body:
On Monday 25 October 2004 03:59, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion , the
> one headed "Sending rejected articles to Wikinerds' JnanaBase, round
> 2."

Hi, I notice somebody is concerned about the "Copyright Information" page and
wants to ensure I understand that deleted Wikipedia articles are GFDL.

I do understand that deleted Wikipedia articles are still GFDL.

All material stored at JnanaBase at http://jnana.wikinerds.org is GFDL without
any other restrictions. You can include notices "from Wikipedia". For example
you can copy-paste this: "This entry is from a deleted article of
[http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org] and used under the {{GFDL}}"

JnanaBase is a just one of the projects of the Wikinerds Community at
http://www.wikinerds.org - but each project has its own copyright rules. The
"Copyright Information" page is currently a bit outdated but I will update it
when I will have time. In case of any doubt just send an email to
info at wikinerds.org

Our other projects are, for example, NerdyPC (a wiki for computer technology),
Adapedia (a wiki for computer science and math), Wikinerds Portal and other
sections of the website like the Wikinerds Forum, the Wikinerds Mailing Lists
et cetera. For more information you can check http://portal.wikinerds.org

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org


list: wiktionary-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Muke Tever

subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:26:49 +0200, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Hi, I am talking with a couple of my colleagues about wiktionary
> (potential contributors) - now one of them wanted to know more about the
> search option - really this is a point I always was thinking about as well.
>
> When you insert a term you need to insert exactly that term to have just
> "the one present page" as result (when using the button "Go"). When
> using "search" instead  often there's no result even if I know that this
> term is there. And there seems to be no full-text-search in all pages.
> Or is there something I am missing, something I don't know?

Full-text search is turned off for at least several hours a day.  To get around this on la.wikt I added a link in [[Mediawiki:Nogomatch]] to list pages that link to the search query--if you are looking for a key word and the article itself does not exist, it may be linked to in an article that defines it by context or in translation.

I also put in, besides that and the option to create the article, automatic links to what article the search term may have on en: pl: nl: de: and fr:.

Looks like:
http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Nogomatch

In action:
http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Specialis:Search?search=absentia&go=Ire

Question:  Would it make more sense to link to a search on the other language wikis instead of the article directly?

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Kate Turner

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikipedia IPv6 support

body:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:18:18 +0100, Kate Turner <kate.turner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Preliminary, experimental IPv6 support has been added to Wikipedia.

If anyone's interested, traffic graphs for the site are available at
http://tunnelbroker.net/mrtg/tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net/tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net_tu367.html

Kate.


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] image upload

body:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:39:21 +0200, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
> this is a one-off observation, so it's too little to file a bug report
> over, but maybe someone can corroborate this:
>
> If I overwrite an existing image with a new version and a thumbnailed
> version of that image is part of some article, then the thumbnail will
> not change to the new version until and unless I change the thumbnail
> size. Also, I found I had to upload the new version of the image twice
> for the actual main image to change.

I think those are a browser cache problem rather than a bug - just
making a 'hard' reload (control-F5 or control-reload or control-R or
whatever) of the page probably would probably have worked as well as
re-uploading.

Andre Engels


from_name: ilooy

subject: [Wikitech-l] Conference presentation and setting up a local wiki

body:
Hi fellow wikipedians ;-)

I exchanged emails with Brion about
ideas for setting up a local wiki running
on either Linspire, Mac OSX, or Windows.

I'm doing a presentation on Wikipedia
for a couple of conferences in NH,
about 120 educators and admins
will be attending the presentations,
at the McAuliffe Conference and the
NHAWLT conference.

Do you have ideas as to what would
be the easier setup and what would
be a good perhaps thorough enough
introduction to Wikimedia and its projects?

Any input on this is welcome.

with regards always,
Jay B.
[[w:en:User:ILVI]]
--
--
ilooy.gaon at gmail.com


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] PDF

body:
It is likely that PDF export will become part of MediaWiki once we have
the wiki2XML parser running. I think there's even a PDF export thingy
for XHTML from the W3C.

Magnus

NSK wrote:

>Hi
>
>I will implement downloadable PDF export to my customised MW, so that readers
>can export any wikipage in PDF. This code can be made available under GPL.
>
>Is there anybody who would like to work with me on this, or is the MW team
>interested in incorporating this code in MW1.4?
>
>
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] OFFICIAL Timeout for WikiEN

body:
Anthony, Rick and others, please take Daniel's cue to move the
conversation to Vfd.

As one of the list admins for WikiEN, I've got to help protect
peoples' mailboxes from overflowing. Thanks.

--
Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Newsweek on WP

body:
On a lighter note, good thing Halloween is near, otherwise we'd be
unprepared for the expression on Jimbo's face here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6298340/site/newsweek/

And as with Jimbo, I too was addicted to the green World Book
Encyclopedia as a kid.

--
Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Newsweek on WP


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Perhaps it would help if someone deleted the
blueprint?  Or, after everyone had agreed to use
bricks, someone started pulling them out, because a
small group of builders decided that, although bricks
were on the blueprint, they would rather not have
them.
Mark

--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:

> What established policy do you mean? The deletion
> policy? In any case, I
> definitely agree. I don't know how anyone thinks
> removing listings from
> VFD is somehow furthering the building of an
> encyclopedia. And in any
> case, VFD operates on community consensus. If some
> users want every
> article with the word "green" deleted, they're free
> to make the
> frivolous listings, and make frivolous votes.
>
> I think you people are going overboard with your
> "what if"s. Remember
> assume good faith? Remember our perennial optimism
> in how the good users
> will always outnumber the bad? That has to be
> applied in this case.
> Sure, lots of us avoid VFD. I got sick of it after
> handling the deletion
> of entries everyday (see my user page for why). But
> if somebody was to
> go around listing every article containing the word
> "green" for
> deletion, I'd vote "keep". I'd file a case with the
> arbitration committee.
>
> See, we all agree we want to build an encyclopedia.
> But some of us
> disagree on how to build it. Some think we should
> use bricks of only one
> colour. Some think we should take out a few
> defective bricks and replace
> them with better ones. Some think we should repair
> the defective bricks
> instead. Some think we shouldn't use bricks at all
> and use old-fashioned
> wood. The thing is, if we let anyone do what they
> damn want, will the
> encyclopedia be an architectual masterpiece?
> Doubtful. It may not even
> be an encyclopedia. But if we structure things
> around a blueprint, and
> have foremen to oversee the process, while still
> allowing any Tom, Dick
> and Harry to build the encyclopedia, things will
> turn out far nicer.
>
> My point? Maybe the builders can't agree on the
> blueprint - is it
> something to stick exactly to or something flexible?
> In the case of
> guidelines such as [[What Wikipedia is not]], it
> does not claim to be a
> definitive guide of what should be criteria for
> inclusion - "Please feel
> free to continue adding to this list as we discover
> interesting new ways
> of not writing encyclopedia articles." So I think
> that this is why we
> have VFD. If not covered by existing policy, VFD is
> where we debate the
> article's inclusion. I propose articles clearly
> invalid under policy
> should go onto the proposed Purgatory page (see
> [[Wikipedia:Preliminary
> Deletion]]) if it is agreed upon, or  moved to
> speedy deletes if it's a
> clear candidate for such.
>
> Just because an article doesn't fall under any
> existing criteria in
> policy for inclusion/deletion does not render it
> invalid from deletion.
> VFD exists to serve the community, not policy.
> Policy and VFD are the
> means to an end, not an end in themselves.
>
> And if people really are committing mass
> transgressions of policy, I see
> no reason to huff and puff about it in private where
> they can't hear us.
> Explain to them directly how they are violating
> policy - "Ok, while you
> think an article having the word 'green' isn't
> encyclopedic, the
> article's topic is certainly listed under Policy X
> as a valid
> encyclopedic topic. Maybe we should discuss this on
> the article's talk
> page, but the usage of the word 'green' isn't an
> excuse for utter
> removal." That's how things should be going (IMO).
>
> If they don't listen, bring it up on RFC, mediation
> or arbitration. If
> the word "green" really isn't an excuse for
> deletion, there will be many
> who agree with you.
>
> In case my opinion of VFD isn't clear enough yet, I
> think it's a
> necessary evil. Sure, the whole community isn't
> involved, but if there's
> a spate of articles unfairly being deleted, there
> will be an outcry, and
> they will make themselves heard, and the whole
> community will be up in
> arms. That's one good thing about extremist
> inclusionists - they have a
> way of drawing people to something.
>
> And for those who are constantly moaning about how
> evil VFD is and how
> we don't need it, I have one question - what do we
> do with articles that
> aren't obvious copyvios, speedies, etc.? Do we keep
> a twenty-page long
> article on George Washington's underwear? How do we
> decide its worth for
> inclusion? I do understand that these are few, but
> they do exist (the
> prime example being Eric B. and Rakim, who's been
> surprisingly quiet
> recently).
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
> > Rebecca wrote:
> >
> >> If VFD does not have the consensus support of the
> community, then why
> >> not stop bitching here, and go write up a
> proposal to get rid of it?
> >>
> >> And lets see how far it gets.
> >>
> >> Of course, you won't do that, because you know
> what the odds of
> >> success are - which reflects the feelings of the
> community on this
> >> issue.
> >
> >
> > Stop ascribing positions to me which I do not
> hold. I don't want VFD
> > to go away, I want it to operate according to
> ALREADY ESTABLISHED
> > policy. If anything, I want the extremists on both
> sides abusing it to
> > further their own agendas to go away so actual
> work can get done.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Google doesn't index image namespace

body:
Example: Searching for
    "atomic blast" site:en.wikipedia.org
doesn't list the "Atomic blast.jpg" image. Strangely enough, a direct
link to
    en.wikipedia.org/upload/a/a4/Document.doc
turns up, though.

