body:
I wasn't surprised that the images were there. I was disgusted that an
editor added the links. There is a difference I think. :-)

Recently, another editor emailed me to ask me to check out 5 external
links on an article. He was at work and couldn't safely pull them up.
Some of the images there were horrible. I don't think merely looking at
this type of material causes some one to fall into moral decay.
Personally it saddens me to see images of young children being sexually
exploited. These images are being promoted on these sites. Very
different than showing them for educational purposes.

Sydney aka FloNight

Sean Barrett wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sydney Poore stated for the record:
>
>
>> Are you equating Google search, where some one must deliberately type in
>> the words, to an external link to image boards on an article? Or are you
>> talking about Google images site?
>>
>> Sydney aka FloNight
>>
>> Sean Barrett wrote:
>>
>> Sydney Poore stated for the record:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Instead of a single image that can be presented in a context to make it
>>> clear it is educational , a bigger concern is external links to image
>>> boards with images of a child engaged in sexually explicit act.  These
>>> appear on Wikipedia on a regular basis. When I went  to image board web
>>> sites to look for inappropriate images, I felt disgusted that another
>>> Wikipedia editor would put it on Wikipedia. I think we need to modify
>>> our policy/guidelines dealing with images with children engaged in
>>> sexually explicit acts. They should not be permitted in my opinion.
>>> Editors that repeatedly add them should be blocked for being disruptive.
>>>
>> Certain sites stand out as excellent starting points for such a policy.
>>  The worst offender is something called "Google," which has innumerable
>> links to inappropriate material.
>>
>
> You wrote, and I quote, "When I went to image board web sites to look
> for inappropriate images, I felt disgusted...."  If you go deliberately
> looking for inappropriate images, you shouldn't be disappointed when you
> succeed.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Honk if you've never seen a gun
>  sean at epoptic.org | fired from a moving vehicle.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEMT4tMAt1wyd9d+URAoSMAJ47j/9T/tO/ijmxnIVf2TgCNHjikwCfdwB2
> /xQ03scoR6X2FV+sRT4zva4=
> =f5Os
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>>          PERS.2 == "Marking my work for censorship is picking a
>>>>fight."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How bizzarre.
>>>
>>>
>>Not really.  How would you like it if someone went around to _your_
>>contributions and marked them up in ways you found insulting and
>>derogatory?  That would be a bad thing, and nobody should do it.  It
>>would be disrespectful of you as a contributor, and it would also be a
>>violation of Wikipedia policy.
>>
>>
>If I wrote an article that had bare breasts, I wouldn't be in the
>least offended if someone tagged it as "has bare breasts".
>
We need to keep [[Britannia]] in mind where it says, "Early portraits of
the goddess depict Britannia as a beautiful young woman, wearing the
helmet of a Centurion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion>, and
wrapped in a white toga with her right breast exposed."

IIRC Britannica had an arrangement of the trident and shield in its
logos before it adopted a thistle with which to nourish goats.

Who could complain about a goddess with her bare Britannicas ready to
nourish a nation?

Ec


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] request to Jimbo for out-of-process deletion of image

body:
I agree that the thorny discussion about the "merits" and
international legality of this particular image can be avoided by
simply deleting it as a copyvio. If Jimbo doesn't intervene, I suggest
making a separate page for the deletion discussion and advertising it
more broadly. This is not a matter where the typically small sample of
participants on IfD (who are often the ones with an interest in the
article in question) is sufficient to reflect the opinion in the
larger community.

Erik


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 12:06, Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 03/04/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> herostratus at comcast.net wrote:
>> <snip stuff about "that image">
>>
>> FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a
>> store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something
>> fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially
>> offensive
>> copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free
>> image.
>
> Might be worth finding the WP:POINT stick...
>
> That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at the
> best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where
> we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and
> replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of
> these changes are reverted on sight...

Thats because "fair use" and non free content are corrupting wikipedia.
People do not understand we are supposed to be making a free
encyclopaedia
any more, because there is so much non free content in it. They think we
are trying to make a really good encyclopaedia.

Quite understandable alas. We need to go back to making a free
encyclopaedia
which means deleting tens or hundreds of thousands of non free images.

Its just wasting our time, and causing a huge distraction from the
purpose
of wikipedia.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

>The current issue of Nature has a reply to Britannica.
>
>Zero.
>
>=============================
>
>Editorial
>
>Last week, Encyclopaedia Britannica issued a statement, ... and
>this week published a half-page advertisement in the London Times
>criticizing our study and demanding that we retract our story.
>
It seems that management at EB has been taken over by PR experts and
gravediggers rather than encyclopedia editors.

Ec


body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 12:58, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 4/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a
>>> store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something
>>> fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially
>>> offensive
>>> copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free
>>> image.
>
>> That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at
>> the
>> best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where
>> we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and
>> replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of
>> these changes are reverted on sight...
>
> IMHO, raising "copyvio" or "free use" arguments in this case is sort
> of missing the point. We should be adamant about deleting the image
> because we don't want child porn in Wikipedia (or, to be more precise,
> we don't want people to think that we have child porn in Wikipedia).
> If the same image was public domain, what would we do?

If it was free content created for the encyclopaedia I would be more
inclined to think there might be some merit in it.

As its just been pasted in off the internet there is no reason to even
think about keeping it.

It appears that as a cartoon it is probably not illegal in the UK under
the recent child protection acts (although it might be covered by wider
obscenity laws). It is however probably illegal in New Zealand, so if
someone there would like to report it to the police I imagine it will
disappear rather quickly. The publicity will not be nice.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
Rudy Koot wrote:

>zero 0000 wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry if someone posted this already, but I didn't see it.
>>The current issue of Nature has a reply to Britannica.
>>It is subscription-only so giving a link won't help.
>>There is an editorial and a slightly longer reply that
>>does not need subscription (see link near the end
>>of the editorial).
>>
>>
>I think it's about time to start [[Nature-Britannica dispute]].
>
There are times when the most eloquent response is silence.

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I think we can make a good fair use claim for the image. It
illustrates the article and as far as I can determine, there's no free
alternatives. If there are, they need to be used instead of the
current one, before we can properly delete it.

Mgm

On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Since this is fair use, why can't an admin just remove it from the
> article (as there are better free alternatives) and then speedy it under
> CSD IM5?
>
> Cynical
>
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > herostratus at comcast.net wrote:
> > <snip stuff about "that image">
> >
> > FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a
> > store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something
> > fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive
> > copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEMPlMg8fvtQYQevcRAoHbAJ9a30mXezNoCbI5gG9eyrzfaTGDhwCfQsvf
> pxKvJ1il0NjWeOreqNU3HPE=
> =noJJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion

body:
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> Are you planning on offering a revision browsing interface, like
> ViewVC (previously known as ViewCVS)?

Yes, but I had some trouble getting it set up so it's not running yet.

> A one-line change to the Apache setup to allow using the XSL
> stylesheet included in the source distribution would be nice, too:
>
>   SVNIndexXSLT "/svnindex.xsl"

Done.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060403/da95897e/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

body:
On 4/3/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, someone suggested a similar overhaul for AfD about six months ago,
> and they got shot down in flames.

Happens :)

> > March 2006: Two semi-edit wars
>
> Ouch. What's a semi-edit? :)
>
> (That should be semi edit-wars...)

Or semi-edit-wars? "Edit wars" is never hyphenated by itself. Anyway!

>
> > on [[Spock]] and [[Star Trek]], accused of violating NPOV.
>
> Presumably at this point you would see diffs where the alleged NPOV
> violations take place.

Yeah, or even just a date. The idea is to just give potential voters a
starting place to look at stuff that might be interesting, rather than
everyone starting from ground zero.

