_requests_for_new_languages&oldid=310831
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > JeLuF
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
> > > > > "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Something really needs to be done to Meta

body:
On 3/25/06, Alex Schenck <linuxbeak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Today, I went through about 10% of all Meta articles (by hand) and
> categorized them, deleted them, or did things to them that needed to be
> done. It's a very good start, but I need help. I'm therefore asking for that
> help.

Please stop deleting redirects. Many of these are linked from other
Wikimedia projects, and removing them is not helping to make meta more
usable.

Just one example: I would expect the avoid copyright paranoia page to be at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia (normal en wp
capitalisation), but it's not, which is exactly why the redirect was
needed.

Angela


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki converter (follow-up)

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
>>Would you mind talking to our legal counsel about that? It would be crazy of us
>>to go splashing in features for "legal" reasons that don't actually exist.
>>
>>
>There is no legal necessity for the "list authors" feature. I never said
>that. I said that it is currently very inconvenient to fulfil the
>demands of the GFDL, because you have to download the entire wikipedia,
>including history, to correctly publish a single article. What good is
>it to have an open license if taking advantage of that is a PITA? (I'm
>talking non-geeks here, and geeks who have a slow machine/internet
>connection/etc.)
>
There was a barely related discussion over on wiken-l. I suggested a
change, which would allow a form of anonymity. The anonymity was not the
significant part. However, the responses included claims where other
licenses besides just the GFDL are used. Therefore, there is a need for
the list of authors for attribution with those licenses.

Jonathan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cantonese WP: Report

body:
Already, even though it has only existed for a day, the Cantonese
Wikipedia has been full of activity.

Take the main talk page as an example:

http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page

Already, there are active discussions on:

1) User interface translation
2) Name of the encyclopaedia (Should it be same asthe Mandarin, which
is pronounced in Cantonese as "wai gei", or should it be a more
phonetic Cantonese, like "wik gei"?)
3) Promotion of cantonese wp
4) "Standard Characters" (Hoeng Gong Zi)
5) Subdomain (some people think it's unfair to use zh-yue, and that
just yue should be used instead or such)
6) Getting an admin and making a logo
7) Should it be "Cantonese Wikipedia" or "Yue Wikipedia"
8) Name of main page
9) Allmessages, namespace translation

With such activity in such little time I have no doubt we can expect
phenomenal growth from this new Wikipedia.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
The comparison to Kurdish isn't exactly valid -- the Kurdish Wikipedia
doesn't use a single "standard form", but rather has separate
"sections" for each dialect, beccause quite simply there is no
Standard Kuridsh.

Mark

On 25/03/06, Alin Dosoftei <desiphral at gmail.com> wrote:
> Have a look at the debate for the test Romani Wikipedia, at my last comment:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Vlax_Romany/Discussion
>
> My point is that if it is will to make Wikipedias in other dialects, it's
> OK, but I don't think this is an impediment to have one for the standard
> form.
>
> On 3/25/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I know, although there is a "standard romani", it doesn't
> > totally bridge all Romani languages as it intends (it is apparently
> > based mostly on Kalderash), and is not intelligible to diverse
> > varieties such as Ursari, Sinte, or Baltic.
> >
> > I don't think it's right for any single language to claim to be "*the*
> > Romani language", I think rom.wp should be a portal.
> >
> > mark
> >
> > On 25/03/06, Alin Dosoftei <desiphral at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > But the proposed code name is rom. not rmy. which is only for the Vlax
> > > Romani dialect. Is it because I forgot to change it at the Meta page for
> > > requests? Vlax was the first proposal but then the test changed to
> > Standard
> > > Romani and I made the changes from rmy to rom wherever I found the older
> > > code.
> > >
> > > Also in English it is favoured the spelling Romani instead of Romany,
> > > because this is the way the other Indo-Aryan languages are spelled:
> > Hindi,
> > > Bengali, Marathi, Kashmiri etc. The Romani dialects are spelled also
> > like
> > > this: Drindari, Erli, Jambashi etc. and even the dialects of other
> > languages
> > > spoken by Roma (with only Romani vocabulary) like Pogadi. *Romany* look
> > > awkward together with other Indo-Aryan languages.
> > >
> > > On 3/25/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a question - none of the Wikipedias so far seem to have a
> > localised
> > > > interface. The Romany Wikipedia (code RMY) has a nearly
> > fully-translated
> > > > localisation file at:
> > > >
> > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
> > > >
> > > > (This file still contains some Romanian-language fragments)
> > > >
> > > > Once this file is fully translated, how is it possible to update the
> > > > interface?
> > > > Neither me nor the native Romani user, Desiphral, know how to use the
> > CVS
> > > > system.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Ronline
> > > >
> > > > 2006/3/25, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > YEEEAAAH!! Finaly!! :D
> > > > >
> > > > > Serv
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2006/3/25, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WOO HOO!!!
> > > > > > Thanks so much for that!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2006/3/25, Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the following wikipedias have been created:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nds-nl
> > > > > > > rmy
> > > > > > > lij
> > > > > > > bat-smg
> > > > > > > map-bms
> > > > > > > ksh
> > > > > > > pdc
> > > > > > > vls
> > > > > > > nrm
> > > > > > > frp
> > > > > > > zh-yue
> > > > > > > tet
> > > > > > > xal
> > > > > > > pap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See also
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_requests_for_new_languages&oldid=310831
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JeLuF
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
> > > > > > > "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
On 3/25/06, michael_irwin at verizon.net <michael_irwin at verizon.net> wrote:

