subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is blocking 80 percent of all broadband
	users in Thailand

body:
In today's paper their was an article about True internet. The daughter
of asianet handling ADSL connections. Asianet itself handles dialup.

Some exerpts from it:

"True's ADSL broadband Internet service has about 20,000 corporate users
and more than 200,000 individual users, representing around 80 per cent
of Thailand's broadband Internet market."

So wikipedia is currently blocking 80 percent of all Thai broadband users.

"Earlier this month, True said its total number of broadband subscribers
would reach 500,000 this year, and revenue from its broadband Internet
service would double to almost Bt3 billion."

So we would be blocking half a million Thais by the end of the year!!
And that is just Broadband. Their Dialup members are a multiple of this!!!

For the article see:
http://www.komchadluek.net/breaking/read.php?lang=en&newsid=52375

Walter


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Walter van Kalken


list: wikien-l

from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] 4/1 FA: Nintendo Entertainment System :(

body:
So now his eminent worthiness Mark a.k.a. Raul has decreed that
[[Nintendo Entertainment System]] will be the Featured Article tomorrow,
despite the overwhelming support for UTPH at
[[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#European_toilet_paper_holder]].
  It seems to me a spectacularly lame and unimaginative choice. If
running a genuinely ersatz text was too daring, at least we could have
run an oddball article that looked like a hoax, but I guess even that
was too much for the timid souls at the steering wheel.

I am disappointed by the process by which this decision was reached and
  I especially disappointed by the outcome, but I guess it reflects the
fact that Wikipedia EN is overpopulated by geeky teenagers who probably
prefer Red Bull to red wine and Game Boys to sex.

Signed,
Just Another Dinosaur


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Syntax standardization effort

body:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:20:50 +0200, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:

> Which raises another question: By converting the source, we actually
> edit all old and current versions of all articles. So, when I look at an
> old edit of mine, it willk show something different from what I wrote at
> the time.
> I know that this is *supposed* to only affect syntax, but is retrospect
> changing of user submissions OK with the GFDL? (After all, we're not
> making a new version based on an old one, like editing; we'll be
> changing the sumbission itself.)

I don't see why the GFDL would be a problem. In the worst case we'd
have to consider it a 'revision' - the GFDL does not oblige us to give
the old versions, only to specify the authors and version history.

Andre Engels


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Banned IP address or...?

body:
Docjohn -

I've forwarded your message to our tech mailing list.

--- Docjohn <grohol at psychcentral.com> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:29:11 GMT
> To: Maveric149 <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Banned IP address or...?
> From: Docjohn <grohol at psychcentral.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> It has recently come to our attention that one of our developers was testing
> a 'bot script that was crawling your site, but not in accordance with your
> rules. This script has been removed, but our IP remains blocked by your site.
>
> According to your page here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
>
> We can ask that our IP address be restored. The IP I'm requesting to be
> restored is:
>
> 69.93.247.170
>
> Although I do not see our IP on your blocklist, we have been receiving the
> following error message during the past day or two when trying to access
> Wikipedia from our computer (using a standard Web browser, so it doesn't have
> any special user-agent string):
> -----------------------------
> Sorry- we have a problem...
>
> We may be having an intermittent server problem; please wait a few minutes
> and reload.
>
> Another possibility is that your User-Agent is blocked, which is done to
> block e-mail harvesting bots used by spammers and some abusive download
> spiders.
> ------------------------------
> We are extremely sorry for this 'bot's behavior and this will not happen
> again. Thank you for your assistance. If you're not an appropriate
> administrator to forward this to, please let me know who might be able to
> help me, as the help section of Wikipedia is fairly dense.
>
> Yours truly,
> John Grohol
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:36:40 +0100, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:

> How about fixing our own first? That is, template syntax:

I'm not sure what you think needs "fixing" here.

> Use image: [[Image:Name.jpg]]
> Mention image: [[:Image:Name.jpg]]
> Use category: [[Category:People]]
> Mention category: [[:Category:People]]

These are nothing to do with "templates"/"transclusion", but magic
kinds of link - both "Image:Name.jpg" and "Category:People" are the
titles of pages to which you are creating a link, but a special kind
of link because they are special kinds of pages. So, as you say, a
leading colon treats them as unspecial, so there is a use/mention
distinction.

Personally, I think the most "surprising" kind of link is
"[[Media:...]]", because it doesn't link to any page at all. OTOH, I
think [[Sound:...]], [[Video:...]], or maybe a combined [[AV:...]]
will end up being needed to provide the kind of integration we already
offer for images, but presumably the file descriptions will remain in
one namespace, so those won't be real pages either.

> Use template: {{Box}} (not [[Template:Box]] or {{Template:Box}})
> -> I can understand {{Box}} as a shorthand for {{Template:Box}} as
> people will rarely use namespace 0 stuff as templates, so why not
> {{Template:Box}} but {{:Template:Box}} ?
> Use template (substitution): {{subst:Box}} (no suggestions from me here, sorry)
> Mention template: [[Template:Box]]

"Templates", unlike "Images" and "Categories", are not a special kind
of page; linking to them doesn't do anything different from linking to
any other page. I guess it could have been decided that they *were*
special, and that [[Template:Box]] would cause a transclusion (with
[[:Template:Box]] for "mentionning"), but the flexibility of being
able to transclude *any* page has proved useful for various cunning
schemes.

As for "{{Box}}", "{{Template:Box}}" and "{{:Template:Box}}", they
appear, rightly or wrongly, to all be treated equivalently by the
current code. (Arguably, the 3rd is incorrect, since the leading colon
is making no meaningful distinction).

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Using X-Forwarded-For from selected external proxies

body:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:24:27 +1000, Tim Starling
<t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Thus, it makes sense to use whatever user-specific
> address they report, for the purposes of blocking and user
> identification. This is what I've just implemented -- a means to specify
> a list of partially trusted proxies. Most of the code was already written.

I suspect this is the reason why we have just had an edit by 10.0.0.24
on the cs Wikipedia (see
http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sekunda&diff=next&oldid=54846).

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: April Fool's Day

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> I think there is a definite failure to engage with the subject matter
> here.  Whatever happened to the sweet old idea of just, for one day in the
> whole year, doing something unexpected, out of character and insincere?
> Not in a mean, vituperative way, but simply to spread the joy of life.
> Can't we just put that lovely toilet roll holder on the front page.
> *once*?  Has Wikipedia become so anal?>

Wikipedia has always been anal. That's why it works.

TBSDY


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Friday's featured article

body:
mav wrote

> I like the idea of having a separate hoax Main Page at [[Wikipedia:April
> 1,
> 2005]] and having any hoax "article" at [[Wikipedia:April 1, 2005/Foo]]
> with
> 'Foo' being the 'article' name. A large banner could be on the regular
> Main
> Page pointing this the 'new and improved Main Page.'

Fool banner -> foobar.  Well, it's promising.

Charles


from_name: Sj

subject: [WikiEN-l] A cheerful Fool's compromise

body:
> I agree with Pete's point - I'd very much like to avoid the major fight which seems brewing
> over this (quite frankly, I regret ever taking this to a poll in the first place)

I think we would all like to avoid that!  And when I say "we," I
include the 15 or so admins who voted for featuring the article on the
Main Page tomorrow.  Raul's categorization of this as a disagreement
between a mob and a group of respected editors is wishful thinking.

The current proposal, to pretend the whole discussion didn't happen,
doesn't currently seem to be avoiding a fight... So here is my
suggestion:

Let's put up a Featured Article blurb about the European toilet paper
holder for the first half of the day tomorrow.  The
previously-scheduled FA blurb (which, as many have noted, has nothing
to do with April Fools) can replace it at midday.   The former blurb
can have "recent featured articles" links to other bizarre featured
articles, with the text "featured articles" linking to
[[nihilartikel]].  Can someone come up with a suitable banner saying
"Featured Article for '''April 1, 2005''' " to put at the top and
bottom?

Aside from that banner, and the "See also" section linking to
[[nihilartikel]] (and other relevant links?), the hoax article could
stay in Bishonen's namespace, as another minor clue for the observant.

--SJ

PS - I was in the library yesterday and to my surprise, found a
historical sketch including a toilet paper holder from a da Vinci
blueprint for a flush toilet; a sign that the community chose an
appropriate topic?  I have a photocopy to upload... it is remarkably
clear that Leonardo's raised valve design was meant to double as a
toilet paper holder.


from_name: Tom Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day Lame-O-Rama

body:
Snowspinner wrote:

>
> On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Bishonen wrote:
> I'm not sure what to point out - no article ownership or the GFDL.

Or good manners and common courtesy.  Let's Be Nice; it's his personal joke.

Tom


from_name: Lee Daniel Crocker

body:
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 11:20 +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:

> I know that this is *supposed* to only affect syntax, but is
> retrospect changing of user submissions OK with the GFDL? (After
> all, we're not making a new version based on an old one, like
> editing; we'll be changing the sumbission itself.)

We wouldn't be changing anything; we'd just be encoding exactly
the same semantic content in a different code.  That's one reason
why we have to do the semantic model first--otherwise, we're not
sure what current wikitext means.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
I'm glad to know that we're making personal attacks because of a
failure to put fake material on the front page. It displays a maturity
and respect for the project that speaks volumes.

What? Silent is a volume.

-Snowspinner

On Mar 31, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Viajero wrote:

> So now his eminent worthiness Mark a.k.a. Raul has decreed that
> [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] will be the Featured Article
> tomorrow, despite the overwhelming support for UTPH at
> [[Wikipedia_talk:
> Featured_article_candidates#European_toilet_paper_holder]].  It seems
> to me a spectacularly lame and unimaginative choice. If running a
> genuinely ersatz text was too daring, at least we could have run an
> oddball article that looked like a hoax, but I guess even that was too
> much for the timid souls at the steering wheel.
>
> I am disappointed by the process by which this decision was reached
> and  I especially disappointed by the outcome, but I guess it reflects
> the fact that Wikipedia EN is overpopulated by geeky teenagers who
> probably prefer Red Bull to red wine and Game Boys to sex.
>
>
> Signed,
> Just Another Dinosaur
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day Lame-O-Rama

body:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Bishonen wrote:
>

> Please don't, for that purpose, move it, copy it, link to it, or use
> it.
>

I'm not sure what to point out - no article ownership or the GFDL.