> On a side note, I don't see why people are so damned precious about
> making sure that NPOV is perfectly applied for 100% of their edits - so
> what if someone's edit biases the article a little bit, if they've just
> added a rather large amount of useful information? I thought this was a
> wiki - someone else can always fix it later...

Totally agree, as long as it's done in good faith, and preferably with
self-awareness. I've certainly added info on music groups that I like,
with edit summaries like "Added info, someone please de-POV".  I don't
claim to be able to write about my favourite bands with total
impartiality, but I can avoid removing info, or claiming impartiality!

> > Large number of apparently helpful contributions on
> > [[Brian Peppers]] and [[Moldova]].
>
> Good. Demonstrates ability to communicate with other editors on
> controversial articles. (Unless their contributions were "{{db-bio}}"
> and "#REDIRECT [[Romania]]" respectively.)

No, you idiot, anyone contributing to an article on Moldova should not
be an admin!!!

Well, at least there would be a sensible debate, rather than people
simply taking unstated prejudices into the voting booth.  I bet there
are voters that see that an editor has edited some sex-related
article, and immediately form a conclusion, regardless of whether they
were simply performing routine maintenance like typos of interwiki
links.

> > :Yes, I saw this edit war on [[Spock]], he behaved like a total prat.
> > [[User:PeanutGallery1]]...
>
> Presumably there would also be "I asked this user to apologise [42] and
> he refused/did so [43]. ~~~~" with this.

You would hope so.

>
> > April 2006:No contributions, except for deleting the word
> > "anti-semite" from 6 articles.
> >
>
> You also are using English instead of Esperanto :)

Sorry I didn't catch that?

Steve


body:
On 4/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we can make a good fair use claim for the image. It
> illustrates the article and as far as I can determine, there's no free
> alternatives. If there are, they need to be used instead of the
> current one, before we can properly delete it.
>
> Mgm
>

That said. If someone can find an free alternative image that's less
offensive, but still illustrates the article sufficiently, I'd be
happy for this particular image to go. Free should go ahead of fair
use.

Mgm


body:
On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Read Alphax's mail. There is a free alternative.
>
> Justinc
>
Can I get a link?


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I fully support this deletion. It is occasional lapses like this,
which while arguably "legal", give some substance to the bogus claim
that Wikipedia panders to pedophiles.

Fred

On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Sam Korn wrote:

> I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
>
> This image bad in two main ways:
>
> 1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
> Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
> censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
> extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
> encyclopaedia.
>
> 2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
> generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
> text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
> is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
>
> It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
> harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
> justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
> Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
> is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
> picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
> outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.
>
> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> necessary.
>
> I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
> wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Yes, but [[Breastfeeding]] (a featured article) is going to be tagged as
> unsuitable, isnt it. This is not acceptable.

I'm kind of sick of people arguing against subjective tags like
"unsuitable" or "smutty". We're all in agreement there. No offence,
but there must have been close to 10 posts arguing against precisely
that.

> And "smutty" is a rather loaded term. I dont think [[No-pan kissa]] is
> smutty for example, and have tried to make it an informative article
> with references. I cant see anything in it that children should not see,
> but I imagine it would be tagged too.

Well, I won't look at that here, but it would, under what I was
suggesting, be tagged on an objective basis.

Steve


body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 13:13, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> It appears that as a cartoon it is probably not illegal in the UK
>> under
>> the recent child protection acts (although it might be covered by
>> wider
>> obscenity laws). It is however probably illegal in New Zealand, so if
>> someone there would like to report it to the police I imagine it will
>> disappear rather quickly. The publicity will not be nice.
>
> Again, legality isn't really the issue. We have lots of illegal
> material on Wikipedia. But yeah, I really don't want to be reading
> about how one of our articles has an image of a seven year old being
> raped in the paper tomorrow.

Do we? I dont actually know of anything else that is a criminal offence
in a major country which has general laws protecting free speech,
where Jimbo is likely to visit and wouldnt like to be arrested on
entry. And where we have an article about the law in question.
Maybe we should use the picture to illustrate this?

As opposed to blanket claims of "pictures of masturbation are illegal
in some country" and similar that are often bandied around.

Justinc


body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 13:24, SP wrote:
>
> I also have a slightly different opinion on the use of this photo
> (or a
> similar free one) for educational purposes.  While the image itself is
> horrible because it depicts the sexual exploitation of a child, its
> use
> for educational purposes is not horrible. It is one of the least
> offensive images available to illustrates the sexual exploitation of a
> child. There are ways to make it obvious that it is being used for
> educational purposes. Displaying the image lower on the page, reducing
> the size of the image or using a link are possibilities. It has not
> been
> used that way on Wikipedia and that is the problem. There are editors
> arguing for the inclusion of the image because there is nothing
> offensive about the image. These comments will get use close scrutiny
> from groups like Perverted Justice. I don't know how it fix that as
> long
> as we permit open discussion on talk pages.

And why exactly is it necessary to use an image. Surely this is a
case where
a word is better than a thousand images.

Educational use is not a permitted exemption for showing child
pornography
in any jurisdiction.

Justinc


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards arbitrary client-side JavaScript execution

body:
> > * Why does MediaWiki ever allow unescaped ">" characters? This
> > behaviour seem to increase the chances of a JavaScript security
> > problem.
>
> It doesn't, modulo uncaught bugs.

Well, all I can tell you is that this is the behaviour that I observe.

But you don't have to take my word for it; see for yourself here:
* Unescaped ">" characters in the HTML output:
http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser11
* Wiki Source: http://nickj.org/Special:Export/MediaWiki/Parser11
* Site is running MediaWiki 1.5.6: http://nickj.org/Special:Version

Note that I'm looking at the Parser purely from a black-box-testing
perspective: I give it certain input, and observe what it does. I'm
not looking at it from a source-code or design-level perspective (i.e.
what it should do). Then as a human, I automatically try to spot the
patterns in the behaviour that I observe, and from that construct a
mental model that explains what the Parser is doing. And currently
that says: the ">" character does not appear to be escaped until after
the "<" character is used.

Disclaimer: I have modified the MediaWiki source of this installation
a little, but only to add limited ACLs, and change 2 or 3 minor things
in the default page layout that I disliked. As far as I am aware,
nothing that I have changed will modify the behaviour of the Parser
(but of course, I could be wrong).

> This is thanks to the wacky multi-pass parser. As a quick hack-around:
>
> --- includes/Sanitizer.php.prev	2006-03-30 23:50:58.000000000 -0800
> +++ includes/Sanitizer.php	2006-03-30 23:48:59.000000000 -0800
> @@ -577,6 +577,9 @@
>  			# Templates and links may be expanded in later parsing,
> 			# creating invalid or dangerous output. Suppress this.
> 			$value = strtr( $value, array(
>+				'<'    => '<',   // This should never happen,
>+				'>'    => '>',   // we've received invalid input
>+				'"'    => '"', // which should have been escaped.

Question: will this break wikis with $wgRawHtml on? (Used to embed
arbitrary HTML.)

Also, thank you, because the above code snipped suggested a way to
prevent the "'>' character does not appear to be escaped until after
the '<' character is used" restriction.

What you do is use templates, and then we can completely bypass this
restriction.

E.g. whereas before if we had one article, with wiki text like this:
------------------------------------
>>>>>
{| BGCOLOR=
>>>>>
------------------------------------

... then it would produce HTML output like this:
------------------------------------

>>>>>

<table bgcolor="
>>>>>

------------------------------------

Instead, we now have one article, and one template. For the template
(call it "Template:OpenTag") we have:
------------------------------------
{| BGCOLOR=
------------------------------------

Then in the article we have:
------------------------------------
>>>>>
{{OpenTag}}
>>>>>
------------------------------------

Which now renders as this HTML output:
------------------------------------

>>>>>

<table bgcolor="

>>>>>
------------------------------------

Note that the second ">>>>>" is no longer escaped now, despite the "<"
being included in the HTML output based on user-supplied input.