Magnus


from_name: Troels Arvin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikipedia IPv6 support

body:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:18:18 +0100, Kate Turner wrote:

> Preliminary, experimental IPv6 support has been added to Wikipedia.

Nice.

> This will probably be tested for the next few days

Looks good from here.

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Can we stop the flamewar?

body:
And deleting it!
Oops... Must... Stop... Flamewar!
Sorry!
Mark

--- Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> we have better things to do with
> our time, like
> writing an encyclopedia.
>
> --Michael Snow

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


from_name: leercontainer-wikimedia at yahoo.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Multiple image versions - why bother?

body:
I have submitted this as bug #778 on bugzilla.wikipedia.org

--Guttorm
--- Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org> wrote:

> Perhaps Allan's real solution was hidden in his proposal. He said,
> "It's something vandals can use to alter articles without affecting
> the
> watchlist;". I'd suggest that we modify the watchlist feature to add
> a
> watchlist entry when an image that a page uses is changed.
>
> This way, rather than taking features away from good users to punish
> bad
> ones, we enhance everyone's ability to monitor changes.
>
> ~ESP
>
> --
> Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] image upload

body:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 11:50 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> I think those are a browser cache problem rather than a bug - just
> making a 'hard' reload (control-F5 or control-reload or control-R or
> whatever) of the page probably would probably have worked as well as
> re-uploading.

Check Squid also.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041025/b29db7da/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Sj

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Newsweek on WP

body:
Don't forget the bone-white powerbook and all-gallows grin...  +sj+

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:07:36 -0700, Michael Snow
<wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Andrew Lih wrote:
>
> Yes, I did think that was a rather unusual shot. Unfortunately, I might
> have to wait another year or two before he's famous enough to
> successfully pull off dressing up as Jimbo for my Halloween costume.
> Then again, maybe I should just do it anyway and use it as an
> opportunity to explain to everyone about Wikipedia.
>
> --Michael Snow


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
Hi, I am talking with a couple of my colleagues about wiktionary
(potential contributors) - now one of them wanted to know more about the
search option - really this is a point I always was thinking about as well.

When you insert a term you need to insert exactly that term to have just
"the one present page" as result (when using the button "Go"). When
using "search" instead  often there's no result even if I know that this
term is there. And there seems to be no full-text-search in all pages.
Or is there something I am missing, something I don't know?

Thank you for any hint on this.

Ciao, Sabine

--
Sabine Cretella
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
www.wordsandmore.it
Meetingplace for translators
www.wesolveitnet.com


body:
On Oct 25, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Jens Ropers wrote:
> I've personally installed MediaWiki on Mac OS X and it can be got to
> run with quite moderate effort and even with a limited skillset (such
> as mine). There is a decent walkthrough at:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Running_MediaWiki_on_Mac_OS_X .
> However: I am not so sure how complete it is in terms of the "securing
> Apache" section -- I personally haven't yet figured that one out. So
> you want some old pro to check things in terms of security. (That
> actually goes for installs on all OSes.) Neither have I gotten URL
> rewriting to work. So Mac OS X is not perfect either.

In what way does it not work?

(I do most of my MediaWiki development on Mac OS X, so I have some
interest in it working smoothly. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041025/edba7945/attachment.pgp>


list: foundation-l

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Canada and Massachusetts sites
	noticing wikibooks/versity

body:
Ec++  (that's up-moderation, not changing your version number :)

Perhaps someone could do this for wikiversity.fr, once the foundation
is in place?   --sj

[ moved to foundation-l for clarity. ]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:06:36 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Sj wrote:
> >
> >> And does anyone know these Canadian IT Traning people?  They
> >> apparently just started setting up a site, but half of their links are
> >> to Wikimedia projects... and they're obviously waiting for a
> >> wikiversity site to be set up (check their one "Press Release").
> >>  http://www.canadianittraining.com/Main.htm
> >>
> > I'm trying to make sense of this.
> >
> > I'm naturally suspicious of this.  They have too many domain names
> > which appeared when I looked more closely at the contact information.
> > They also have canadianitoverseas.com and
> > educationbeyondboundaries.com which link back to the same website.
> >
> > The phone number for the CEO is listed as belonging to one W. Jolly of
> > Richmond Hill, Ont.  The other phone number appears to be unlisted.
> >
> > I also followed through the link to their Nova Scotia based Web design
> > provider.  That gave me another site of theirs at
> > http://www.cittilearningsystems.com/  That, at least, has a more
> > substantial page about the courses that they offer, mostly IT and
> > business related but with none of the courses being described beyond
> > having a title.  Evolution Learning of Halifax
> > http://www.evolutionlearning.com/# also seems to be theirs.  The lack
> > of any personal names to all this is an alert to me.
> >
> > I suspect something like Vancouver University International that was
> > dicscussed not long ago.  They may be trying to piggyback on
> > Wikiversity to build credibility for themselves!!! :-D   So far their
> > track record is too slim to be meaningful.
>
> Further to the above I have pre-emptively registered the domain
> wikiversity.ca
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Wikitech-l] image upload

body:
With me resetting Safari between each activity?
(Resetting Safari totally scraps the cache and everything else except
the local favicon repository.)
Ah sure, blame it on the client box. Prolly contaminated by psytonic
bogons. ^_^

On 25 Oct 2004, at 08:50, Andre Engels wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:39:21 +0200, Jens Ropers
> <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
>> this is a one-off observation, so it's too little to file a bug report
>> over, but maybe someone can corroborate this:
>>
>> If I overwrite an existing image with a new version and a thumbnailed
>> version of that image is part of some article, then the thumbnail will
>> not change to the new version until and unless I change the thumbnail
>> size. Also, I found I had to upload the new version of the image twice
>> for the actual main image to change.
>
> I think those are a browser cache problem rather than a bug - just
> making a 'hard' reload (control-F5 or control-reload or control-R or
> whatever) of the page probably would probably have worked as well as
> re-uploading.
>
> Andre Engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] PDF

body:
Clickable links.
Clickable links in them PDFs would be a real boon.

On 25 Oct 2004, at 09:09, Magnus Manske wrote:

> It is likely that PDF export will become part of MediaWiki once we
> have the wiki2XML parser running. I think there's even a PDF export
> thingy for XHTML from the W3C.
>
> Magnus
>
>
> NSK wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I will implement downloadable PDF export to my customised MW, so that
>> readers can export any wikipage in PDF. This code can be made
>> available under GPL.
>>
>> Is there anybody who would like to work with me on this, or is the MW
>> team interested in incorporating this code in MW1.4?
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
We have criteria for deletion (the blueprint).
A small group of people have decided that we want to
delete things that don't meet the criteria. They are
steadily going through, listing 20-30 articles per day
(most of which don't meet the criteria), knowing that
a percentage of these will get deleted anyway because
no one else is willing to spend as much time as they
are (it has taken me about an hour today alone to try
to vote on all of the school articles).
Mark

--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:

> Then that's wrong, obviously. I don't really
> understand what point
> you're trying to make here.
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
> Mark Richards wrote:
>
> >Perhaps it would help if someone deleted the
> >blueprint?  Or, after everyone had agreed to use
> >bricks, someone started pulling them out, because a
> >small group of builders decided that, although
> bricks
> >were on the blueprint, they would rather not have
> >them.
> >Mark
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


from_name: cookfire

subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:

> Hi, I am talking with a couple of my colleagues about wiktionary
> (potential contributors) - now one of them wanted to know more about
> the search option - really this is a point I always was thinking about
> as well.
>
> When you insert a term you need to insert exactly that term to have
> just "the one present page" as result (when using the button "Go").
> When using "search" instead  often there's no result even if I know
> that this term is there. And there seems to be no full-text-search in
> all pages. Or is there something I am missing, something I don't know?
>
> Thank you for any hint on this.

