body:
On the contrary, the form 2 March 2003 simply IS correct in American
English.  The Chicago Manual of Style prefers "that in all text,
including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the
sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation."  Rule 8.36.

If this bot ever runs, changes will be reversible in the same way that
all changes to the Wikipedia are reversible.

--
 Sean Barrett
 sean at epoptic.com

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:59
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
whoreads the Wikipedia?

On 3/2/03 10:39 PM, "Sean Barrett" <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> What is with these straw man attacks?  It is NOT going to go off in 30
> minutes.  Where in the world did you get that absurd idea?
Furthermore,
> 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it.  The
> discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
>
> What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
>
It's simply not correct in American English.

It sounds like Yoda-speech to the American ear.

The Date-bot needs to be reversible.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
"Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this
thread" -- yet neither she nor anyone els can explain how seeing "2
March 2003" is going to "confuse" anyone whoreads it.

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 20:10
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
whoreads the Wikipedia?

So, at

[[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)]], about 30 people
have been engaged in a discussion about changing the [[Month Day]]
standard
format.

At some point someone set up a voting scheme, listing some options, and
people tagged their preference. In a shocking development, most of the
people who voted for making [[Day Month]] Wikipedia policy are British.

Without getting (again) into the how very bad voting is for making a
decision, I'll simply say that what is needed is to

Construct a consensus document on the merits and problems of each
proposal.

Not to vote.

A 30-person vote != democratic decision.

And we should be looking for the best decision for Wikipedia, not
necessarily the most popular.

I'll leave discussion of the specific merits and problems for the
webpages,
though Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this
thread.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan

body:
Clutch, are you still here?
Zoe
 Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:>By any standards, The Cunctator's behaviour is outrageous. His
>determination against the opinion of others (including some who initially
>agreed with him but who then sided with the new name) to change the article
>title, and keep changing the title when it was reverted back to the agreed
>name, to a version that many people find offensive, that Jimbo Wales had
>issues with, and about which there was universal agreement that it should
>not be used, is bizarre and utterly contrary to the principles of Wiki and
>the concept of consensus which had built up against him.

Your hypocritical whinging will be more believable when you take action
against the offensive articles on Christian and Islamic anti-Semitism.
Cunctator is a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. It is childish
and unworthy of you to slander him in public, when it should suffice to
point out that the article is unencyclopedic, and therefore doesn't
belong in the Wikipedia. Going beyond that to impugn him personally is
harsh and unjustified.

Jonathan

--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.

Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/b96bfd29/attachment.htm


from_name: Jonathan Walther

body:
>By any standards, The Cunctator's behaviour is outrageous. His
>determination against the opinion of others (including some who initially
>agreed with him but who then sided with the new name) to change the article
>title, and keep changing the title when it was reverted back to the agreed
>name, to a version that many people find offensive, that Jimbo Wales had
>issues with, and about which there was universal agreement that it should
>not be used, is bizarre and utterly contrary to the principles of Wiki and
>the concept of consensus which had built up against him.

Your hypocritical whinging will be more believable when you take action
against the offensive articles on Christian and Islamic anti-Semitism.
Cunctator is a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia.  It is childish
and unworthy of you to slander him in public, when it should suffice to
point out that the article is unencyclopedic, and therefore doesn't
belong in the Wikipedia.  Going beyond that to impugn him personally is
harsh and unjustified.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/f1738cb6/attachment.pgp


body:
The aliasing pipe was meant to humorously link the phrases "Sun Mar 2
19:44:31 PST 2003" and "this moment"; ie, the moment in which I was
writing.  (What time zone are you in, that that time was half an hour in
your future?)  Also, the phrase "it has no automatic article-selection
mechanism" might be understood to mean that it has no it has no
automatic article-selection mechanism, thus making it unable to "go off"
any time soon.

I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003.
--
 Sean Barrett
 sean at epoptic.com

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org]  On Behalf Of Zoe
> Sent:	Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:55
> To:	wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject:	RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
>
> You wrote: The datebot has been thoroughly tested and is almost ready
to be set ravening among the articles. At [[Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST
2003|this moment]] it has no automatic article-selection mechanism.
>
> I read this as saying that you were planning on setting it off at
19:44:31.
>
> Zoe
>
>  Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30
> minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore,
> 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The
> discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
>
> What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
>
> --
> Sean Barrett
> sean at epoptic.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:28
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
> who reads the Wikipedia?
> >
> > You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has
already
> been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes!
> >
> > It's confusing because it is NOT what Ameri! cans write, unless they
> have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date
> is.
> >
> > Zoe
> >
> > Sean Barrett wrote:
> >
> > So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
> >
> > --
> > Sean Barrett
> > sean at epoptic.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10
> > > To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who
> > reads the Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
> > English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did
> > this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very
> > anti-American thing to do.
> > >
> > > Zoe> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center
> > -
> > forms, calculat! ors, tips, and more
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center
> -
> forms, calculators, tips, and more
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center
<http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/> -
forms, calculators, tips, and more


body:
I'm in PST, and I noticed when I read what you wrote that your "at this moment" was still in the future.
Zoe
 Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:The aliasing pipe was meant to humorously link the phrases "Sun Mar 2
19:44:31 PST 2003" and "this moment"; ie, the moment in which I was
writing. (What time zone are you in, that that time was half an hour in
your future?) Also, the phrase "it has no automatic article-selection
mechanism" might be understood to mean that it has no it has no
automatic article-selection mechanism, thus making it unable to "go off"
any time soon.

I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003.
--
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:55
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
>
> You wrote: The datebot has been thoroughly tested and is almost ready
to be set ravening among the articles. At [[Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST
2003|this moment]] it has no automatic article-selection mechanism.
>
> I read this as saying that you were planning on setting it off at
19:44:31.
>
> Zoe
>
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30
> minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore,
> 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The
> discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
>
> What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
>
> --
> Sean Barrett
> sean at epoptic.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:28
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
> who reads the Wikipedia?
> >
> > You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has
already
> been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes!
> >
> > It's confusing because it is NOT what Ameri! cans write, unless they
> have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date
> is.
> >
> > Zoe
> >
> > Sean Barrett wrote:
> >
> > So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
> >
> > --
> > Sean Barrett
> > sean at epoptic.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10
> > > To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who
> > reads the Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
> > English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did
> > this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very
> > anti-American thing to do.
> > >
> > > Zoe> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center
> > -
> > forms, calculat! ors, tips, and more
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center
> -
> forms, calculators, tips, and more
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center
-
forms, calculators, tips, and more

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/ce88aa06/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American who reads the Wikipedia?

body:
But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in English-speaking countries applies.  What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence.  It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different.  I don't know what Canadians use.
Zoe
 Richard Grevers <dramatic at xtra.co.nz> wrote:On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe
wrote:

>
> Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English
> Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip
> under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American
> thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an
opressed minority :-)
(4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer their
illogical system?)
2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name
is used) unambiguous.
In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European, Anti-Australasian,
Anti-African etc. etc.
--
Richard Grevers

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/a0ab5414/attachment.htm


body:
I agree completely.  We should use Zoe's standard.  The format used in
English-speaking countries must apply.

Would those of you from the various components and former components of
the United Kingdom please tell us how you prefer your dates?  We
Americans prefer the standard form.  As The Chicago Manual of Style
explains, in "all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates
[are to] be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal
punctuation."  Rule 8.36.

And since no one finds 2 March 2003 confusing....

--
 Sean Barrett
 sean at epoptic.com

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org]  On Behalf Of Zoe
> Sent:	Sunday, March 02, 2003 21:23
> To:	wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject:	Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every
American who reads the Wikipedia?
>
> But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in
English-speaking countries applies.  What's anti-European, anti-African
(except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence.  It's true
that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be
different.  I don't know what Canadians use.
>
> Zoe
>
>  Richard Grevers <dramatic at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English
> > Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this
slip
> > under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very
anti-American
> > thing to do.
> That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an
> opressed minority :-)
> (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer
their
> illogical system?)
> 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month
name
> is used) unambiguous.
> In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European,
Anti-Australasian,
> Anti-African etc. etc.
> --
> Richard Grevers
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http:/! /www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center
<http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/> -
forms, calculators, tips, and more


body:
As Comic Book Man (from The Simpsons) would say, "Best ... Idea ...
Ever!"