-Snowspinner


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:19:46 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
><jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>At ETech in San Francisco, I met with Ross Mayfield of Socialtext, and
>>we discussed the idea that there should be a central core set of
>>standard wiki syntax.  Ross was quite keen on the concept.
>>
>>Standard syntax is important for the entire wiki world so that as
>>people become more accustomed to using wikis for all kinds of things,
>>they can feel comfortable on a variety of platforms.
>>
>>
>
>How about fixing our own first? That is, template syntax:
>
>Use image: [[Image:Name.jpg]]
>Mention image: [[:Image:Name.jpg]]
>Use category: [[Category:People]]
>Mention category: [[:Category:People]]
>Use template: {{Box}} (not [[Template:Box]] or {{Template:Box}})
>-> I can understand {{Box}} as a shorthand for {{Template:Box}} as
>people will rarely use namespace 0 stuff as templates, so why not
>{{Template:Box}} but {{:Template:Box}} ?
>Use template (substitution): {{subst:Box}} (no suggestions from me here, sorry)
>Mention template: [[Template:Box]]
>
>Tomer
>
Hoi,
You missed one that IS wrong [[Image.nl.fout.ogg|fout]] this one is
wrong because it IS not an image.. It is a sound file ..
Thanks,
    Gerard


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Friday's featured article

body:
Well, let's get things going then. We need to get this thing up before midnight.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:06:36 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Sounds like some kind of reverse April Fools.  Something perfectly true
> > that nobody in his right mind would believe. I like that idea.
>
> I also very much like this idea. But finding such oddball topics to write about
> is hard enough. Finding enough to make them feature worthy is even harder. Then
> there is the time and effort it takes to put the article through FAC.
>
> So having an alternate Main Page at [[Wikipedia:April 1, 2005]] seems to be a
> good thing to do as well. All the real hoaxes would go there and the stuff that
> just looks like a hoax but is real content goes on the real Main Page.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Small schema change in CVS

body:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:44:05 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>>* Deleted revisions will remain listed in the contributions history
>>(though greyed out and in strike-through), making it easier to track
>>serial offenders.
>>
>>* Deleted revisions will be listed in the regular page history (again,
>>grayed out and in strike-through). In cases where individual revisions
>>have been struck from a page for eg copyright reasons this will make it
>>easier to see where portions were removed.
>
>
> I think this will be a bit confusing.

It's fairly common for eg forum and BBS systems to display a placeholder
marker for deleted comments.

Do you think it will be more confusing than not even being able to see
_that_ there were edits made which have been removed? Mysterious
invisible gaps in the page history will, in my opinion, cause more
confusion (as they currently do from time to time). Trying to make it a
user option or conditionally hiding them from the list is an unnecessary
complication which would make it harder for people to work together,
help each other, and understand what other contributors are saying when
talking about the edit history of a page or the contributions of a user.

Here's a couple quick screenshots off my dev copy. These are views when
not logged in, so the revisions are grayed out and not accessible (would
appear same if logged in as a non-sysop):

http://leuksman.com/misc/history-deleted.png
http://leuksman.com/misc/contribs-deleted.png

The exact styling is subject to change if it sucks too much. :)

> Will a deleted page simply have every revision marked with
> rev_deleted? Will you add page_deleted to speed things up (such as
> checking whether an article exists)?

Still working on that; something like that probably. A page record needs
to be present or else the revisions will lose their identity, which
would tend to make things even more confusing.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050331/1c9b852c/attachment.pgp>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] Syntax for texts in verse

body:
Hi,

There is a need for a special syntax for texts in verse, as
: creates an indentation and <br/> is quite ugly.

Could it be possible to have a code <verse>
which would produce carriage return at the end of each line ?

Thanks,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Syntax for texts in verse


subject: [Wikitech-l] Syntax for texts in verse


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia projects in Papiamentu en Sranang Tongo

body:
 > This is incorrect. It is not "the" language of Surinam. Only 120.000
are native speakers of this language. There are actually
 > MORE native speakers of Dutch (200.000)
Having lived in Surinam for quite some time and having gone to school
there. Both Dutch and Sranan are used at school. And both are the
official language. Sarnami Hindoestani which you call: Carribean
Hindustani (150.000) is NOT an official language.

Waerth/Walter


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] In a massive, and often anonymous context,
	how do we know each other?

body:
Hello, I have a question about your article that appeared in Wired. One of
my difficulties within the Wikipedia community, or, say for example, this
e-mail list, is the large number of people one is likely to come across. It
can be difficult to keep track of everyone, particularly in the context of
editing a diverse set of web pages So, I was wondering how do people come
to know of each other? In particular, for your article, how did you select
the folks you did? Asked Jimbo? Looked at the top contributors?

Thanks!


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Official status? I didn't say anything about that. And AFAIK only
Dutch is official.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:14:12 +0700, Walter van Kalken
<walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>  > This is incorrect. It is not "the" language of Surinam. Only 120.000
> are native speakers of this language. There are actually
>  > MORE native speakers of Dutch (200.000)
> Having lived in Surinam for quite some time and having gone to school
> there. Both Dutch and Sranan are used at school. And both are the
> official language. Sarnami Hindoestani which you call: Carribean
> Hindustani (150.000) is NOT an official language.
>
> Waerth/Walter
>


body:
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 00:17 +0100, Rowan Collins wrote:

> To "make it really obvious how to transclude *other* namespaces",
> you'd keep exactly the syntax we have now, but remove the behaviour
> that makes it default to the Template namespace. That's not even a
> very complex change, code-wise, although it would break a hell of a
> lot of existing content, obviously.

Forgive me if there was a big discussion of this while I was in lurker
mode for the past year or so, but is it really a good idea to allow
arbitrary transclusions at all?  I can see the usefulness of templates
overriding the problems and limiting their spread to a few cases; but
arbitrarily including text that constantly changes seems like a good
way to screw up things like article provenance, evaluations, and such.

If we get a more standardized, stable syntax, including things like
how to reference past article versions, then it might more sense.

Again, if this was already hashed out, fine; but if it was just
implemented without discussion, let's have one.

--

Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>  <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Customize WikiPedia wiki installation to follow the
	look & feel of the Hosting site

body:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:27:04 +0300, Mihai Bocsaru
<mihai.bocsaru at ikonosnewmedia.com> wrote:

> Is there a way to customize a WikiPedia wiki installation to follow the look
> and fell of the main Web site?

First point, which may seem pedantic, but is an important distinction,
is that the software is called "MediaWiki", not "Wikipedia" (which is
a particular site running that software). [It gets worse: see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Names for more confusing distinctions]

> I have noticed that in case I will edit:
> - MonoBook.php;
> - commonPrint.css;

As its name suggests, "commonPrint.css" is the stylesheet used when
somebody *prints* a page from the wiki; the styling used when the page
is *displayed* is mainly contained, I think, in "monobook.css" (or,
more generally, <name of skin>.css, where the skin could have your own
name).

> I will be able to see some changes on the internal pages, not also the Main
> page.

That sounds a lot like a caching issue - various levels of cache, on
the server and in your browser, will end up with out-of-date versions
of the page. To display the latest version you will need to do a
"forced reload" in your browser - normally, this requires holding down
Shift, Control, or some similar key, while clicking the "refresh" or
"reload" button, or pressing the keys for a normal reload. I believe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache has correct
instructions for several browsers.

If you have changed deeper code within the software, you may also need
to bypass some of the *internal* caching features, by adding
"?action=purge" to the address [or "&action=purge" if the URL already
has a "?" in]. AFAIK, this shouldn't be necessary if you are only
changing the skin.

> Are there any resources that I could read, or do you have any
> suggestions/comments on how could I reach the above-mentioned goals?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Skins and the file "docs/skins.doc"
within your installation of the software may or may not have up to
date descriptions of the skinning system, and may or may not help you
find appropriate tips...

You might also want to look through the archives of this and related
mailing lists - put "site:mail.wikimedia.org" with some search terms
into Google.

Happy hacking! :)
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

body:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:24:46 +0100, Rowan Collins
<rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:36:40 +0100, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Use image: [[Image:Name.jpg]]
> > Mention image: [[:Image:Name.jpg]]
> > Use category: [[Category:People]]
> > Mention category: [[:Category:People]]
>
> These are nothing to do with "templates"/"transclusion", but magic

I know that. I am pointing out how the use-mention distinction was
handled in cases apart from templates, i.e. differently.

> kinds of link - both "Image:Name.jpg" and "Category:People" are the
> titles of pages to which you are creating a link, but a special kind
> of link because they are special kinds of pages. So, as you say, a
> leading colon treats them as unspecial, so there is a use/mention
> distinction.
>
> Personally, I think the most "surprising" kind of link is
> "[[Media:...]]", because it doesn't link to any page at all. OTOH, I

That is also a problem. I would want the namespace to be called
"Media", but with the translated name as "Image" for help during
transition. (This is similar to the "Project" and "Wikipedia"
namespaces: The first is new in an attempt to disassociate MediaWiki
from Wikipedia, and "Wikipedia" is an alias on Wikipedia sites for it.
You can have two names for the same namespace.)

> think [[Sound:...]], [[Video:...]], or maybe a combined [[AV:...]]
> will end up being needed to provide the kind of integration we already
> offer for images, but presumably the file descriptions will remain in
> one namespace, so those won't be real pages either.

That's another possibility.