Maybe it'll come in useful and maybe it won't, but either way it's one
less restriction.

> Hi Nick - very interesting post :) I don't know anything of how
> MediaWiki works, but I'm curious why you're allowed HTML of the form
> aoeu. How does that work, and will that help your nefarious
> goal?

Well the "aoeu" might help, if we could get the Parser to start
an underline tag, but not close it.

For example, if we could come up with some wiki-text input that would
produce this output:
------------------------------------
test
------------------------------------

In other words, we want "<U", not "" in the output. I.e. we want to
confuse the Parser, to get it to stuff up the normal flow of tags in
the HTML output, and start something that it doesn't finish.

Note that enabling Tidy probably won't provide any protection here. In
fact, it may even make things worse, by adding in tags for us. For
example, if we can get this output (i.e. same as above, but missing
""):
------------------------------------
test
------------------------------------

Then Tidy will helpfully supply it for us, and clean things up a
little, which will give us this:
------------------------------------
test
------------------------------------

And then the browser will ignore the attributes it doesn't understand,
giving this:
------------------------------------
test
------------------------------------

... which will allow us to execute JavaScript. So, it was really the
'<U foo="' bit that I was looking for.

Through automated fuzz-style testing, I've since found something that
behaves in almost exactly this way (which demonstrates that if you
throw enough fuzz-style input at something, you'll probably get it to
squeal).
In particular, this wiki input:
------------------------------------
{|
| |[ftp://|x||]
------------------------------------

... generates this output:
------------------------------------

<a href="ftp://|x	x	x
------------------------------------

... which looks OK, until you look closer:
------------------------------------
<a href="ftp://|x	x	x
------------------------------------
        ^OPEN-QUOTES            ^CLOSE-QUOTES ^OPEN-QUOTES-AGAIN  (...
and then never closes them)
Somewhere in between the first OPEN-QUOTES and the CLOSE-QUOTES, the
MediaWiki Parser loses full control of the situation, because the
"external" and "free" bits here are being treated as HTML attributes,
and I can be quite sure that the MediaWiki folks never intended for
that to happen (what they wanted was for these to be treated as the
_value_ of an HTML attribute).

We can then add the onmouseover stuff to the wiki input:
------------------------------------
{|
| |[ftp://|x||]" onmouseover="alert(document.cookie)">test
------------------------------------

... Then this results in the Parser giving us this output:
------------------------------------

<a href="ftp://|x	x	x	"
onmouseover="alert(document.cookie)">test
------------------------------------
(Above output+input available online at:
http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser12 and
http://nickj.org/Special:Export/MediaWiki/Parser12 )

The above output is exceedingly close to what we want. In fact, at
this stage, we've solved all the previous problems, but unfortunately
we've come across one last unexpected new problem: the
'class="external free"' stuff. For example, if we could get it to be
this (i.e. one extra "=" symbol at the end of the class string):
------------------------------------
<a href="ftp://|x	x	x	"
onmouseover="alert(document.cookie)">test
------------------------------------

.... Then tidy will convert it to this:
------------------------------------
test
------------------------------------

.... which will work. So, we're one "=" away from success.
Either that, or find a way to remove the 'class="external free"' bit,
which will also work.
Or, find a way to delay it until after the onmouseover, and that will also work.
Or, find a way to make it use single quotes instead of double quotes
for the class (i.e. class='external free', rather than class="external
free"), and that will work too.

So there are at least 4 possibilities, only one of which has to work.

Again, if anyone knows of a way to do any of these, or improve on the
above, then please let me know.

> your nefarious goal

I'd feel a whole lot more nefarious if I wasn't telling the MediaWiki
people all about it, and thereby suggesting ways of making such
attacks harder ;-)

All the best,
Nick.


list: commons-l

from_name: David Benbennick

subject: [Commons-l] justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

body:
On 4/3/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?

I usually point out that Ask.com is ''already'' using Wikipedia and
Commons content for commercial purposes.  For example, the top of
http://www.ask.com/web?q=Petersen+graph shows an image from the
Commons.


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
The most annoying thing about the "simple" interface (besides the
not-always-very-obvious menu titles) is that "pages i worked on" with
an uncapitalized "i" at the top of the page. Now I understand that
they are going for aesthetics here, but using an uncapitalized "i" for
the first-person pronoun is just wrong wrong wrong, whether for
aesthetic purposes or not. Either it should be capitalized or the
wording should be changed entirely.

My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have
seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
uranium as a "highly radioactive" element) -- I think it is very easy
for people to miss the fact that "simple" must still mean "correct" to
some degree, even if it is not necessarily as "precise" as an entry on
Wikipedia might be. I also fear that people who are not expert enough
to edit entries on Wikipedia are creating entries on simple without
consulting any sources than their own head (even consulting the
Wikipedia article would be better than that). I of course try to
correct it wherever I myself can, but I would encourage people to take
a look at the "simple" version of their favorite articles if one
exists and just make sure it has the basics right.

OK... I'm done ranting about this, got it out of my system. :-)

FF

On 4/2/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Besides, it's supposed to be simple. Unless you can think of something
> simpler?
>
> --NSLE
>
> On 4/2/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/2/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > At 09:27 +0100 2/4/06, Gordon Joly wrote:
> > > >I have just "discovered" the "Simple English Wikipedia"
> > > >
> > > >http://simple.wikipedia.org/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On the left, under "Navigation", I find
> > > >
> > > >>>   Newest changes
> > > >
> > > >I am very surprised to find this phrase here, since it is very poor
> > English!
> > > >
> > > >Gordo
> > > >
> > > >--
> > >
> > >
> > > In fact, all menus have been "munged" (**) into dialect of English!
> > >
> > >
> > > # My talk
> > > # My settings
> > > # My watched pages
> > > # Pages I worked on
> > > # Log out
> > >
> > > # Show any page (which is really "Random Page")
> > >
> > > Gordo
> > >
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > http://foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=munge
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Think Feynman"/////////
> > > http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> > > gordon.joly at pobox.com///
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > New, Newer newest. What's wrong with that?
> >
> > Mgm
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 4/3/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=WDMA
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WDMA&diff=26938038&oldid=26910606

Someone actually voted "hoaxcruft, nn". What's next?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Project proposal

body:
On 4/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen people adding a book, singular, to the references section a
> good few times; I assume they're treating it as "further reading" and
> just being helpful.
>
> (But, then, I'm also the sort of person who includes Further Reading
> sections...)

Me too. Someone made the rather good suggestion of using "Sources" and
"Further reading" sections, rather than the traditional "references"
and "external links", which I tend to follow. Of course, if I actually
*had* any references (ie, sentence X came from source Y), then I would
make a references section. Typically what I have is one source which
simply confirms to the AfD brigade that the topic *is* notable, and
other editors can go there to get further information.

Particularly since we demand one source from newbies wanting to start
articles, we should at least follow suit.

</incoherent ramble>

Steve


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> necessary.

Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.

Ryan


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
> because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being
> a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but
> some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about
> this matter.

Far as I know, lolicon is hentai starring young children.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 4/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a
> > store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something
> > fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive
> > copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.

> That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at the
> best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where
> we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and
> replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of
> these changes are reverted on sight...

IMHO, raising "copyvio" or "free use" arguments in this case is sort
of missing the point. We should be adamant about deleting the image
because we don't want child porn in Wikipedia (or, to be more precise,
we don't want people to think that we have child porn in Wikipedia).
If the same image was public domain, what would we do?

Steve


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 4/3/06, SP <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Obviously, I don't think it is child pornography. This is a lolicon
> drawing. It is clear that it is not a real child.