Hi Sabine,

I think this kind of search has been disabled, because it was
overloading the server. What happens now is that Google can be searched
with en.wiktionary.org or it.wiktionary.org as a subdomain.

I hope this helps.

Jo


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Slaves out of sync

body:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:29:17 -0400 (EDT)
Ricky Beam <jfbeam at bluetronic.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Tim Starling wrote:
> >> You should implement some form of automatic checkup for empty disk space, or
> >> you should consider buying more disks. Disk space is cheap.
> >
> >Ariel has 6x73GB 15K SCA SCSI drives (4 RAID 1+0 (146GB), 2 RAID 1
> >(72GB)), and is out of drive bays. Disk space is not cheap.
>
> ditto.  I have boxes of 9.1G drives, a few dozen 18G drives, maybe a
> dozen 73G'ers, and exactly 9 146G drives.  As size increases, cost
> exponentially increases.  Let me look through the "inventory" and see
> what I can donate -- provided you can actually use them; most will be
> fibre channel drives.
>
> Are there enough U's left for a drive shelf? (Like an IBM EXP15?)

We have 42U left iirc :)


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: question and complaint -- current CVS not working
 - neither fresh nor update installation, database error

body:
Thomas Gries wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I do not know what policy is used for those who are allowed to actually
> commit changes to the CVS, but the current CVS is not working -
> neither a fresh install (empty database) nor an php
> /maintenance/update.php helps -- A DATABASE ERROR OCCURED create table
> user_rights .....
>
> Please allow me to propose, that developers who change the database
> structure always submit also a correct module for
> /maintenance/updaters.inc and /maintenance/tables.sql, so that other
> developers can resume their work on their projects without interruption.
>
> Thank you.

I think I fixed that an hour or two after it was committed. It was a
minor mistake made by another developer, obvious and easily fixed. The
policy as far as I'm concerned is that brief periods of incorrect
behaviour are perfectly acceptable in HEAD, and that anyone who wants to
use HEAD should be prepared for such errors. We don't have time to test
installation after every commit.

-- Tim Starling


body:
I wrote:

> I think I fixed that an hour or two after it was committed.

Sorry, I fixed the patch but not tables.sql. JeLuF fixed tables.sql a
bit later on. The rest of my point still stands.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
No just redundant, but wrong - there are clear
deletion guidelines that have criteria.
Mark

--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I suppose it would be needlessly redundant to point
> out once again that
> the deletion criteria to which you refer do not
> actually exist?
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>
> > We have criteria for deletion (the blueprint).
> > A small group of people have decided that we want
> to
> > delete things that don't meet the criteria. They
> are
> > steadily going through, listing 20-30 articles per
> day
> > (most of which don't meet the criteria), knowing
> that
> > a percentage of these will get deleted anyway
> because
> > no one else is willing to spend as much time as
> they
> > are (it has taken me about an hour today alone to
> try
> > to vote on all of the school articles).
> > Mark
> >
> > --- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Then that's wrong, obviously. I don't really
> >> understand what point
> >> you're trying to make here.
> >>
> >> John Lee
> >> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
> >>
> >> Mark Richards wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it would help if someone deleted the
> >>> blueprint?  Or, after everyone had agreed to use
> >>> bricks, someone started pulling them out,
> because a
> >>> small group of builders decided that, although
> >> bricks
> >>> were on the blueprint, they would rather not
> have
> >>> them.
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> > http://vote.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Exactly - notability has nothing to do with
verifiability.
Mark

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> John Lee wrote:
>
> > I didn't say non-notability is a valid excuse for
> deletion (lots of
> > people seem to read things into what I write that
> I didn't write). The
> > contributor isn't put through a Kafkaesque
> process. All they have to
> > do is show how the topic is *notable*. For
> example, let's say my
> > friend Mike is an actor and is listed on IMDB.
> Which of the following
> > articles is encyclopedic/demonstrates the topic's
> > encyclopedia-worthiness?
> >
> >     my fren Mike is an actor. he has acted in
> movies such as "some
> >     backyard indy movie nobody's heard of".
> >
> > OR
> >
> >     Michael Gondrand is an independent actor. He
> has starred in "Some
> >     Backyard Indy Movie Nobody's Heard Of".
> [inline reference link to
> >     movie's website]
> >     *[link to IMDB entry]
> >
> > That's what I mean. They don't need to make a
> hubbub on VFD or
> > whatever. All they have to do is to write the
> article up sufficiently
> > so it is easy to see that the topic of the article
> is encyclopedic and
> > verifiable.
>
> So here's the problem:  Your first paragraph above
> uses "notable" to
> which I've added the asterisks for emphasis, but
> your illustration and
> the consequences that you draw illustrate the
> concept of "verifiable".
>
> Verification has it's own set of problems.  The easy
> cases can be
> established by a link to a website such as IMDB,
> There are many more
> that can only be verified with great difficulty.
> The proof may me in an
> obscure publication that is hard to find.
>
> I have one item that I could contribute.  It relates
> to stamp
> collecting, a general subject that could trigger its
> own controversy
> from people who would question the notability of its
> minutiae.  I could
> make the statement that former French Prime-Minister
> Pierre
> Mend?s-France was interested in stamps when he was a
> teenager.  My basis
> for saying that is an article that he wrote in an
> obscure stamp dealer's
> house publication in Vienna in 1922 when he was 15.
> As far as anyone
> knows it is the earliest serviving thing to be
> written by him.  As is
> typical of such publications, his article is the
> only one in this
> 16-page "magazine", the rest being all
> advertisements.  It is likely
> that few, if any, other copies of this publication
> have survived.
> Verifying this could be a problem when I am the
> unique possessor of the
> proof, but there is no doubt that Mend?s-France was
> notable, and that
> his earliest published work has some biographical
> valuie.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Viewing deleted pages

body:
Can someone explain why giving access to deleted
article content that is not actually illegal for us to
distribute would be a bad thing?
Mark

--- Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > > "allow non-sysops to view deleted pages".
>
> > You need to thin[k] about legal consequences if
> you allow everyone to
> access
> > "deleted" copyright violations or illegal
> information.
>
> I presume only logged in users would be allowed to
> view these articles, not
> everyone.  I don't see how the legal consequences of
> this are any different
> from the legal consequences of allowing admins to
> access the articles, or
> allowing everyone to access the copyright violations
> in the history.
>
> Yes, there should be some type of real deletion, for
> articles or history
> entries which are illegal for us to distribute, but
> this is a separate
> issue.  It should be done regardless of whether
> access to deleted articles
> is limited to admins, to all logged in users, or to
> admins and me.
>
> > > allow certain IP addresses to access deleted
> articles.
>
> > That's unfair to IP switchers, including but not
> limited to people who
> access
> > WP from many computer networks (home/work/etc),
> people who change ISP and
> > dynamic connections.
>
> It's already "unfair" for these IP switchers,
> though.  At least allowing
> some people to access these article would make it
> less unfair.  I suppose
> this could be implemented with a username and
> password in addition, but I'd
> prefer to not have to log in, as this is just more
> overhead for my scripts.
>
> > > [if] there's an objection to me personally
> having access to deleted
> articles.
>
> > Not allowing access to information to a specific
> person just because that
> > person's presence is perhaps undesired is
> undemocratic.
>
> If I were singled out, perhaps, but I was using
> myself as an example.  If
> Wikipedia allowed me, personally, to access deleted
> articles (in addition to
> admins), they certainly wouldn't be in any more
> legal trouble than if they
> only allowed admins.
>
> > I thought there was some due process that
> disallowed sysops from deleting
> > legitimate content via "speedy deletions".
>
> There is considerable disagreement over whether or
> not small stubs may be
> speedily deleted under this process.  This is in
> addition to the fact that
> there are a number of admins who regularly break the
> speedy deletion policy.
>
> >  I would say that downloading the dumps just to
> get some vfd articles
> consumes
> > too much bandwidth that other people would use for
> reading and learning.
>
> Well that's not the only reason I get the dumps, but
> yes, it's not the most
> efficient method.
>
> > I think MediaWiki keeps all deleted articles in
> the archive database table
> but
> > it is readable only by sysops. Perhaps you could
> ask for sysop privileges
> and
> > use them only for reading the deleted articles
>
> I've actually already tried this.  My request was
> overwhelmingly
> disapproved.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Then you are in a state of sin. Deleting content that
does not meet community agreed criteria simply because
you can get a majority of people in the room to agree
to it is clearly not in the best interests of the
'pedia.
Mark

