subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedian Rhapsody

body:
On 2/17/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The story of Flameviper, told through song...

Ok seriously, can we have a little more serious input and a little
less silliness?

Steve


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Arnold

subject: [Wikitech-l] An RSS extension I'd like to see

body:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 18:06:35 Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Links from article namespace into other namespaces are EVIL.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > So BURN all portal links in article namespace NOW. Portals are useful but
> > not everyhwere.
>
> Check out the main pages of en: (top-right), de:, fr:, it: and so
> on...   the most prominent links are portal links.

The main pages are an exception and should be moved into project namespace
anyways.

What about moving the mainpage in mediawiki to project namespace by default
(it is just one change in MessagesXX.php)?

Arnomane
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070218/36d7adc6/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 01:44:47 Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Links from article namespace into other namespaces are EVIL.
>
> So you reject links to categories as well, presumably. And
> disambiguation links to mediawiki and wikipedia namespaces?

I was waiting for this answer.

A [[Category:Foobar]] link can *easily* be stripped out of the text. In every
stage of the artice it is clear that it cannot be embedded into text (just
because it is always displayed outside the text) so none will come to the
idea making removal of a category hard ([[:category:foobar]] is something
different and is evil in articles).

A template does not generate an endless chain of links. A template embedding
always comes to an end. And disambiguation is a template (although specially
treated by mediawiki).

But a link like [[Wikipedia:foobar]] *never* comes to and end. You can follow
the links of the linked page and so on.

> This is not an argument against linking from one space to another. If
> you're worried about downstream content reusers, the easy solution is
> to use a template like {{selfref}} to indicate that a link is not part
> of the encyclopaedic content.

I am not interested in inventing yet another meta content template. It is hard
enough handling the existing ones (like navigation bars and this is a $foobar
stub and foobar-display-problems) already.

> There's a huge amount of processing that needs to be done before we
> could put out a top quality Wikipedia DVD. Stripping out
> cross-namespace links is the least of our worries.

Cross namespace links are one problem but surely not the only one. I know what
I am talking about as I have done such work myself and did produce a real
world result. See
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Sonnensystem. Also cross
wiki links in articles about Wikipedia itself are a common problem. They
should be done as usual weblinks also in order to reflect distance to
oneself.

> > So BURN all portal links in article namespace NOW. Portals are useful but
> > not everyhwere.
>
> Um, as pointed out, currently there aren't any. Or are you talking
> about fr and other languages?

I have seen such links in any larger Wikipedia edition language be it in en,
de or fr.

Anyways this is off-topic on this list...

Arnomane
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070218/fdc82786/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed content hosting

body:
On 2/18/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> You assume that a central server will exist.. Maybe, but maybe not. Leave
> that to the guys that implement it.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
It seems to me that the biggest reason this hasn't yet been done is
that people are under the mistaken impression that it has to be
decentralized.

A completely decentralized peer-to-peer wiki is theoretically
possible, but it's kind of one of the holy grails of computing (a
decentralized peer-to-peer RDBMS).  A highly centralized peer-to-peer
wiki which offloads much of the bandwidth and hosting costs away from
the central database, well that's already in place.  The cache servers
perform that function, they just happen to be run by Wikimedia also.

A decentralized system is great for university research, but a
centralized system could be implemented tomorrow.  Just stop blocking
the live mirrors.  Then start working with the mirrors to come up with
a way to be more efficient for both parties.

Anthony


body:
On 2/18/07, Guillaume Pierre <gpierre at cs.vu.nl> wrote:
> As Gerard said, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is working on
> distributed decentralized hosting of a wikipedia-like site. Our first
> results are summarized in an article available here:
> http://www.globule.org/publi/DWECWH_webist2007.html
>

The meat of the idea seems to be to use distributed hash tables to
allow the main database to be moved onto multiple mostly-independent
computers (i.e. break away from the inefficient MySQL
replication/cluster model).  This is absolutely something which should
be done.  Wikipedia's data model screams for the adoption of this
solution.

I question the benefit of then allowing untrusted third parties to run
the servers, though, because at the end of the paper you acknowledge
that all the data is going to have to pass back through trusted
parties anyway.  I'm not convinced that there would be a significant
cost savings to the introduction of untrusted third parties in this
case.  Once you've achieved an approximately linear scaling of the
database servers, which the appropriate use of DHTs will do, it seems
to me that the costs of downloading the data from untrusted third
parties (doubling the bandwidth) and checking the signatures (eating
up CPU) is going to be nearly as great as the cost of simply adding
another database server.

Of course, I see why you're proposing it - allowing untrusted third
parties to interact directly with the end-user would require end-users
to install some sort of client software if they want to authenticate
the content.  But I really think that's the way you've gotta go if
you're going to achieve a real cost savings (or cost distribution).
Let the end-user software check the signatures.

Anthony


from_name: Andy Spencer

body:
On 2/17/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> There is very little analogy between your suggestion and SETI at home (or
> Folding at home or distributed.net or any other distributed computing
> project). Those distribute only CPU usage (and possibly RAM), but not
> bandwidth usage.

You're right in that they operate differently, but I think a similar
interface would be useful (e.g. you download a program that runs in
the system tray or as a daemon.

> Your idea necessitates that users (who are trying to read an article)
> would be redirected to some random volunteer computer that is running an
> HTTP daemon. But what do you do when it goes down? The central server
> that does the redirecting would take a while to determine that you are
> down, and until then, would continue to redirect requests to it.
> Wikipedia would become very unreliable.

Even if the central server had to ping the volunteers after every
single request to check status, that would still be a fraction of the
bandwidth taken up by sending wiki page.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still
	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
On 2/18/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> ** Cases like Waerth who are automatically sent through an anonymous proxy
> by their provider

I'll gladly run a closed access proxy for any established wikimedians
whom are interested.

I'll even make it available as a tor hidden service so even I don't
learn your IP. If anyone is interested, just let me know off-list.

> * Large-scale vandalism using many proxies does occur, but is rare enough
> that blocking the proxies when they are being used for vandalism is no big
> issue.

Rare on which wikis?  Without proxy blocking people do real damage
with high speed automated attacks.


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] all of my edits are copyrightviolations

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Walter van Kalken stated for the record:
> All of my edits are a copyrightviolation of books in my posession. All
> texts were literally copied and because of that all of my edits on
> wikipedia and pictures I added should be removed immediately as they are
> in violation of the GFDL. Also all of my sources seem to be non
> reputable and non trustworthy so many falsehoods consist in these edits.
>
> Since I am blocked from editting the mistakes myself the foundation
> should do better and delete all of my edits.
>
> Waerth/Walter

Allegations of copyright violations go through a review process before
being deleted, to prevent malicious users from using untrue accusations
to damage Wikipedia.  We will inform you of the result of our investigation.