> > Use template: {{Box}} (not [[Template:Box]] or {{Template:Box}})
> > -> I can understand {{Box}} as a shorthand for {{Template:Box}} as
> > people will rarely use namespace 0 stuff as templates, so why not
> > {{Template:Box}} but {{:Template:Box}} ?
> > Use template (substitution): {{subst:Box}} (no suggestions from me here, sorry)
> > Mention template: [[Template:Box]]
>
> "Templates", unlike "Images" and "Categories", are not a special kind
> of page; linking to them doesn't do anything different from linking to
> any other page. I guess it could have been decided that they *were*

That is exactly my point. The "Template" namespace is intended for
templates, so linking to it with [[Template:Box]] is a *use* of it,
not a *mention*. Mentions should be relegated to using a colon as in
[[:Template:Box]] as currently with images and categories.

> special, and that [[Template:Box]] would cause a transclusion (with
> [[:Template:Box]] for "mentionning"), but the flexibility of being
> able to transclude *any* page has proved useful for various cunning
> schemes.

Such as what? I cannot see the disadvantage to putting these pages in
the Template namespace. Also, a secondary syntax could be made, like
that old {{msg:}} syntax. {{msg:Box}} would include [[Box]], not
[[Template:Box]].

One thing I haven't been able to decide is what the new substitution
syntax would be. I was considering ~[[Template:Box]] (thinking this
would be one in a set of substitutions, i.e. along with ~~~3 ~~~~4 and
~~~~~5.

> As for "{{Box}}", "{{Template:Box}}" and "{{:Template:Box}}", they
> appear, rightly or wrongly, to all be treated equivalently by the
> current code. (Arguably, the 3rd is incorrect, since the leading colon
> is making no meaningful distinction).

I don't like the implied template namespace. {{:Box}} for the article
is not exactly intuitive.


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Syntax for texts in verse

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Thursday 31 March 2005 15:39, Yann Forget wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a need for a special syntax for texts in verse, as
>
> : creates an indentation and
 is quite ugly.
>
> Could it be possible to have a code <verse>
> which would produce carriage return at the end of each line ?

You have three options:

* You can use
.
* if you dislike its border etc, use a template like so:

	Template::verse contains:

	{{{txt}}}

(Note: First line is broken into two, but should work in either way.)

Then use it like so:

	{{verse|txt=
	Your / verses / here
	My / nerves / tear
	}}

You can easily change the style in the template, thus reformatting all
verses. (I would recommend using a different font, for instance :)

* The third option is to hack Parser.php to allow a new tag,
<verse></verse> and then add CSS code to the Monoskin.js (or whatever it
is called) and all the other skins to format it.

The custom tag is a bit easier for people to write (opposed to the {{vers|
txt}} syntax, but needs hacking at the source (read: upgrade software -
hack needs to be redone, want to reformat: need someone to hack again).
The template is easier to customize and will survive software updates.

* The fourth option would be to write an extension, that essential returns
what the template does for each <verse></verse>. Cleaner than the source
hack, uses custom tag, but also needs an admin if you want to change the
font of the verses.

Hope this helps,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Thu Mar 31 17:46:23 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law. Right
 now, any professor can show a complete movie in his classroom without
 paying a dime - that's fair use. What is not fair use is making a copy
 of an encrypted DVD, because once you're able to break the encryption,
 you've undermined the encryption itself." - Jack Valenti

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQkwfwXcLPEOTuEwVAQFhfgf8DOxozRNEonvXKNdKwRmOkEknvfHvx9ta
yZYf8ll9N9X+8nMb0jZQtlwQq1iaK6kqfQCO4RjJ2TMxgQfe2KUhQFvBUAYWEdxu
5G1Xm21txmVSs97GgJXcs4/kxh4pSGo4SJqAK2eAYnQxISDgdn54uSZXDf1GwWcO
Uz1GGQLpkZIDsWOvOf8M4P5TpZOR6+cRf3TPGB/jOmMaPrdaV4roxaDZRgkhRsEX
apkRsgF4eqfyTAWZGsiPAfaoG8U7h/cNarKjLRBQP9bEG76Mn/VFPSbukpLWIKWV
qc/ZFt0Fo6iAc80IkIJjW8c1UjT4jhQp/kGuq1e0iN9cbWbBf2wi9Q==
=qkG+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Syntax for texts in verse


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo Wales de-sysopped

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>I love it!
>
>--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For immediate release:
>>
>>Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, was de-sysopped today by a coalition
>>of rogue admins (the Troll League) and his account blocked indefinitely.
>>The new GodKing, Rickk, immediately reinstated
>>
>>RK weds Helga! The long-awaited wedding will feature mav147 wearing the
>>traditional Muslim headscraf (click here for picture).
>>
>>Kim Jong-Il brings peace to Palestine. The leader of the world's
>>remaining Hermit Kingdom outlawed both Judaism and Islam throughout the
>>Middle East, replacing all forms of religious worship with the playing
>>of old Beatles records.
>>
>>(I was saving these, but ... )
>>
>>Uncle Ed
>>
>>
Haha. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Millionth_topic_pool#Self-referential].

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A cheerful Fool's compromise

body:
> The previously-scheduled FA blurb (which, as many have noted, has nothing
> to do with April Fools) can replace it at midday.

...that is, in the spirit of "your prank should be pulled by midday,
or you're the fool..."

SJ


subject: [Wikipedia-l] "what does that mean?"

body:
Charming phrase/neologism site:

http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/index.php/Welcome_to_%27Whatdoesthatmean%3F%27

--
+sj+


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] "what does that mean?"


subject: [Foundation-l] Development tasks and project needs

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:22:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>
>>Sj-
>>
>>
>>>Nonsense.  Money is an excellent resource when properly applied, but
>>>there is no fundamental reason why we should have fewer volunteer
>>>developers than Linux has, for instance.  After all, what are we
>>>writing but the kernel for our collective intelligence?
>>>
>>>
>>An interesting comparison. However, it is worth noting that there is a
>>billion dollar industry behind the Linux kernel, and many of its most
>>active developers are directly employed by corporations like IBM, Novell
>>and Red Hat. Hence, development tends to be driven by corporate interests.
>>
>>
>
>On the other hand, there's a much lower bar for entry into working on
>projects like Wikipedia developing content, which is in plain English
>(or whatever language you're using), and even for entry into working on
>the MediaWiki software (PHP web application design is considerably less
>hairy than hacking kernel code).  Your points stand, basically, except
>that you might be underestimating the effectiveness of pure volunteerism
>in many (not all, but many) aspects of the entire Wikimedia family of
>projects.
>
>--
>Chad Perrin
>[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
>
Hoi,
When you edit in English, it is easy to use Mediawiki, try however to
edit something like
http://fa.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=FarsiLes15&action=edit and you
apreciate one reason why our Farsi and Arabic communities are so small.
When you remove the <div class="plainlinks"> and look at the page in
page preview in Firefox, you appreciate why this stupid external source
indicator is another reason to for needing futher improvements. All the
special codes are available in the Roman script. When you edit in Farsi,
you do not have the characters available to
[[media:en-insert.ogg|insert]] a soundfile ..

When this threat started, it pointed out that many languages and
projects do not benefit from sorely needed developer attention. When we
cannot rely on your underestimated volunteerism, I  hope we are not only
able but also willing to pay our way out of obstructions like this. We
have plenty of room to improve the usability and accessability of
knowledge that is NOT encyclopedic based and is not in a Western
language. This asperation is 100% in line with what the Wikimedia
Foundations stands for.

Please apreciate that I do not think the work done by all of the
volunteers is not great and important. My point is that it is biased and
not effective in particular ways. I disagree with your assertion that
the volunteerism is effective for projects other than wikipedia. I do
think that we can redress this inequality by investing in software that
DOES help other scripts and other projects.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:April Fool

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>Maybe we should have a cat to tag hoax articles with. And just delete
>all the untagged hoaxes that come by.
>
>-- MacGyverMagic
>
>
About 2 days ago, this whole thing was sounding rather interesting. Now
it's a dead horse that's been flogged, buried, dug up and flogged some
more, hung on the castle walls for a few days, and we're still trying to
flog it. (No, that wasn't supposed to make sense. Apologies if it did.)

In summary: Great idea, if only it had been done 10 years ago.

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


from_name: Richard Holton

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Today is the LAST DAY to nominate articles for the
	International Writing contest

body:
On Mar 31, 2005 11:29 AM, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you've seen a wonderful new article this past month, which should
> be more widely recognized, please submit it to the writing contest.
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:International_writing_contest
>
> This contest is being held in parallel with the German, Japanese,
> Dutch, and Ukranian wikipedias.  Please contribute to this bit of
> peaceful international collaboration :-)
>
> Cheers,
>    SJ

How about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/European_toilet_paper_holder

Aw, forget it.

--

en.wikipedia:User:Rholton


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Images on Answers.com and copyright conditions

body:
Answers.com response to my query (below):

On 31 Mar 2005, at 11:26 am, GuruNet Support wrote:

> Dear Christiaan,
>
> Thank you for contacting GuruNet.
>
> We really appreciate your bringing this to our attention, Christiaan,
> and have forwarded your message to our Engineering Team. The problem
> is that we are working from a dump of Wikipedia content, but
> apparently, there is no dump of the Commons data. However, our
> engineers are aware of the problem and are looking into a solution
> that will work best all around.
>
> We'll let you know when we've deployed a solution to this problem.
> Similarly, if you could keep us informed of any development at
> Wikipedia regarding this matter, we'd really appreciate it.
>
> If we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to
> contact us.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Alan Baklor
> GuruNet Customer Support
> http://www.gurunet.com
> The Answer Engine

> On 28 Mar 2005, at 1:32 am, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>
>> I sent them the following message via
>> http://www.answers.com/main/contact_us.jsp
>>
>> To whom it concerns,
>>
>> I'm writing regarding copyright conditions of images from
>> Wikipedia.org used on Answers.com
>>
>> I noticed recently that many of the Wikipedia images used on
>> Answers.com do not appear to follow copyright conditions (such as
>> crediting authors):
>> http://www.answers.com/library/Wikipedia+Images
>>
>> From what I can tell this problem is restricted to images that are
>> uploaded to Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org (rather
>> than directly to Wikipedia), which results in there only being a link
>> to the relevant Wikimedia Commons page rather than a full description