> So Wikiversity has received authority to proceed?

Not yet. The Board suggested the proposal be revised, and this is now
in the hands of the Special projects committee.
(<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee>)

> Has any wikimedia project ever been approved by the Board by following
> the advertised policies and procedures?

Wikinews.

> Do they (the geneology project) have competing projects initiated at
> wikicities.com?

I don't see the one at Wikicities as a competing site. A geneology
wiki needs specialised software, which wikitree.org has made a start
on. The wikicity is using the standard MediaWiki software, and was
originally meant to be about sufi chains, not a general geneology
site.

Angela


subject: [WikiEN-l] Next step in "fair use" cleanup?

body:
>   > You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is
> > a special
> > email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.

> "Supposed to"? Well, it's not in the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|policy]]. I
> dunno where this has been communicated, but not on the policy page.

It's mentioned on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission

It's more of a sensible guideline than a policy, since it helps to
prove permission was really given, but isn't the only way of doing
that.

Angela.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Public Library of Science

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>geni wrote:
>>
>>>Journals appear to be doing ok.
>>>
>>
>>Mostly because they deal in specialized niches.
>
>
> This is unrelated to the current thread, but I was at a meeting at the
> Public Library of Science the other day and promised them that I would
> make an effort to bring their work to the attention of the wider
> Wikipedia community.
>
> http://www.plos.org/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science
>
> All content of the peer-reviewed Plos journals (including PLoS Biology,
> PLoS Medicine, PLoS Genetics, etc.) is released under "by-attribution"
> (Creative Commons).
>

Great! Has anyone created templates saying "This article incorporates
material from PLoS article XYZ (link)"?

--
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: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060325/5e68e1f9/attachment.pgp


body:
Matt R wrote:
> --- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept
>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be
>>>>>>supporting
>>>>>>documentation somewhere for that case.
>>>>>
>>>>>Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting
>>>>>documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really
>>>>>doubt it.
>>>>
>>>>For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader
>>>>cant produce documentation, delete the image.
>>>
>>>I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after
>>>negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which
>>>there is no
>>>supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private
>>>emails).
>>
>>You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is
>>a special
>>email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.
>
>
> Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm
> willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about
> such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a
> fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
>

The correct procedure is to get the copyright owner to write to
permissions at wikimedia.org which goes into an OTRS queue which can be
accessed by anyone listed on [[m:OTRS]] - finding out if a claim is
bogus or not is as simple as looking it up.

--
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: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060325/949935d7/attachment.pgp


from_name: KWH

body:
On 3/24/06, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> KWH wrote:
> >
> >
> > Spot on, but I would add - Joe User /can/ have an image in /his/
> > article.
>
> By "his article" I assume you mean "article on Joe User" - if that's not
> what you meant, please see [[WP:OWN]].

When I take Article X and edit it to create my "own" version, I have
exercised my right under the GFDL to prepare a derivative work of the
previously current version of Article X (which is a derivative of the
previous ver, etc.). So yes, it's just as it is described at
[[WP:OWN#Legal ownership of text]]. I can and will put an image in it
and claim fair use. I can take that version, copy the html, and put it
on my own website. I can exercise a right to fork and write my own
version of every Wikipedia article with 10 fair use images each on my
own MediaWiki.  The question is, will my version be published on
Wikipedia?