The simple errors you have introduced should not cause you any great
anxiety -- your mistakes will be corrected by our routine operation.

We appreciate your concern for the integrity of our information.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Engage until target is on
 sean at epoptic.com | fire or has changed shape.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFF2Hta/SVOiq2uhHMRAl8iAJjFaVQcGDDBGUnsDBrz2fTko4aVAKDXhPvX
KHDBEaEr9I83jQvHVGZO4w==
=/WPp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: Samuel L Bronkowitz

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered
	by JPGordon

body:
I did not send "8 messages in a row." I sent updates, when new developments
happened.

I see that the "moderation" system put them in all at once, and I got eight
"your comment is being moderated" notices at once.

Since you obviously do not care about systemic abuse, feel free to just not
read my emails.

On 2/17/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much,
> consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than
> a power of 2?
>
> Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on
> moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between
> uses and abuses of email.
>
> "Samuel L Bronkowitz" <countpointercount at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > One of the abusive editors who was involved in the false accusations has
> now
> > decided he has the right to remove unblock requests from my talk page.
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108663911&oldid=108662520
> >
> > This is beyond abusive by him, but as I am seeing from the treatment I
> am
> > receiving, too typical of how wikipedians behave.
> >
> > "Thanks" for nothing but the abuse you have now heaped upon me.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 1:08 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
> JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > One final update: Yamla, who I note has a long history of
> rubber-stamping
> > abusive blocks, has done so on my request for unblock.
> >
> > I must consider this systematic abuse by administrators at this point.
> >
> > I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove
> to
> > me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely
> lost
> > the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going
> in
> > and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right
> to
> > them any more.
> >
> > "Thank you" for nothing but abuse. It has really shown me what Wikipedia
> is
> > about and how worthless it is.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM
> > Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > The bad "discussion closed" code has now been placed around the new
> > discussion: one ReyBrujo "restored" the template to the wrong discussion
> > thread due to the hyperactive bot which removed still-ongoing threads
> from
> > the page.
> >
> > This is a big problem, people trying to close off discussions relevant
> to
> > Wikipedia and to the actions of Wikipedian editors and administrators
> > without answering the concerns being addressed.
> >
> > I have no idea whether my questions are actually reaching the list,
> either.
> > This is most disconcerting.
> >
> > I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen
> how
> > Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this
> sort
> > go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia.
> I
> > will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that
> the
> > thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite
> extensively, it
> > would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I
> go
> > somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing
> so,
> > since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
> > false accusations are being denied me.
> >
> > Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you
> for
> > it in this missive any more.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
> JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > This has also had the unintended effect of SERIOUSLY messing up the
> page, as
> > it appears every thread below it is "archived" due to the bad coding
> left
> > behind on the out-of-process closed discussion from earlier as well.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
> JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Additional issue:
> >
> > It appears someone's bot is doing damage, removing threads that are not
> > remotely irrelevant:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108652761&oldid=108652596
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
> JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > I am filing one more update. I do not know if any of these will get
> through,
> > but I am trying my best.
> >
> > I have filed a request for Unblock as noted in the blocking notes page:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108652004&oldid=108617558
> >
> > I also must note that, now that I am blocked, there is constant posting
> of
> > libelous statements about me to the earlier discussions. It seems that
> now
> > that JKelly has abusively blocked me, a large number of people wish to
> > ingratiate themselves somehow by piling on.
> >
> > It saddens me that this is the atmosphere of wikipedia. I may very well
> > simply leave, for this is showing me a bad side I had not seen before,
> and
> > Wikipedia is fast becoming something I do not wish to be a part of if
> this
> > is the true feeling and mentality of the editors here.
> >
> > In sincerity,
> > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM
> > Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > I wish to update my earlier message; the two users who filed this
> CheckUser
> > request are now spending quite a bit of time making false charges at me
> at
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_RunedChozo_was_and_should_be_handled,anda third has jumped in who is just making accusations over and
> > over.
> >
> > I find this highly unfair, as I have no relation to any of this or the
> pages
> > in question beyond my stated opinion that administrator and editor
> > misbehavior has occurred and that the case's resolution was not
> conducted in
> > proper respect for policy and civility.
> >
> > User JKelly has now acted on these false accusations and banned me from
> > editing, as well as defacing my user page with a Scarlet Letter
> harassment
> > token.
> >
> > You can see my edit history for yourself. I have not done anything bad
> to
> > warrant this kind of abuse, yet I have received it from multiple users
> and
> > at least one trigger-happy administrator now, as well as one
> administrator
> > willing to completely misrepresent CheckUser results.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountPointercount
> >
> > This comment was left, but I'm now unable to respond in my own defense
> > thanks to the abuse by JKelly.
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108647990&oldid=108647687
> >
> > This is blatantly unfair practice. Since JKelly and other abusive
> > administrators and editors are more than willing to behave in this
> manner, I
> > have no choice but to come here for redress.
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
> > Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM
> > Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> > To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, but decided to make an
> > account recently and signed up. I continued my normal editing (mostly
> typo
> > and fixes on random articles, which seems to be a way to find a lot of
> your
> > mistakes) but noticed a problem on the Administrators' Noticeboard and
> left
> > my opinion there.
> >
> > A user included me in a CheckUser for speaking up on the issue. They
> accused
> > the user PSPMario, who seems to have edited only on the Playstation 3
> and
> > Playstation Portable articles, of being a sockpuppet of someone after he
> > reported two users he suspected of being a sockpuppet.
> >
> > I find it a very bad precedent to immediately accuse someone of being a
> > sockpuppet, for trying to report a potential problem themselves. I find
> this
> > equally problematic to say that "identical additions of info" happen
> when we
> > give users the tools in difference comparison to easily copy content
> from an
> > earlier edit to a later edit. PSPMario says he was replacing something
> he
> > saw that was missing when he returned to the page, and I believe him,
> > because there is no reason for me not to believe him.
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_think_I_see_a_sockpuppet
> >
> > The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely."
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo
> >
> > I am not sure what this means. I know I am no sockpuppet, and given the
> > writing style of PSPMario, I am reasonably certain he is not a
> sockpuppet
> > either.
> >
> > I do not know when we started using weasel words for CheckUser, which
> ought
> > to be a yes or no answer, but this sets a very bad precedent for abuse
> of
> > the CheckUser system. Additionally, we have users trying to get everyone
> > they can blocked, no matter what their edits or edit history, based on
> the
> > results of weasel-worded RFCU postings.
> >
> > This situation is a detriment to Wikipedia.
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> --
> Gwern
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: William Pietri

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered
 by JPGordon

body:
Hi, Samuel. Good pseudonym choice, by the way; I loved that movie.