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 21:36
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
whoreads the Wikipedia?

I really think the answer to this problem is to simply stop time on
today's
date (3/3/3). Then there won't be any problems at all.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Show me a single American newspaper that uses that "standard".  Or an American magazine.  Or an American encyclopedia.  Even Britannica uses month, day.
See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117712&tocid=0&query=christopher%20columbus&ct=eb or http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/columbusc_voyagestothenewworld.asp or http://www.nytimes.com/ or http://www.latimes.com/ or http://www.theatlantic.com/ or http://www.nationalgeographic.com/
Or for that matter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/  http://www.globeandmail.com/ http://www.thepost.ie/web/Home/index.asp
Zoe
 Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:I agree completely. We should use Zoe's standard. The format used in
English-speaking countries must apply.

Would those of you from the various components and former components of
the United Kingdom please tell us how you prefer your dates? We
Americans prefer the standard form. As The Chicago Manual of Style
explains, in "all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates
[are to] be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal
punctuation." Rule 8.36.

And since no one finds 2 March 2003 confusing....

--
Sean Barrett
sean at epoptic.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 21:23
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every
American who reads the Wikipedia?
>
> But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in
English-speaking countries applies. What's anti-European, anti-African
(except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence. It's true
that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be
different. I don't know what Canadians use.
>
> Zoe
>
> Richard Grevers wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English
> > Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this
slip
> > under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very
anti-American
> > thing to do.
> That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an
> opressed minority :-)
> (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer
their
> illogical system?)
> 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month
name
> is used) unambiguous.
> In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European,
Anti-Australasian,
> Anti-African etc. etc.
> --
> Richard Grevers
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http:/! /www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center
-
forms, calculators, tips, and more

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/576fd24c/attachment.htm


from_name: M Carling

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who reads
 the Wikipedia?

body:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, The Cunctator wrote:

> To the American ear, "2 March 2003" sounds like something Yoda would say.

I won't speak for you -- only for myself.  I'm an American and "2 March
2003" is fine by me.

M Carling


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American who
 reads the Wikipedia?

body:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Zoe wrote:

>
> But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in English-speaking countries applies.  What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence.  It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different.  I don't know what Canadians use.

Except for North Korea, show me a country that is not an English-speaking
country.  It is, for good or bad, the standard international language and
the standard language for reference material on this planet.  Even the
French and the Chinese have mandatory English classes for all school
children.

Making the Wikipedia confusing or ambiguous or both to 96% of the
readership in order to please the eccentric tastes of 4% doesn't strike me
as good judgement.

M Carling


from_name: Axel Boldt

body:
I think some things need correction here.

--- james duffy <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Cunctator's claims on the 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan cannot be
> allowed to stand.
>
> 1. The people he said support his stand don't. Most agreed on the
> talk page that the change made was correct.

He specifically listed me, and he was correct that I support his stand.

I don't know about the others.

> 2. It is debatable whether such an article belongs on Wiki at all.
> But what
> is not debatable is that it does not under any circumstances belong
> under the name 'AIDS kills fags dead' slogan.

This title is precise, as that's exactly what the article is about. The
use of quotes makes clear that we are talking about the slogan, not
about the thesis. The quotes should also defend against charges of
offensiveness or even illegality, which you have brought up repeatedly.

Originally, I had created the article under [[AIDS Kills Fags Dead]]; I
consider that now as in very poor judgement and apologize.

> 3. There was full agreement on the move. The Cunctator UNILATERALLY
> screwed up everyone else's contribution by deciding UNILATERALLY
> to change the name of a page from one there was general agreement
> on to one there was general
> disapproval of, but which seemed to be his pet name for the page.

I moved from [[AIDS Kills Fags Dead]] to [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
slogan]]. Stevertigo moved to [[homophobic hate speech]], Cunctator
moved back. The title "homophobic hate speech" had been suggested as
"better" by Oliver Pereira, and Tannin agreed. I challenged that,
asking in what sense it would be better, and did not receive an answer.
That's where the discussion stood when the move to "homophobic hate
speech" occurred. There was no general agreement nor general
diasapproval for anything, and there was certainly nothing UNILATERAL
here.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "screwed up
everyone else's contribution". The article was written by me; Cunctator
contributed one sentence, a reference, and some copyediting; Oliver
Pereira also did some copyediting. Everything else in the article's
history is just back and forth ping-pong without any real contribution.

> 5. Having changed the name against the will of the people working on
> the page, the Cunctator then

This is incorrect; I explained above who actually worked on the
article.

> and about which there was universal agreement that it should not be
> used,

Incorrect.

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Pedro M.V.

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Bowks" <jjbowks at adam.cheshire.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 4:34 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary links (was: Redirection

From: "Pedro M.V." <macv at interlap.com.ar>

>Excellent! I like it!
But there's an awful lot of complaining
in the Wiktionary that it is only an
English Wiktionary and the idea of
a multilingual Wiktionary is not so
welcomed by some.

This is upto the moment. Wiktionary will have versions in another wikipedia languages, to place definitions that are not wellcome ( this time, rightly ) in an encyclopedia.

> But as far as
I'm concerned foreign language index
pages in the English Wiktionary can
be as appendixes which can point
back to articles or entries either in
the Wiktionary or the Wikipedia,
maybe even both.

http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Es_a_index

Some Encyclopedias have a tome
for quick reference and
a set for in-depth look ups.

Since,
Con saludos,
Jay B.

I think this can be a beginning, for an express ( urgent ) solution for the definition problem ( short and necessary definitions that can not be included in wikipedia, but their natural bed is a  dictionary). I.e. including [[esperanto]] in all the definitions included in the wiktionary, later one can move them quickly and automatically to an eo.wiktionary.org version.

This is for definition of Esperanto words in Esperanto.

Another important item it?s the translation of Esperanto words to English and another languages. For this your index page it?s O.K. And can be the beginning ( in test form) of the translationary ( translation diktionary).

Regards ;)

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] No more date whining, please

body:
Please, folks, take the hysterical claptrap and stuff it.

Both "3 March" and "March 3" are unambiguous in interpretation and are
acceptable for use on the wiki, just as both US and non-US spellings and
word usages are acceptable on the wiki.

It is *not* true that Americans will be confused, or will think it's
"Yoda-speak", or will have their poor little brains fried like pancakes
upon encountering the day written before the month. It is likewise *not*
true that Europeans, Canadians, and others will have their poor little
brains fried like crepes upon encountering the month written before the
day.

It simply doesn't matter which is used in any given case. It doesn't
matter if every date in the encyclopedia is or isn't in the same order.
Do try to keep them consistent _within_ an article for aesthetics' sake,
but between articles *it doesn't matter*. If some article has the date
in one or the other format, *that's fine*. If someone changes some dates
to the other order, *hey, no big deal*.

If I see another post wasted on this subject, I will be sorely
disappointed. I'm sure most of you have better things to do, as do I.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

WikiKarma: I have little time to work on the wiki right now, and it just
got wasted wading through dozens of whiny posts about date formats.
Thanks guys.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/1302f278/attachment.pgp


body:
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:18, james duffy wrote:
> ...the Cunctator then DELIBERATELY created his own personal content for
> the [[Homophobic hate speech]] page to ensure that nobody else could return
> the page to the agreed name.

Thanks, James, for the best laugh I've had all day. How *dare* Cunc
create content and put it into articles! I'm *shocked*! Perhaps we
should ban him! ;)

Honestly, people, read your own messages before you send them.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030302/16fa78b5/attachment.pgp


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 3/2/03 10:24 PM, "Zoe" <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Cunctator insists on having an article at [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]],
> despite many other people's objections.  There seemed to have developeda
> consensus that the article be called [[Homophobic hate speech]], but Cunctator
> decided unliaterally to change that.  We need a decision that everybody can
> live with.
>
Since Zoe is bringing up an issue on the mailing list that Jimbo has already
agreed to look into, and is mischaracterizing my actions, I'll reply.

I am not the only person who believes that the article should not be called
"homophobic hate speech". Thus, my decision--to maintain the status quo, no
less--was not unilateral, a claim Zoe has made on three different forums
now.