I point out this critical distinction because I hear a lot of folks
arguing from the standpoint of "you can't claim fair use on that", or
"you just can't do that". I most certainly can, but if you don't feel
it's fair use, you can redact it from your version.

[[User:Kwh]]


from_name: Rich Morin

subject: [Wikitech-l] what table in wikidb stores ...

body:
Take a look at

  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RichMorin/MySQL_Tables

and let me know if this doesn't answer your questions.

-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm            Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume     rdm at cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog     +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development


body:
on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
> > fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
> > uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
> > uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
> > responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
> >
> > -Matt
> No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
>
> Mgm

Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright
holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The
existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the
defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by
their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either
- what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the
four factors based on the evidence presented.

Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair
use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at
least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their
work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then
having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going
to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's
advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their
recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and
they're not going to take advice from the adversary.

I also wanted to respond to your message on another thread, MGM:

> You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone
> else put in an article. Too many people know too little about
> copyright law or are just completely ignorant.

But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're
authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our
contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as
example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually
exercise fair use as much as images do.

I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the
mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so
I will understand it for you."

Here's a 'modest proposal', while I'm at it:

Wikipedia should partner with MajorSearchProvider (Google, for sake of
example). Have the en image archive merge with Google Image Search.
Since so many of these fair use images probably come from people going
to Google Image Search and searching for the topic, wham - now they're
all there.

We all get good PR from the connection. Wikipedians can diligently tag
and cat images, adding to the value of Google's search. Sources are
implicit, and google's spider can probably make a good hash of
extracting the copyright terms from the page. Google's lawyers can
make the call on any technical measures which need to happen to meet
fair use - e.g. automatically resizing to thumbnails, restricting
certain images due to legal takedown notices. In event of the "big
lawsuit", Google can use their trillions of dollars to defend it like
they have before.

Now that I've stated it, I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but
does it spur any ideas? (other than that I'm nucking futs?)

[[User:Kwh]]


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/25/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> ...so if I claim that there are gigantic hyperintelligent aliens made of
> lime jello living on a giant pumpkin orbiting Alpha Centauri and that
> they have five hands and one foot, and no-one makes a verifiable
> rebuttal, then my claim, being the only published view on the subject,
> represents the Neutral Point of View about hyperintelligent aliens made
> of lime jello?

I think our solution to that problem is noting the lack of sources
supporting the theory. Like in the case with Safe Speed - there are no
reputable sources which back up the theories, therefore we say so. We
have to publish the claims because the group is notable, but we're
also obliged to give the reader a sense of their acceptance in the
scientific community.

Steve


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> That's not logical.  If there are no views expressed  that challenge the
> premise, it necessarily represents the Neutral Point of View. A
> rebutting argument that is not verifiable is as good as no argument at all.

...so if I claim that there are gigantic hyperintelligent aliens made of
lime jello living on a giant pumpkin orbiting Alpha Centauri and that
they have five hands and one foot, and no-one makes a verifiable
rebuttal, then my claim, being the only published view on the subject,
represents the Neutral Point of View about hyperintelligent aliens made
of lime jello?

I don't think that's quite what you meant.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
Sam Korn wrote:
>
> Of course, to be fair use it ipso facto must be copyrighted, else we
> wouldn't have to claim fair use.

To be pedantic, there is of course the case of "We don't know if this is
copyrighted or not, but if it is, we can still claim fair use."

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: buscador

subject:
[Wikitech-l] what table in wikidb stores all the the content of an
	article and the

body:
I am working with wikipedia 1.5.5 o 1.5.6, I don't remenber well
And i cannot find what table stores the content information about an
article, I mean, when I edit o create an article, How is it stored in wikidb
and in which table, I found an outdated database schema, it says a table
called cur, but that table is not in the version I have, coudl anyone help.

Please

--
?ngel Emilio Quezada Rodr?guez
angel.quezada at gmail.com


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Alex Schenck schreef:
> I'm going to be blunt. Meta right now totally sucks.
>
> We need to do something about Meta. It COULD be a very useful resource as it
> once was, but the current state that it is in is totally unacceptable. It's
> uncategorized, unorganized, mostly unutilized, and is not used the way it's
> supposed to be.