>> on the Wikipedia page.
>>
>> So for instance this image includes relevant info because it was
>> uploaded directly to Wikipedia (and hence the description was added
>> directly to its Wikipedia page):
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/broads-jpg
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Broads.jpg
>>
>> However this image does not include image info (and nor, for that
>> matter, does it include the link to the relevant Wikimedia Commons
>> page):
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/bees-collecting-pollen-2004-08-14-jpg
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bees_Collecting_Pollen_2004-08
>> -14.jpg
>> The info of which you will find by following the link on the page
>> above to:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bees_Collecting_Pollen_2004
>> -08-14.jpg
>>
>> This is obviously not an ideal situation from our point of view, as
>> we'd like to have the image info on the Wikipedia image page and not
>> have to direct people to another page, however, for various reasons,
>> we're stuck with the current setup, which looks to have resulted in a
>> technical hitch causing Answers.com not to follow licence conditions.
>>
>> I'm wouldn't have a foggiest clue about the mechanics of this process
>> but it seems to me that, until Wikipedia deals with this issue at
>> their end, Answers.com still needs to deal with the issue at their
>> end, meaning Answers.com needs to pull the relevant image info from
>> Wikimedia Commons when appropriate (as per the second example above).
>>
>> I'm in contact with administrators and other editors via a Wikipedia
>> emailing list, so I will be sure to pass on any response you send me.
>>
>> Thanks for your time,
>> Christiaan Briggs
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christiaan


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Use "unusual articles" for April Fools day - the fool
	is they're all (allegedly) true

body:
John Fader (jfader at gmail.com) [050331 10:48]:

> ==Things you'll wish you never knew==
> ''From wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Unusual articles|stupidest articles]]:''

"All true and verified." Perfect :-)

- d.


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:57:38 +0100, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Personally, I think the most "surprising" kind of link is
> > "[[Media:...]]", because it doesn't link to any page at all. OTOH, I
>
> That is also a problem. I would want the namespace to be called
> "Media", but with the translated name as "Image" for help during
> transition.

Well, no, those do two different things - one links to the
*description*, one directly to the file itself (this is what I meant
by it not linking to any page at all), so [[Media:]] would not now be
a good replacement for [[Image:]] as both are already in use. Looking
ahead at the needs of a more multimedia-oriented scheme, one could
envisage a whole set of ways of referencing the information. For
instance:

* [[File:...]] could be the name of the actual description pages, so
links to [[File:Foo.jpeg]] would be equivalent to [[:Image:Foo.jpeg]],
and things that weren't images wouldn't seem so oddly named (you would
no longer see bold headings saying "Image:Foo.ogg").
* [[Image:...]] could continue to function as at present (i.e. magic
syntax with an increasing number of display options)
* Similar magic syntaxes such as [[Audio:...]] or [[Sound:..]],
[[Video:..]], or maybe just [[AV:...]], could generate some kind of
user-selectable embedded player (I think that's discussed briefly at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia)
* [[Media:...]] would be less necessary with proper sound and video
markup, but would have to remain in the code for backwards
compatibility.
* Also for backwards compatibility, [[:Image:...]] would have to be
special-cased as an alias for [[File:...]] (i.e. a link to the
description page); to avoid confusion, any new "magic namespaces",
such as [[Sound:..]], etc, would have to have similar "escaped"
versions ([[:Sound:...]], etc)

That's quite a radical set of changes, I know, but I think it covers
all the problems with the current system without breaking existing
content. Of course, it makes the syntax even more "magic" and
different for different cases, which is what you were suggesting we
avoid. We could, I guess, store what kind of media each file is (Image
/ Sound / Video / other?) leaving us with only 3 distinct cases ("use"
file, mention description, mention file directly) - and with good
enough support for the first, the third becomes much less needed - but
nothing elegant immediately comes to mind even then.

> (This is similar to the "Project" and "Wikipedia"
> namespaces: The first is new in an attempt to disassociate MediaWiki
> from Wikipedia, and "Wikipedia" is an alias on Wikipedia sites for it.
> You can have two names for the same namespace.)

Actually, that's not quite correct. Every namespace has *exactly 2*
names, one of which is "canonical" (available on every installation,
regardless of configuration and language) and one which is local
(varying according to content language and configuration settings).
The namespace with the canonical name "Project:" has its local name
set to the name of the project at installation (so, for Wikipedia
sites, it is "Wikipedia:" or some local variation, such as
"Vikipedio:"; for Wiktionaries, it is "Wiktionary:"). The "Project:"
prefix is never actually treated as the "real" name of the page (it
never appears as the heading), it's just there so you can create links
without knowing the target language/configuration.

That's not to say it's *impossible* to have a redundant name built in
purely for backwards compatibility, I just wanted to be clear that the
software doesn't *currently* support such a thing.

> That is exactly my point. The "Template" namespace is intended for
> templates, so linking to it with [[Template:Box]] is a *use* of it,
> not a *mention*. Mentions should be relegated to using a colon as in
> [[:Template:Box]] as currently with images and categories.

The template namespace is intended for use exclusively in inclusions,
but inclusions are *not* intended exclusively for the template
namespace. This is a design decision, to be sure, but it *is* one
people have taken advantage of.

> Such as what? I cannot see the disadvantage to putting these pages in
> the Template namespace.

Off the top of my head, transclusion has been used to:
* create utility pages which are seperated by day or topic, but which
can also be viewed as one page; the transcluded pages in this case
being sub-pages of the "main" one (examples include "Votes for
Deletion" and the archives of the "Wikipedia Signpost" newspaper); you
_could_ put the individual parts in the Template: namespace, but this
would seem forced, as they are designed to also be viewed on their own
* create templates "for personal use" as sub-pages of a User: page;
this is particularly useful with the substitution syntax, for things
like adding a message to a User_talk: page; there are other examples
like this, too, where it simply makes more sense to have them sorted
with associated content, rather than "cluttering up" the global set of
templates in the Template: namespace.
* wrap encyclopedia articles in additional information, to create
slide-show / "guided tour" sequences [e.g.
"<intro><previous_link><next_link> {{:Article}}
<previous_link><next_link>"]; this currently suffers from problems
with inheritance of categories, interlanguage links, etc, but is an
example of a use that would be not just inconvenient but completely
impossible if all transclusions had to be from pages in the Template:
namespace.

> Also, a secondary syntax could be made, like
> that old {{msg:}} syntax. {{msg:Box}} would include [[Box]], not
> [[Template:Box]].

Surely that defeats the whole object of the exercise, which was to
"rationalise" the syntax. Either inclusion requires its own syntax, so
that it can reference any page, or no inclusions from non-template
pages can be made; to have both at once is just asking for confusion.

> One thing I haven't been able to decide is what the new substitution
> syntax would be. I was considering ~[[Template:Box]] (thinking this
> would be one in a set of substitutions, i.e. along with ~~~3 ~~~~4 and
> ~~~~~5.

If you were to go down that route, I would suggest something more
along the lines [[~Template:Box]], because the tilde ('~') in your
example doesn't look very "connected" to the link syntax. Enclosing
tildes, like ~[[Template:Box]]~, might be better as well; of course,
you'd have people wondering why ~[[User:IMSoP/foo]]~ didn't do
anything...

> I don't like the implied template namespace. {{:Box}} for the article
> is not exactly intuitive.

No, I agree that that is kind of confusing, but since this is
currently the only thing that's special about the Template namespace,
it does make sense - as you say, inclusion from the main namespace is
a lot rarer. Actually, the problem is arguably the existence of a
nameless namespace - I'm not suggesting we get rid of it, but the only
reason {{:Box}} has to be so unintuitive is that there's nothing
obvious you can put on the front to say "in the article namespace". If
we were designing a wiki from scratch, with no legacy users or
content, it would be worth at least considering the different design
concept of every namespace being named, but links defaulting to within
the *same* namespace (as though each namespace was more like a
seperate wiki).

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Bishonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day Lame-O-Rama

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote on 2005/03/31 11:37:

> Wasn't it originally written for April Fools Day? Why are you suddenly
> objecting against it being used?

Written for April Fool's day? Why, no, not at all. It was written as a joke
between friends, for comedic bonding, it's basically a dialogue. That
doesn't show in the product, but then it wasn't written for a product but
for the writing process itself, the back-and-forth. Modestly, if we had
been going for an April 1 hoax page, I think we could have made a funnier
one. But the process has been hilarious, for my taste, and surely harmless
to wikipedia, or even beneficial. The contributors are all committed and
productive editors, and some of us were getting close to burning out on the
project. The joking-around cheered us up. The userspace isn't paper.

When there began to *be* a product there, an imperect one, I thought I
might nominate it on WP:FAC on April 1. That seemed quite daring--so
limited were my horizons! TBSDY preempted the plan by stumbling on the page
in February and FAC'ing it on the spot. Proposing it for the Main page for
April 1was first done by several people on that FAC vote, not by any of the
contributors. But we were quite happy to go along with the idea, and have
been promoting it some. I would love to see it used tomorrow, just *not*
for some alternative "Click here for how we might have April fool'd you"
Main page. That's what I'm objecting to.

Please don't, for that purpose, move it, copy it, link to it, or use it.

Bishonen


body:
Pink, as in Pink Pink, or somebody else?

Mark

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:49:31 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, for one thing, Pink came to a meetup in New York City, where
> there were about 15 active wikipedians; a number of them, and a number
> of others who were discussed that afternoon, made it into the article.
>
> --
> +sj+ , who thinks Reagle should come to Boston and hang out at Berkman
> more often Thursday nights
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ultra slow again - preventing deletion and moves

body:
Violet/Riga wrote:

>>In addition my watchlist seems to perpetually consist of "Internal
>>error" .... I assume I am not the only one.
>>
>>
>
>Nope, you're not!  Well I say that but in the last half hour it seems
>to be working again - I'll leave the [[WP:RM]] stuff until tomorrow
>though.
>
>~~~~ Violet/Riga