This issue is being hashed out through discussion on the pages, development
of a new [[homophobic hate speech]] article, and Jimbo's eventual
involvement.

There's no need for my actions to be impugned.

I would also like to point out Zoe's use of the passive voice ("there seemed
to have developed a consensus..."), an excellent rhetorical device to
deflect responsibility and refutability. The parties involved are few enough
that active statements can be made.

Like so:

Jtdirl feels very strongly that this entry title should not exist, and has
argued that Wikipedia may be up for legal liability for having it.  Mav
considers that the title's offensiveness outweighs the limited significance
of the specific topic. AxelBoldt and The Cunctator think that the entry is
appropriately named and properly specific. KF thinks it's fine. Eloquence
thinks the subject isn't significant enough to have its own entry. Stan
Shebs found the entry directly useful. It's hard to tell what Vert thinks.
Other people have weighed in without indicating a strong preference one way
or the other, while discussing the merits of the various arguments.

And evidently Zoe is offended.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
	reads the Wikipedia?

body:
On 3/2/03 10:09 PM, "Zoe" <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English
> Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format.  How did this slip under
> the radar without a major discussion?  It's a very anti-American thing to do.
>
Where? That is bad, and not because of its anti-Americanism. It's simply
antiWikipedian to commit wholesale changes.

Some links would be helpful.


body:
On 3/2/03 10:39 PM, "Sean Barrett" <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> What is with these straw man attacks?  It is NOT going to go off in 30
> minutes.  Where in the world did you get that absurd idea?  Furthermore,
> 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it.  The
> discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
>
> What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
>
It's simply not correct in American English.

It sounds like Yoda-speech to the American ear.

The Date-bot needs to be reversible.


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Maps : Never mind

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On dim, 2003-03-02 at 06:17, Pedro M.V. wrote:
>
>>Thanks a lot !!!!. Let this feature alive forever ;). It?s very
>>usefull to spare space ( instead of upload maps ) and can be included
>>in the MoS ( for mountains, rivers and so on).
>
>
> Relying on a third-party proprietary service which may shut off access
> at any time is not the best idea. This is why we've tossed around the
> idea of running our own map server. Wouldn't really save space ;) but
> would save time -- no need to generate, save, and upload thousands of
> individual maps except where they really need additional editing work.

Long-term, yes. But for now, we can change the service if the one we're
using shuts down. We could also generate a list of map services for
these coordinates, like the ISBN links.

Magnus


body:
So, at

[[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)]], about 30 people
have been engaged in a discussion about changing the [[Month Day]] standard
format.

At some point someone set up a voting scheme, listing some options, and
people tagged their preference. In a shocking development, most of the
people who voted for making [[Day Month]] Wikipedia policy are British.

Without getting (again) into the how very bad voting is for making a
decision, I'll simply say that what is needed is to

Construct a consensus document on the merits and problems of each proposal.

Not to vote.

A 30-person vote != democratic decision.

And we should be looking for the best decision for Wikipedia, not
necessarily the most popular.

I'll leave discussion of the specific merits and problems for the webpages,
though Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this
thread.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
On Sunday 02 March 2003 09:08 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
> I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003.

Yes, I would like to know the answer to this too. It should also be noted that
a majority of English speakers in the world use the International format and
that even American style guides say that the International format is best.

I thought we were an International encyclopedia that accepted all English
speakers... There is nothing confusing about [[2 March]] [[2033]] - in fact,
there is no need to type the blasted comma. This is the format I, as an
American, would expect to find in any publication whose audience is all
English speakers.

So who are we writing for anyway? I thought our audience was larger than just
American readers. It was a mistake to use the American style to begin with.
And no, this isn't the same thing as American vs British spelling because
this is a style, not a spelling issue (and there is no such thing as
"International English spelling").

Even though most Americans will not know that "artefact" is correct British
spelling and will "correct" it to "artifact", they will recognize [[2 March]]
as a valid date format. American's are a smart group of people. [[2 March]]
looks a little odd at first to American eyes but [[March 2]] looks really odd
to non-American English speakers. That format simply is not widely used
anywhere but the states.

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

WikiKarma
The usual at [[February 26]] (soon to be moved to [[26 February]])


body:
On 3/2/03 11:18 PM, "james duffy" <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator's claims on the 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan cannot be
> allowed to stand.

Um...

> 1. The people he said support his stand don't. Most agreed on the talk page
> that the change made was correct.

A specific example of where my assertions are incorrect would be
appropriate.

> 2. It is debatable whether such an article belongs on Wiki at all. But what
> is not debatable is that it does not under any circumstances belong under
> the name 'AIDS kills fags dead' slogan.
It is indeed debatable--I debate it, sir.

> 3. There was full agreement on the move. The Cunctator UNILATERALLY screwed
> up everyone else's contribution by deciding UNILATERALLY to change the name
> of a page from one there was general agreement on to one there was general
> disapproval of, but which seemed to be his pet name for the page.

The "putting something in caps makes it true" argument, the non-specific
passive voice, "everyone". And incorrect statements.

It isn't my pet name, but a name suggested in form by Tarquin and first used
by AxelBoldt.

> 4. As to the claim that he didn't know where Stevertigo stood, it was
> Stevertigo who RENAMED it to the agreed name. If that doesn't indicate where
> he stands I don't know what does.

Okay. I was going by his comments on the talk page, which I found confusing.

> 5. Having changed the name against the will of the people working on the
> page, the Cunctator then DELIBERATELY created his own personal content for
> the [[Homophobic hate speech]] page to ensure that nobody else could return
> the page to the agreed name.

Ah, the "will of the people". Not against the will of the person who created
the page, clearly. Not against my own will, and I'm one of the people who
worked on the page. I put no personal content on the homophobic hate speech
page. Rather, it entirely contains content created by others (other than a
brief summarization of the AKFD history).

I do admit that my action was partly motivated as a tactic for stopping the
article-moving tennis match. I do think, more importantly, that a general
[[homophobic hate speech]] article is a good idea.

> By any standards, The Cunctator's behaviour is outrageous. His determination
> against the opinion of others (including some who initially agreed with him
> but who then sided with the new name) to change the article title, and keep
> changing the title when it was reverted back to the agreed name, to a
> version that many people find offensive, that Jimbo Wales had issues with,
> and about which there was universal agreement that it should not be used, is
> bizarre and utterly contrary to the principles of Wiki and the concept of
> consensus which had built up against him.

More non-specificity and passive voice.

I doubt James will believe me, but I'm not trying to outrage him. I just
think he's wrong.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Maps : Never mind

body:
>Long-term, yes. But for now, we can change the service if the one we're
using shuts down.

For sure, but we don?t need change the coordinates ;). This is a wikipedia acquire ;)

>We could also generate a list of map services for
these coordinates, like the ISBN links.

Can you explain it more detailed, please ???.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who reads the Wikipedia?

body:
Zoe wrote:

> Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
> English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format.  How did
> this slip under the radar without a major discussion?  It's a very
> anti-American thing to do.
>
I would not support such a change, but I continue to support using the
ISO format for dates of yyyy-mm-dd.

In the short run we should accept any of the three formats as long as
they are applied consistently within an article.  In either the American
or the international system, however, the months should be named and not
numbered.

Eclecticology


body:
Zoe wrote:

> But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in
> English-speaking countries applies.  What's anti-European,
> anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no
> consequence.  It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand
> version, etc., may be different.  I don't know what Canadians use.
>
For many years the Canadian standard was the same as the British, but at
the same time many individuals and even companies have used the American
system.  This  created much confusion in such areas as the dating of
cheques, receipts, and other financial documents.  Because of this the
Canadian government has been an active promoter of the ISO standard.

Eclecticology


body:
On 3/3/03 12:08 AM, "Sean Barrett" <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> The aliasing pipe was meant to humorously link the phrases "Sun Mar 2
> 19:44:31 PST 2003" and "this moment"; ie, the moment in which I was
> writing.  (What time zone are you in, that that time was half an hour in
> your future?)  Also, the phrase "it has no automatic article-selection
> mechanism" might be understood to mean that it has no it has no
> automatic article-selection mechanism, thus making it unable to "go off"
> any time soon.
>
> I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003.

As I tried to explain, confusing is not perhaps quite the right word.
Disconcerting and unnatural is better. To the American ear, "2 March 2003"
sounds like something Yoda would say.