Under some juristictions, including mine, even a cartoon version of
child pornography counts as child pornography.  From the description,
I'd guess that this image would be enough to put you on the Sex
Offenders Register for some time.  That to me is an excellent reason
for deletion.

--
Sam


body:
On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> It appears that as a cartoon it is probably not illegal in the UK under
> the recent child protection acts (although it might be covered by wider
> obscenity laws). It is however probably illegal in New Zealand, so if
> someone there would like to report it to the police I imagine it will
> disappear rather quickly. The publicity will not be nice.

Again, legality isn't really the issue. We have lots of illegal
material on Wikipedia. But yeah, I really don't want to be reading
about how one of our articles has an image of a seven year old being
raped in the paper tomorrow.

Steve


body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 14:09, SP wrote:

> Sam, my understanding that the image passed the legal test in prior
> image for deletion discussions.  If that is not true then it should be
> deleted.

It passes *in the US*.

Jimbo is liable for 10 years imprisonment should he ever visit New
Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

"In New Zealand any material that promotes or supports the sexual
exploitation of children or young people, or tends to promote or
support it, is considered 'objectionable' and is illegal. The
definition can apply to text (including fiction), art, cartoons,
still images or moving images. It can also apply to images of adult
models who appear to be younger than their actual age. Few other
countries have such broad definitions of child pornography.

Possession of child pornography is an offence punishable by up to 5
years imprisonment. Distribution of child pornography is punishable
by up to 10 years imprisonment. These penalties were introduced in
2005, following widespread concern that New Zealand's penalties were
too lenient. Previously, penalties were a NZ$2,000 fine for
possession and 1 year's imprisonment for distribution.

Domestic enforcement of child pornography laws is primarily conducted
by Inspectors of the Department of Internal Affairs. They monitor New
Zealanders trading child pornography online and in the real world.
They have a near 100% conviction rate for child pornography offenders
and enjoy excellent co-operative relationships with overseas law
enforcement agencies. The New Zealand Customs Service prosecutes
those who import child pornography."


body:
Brianna Laugher:

> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> weak.

Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/scripts/ts.dll?s=1&id=0C20BDC3&mp=/art/7001/&sc=WikiPress1.htm

Erik


body:
On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Do we? I dont actually know of anything else that is a criminal offence
> in a major country which has general laws protecting free speech,
> where Jimbo is likely to visit and wouldnt like to be arrested on
> entry. And where we have an article about the law in question.
> Maybe we should use the picture to illustrate this?

Sorry, you're correct, I meant we have plenty of examples of copyright
violation. Which is not, as you point out, a criminal offence.

Steve


body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 14:24, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> Jimbo is liable for 10 years imprisonment should he ever visit New
>> Zealand.
>>
> <snip>
>
>> Domestic enforcement of child pornography laws is primarily conducted
>> by Inspectors of the Department of Internal Affairs. They monitor New
>> Zealanders trading child pornography online and in the real world.
>> They have a near 100% conviction rate for child pornography offenders
>> and enjoy excellent co-operative relationships with overseas law
>> enforcement agencies. The New Zealand Customs Service prosecutes
>> those who import child pornography."
>
> Well, he's not a New Zealander. Our article is a bit vague on who else
> it applies to. I doubt that someone who had broken a New Zealand law
> overseas would be chargeable simply for visiting NZ. Or maybe you
> meant, if he visited NZ while the site was still hosted on his
> server...still iffy. And why is Jimbo the only culprit? Wouldn't the
> person who actually added it be at least as guilty?

He is distributing child pornography in New Zealand (not possessing it).
Thats an offence whether you are in fact a Kiwi or not. The Wikimedia
Foundation are the publishers and are probably liable (its hard to argue
that Wp is a common carrier and hence only the contributor is liable).

IANAL, but I dont see that anyone really wants to try this one out.

Justinc


from_name: Sydney Poore

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
It is reasonable and  I will support you. The image has not been used
correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image
should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and
the image deletion page.

Sydney aka FloNight

Sam Korn wrote:
> I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
>
> This image bad in two main ways:
>
> 1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
> Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
> censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
> extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
> encyclopaedia.
>
> 2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
> generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
> text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
> is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
>
> It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
> harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
> justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
> Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
> is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
> picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
> outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.
>
> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> necessary.
>
> I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
> wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
On 4/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > On 4/3/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have
> >> seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
> >
> > It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't
> > guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should
> > be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a
> > (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps
> > even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple,
> > saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime,
> > click here" or something?
>
> Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to
> describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would
> shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy
> that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.

Typically though you can use a simple vocabulary to define words as
you use them, though, which gives you a little room to work. "Nuclear
fission" certainly isn't in the simple 1,000 but you can build up an
explanation of an atom, a nucleus, a neutron, and so on.

Of course there's no real way to do justice to Heidegger that way, but
one should be able to get the basic points across. "Heidegger believes
that technology makes people see the world as only a resource to be
used (which he calls 'standing-reserve'). He thinks this is bad, and
that people will never be able to understand things as they really
are." Not perfect, but it's close...

FF


from_name: Robert Rapplean

subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
Hi, Max.  What you're describing is a cooperative tool based on formatting
tags.  While this does work for small groups, it fails the requirements for
an effective tool in four areas.

First, its basis on formatting tags requires a learning curve.  Although the
wiki-savy have become accustomed to formatting tags, most people cringe at
the thought of sorting them out.  They may seem simple, and truly they are
simple, but they still take a little time to get used to.  This creates a
barrier for entry for users, both in reading and entering new ideas.

Second, the nature of a cooperative tool is that everyone puts in a bit of
effort in order to get things moved to where they're supposed to be,
prioritizes things, deletes garbage, that kind of thing.  This essentially
requires a moderator - someone with enough time to oversee things.
Moderators are usually pretty unbiased, but even obvious bias can be hidden
simply because something has to come first, so it might as well be the
moderator's stuff.  No matter how dedicated a moderator is, he's only human.

Also, as has been demonstrated in discussion after discussion on Wikipedia,
a large volume of comments can readily swamp a human moderator, or even a
group of them.

Third, forums suffer from the recency effect, and wikis suffer from the
inverse.  Nobody wants to slog through a thousand lines of argument in order
to find the good stuff, so whatever's on top generally gets priority for how
people think about it.  My tool avoids this by segmenting all of the
information and having it reorder itself through heuristics, usage statics,
and advanced voting algorythms.  In addition, it's designed to display
pro/con(/neg) arguments in separate columns so the users don't get any one
side's arguments ahead of the other's. (neg comments are those that state
that a supposition is unprovable).

Fourth, the tool lacks any kind of rating system for concept validity.  It's
nice to believe that all concepts should be considered freshly by each
individual, but that leaves a page where "everybody should worship my god"
stands toe-to-toe with "there are 12 inches in a foot".  If we're actually
going to provide information to people it's important to also provide them
with some measure of that information's validity.

So for small fixed groups arguing limited topics your system can work just
fine, but it isn't scalable for population size or concept complexity, it
doesn't allow for a dynamically changing population, and it provides limited
facilities for the tracking of the reasoning behind the group's conclusions.

Steve, there was an implementation of Max's tool, minus his tagging
structure.  It was effectively how this Wikipedia page evolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition

This was one of the things that I was looking at while coming up with some
of my tool's more advanced features.  It started out as a tedious argument
on the original War on Drugs page, then moved to the arguments for and
against page, then was moved to the discussion of that page, then was pared
down through the intervention of some enlightened moderation.  In the final
revision, the most senseless argument stands toe-to-toe with the most
supported by fact, and it takes intervention by an intelligent agent to
examine everything and sort it all out.