>
I'm perpetually getting "Internal error" ... on my contributions. It
comes up OK the first time, possibly when I select a certain namespace,
then crashes when I select a limit or "Hide minor".

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


from_name: Anthere

body:
Very good. Thanks for keeping us informed Christiaan.

Ant

Christiaan Briggs a ?crit:
> Answers.com response to my query (below):
>
> On 31 Mar 2005, at 11:26 am, GuruNet Support wrote:
>
>> Dear Christiaan,
>>
>> Thank you for contacting GuruNet.
>>
>> We really appreciate your bringing this to our attention, Christiaan,
>> and have forwarded your message to our Engineering Team. The problem
>> is that we are working from a dump of Wikipedia content, but
>> apparently, there is no dump of the Commons data. However, our
>> engineers are aware of the problem and are looking into a solution
>> that will work best all around.
>>
>> We'll let you know when we've deployed a solution to this problem.
>> Similarly, if you could keep us informed of any development at
>> Wikipedia regarding this matter, we'd really appreciate it.
>>
>> If we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to
>> contact us.
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Alan Baklor
>> GuruNet Customer Support
>> http://www.gurunet.com
>> The Answer Engine
>
>
>> On 28 Mar 2005, at 1:32 am, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>
>>> I sent them the following message via
>>> http://www.answers.com/main/contact_us.jsp
>>>
>>> To whom it concerns,
>>>
>>> I'm writing regarding copyright conditions of images from
>>> Wikipedia.org used on Answers.com
>>>
>>> I noticed recently that many of the Wikipedia images used on
>>> Answers.com do not appear to follow copyright conditions (such as
>>> crediting authors):
>>> http://www.answers.com/library/Wikipedia+Images
>>>
>>> From what I can tell this problem is restricted to images that are
>>> uploaded to Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org (rather
>>> than directly to Wikipedia), which results in there only being a
>>> link  to the relevant Wikimedia Commons page rather than a full
>>> description  on the Wikipedia page.
>>>
>>> So for instance this image includes relevant info because it was
>>> uploaded directly to Wikipedia (and hence the description was added
>>> directly to its Wikipedia page):
>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/broads-jpg
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Broads.jpg
>>>
>>> However this image does not include image info (and nor, for that
>>> matter, does it include the link to the relevant Wikimedia Commons
>>> page):
>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/bees-collecting-pollen-2004-08-14-jpg
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bees_Collecting_Pollen_2004-08 -14.jpg
>>> The info of which you will find by following the link on the page
>>> above to:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bees_Collecting_Pollen_2004
>>> -08-14.jpg
>>>
>>> This is obviously not an ideal situation from our point of view, as
>>> we'd like to have the image info on the Wikipedia image page and not
>>> have to direct people to another page, however, for various reasons,
>>> we're stuck with the current setup, which looks to have resulted in
>>> a  technical hitch causing Answers.com not to follow licence conditions.
>>>
>>> I'm wouldn't have a foggiest clue about the mechanics of this
>>> process  but it seems to me that, until Wikipedia deals with this
>>> issue at  their end, Answers.com still needs to deal with the issue
>>> at their  end, meaning Answers.com needs to pull the relevant image
>>> info from  Wikimedia Commons when appropriate (as per the second
>>> example above).
>>>
>>> I'm in contact with administrators and other editors via a Wikipedia
>>> emailing list, so I will be sure to pass on any response you send me.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time,
>>> Christiaan Briggs
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christiaan
>>


from_name: Deathphoenix

body:
Richard Holton wrote:

>On Mar 31, 2005 11:29 AM, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you've seen a wonderful new article this past month, which should
>>be more widely recognized, please submit it to the writing contest.
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:International_writing_contest
>>
>>This contest is being held in parallel with the German, Japanese,
>>Dutch, and Ukranian wikipedias.  Please contribute to this bit of
>>peaceful international collaboration :-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>   SJ
>>
>>
>
>How about
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/European_toilet_paper_holder
>
>Aw, forget it.
>
>
hahaha... thanks, after seeing [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]
(instead of, say, [[exploding whale]]), I needed a good laugh.

DPh.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Wikipedia is blocking 80 percent of all
 broadband users in Thailand

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> So we would be blocking half a million Thais by the end of the year!!
> And that is just Broadband. Their Dialup members are a multiple of this!!!

We're not going to be doing anything of the sort. I told you last night
on IRC that a technical solution had been found, and that if you'd just
wait a few days for me to implement it, the problem would go away. I
admire your dedication to your cause if not your patience. This solution
has now been implemented. I'll give the details in a wikipedia-l post.

-- Tim Starling


body:
Some proxies give an X-Forwarded-For (XFF) header, with the IP address
of the user for whom they are forwarding a request. This is how our web
servers get the IP addresses of users, despite the fact that they are
behind a battery of squids configured as "accelerators". It's been
suggested before that if a user is behind a proxy, we should display
their real IP address as reported by X-Forwarded-For, rather than the
address of the proxy. But if we did this, anyone could forge the XFF
header and masquerade as another user. Also, the XFF header often
contains private addresses which are not unique, e.g. 192.168.0.1.

Some ISPs force their users to use a proxy, and some of these proxies
give a valid XFF header. These ISPs can be reasonably trusted not to
forge the header. Thus, it makes sense to use whatever user-specific
address they report, for the purposes of blocking and user
identification. This is what I've just implemented -- a means to specify
a list of partially trusted proxies. Most of the code was already written.

Walter von Kalken's open proxy is in this category, and I have entered
it into the list. Thus he will no longer be blocked by the SORBS
blocklist. We should probably set up a page somewhere with suggestions
for additions.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: David

subject: [WikiEN-l] hostile takeover

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Britannica_takeover_of_Wikimedia

Time to find a new encyclopedia to browse...

-en:User:Humblefool


from_name: Sj

body:
Well, for one thing, Pink came to a meetup in New York City, where
there were about 15 active wikipedians; a number of them, and a number
of others who were discussed that afternoon, made it into the article.

--
+sj+ , who thinks Reagle should come to Boston and hang out at Berkman
more often Thursday nights


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Using X-Forwarded-For from selected external
	proxies

body:
Petr Kadlec wrote:
> I suspect this is the reason why we have just had an edit by 10.0.0.24
> on the cs Wikipedia (see
> http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sekunda&diff=next&oldid=54846).

For about half an hour there was a bug in it, it was allowing XFF
headers from anywhere. I found the bug pretty much immediately and spent
the half hour tracking it down and fixing it. Some edits may have been
recorded with incorrect IP addresses in the meantime.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day

body:
OK, it's out of control now.  Changing all of the edit
button titles and making people think they have new
messages when they don't are just confusing people.
And now people are changing the counts of articles on
minor language Wikipedias.  We're getting lots of
people totally confused and thinking that we've been
hacked, and I'm worried that we're not going to be
able to put things back to the way they were.

Page move vandalism is vandalism, I don't care what
you call it.

And some "apparent" vandal changed the Main Page to
say that Terri Schiavo died from autofellatio.  How do
we tell them not to vandalize Wikipedia if everybody
else is doing it, too?

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


from_name: Michael Keppler

subject: [Wikitech-l] Store third party extensions in MediaWiki CVS?

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> Sure, a GPL-family or BSD/MIT-family license would be fine. We've got a
> number of extensions in the extensions module in our CVS, some written
> by the main MW devs and some not.

Ok, I will visit the IRC channel to clarify this further. Should be
easier than mail, I guess.

> [[I]] don't [[know]] [[about]] [[that]]; [[we]] [[have]] [[so]] [[many]]
> [[pages]] [[in]] [[our]] [[Wikis]]. :)

Well, it has options for minimum word length, prefers word groups
instead of words, links every occurance only once... and some other
options to not make a page look like above. :)

The main use cases are:
* support a human expert in fast wikification of dead end pages (which
occur often in the new pages).
* automatically link words from a glossary category in a wiki used as
knowledgebase
* avoid the creation of very similar pages or redirects especially for
long words (it can tell whether "hypovitaminosises" or "hypovitaminosis"
already exists).

I will just show it around, when the transformation to a special page is
finished. The targeted audience are mainly users of smaller wikis than
the Wikipedia. :)

Ciao, Michael.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Syntax standardization effort

body:
> example doesn't look very "connected" to the link syntax. Enclosing
> tildes, like ~[[Template:Box]]~, might be better as well; of course,
> you'd have people wondering why ~[[User:IMSoP/foo]]~ didn't do
> anything...

No you wouldn't. The whole point of including "Template:" in the
syntax is to make it really obvious how to transclude *other*
namespaces.


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reply to the April Fools Day comments

body:
/Raul's categorization of this as a disagreement
between a mob and a group of respected editors is wishful thinking. -- SJ

/A lie - I never anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I think
Danny nailed it when he said the split in the community is between the people who think
the encyclopedia aspect comes first and those who think the social aspect comes first.

/Raul, you should have posted to this list about your decision about
the FA tomorrow: that is, to ignore the recent poll... -- SJ
/
I did one better than that, I posted my reasoning in a clearly marked section RIGHT BELOW THE POLL.
*And* my edit summary when I wrote the NES blurb was a link to the explanation. I did everything but
set up flashing neon signs pointing to it. But of course, you already knew all that, because you've
already responded to my comments there.

As far as ignoring the poll, this is yet another outright lie. I went with the 2nd highest rated poll
option (do nothing - e.g., a standard featured article) because, after asking everyone and his mother
for input (including the mailing list and Jimbo by name), I decided the first option did not meet the
one criteria of being the "daily featured article" - that is, it's not a featured article. And, the
article I did pick fulfilled Mav's secondary request that it be "fun". That's quite a lot of
attention to be paying to a poll I was ignoring.

Or, to put it another way -- the community was split with about 2/3's in favor of one option and