Samuel L Bronkowitz wrote:
> I did not send "8 messages in a row." I sent updates, when new developments
> happened.
>
> I see that the "moderation" system put them in all at once, and I got eight
> "your comment is being moderated" notices at once.
>
> Since you obviously do not care about systemic abuse, feel free to just not
> read my emails.

People here do care a lot about systemic abuse.

I think the problem you're running into is that a lot of people who end
up on the unhappy end of some administrative action feel they are being
abused, so we don't see a lot of correlation between accusations of
abuse and actual abuse. That doesn't mean we don't care, but it does
mean you probably won't get the instant and vigorous reaction you were
hoping for.

Further, you sent a lot of long messages in a short span of time,
without waiting for a reaction. When writing to a large mailing list,
anything you send takes up a lot of human time. I'm sure you didn't mean
to give this impression, but demanding that people pay attention to that
kind of volume doesn't demonstrate much respect for their time. A better
approach would be to write one short, clear email and then wait for
somebody to ask you for more details.

And lastly, your messages came across to me as strident and demanding,
messages from somebody who felt slighted and upset. I'm sorry you felt
that way, but expressing that so strongly in your emails doesn't help
your cause. The people here see a lot of drama, most of it unnecessary,
and all of it wearying. There's also a negative correlation between the
amount of strong negative emotion in a message and its utility. So in
the future you're probably better off waiting until you cool down some.

Does that help?

Regards,

William


body:
What I didn't know was that "before anybody has even had a chance to react
to your issues or concerns" existed.

I got the "your message is being moderated" messages long after I sent my
last message in.

What I did see was as follows:

- Anybody who spoke up about the ongoing falsehoods and obvious wrong admin
behavior was being accused of being a "sockpuppet."

- The "result" of the CheckUser by JPGordon was obviously falsified, it is
supposed to give either an affirmative, negative, or at best "inconclusive."

He didn't give a listing for each accused person either, he just gave a
blanket "likely." The same problem exists for previous CheckUser incidents I
have looked at both in this case and others, it is obvious that the tool, or
at least the power resting in the hands of those who have it but have no
check and balance requiring that they honestly report the results, is being
routinely abused.

- Discussions which were ongoing were constantly being "closed" by
administrators trying to kill any investigation into this incident. Several
users have now filed statements that they have a major problem with this,
but the administrators guilty are facing no sanction and are likely to just
keep doing it. No response to their other concerns has been placed anywhere.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the administrators who did this know
they were being abusive, their friends who protected them know it was
abusive, and they are keeping their heads down hoping it blows over.

Knowing wikipedia, it likely will. Policing of the abuses by administrators
is nonexistent.

- A bot "archived" these things, and so did administrators, again trying to
lock off debate despite the fact that the community has strong misgivings
about how this was handled and multiple users are convinced that the
original indefinite-blocked user was provoked deliberately by the same
administrator who did the indefinite blocking.

- My attempts to file a legitimate unblock request were being reverted by
one of the other "users" who filed the abusive checkuser report.

- I did some investigating and found out that administrator Yamla answers
over 40% of unblock requests just himself, and administrator Ryulong (one of
the ones who abusively "closed" a discussion far earlier than it should have
been closed) at least another 25%. They have yet to certify even one that I
could find as deserving of an unblock, even in cases where policy states
that one should be granted, such as people blocked for 3RR on first offense
who promise not to do it again. It seems obvious to me that this is part of
the problem, because "administration" of this function has turned into a
rubber stamp with no meaning behind it.

It is now Sunday morning. Not a single administrator, on the Administrators
Noticeboard, has answered any of the concerns, though more administrators
have "closed" and "archived" discussions on it by normal users, which
prompted Mis Mondegreen to file another thread here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Stop_archiving.21_in_re_RunedChozo

The only "response" so far is user bbatsell now trying to stamp the debate
again by claiming the place it is filed is "not the place" for it. He is so
dishonest he does not even bother to address the concerns raised about
abusive "archiving" and thread closings.

This is ongoing and systemic abuse. The fact that people like you are trying
still to attack me rather than addressing it is showing me a side of
Wikipedia I did not know about, but which sickens me.

As of now, I am unable to speak in my defense. Anything I try to post even
to my own talk page, user Trebor Rowntree is sitting around to abusively
remove.

So I am here. And from what I see here, just like on the administrators
noticeboard, you are more interested in trying to attack the messenger than
in investigating real abuses by your administrators. That certainly was the
intent of your message, "Dan."

I invite you to prove me wrong, but I don't hold any hopes that you will.
Previous example certainly shows me otherwise.

As far as this list is concerned, the first anybody has apparently
> heard of you is in your barrage of messages, culminating in your
> threats to quit and/or withdraw your contributions and/or become a
> vandal... all posted here before anybody has even had a chance to
> react to your issues or concerns.
>
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: xaosflux

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
These usually get rejected over at [[WP:RFBOT]].  The last one rejected I
can find is [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot]], with the
reasonable basis that it was being proposed by an operator that was indef
blocked.

Some of the issues that come up with this perenial proposal are:
*Dealing with dynamic IP addresses when welcoming anons and
*Being "personal", the idea below about putting  a random (rotating) contact
on the message may address that, but without leaving specific instuctinos
the new user may try to reply to "you the welcomer" by editing their own
talk, and noone will be watching it.

[[en:user:xaosflux]]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Parker Peters" <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

> Has been suggested numerous times.
>
> Is a wonderful idea.
>
> Will probably be rejected yet again, for no reasonable basis.
>
> Parker
>
> On 2/16/07, A <jokestress at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Seeing the wide variety of welcome templates used and some recent
>> interactions with new IP editors have me thinking about this as an
>> option.
>>
>> The basics:
>>
>> 1. Would post a welcome message the first time an IP address or
>> registered
>> account is used to edit.
>> 2. Would explain key policies.
>> 3. Would encourage the IP editors to register a username.
>> 4. Would indicate a place where any questions could be directed.
>>
>> This automated message would have a few benefits:
>>
>> 1. It would reach people immediately after they make their first edit.
>> 2. It might help some editors avoid common issues with first edits:
>> original
>> research, copyright issues, POV, verifiability.
>> 3. It might cut down on some of the other misunderstandings novice
>> editors
>> have.
>>
>> Interested editors could sign on when they are available to take
>> questions
>> from novices, or the new editors could be sent to a page where they could
>> ask any questions and get a fairly quick response.
>>
>> If it seems it might be more personal, maybe the bot could randomly
>> assign
>> an experienced editor to each welcome message, someone signed up on the
>> welcoming committee.
>>
>> It seems that this might cut down on much of the back and forth
>> experienced
>> editors have with new editors, and it might encourage more people to
>> register. Sometimes editors get welcomed immediately, and other times it
>> takes months.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 2/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> All of his emails were sent within a period of four hours.  When I read
> the first one I was somewhat sympathetic, but became less so as I read
> the additional ones.  He has a problem with patience.