--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> If you can get a 2/3 vote on VfD for deleting an
> article because it has
> the word green in it, I will not only support it, I
> will delete the
> article myself.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>
> > Right, the problem is that the reasons given for
> > deletion are not ones that are part of the
> deletion
> > policy. Do you support the deletion of articles
> with
> > the word 'green' in, if I could persuade enough
> people
> > to vote for it? I hope not, and for the same
> reason, I
> > oppose people deleting school that do not meet
> > deletion criteria. If they do meet the community
> > agreed criteria for deletion, then I will vote
> delete.
> > Mark
> >
> > --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. It is clear that there is no consensus to
> >> delete all schools prima
> >> faciae. There is also very notably no consensus
> to
> >> keep all schools.
> >>
> >> Which means that schools are covered on an
> >> individual basis.
> >>
> >> Which is, oddly enough, exactly what VfD is for -
> >> considering the
> >> deletion of an individual article.
> >>
> >> How convenient, no?
> >>
> >> -Snowspinner
> >> On Oct 22, 2004, at 11:28 PM, Simon Pulsifer
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion
> policy/schools]]
> >> and
> >>> [[Wikipedia:What's in, what's out]] both pretty
> >>> clearly show that in the wider community there
> is
> >> no
> >>> consensus to remove schools. - ~~~~
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
> >>
> >>> Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more
> >> fun!
> >>> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>>
> >>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
You don't address the point. The onus should be on the
person wanting to permanently remove information as to
why it should be removed, rather than the author to
justify why it should not. This has nothing to do with
whether or not I want an article on every building
that has ever existed.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bullcrap.  Your characterizations are only in your
> own mind.  If somebody can't be bothered to let us
> know why they care about an article, why should we?
> I constantly argue that all of the individual town
> and cities created by bot should be kept, despite
> repeated attempts at mass deletions.  And I
> constantly vote keep for all articles about towns,
> even one line stubs.  But where do we go on this
> path?  I vote delete on schools, because from high
> schools we go to junior high schools, to elementary
> schools, to pre-schools.  We have an article on
> every single company that has ever existed?  We have
> an article on every single building that has ever
> existed?  Do you seriously think that these are
> articles we should have in an encyclopedia?
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You could make a case that it is the responsiblity
> of
> the author (whoever that is?!) to provide
> references,
> but notability is just a weasel word for 'I'm not
> interested in it'.
> Mark
>
> --- Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
> > John Lee wrote:
> > > Institute new policy? I'm not sure what you
> mean,
> > really. All I was
> > > trying to say was that if contributors don't
> make
> > it clear through an
> > > article they wrote how its topic is
> encyclopedic,
> > then the onus isn't on
> > > others to hunt high and low for a way to verify
> > it. Mark Richards was
> > > saying the onus isn't on contributors to prove
> > their articles are
> > > encyclopedic. I was saying that, in my opinion,
> it
> > is.
> >
> > The core concept isn't what I see as flawed (in
> fact
> > it's almost
> > tautological), it's the use of it as an excuse to
> > delete things.
> >
> > > Speaking of verifiability, I just noticed
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:VfD-Ballerium
> > from a recent post
> > > on the list (one of Eric B. and Rakim's deleted
> > articles' deletion
> > > debates). Apparently Ballerium was verifiable;
> at
> > least Eric B. and
> > > Rakim provided several third-party sources.
> Should
> > the article have been
> > > kept? Rossami stated that the reason he was
> voting
> > "delete" was: "Let
> > > the product come out for release. Then let it be
> > for another 6 months.
> > > If the product still has publicity and traction
> > after 6 months live,
> > > then it /might/ make the cut as encyclopedic."
> > Isn't that a definition
> > > of "notability"?
> > >
> > > Sorry for the off-topic rambling, it just struck
> > me how Ballerium
> > > appeared to be a perfect case of a verifiable
> > topic having its article
> > > deleted.
> >
> > Wow, that's a perfect example of massive abuse of
> > the VfD process. I see
> > comments like "doesn't exist" (which it does and
> > did), and statements
> > about how beta software isn't worthy of an
> article,
> > and they don't care
> > how popular it is.
> >
> > I note with a combination of amusement and horror
> > but no surprise at all
> > that almost if not all parties involved in that
> > discussion aside from
> > Rick are relatively new contributors (moreso at
> the
> > time of the
> > discussion). What we're seeing seems to be a
> result
> > of the massive
> > influx of new users who either don't understand
> > Wikipedia or its
> > long-standing policies and principles, or don't
> > care.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I suppose it would be needlessly redundant to point out once again that
the deletion criteria to which you refer do not actually exist?

-Snowspinner

On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Mark Richards wrote:

> We have criteria for deletion (the blueprint).
> A small group of people have decided that we want to
> delete things that don't meet the criteria. They are
> steadily going through, listing 20-30 articles per day
> (most of which don't meet the criteria), knowing that
> a percentage of these will get deleted anyway because
> no one else is willing to spend as much time as they
> are (it has taken me about an hour today alone to try
> to vote on all of the school articles).
> Mark
>
> --- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>> Then that's wrong, obviously. I don't really
>> understand what point
>> you're trying to make here.
>>
>> John Lee
>> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>>
>> Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps it would help if someone deleted the
>>> blueprint?  Or, after everyone had agreed to use
>>> bricks, someone started pulling them out, because a
>>> small group of builders decided that, although
>> bricks
>>> were on the blueprint, they would rather not have
>>> them.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
No, again, you miss the point.
There is no consensus to delete schools simply because
they are schools from the community at large.
Because they were unable to get concensus from the
community at large, deletionists (people who favour
deletion of any particular thing, in this case
schools) list all of them individually, for no other
reason than that they are schools.
Because they list so many, and it is virtually
impossible unless you devote nearly all your time on
Wikipedia to vote on all of them, many get deleted
because the majority of 'people in the room' (those
who feel passionately about VFD, mostly deletionists)
vote to delete.
This is a flagrant abuse.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Boy, talk about newspeak.  You claim that
> "deletionists" (whoever they are) can't get
> consensus (that's how it's spelled, by the way),
> when, in fact, the only things that get deleted from
> VfD do so BECAUSE of consensus.
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Inclusionsts are 'disruptive' because they don't
> want
> to delete material that is factual, verifiable and
> neutral? What kind of newspeak is this?
>
> Also, there is no long standing policy or principle
> about deleting 'non-notable' items - this is a new
> development as a result of deletionists not being
> able
> to gain concensus for their ideas.
>
> Mark
>
> --- Rebecca wrote:
>
> > ...and compare this to disruptive new
> inclusionists,
> > such as
> > Netoholic, who either don't understand Wikipedia
> or
> > its long-standing
> > policies and principles, or don't care.
> >
> > Somehow, I think you'll find it's the deletionists
> > who've generally
> > been here longer, and done the hard yards of
> > actually working on good
> > articles, rather than spending their wiki time
> > trying to turn
> > Wikipedia into Wikijunkyard.
> >
> > -- ambi
> >
> >
> > > I note with a combination of amusement and
> horror
> > but no surprise at all
> > > that almost if not all parties involved in that
> > discussion aside from
> > > Rick are relatively new contributors (moreso at
> > the time of the
> > > discussion). What we're seeing seems to be a
> > result of the massive
> > > influx of new users who either don't understand
> > Wikipedia or its
> > > long-standing policies and principles, or don't
> > care.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: A mailing list whose content is all the material
	deleted from Wikipedia?

body:
Straw man again.
Nobody (or almost nobody) wants to keep EVERYTHING,
just everything neutral, factual and verifiable.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why do you object to copyright violations?  Isn't
> this backing down from your policy of retaining
> anything and everything every vomited up on
> Wikipedia?
>
> RickK
>
> NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> If they are legal and are not copyright violations,
> you are welcome to put
> VfD-deleted articles in http://jnana.wikinerds.org
>
> JnanaBase is GFDL.
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy me,
or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to gain
consenus for it.
Mark