1/3 vociferously against it. Either way, one group was going to be pissed (at me). Jimbo's comments
weren't exactly decisive either, although they did push me in the serious-article direction.
Don't you just love no win situations?

/"it reflects the fact that Wikipedia EN is overpopulated by geeky teenagers who probably
prefer Red Bull to red wine and Game Boys to sex."/  --Viajero, aka Just Another Dinosaur

Hrmmm, where have I heard this before? Oh yes! This was the same rant that Xed always made (and
those of us who actually pay attention to what is happening on wikipedia - admittedly few on
this mailing list these days, as SJ's why-did't-you-post-it-here? comment shows - we remember
just how wonderful and friendly he was). But all the same, I'll be sure to pass along your
holier-than-thou sentiments to all the contributors who you've just insulted. I may not be the
"eminent worthiness" you label me as, but I'm sure the people you've stereotyped will appreciate your
comments just as much I did.

But on a more general note, this whole experience has left me thoroughly disgusted. The purpose of
this was to encourage people to write featured articles on quirky subjects. I said I'd go
with what the community decided, provided it met that tremendous, burdensome requirement of
being true. Silly me, what the hell was I thinking? An encyclopedia with true facts? Who ever heard
of such a thing? Of course, I do wonder - with all the time people have wasted bitching about how
terrible the process was, distorting facts and/or lying (SJ), and making personal attacks (Viajero),
just how many new featured articles could have been generated?

Just some food for thought...
--Mark


subject: [Wikitech-l] Small schema change in CVS

body:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:44:05 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> * Deleted revisions will remain listed in the contributions history
> (though greyed out and in strike-through), making it easier to track
> serial offenders.
>
> * Deleted revisions will be listed in the regular page history (again,
> grayed out and in strike-through). In cases where individual revisions
> have been struck from a page for eg copyright reasons this will make it
> easier to see where portions were removed.

I think this will be a bit confusing. I suggest only showing them if
*any* of these conditions are true:
* The user has set deleted revisions to appear in their preferences
(i.e. they are very much into anti-vandalism and editing)
* The user is a sysop (since they ought to be looking at that sort of
thing often, and it's functional to them as they can read the deleted
revision)
* The user or anonymous user has written one of the deleted revisions

The third query might be expensive. Something like

SELECT 1 FROM `revision` WHERE `rev_page` = {int} AND `rev_deleted` =
1 AND `rev_user` = {string} LIMIT 1

(taking the number of rows)

So, um, depending on how this is indexed, it migh not be worth it, in
which case show everybody these revisions.

Will a deleted page simply have every revision marked with
rev_deleted? Will you add page_deleted to speed things up (such as
checking whether an article exists)? Is there still an archive tablem,
solving that problem somewhat?


subject: [WikiEN-l] 4/1 FA: Nintendo Entertainment System :(

body:
Viajero wrote:

> So now his eminent worthiness Mark a.k.a. Raul has decreed that
> [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] will be the Featured Article
> tomorrow, despite the overwhelming support for UTPH at
> [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#European_toilet_paper_holder]].
>  It seems to me a spectacularly lame and unimaginative choice. If
> running a genuinely ersatz text was too daring, at least we could have
> run an oddball article that looked like a hoax, but I guess even that
> was too much for the timid souls at the steering wheel.
>
> I am disappointed by the process by which this decision was reached
> and  I especially disappointed by the outcome, but I guess it reflects
> the fact that Wikipedia EN is overpopulated by geeky teenagers who
> probably prefer Red Bull to red wine and Game Boys to sex.
>
>
> Signed,
> Just Another Dinosaur

How about we run [[Exploding whale]] again -  it /looks/ like a hoax,
but it isn't.

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Autofellatio

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Andre wrote:
>
>
>>A policy that says that we will exclude the same on all languages,
>>says that we don't trust the Wikipedias to make their own choices.
>>
>>
>
>I think that's very well said.
>
>
I don't see how this is a good policy.  By happy accident of languages,
we have no US-specific Wikipedia, in which Americans get to decide how
their Wikipedia is going to look---they have to share their English
Wikipedia with the opinions of all other English speakers on the planet
who choose to participate.  Some languages aren't blessed with as
diverse a population of speakers, but this is no excuse for making
decisions that don't take into account the opinions of the rest of the
world.

-Mark


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Syntax for texts in verse

body:
On Thursday 31. March 2005. 14:39, Yann Forget wrote:
> There is a need for a special syntax for texts in verse, as
>
> : creates an indentation and <br/> is quite ugly.
>
> Could it be possible to have a code <verse>
> which would produce carriage return at the end of each line ?

Have you tried with ; at the beginnings of lines?


subject: [WikiEN-l] I'm taking Friday off

body:
Wikipedia is currently a mess.  Vandalism disguised as
"April Fool's Day" is out of control.

I hope you all have fun cleaning up this mess.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
Raul, I wasn't trying to be unfriendly in my earlier posts... I was
frustrated with the process and the strong anti-populism and calls of
"Wikipedia is not a democracy!", which mean one thing when Jimbo says
them in the context of trolls and vandals and another when an admin
says them in the context of acting unilaterally in community
discussions.  But I *do* recognize that you were trying very hard to
find a good solution to this quandary, and I appreciate that.

Discounting the opinion of the community, and trying to find reasons
to ignore it rather than struggling with a compromise or consensus --
this happens all the time on-wiki.  It isn't usually a problem; wiki
is built to cope with that... except in those corners were one person
has set himself up as the local dictator :-)   You're a fabulous FAD,
but I expect a lot more of you in that role than I do in other
contexts; including a willingness to acquiesce to the consensus of
others.

On Mar 31, 2005 10:26 PM, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
> /Raul's categorization of this as a disagreement
> between a mob and a group of respected editors is wishful thinking. -- SJ
>
> /A lie - I never anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth.

That's laying it on a bit thick.  You're right, you never said
/exactly/ that...  but you talked about the people in favor of the
article as though they didn't care about the quality of the
encyclopedia, and as though they weren't respected as editors (when,
in fact, most of them *were* respected editors who care about the
'pedia, and I would guess that most of them think this is a fine way
to enhance and celebrate its excellence, not merely its "community").
And you talked about "never making the mistake again" of holding a
poll to gauge community opinion.

Okay, here's an exact quote:
     "about a third of people want a regular FA - this third includes
most of the 'big time'  respected editors. the other two thirds wants
a fake article"

The hyphenated clause was wishful thinking.

--
+sj+


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Italian Wikinews set up

body:
In accordance with the language policy, the Italian edition of Wikinews
has been set up and announced in the proper channels:

	http://it.wikinews.org/

Following the recommended process for new language editions, the
participants have also prepared several pages on Meta, which should be
imported into the live site shortly.

All best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Italian Wikinews set up


subject: [WikiEN-l] hostile takeover

body:
I want in on WikiCarta, the encyclopedia on a DVD that I can edit!

David wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Britannica_takeover_of_Wikimedia
>
> Time to find a new encyclopedia to browse...
>
> -en:User:Humblefool
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:20:37 +0100, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:
> > example doesn't look very "connected" to the link syntax. Enclosing
> > tildes, like ~[[Template:Box]]~, might be better as well; of course,
> > you'd have people wondering why ~[[User:IMSoP/foo]]~ didn't do
> > anything...
>
> No you wouldn't. The whole point of including "Template:" in the
> syntax is to make it really obvious how to transclude *other*
> namespaces.

No, you were suggesting we replace [or could have developed in the
first place] the {{...}} syntax, which transcludes arbitrary pages,
with a "magic link" behaviour for Template: pages. This, by
definition, would limit transclusion to pages in the Template
namespace (unless a completely different syntax was available in
parallel, which behaved more like the current one).

The ~[[...]] substitution syntax, or so I assumed, was to go with that
"magic link" system -- if you're not replacing {{...}}, why would you
replace {{subst:...}}? -- and therefore that too logically only
applies to [[Template:...]] pages. A feature that allowed you to
*substitute* any page, but only *transclude* those in the Template
namespace, would be just plain bizarre (even, indeed especially, if a
completely different syntax allowed you to do the full range of
transclusions)

To "make it really obvious how to transclude *other* namespaces",
you'd keep exactly the syntax we have now, but remove the behaviour
that makes it default to the Template namespace. That's not even a
very complex change, code-wise, although it would break a hell of a
lot of existing content, obviously.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia == Fox News (was: Friday's featured article)

body:
As I read your message I really thought I was going to find "April
fools!!" at the bottom.

Christiaan

On 30 Mar 2005, at 9:32 pm, Snowspinner wrote:

> OK. Here's the thing I think you may be missing. People are not smart.
> My students would not catch a link to Nihilartikle, or whatever the
> name is. They would not think that it's April 1st. They would not
> figure out the clues that you are suggesting we leave. They would miss
> it. They would fall for the joke.
>
> The problem is that they'd fall for misinformation in an article too.
> They're not critical enough. They're not sharp enough to question
> everything. And this isn't because they're stupid. It's because, well,
> most people aren't smart enough to have well tuned bullshit detectors.
>
> People think our articles have problems. People think Wikipedia is
> full of misinformation, hoaxes, and lunacy.
>
> Even if April Fool's articles weren't malicious vandalism, quite
> frankly, it's not funny. It's too close to the perceived reality, and
> it doesn't make any strides towards parody. of the perceived reality.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Mar 30, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>
>> Participating in April fools and the phenomena you describe below
>> really couldn't be more divorced in my opinion.
>>
>> Christiaan
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2005, at 8:48 pm, Snowspinner wrote:
>>
>>> I meant the suggestion in terms of reputability. I don't think we're
>>> seen as having a neo-conservative agenda. But I think we're about as
>>> trusted by a lot of people. In fact, I know we are. Five minutes
>>> ago, sitting in my office, I heard another TA tell a student not to
>>> use Wikipedia as a source because "anyone can edit it" so it must