That seems to be a pattern on this list. The personality of the
messenger makes it difficult to AFG and hides the possibility that he
might have a legitimate gripe. It's possible that the admins who these
"evil messengers" are calling rogue were also put off by their
attitudes and were a little quick with their LARTs.


body:
On 2/18/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:

> messenger makes it difficult to AFG^H^H^HAGF

Damn, now I'm doing what the OP did :(


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> Sadly, although we managed to delete the list of tall me once, that
> was sent back to AfD and there is no consensus to delete it.  No
> consensus in this case means that there is no clear majority of !votes
> - policy and guidelines (which reflect a much wider consensus) are
> that we do not have original research, and there is no credible
> rebuttal of the assertion that the list of tall men is based on just
> that.

And the article on Gregory Kohs was kept deleted even though it meets
all of our standards.  It's broke in both directions, and I'm even more
frustrated than you are.

Yes, DRV needs fixin'.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


body:
On 2/18/07, Anthony <wikitech at inbox.org> wrote:
> Just stop blocking
> the live mirrors.  Then start working with the mirrors to come up with
> a way to be more efficient for both parties.
>
In an exchange with Gregory Maxwell it came up that I haven't actually
asked for permission to do this.  So just to be sure I'm posting this
request here:

I'd like to run a live mirror of Wikipedia without any advertising.
I'd put the live pages into the robots.txt file so search engines
would only be allowed to access my local cache, and thus wouldn't
cause any extra traffic for Wikimedia.  So can I have permission to do
this?

Anthony


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
You assume that a central server will exist.. Maybe, but maybe not. Leave
that to the guys that implement it.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 2/18/07, Andy Spencer <andy753421 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > There is very little analogy between your suggestion and SETI at home (or
> > Folding at home or distributed.net or any other distributed computing
> > project). Those distribute only CPU usage (and possibly RAM), but not
> > bandwidth usage.
>
> You're right in that they operate differently, but I think a similar
> interface would be useful (e.g. you download a program that runs in
> the system tray or as a daemon.
>
> > Your idea necessitates that users (who are trying to read an article)
> > would be redirected to some random volunteer computer that is running an
> > HTTP daemon. But what do you do when it goes down? The central server
> > that does the redirecting would take a while to determine that you are
> > down, and until then, would continue to redirect requests to it.
> > Wikipedia would become very unreliable.
>
> Even if the central server had to ping the volunteers after every
> single request to check status, that would still be a fraction of the
> bandwidth taken up by sending wiki page.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
On 2/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> These usually get rejected over at [[WP:RFBOT]].  The last one rejected I
> can find is [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot]], with the
> reasonable basis that it was being proposed by an operator that was indef
> blocked.

I don't care who offers a suggestion, a suggestion should stand on its
merits, not be torpedoed based on who proposed it.

Parker


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
On 2/18/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>

Tall is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally
> verifiable definition.  After five or six deletion debates, no
> consensus third-party definition of tall has been produced.  Average
> height is increasing over time so the list naturally favours
> contemporary figures.  Average height varies by country, so this list
> favours Western (and especially Dutch) figures.  Average height varies
> by ethnicity, so this list works against Vietnamese and Japanese, to
> name but two.  We don't have a place in here for Edward I
> ("Longshanks"), whose height is an integral part of his notability,
> because he's below the arbitrary criterion.  The height has changed
> from 6'3" to 6'7" and up and down, based primarily on the size of the
> resulting list, not any objective definition of tall.  We have to take
> special measures (i.e. additional arbitrary criteria) to stop it
> simply being a list of basketball players, which it more or less
> became.

<snip>

Sure, a list of tall men is crufty.  We have lots of cruft on Wikipedia, so
that element is just par for the course.  However, the statement that "Tall
is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally verifiable
definition" obviously violates WP:V, which is policy, and WP:NOR.  We can't
have a list that lacks criteria for inclusion which are not independent of
Wikipedia.

Now the question is how to fix it with the minimum amount of pain.


from_name: geni

subject:
[Foundation-l] One week later and I am still blocked,
	nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
On 2/18/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> As you can see the Dutch mods have done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. And people
> here say I have NO reason to be angry!
>
> I have written over a 1000 articles to the wikipedia and now I am not
> able to edit them. I am raging in anger.
>
> Here is a screenshot I took today:
>
> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8069/stillblocked1cv4.jpg
>
> Sofar for EVERYONE can edit. I am not even a vandal. And people tell me
> to calm down. It has been TWO WEEKS now! And NO FUCKING BODY is doing
> anything at all.
>
> Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
>
> Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
> refusing to do anything.
>
> Waerth
>
>

You haven't told us the IP so there isn't really every much that can
be done about it

--
geni


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Outside view of adminship

body:
Bearing in mind the nature of YouTube commenters
(http://xkcd.com/c202.html), here is a randomly-encountered opinion
from Some Internet Person about Wikipedia admins. I wonder how many
people share the misconceptions expressed below (strange vocabulary
not included - themes? Threads? Huh?).

<quote>

Klyern   (1 day ago)
you dont know s**t about wikipedia

you have to rely ONLY on the posts created by mods. or ppl given power by mods.

mods give power to a lot of ppl one at a time, its like a piramid. but
it DOES works, its only that theres only so few mods yet and so few
THEMES being mod locked yet.

you can only sugest stuff in mod locked threads.

</quote>

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:08:30 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>> And the article on Gregory Kohs was kept deleted even though it meets
>> all of our standards.  It's broke in both directions, and I'm even more
>> frustrated than you are.
>
> Really?  Can you point to an independent biographical source for Kohs?