--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing makes
> NO CLAIMS to be a
> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list you
> cite is a single
> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
> which page to send
> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
> deletion on VfD and more
> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
> criteria, and it's
> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort of
> declaration of the
> only reasons one can delete an article.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>
> > This is lunacy. You are arguing that, although
> there
> > is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
> > 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added to
> it
> > because there is no concensus, this does not in
> any
> > way indicate that non-notablity is not a reason
> for
> > deletion?
> > If that's really what you are arguing, then I
> don't
> > think there is anything that will convince you,
> > because you are clearly not interested in
> community
> > concensus building.
> > Mark
> >
> > --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It also says nothing in the deletion policy about
> >> criteria for deletion
> >> on VfD. It lists some deletion criteria that must
> be
> >> VfDed, but it
> >> makes no claims anywhere to provide an exhaustive
> >> list of valid reasons
> >> for deletion.
> >>
> >> -Snowspinner
> >>
> >> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Mark Richards
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The point is that there is no policy that says
> >> that
> >>> notability or not is a reason for deletion. I
> >> might
> >>> just as well get a group of morons to vote to
> >> delete
> >>> any article with the work 'green' in them. If
> >> there
> >>> was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because it's
> >>> stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get
> >> five or
> >>> six people to consistently do it doesn't make it
> >>> right. That's why there is nothing on the
> deletion
> >>> criteria which says anything about notablity.
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where is the policy consensus which says school
> >>>> articles are not to be deleted?  You can't
> point
> >> to
> >>>> it, because it does not exist.  Therefore, each
> >> of
> >>>> these non-notable school stubs needs to be
> listed
> >>>> individually on VfD.  If you can get a
> consensus
> >>>> which says that school articles are to stay,
> then
> >>>> all of these schools will no longer be listed
> on
> >>>> VfD.  But until there is such an article, so
> long
> >> as
> >>>> people continue to make articles about
> >> non-notable
> >>>> schools and don't indicate anything in the
> >> article
> >>>> which indicates that they ARE notable, they
> will
> >>>> continue to be listed.
> >>>>
> >>>> RickK
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> 1. Noone is questioning your right to revert
> (or
> >>>> maybe
> >>>> even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
> >>>> 2. There are specific people consistently
> >> deleting
> >>>> articles that have real content. For example,
> >>>> schools.
> >>>> They have consitently failed to gain concensus
> to
> >>>> delete all school articles, and so are listing
> >> every
> >>>> school individually, counting on the fact that
> >> noone
> >>>> can be bothered to vote on every one. The fact
> >> that
> >>>> each one is often a stub at this stage makes it
> >>>> easier
> >>>> still to delete them, and allows them to make
> the
> >>>> case
> >>>> that there is precident for deleting more
> >> schools.
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is that this is contentious, because
> >> not
> >>>> only is real information about real things (not
> >>>> 'Peter
> >>>> is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only
> >> admins
> >>>> can even see what is was that was lost.
> >>>> Mark R.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Delirium wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've only been skimming this thread, but I
> think
> >>>>> people proposing
> >>>>> policies upon policies are missing what
> actually
> >>>>> makes wikipedia work:
> >>>>> people just do things that need to be done.
> When
> >> I
> >>>>> see a crap article
> >>>>> that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I
> >> don't
> >>>>> list it on a page and
> >>>>> request permission to delete it. I don't think
> >>>> most
> >>>>> other people do
> >>>>> either (or even read this list or the millions
> >> of
> >>>>> policy pages).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's true people should exercise discretion,
> but
> >>>> if
> >>>>> an article that has
> >>>>> about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted,
> it's
> >>>> not
> >>>>> like Wikipedia has
> >>>>> lost an irreplaceable masterwork. There is no
> >>>>> prohibition against
> >>>>> creating a new article in its place (and while
> >>>>> you're at it, if you made
> >>>>> it better it wouldn't even be a question). If
> >>>> there
> >>>>> are specific people
> >>>>> consistently deleting questionable things, you
> >>>> could
> >>>>> leave a message on
> >>>>> their talk page asking them about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted"
> >> VfD
> >>>>> articles seem to have
> >>>>> a similar misconception that we're deleting
> all
> >>>>> possible articles at
> >>>>> that location, while we're only deleting the
> one
> >>>>> that's actually there.
> >>>>> If there's an incoherent article with no
> useful
> >>>>> information at a
> >>>>> location of a famous person or entity, it's
> >> still
> >>>>> appropriate to delete
> >>>>> it. Someone can later create an actual article
> >> at
> >>>>> that location, which
> >>>>> then wouldn't be deleted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the main point is that Wikipedia works by
> >>>> people
> >>>>> doing what they
> >>>>> think is reasonable, and talking to people who
> >> are
> >>>>> doing things they
> >>>>> disagree with, not by a bunch of policy
>
=== message truncated ===

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Viewing deleted pages

body:
Please, read what I wrote - I was talking about
material that we were not legally required to remove.
Is there any reason not to give access to that?
Mark

--- NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> On Monday 25 October 2004 22:46, Mark Richards
> wrote:
> > Can someone explain why giving access to deleted
>
> In my understanding if you receive a DMCA takedown
> notice you need to disable
> access to the infringing material. If you "delete"
> the page but users can
> still see it, then you haven't properly disabled
> access. So, even if you
> implement this feature, you need to be able to
> "flag" some pages for
> complete/proper deletion. Of course you can always
> manually manipulate the
> database.
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Countering the "Just as bad" tactic (was:
	Objecting to hatespeech is grounds forbeing banned?)

body:
We can make emergency (temporary) orders, but so far the threshold to
capture the attention of enough arbitrators to do this has been pretty high.

Fred

> From: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:34:42 -0400
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Countering the "Just as bad" tactic (was: Objecting to
> hatespeech is grounds forbeing banned?)
>
> Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to
> produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period
> of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months
> of deliberation if necessary.  This might be one way to strengthen
> the AC--community feedback loop.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Countering the "Just as bad" tactic (was: Objecting to
	hatespeech is grounds forbeing banned?)

body:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:28:26 -0400, Poor, Edmund W
<edmund.w.poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> I would like the arbcom to apply swift and short bans. Or change the
> system so that any admin can apply a ban of up to 7 days, subject to
> arbcom review.

I just want to second the first sentence here.  The social feedback
resulting from frequent, reliably swift, and relatively temporary
judgments, is greatly needed.

And I also agree with the rest of the sentiment; a 24-hr ban is, at
worst, a slap on the wrist that deprives a user of his/her watchlist
and requires him to edit anonymously or take 30 seconds to create a
new account.  But this is something for a different discussion.

Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to
produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period
of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months
of deliberation if necessary.  This might be one way to strengthen
the AC--community feedback loop.

+sj+


subject: [WikiEN-l] Viewing deleted pages

body:
Once again you're misrepresenting my point -
 1. I am not suggesting we remove the ability to
delete material that causes us legal issues.
 2. I am not suggesting that we do not blank material
that should not be in the encyclopedia (although I
find the idea that we should only have what Britanica
has disturbing).
 3. One man's detail is another's trivia. Should I
delete all the 'trivia' we have on science or maths
topics?

My question is: Information that is blanked is still
not visible to the reader unless they choose to see
the history page. What is the advantage in not making
the history page of deleted articles available to
anyone who wants to see it, so long as there is no
legal reason why we cannot display it?

Mark

--- NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> On Monday 25 October 2004 23:17, Mark Richards
> wrote:
> > material that we were not legally required to
> remove.
>
> I am sorry I sometimes write my responses so quickly
> that I don't answer
> completely.
>
> If you want to maintain the serious aura of an
> encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia
> Britannica you might want to delete articles you
> consider non-encyclopedic.
> However, I would not expect to find [[Slashdot
> trolling phenomena]] in
> Britannica, but this is exactly the reason why I do
> not read Britannica: It's
> too serious and full of general info without much
> trivia.
>
> If you want to be a knowledge base then you should
> keep all legal information
> that is submitted to you. This is what I do at
> http://jnana.wikinerds.org
>
> The point is, not all information is legal, so you
> need to have the ability to
> completely delete some articles.
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Viewing deleted pages

body:
Not if the search engines search the 'live' versions
only and not the whole history. It is my understanding
that 'history' versions are not trawled by search
engines - is that right?
Mark

--- NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 October 2004 00:42, Mark Richards
> wrote:
> > My question is: Information that is blanked is
> still
> > not visible to the reader unless they choose to
> see
> > the history page. What is the advantage in not
> making
> > the history page of deleted articles available to
> > anyone who wants to see it, so long as there is no
> > legal reason why we cannot display it?
>
> Ok now I see your point:) I think that your idea of
> blanking instead of
> deleting is very good and should be implemented.
> Great suggestion.
>
> Will it be visible to search engines?
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
On Oct 25, 2004, at 1:22 PM, Jens Ropers wrote:
> Can I come back to you Real Soon Now on this? (ie. at a SIGNIFICANTLY
> later date)

Sure, I'll be here. ;)

> I've not really got the time at present to delve back into my
> MediaWiki install and was thinking of getting back to it only when 1.4
> is out -- HOWEVER: I too have a MAJOR interest in getting this to run
> properly and securely on Mac OS X and *BSD (I think my host uses
> FreeBSD).

For all intents and purposes MediaWiki should run the same under Apache
on Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X.

The only exception I can think of is bug 362, which is that if your
wiki is set for Latin-1 and uploads are enabled, you can't upload files
with non-ASCII filenames (since the filesystem uses Unicode names and
speaks UTF-8 to the BSD layer, rather than using raw byte strings that
might happen to be interpreted as UTF-8 by applications, or might
happen not to be; invalid UTF-8 will be rejected and the file can't be
written).