As if you had written,

"Understand what, I still do not, exactly, about 2 March 2003 confusing is."

(And then you can add that little Yoda  "hmmm?" at the end and lift large
objects with your mind to complete the picture.)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American
	who reads the Wikipedia?

body:
On 3/3/03 12:18 AM, "Richard Grevers" <dramatic at xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe
> <zoecomnena at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English
>> Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format.  How did this slip
>> under the radar without a major discussion?  It's a very anti-American
>> thing to do.
> That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an
> opressed minority :-)
> (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer their
> illogical system?)
> 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name
> is used) unambiguous.
> In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European, Anti-Australasian,
> Anti-African etc. etc.

This discussion should be held to the proper forum: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual
of Style (dates and numbers)]].


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Date formats (in generated output)

body:
I've added a site-wide configuration option for whether an
English-language wiki should display dates in American (Mar 3, 2003) or
International format (3 Mar 2003).

Set "$wgAmericanDates = true;" in LocalSettings to use the American
format. English Wikipedia has been set to use American dates for now to
maintain the status quo, as I have no interest in arguments about the
desirability of one or other other style. However the new option may be
of interest for third-party sites.

The date & time code needs some general overhauling... timezone data can
be gotten from the browser via JavaScript (but it's roundabout, as we
can't talk to it directly, and of course not always available), and we
need to support half-hour timezones (parts of Australia, India,
elsewhere).

Display of dates in YYYY-MM-DD format should also be an available
option, and we will certainly want user-selectability on these things,
as well as sensible ways of setting defaults and sniffing locale info
from browsers where possible and appropriate.

The generation of date/timestamps in ~~~~ sigs is also currently a mess;
it uses a locale-based function and doesn't integrate with our language
files.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030303/c3e8643c/attachment.pgp>


body:
I really think the answer to this problem is to simply stop time on today's
date (3/3/3). Then there won't be any problems at all.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
	reads the Wikiped

body:
On 3/3/03 12:38 AM, "james duffy" <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding the dates issue:  2 points.
>
> (1) d/mm/yy is used worldwide and understood (and indeed regularly used) in
> the US.
> mm/dd//yy is used in the US.
>
> (2) Contrary to Cunctator's assertion, everyone who voted for the dd/mm/yy
> version is NOT British. The world does not simply consist of the US and
> Britain. There are other countries who use it, and people from other
> countries who voted to use it. Whereas dd/mm/yy is used worldwide (even by
> Americans), mm/dd/yy simply isn't. So if Wiki wants to use a dating system
> that is instantly recognisable to people in 200+ countries, it should use
> dd/mm/yy (or at least enable it to be used). It it wants to have a system
> that is exclusively used by one, it should require everyone else adapt and
> use the US mm/dd/yy.

I didn't say everyone who voted for dd/mm/yy is British. Please don't
misconstrue my statements.

Discussion of the merits of proposals should remain on the appropriate page:
[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]

Discussion of how, in general, decisions to implement policy, should be made
here. It is also appropriate to announce to the list the discussion of
policy changes (or to announce the act of policy change).


from_name: Tom Parmenter

body:
Our story up to now:

Both the University of Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White's
Elements of Style state a preference for the 2 March form, but both
also accept the March 2 form.  Virtually every date in the Wikipedia
is expressed in the March 2 form.  (The mail headers for this message
use the 2 March form.)  Nothing that has come up in this mailing list
discussion has not already been raised on the talk page (although the
University of Chicago press position in favor of 2 March was greatly
overstated here.)

In general, consistency in style is desirable, and most of the rules
in the Manual of Style were based on what already was being done by
the more careful (consistent, that is) contributors.  Most dates are
already in the March 2 style.  It will add just that little bit of
uncertainty if some are one way and some the other.  There's nothing
confusing about the March 2, 2003 style either.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88

|From: M Carling <m at idiom.com>
|Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:56:56 -0800 (PST)
|
|
|
|On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, The Cunctator wrote:
|
|> To the American ear, "2 March 2003" sounds like something Yoda would say.
|
|I won't speak for you -- only for myself.  I'm an American and "2 March
|2003" is fine by me.
|
|M Carling
|
|_______________________________________________
|WikiEN-l mailing list
|WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Maps : Never mind

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Grevers" <dramatic at xtra.co.nz>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 12:40 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Maps : Never mind

On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:03:44 +0100, Magnus Manske
<magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:

>We may also have to use different map services for different countries -
Mapquest's coverage of New Zealand, for example, is pathetic. Finding good
non-subscription services might not be easy.

I agree. For this perhaps we can create a complementary GNU FDL map service., if necessary. (how, when... are the questions ;)


from_name: james duffy

body:
>From: Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan
>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:24:37 -0800 (PST)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from www.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by
>mc8-f20.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 2 Mar
>2003 19:25:09 -0800
>Received: from www.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>www.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h233K2E22819;Mon, 3 Mar
>2003 03:20:02 GMT
>Received: from web40908.mail.yahoo.com (web40908.mail.yahoo.com
>[66.218.78.205])by www.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id
>h233JnE22779for <WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 03:19:49 GMT
>Received: from [165.121.114.197] by web40908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun,
>02 Mar 2003 19:24:37 PST
>X-Message-Info: dHZMQeBBv44lPE7o4B5bAg==
>Message-ID: <20030303032437.27841.qmail at web40908.mail.yahoo.com>
>Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>Errors-To: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia
><wikien-l.wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/>
>Return-Path: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2003 03:25:09.0882 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[7EA0EDA0:01C2E134]

The Cunctator's claims on the 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan cannot be
allowed to stand.

1. The people he said support his stand don't. Most agreed on the talk page
that the change made was correct.
2. It is debatable whether such an article belongs on Wiki at all. But what
is not debatable is that it does not under any circumstances belong under
the name 'AIDS kills fags dead' slogan.
3. There was full agreement on the move. The Cunctator UNILATERALLY screwed
up everyone else's contribution by deciding UNILATERALLY to change the name
of a page from one there was general agreement on to one there was general
disapproval of, but which seemed to be his pet name for the page.
4. As to the claim that he didn't know where Stevertigo stood, it was
Stevertigo who RENAMED it to the agreed name. If that doesn't indicate where
he stands I don't know what does.
5. Having changed the name against the will of the people working on the
page, the Cunctator then DELIBERATELY created his own personal content for
the [[Homophobic hate speech]] page to ensure that nobody else could return
the page to the agreed name.

By any standards, The Cunctator's behaviour is outrageous. His determination
against the opinion of others (including some who initially agreed with him
but who then sided with the new name) to change the article title, and keep
changing the title when it was reverted back to the agreed name, to a
version that many people find offensive, that Jimbo Wales had issues with,
and about which there was universal agreement that it should not be used, is
bizarre and utterly contrary to the principles of Wiki and the concept of
consensus which had built up against him.

JT
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Oh No! Not another date format post!

body:
>By all means have the date articles named
>whichever way is most desired. When I want to
>link to a date, I'll write it whichever way makes
>the link turn blue. But when I'm crafting the body
>of an entry, I should hope I've got better things to
>do with my mind than stuff about trying to
>remember which particular order the Wikipedia
>Style Guide Nazis are insisting on.
>
>Tony (Tannin)
>
>Tony Wilson
>(Tannin)

Do you have any idea - at all - how insulting it is to be equated with a group
of thugs that are responsible for the deaths of 40-60 million people which
included the genocide of 3/4 of all European Jews and millions of other
"vermin" like Roma and homosexuals?

Please think before you write.

With that said, you should calm down and realize that what is being proposed
would be no more mandatory than what we have now. I've already explained this
on the talk page.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

WikiKarma
The usual at [[February 27]]


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Beware the Datebot!

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> I have no intention of doing anything precipitous.

That's good.  Precipitousness should be avoided.  :-)


from_name: Lee Pilich

body:
At 04:18 03/03/2003 +0000, JT wrote:
>5. Having changed the name against the will of the people working on the
>page, the Cunctator then DELIBERATELY created his own personal content for
>the [[Homophobic hate speech]] page to ensure that nobody else could
>return the page to the agreed name.