I pointed to at least two, but it's worthless to rehash this again.
It's broken, and we have to deal with that.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Jim Hu

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Advice for PagesOnDemand,
	an extension to create pages when following red links

body:
Jim Wilson and I have been working on a new extension, which I call
PagesOnDemand that does the following:

Hooks at ArticleFromTitle
Uses a regex to look for a pattern in the requested title
If the title matches the pattern and the page does not already exist,
runs a function to create the desired stub content and saves it

Note that if this runs when a user clicks on a red link, it acts like
a blue link - the user is directed to a view of the brand new page.
Currently, if the user searches for a page that matches the regex,
the extension populates the page if the user clicks the red link in
the search page, or clicks "create this page", but they get the edit
page.

PagesOnDemand is set up so that other extension writers can add
additional regex/content creation combinations.  Before I put up a
page in mediawiki.org, I'd like to check with the experts here about
how I've done a couple of things to let future extensions use
PagesOnDemand:

1) The future extensions would need to register to use a "hook"
inside the PagesOnDemand extension.  So I'd like to reserve that hook
name - or whatever the devs want me to name it -within reason ; ) -
within mediawiki.  I assume that this would have to be approved by
Brion et al? (I use "hook" in quotes because I'm not using RunHooks
to run the function).

2) To keep the regex and the function together, I've set it up so
that the content creator extensions register by pushing a 2-element
array onto $wgHooks, where the array is (regex, functionName).  For
example, to look for page titles that correspond to PubMed IDs (which
is why I wrote it), the creator extension uses:

$wgHooks['PagesOnDemand'][] = array('/^PMID:\\d+
$/','wfPubMedOnDemand') ;

Is this kosher ? Jim W. doesn't like it, but I don't like his
alternative, which is to pass the regex matching to the content
creator.  I don't want to distribute the code on mediawiki.org if it
does something evil. Thanks in advance for advice.

Jim
=====================================
Jim Hu
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
2128 TAMU
Texas A&M Univ.
College Station, TX 77843-2128
979-862-4054


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

references:
<1d9gt25b5nnuc5g0b5ckkns5cmq7ps6qbn@4ax.com>	<20070218161006.GA486@alva.mail.gmail.com>	<nr2ht2tcn47l5rd2l0sahlttn6mn4up0ia@4ax.com>
	<45D89AF2.7070006@shaw.ca>

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The problem here is that AfD is working as designed. In my opinion,
>>>there is certainly room for a list of really tall men on wikipedia. It
>>>should however be limited to those who are notable for being tall; which
>>>would mean a lower limit of around 2.40 m, and a smaller list of
>>>"legendary" tall men, whose names are almost synonymous with "giant",
>>>such as Goliath.
>>>
>>>
>>And 2.4m comes from?...  This is the problem.
>>
>>
>It's not like we don't have lots of other arbitrary criteria for
>inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this
>case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably
>objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it. Perhaps the list
>could be divided into a number of sublists with different cutoffs,
>allowing the reader to pick his own preference for what "tall" means?
>It'd be a crude emulation of allowing people's articles to be tagged and
>sorted by height.
>
This is one of those so-what articles.  I would have no interest to go
there in search of information; it's fundamentally useless.  Still, I'm
not about to complain about it, and there are ways of dealing with the
how-tall-is-tall criterion.  There are people who love to play with this
kind of list, and I am glad to see these eager little minds diverted
into harmlessly useless endeavours.  What we end up with is a handful of
old-fashioned school principals who have forgotten their principles and
a bunch of kindergartners who are learning through play.  The rest of us
are learning or teaching somewhere else in the school; we don't directly
give a damn about what's happening in the kindergarten.  For us,
Wikipedia's reputation does not depend on self-righteous principals
suppressing kindergarten activity.  We mostly don't get involved in
specific deletion arguments; that would be too time-consuming.  But we
do resent being assumed to belong to some imagined consensus.

We had a recent thread about Wikipedia's fame as expressed in
webcomics.  I had not taken the time before to view these so I looked at
a sampling of them.  One thing struck me.  The common thread had nothing
to do with the accuracy or reliability of Wikipedia.  Instead, it had
more to do with people making jokes about being blocked or having
material deleted.  It makes me wonder about our priorities.

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Domas describes the status quo. He does describe it well. It does
> however not detract one iota from the usefulness of doing this research.
> Mechanisms are developed that may work at a fraction of our current (ie
> WMF) cost, for the WMF it is irresponsible to be against such a research
> project. It does not matter if you think the VU will succeed or not,
> what matters is that serious effort is put into this endeavour. Just
> wait and watch what will transpire when it does.

Research projects are great; if it goes somewhere eventually that's
super, and if it doesn't that's fine too. :)

Our own resources have to be invested in managing what we know works; we
don't benefit from the flamefests on this list every few months when
someone hears about SETI at home or BitTorrent and thinks it'd be easy to
apply the principle to a wiki so why aren't we doing it we must be
incompetent or wasting money OMG! ;)

Good distributed hosting for large numbers of small, fast-changing
objects like a wiki is not what we might call a "solved problem". If
it's feasible at all, that's something we should leave to researchers
better versed in the field for now.

In the *forseeable* future, we expect the primary web site to continue
to work much as it does now, with central servers and some limited
distribution through centrally-administered proxy caching systems.

We can be more aggressive on other parts of the system, though.

Bulk downloads like data dumps could be done over BitTorrent, but
they're not really a significant overall resource drain.

Media files are half our bandwidth, so that is an area which we can see
gains from.

Once media storage has been rearranged for better versioning stability
(as already specced out) it can be much more aggressively cached,
perhaps through content distribution networks such as Coral in addition
to more traditional centrally-administered proxy caches.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF2KYxwRnhpk1wk44RArJaAJ9a4wWyhH6RV9FTp0sis5ejFe9YggCePn6X
W9H3zYRZECqquPQ3xby6imY=
=j4gb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

references:
<1d9gt25b5nnuc5g0b5ckkns5cmq7ps6qbn@4ax.com>
	<20070218161006.GA486@alva.mail.gmail.com>
	<nr2ht2tcn47l5rd2l0sahlttn6mn4up0ia@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:10:06 +0100, Eugene van der Pijll
> <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>
>> The problem here is that AfD is working as designed. In my opinion,
>> there is certainly room for a list of really tall men on wikipedia. It
>> should however be limited to those who are notable for being tall; which
>> would mean a lower limit of around 2.40 m, and a smaller list of
>> "legendary" tall men, whose names are almost synonymous with "giant",
>> such as Goliath.
>
> And 2.4m comes from?...  This is the problem.

It's not like we don't have lots of other arbitrary criteria for
inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this
case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably
objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it. Perhaps the list
could be divided into a number of sublists with different cutoffs,
allowing the reader to pick his own preference for what "tall" means?
It'd be a crude emulation of allowing people's articles to be tagged and
sorted by height.