I would like that the patrol function was enabled on Meta. That can help
 to discover more easy junk added to meta.

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4747

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


from_name: Alin Dosoftei

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
Thank you!

But the proposed code name is rom. not rmy. which is only for the Vlax
Romani dialect. Is it because I forgot to change it at the Meta page for
requests? Vlax was the first proposal but then the test changed to Standard
Romani and I made the changes from rmy to rom wherever I found the older
code.

Also in English it is favoured the spelling Romani instead of Romany,
because this is the way the other Indo-Aryan languages are spelled: Hindi,
Bengali, Marathi, Kashmiri etc. The Romani dialects are spelled also like
this: Drindari, Erli, Jambashi etc. and even the dialects of other languages
spoken by Roma (with only Romani vocabulary) like Pogadi. *Romany* look
awkward together with other Indo-Aryan languages.

On 3/25/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just a question - none of the Wikipedias so far seem to have a localised
> interface. The Romany Wikipedia (code RMY) has a nearly fully-translated
> localisation file at:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
>
> (This file still contains some Romanian-language fragments)
>
> Once this file is fully translated, how is it possible to update the
> interface?
> Neither me nor the native Romani user, Desiphral, know how to use the CVS
> system.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ronline
>
> 2006/3/25, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com>:
> >
> > YEEEAAAH!! Finaly!! :D
> >
> > Serv
> >
> >
> > 2006/3/25, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > WOO HOO!!!
> > > Thanks so much for that!
> > >
> > > 2006/3/25, Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de>:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > the following wikipedias have been created:
> > > >
> > > > nds-nl
> > > > rmy
> > > > lij
> > > > bat-smg
> > > > map-bms
> > > > ksh
> > > > pdc
> > > > vls
> > > > nrm
> > > > frp
> > > > zh-yue
> > > > tet
> > > > xal
> > > > pap
> > > >
> > > > See also
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_requests_for_new_languages&oldid=310831
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > JeLuF
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
> > > > "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject:
[Wikitech-l] what table in wikidb stores all the the content of
 an	article and the

body:
buscador wrote:
> How is it stored in wikidb
> and in which table, I found an outdated database schema, it says a table
> called cur, but that table is not in the version I have, coudl anyone help.

In the future, please search the archives before asking questions on the
list. This has been answered many times already.

Look into 'tables.sql' inside the 'maintenance' directory of your
MediaWiki installation for the current schema. Pay special attention to
the 'page', 'revision' and 'text' tables.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

references:
<3538731.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4421E514.2000009@vyznev.net>	<3545291.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<dvt3an$u20$1@sea.gmane.org>	<3551513.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4422C157.6040003@vyznev.net>	<3554503.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<3564576.post@talk.nabble.com>	<4423DEDF.7050604@vyznev.net>
	<3579271.post@talk.nabble.com>

body:
freakofnurture wrote:
> Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>
>>I think you've got your templates mixed up above.  {{SharedIP}} is the
>>"This IP address is shared by multiple users." template, used on talk
>>pages of IPs that should not be blocked for long periods.  It's the
>>generic template from which {{AOL}} was forked.  I agree with Phil that
>>it shouldn't be substed, but the folks at [[Wikipedia:Template
>>substitution]] seem to think otherwise.
>
> I suppose you're right about the mixup, but since the issue involves IPs
> that are indefinitely blocked, any relevant information could be added
> instead to the {{openproxy}} template, and any other templates used in cases
> where it's necessary to block an IP indefinitely or for an unusually long
> duration.

Actually, the XFF issue affects temporary blocks too.  That's why we
have the big "Read this part!" notice in [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]].

I see, for example, that the *.singnet.sg proxies have beed added to the
"trusted" list.  That's a very good thing, since there's a lot of petty
vandalism from that range that used to be nearly impossible to block
without massive collateral damage.  Unfortunately AOL still doesn't
provide XFF headers.  :-(

Actually, [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]] is probably one place where this
also ought to be advertised.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-25

body:
brion at pobox.com wrote:
> Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!