On 4/3/06, Max V?lkel <voelkel at fzi.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Steve,
>
> >> I have an IBIS-based "tool" for debates in Wikis.
>
> > Hi, do you have any publicly visible implementations?
>
> Hmm,  so  you  don't got my joke. The description how to structure the
> page, as shown in the email, *is* the tool. That's all one needs.
> I  used it myself, found a solution to a problem. We also used it in a
> discussion  between  6  people to structure the results of a face2face
> meeting and then continued the discussion in a wiki.
>
> ;-) Max
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:

>> Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to
>> describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would
>> shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy
>> that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
>
> Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using
> only words of four letters or less.

That's admirable. Did they release it under GFDL? :P

Seriously though, physics is very strictly tied to reality so there's
no temptation to multiply concepts beyond necessity the way there is
in philosophy. Given that each of these concepts has to be defined,
and that there are disputes over how to define these concepts,
there's no point talking about it in Simple English because, while
it's permissible to define and expand technical terms in Simple
English, it would have to be done so much that it would be just as
easy for the reader to learn full English.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
Thank you  Tony. One of theses should work.

Sydney aka FloNight

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With this article using the other less offensive image
>> [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.
>>
>
> That is still a non-free image.  We do have at least two free images
> that could be used to illustrate that article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will.  The most vehement cries have
been of censorship, and deleting a "more offensive" image for a "less
offensive" image is not going to make the hounds bay any softer.

$.02,
k

On 4/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If a free image is substituted instead of having the space sit empty,
> Sam will have my support. Having at least "an" image on there will
> dampen the spirits of those who want to yell and scream bloody murder
> over its deletion.
>
> On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > It is reasonable and  I will support you. The image has not been used
> > correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image
> > should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and
> > the image deletion page.
> >
> > Sydney aka FloNight
> >
> >
> >
> > Sam Korn wrote:
> > > I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> > > image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> > > BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
> > >
> > > This image bad in two main ways:
> > >
> > > 1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
> > > Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
> > > censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
> > > extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
> > > encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > 2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
> > > generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
> > > text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
> > > is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
> > > harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
> > > justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
> > > Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
> > > is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
> > > picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
> > > outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.
> > >
> > > The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> > > image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> > > controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> > > process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
> > > wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sam
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sydney Poore
> >
> > Go Bengals!
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Max Völkel

subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
Hello Robert and all,

I have an IBIS-based "tool" for debates in Wikis.

Technically,  it's  only set of conventions how to structure a wiki page,
in  order  to  use  IBIS.  It's  super  simple. I works like this, and
requires NO changes to wiki software.

-------------
issue based argumentation in a wiki (ibaw)

issue based information management uses the following keywords:
* issue - a problem in the world, which a group of people or a
person on its own tries to solve
* idea - a possible solution to a problem
* pro - a pro-argument for an idea, possibly raising one or several
new issues
* con - a contra-argument for an idea, possibly raising one or several
new issues
* see - a reference to evidence for an argument (website, person,
paper, or the name of another issue...). Instead of 'see' you can also
use Wiki-links or weblinks.

=== note ===
this documentation is a guideline to understand IBAW documents.
It's not strict and may always evolve

=== syntax in a wiki ===

ibaw works well in a wiki, with support for indented lists. if
inndented lists are supported, but with a different syntax, the wiki
syntax for indented lists should be used.

the basic syntax for an ibaw is (listitem) (keyword) ':' text

=== the 'grammar' of ibaw ===
ibaw  --> issue*
issue --> (name?, text, idea*)
idea  --> (text,(pro|con)*,decision?)
pro   --> (text, see* (issue|idea)*)
con   --> (text, see* (issue|idea)*)
see   --> (text)
decision --> ('ACCEPT' | 'REJECT')
name  --> [a-zA-Z0-9]*
text  --> any text string is permitted here

pro and con can be considered subclasses of issue.

=== syntax example ===

issue: our coffee machine is broken
* idea: fix it
 * pro: cheap
 * con: takes too much time, we can't live so long without coffee
* idea: buy a new one
 * pro: fast
 * con: expensive
  * issue: we need approval form our director
   * idea: we collect money ourselves  ACCEPT
-------------

Kind regards,

  Max V?lkel
--
Dipl.-Inform. Max V?lkel, Universit?t Karlsruhe / FZI
            nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org
voelkel at fzi.de   +49 721 9654-854   www.xam.de

First Workshop on Semantic Wikis: http://semwiki.org


from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

body:
Hi Wikipedians,

Brianna Laugher schrieb am 03.04.2006 13:16:
> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I
> understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users
> who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here"
> and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be
> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography
> database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM
> projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much
> outside use, but it's hard to tell).
>
> So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
> see why this requirement is necessary?

Erik wrote a good statement about NC licensing, which can be found here:
http://www.intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC

Bye, Tim.

--
"Von welchem Tag bist Du?" fragte ich, um mich zu vergewissern [...]
"Der vom Donnerstag" stoehnte er.
Das war eigenartig. Sollte ich trotz allem noch der vom Mittwoch sein?
                                         Stanislaw Lem, 7. Reise, 1971

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060403/69710b78/attachment.pgp


from_name: Juanma Barranquero

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion

body:
On 4/1/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> I've
> gone ahead and set up our own source control server.

That is wonderful news.

Are you planning on offering a revision browsing interface, like
ViewVC (previously known as ViewCVS)?

A one-line change to the Apache setup to allow using the XSL
stylesheet included in the source distribution would be nice, too:

  SVNIndexXSLT "/svnindex.xsl"

--
                    /L/e/k/t/u


from_name: Jan Vanoverpelt

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatically put text on a non existing page?

body:
2006/4/3, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>:
>
> >Try replacing the "[[:{{{Link}}}|   ]]" in your template
> >with:
>
> >[{{fullurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload|}}}&action=edit}}
> >   ]

Thanks, I tried this but unfortunately without satisfying result: what I get
then is a link like
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FULLURL:new-page-to-be-made"
without any preload function. The image itself seems also overwritten by
some huge symbols "[[T".

Any other ideas?


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/4/3, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>:

> So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
> see why this requirement is necessary?

NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL. CC-BY-SA on the other
hand is incompatible on a technical level only. That is, the rules
specify that one cannot cross-license, but the spirit of both licenses
is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step from requiring
everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a much larger step, and
we could not reasonably consider an article as a whole to be GFDL if
there are such images in it.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Jimbo is liable for 10 years imprisonment should he ever visit New
> Zealand.
>
<snip>

> Domestic enforcement of child pornography laws is primarily conducted
> by Inspectors of the Department of Internal Affairs. They monitor New
> Zealanders trading child pornography online and in the real world.
> They have a near 100% conviction rate for child pornography offenders
> and enjoy excellent co-operative relationships with overseas law
> enforcement agencies. The New Zealand Customs Service prosecutes
> those who import child pornography."

Well, he's not a New Zealander. Our article is a bit vague on who else
it applies to. I doubt that someone who had broken a New Zealand law
overseas would be chargeable simply for visiting NZ. Or maybe you
meant, if he visited NZ while the site was still hosted on his
server...still iffy. And why is Jimbo the only culprit? Wouldn't the
person who actually added it be at least as guilty?

Steve


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject:
[WikiEN-l] External links to image boards with images of a
	child engaged in sexually explicit acts.

body:
On 3 Apr 2006, at 15:19, Sydney Poore wrote:

> While we are discussing child pornography and drawing of children
> engaged in sex acts, lets talk about external links to sites with
> these
> images.
>
> Instead of a single image that can be presented in a context to
> make it
> clear it is educational , a bigger concern is external links to image
> boards with images of a child engaged in sexually explicit act.  These
> appear on Wikipedia on a regular basis. When I went  to image board
> web
> sites to look for inappropriate images, I felt disgusted that another
> Wikipedia editor would put it on Wikipedia. I think we need to modify
> our policy/guidelines dealing with images with children engaged in
> sexually explicit acts. They should not be permitted in my opinion.
> Editors that repeatedly add them should be blocked for being
> disruptive.