>>> not be reliable. She looked to me for affirmation, and I said that,
>>> actually, it's very reliable and that false information gets removed
>>> quickly. She wasn't convinced, and told the student not to use it
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> We can't afford to knowingly post false information. Too many people
>>> think we do it already.
>>>
>>> -Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day Lame-O-Rama

body:
Snowspinner wrote on 2005/03/31 22:35:

>
> On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Bishonen wrote:
> >
>
> > Please don't, for that purpose, move it, copy it, link to it, or use
> > it.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what to point out - no article ownership or the GFDL.
>
> -Snowspinner

I see what you mean, Snowspinner, I apologize for my poor list skills. I
understand that I ought to have repeated passages from the messages  I
posted earlier today, that addressed these concerns before you voiced them
(IMO). I was assuming people would have read and would remember what I'd
said, but having followed the traffic for a day, I see that that wasn't
very realistic. Sorry, I'm new to mailinglists, I only just joined this
one, and I'm a bit out of my depth. Here's what I'd said about ownership
and the GFDL in the earlier messages, before making that plea for people to
leave ETPH in my userspace:

I.
>I will only actually do it [[protest against using ETPH for the special
April Fool's page]]
> if the other contributors want me to. [[Turns out they do.]]

II.
> [I'm] trying to learn if I have
> any jurisdiction (morally, and by courtesy--I know I haven't legally)
over
> a page in my userspace, namely the ETPH article.

[Mav helpfully replied that "morally it would be very rude for somebody to
use the text in
a way you didn't want since it is clearly marked as being in your
userspace."]

Hope that helps, and thank you Tom Haws for assuming good faith. I'm
female, btw.

Bishonen


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> 3. We change our wiki syntax, however slightly. Besides everyone
> using MediaWiki having to learn a new (altered) syntax, we'll
> have to change *every* page in our databases, including *all* old

What experience do we have from leaving CamelCase markup in 2001? Was
there a transition periond when the parser warn against CamelCase?
Were all old revisions changed?  (Or just mercifully deleted?)

If we are into refactoring the wiki syntax, one thing that might need
some rethinking is right-to-left writing systems (Hebrew, Arabic) and
how they blend with [[wiki tags]] and <xml or html markup>.  This was
hardly an issue in 2001, and after this there have been no fundamental
changes in Wikipedia's syntax. I don't read Hebrew or Arabic, but
trying to read the wiki code on Wikipedia in these languages is more
confusing than just the foreign languages.

On he.wikipedia, it seems that [[image: picture.jpg | some text]] is
[[txet emos | picture.jpg :egami]], where everything is neatly
right-to-left except the filename.  But the occasional HTML/XML markup
is <tag attribute="value"> in that (left-to-right) order.

Perhaps HTML/XML style markup should be banned from the wiki text
before we standardize?  We could introduce [[:br]] for <br> etc.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiNL-l] Fight spilling over into the
	ia.wikipedia

body:
Sander Spek wrote:
> * Gerard Meijssen:
> > This user is the persona of a known anonymous vandal who has a
> > history of using different IP-numbers.
>
> ...which could be his provider's policy, and cannot be used as a
> charge against him.
>
> > When he was banned for a week, he started with sockpupputs.
>
> It is not proven the aliases were his. One of the aliases
> posted on Wikipedia that he is not the 'troll', and the 'troll'
> has always denied he had these sockpuppets.

Do you seriously expect a troll or sockpuppet to admit to being one?
Like some evil genius at the end of a James Bond movie, or like the
standard crook Peg-Leg Pete in a Mickey Mouse story?  Come on...

I've seen one troll using one of his sockpuppets to attack another of
his own sockpuppets, only to make others believe the two were not
played by one and the same person.  Nothing of this kind can surprise
me anymore.  I almost wish I had studied psychology instead of
computer science.  Sherry Turkle's ten year old "Life on Screen" is a
good starter.

There is a simple solution: Ask the two to show up at a meeting IRL.
If they refuse, consider them guilty of every accusation.

I've met Jimbo, Angela, Erik M?ller, Elian, and a few other key
Wikipedians IRL.  I take the liberty to distrust everybody else.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day

body:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:53:00AM -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> A few people have hoped that I would weigh in with an opinion.
>
> I'm torn.  I think it's really fun, but we're also a very serious
> project.  So I gave it some thought and I have this idea...
>
> Just for fun, why don't we have a game on Friday to create an
> alternative main page, linked from the main page?  "Click here to see
> our April Fool's Page."
>
> And on that page, we have fun with ourselves... nothing mean spirited
> against each other, but gently having some fun with our quirks.  So
> yes, the feature article can be the european toilet paper page.  But
> we also could have an article about Gdansk
> ^h^h^h^hDanzig
> ^h^h^h^hGdansk!
> Danzig, dammit!
>
> In this way, we get to have a little fun with the holiday, but we also
> don't abandon our seriousness for the day.  And at the end of the day,
> everything can be locked and archived and deleted, and we can do it
> once a year.
>
> Maybe if a developer can be persuaded, we could set the whole thing up
> at AprilFools.wikipedia.org or something like that.

I know this is probably a bit too late to bother, at this point, but I
have what I think would be a better idea, and would satisfy to some
degree both the spirit of an April Fool's hoax and the integrity of the
Wikipedia project:

Yes, make a separate page.  Don't make it a link.  Have the hoax page
convey the joke visually in a mere few seconds so that one needn't sit
around and read it to get the joke.  When the site first loads, the hoax
page comes up.  After about five seconds, it reloads with the "real"
front page of the site.

I can see how this might not be an ideal solution: there are a number of
potential problems with it, not least of which is the fact that it would
be a pain in the arse to implement (especially when so much of the day
is already gone), but it's an idea anyway.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


body:
Robin Shannon wrote:
> Sorry, but how does having seen Jimbo in real life prove that he
> doesnt have sock-puppets?

It doesn't, of course.  But that is not really relevant, is it?
I'd talk with the person, but not with some anonymous user account,
even though it just might be a sock puppet of the Queen of England.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Britannica proud to lag years behind recent
	developments such ...

body:
On Apr 1, 2005 5:26 AM, Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail at pcbartlett.com> wrote:
> Can I join Danny in saying what a good idea it is to browse
> [[Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics]].
>
> I was a bit wary of the Countering Systematic Bias project - thinking
> that it was too much being used as a vehicle to take a pop at proud
> Americans. However this list of topics really makes plain that WP is
> systematically weaker in some areas.

Not just in British/European placenames, you mean?

--
+sj+


body:
*wow*,  that looks fabulous...  Jim, are you on this mailing list?   --sj

On Mar 30, 2005 3:54 PM, John Fader <jfader at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:17:44 -0500, Evan Prodromou <evan at bad.dynu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Another possibility is using a WYSIWYG in-browser editor, so that Wiki
> > syntax becomes more or less a moot point.
>
> If you haven't tried it already, Jim Higson's client-side WYSIWYG
> rendering stuff (http://81.5.150.113/wysi/) is most impressive.
>
> --
> John Fader
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
+sj+


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Blocked for 'vandalism' on a friggin April Fools
	article

body:
--- SPSPUIdrdrspuimgmailom> wrote:
> Your user name or IPIPddress has been blocked by MaMaveric9.
>
> The reason given is this:
> page move vandalism ; you were warned, now you are blocked
>
> hthttp/en.wiwikipediarorgiwikiser_talk:SPSPUIage_move_vandalism the warning
>
>
hthttp/en.wiwikipediarorg/index.phphpitle=Special:Contributions&target=SPSPUImy>

> contributions
>
> Obviously the 'vandalism' being talked about was moving the page back
> into the main article space. How can this be called vandalism? Can
> someone be as kind as to ununbane? I won't do it again, after seeing how
> StStiffycMcSitffersonome of us can be.

Because that is not an article under any definition we have. It is *not*
encyclopedic content and was moved to the Wikipediaspace for the time being. It
was moved just like any other bad jokes or other deleted nonsense are. We are
an encyclopedia.

-- mamav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
--- SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously the 'vandalism' being talked about was moving the page back
> into the main article space. How can this be called vandalism? Can
> someone be as kind as to unban me? I won't do it again, after seeing how
> Stiffy McSitfferson some of us can be.

If you won't do it again, then I'll unblock you.

There, done.

-- mav

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


body:
--- SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just as an article content dispute cannot be called vandalism, neither
> can an article placement dispute.

Does not matter when the content is bogus.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
--- SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to whoever unblocked me. True to my word, I will not touch the
> April 1 article any more. Back to the NYC Subway for me.

You are welcome. :)

-- mav

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I think we are. I take great relish in publishing details of "classified"
skulldugery done by Alpha Group or CIA operatives or details from internal
Chinese documents but I think classified weapons information should not be
published by any responsible person. The reason for this is the harm which
can result. As to the legal issue, I am somewhat uncertain. I am certain we
don't want to find out, both because of the expense and possible penalties.

For example, while I see no problem with extensive material regarding
Israel's successful effort to develop nuclear weapons, I would oppose
publishing the precise details regarding a specific weapon. While we are far
from the jurisdiction of Israel, some things are just wrong and dumb.

Fred

> From: Robert Merkel <robert.merkel at benambra.org>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:02:19 +1000
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Classified information in Wikipedia
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Here's a hypothetical for you.  Say somebody posts a piece of
> information about, say, an American-designed weapon, to the Wikipedia.
> A piece of information that the US government would prefer to be kept
> secret and thus is classified.  Now, the person that originally leaked
> the information could certainly be punished under US law, but is the
> Wikipedia under any *legal* obligation to delete the information,
> assuming it's relevant?
>
> --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> -
>
> Robert Merkel
> robert.merkel at benambra.org
> http://benambra.org
>
> The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire.
> -- Sir Charles Kingsford Smith