(And now for my own personal venting of frustration, since that's the
thread's subject; yesterday I wanted to find out some information about
that "Charlie the Unicorn" cartoon that's been popular on the net for
the past few months. A Google search provides an endless list of links
to the animation itself with no easy way to find what I actually want to
know. A Wikipedia search, on the other hand, provided me exactly what I
wanted and a whole bunch more - but only because someone had been
repeatedly recreating the deleted article under different names at that
moment. It looked like a reasonable and fancruft-free article to me but
AfD has spoken and the subject has been salted.)


from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still blocked,
	nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
2007/2/18, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>:
>
> As you can see the Dutch mods have done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. And people
> here say I have NO reason to be angry!

No, we are saying that being angry and yelling does not help you. Which I
think this is quite a bit of evidence of.

Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.

Don't let the door hit you when you leave.

Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
> refusing to do anything.

As I said to you in private already, make a specific proposal as to what you
would like to see changed. Then we have something to talk about.

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


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] One week later and I am still blocked,
 nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
geni schreef:
> On 2/18/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>> As you can see the Dutch mods have done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. And people
>> here say I have NO reason to be angry!
>>
>> I have written over a 1000 articles to the wikipedia and now I am not
>> able to edit them. I am raging in anger.
>>
>> Here is a screenshot I took today:
>>
>> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8069/stillblocked1cv4.jpg
>>
>> Sofar for EVERYONE can edit. I am not even a vandal. And people tell me
>> to calm down. It has been TWO WEEKS now! And NO FUCKING BODY is doing
>> anything at all.
>>
>> Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
>>
>> Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
>> refusing to do anything.
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>>
>>
>
> You haven't told us the IP so there isn't really every much that can
> be done about it
Hoi,
Waerth chooses to be rude and disruptive to the extend that he literally
wishes that all Dutch mods are to drop dead. I am glad that I will
survive this ordeal by not being a Dutch Wikipedia moderator... Given
that Waerth is his own worst enemy and given that he states that he is
leaving, I wish he does. He may be back if he wants to, but I wish for
the nl.wikipedia community that when he does come back, it will be with
a modified attitude.
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Brainstorming: Donation appeal

body:
On 2/18/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> The fundraising link is the status quo, and generating significant
> monthly donations (which, yes, are very much needed as the above
> reports show). I am only asking for ideas to change it, not for a
> debate about fundamentals.

Hi Erik,
  I didn't mean to challenge the status quo, I was just looking for an
explanation of what we're asking for money for. Thanks for the links.

Steve


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 2/18/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Have you been paying attention lately; our costs and our traffic are
> growing exponentially. We do not have a rosy balance sheet as it is.
> Users will be extremely unhappy when we are not able to continue to
> provide our service.

Costs are growing exponentially, but so is income.  Wikipedia has
enough money to continue operations.  It's not going to disappear due
to hardware costs, as a board member has recently stated:
<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027762.html>.
 Notice the emphasis on needing to get more money, not needing to use
cheaper hardware.

If you think that a SETI at home-style computing model for a high-load
webpage-serving application is practicable, could you point to a
single example of anyone pulling this off successfully?  Specifically,
concerns over trustworthiness (how do we stop agents from putting ads
or other content on their copies?) and latency (needs to be routed
through extra servers) appear insuperable.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

body:
On 17/02/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:

> Moderators, please consider putting this person on moderation. I do
> not see how posts such as the one quoted improve the level of
> conversation in this forum.

It's definitely not our job to fix injured sensibilities. I strongly
suggest you both play nicer.

- d.


body:
On 2/18/07, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:
> Links from article namespace into other namespaces are EVIL.

So you reject links to categories as well, presumably. And
disambiguation links to mediawiki and wikipedia namespaces?

> MediaWiki introduced namespaces in order to separate content and content
> management. Portals are content management not core content themselves.

This is not an argument against linking from one space to another. If
you're worried about downstream content reusers, the easy solution is
to use a template like {{selfref}} to indicate that a link is not part
of the encyclopaedic content.

> Now imagine a Wikipedia DVD with lots of strange links into other namespaces.
> I certainly want a DVD that does not contain the online Wikipedia specific
> portal pages (which contain things such as news, calls for reviews and not et
> existing articles).

There's a huge amount of processing that needs to be done before we
could put out a top quality Wikipedia DVD. Stripping out
cross-namespace links is the least of our worries.

> So BURN all portal links in article namespace NOW. Portals are useful but not
> everyhwere.

Um, as pointed out, currently there aren't any. Or are you talking
about fr and other languages?

Steve


body:
On 2/18/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much,
> consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than
> a power of 2?
>
> Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on
> moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between
> uses and abuses of email.

He was on moderation (and still is). I let the 8 messages through on
the basis that none is particularly uncivil, and people are entitled
to one rant here. I advise him to calm down now though.

Steve


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] all of my edits are
	copyrightviolations

body:
Walter van Kalken schreef:
> All of my edits are a copyrightviolation of books in my posession. All
> texts were literally copied and because of that all of my edits on
> wikipedia and pictures I added should be removed immediately as they are
> in violation of the GFDL. Also all of my sources seem to be non
> reputable and non trustworthy so many falsehoods consist in these edits.
>
> Since I am blocked from editting the mistakes myself the foundation
> should do better and delete all of my edits.
>
> Waerth/Walter
Hoi,
You are pathetic.
Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: Anthere

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
> As you can see the Dutch mods have done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. And people
> here say I have NO reason to be angry!
>
> I have written over a 1000 articles to the wikipedia and now I am not
> able to edit them. I am raging in anger.
>
> Here is a screenshot I took today:
>
> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8069/stillblocked1cv4.jpg
>
> Sofar for EVERYONE can edit. I am not even a vandal. And people tell me
> to calm down. It has been TWO WEEKS now! And NO FUCKING BODY is doing
> anything at all.
>
> Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
>
> Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
> refusing to do anything.

You're welcome.

Ant


from_name: Francis Tyers

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still blocked,
	nobody is	doing a fucking thing

body:
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 12:57 +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> To put this thing to something that actually belongs on foundation-l: I
> would favor repealing the foundation policy that open proxies are blocked.
>
> My reasons are:
> * Main reason for the policy is that there is no reason for editing
> Wikipedia from a proxy. I disagree, seeing already three;
> ** Editing on subjects where one could get problems for writing from a
> searching POV and/or NPOV
> ** People who always use a proxy for extra anonymity and have to switch it
> off to work on Wikipedia now
> ** Cases like Waerth who are automatically sent through an anonymous proxy
> by their provider
> * Large-scale vandalism using many proxies does occur, but is rare enough
> that blocking the proxies when they are being used for vandalism is no big
> issue.
>

Do you get that much vandalism from Thailand using open proxies? If not
then why not just not block open proxies in Thailand?