External links are often problematic.

It seems likely that the ones you refer to do not add useful
encyclopaedic
background to wikipedia. Stuff that isnt references needs to be
looked at
very carefully. There is lots of link spam.

I dont see that this needs a specific policy.

Justinc


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
On 4/3/06, Max V?lkel <voelkel at fzi.de> wrote:
> Hello Robert and all,
>
> I have an IBIS-based "tool" for debates in Wikis.

Hi, do you have any publicly visible implementations?

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
Hello Steve,

>> I have an IBIS-based "tool" for debates in Wikis.

> Hi, do you have any publicly visible implementations?

Hmm,  so  you  don't got my joke. The description how to structure the
page, as shown in the email, *is* the tool. That's all one needs.
I  used it myself, found a solution to a problem. We also used it in a
discussion  between  6  people to structure the results of a face2face
meeting and then continued the discussion in a wiki.

;-) Max


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being
a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but
some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about
this matter.

On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or
> out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the
> japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD
> be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted
> under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused
> copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the
> public domain that are not used in any article'.
>
> Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a
> self-confessed 'process wonk'.
>
> Cynical
>
> Mikkerpikker wrote:
> > I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you
> > have my support.
> >
> > On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> >>> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> >>> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> >>> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> >>> necessary.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
> >>
> >> Ryan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEMXqEg8fvtQYQevcRAvv1AKCM+9ful+o8jzxFkh1NMBqStN/15ACfS6Z+
> wsmC4bmlPWaWBiEzi+ONkfA=
> =2xcW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Jan Vanoverpelt wrote:
>
> Do you mean i have to adapt my hotspot-template? I don't see how i should do
> this, because the "Link-parameter" is already added. Do I just have to add a
> {{{{Preload}}} parameter after each {{{Link}}} parameter in the
> hotspot-template?

Try replacing the "[[:{{{Link}}}|   ]]" in your template
with:

[{{fullurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload|}}}&action=edit}}
   ]

(This might be a good time to repeat my wish for an {{urlencode: ... }}
function to be added to MediaWiki.)

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Yes. Some folks are beginning to remove the magazine photo altogether
because it's not "informative."

To me, a picture is better than no picture. Makes the article more
aesthetic.

k

On 4/3/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
> because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
> Being
> a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
> but
> some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about
> this matter.
>
> On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or
> > out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the
> > japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD
> > be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted
> > under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused
> > copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the
> > public domain that are not used in any article'.
> >
> > Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a
> > self-confessed 'process wonk'.
> >
> > Cynical
> >
> > Mikkerpikker wrote:
> > > I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you
> > > have my support.
> > >
> > > On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing
> this
> > >>> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> > >>> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> > >>> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and
> absolutely
> > >>> necessary.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
> > >>
> > >> Ryan
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFEMXqEg8fvtQYQevcRAvv1AKCM+9ful+o8jzxFkh1NMBqStN/15ACfS6Z+
> > wsmC4bmlPWaWBiEzi+ONkfA=
> > =2xcW
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
On 4/3/06, Max V?lkel <voelkel at fzi.de> wrote:
> Hmm,  so  you  don't got my joke. The description how to structure the
> page, as shown in the email, *is* the tool. That's all one needs.
> I  used it myself, found a solution to a problem. We also used it in a
> discussion  between  6  people to structure the results of a face2face
> meeting and then continued the discussion in a wiki.

Yeah, I understood that it's just a formalized way of using wiki, but
wondered if we could see any concrete examples of it in use.

Steve


body:
On 4/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> IMHO, raising "copyvio" or "free use" arguments in this case is sort
> of missing the point. We should be adamant about deleting the image
> because we don't want child porn in Wikipedia (or, to be more precise,
> we don't want people to think that we have child porn in Wikipedia).
> If the same image was public domain, what would we do?

I would say it depends. If the picture itself was the topic of the article I
would say keep. With this article using the other less offensive image
[[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.

Garion


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Yes, but if I were to look at a hentai picture, I wouldn't be able to tell
the difference between it and a lolicon picture. I don't want to go up to a
police officer with either picture and see if I get arrested to find out
which is which.

On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Pictures of hentai magazines are not illegal in every country from which
> people contribute to Wikipedia, depictions of child pornography are.
>
> Cynical
>
> Death Phoenix wrote:
> > Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
> > because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
> Being
> > a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
> but
> > some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated)
> about
> > this matter.
> >
> > On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or
> > out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the
> > japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD
> > be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted
> > under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused
> > copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the
> > public domain that are not used in any article'.
> >
> > Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a
> > self-confessed 'process wonk'.
> >
> > Cynical
> >
> > Mikkerpikker wrote:
> >>>> I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and
> you
> >>>> have my support.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing
> this
> >>>>>> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> >>>>>> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> >>>>>> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and
> absolutely
> >>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ryan
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD4DBQFEMX1eg8fvtQYQevcRAviqAJiQ7P4XZ8ExxpwlPEyBzM3UdGyWAJ9sGK/K
> Cns0X1iybQq8rY3mbDSVqg==
> =Xa2U
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Fredrik Josefsson

body:
> > NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL.
> CC-BY-SA on the other
> > hand is incompatible on a technical level only.
> That is, the rules
> > specify that one cannot cross-license, but the
> spirit of both licenses
> > is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step
> from requiring
> > everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a
> much larger step, and
> > we could not reasonably consider an article as a
> whole to be GFDL if
> > there are such images in it.
>
> Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying
> requirement to
> print/include the license alongside the product,
> which is why I
> despise it for images), but I guess that raises the
> more central
> question of: what is the big deal about WP being
> GFDL? My
> understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time
> partly beause it was
> the most well-known copyleft license suitable for
> text. If we had that
> time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about
> CC-BY-SA? How about
> CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia
> should be allowed
> to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously
> don't consider the
> DVD argument to be a killer argument.)
>
> Brianna

The reason, as far as I see it, is that commerciality
should not be an issue: if someone need to charge for
material, than he should not be prevented by license
restrictions. If anyone wants to print a book of
Wikipedia material, they can't if the material is NC.
Some parts of the world don't have access to Internet,
so printing is the only possibility, and printing
costs money.

/ Fred


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion

body:
Hi,

> Are you planning on offering a revision browsing interface, like
> ViewVC (previously known as ViewCVS)?

If not Brion, it would be me doing that :) Of course, if Brion allows
to rsync stuff ;-)

Domas


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] is it normal?

body:
Berto wrote:
> I get a constant error message when trying to access the fulltext function
> search on PMS wiki.
>
> Try this
> http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Search?search=colonnetti&fulltext=Cer
> ca
>
> Is it me, or is it a problem with settings? It's been going for 6 hours in a
> row, now.

The new wikis don't appear in the search index yet.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060403/2c86797f/attachment.pgp


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> If we tell someone to come again later we need to tell him why, and what
> he must do in the interim to qualify.

Fair enough, though often it will simply be "stick around, learn the
ropes and don't do anything stupid".

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
The deleted image has been added as an external link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=46804578&oldid=46796391
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=46804578&oldid=46796391>

Sydney aka FloNight

Katefan0 wrote:
> Yes. Some folks are beginning to remove the magazine photo altogether
> because it's not "informative."
>
> To me, a picture is better than no picture. Makes the article more
> aesthetic.
>
>
> k


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
>
>
>Well, the word "portal" wrt. Wikipedia actually refers to a [[Web
>portal]] - a very recent (oh wait, they don't know what /that/ means
>either) - um, new - concept (do they know what that means?) - idea which
>is very hard to make any more simple. Kind of like an axiom in mathematics.