I would though recommend upgrading PHP, as Mac OS X 10.3 comes with
4.3.2 which is a bit out of date.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041025/f925ea0d/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
No. It is a list of "Problems that may require deletion." Nowhere on
any deletion policy page, however, does it say that the list is meant
to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy, which actually
says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances." The
deletion policy does not say that. The deletion guidelines for
administrators say nothing about taking into account invalid reasons
for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about invalid reasons for
listing.

You are citing policy that does not exist.

If you want to change the rules, more power to you. If you want to
engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.

But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.

-Snowspinner
On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:

> Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
> deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy me,
> or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to gain
> consenus for it.
> Mark
>
> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing makes
>> NO CLAIMS to be a
>> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list you
>> cite is a single
>> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
>> which page to send
>> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
>> deletion on VfD and more
>> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
>> criteria, and it's
>> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort of
>> declaration of the
>> only reasons one can delete an article.
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>> This is lunacy. You are arguing that, although
>> there
>>> is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
>>> 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added to
>> it
>>> because there is no concensus, this does not in
>> any
>>> way indicate that non-notablity is not a reason
>> for
>>> deletion?
>>> If that's really what you are arguing, then I
>> don't
>>> think there is anything that will convince you,
>>> because you are clearly not interested in
>> community
>>> concensus building.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It also says nothing in the deletion policy about
>>>> criteria for deletion
>>>> on VfD. It lists some deletion criteria that must
>> be
>>>> VfDed, but it
>>>> makes no claims anywhere to provide an exhaustive
>>>> list of valid reasons
>>>> for deletion.
>>>>
>>>> -Snowspinner
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Mark Richards
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The point is that there is no policy that says
>>>> that
>>>>> notability or not is a reason for deletion. I
>>>> might
>>>>> just as well get a group of morons to vote to
>>>> delete
>>>>> any article with the work 'green' in them. If
>>>> there
>>>>> was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because it's
>>>>> stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get
>>>> five or
>>>>> six people to consistently do it doesn't make it
>>>>> right. That's why there is nothing on the
>> deletion
>>>>> criteria which says anything about notablity.
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the policy consensus which says school
>>>>>> articles are not to be deleted?  You can't
>> point
>>>> to
>>>>>> it, because it does not exist.  Therefore, each
>>>> of
>>>>>> these non-notable school stubs needs to be
>> listed
>>>>>> individually on VfD.  If you can get a
>> consensus
>>>>>> which says that school articles are to stay,
>> then
>>>>>> all of these schools will no longer be listed
>> on
>>>>>> VfD.  But until there is such an article, so
>> long
>>>> as
>>>>>> people continue to make articles about
>>>> non-notable
>>>>>> schools and don't indicate anything in the
>>>> article
>>>>>> which indicates that they ARE notable, they
>> will
>>>>>> continue to be listed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RickK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Noone is questioning your right to revert
>> (or
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
>>>>>> 2. There are specific people consistently
>>>> deleting
>>>>>> articles that have real content. For example,
>>>>>> schools.
>>>>>> They have consitently failed to gain concensus
>> to
>>>>>> delete all school articles, and so are listing
>>>> every
>>>>>> school individually, counting on the fact that
>>>> noone
>>>>>> can be bothered to vote on every one. The fact
>>>> that
>>>>>> each one is often a stub at this stage makes it
>>>>>> easier
>>>>>> still to delete them, and allows them to make
>> the
>>>>>> case
>>>>>> that there is precident for deleting more
>>>> schools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that this is contentious, because
>>>> not
>>>>>> only is real information about real things (not
>>>>>> 'Peter
>>>>>> is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only
>>>> admins
>>>>>> can even see what is was that was lost.
>>>>>> Mark R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Delirium wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've only been skimming this thread, but I
>> think
>>>>>>> people proposing
>>>>>>> policies upon policies are missing what
>> actually
>>>>>>> makes wikipedia work:
>>>>>>> people just do things that need to be done.
>> When
>>>> I
>>>>>>> see a crap article
>>>>>>> that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I
>>>> don't
>>>>>>> list it on a page and
>>>>>>> request permission to delete it. I don't think
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> other people do
>>>>>>> either (or even read this list or the millions
>>>> of
>>>>>>> policy pages).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's true people should exercise discretion,
>> but
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> an article that has
>>>>>>> about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted,
>> it's
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> like Wikipedia has
>>>>>>> lost an irreplaceable masterwork. There is no
>>>>>>> prohibition against
>>>>>>> creating a new article in its place (and while
>>>>>>> you're at it, if you made
>>>>>>> it better it wouldn't even be a question). If
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> are specific people
>>>>>>> consistently deleting questionable things, you
>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> leave a message on
>>>>>>> their talk page asking them about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted"
>>>> VfD
>>>>>>> articles seem to have
>>>>>>> a similar misconception that we're deleting
>> all
>>>>>>> possible articles at
>>>>>>> that location, while we're only deleting the
>> one
>>>>>>> that's actually there.
>>>>>>> If there's an incoherent article with no
>> useful
>>>>>>> information at a
>>>>>>> location of a famous person or entity, it's
>>>> still
>>>>>>> appropriate to delete
>>>>>>> it. Someone can later create an actual article
>>>> at
>>>>>>> that location, which
>>>>>>> then wouldn't be deleted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the main point is that Wikipedia works by
>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> doing what they
>>>>>>> think is reasonable, and talking to people who
>>>> are
>>>>>>> doing things they
>>>>>>> disagree with, not by a bunch of policy
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
This is just pants.
It is clear that these are the reason for deletion,
not just some 'ideas to use as a springboard for your
deletion antics'.
Mark

--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> No. It is a list of "Problems that may require
> deletion." Nowhere on
> any deletion policy page, however, does it say that
> the list is meant
> to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy,
> which actually
> says "Blocking should not be used in any other
> circumstances." The
> deletion policy does not say that. The deletion
> guidelines for
> administrators say nothing about taking into account
> invalid reasons
> for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about
> invalid reasons for
> listing.
>
> You are citing policy that does not exist.
>
> If you want to change the rules, more power to you.
> If you want to
> engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
>
> But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
>
> -Snowspinner
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>
> > Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
> > deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy
> me,
> > or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to
> gain
> > consenus for it.
> > Mark
> >
> > --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing
> makes
> >> NO CLAIMS to be a
> >> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list
> you
> >> cite is a single
> >> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
> >> which page to send
> >> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
> >> deletion on VfD and more
> >> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
> >> criteria, and it's
> >> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort
> of
> >> declaration of the
> >> only reasons one can delete an article.
> >>
> >> -Snowspinner
> >>
> >> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is lunacy. You are arguing that, although
> >> there
> >>> is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
> >>> 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added
> to
> >> it
> >>> because there is no concensus, this does not in
> >> any
> >>> way indicate that non-notablity is not a reason
> >> for
> >>> deletion?
> >>> If that's really what you are arguing, then I
> >> don't
> >>> think there is anything that will convince you,
> >>> because you are clearly not interested in
> >> community
> >>> concensus building.
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It also says nothing in the deletion policy
> about
> >>>> criteria for deletion
> >>>> on VfD. It lists some deletion criteria that
> must
> >> be
> >>>> VfDed, but it
> >>>> makes no claims anywhere to provide an
> exhaustive
> >>>> list of valid reasons
> >>>> for deletion.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Snowspinner
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Mark Richards
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The point is that there is no policy that says
> >>>> that
> >>>>> notability or not is a reason for deletion. I
> >>>> might
> >>>>> just as well get a group of morons to vote to
> >>>> delete
> >>>>> any article with the work 'green' in them. If
> >>>> there
> >>>>> was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because
> it's
> >>>>> stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get
> >>>> five or
> >>>>> six people to consistently do it doesn't make
> it
> >>>>> right. That's why there is nothing on the
> >> deletion
> >>>>> criteria which says anything about notablity.
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Where is the policy consensus which says
> school
> >>>>>> articles are not to be deleted?  You can't
> >> point
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> it, because it does not exist.  Therefore,
> each
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> these non-notable school stubs needs to be
> >> listed
> >>>>>> individually on VfD.  If you can get a
> >> consensus
> >>>>>> which says that school articles are to stay,
> >> then
> >>>>>> all of these schools will no longer be listed
> >> on
> >>>>>> VfD.  But until there is such an article, so
> >> long
> >>>> as
> >>>>>> people continue to make articles about
> >>>> non-notable
> >>>>>> schools and don't indicate anything in the
> >>>> article
> >>>>>> which indicates that they ARE notable, they
> >> will
> >>>>>> continue to be listed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RickK
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 1. Noone is questioning your right to revert
> >> (or
> >>>>>> maybe
> >>>>>> even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
> >>>>>> 2. There are specific people consistently
> >>>> deleting
> >>>>>> articles that have real content. For example,
> >>>>>> schools.
> >>>>>> They have consitently failed to gain
> concensus
> >> to
> >>>>>> delete all school articles, and so are
> listing
> >>>> every
> >>>>>> school individually, counting on the fact
> that
> >>>> noone
> >>>>>> can be bothered to vote on every one. The
> fact
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> each one is often a stub at this stage makes
> it
> >>>>>> easier
> >>>>>> still to delete them, and allows them to make
> >> the
> >>>>>> case
> >>>>>> that there is precident for deleting more
> >>>> schools.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The point is that this is contentious,
> because
> >>>> not
> >>>>>> only is real information about real things
> (not
> >>>>>> 'Peter
> >>>>>> is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only
> >>>> admins
> >>>>>> can even see what is was that was lost.
> >>>>>> Mark R.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- Delirium wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've only been skimming this thread, but I
> >> think
> >>>>>>> people proposing
> >>>>>>> policies upon policies are missing what
> >> actually
> >>>>>>> makes wikipedia work:
> >>>>>>> people just do things that need to be done.
> >> When
> >>>> I
> >>>>>>> see a crap article
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] PDF

body:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:38:07 +0200, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
> Clickable links.
> Clickable links in them PDFs would be a real boon.