I just want to say that the content that Cunctator put at [[Homophobic hate
speech]] was not written by him, but by me. I originally wrote it as part
of what is now at [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]] (a page which has
changed titles several times), before Cunc extracted it and moved it to its
present home. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with it, and it should
stand (I'm not saying it's great, but it's a start).

Whether [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]] is a useful article is a
different question, and not one I'm going to express an opinion on.

lp (camembert)
WikiKarma: Large expansions to [[Vibrato]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] 'Quarrelling Kills Wikipedians Dead' slogan

body:
There are really two issues here: the specific content issue, and then
the issue of working courteously with others to achieve consensus.

1. On the specific content issue... "Homophobic hate speech" is a
clearly necessary and useful topic, and separate from the specific
example of this 'AIDS kills fags dead' example.

The title [[Aids kills fags dead]] was poor, and Axel has actually
gone so far as to apologize for it, although I think he didn't need to
do that, since it was a well-intentioned article all along.

Is the topic important enough to deserve it's own article?  I think
yes, it is, especially in conjunction with a more general article on
homophobic hate speech.  I would have said 'no, probably not' until I
actually read the article and learned a couple of things from it.

--------------- SIDEBAR -----------
For example, "everyone knows" that some Christian groups are outspoken
against homosexuality.  But I generally assume that they are
_Christian_ about it, i.e. "love the sinner, hate the sin".  And I'm
sure that most of them are.  (I don't agree with their position, I
should say!)  If people are referring to *these* groups as practicing
"hate speech" I think they're going overboard.

But for a Baptist minister to lead a protest at the funeral of Matthew
Shepard is really shocking.  What's to protest?  He was a victim of
really horrible and very un-Christ-like violence.  And to compound
that with a slogan about AIDS!
------------END SIDEBAR----------------

So, I learned something.  I had barely heard of Fred Phelps, and I had
never heard this slogan before.

So, I think that the way things washed out this morning is fine.  We
have a short, non-political, NPOV article (I guess it could always be
improved in this regard, but people aren't fighting much over the
specific content, which is a good sign)

I SHOULD ADD THIS HERE: I generally don't edit because I don't want to
be involved with content issues *and* co-operation issues.  My
opinions on content are equal to everyone elses, in this sense, it's
the wiki way.  I only offer my point of view on this as a wikipedian,
not as a "ruling" of any kind.

2.  On the "working well with others" issue -- I think that a certain
minimal amount of edit-warring is inevitable, but here's a couple of
tips that will probably be helpful: (a) let the other person win, for
awhile, and hash it out on the talk pages and (b) it should generally
be uncool for anyone (other than me, ha ha) to simply announce what
consensus is, in formulations such as "it has been decided"

So: try to relax, everyone.  And that's a ruling.  :-)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Beware the Datebot!

body:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)

This page is a very good example of what's wrong with voting, as
opposed to a more complex and subtle process of seeking general
consensus.  The voting method used here is not invariant to irrelevant
alternatives.  Blocks of votes can be split by clever advocates who
partition the decision-space on minor lines.

Let's say I strongly prefer [[1 Janauary]], [[1984]].  Why?  Well, if
we're seeking consensus, I have to say why.  But if we're voting, I
can vote for any non-NPOV reason that I want.  Let's imagine that I
want it that way because that's not the American way, and the
Americans can shove it.  (This is not *my* position, nor anyone's, I'm
sure, I'm just making an example.)

The individual alternatives listed aren't presented in an NPOV
fashion.  The page contains little discussion on the merits.

Basically, the voting idea pushes us to "take sides" and look for a
"resolution" of an issue prematurely, rather than seeking to change
minds and get everyone on the same page.

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

Despite all this, there are benefits to the voting method, as well.  I
think the benefits often don't overcome the drawbacks.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who reads the Wikiped

in_reply_to: <BAY1-F73gn9wHoRRZhn00024a75@hotmail.com>; from jtdirl@hotmail.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:38:22AM +0000

body:
james duffy wrote:
> (1) d/mm/yy is used worldwide and understood (and indeed regularly
> used) in the US.  mm/dd/yy is used in the US.

I think it's pretty clear that dd/mm/yy and mm/dd/yy should be
avoided, because both are weird looking to a significant number of
people.  4/3/2001 -- what's that?  April 3, if you're American.  March
4, if you're not.

On the other hand, 'April 3, 2003' and '3 April, 2003' are both at
least non-ambiguous.  The second one looks funny (to Americans), but
can be deciphered at least.

--Jimbo


body:
Regarding the dates issue:  2 points.

(1) d/mm/yy is used worldwide and understood (and indeed regularly used) in
the US.
mm/dd//yy is used in the US.

(2) Contrary to Cunctator's assertion, everyone who voted for the dd/mm/yy
version is NOT British. The world does not simply consist of the US and
Britain. There are other countries who use it, and people from other
countries who voted to use it. Whereas dd/mm/yy is used worldwide (even by
Americans), mm/dd/yy simply isn't. So if Wiki wants to use a dating system
that is instantly recognisable to people in 200+ countries, it should use
dd/mm/yy (or at least enable it to be used). It it wants to have a system
that is exclusively used by one, it should require everyone else adapt and
use the US mm/dd/yy.

JT
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


body:
Tannin wrote:
> >of an entry, I should hope I've got better things to
> >do with my mind than stuff about trying to
> >remember which particular order the Wikipedia
> >Style Guide Nazis are insisting on.

Someone else already said this, but I'll throw some authority behind
it.  It's really important to calm and reasoned resolution of issues
that we not resort to inflammatory language.  I'm sorry to single
Tannin out here, as we've all been guilty at one time or another, but
really, it's best if we maintain a strong sense of professionalism and
kindness and love.

--Jimbo


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Something is wrong at the server; it wan't load for me either in English or
Arabic. Just wait till they get up again.

Fred

> From: Karl Eichwalder <ke at gnu.franken.de>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 05:44:17 +0100
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Internet archive at the new library of alexandria
>
> Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> writes:
>
>> To access a web archive for about the last 8 years try:
>>
>> http://www.bibalex.gov.eg/Start.asp?LangID=1
>>
>> You'll need to search around a bit on the site for the "internet archive"
>> link. You need the url to access the old pages.
>
> Thanks for the pointer.  Is there any other entry point?  This URL just
> appears as a blue screen for me.  And http://www.bibalex.gov.eg/ wants
> add-ons I don't have installed -- this site isn't user friendly at all
> :-(
>
> --
> ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home):              |
> http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |      ,__o
> Free Translation Project:                                |    _-\_<,
> http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/             |   (*)/'(*)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Internet archive at the new library of alexandria

in_reply_to:
<BA860568.BFE%fredbaud@ctelco.net> (Fred Bauder's message of
 "Sat, 01 Mar 2003 06:36:24 -0700")

body:
Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> writes:

> To access a web archive for about the last 8 years try:
>
> http://www.bibalex.gov.eg/Start.asp?LangID=1
>
> You'll need to search around a bit on the site for the "internet archive"
> link. You need the url to access the old pages.

Thanks for the pointer.  Is there any other entry point?  This URL just
appears as a blue screen for me.  And http://www.bibalex.gov.eg/ wants
add-ons I don't have installed -- this site isn't user friendly at all
:-(

--
ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home):              |
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |      ,__o
Free Translation Project:                                |    _-\_<,
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/             |   (*)/'(*)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lists which are sheer nonsense

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> I've been wanting to avoid wading into this discussion, but the term
> "Americans" does have a double meaning, and its usage as a reference
> solely to U.S. citizens  rankles with some people from Canada, Mexico
> and other parts of North and South America who also consider
> themselves "American" as well.

As far as I have been able to determine, though, "American" is often
used by Canadian, British, and Australian newspapers to refer solely
to the United States.

We should be highly sensitive to word usages that are not universal,
particularly if there's a double meaning that's offensive to some.

In making decisions like this, we shouldn't just go on a vague "urban
legend" that some people might be offended.  Are there authorities
(style guides, for example) which recommend against the usage?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] SoftSecurity, Roman style (was: Return of DW?)

body:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> I don't think it's unreasonable for people to point out cases
> (e.g. VeraCruz) in which a banned user comes back in disguise and
> repeats the behavior that caused banning.