Fran


body:
On 18/02/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> * Main reason for the policy is that there is no reason for editing
> Wikipedia from a proxy. I disagree, seeing already three;

In practice, the main reason is that they're an overwhelming source of
vandalism and crap.

c.f. Tor - nice idea, pity about what actually comes in through it.

- d.


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still
	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

references:
<45D1DDB6.7000907@vankalken.net>
	<45D1DFD8.3060200@fourkitchens.com> <45D1E220.8090601@vankalken.net>
	<48502b480702130844h26e914bdn81e14fe0aa26b5b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqvfrs$aul$1@sea.gmane.org> <45D81031.3000306@vankalken.net>
	<er9bdq$l1a$1@sea.gmane.org> <45D833CC.705@vankalken.net>

body:
Hoi,
We may start caring when you stop ranting and raving. They shoot horses
don't they ?
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 2/18/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
> >>
> >>Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
> >>refusing to do anything.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You're welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> I am happy to see that as the chairwoman of the foundation you take your
> responsibility for foundationpolicies which keep editors blocked so
> seriously. I had expected better from you.
>
> Wikipedia:Anyone can edit .......yes as long as you do not life outside
> of the western countries in a country where ISP's force you into
> proxies. And the foundation in it's arrogance doesn't give rats ass. Oh
> how noble. What is worse me ranting or the foundation not caring?
>
> Waerth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] One week later and I am still
	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

body:
> This is true. However, a poll organized somewhere
No it might not. One of the reasons why the Committee for language was born
is that we are all tired of bogus voting made by calling up on meta
everyone's cousins, sisters and pet dogs. It's all people that NEVER ever
edited a single line on a wiki and simply enjoy wasting our time.

So no more crap on meta. You want to change Ro.wiki, so:
1) You (or someone else, that's your choice) go to ro.wiki and organize
whatever will suit ro.wiki as a vote for registered users with a minimum of
edits (say 1000, definitely no less than this, because otherwise we simply
will NOT believe that the vote is not bogus)
2) You propose a detailed plan about making ro.wiki fully bi-scripted and
ask for a mandate as an official technical representative for this matter
3) RO.wiki defines a tech representative who will explain us what warranties
ro.wiki will give about minority POVs to be duly represented (as minorities,
if and when they are such)

Unless you do THIS, it's no point for the both of you to come back here with
this issue.

> would at least sensitize the Romanian Wikipedia community
You mean you DO send us all tons of emails and never even cared to tell the
Romanians about your will to turn their edition upside down, right??????

So, as it turns out:
1) You don't have time to ask ISO why there's a MO code (requested by the
Moldavians, who did not ask for a RO_MO code, as they could have done, if
they were "good patriots" in your perception),
2) You do not have the time to ask the Romanians whether they want you in or
not,
3) You gracefully DO have the time to flood this list in order to impose
your will over the Romanian community.

Fantastic. Have my best compliments for your open arrogance about it.

YOU have all those online forms and international campaigns. Go use them on
the Romanians and pls, DO find the time to let us know how many Romanian F*
OFFs you get as an answer. Bogdan Giusca knows all about lobbying, so ask
HIM. I am serious and deadly upset, take my word on it.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am
 still	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
Hoi,
You may be angry. But it does not help you a bit when you have to rely
on others to help you. When people tell you to drop dead, would you help
them out ? When it comes to arrogance, your idea that we should be
willing to suffer your verbal diarrhoea and help you is insane. Consider
that Tim Starling made changes on your behalf and I have not even
noticed that you thanked him for it...

The world does not resolve around you. It must be frustrating for you
but people increasingly care less about you. When you continue like
this, I expect you will be on moderation on the mailing lists in the
near future.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Walter van Kalken schreef:
> So the victim for over a year of a policy cannot be angry. This is
> typical BIG COMPANY arrogance, I see it has now come to the wiki-projects.
>
> Waerth
>
>
>> Hoi,
>> We may start caring when you stop ranting and raving. They shoot horses
>> don't they ?
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 2/18/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
>>>>> refusing to do anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am happy to see that as the chairwoman of the foundation you take your
>>> responsibility for foundationpolicies which keep editors blocked so
>>> seriously. I had expected better from you.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia:Anyone can edit .......yes as long as you do not life outside
>>> of the western countries in a country where ISP's force you into
>>> proxies. And the foundation in it's arrogance doesn't give rats ass. Oh
>>> how noble. What is worse me ranting or the foundation not caring?
>>>
>>> Waerth


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] One week later and I am
 still	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing


from_name: zetawoof

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rx Dosage Instructions in Wikipedia

body:
On 2/18/07, George Chriss <GChriss at psu.edu> wrote:
> If the AMA does provide such recommendations...

The best source to cite here would be the [[Physicians' Desk
Reference]] or, alternatively, the manufacturer's package insert for
the medication (which is the same thing). I don't think the AMA
generally makes recommendations on dosage; the manufacturers are
generally the ones that figure that out.


body:
2007/2/18, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>:
>
> As you can see the Dutch mods have done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. And people
> here say I have NO reason to be angry!
>

I have been at the discussion with Effeietsanders on the Dutch IRC channel,
and I must say that by now I am as angry as Waerth is.

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


from_name: Artur Fijałkowski

body:
Anybody can briefly tell me what's going on?

Why IP numbers aren't blocked for creating accounts and for anonymous users
only?

AJF/WarX


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
I am very frustrated.

We have on Wikipedia a list with the following selection criteria:

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

This is a list of notable tall men, starting at 198 cm (6 ft 6 in). In
several cases these men were among the tallest in their profession,
their province, or nation.

The concept of "what is tall" can vary by average height of any given
population. In the United States the highest percentile of height
given by the FAA is the 99th percentile, which is 75.2 inches or
approximately 191 centimetres.[1] Pediatricians place tall stature at
2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean for age and gender.[2][3]
In adult males this begins at around 192 cm. An additional 6 cm is
added to this second figure due to height variation and to assure that
comparative tallness is a part of the individuals notability or
significance.

Note: Names placed in this list must have their height be a part of
their fame or significance. As basketball players are noted as having
above average height this means they will need to be taller than the
cut-off point in order to be notable as tall. Exceptions to this is
members of the Philippine Basketball Association, as heights above 213
cm are essentially unheard of in their league, and early twentieth
century basketball players as they lived in an era where player height
was much smaller.