I think that existing wiki2pdf generator was designed with print-outs
in mind, so clickability wouldn't be very relevant: the German
Wikipedia sells paper "WikiReaders" generated with it. So, yeah, a
general-purpose wiki2pdf tool (such as the wiki2xml -> xml2pdf chain
Magnus is describing) would indeed benefit from (optionally) clickable
links.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Viewing deleted pages

body:
Yes, this is more or less what I meant, although, to
be honest, I see no reason for deletion except for
page moves from inapropriate names, legal issues and
abuse / offensive page names.
Mark

--- Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:23:13 +0200, Pawe? 'Ausir'
> Dembowski
> <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> > When there is no page, I want to see red links,
> not blue ones, because
> > some nonsense that was there was deleted.
>
> Yes. Hence the need for a software feature that
> allows for "soft
> deletion", where any user can see the history of the
> deleted article;
> I don't think anyone is advocating just inserting a
> blank article in
> such cases. As I understand it, admins can already
> request the history
> for a non-existent page, and thus see those
> revisions that have been
> deleted; I'm not entirely sure how that interface
> works, and how it
> interacts with any non-deleted history, but if it
> works in a fairly
> sane way then it could presumably be extended to all
> logged in users.
>
> On a quick side-note to which, there's probably
> going to be a more
> flexible permissions system in the software soon, so
> it ought to be
> possible to assign this ability to a subset of users
> distinct from the
> subset assigned general "admin" privileges.
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: delete all articles with the word green

references:
<BAY10-DAV6LYCT4aJ6p000034ff@hotmail.com>	<slrncnnpod.9h9.zen19725@cabalamat.somewhere>	<417C13D4.4090003@cox.net>	<1134D204-2616-11D9-A935-000A95B6AE88@sbcglobal.net>
	<417CA6FB.7090802@telus.net>

body:
Guys, this is already a proposed policy (in case you didn't know). See
[[Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion]].

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
>> If VfD is becoming unwieldy, why not split it into some topical
>> pages. VfD-Popular Culture, VfD-Sciences, VfD-Humanities,
>> VfD-Politics, etc. That would lighten the load on the single page.
>
>
> I've had a similar thought but on a different basis.  The most
> controversial criterion by far has been notability/encyclopedic.  Why
> not simply split off "VfD-Notability".  Perhaps other criteria could
> be split off later too if one begins to dominate the discussions.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Newsweek on WP

body:
Jimmy --
Was that your own PowerBook?

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] (who happens to own an iBook ;-)
     www.ropersonline.com

On 25 Oct 2004, at 16:18, Sj wrote:

> Don't forget the bone-white powerbook and all-gallows grin...  +sj+
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:07:36 -0700, Michael Snow
> <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Andrew Lih wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I did think that was a rather unusual shot. Unfortunately, I
>> might
>> have to wait another year or two before he's famous enough to
>> successfully pull off dressing up as Jimbo for my Halloween costume.
>> Then again, maybe I should just do it anyway and use it as an
>> opportunity to explain to everyone about Wikipedia.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Just my 2 cents:

If you already know Linux quite well, then that would probably be your
platform of choice (if MediaWiki has a "native" platform, then I guess
you prolly have to say that it's Linux). Linux can however (despite all
progress) still be quite daunting for the wholly uninitiated (oh, I
know I will get flamed for this beyond measure).

I would not recommend Windows. Not that I've actually tried MediaWiki
on Windows, but it's the least "UNIXarian" of the three and MediaWiki
is sort of "at home" in an UNIX-like environment. Windows installs are
possible but maybe not just encouraged that much.

I've personally installed MediaWiki on Mac OS X and it can be got to
run with quite moderate effort and even with a limited skillset (such
as mine). There is a decent walkthrough at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Running_MediaWiki_on_Mac_OS_X . However:
I am not so sure how complete it is in terms of the "securing Apache"
section -- I personally haven't yet figured that one out. So you want
some old pro to check things in terms of security. (That actually goes
for installs on all OSes.) Neither have I gotten URL rewriting to work.
So Mac OS X is not perfect either.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com

On 25 Oct 2004, at 14:51, ilooy wrote:

> Hi fellow wikipedians ;-)
>
> I exchanged emails with Brion about
> ideas for setting up a local wiki running
> on either Linspire, Mac OSX, or Windows.
>
> I'm doing a presentation on Wikipedia
> for a couple of conferences in NH,
> about 120 educators and admins
> will be attending the presentations,
> at the McAuliffe Conference and the
> NHAWLT conference.
>
> Do you have ideas as to what would
> be the easier setup and what would
> be a good perhaps thorough enough
> introduction to Wikimedia and its projects?
>
> Any input on this is welcome.
>
> with regards always,
> Jay B.
> [[w:en:User:ILVI]]
> --
> --
> ilooy.gaon at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Integration of Multimedia Editing in MediaWiki

body:
This has certainly been discussed before; it is a much-needed
extension of the wiki concept beyond the realm of text.  One might
start by incorporating simple image-editing, before moving on to
video, but to each his own.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:18:07 -0500, Andrew Davis
<andrewdavis at nicetry.net> wrote:
> The Wikiness of the site should allow for users to edit one another's
> footage and finished content with the mediawiki versioning system and
> authorship history fulfilling the full purpose of the creative commons
> license.
>
> I realize that average internet access speeds are not up to the task of
> transferring such large files at this time, and I also realize that
> coding such a system could take quite a long time, but perhaps the
> system could be finished and integrated into MediaWiki by the time such
> transfer speeds are commonly available.

I like this kind of long-term planning  :-)  A modification that makes
it easy to associate an item in the Mediawiki db with a browser plugin
that launches when it is 'edited', rather than the textarea used for
text, might be a start; people have been asking for such a thing for
editing text as well, so that they can use emacs (or their favorite
editor) while modifying pages.  See Diderot for an example of some
vaguely-related offline work :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikiwriter

Cheers,
   +sj+


subject:
[Wikitech-l] 1.37 and performance issues when using re_write in
	.htaccess

body:
On Oct 23, 2004, at 9:55 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> I installed a test wiki with the new 1.3.7 security update. You can
> see it at http://testwiki.itkitchen.info. I used redirects to remove
> index.php from the URL, just as I do with my wiki running 1.3.6, here
> http://wiki.itkitchen.info.
>
> As you can see the performance, well, sucks. Big time.

Change this bit in Title.php Title::getLocalURL():
			if ( $wgScript != "" ) {
				$url = "{$wgScript}?title={$dbkey}&{$query}";
			} else {
				# Top level wiki
				$url = "/{$dbkey}?{$query}";
			}

to:
				$url = "{$wgScript}?title={$dbkey}&{$query}";

Make sure your rewrite rules do not obscure index.php.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041025/910d8f87/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Access control using PHP tags

body:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Fotios Lindiakos wrote:
> I am relatively new to the MediaWiki and PHP scene.  I am working with
> a few people setting up a wiki for our floor, http://csh.rit.edu  One
> thing I am trying to do is set access control based on whether a user
> is logged in for now.  We have some information on there that we might
> only want members to see, but most information would be public.  I
> have a few things I am trying to do, and any help in at least the
> right direction to look for the information would be useful.  If I was
> not supposed to ask this question here, please let me know and feel
> free to delete it. But here it goes...:
>  - I want to make a PHP process so that anything encapsulate in
> <private></private> is not rendered if the user is not logged in.

I would not recommend this; the wiki is built with the assumption that
all pages are public, and that the source text of all pages is equally
public. If someone can view a page, they will certainly be able to
obtain the source text of that page, including anything inside such
tags.