I think that's right, and I encourage people to just write to me
privately in cases like this so I can investigate and we don't have to
talk about it endlessly on the mailing list.  There should never be
any "secret bans" or "quiet bans", but at the same time, if we're just
engaged in some kind of ongoing battle with someone, we don't always
need to discuss every aspect of it.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American whoreads the Wikipedia?

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> "Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this
> thread" -- yet neither she nor anyone els can explain how seeing "2
> March 2003" is going to "confuse" anyone whoreads it.

I think the word "confuse" is a bit strong, but it does look weird to
me.

If "official" style guides recommend it, and it's unambiguous, then I
think we should go with it, even if it looks weird.  But I don't think
voting is a good way to decide the issue.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <oprlf002v6k4g8ki@news.gmane.org>; from dramatic@xtra.co.nz on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:18:28PM +1300

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:
> That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an
> opressed minority :-)

Didn't you mean to say "...asked to consider citizens of the United
States..." ha ha.  ;-)

> 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the
> month name is used) unambiguous.

I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant
on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?

Americans almost never speak that way.  We would say "March the
Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and
Three".  We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] What W is not

in_reply_to: <3E635C38.9010103@planetunreal.com>; from tarquin@planetunreal.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:44:24PM +0000

body:
Quoting Cunc, I think:
>>   A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were
>> newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.

> It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the
> keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.

I'm not going to speculate on his motives, really, but it sounds to me
like he's just written what has been the consensus, and it actually
counts _against_ the very Sep11 entries that people have objected to.

Some of the Sep11 casualties made the news _individually_ for various
reasons.  That's a pretty good indication of their being suitable for
an encyclopedia entry.  Others, we don't have any
independently-verifiable information about... which is a pretty good
indication of their not being suitable for an encyclopedia entry.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors

in_reply_to: <200303031353.h23Dr7E10241@www.wikipedia.org>; from list@redhill.net.au on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:58:17AM +1100

body:
Tony Wilson wrote:
> then it must say so unambiguously. My characterisation of the obsessive
> urge to micro-manage things which could perfectly well be left alone as
> being something "the Style Nazis" would do is an accurate one. If the
> cap fits ...

Please, I really must object strenuously to this use of the word
"Nazi".  We are working _together_, _co-operatively_, with reason, and
kindness, and love.  There's just no reason to use such hateful
language.

--Jimbo


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
  whoreads the Wikipedia?

body:
At 08:11 PM 3/2/03 -0800, Sean wrote:
>On the contrary, the form 2 March 2003 simply IS correct in American
>English.  The Chicago Manual of Style prefers "that in all text,
>including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the
>sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation."  Rule 8.36.

There is no one body entitled to name US usage, and the University
of Chicago Press certainly isn't. CMOS is what they want for the
books they publish, no more and no less. Others often find it useful: but
when I worked for a magazine that followed Chicago on most things, we set
dates in the form March 3, 2003, not 3 March 2003.

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors

body:
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> You are an unrepentant Liberal, Jimmy.

Thanks Jonathan, that's the funniest thing I've heard this year.

--Jimbo


body:
At 04:38 AM 3/3/03 -0800, Mav wrote:
> >By all means have the date articles named
> >whichever way is most desired. When I want to
> >link to a date, I'll write it whichever way makes
> >the link turn blue. But when I'm crafting the body
> >of an entry, I should hope I've got better things to
> >do with my mind than stuff about trying to
> >remember which particular order the Wikipedia
> >Style Guide Nazis are insisting on.
> >
> >Tony (Tannin)
> >
> >Tony Wilson
> >(Tannin)
>
>Do you have any idea - at all - how insulting it is to be equated with a
>group
>of thugs that are responsible for the deaths of 40-60 million people which
>included the genocide of 3/4 of all European Jews and millions of other
>"vermin" like Roma and homosexuals?
>
>Please think before you write.

Seconded, thirded, and passed by acclamation. See [[Godwin's Law]].

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sheldon to the rescue (was: Lists which are sheer nonsense)

body:
Thank God we have a professional author around to guide us. What Sheldon wrote makes more sense than anything else I read about [[List of...]].

Uncle Ed

I've been wanting to avoid wading into this discussion, but the term
"Americans" does have a double meaning, and its usage as a reference
solely to U.S. citizens  rankles with some people from Canada, Mexico
and other parts of North and South America who also consider
themselves "American" as well. The term is commonly used in reference
U.S. citizens, and it doesn't particularly offend me personally, but
I know people who object to it.

Using "Americans" in reference to U.S. citizens is a bit like using
"Indians" in reference to Native Americans or "cripples" in reference
to the physically disabled. I know there are people who find it silly
and irritating that they should be asked to use more "politically
correct" language, but whenever possible I think it's best to be
sensitive about these things. I don't see a downside to saying
"United States citizens." It's precise, unambiguous and offends no
one. That would be my preferred usage.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books

[snipped rest of sig]


from_name: Jonathan Walther

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors

body:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:35:40AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Tony Wilson wrote:
>> then it must say so unambiguously. My characterisation of the obsessive
>> urge to micro-manage things which could perfectly well be left alone as
>> being something "the Style Nazis" would do is an accurate one. If the
>> cap fits ...
>
>Please, I really must object strenuously to this use of the word
>"Nazi".  We are working _together_, _co-operatively_, with reason, and
>kindness, and love.  There's just no reason to use such hateful
>language.

You are an unrepentant Liberal, Jimmy.  You can have your Wikipedia.
The world is passing you by.  Don't you feel sad?  You eagerly accepted
the reconstruction that was forced on you, and now you are a rootless
man without a culture, forced to accept whatever bones Americas minority
groups decide to toss you.

I can recommend the 2001 Farnese Sangiovese Daunia; it's fairly decent
considering how low it is priced.  Maybe you don't have enough culture
to enjoy it.  Too bad.

If you knew who the Nazis were, you would be much more careful of your
behavior.  The Nazis, like you, tried to be kindly, paternalistic, and
well-meaning...  Of course, a few "fringe groups" had to suffer as a
result of this, including the cultural group I was part of for most of
my life.  Reflect on this, if you have a shred of honesty left in your
body.  I know who the Nazis are, and what they did.  Just because they
dress up as Liberals and declare their sympathies to be on the left,
doesn't change the petty harmfulness of their behavior.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030303/33227691/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] What W is not

body:
tarquin wrote:

> Cunctator has made a number of additions to the "What Wikipedia is
> not" policy page
>
> To see the diff:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=0&oldid=715621
>
>
> The one I quety is this, under the "not a genealogical or biographical
> dictionary" heading:
>
>  A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were
> newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
>
> It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the
> keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.
>
> any thoughts on this?

Perhaps the "(or deaths)" could be interpreted that way, but I would
give him the benefit of the doubt.  Most of us who see no merit to
having 11 September biographies in Wikipedia see the creation of the
separate space for this as a reasonable compromise.  I'm sure that if
Cunc or any others began abusing this policy statement in the way you
suggest you would have others to complain beside you.

Cunc's proposed change is a reasonable guideline that still requires
some measure of common sense.  (Do we really need to define
"newsworthy"?)  It does thwart those people who would sillily interpret
the policy as outlawing any kind of biography.  It still leaves room for
royal genealogies where (particularly in mediaeval contexts) knowing the
relationships is parallel in importance to having a program to identify
the participants in a sporting event.

Eclecticology


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:  The Style Oppressors

body:
On Monday 03 March 2003 06:25 am, "Tony Wilson" wrote:
> My characterisation of the obsessive
> urge to micro-manage things which
>could perfectly well be left alone as
> being something "the Style Nazis" would
>do is an accurate one. If the cap fits ...

And I was expecting an apology. How naive of me. Go ahead and continue to
think that some of our best contributors are Nazis - it only reflects
negatively on you.

--mav


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What W is not

body:
On Monday 03 March 2003 06:25 am, tarquin wrote:
> To see the diff:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>&diff=0&oldid=715621
>
> The one I quety is this, under the "not a genealogical or biographical
> dictionary" heading:
>
>   A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were
> newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
>
> It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the
> keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.
>
> any thoughts on this?

Cunc and I got into this on my talk page too. I mentioned that the consensus
was to move the tribute pages to the sep11 wiki and he indicated that since
he did not agree with the "consensus" that there was no consensus and
therefore had no obligation to follow it. This, IMO, is working against the
wishes of the community. With the exception of Jimbo, nobody here has veto
power. Am I wrong on this point?