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/05 8:41 AM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > --- SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Obviously the 'vandalism' being talked about was moving the page back
> >> into the main article space. How can this be called vandalism? Can
> >> someone be as kind as to unban me? I won't do it again, after seeing how
> >> Stiffy McSitfferson some of us can be.
> >
> > If you won't do it again, then I'll unblock you.
> >
> > There, done.
> >
> Wow, you're a jerk.

I thought unblocking was a kinda nice thing for me to do. I'm sorry you
disagree :P

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] April fool and irc

body:
Must say...

since I did not follow at all all the april fool discussion, when I
loggued in to irc this morning with eyes and brain still very sandy, it
took me a well 2 mn to connect and really understand why the channel was
renamed Britannica.

You got me here guys ! :-)

ant


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: In a massive, and often anonymous context,
 how do we know each other?

body:
Joseph Reagle a ?crit:
> Hello, I have a question about your article that appeared in Wired. One of
> my difficulties within the Wikipedia community, or, say for example, this
> e-mail list, is the large number of people one is likely to come across. It
> can be difficult to keep track of everyone, particularly in the context of
> editing a diverse set of web pages So, I was wondering how do people come
> to know of each other? In particular, for your article, how did you select
> the folks you did? Asked Jimbo? Looked at the top contributors?
>
> Thanks!

At least for me, I come to know the others in watching what they say and
do. When I notice someone put a wise or funny or creative comment a
couple of times in a row, I go to his user page. I try to decipher the
person a little bit. Then I go to his contributors list. Try again to
see what could make him tick. Then I store the information somewhere.
And go on noting what he writes. Usually, one day come where I think
"oh, but X would be the perfect person for this". And I go ask the
person :-) Hence meet him a bit more :-)

For the article, this is very simple.
There was a meeting in New York in december. Some people show up at this
meeting, and the journalist asked to be there as well. Those who wanted
to talk to him surroundered him and he listened.
Very naturally, most of those who showed up at the meeting are very
involved contributors on the english wikipedia, so not very surprising
they appear among the top contributors.

Ant


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classified information in Wikipedia

body:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:

> Here's an example of a minor secret which I would never divulge or publish:
>
> I used to work for a company which had radio communications with a central
> dispatcher. We had a secret word which if used alerted the dispatcher that
> there was a serious problem. It was a pretty nifty system and as far as I
> know, none of the thousands of people who ever worked for that company ever
> let that secret out.

Which is not to say -- I hope -- that you would be opposed to an article
on [[duress code]]s in general.

--
  Sean Barrett     | Friends know when to yell "RUN!"
  sean at epoptic.com |


body:
Here's an example of a minor secret which I would never divulge or publish:

I used to work for a company which had radio communications with a central
dispatcher. We had a secret word which if used alerted the dispatcher that
there was a serious problem. It was a pretty nifty system and as far as I
know, none of the thousands of people who ever worked for that company ever
let that secret out.

What is involved is balance. Weighting the slight increase in information
here against the likely harm that is done. There are close questions, even
cases where disclosure of secret information becomes a moral imparative, but
in the usual case the benefit gained by disclosure of military secrets does
not outweigh the potential harm.

Anyone with power has responsibility.

Fred

> From: Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:26:15 +0100 (BST)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classified information in Wikipedia
>
> My view is that what people do with the information we provide in Wikipedia is
> not our moral responsibility. If there are no legal problems, I would support
> the inclusion of any verifiable, on-topic and noteworthy information.
>
> --Matt
> [[User:Matt Crypto]]


from_name: Richard Holton

body:
On Apr 1, 2005 7:26 AM, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote (snipped):
> > ...I think classified weapons information should not be
> > published by any responsible person. The reason for this is the harm which
> > can result...
> >
> > For example, while I see no problem with extensive material regarding
> > Israel's successful effort to develop nuclear weapons, I would oppose
> > publishing the precise details regarding a specific weapon. While we are far
> > from the jurisdiction of Israel, some things are just wrong and dumb.
>
> My view is that what people do with the information we provide in Wikipedia is
> not our moral responsibility. If there are no legal problems, I would support
> the inclusion of any verifiable, on-topic and noteworthy information.
>
> --Matt
> [[User:Matt Crypto]]
>
> > > From: Robert Merkel <robert.merkel at benambra.org>
> > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:02:19 +1000
> > > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Classified information in Wikipedia
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > Here's a hypothetical for you.  Say somebody posts a piece of
> > > information about, say, an American-designed weapon, to the Wikipedia.
> > > A piece of information that the US government would prefer to be kept
> > > secret and thus is classified.  Now, the person that originally leaked
> > > the information could certainly be punished under US law, but is the
> > > Wikipedia under any *legal* obligation to delete the information,
> > > assuming it's relevant?
> > >
> > > --

And how would you respond to someone publishing on Wikipedia the name
of you 12 year old daughter, what she looks like, where she goes to
school and when she leaves, and where you work and when you get home
from, and the names of several of your trusted neighbors?

I am all for free information. But the concept of free information
does not absolve us from all responsibility or consideration for other
people or the harm that we might cause (or enable) by our actions.

-- Rich Holton

en.wikipedia:User:Rholton


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Apr 1, 2005, at 7:48 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
>

> Wow, you're a jerk.
>

The fact that it is April Fool's does not invalidate our policies. Edit
warring to move false information into the main namespace is not
acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. That Mav lifted the block on a
promise not to do it again, and that he did so despite the personal
attack in the promise seems to me reasonable beyond the call of duty.

Your personal attack, on the other hand, seems petty, and beneath
someone I was kind of sorry lost their reelection to the arbcom.

While I can accept that some of you are extremely upset that you don't
get to make mischief on Wikipedia today, it boggles my mind that this
fact is worth making stupid personal attacks against well-meaning
contributors. With all due respect, what the fuck?

-Snowspinner


from_name: Zigger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] PHP 4.3.11 & 5.0.4 Released!

body:
http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-4.php#4.3.11
http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-5.php#5.0.4

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia at prohost.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:50:22 -0500
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] PHP 4.3.11 & 5.0.4 Released!
To: php-announce at lists.php.net, PHP Internals List
<internals at lists.php.net>, general at lists.php.net

The PHP Development Team would like to announce the immediate release of
PHP 4.3.11 and 5.0.4.  These are maintenance releases that in addition
to fixing over 70 non-critical bugs, address several security issues.
The addressed security issues include fixes to the exif and fbsql
extensions, as well as fixes to unserialize(), swf_definepoly() and
getimagesize().

All users of PHP are strongly encouraged to upgrade to this release.

Aside from the above mentioned issues this release includes the
following important fixes:

* Crash in bzopen() if supplied path to non-existent file.
* DOM crashing when attribute appended to Document.
* unserialize() float problem on non-English locales.
* Crash in msg_send() when non-string is stored without being serialized.
* Possible infinite loop in imap_mail_compose().
* Fixed crash in chunk_split(), when chunklen > strlen.
* session_set_save_handler crashes PHP when supplied non-existent object
reference.
* Memory leak in zend_language_scanner.c.
* Compile failures of zend_strtod.c.
* Fixed crash in overloaded objects & overload() function.
* cURL functions bypass open_basedir.

The PHP Development Team would like to thank all the people who have
identified the security faults in PHP and helped us address them.

--
PHP Announcements Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


subject: [WikiEN-l] Artwork samples

body:
What is the consensus regarding examples of an artist's work in an article?

It's been suggested that I ask Dr. Laura Brodian, [[Kelly Freas]]'s
widow, to release digital copies of some of his illustrations under the
GFDL.

Kelly's article is currently rather short (I can't remain neutral about
him), and the text would be overwhelmed if more than a handful of images
were added.  Would a supplementary article -- [[Artwork of Kelly Freas]]
-- be appropriate?

Most importantly, if I persuade Laura to give away some of her late
husband's work, will her generosity be welcomed to Wikipedia, or will it
be promptly nominated for deletion as non-encyclopedic
Wikipedia-is-not-a-gallery Hugo-winning-art-cruft?

--
  Sean Barrett     | For days, we survived on
  sean at epoptic.com | nothing but food and water.


body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> I think Mav knows me well enough to take my comment in context (i.e., that I
> respect him). I called him a jerk--I didn't insult his mother.

I know and didn't take offense. :)

-- mav

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


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for 'vandalism' on a friggin April Fools article

body:
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Maveric149.

The reason given is this:
page move vandalism ; you were warned, now you are blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SPUI#page_move_vandalism the warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SPUImy
contributions

Obviously the 'vandalism' being talked about was moving the page back
into the main article space. How can this be called vandalism? Can
someone be as kind as to unban me? I won't do it again, after seeing how
Stiffy McSitfferson some of us can be.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Blocked for 'vandalism' on a friggin April
	Fools	article

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> Because that is not an article under any definition we have. It is *not*
> encyclopedic content and was moved to the Wikipediaspace for the time being. It
> was moved just like any other bad jokes or other deleted nonsense are. We are
> an encyclopedia.

Just as an article content dispute cannot be called vandalism, neither
can an article placement dispute.


body:
Thanks to whoever unblocked me. True to my word, I will not touch the
April 1 article any more. Back to the NYC Subway for me.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Mark Pellegrini said:
> The purpose of  this was to encourage people to
> write featured articles on quirky subjects.

Neat stuff. Loved the toilet paper holder article.