>  - I would like to know if there is an easy way to add pages to the
> anonymous whitelist, and possibly if there is a way for a user to
> specify if the page should be whitelisted or not

Not presently. You could write such a way, perhaps.

>  - Finally, we would like it if there was a way for mediawiki to not
> process any [[links]] that the user does not have access to, so that
> they won't even know that there is a page there.

This is not supported; wikis are intended to be open-access and links
are links.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041025/b36d3541/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Two kinds of deletion

body:
(Prompted by the ongoing discussion on wikien about who can see deleted content)

I think it makes sense to distinguish between deletion of the
"copyvio/takedown notice/vandalism" form, from deletion because a
topic is deemed 'unencyclopedic' or 'non-notable'.  Let us call these,
for the sake of argument, "hard deletion" and "soft deletion".

I also think it makes sense for every logged-in user (hence not
spiders or searchbots) to be able to see soft-deleted content, even a
list of soft-deleted articles.  Admins can still be the only ones who
can delete articles (soft or hard), and the only ones who can undelete
articles.  Other users can copy-and-paste deleted text into a new
article, just as they could repaste deleted text from their PCs into a
new article with the old name.  But in general they won't, since
deletion is a clear community decision, and repeatedly recreating
deleted articles is easily-recognizable vandalism.

--
+sj+


subject: [WikiEN-l] Le Monde reaches out to fr:WP for background content

body:
The French paper /Le Monde/ is now using Wikipedia as a "see also"
reference for various articles in its online version (see the
right-hand column, under "sur le net").

For instance, the following articles link to [[Ophiuchus
(constellation)]], [[Surr?alisme]], [[Sim?on II de Bulgarie]], and
[[Pays baltes]]  (via ryo and yann) :

     http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 at 2-3244,36-382720,0.html
     http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 at 2-3238,36-382112,0.html
     http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 at 2-3214,36-382209,0.html
     http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0%402-3214,36-384328,0.html

(they chose wisely; these all have excellent articles in French and
many other languages).   Here's to becoming an aid to other media
everywhere...

--
+sj+


subject: [Wikitech-l] 'hard' refresh

body:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:50:30 +0200, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think those are a browser cache problem rather than a bug - just
> making a 'hard' reload (control-F5 or control-reload or control-R or
> whatever) of the page probably would probably have worked as well as
> re-uploading.

Can I just correct what seems to be a common piece of misinformation
regarding Mozilla and derivatives: Ctrl-R does *not* perform a Force
Reload; for that you need to also hold down Shift. I've suspected this
for some time, despite the opposite being widely claimed, and have
just checked the online Help (under Moz1.6), which under "Mozilla
Keyboard Shortcuts:Navigator Shortcuts:Page Viewing Shortcuts"
includes the following table fragment (sorry if it gets mangled by
non-proportionality of typefaces):

Command 	 Windows 	   Macintosh 	      Linux
Reload	              Ctrl+R              Cmd+R              Ctrl+R
Force Reload (not from cache)
	                   Ctrl+Shift+R    Cmd+Shift+R   Ctrl+Shift+R

The refresh button on the toolbar is similarly forced using the shift
key, or so the "Browsing the Web:Navigating Web Pages:Stopping and
Reloading" section of the same online manual implies: "To refresh the
current page and reset all changes made (if the page contains a form),
hold down the Shift key and click the Reload button, or press
Ctrl+Shift+R (Cmd+Shift+R on Mac OS)."

I am about to correct the advice page on en.wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Clear_your_cache) that has
this information wrong, but wanted to mention it here so that anybody
who sees it elsewhere can also correct it. It seems to be a rather
persistent myth, perhaps because pages marked no-cache will be flushed
from the browser's cache with or without modifier keys.

[Now I look, the instructions on that page for IE seem to be
incorrect, as well; I'll have to try and confirm that now...]

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Gabriel Beecham

subject: [Wikipedia-l] LanguageGa.php update request

body:
Hi - could the latest version of LanguageGa.php (at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageGa.php/) please
be uploaded? It's a pretty major rewrite, including
the redefinition of the Category and Template
namespaces, and the main page title (I'll make sure
that any Category or Template pages are in a safe
place so that they aren't overwritten).

Also, would it be possible to do a mass overwrite of
the MediaWiki messages at the same time? Practically
every section has been altered in some way, and it
would save a lot of time over doing it manually.

Thanks,
Gabriel Beecham / Kwekubo

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I am not sure how to respond to this, beyond to note that you seem to
be demonstrating comparable skill in reading my posts that you are in
reading the deletion policy.

-Snowspinner

On Oct 25, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Mark Richards wrote:

> This is just pants.
> It is clear that these are the reason for deletion,
> not just some 'ideas to use as a springboard for your
> deletion antics'.
> Mark
>
> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> No. It is a list of "Problems that may require
>> deletion." Nowhere on
>> any deletion policy page, however, does it say that
>> the list is meant
>> to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy,
>> which actually
>> says "Blocking should not be used in any other
>> circumstances." The
>> deletion policy does not say that. The deletion
>> guidelines for
>> administrators say nothing about taking into account
>> invalid reasons
>> for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about
>> invalid reasons for
>> listing.
>>
>> You are citing policy that does not exist.
>>
>> If you want to change the rules, more power to you.
>> If you want to
>> engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
>>
>> But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>> On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
>>> deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy
>> me,
>>> or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to
>> gain
>>> consenus for it.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing
>> makes
>>>> NO CLAIMS to be a
>>>> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list
>> you
>>>> cite is a single
>>>> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
>>>> which page to send
>>>> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
>>>> deletion on VfD and more
>>>> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
>>>> criteria, and it's
>>>> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort
>> of
>>>> declaration of the
>>>> only reasons one can delete an article.
>>>>
>>>> -Snowspinner
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is lunacy. You are arguing that, although
>>>> there
>>>>> is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
>>>>> 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added
>> to
>>>> it
>>>>> because there is no concensus, this does not in
>>>> any
>>>>> way indicate that non-notablity is not a reason
>>>> for
>>>>> deletion?
>>>>> If that's really what you are arguing, then I
>>>> don't
>>>>> think there is anything that will convince you,
>>>>> because you are clearly not interested in
>>>> community
>>>>> concensus building.
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It also says nothing in the deletion policy
>> about
>>>>>> criteria for deletion
>>>>>> on VfD. It lists some deletion criteria that
>> must
>>>> be
>>>>>> VfDed, but it
>>>>>> makes no claims anywhere to provide an
>> exhaustive
>>>>>> list of valid reasons
>>>>>> for deletion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Snowspinner
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Mark Richards
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is that there is no policy that says
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> notability or not is a reason for deletion. I
>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> just as well get a group of morons to vote to
>>>>>> delete
>>>>>>> any article with the work 'green' in them. If
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because
>> it's
>>>>>>> stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get
>>>>>> five or
>>>>>>> six people to consistently do it doesn't make
>> it
>>>>>>> right. That's why there is nothing on the
>>>> deletion
>>>>>>> criteria which says anything about notablity.
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where is the policy consensus which says
>> school
>>>>>>>> articles are not to be deleted?  You can't
>>>> point
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> it, because it does not exist.  Therefore,
>> each
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> these non-notable school stubs needs to be
>>>> listed
>>>>>>>> individually on VfD.  If you can get a
>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>> which says that school articles are to stay,
>>>> then
>>>>>>>> all of these schools will no longer be listed
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> VfD.  But until there is such an article, so
>>>> long
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> people continue to make articles about
>>>>>> non-notable
>>>>>>>> schools and don't indicate anything in the
>>>>>> article
>>>>>>>> which indicates that they ARE notable, they
>>>> will
>>>>>>>> continue to be listed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RickK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1. Noone is questioning your right to revert
>>>> (or
>>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>>> even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
>>>>>>>> 2. There are specific people consistently
>>>>>> deleting
>>>>>>>> articles that have real content. For example,
>>>>>>>> schools.
>>>>>>>> They have consitently failed to gain
>> concensus
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> delete all school articles, and so are
>> listing
>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>> school individually, counting on the fact
>> that
>>>>>> noone
>>>>>>>> can be bothered to vote on every one. The
>> fact
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> each one is often a stub at this stage makes
>> it
>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>> still to delete them, and allows them to make
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>> that there is precident for deleting more
>>>>>> schools.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that this is contentious,
>> because
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> only is real information about real things
>> (not
>>>>>>>> 'Peter
>>>>>>>> is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only
>>>>>> admins
>>>>>>>> can even see what is was that was lost.
>>>>>>>> Mark R.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- Delirium wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've only been skimming this thread, but I
>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> people proposing
>>>>>>>>> policies upon policies are missing what
>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> makes wikipedia work:
>>>>>>>>> people just do things that need to be done.
>>>> When
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> see a crap article
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>