--mav

WikiKarma
The usual at [[February 28]] and  [[February 29]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American  who reads the Wikipedia?

body:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:

> At 06:16 AM 3/3/03 -0800, Jimbo wrote:
>
>> I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant
>> on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?
>>
>> Americans almost never speak that way.  We would say "March the
>> Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and
>> Three".  We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".
>
> The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March,
> 2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least,
> none of
> my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it).

That's likely more right than wrong but I would think that "Second OF
March" is even more common.  "Two March" is often associated with U.S.
militarese.  Fortunately, in this debate about written format no one is
seriously advocating the use of ordinals for the day. :-)

Eclecticology


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American
  who reads the Wikipedia?

references:
<oprlf002v6k4g8ki@news.gmane.org>
 <20030303030941.32833.qmail@web40902.mail.yahoo.com>
 <oprlf002v6k4g8ki@news.gmane.org>

body:
At 06:16 AM 3/3/03 -0800, Jimbo wrote:

>I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant
>on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?
>
>Americans almost never speak that way.  We would say "March the
>Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and
>Three".  We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".

The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March,
2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least, none of
my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it).
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors

body:
Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:35:40AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Tony Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> then it must say so unambiguously. My characterisation of the obsessive
>>> urge to micro-manage things which could perfectly well be left alone as
>>> being something "the Style Nazis" would do is an accurate one. If the
>>> cap fits ...
>>
>> Please, I really must object strenuously to this use of the word
>> "Nazi".  We are working _together_, _co-operatively_, with reason, and
>> kindness, and love.  There's just no reason to use such hateful
>> language.
>
> You are an unrepentant Liberal, Jimmy.  You can have your Wikipedia.
> The world is passing you by.  Don't you feel sad?  You eagerly accepted
> the reconstruction that was forced on you, and now you are a rootless
> man without a culture, forced to accept whatever bones Americas minority
> groups decide to toss you.
>
> I can recommend the 2001 Farnese Sangiovese Daunia; it's fairly decent
> considering how low it is priced.  Maybe you don't have enough culture
> to enjoy it.  Too bad.
>
> If you knew who the Nazis were, you would be much more careful of your
> behavior.  The Nazis, like you, tried to be kindly, paternalistic, and
> well-meaning...  Of course, a few "fringe groups" had to suffer as a
> result of this, including the cultural group I was part of for most of
> my life.  Reflect on this, if you have a shred of honesty left in your
> body.  I know who the Nazis are, and what they did.  Just because they
> dress up as Liberals and declare their sympathies to be on the left,
> doesn't change the petty harmfulness of their behavior.

As tempting as it may be to respond to JW's comments, it is impossible
to do so without appearing to troll. ;-)
Ec-


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Meta-question: wiki links in list/news posts

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:

> I notice that many wikipedians refer to wikipedia pages in these
> discussion groups using wiki markup: e.g. [[this_article]]. That's
> very cute, but highly impractical in terms of actually linking to the
> article from a mail/news client. I usually have to resort to
> searching, particularly with meta pages that I'm not familiar with the
> url syntaxt of. Would it not be much better to paste the full url from
> the browser in list messages?
>
Not really.  Sometimes using the Wiki markup is simply shorthand for
saying "The article named "this article'".  It lets us know that
reference to an article is intended.  Pasting the full URL is a lot of
work when you are just trying to send off a quick note.  The reader who
wants to check the article in question (if it is not a purely
hypothetical one) can still copy and paste to the search box on any
Wikipedia page, and press "Go".

Eclecticology


body:
Tannin, I do not like being called a Nazi.  It is not only thoughtless
and inaccurate, but it displays a rhetorical poverty that makes it
hardly worth the trouble of replying.

I wrote (or compiled) the bulk of the Manual of Style, which is a very
loose and simple one, based on a combination of general good practice
and what was already being done in the Wikipedia.

If you read the Manual of Style, it states clearly that writers (no
matter how bad tempered, illiterate or thoughtless) are not required
or expected to use it, but that others are likely to change what they
have written in the interests of clarity, consistency, and usability
and will use it.

People who like to do copy editing are also people who like
consistency.  Readers like it too.  The future of the Wikipedia is for
all articles to be copy-edited.  If the original authors take a little
care, then they will be copy-edited less.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88

|From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
|Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:38:24 -0800
|
|>By all means have the date articles named
|>whichever way is most desired. When I want to
|>link to a date, I'll write it whichever way makes
|>the link turn blue. But when I'm crafting the body
|>of an entry, I should hope I've got better things to
|>do with my mind than stuff about trying to
|>remember which particular order the Wikipedia
|>Style Guide Nazis are insisting on.
|>
|>Tony (Tannin)
|>
|>Tony Wilson
|>(Tannin)
|
|Do you have any idea - at all - how insulting it is to be equated with a group
|of thugs that are responsible for the deaths of 40-60 million people which
|included the genocide of 3/4 of all European Jews and millions of other
|"vermin" like Roma and homosexuals?
|
|Please think before you write.
|
|With that said, you should calm down and realize that what is being proposed
|would be no more mandatory than what we have now. I've already explained this
|on the talk page.
|
|-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
|
|WikiKarma
|The usual at [[February 27]]
|_______________________________________________
|WikiEN-l mailing list
|WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Maps : Never mind

body:
Pedro M.V. wrote:
>
>>We could also generate a list of map services for
> these coordinates, like the ISBN links.
>
> Can you explain it more detailed, please ???.

On the test site, when you click on a map link, you go directly to the map.

One could also be directed to a wikipedia page, giving the choice
between several online maps for the coordinates you just clicked on.
Like ISBN page, which gives you the choice between several bookstores to
look at the ISBN you just clicked on.

That would not only reduce impact of a map service shutting down, it
would also give the used the choice between different kinds of maps. Of
course, you'd have to guess which service actually provides a map fot
that specific region :-(

Magnus


body:
|X-Sender: vr at smtp.panix.com
|From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
|Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:51:35 -0500
|
|At 08:11 PM 3/2/03 -0800, Sean wrote:
|>On the contrary, the form 2 March 2003 simply IS correct in American
|>English.  The Chicago Manual of Style prefers "that in all text,
|>including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the
|>sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation."  Rule 8.36.
|
|There is no one body entitled to name US usage, and the University
|of Chicago Press certainly isn't. CMOS is what they want for the
|books they publish, no more and no less. Others often find it useful: but
|when I worked for a magazine that followed Chicago on most things, we set
|dates in the form March 3, 2003, not 3 March 2003.
|

That's not what my copy of 12th edition the CMOS says. It states (rule
8.14),

       "The University of Chicago press prefers that in all text the
       day, month and year be written without internal punctuation [in
       the form 5 November]

       "Other acceptable forms are:
	      On November 22, 1963 . . .
	      The course of events on the twenty-second of November

They go on to state that after the first specific reference to a day
and month, elliptical references to other days in that month should be
spelled out.
	"On 5 November, the national elections took place.  By the
	morning of the sixth . . .

I submit we would not want to follow them in this case.  Of course,
style guides are not written by Nazis, and not even the CMOS,
authoritative as it is, requires any of this in every instance.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] What W is not

body:
Tarquin wrote:

>Cunctator has made a number of additions to the "What Wikipedia is not"
>policy page:

>>A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were
>>newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.

>It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the
>keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.

There's already discussion of this point going on at
[[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not]].
The mailing list has been full enough already,
so we can all go there if it's the contents of the page
that we're discussing.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Style Oppressors

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Tannin wrote:

>>My characterisation of the obsessive
>>urge to micro-manage things which could perfectly well be left alone as
>>being something "the Style Nazis" would do is an accurate one. If the
>>cap fits ...

>Please, I really must object strenuously to this use of the word
>"Nazi".  We are working _together_, _co-operatively_, with reason, and
>kindness, and love.  There's just no reason to use such hateful
>language.