Fix attached.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chatroom libel ruling

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:

>In message <44242C9C.30501 at telus.net>, Ray Saintonge
><saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org> writes
>
>
>>slimvirgin-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Interesting ruling from the High Court in England, which could have
>>>implications for our talk  pages.
>>>http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>What makes this case less important is that the defendant failed to
>>defend the case, and the result was in effect a default judgement.
>>
>>
>Or else her solicitor may have advised her that there simply /was/ no
>defence, and to try to contest it would simply have incurred large
>amounts of further legal expenses which she would have to pay (remember
>- she would have to pay both her own legal expenses and the
>plaintiff's).
>
That's a possibility too, but the effect is the same.  A competent
solicitor is unlikely to allow such a situation; he would at least
attempt some kind of negotiated settlement.  This one is more
characteristic of someone who ignored the legal paperwork.

Without both sides of the case being presented fairly, the results can
hardly be a valid precedent.

Ec


body:
Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Fix attached.

... and stripped by mailman. Here:

 http://solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu/~krstic/static-hook.patch

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

references:
<3538731.post@talk.nabble.com>	<4421E514.2000009@vyznev.net>	<3545291.post@talk.nabble.com>	<dvt3an$u20$1@sea.gmane.org>	<3551513.post@talk.nabble.com>	<4422C157.6040003@vyznev.net>	<3554503.post@talk.nabble.com>	<3564576.post@talk.nabble.com>	<4423DEDF.7050604@vyznev.net>	<3579271.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<44254A40.6050809@vyznev.net>

body:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>
> Actually, [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]] is probably one place where this
> also ought to be advertised.

...done.  Improvements welcome.

Should there be some specific place where admins can report ISP proxies
so that a developer can check them, with a list of proxies that have
already been checked and found wanting?  An admin doing vandal blocking
generally can't tell if a proxy provides XFF headers or not, but I
understand that the headers are logged in the database where developers
(and those with CheckUser privs?) can access them.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
User:Hall Monitor claimed on the IP's talk page yesterday that the
block was requested by the network's administrators.  No link to any
documentation of this.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
On 3/25/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> You assume we're omniscient.  We're not.  There's no way for us to know
> whether any given IP is used by a single user or by an entire state.
> You're the first person who's informed us of this.

Actually not, if you read [[User talk:169.244.143.115]].

-Matt


body:
KWH wrote:

>on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
>>>fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
>>>uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
>>>uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
>>>responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
>>>
>>>-Matt
>>>
>>>
>>No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
>>
>>Mgm
>>
>>
>
>Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright
>holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The
>existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the
>defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by
>their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either
>- what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the
>four factors based on the evidence presented.
>
>Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair
>use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at
>least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their
>work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then
>having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going
>to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's
>advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their
>recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and
>they're not going to take advice from the adversary.
>
I agree.  But not all suits are filed as a result of a rational analysis
of possible outcomes.  Some lawsuits are the result of some individual
who gets it into his head that there is a point of principle to be made,
even when the damages that could be recovered are considerably less than
the legal costs.  What a lot of copyright paranoiacs seem to ignore is
the number of steps between the time the copyright owner notices the
alleged infringement, and the time that a trial judge gives a decision.
There are many opportunities on the way for either party to withdraw
without any significant damage to anyone.

>>You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone
>>else put in an article. Too many people know too little about
>>copyright law or are just completely ignorant.
>>
>>
>But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're
>authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our
>contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as
>example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually
>exercise fair use as much as images do.
>
>I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the
>mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so
>I will understand it for you."
>
Absolutely.  It's a favorite argument of politicians.

Ec


body:
This would be most useful for famous families, which right now are only
documented on our site as an unorganized list of names on a
disambiguation page. Pointing to a graphical pedigree would make things
much easier for people, especially with all the possibilities for
back-and-forth interwiki links. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acton#People

Then of course there's also the thought of building the most complete,
freely accessible world family tree, a project that would require a big
name to begin with, which Wikipedia has.

brian0918

Benjamin Webb wrote:

>Hello again.
>
>Firstly, I didn't actually write the software myself. It was
>Baya<http://engine.rodovid.org/wiki/User:Baya>who did. I am simply
>publiscising the project as I am a native speaker of
>English, whilst he is not. The main reason I think that becoming a WIkimedia
>project would be a good idea is the recognisation. The 'Wikimedia project'
>logo would bring credebility to the site.
>
>Also, of course is the traffic. The great benefit, that I will not get if
>the project is run independently is inter-wiki links. In the same way pages
>have a 'commons has media about the subject: x', if Rodovid became a
>Wikimedia project, we would be able to have 'Rodovid (or alternate name) has
>genealogical information about x'.
>
>Anyway, thanks for pointing me to the category Brian.
>
>Benjamin Webb
>
>On 25/03/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Angela wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 3/25/06, Benjamin Webb <bjwebb67 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'd noticed that you'd menationed the specialised software on
>>>>
>>>>
>>wikitree.org,
>>
>>
>>>>I'd just be intereseted to know what you think about the specialised
>>>>software of Rodovid <http://rodovid.org> and what you, as someone high
>>>>
>>>>
>>up
>>
>>
>>>>the the foundation, think about it becoming a foundation project.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That looks good too, and I've no opinion on whether Rodovid or
>>>Wikitree is using a better approach. Perhaps there are aspects of each
>>>that should be included. I'm also wondering whether Wikidata will fit
>>>into this somehow, or whether the structure you're using on Rodovid
>>>replaces that.
>>>
>>>The last time a genealogy wiki was seriously proposed as a Wikimedia
>>>project, there was little interest, and few answers to the questions I
>>>asked at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipeople>.  What
>>>software to use and what to do with the Sep11 wiki still need to be
>>>addressed. However, it is one of the proposals that comes up most
>>>often, so perhaps there is interest there, certainly from editors, but
>>>is there enough interest from developers to give this project the
>>>software changes it would need?
>>>
>>>
>>The software Benjamin has written himself looks quite solid and reasonably
>>feature complete to me. I
>>don't see why he would need to attract interest from developers when he's
>>obviously quite a
>>proficient one himself. Wikimedia could certainly benefit from Benjamin's
>>expertise, if we could win
>>him over, but I'm not sure what benefit Benjamin expects to derive from
>>Wikimedia. Whether or not
>>this is a Wikimedia project, Benjamin will have to do most of the
>>development and promotion himself.
>>Hosting costs should be small during startup, easily covered by donations.
>>If he can avoid
>>Wikimedia's bureaucracy and run the project himself, why not do so?
>>
>>-- Tim Starling
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV pushing by pressure group

body:
In my daily trawl through Google News I've noticed several reports
headed "Bono targets Wikipedia entries" or similar -
http://people.monstersandcritics.com/article_1149947.php/Bono_targets_Wik
ipedia_entries
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS09/6
03240358/1001/NEWS
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_21211811.shtmlhtt
p://www.playfuls.com/news_000098_Bono_targets_Wikipedia_entries.html
which all basically seem to recycle a UPI wire report that Bono's Make
Poverty History campaign is editing our articles to push their agenda,
and have edited Iowa representative [[Jim Nussle]]'s entry to say

"As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Nussle and Iowa
also have an incredible opportunity to influence and save lives in
Africa and the world's poorest countries by fully funding the fight
against global AIDS and extreme poverty."

This has already been removed as POV-pushing. I've put a friendly note
on [[User talk:67.155.175.170]] to ask them to kindly not do this again,
and point out that [[WP:NOT[[ a soapbox.

Perhaps it would be an idea to put out a press release deprecating the
practice, regardless of how much we may individually support the aims of
MPH, since it only creates work for people in removing it again?

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

body:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>That's not logical.  If there are no views expressed that challenge the
>>premise, it necessarily represents the Neutral Point of View. A
>>rebutting argument that is not verifiable is as good as no argument at all.
>>
>>
>...so if I claim that there are gigantic hyperintelligent aliens made of
>lime jello living on a giant pumpkin orbiting Alpha Centauri and that
>they have five hands and one foot, and no-one makes a verifiable
>rebuttal, then my claim, being the only published view on the subject,
>represents the Neutral Point of View about hyperintelligent aliens made
>of lime jello?
>
Theoretically yes, except that I would say any rebuttal rather than just
a verifiable one.  It is NPOV because it represents the average of all
views that have been submitted until then.  In practical terms that
neutrality will cease as soon as one other person reads the article and
challenges its contents, unless a visiting Beta Centaurian decides to
get in on the act.  A challenge to the system can be as simple as a
polite request for sources to be cited.

Once a request has been made for verification, the original contributor
has the primary burden of proof, but that does not prevent others from
supplying proof if they so desire.  If the original statement is as
patently ridiculous as the one you hypothesize, any attempt at rebuttal
implies that there was something there worth rebutting, and the very act
of initiating a rebuttal gives credibility to the original statement.