Many articles in "Simple English Wikimedia" are defining and
expanding on terms outside the Simple English vocubulary. So why not
the menu items??!?!?

And I know what an axiom is. I think we are talking more about "atoms".

>  > What seems to be missing, as with much in Wikipedia, is semantic
>>  content. Links are created all over Wikipedia (Full English) which
>>  link on word meaning and ignore the context (meaning).
>>
>
>You're always welcome to link to Wiktionary articles by prefixing the
>link with wikt: - eg. [[wikt:verb]].
>
>>  I looked in recent Featured Articles, and could not find a good
>>  example. Maybe these semantic blips are weeding out under a fuller
>>  review.
>>
>>  And people who write Simple English pages are creating some very
>>  strange English. Does this help the reader?
>>
>
>Thanks for your suggestion. Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone
>can edit...
>

But editors must write in "Simple English"
http://simple.wikipedia.org/ and nothing else? Or am I missing
something?

I want to change the menus on  http://simple.wikipedia.org/.
Therefore, I must become an admin and gain a common agreement. Only
sysops can change a menu item.

Yes, I want to edit the menu.

--
Gordo (aka LoopZilla)
gordon.joly at pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
http://www.loopzilla.org/


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] is it normal?

body:
Hi!

I get a constant error message when trying to access the fulltext function
search on PMS wiki.

Try this
http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Search?search=colonnetti&fulltext=Cer
ca

Is it me, or is it a problem with settings? It's been going for 6 hours in a
row, now.

Thanks
B?rto


subject: [Wikitech-l] escaping double quotes in <MATH> tags

body:
Hi all,
  I'm going mad. I simply want to insert some text like: A("B") within
an expression contained within <MATH> tags. Is this even possible? The
closest I can do is using double single quotes, which produces a weird
effect.

How do I do it?  The article in question is [[en:Diagonal lemma]].

Thanks,
Steve


from_name: henna

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimania 2006 CfP - deadline extension

body:
didn't see it show up here, fwd'ing for the benefit of those not on
wikipedia-en or foundation lists.

mvg
henna

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Phoebe Ayers <phoebe.ayers at gmail.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2006 3:49 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2006 CfP - deadline extension
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>,
wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org

Hello,
The deadline for submitting proposals to the Wikimania 2006 conference
has been extended, to April 15 for workshop and tutorial submissions,
and April 30 for presentation submissions.

For more information, visit http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org. The
Call for Participation is attached below.
------

Call for Participation -- Wikimania 2006 -- Aug. 4 - Aug. 6, Cambridge, MA

About Wikimania

Wikimania is an annual global event devoted to Wikipedia and other
Wikimedia projects. It is both a scientific conference and a community
event, open to the public. Wikimania is a place for users and editors
of the projects to gather from around the globe, to meet each other,
to exchange ideas, and to report on research and projects. This year's
conference will be held from 4-6 August, 2006, on the Harvard Law
School campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. See
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org for more information.

We are accepting submissions for papers, posters, presentations,
workshops, and discussion groups. We are also accepting nominations
for speakers and speaker panels, and suggestions for other activities.
Everyone is welcome to submit abstracts and ideas. Be bold in your
submissions!
-----
Important dates:

* 15 Apr 2006 (extended): Proposal deadline for workshops and tutorials
Notification of acceptance: by April 30
* 30 Apr 2006 (extended): Abstracts due for panels, papers, posters
and presentations
Notification of acceptance: by May 15
* 4-6 Aug 2006: Wikimania
-----
Conference Themes

Submissions should address one or more of the following themes:

* Technical infrastructure -- Issues related to Mediawiki development
and extensions; Wikimedia hardware layout; new ideas for development
(including case studies from other wikis or similar projects).

* Wikimedia projects and content -- Presentation of interesting
projects and results; future aims of the projects and types of
distribution; ways to improve content quality. New uses for project
content: in education, journalism, research, &c.

* Free knowledge and access to information -- Present and future free
knowledge initiatives; related library and archival projects around
the world and input from librarians and archivists; ways to gather and
distribute knowledge.

* Wiki social science -- The contributors and users (who are they?
Where do they come from?); reputation and identity issues; conflict
resolution and community dynamics; scaling digital communities.
Languages and cultures and their interactions online; multilingualism
via wikis. Linguistics studies on wiki communities.

* Law and Policy -- Copyleft, collective copyright, special issues
pertaining to communal editing and distribution; other legal areas for
which Wiki[mp]edia is an interesting case study. Policy creation
within individual projects.
-----
Submissions

Types of Submissions:

* Panels (Suggest a group of 2-5 speakers on a specific subject)
* Workshops (From 30-120 minutes)
* Presentations (10-30 minute presentations/papers)
* Posters (Printed presentations or visual displays that can stand on their own)
* BOFs (Birds-of-a-Feather/discussion sessions - 45-60 minutes of
group discussion)
* We are also accepting artistic submissions, especially visualizations
or other representations of some aspect of the projects.

------
Submission format

* All submissions must include a title and an abstract of 100 to 300
words. They should also list the full name (and wiki name if
appropriate) of the submitter, with contact information and
affiliations. Special requirements for the presentation (equipment for
a workshop or panel) should be noted. The abstracts should be provided
as plain text, and not as file attachments.
* Workshop submissions should include a 1-2pp overview of the areas to
be covered or taught.
* Speaker panel submissions should include short biographies of each
suggested panelist.
* Paper and Presentation submissions may include a link to a draft of
the paper or slides, if available. State clearly whether the
submission concerns a specific wiki project, and whether the
presentation is intended to be a specific length.
* BOF proposals should describe the significance of and community
interest in the topic, and name the proposed discussion leader(s).

To process your submission, please see the Wikimania website -
http:/cfp.wikimania.wikimedia.org. Send questions or
suggestions to wikimania-cfp <at> wikimedia.org .
-----
Final Submissions

Final submissions must be provided in an open format (OpenOffice,
LaTeX sources, HTML...) and licensed under a free content license (GFDL
or CC-BY-SA).
-----
Stipends

A limited number of stipends will be available to those unable to
obtain funding to attend the conference. Accepted presenters are
encouraged to apply if assistance is needed.

--
- phoebe s. ayers
brassratgirl at gmail.com | 530-756-2551
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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


from_name: Rotem Liss

body:
If you work on MediaWiki 1.5, please replace "{{fullurl:" with
"{{SERVER}}{{localurl:".

Jan Vanoverpelt wrote:

>2006/4/3, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>:
>
>
>>>Try replacing the "[[:{{{Link}}}|   ]]" in your template
>>>with:
>>>
>>>
>>>[{{fullurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload|}}}&action=edit}}
>>>   ]
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>Thanks, I tried this but unfortunately without satisfying result: what I get
>then is a link like
>"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FULLURL:new-page-to-be-made"
>without any preload function. The image itself seems also overwritten by
>some huge symbols "[[T".
>
>Any other ideas?
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_GFDL

Says it all....

Someone thinks that this page does not use Simple English.
This does not mean that the page is bad. It may be too difficult for
some users to understand. You can help Wikipedia by making the page
simpler. For tips on making this article better, read "How to write
Simple English articles".

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly at pobox.com///


from_name: Angela

body:
[[Wikipedia:Maintenance]] used to say "There is a common misconception
that only administrators can deal with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion."
It seems there is still this misconception, and for some reason, that
statement was replaced last July with the ambiguous "Non-admins can
help keep deletion pages clean by resolving discussions." (I'm not
sure what "resolving" means here, but I suppose it could be inferred
to mean closing.