I doubt that Tannin realises how the term "Nazi" sounds to some people.
Where I come from (Nebraska), people say "X Nazi" fairly often
simply to mean somebody that is unreasonably controlling about X.
It's not intended as a *serious* comparison to the National Socialists.
Tannin's characterisation is a fair use of the word in this sense.
The problem is that this sense is inherently offensive to some people,
so we'd all be well advised to not use the word in this jocular way.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What W is not

body:
Cunc wrote:
>Lies, lies. You said "decision", not "consensus".
>
>Two very different things.

Eh? Consensus is used to arrive at decisions. Semantic
arguments tire me - esp since they tend to change the
subject of discussions.

--mav

WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 1]]

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Naming America

body:
cprompt at optonline.net wrote:

>I realize that anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much for an
>encyclopedia, but I'd still like to share. I asked my friend who lives in
>Canada whether he ever calls himself an American as a resident of North
>America, and whether he would refer to people in Mexico or South America as
>Americans. He replied no, and said that he refers to himself as a Canadian,
>United States citizens as Americans, Mexico citizens as Mexicans, etc. He
>doesn't know anyone else who does. It seems to me that an overwhelming
>majority of people I've come into contact with, as well as the media I've
>been exposed to refer to U.S. citizens as Americans, preferring to identify
>people by their nation rather than continent. While you could refer to
>people from Europe as Europeans, it would just promote confusion if you
>identified people from the Americas and Americans. While I personally think
>that one nation, (even if it is my own) should not hog the name of two
>entire continents, I see it as the same situation as Pennsylvania Dutch
>(Pennsylvania German?)
>
There is no doubt that "people of the United States" is less
controversial, but those of us in the other Americas will certainly
condescend to permit them to use the term, "American", providing that we
be spared from being mistaken for them, for certainly the citizens of
all the other countries of the Americas have available adjectives that
would enable them to be distinguished from the United States.

Amerigo Vespucci's name was first suggested for naming the continent in
1504, i.e.there were 272 years between this and 1776 while there have
been only 227 since.  In about 1890 Secretary of State James G. Blaine
was actively promoting the renaming of the United States to commemorate
Christopher Columbus (having failed to recognize that the citizens of
New Granada had already claimed this honour). The movement obviously
failed, despite the fact that at that time Vespucci was being widely but
wrongfully accused as a thief who had stolen the credit for Columbus's
discoveries.  Vespucci was a businessman seeking to exploit and bring
home the riches of foreign lands, and as a Florentine was in a better
position to be marketed than the Genoan who was alleged to have
introduced syphilis to Europe.  This all suggests that the United States
of America is suitably named.  Perhaps we could initiate a movement to
rename the two continents.

Eclecticology


subject: [Wikitech-l] Install problem

body:
It would help to diagnose the problem if you can provide a more detailed
description of the problem. If there are any error messages (in the page
or in the logs), please copy them in their entirety...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Leonard Tulipan wrote:

> Hi there!
> So I am currently installing the third wikipedia. The first two installs
> (inhouse) worked flawlessly.
> I wanted to setup a third wiki on an external server:
> Apache: 1.3.20
> PHP: 4.0.6
> MySQL: 3.23.44
>
> I am guessing my problems relate to the PHP Version, since the INSTALL
> Document mentions 4.2
> The problem seems to be with saving to the DB. It is actually able to
> access the DB. I verified this, by deliberately mistyping the username
> and getting and error, and by changing the start-text in the "cur"
> table.
> Are there any quick suggestions, or do I need to bother my provider to
> try to get this shared server updated.
> If the latter is the only options, maybe someone could point me to
> potential security problems with any of the above older software
> versions.
>
> Cheers
> Leonard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every American who reads the Wik

body:
>>Americans almost never speak that way.  We would say "March the
>>Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and
>>Three".  We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".
>
>The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March,
>2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least, none
>of
>my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it).

you could say "the second of march, two thousand three".  Sometimes I say it
that way.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


body:
>Using "Americans" in reference to U.S. citizens is a bit like using
>"Indians" in reference to Native Americans or "cripples" in reference
>to the physically disabled. I know there are people who find it silly
>and irritating that they should be asked to use more "politically
>correct" language, but whenever possible I think it's best to be
>sensitive about these things. I don't see a downside to saying
>"United States citizens." It's precise, unambiguous and offends no
>one. That would be my preferred usage.

What about immigrants who haven't gotten citizenship yet? With any name,
someone will be offended. Besides, do you think the Canadians are really
offended by it anyway?

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Oh No! Not another date format post!

body:
as long as there is an appropriate redirect page linking April 3 to 3 April,
etc, it doesn't really matter what the format is.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Leonard Tulipan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Install problem

body:
Hi there!
So I am currently installing the third wikipedia. The first two installs
(inhouse) worked flawlessly.
I wanted to setup a third wiki on an external server:
Apache: 1.3.20
PHP: 4.0.6
MySQL: 3.23.44

I am guessing my problems relate to the PHP Version, since the INSTALL
Document mentions 4.2
The problem seems to be with saving to the DB. It is actually able to
access the DB. I verified this, by deliberately mistyping the username
and getting and error, and by changing the start-text in the "cur"
table.
Are there any quick suggestions, or do I need to bother my provider to
try to get this shared server updated.
If the latter is the only options, maybe someone could point me to
potential security problems with any of the above older software
versions.

Cheers
Leonard


subject: [WikiEN-l] No personal remarks, please (was: The Style Oppressors)

body:
Jonathan,

If you are going to keep posting to this mailing list after being
banned, at least try to avoid personal remarks, like, "You can
have your Wikipedia. The world is passing you by."

You have the potential to change the world and make it a better
place -- but working together harmoniously with others is key
to making effective and worthy change.

Instead of comparing Jimmy to Nazis, why not compare yourself
to some standard? I've been _nearly_ kicked off of three separate
on-line communities (2 in my own church!!!) but I always took
the time to figure out two essential factors:

1. How to avoid getting people so upset at me that they force
me to leave;

2. How to get my points across without surrendering a major
matter of principle.

Please, desist for a few weeks and think it over.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:  The Style Oppressors

body:
My dear nephew Maveric,

You are of course right. No one should call you names, especially not a name so repulsively offensive as "Nazi".

The popular softening of the term as in Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi" or Limbaugh's "feminazis" apparently cuts no ice with you, even though it might help you to understand that Tony almost certainly meant no offense.

I will therefore ask Tony and the others to avoid using such offensive terminology.

Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Maps : Never mind

body:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:03:44 +0100, Magnus Manske
<magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> On dim, 2003-03-02 at 06:17, Pedro M.V. wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot !!!!. Let this feature alive forever ;). It?s very
>>> usefull to spare space ( instead of upload maps ) and can be included
>>> in the MoS ( for mountains, rivers and so on).
>>
>>
>> Relying on a third-party proprietary service which may shut off access
>> at any time is not the best idea. This is why we've tossed around the
>> idea of running our own map server. Wouldn't really save space ;) but
>> would save time -- no need to generate, save, and upload thousands of
>> individual maps except where they really need additional editing work.
>
> Long-term, yes. But for now, we can change the service if the one we're
> using shuts down. We could also generate a list of map services for these
> coordinates, like the ISBN links.
>
We may also have to use different map services for different countries -
Mapquest's coverage of New Zealand, for example, is pathetic. Finding good
non-subscription services might not be easy.

--
Richard Grevers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:  The Style Oppressors

body:
Tony,

Please take care to avoid terms like "Style Nazis" on the mailing
list. Even if you don't mean anything nasty by such terms, you
need to know that others may take offense.

I myself have been known to take offense at innocent terms like
"cult" applied to my church, even though it only means "religion
regarded as spurious by others".

The problem is that we cannot hear or see each other, and it is
unfortunate that discussions are can easily be derailed into
personalities by even a single usage of what might be a perfectly
innocently-intended term.

Please note that this is entirely without prejudice to the issue
of whether people are being fanatical about date formats, an issue
I am going to bow out of. I am more concerned with brotherly
harmony here.

Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What W is not

body:
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 12:47, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Cunc and I got into this on my talk page too. I mentioned that the consensus
> was to move the tribute pages to the sep11 wiki and he indicated that since
> he did not agree with the "consensus" that there was no consensus and
> therefore had no obligation to follow it. This, IMO, is working against the
> wishes of the community. With the exception of Jimbo, nobody here has veto
> power. Am I wrong on this point?

Lies, lies. You said "decision", not "consensus".

Two very different things.