Ec


from_name: Michael Steudle

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ban Question

body:
I've been banned from editing  by Raul654 Now the only edit I did was correct an small error on Boxer Johnny Tapia's career record now .I usually just read Wikipedia otherwise .I wasnt a member at the time of edit ....... is that reason my IP was banned I'm confused.

  Best Regards

  Mike Steudle

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 25/03/06, brion at pobox.com <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
> Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
>
> Passed 299 of 301 tests (99.34%) FAILED!

Someone needs to give Gabriel Wicke a bloody medal; he was committing
parser fixes yesterday like it was going out of fashion.

Rob Church


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] inconsistencies in dumps ?

body:
Colin Delacroix wrote:
> - it might be that the revision has changed between the dumps of those 2
> tables (page has been edited)

They're dumped at different times, yes. A copy of the 'page' table is for
reference only, and is not guaranteed to be consistent with the XML data dumps.
If you're using an XML data dump you don't need a separate download of the
'page' table, just use the one created by the import.

> - it ends in empty pages (i.e. with the usual stub text), for ~ 5% of
> the pages (that seems huge, but I don't see where the problem lies)

I don't know what this means. What "ends" in empty pages, and in what way?

> - is there a simple way to fix it ? (if no better idea emerges, I will
> try to fix the page_latest column in the page table by doing a lookup on
> rev_page in the revision table - is it right ?)

Just use the page table generated from the import; it's guaranteed to be consistent.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060325/2eb4b56b/attachment.pgp>


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
It is quite true that at the start of a project you can find the money
to host the data involved. When you grow over a "certain" size, this
becomes problematic. With enough people interested, you can grow
REALLY big databases. Then again with enough people giving you can
grow really grow .. The Wikimedia Foundation is the perfect example :)

The only question as far as I am concerned is, is this a project for
the Wikimedia Foundation. Does it fit in what it aims to do. If it
does .. why not.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3/25/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Angela wrote:
> > On 3/25/06, Benjamin Webb <bjwebb67 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd noticed that you'd menationed the specialised software on wikitree.org,
> >>I'd just be intereseted to know what you think about the specialised
> >>software of Rodovid <http://rodovid.org> and what you, as someone high up
> >>the the foundation, think about it becoming a foundation project.
> >
> >
> > That looks good too, and I've no opinion on whether Rodovid or
> > Wikitree is using a better approach. Perhaps there are aspects of each
> > that should be included. I'm also wondering whether Wikidata will fit
> > into this somehow, or whether the structure you're using on Rodovid
> > replaces that.
> >
> > The last time a genealogy wiki was seriously proposed as a Wikimedia
> > project, there was little interest, and few answers to the questions I
> > asked at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipeople>.  What
> > software to use and what to do with the Sep11 wiki still need to be
> > addressed. However, it is one of the proposals that comes up most
> > often, so perhaps there is interest there, certainly from editors, but
> > is there enough interest from developers to give this project the
> > software changes it would need?
>
> The software Benjamin has written himself looks quite solid and reasonably feature complete to me. I
> don't see why he would need to attract interest from developers when he's obviously quite a
> proficient one himself. Wikimedia could certainly benefit from Benjamin's expertise, if we could win
> him over, but I'm not sure what benefit Benjamin expects to derive from Wikimedia. Whether or not
> this is a Wikimedia project, Benjamin will have to do most of the development and promotion himself.
> Hosting costs should be small during startup, easily covered by donations. If he can avoid
> Wikimedia's bureaucracy and run the project himself, why not do so?
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/25/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> What does Inland Revenue have to do with it?  Your attitude suggests
> that you would be an excellent employee there..

The IR often deal with people who have just been through the tramatic
experence of haveing someone close to them die (inheritance tax and
the like). They also tend to use automated responces

>In the past we have had
> calls from people threatening suicide, and it sounds as if you support
> treating them as though we were IR.  That sounds bloody disgusting to me.
>
> Ec

If you are thinking of commiting suicie press 5 for the samaritans. I
don't think we employ trained councelers. Thus it is logical to try
and get them to someone who does have the training and skills to deal
with them as quickly as posible.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ban Question on  Johnny Tapia issue

body:
My IP is  By the way 24.6.87.47.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


body:
On 3/25/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> I think there's a better way to frame the problem. The problem is
> when people look for information in the way they expect to look for
> it, under the heading where they expect to find it, they aren't
> finding it.