The rule at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions
says "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are
unambiguous 'keep' decisions" and unregistered users can't close them
at all. This was added last June with little discussion -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Non_admins_and_no_consensus

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/3/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
> > because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
> Being
> > a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
> but
> > some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated)
> about
> > this matter.
>
> Far as I know, lolicon is hentai starring young children.
>

If that's the case, if there is an image of stack of comics featuring both
hentai and lolicon, I don't think it needs to be removed simply because it
contains hentai (though to be fair, some of the folks arguing for its
removal are also saying that the image is too small, etc.)


from_name: Sydney Poore

subject:
[WikiEN-l] External links to image boards with images of
 a	child engaged in sexually explicit acts.

body:
Mark,

The external link of the Lolicon article labeled Renchan Lolicon
Community contains hundreds of lolicon images of children engaged in sex
acts.

Sydney

Mark Wagner wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> While we are discussing child pornography and drawing of children
>> engaged in sex acts, lets talk about external links to sites with these
>> images.
>>
>> Instead of a single image that can be presented in a context to make it
>> clear it is educational , a bigger concern is external links to image
>> boards with images of a child engaged in sexually explicit act.  These
>> appear on Wikipedia on a regular basis. When I went  to image board web
>> sites to look for inappropriate images, I felt disgusted that another
>> Wikipedia editor would put it on Wikipedia. I think we need to modify
>> our policy/guidelines dealing with images with children engaged in
>> sexually explicit acts. They should not be permitted in my opinion.
>> Editors that repeatedly add them should be blocked for being disruptive.
>>
>
> What articles are you referring to?
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion

body:
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> Are you planning on offering a revision browsing interface, like
> ViewVC (previously known as ViewCVS)?

Got it working now:

http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060403/80bcce2a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 4/3/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>We need to keep [[Britannia]] in mind where it says, "Early portraits of
>>the goddess depict Britannia as a beautiful young woman, wearing the
>>helmet of a Centurion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion>, and
>>wrapped in a white toga with her right breast exposed."
>>
>>IIRC Britannica had an arrangement of the trident and shield in its
>>logos before it adopted a thistle with which to nourish goats.
>>
>>
>I wonder if the next edition of Britannica will have: "Early logos for
>Wikipedia depicted a young girl, of approximately seven years of age,
>buttocks exposed and seemingly yearning for the erect penis about to
>penetrate her".
>
That seems well within the tradition of a stiff upper labium. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
It looks like we have a multi-way edit war in the article over:

* Whether to have any image in the article
* What image to use if we do
* How big should it be
* Whether there should be an external link to the deleted image
and
* A bunch of other crap that I can't be arsed to investigate right now,
suffice to say that some people are taking it seriously.

Do we need to reprotect this article?

Ryan


from_name: Nick Jenkins

body:
> Are you keeping up to date with the code?

Probably not!

Let me see if I can repo with latest stable, 1.5.8:

# wget -q http://superb.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.5.8.tar.gz
# tar zfx mediawiki-1.5.8.tar.gz
# mv wiki old-wiki
# mv mediawiki-1.5.8 wiki
# cp old-wiki/LocalSettings.php wiki

[[UsesOpenTag]] contains:
----------------------------
>>>>>>>
{{OpenTag}}
>>>>>>>
----------------------------

Output is:
----------------------------
<p>>>>>>>>

</p>
<table bgcolor="<span">

>>>>>>>
</table>
----------------------------

So I get the same behaviour with 1.5.8 - which I believe is the most
up to date released version that I can get.

Exactly how "up to date" do you mean? If you're talking CVS-checkout
up-to-date, then no, I'm not up to date. But neither are most people,
I daresay. What I'm personal interested in is the behaviour of
released available-now production-ready-here-and-now
latest-and-greatest-stable-version software, for the simple reason
that that's the software I know I'll use.

However, undeterred, I checked out from CVS following the cvs checkout
instructions on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_CVS :

# mkdir cvs
# cd cvs
# cvs -z9 -d:pserver:anonymous:@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/wikipedia
co -rHEAD -P phase3
# cd ..
# mv wiki mediawiki-1.5.8
# mv cvs/phase3 wiki
# cp mediawiki-1.5.8/LocalSettings.php wiki

... and found that I can't run it without upgrading my system:
----------------------------
* MySQL 3.23.x is no longer supported.
* PHP 4.1/4.2 is no longer supported.
----------------------------

Completely ignoring the directions, I tried to use it anyway, but got
various errors. No big surprise, but it didn't hurt to try. So, short
of upgrading the system I'm using, it's as up-to-date as can be.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Rudy Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
zero 0000 wrote:
> Sorry if someone posted this already, but I didn't see it.
> The current issue of Nature has a reply to Britannica.
> It is subscription-only so giving a link won't help.
> There is an editorial and a slightly longer reply that
> does not need subscription (see link near the end
> of the editorial).

I think it's about time to start [[Nature-Britannica dispute]].

Ruud


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/31/06, Ilmari Karonen <lists at vyznev.net> wrote:
>> When a nomination is uncontroversial, the first dozen or so voters tend
>> to say most of what needs to be said.  After that most votes gradually
>> become "per X above", simply because there's no point in restating what
>> someone else already said better.
>
> Except that it demonstrates that they really have thought about what
> they're voting on, and aren't just being a sheep ;)
>

Heh, someone suggested a similar overhaul for AfD about six months ago,
and they got shot down in flames.

>> So you're essentially proposing that candidates should only be nominated
>> by someone who is already an admin, and that the nominating admin would
>> be expected to carry out a background check on the nominee.
>
> Yep, but to clarify, the "background check" is not a pass/fail, it's a
> short report summarising all of the user's contributions (perhaps
> month by month?), whether good or bad. To give any debate over the
> user a bit of a starting point. Perhaps it could look something like
> this:
>
> March 2006: Two semi-edit wars

Ouch. What's a semi-edit? :)

(That should be semi edit-wars...)

> on [[Spock]] and [[Star Trek]], accused of violating NPOV.

Presumably at this point you would see diffs where the alleged NPOV
violations take place.

On a side note, I don't see why people are so damned precious about
making sure that NPOV is perfectly applied for 100% of their edits - so
what if someone's edit biases the article a little bit, if they've just
added a rather large amount of useful information? I thought this was a
wiki - someone else can always fix it later...

Of course, doing nothing but [[biasing]] an article is clearly a
violation of NPOV - but accidentaly introducing bias into an article
shouldn't be punished if the editor has acted in good faith.

> Large number of apparently helpful contributions on
> [[Brian Peppers]] and [[Moldova]].

Good. Demonstrates ability to communicate with other editors on
controversial articles. (Unless their contributions were "{{db-bio}}"
and "#REDIRECT [[Romania]]" respectively.)

> :Yes, I saw this edit war on [[Spock]], he behaved like a total prat.
> [[User:PeanutGallery1]]...

Presumably there would also be "I asked this user to apologise [42] and
he refused/did so [43]. ~~~~" with this.

> April 2006:No contributions, except for deleting the word
> "anti-semite" from 6 articles.
>

You also are using English instead of Esperanto :)

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/0571675d/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).

This image bad in two main ways:

1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
encyclopaedia.

2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.

It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.

The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
necessary.

I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
wish there were an alternative, less radical way.

--
Sam


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problems on block ip user in Chinese Wikipedia

body:
Tim Starling schreef:
> mingli yuan wrote:
>
>>Basically, we would like to have
>>users' real IP (IP used to access CNBlog proxy) displayed and logged
>>at Wikimedia.
>
>
> Done. Tell me if you have any problems.
>
> -- Tim Starling

On WikipediaNL whe have very frequently users who are blocked because
the all use the same proxy's. More specific form

filternet.nl
solcon.nl

There support department of that ISP is advising to use

$HTTP_SERVER_VARS["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR"]

to reveal the users real ipadres.

Is there a way to make it work so we can block on there real ipadres?
This whould help many users of the dutch Wikipedia.

Walter

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