At a quick glance, [[Trinidad and Tobago]] is correctly formatted with
"main article: " links. All I could suggest would be a different
slicing of info with a "everything related to T&T" infobox. Currently
this article slices horizontally twice (Countries in the Caribbean;
Caribbean Community), and has one country infobox with all the basic
stats on the country (as normal). A vertical slicing (History of T&T,
Economy of T&T...) might help...slightly...but would probably add more
clutter than anything useful.

Steve


from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
WOO HOO!!!
Thanks so much for that!

2006/3/25, Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de>:
>
> Hello,
>
> the following wikipedias have been created:
>
> nds-nl
> rmy
> lij
> bat-smg
> map-bms
> ksh
> pdc
> vls
> nrm
> frp
> zh-yue
> tet
> xal
> pap
>
> See also
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_requests_for_new_languages&oldid=310831
>
> Regards,
>
> JeLuF
>
> --
> Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
> "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>


from_name: Brian

body:
I understand what your saying, but should note that I have seen some
extremely large GEDCOM files floating around RootsWeb, with tens or
hundreds of thousands of people within one family tree. There are also
entire websites devoted to this, which connect several family trees
together. So, it is not as far behind as people might think. It just
requires lots of time and manpower (think Gutenberg's Distributed
Proofreaders for censuses).

Lars Aronsson wrote:

>The software at rodovid.org is quite impressive and interesting.
>Genealogy is a very popular hobby.  However, most amateur
>genealogists that I know only research their own family, and
>within their family they are the only genealogist.  While they can
>show their findings to interested family members, and share
>experience with fellow genealogists, the actual work is very
>lonely.  There seems to be very little room for wiki-like,
>community-wide cooperation.  It's more like a thousand bloggers,
>each writing their own blog, than any kind of cooperation.
>
>There could be exceptions to this.  The first example I stumbled
>on in the English branch of rodovid.org was Charles Darwin, the
>biologist.  Researching the genealogy of famous persons, nobelty
>or royals, even though they are not your own family, can be an
>area for wiki-style cooperation.
>
>For a genealogic project to reach the world-wide status that
>Wikipedia has as an encyclopedia, it would be necessary to try to
>catalog every person alive and dead.  This is akin to what the
>Latter Day Saints (Mormons) try to do.  They have pioneered the
>microfilming of historic population records and censuses around
>the world, and there are now several initiatives to try to put
>some of these microfilms online as facsimile images.  OCR just
>doesn't work on old hand-written records, so it would be necessary
>to manually transcribe the text from the images.  And then you
>would have to question the reliability of the old written records,
>in a way that most amateur genealogists fail to do. This is not
>going to happen within the next several decades, at least not on
>any larger scale.  But you could try to do it for a limited area
>and period of time, such as a single small town or a handful of
>countryside parishes.  So instead of just building Charles
>Darwin's family tree on rodovid.org, try to cover every family
>tree between 1750 and 1850 in the town Shrewsbury in Shropshire,
>England, where he was born in 1809.  The town has 70,059
>inhabitants today, and it should have been smaller back then.
>The number of people you have to map are quite within the
>reasonable size of a Mediawiki installation.  When you're done you
>can expand to cover more towns or more centuries.
>
>Perhaps I'm trying to say that it would be premature to adopt
>rodovid.org as an official Wikimedia project.  My best bet would
>be to market it as a software package to amateur genealogists, or
>perhaps provide it as a (subscriber) service like blogger.com or
>wikicities.com.
>
>I'm not speaking for the foundation, only for myself.
>
>
>
>


from_name: wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/21/06, wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com
> wrote:
>
>> I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia from a university connection
>> for over three months now, since the IP block stops traffic from the
>> entire state of Maine's library/school system. Are four-month blocks
>> really an accepted part of policy, for a system that blocks
>> established users along with anonymous users from contributing?
>>
>
> Could you tell us what IPs this is regarding?
>
> -Matt
>
It's 169.244.143.115. Blocking that blocks every public computer in the
whole state, apparently.

Four months just seems excessive. I thought there was a maximum length
for blocks on IP's that are shared, like by public libraries and schools.