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

Tall is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally
verifiable definition.  After five or six deletion debates, no
consensus third-party definition of tall has been produced.  Average
height is increasing over time so the list naturally favours
contemporary figures.  Average height varies by country, so this list
favours Western (and especially Dutch) figures.  Average height varies
by ethnicity, so this list works against Vietnamese and Japanese, to
name but two.  We don't have a place in here for Edward I
("Longshanks"), whose height is an integral part of his notability,
because he's below the arbitrary criterion.  The height has changed
from 6'3" to 6'7" and up and down, based primarily on the size of the
resulting list, not any objective definition of tall.  We have to take
special measures (i.e. additional arbitrary criteria) to stop it
simply being a list of basketball players, which it more or less
became.

To me this list exemplifies all that is worst about the worst
Wikipedia lists.  The definition of tall is original research, the
selection of tall and men is indiscriminate anyway, the list has no
evident utility, is systemically biased in numerous ways.  We might as
well have [[List of stuff I like]] and leave it at that.

Compare with another list:

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

This list provides a guide to the most important opera composers, as
determined by their presence on a majority of compiled lists of
significant opera composers. (See the "Lists Consulted" section for
full details.) The composers run from Jacopo Peri, who wrote the first
ever opera in late 16th century Italy, to John Adams, one of the
leading figures in the contemporary operatic world. The brief
accompanying notes offer an explanation as to why each composer has
been considered major. Also included is a section about major women
opera composers, compiled from the same lists. For an introduction to
operatic history, see Opera. The organisation of the list is by
birthdate.

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

Here we have a list explicitly based on external criteria.  The list
has objective validity, and evident utility in identifying the most
significant composers in a particular genre.  Sadly we also have the
tacked-on section of "major women opera composers", of whom there are,
according to the sources, none at all, which was added in order to
appease a soapboxing editor who was absolutely determined to add a
composer whose work is published by his company.  It was asserted that
the lack of women was "systemic bias".  No, it's more that opera is
ludicrously expensive to produce, and for most of its history women
composers were vanishingly rare anyway.

Sadly, although we managed to delete the list of tall me once, that
was sent back to AfD and there is no consensus to delete it.  No
consensus in this case means that there is no clear majority of !votes
- policy and guidelines (which reflect a much wider consensus) are
that we do not have original research, and there is no credible
rebuttal of the assertion that the list of tall men is based on just
that.

OK, now I'll get off my soapbox.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
2007/2/18, Artur Fija?kowski <wiki.warx at gmail.com>:
>
> Anybody can briefly tell me what's going on?
>
> Why IP numbers aren't blocked for creating accounts and for anonymous
> users\
>
only?
>

Well, I just got an explanation for that:
1. Official foundation policy is that open proxies are blocked
2. Any change from that should work and have no negative consequences
3. This change does not work because people in countries with these IP still
cannot work on WikipediaNL
4. This change has the negative side effect that people can create a
sockpuppet and use an open IP to edit from their sock puppet, which makes
sock puppets less easy to detect.

Do I agree with this? No. But I'm not a sysop, so my voice don't count. And
if I were a sysop, probably anything I do would be considered wheel warring,
with me voluntarily giving up sysop powers being the most likely outcome.

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


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
On 2/18/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter van Kalken schreef:
> > All of my edits are a copyrightviolation of books in my posession. All
> > texts were literally copied and because of that all of my edits on
> > wikipedia and pictures I added should be removed immediately as they are
> > in violation of the GFDL. Also all of my sources seem to be non
> > reputable and non trustworthy so many falsehoods consist in these edits.
> >
> > Since I am blocked from editting the mistakes myself the foundation
> > should do better and delete all of my edits.
> >
> > Waerth/Walter
> Hoi,
> You are pathetic.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The best way to get rid of those kinds of posts is not reacting to them.

Bryan


body:
To put this thing to something that actually belongs on foundation-l: I
would favor repealing the foundation policy that open proxies are blocked.

My reasons are:
* Main reason for the policy is that there is no reason for editing
Wikipedia from a proxy. I disagree, seeing already three;
** Editing on subjects where one could get problems for writing from a
searching POV and/or NPOV
** People who always use a proxy for extra anonymity and have to switch it
off to work on Wikipedia now
** Cases like Waerth who are automatically sent through an anonymous proxy
by their provider
* Large-scale vandalism using many proxies does occur, but is rare enough
that blocking the proxies when they are being used for vandalism is no big
issue.

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


body:
2007/2/18, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>:
>
> 2007/2/18, Artur Fija?kowski <wiki.warx at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Anybody can briefly tell me what's going on?
> >
> > Why IP numbers aren't blocked for creating accounts and for anonymous
> > users\
> >
> only?
> >
>
> Well, I just got an explanation for that:
> 1. Official foundation policy is that open proxies are blocked

* Why for logged in users?

2. Any change from that should work and have no negative consequences
> 3. This change does not work because people in countries with these IP
> still
> cannot work on WikipediaNL
> 4. This change has the negative side effect that people can create a
> sockpuppet and use an open IP to edit from their sock puppet, which makes
> sock puppets less easy to detect.

* where is 'Assume good faith' ?

Do I agree with this? No. But I'm not a sysop, so my voice don't count. And
> if I were a sysop, probably anything I do would be considered wheel
> warring,
> with me voluntarily giving up sysop powers being the most likely outcome.

* Always thought that  sysops are for helping Wikimedians not only banning
:(

And what about explicity using normal proxy? If we do not accept
X-Forwarded-For it should bypass ban on 'invisible' proxy of the provider...

AJF/WarX


body:
2007/2/18, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net>:

> Do you get that much vandalism from Thailand using open proxies? If not
> then why not just not block open proxies in Thailand?
>

Question one I do not know. Question two is because it is policy to block
open proxies. And the reason we block open proxies is that:
* it is foundation policy
* people who use proxies usually do this to avoid being blocked. It is never
necessary to use open proxies to edit Wikipedia
* people who standard work from an open proxy, know how to disable it

At least, that's what I read from a discussion at IRC and the Dutch
Wikipedia page about the policy. The sysop who actually does the blocking
has not said anything about the issue yet.

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


from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed content hosting

body:
> Users will be somewhat unhappy if all of Wikipedia goes down and never
> comes back. Users will be *much more* unhappy if Wikipedia continues to
> operate but is extremely slow, unreliable, and often down.

"Somewhat unhappy"? Come on dude. I mean, seriously.

On 2/18/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Users will be extremely unhappy when we are not able to continue to
> > provide our service.
>
> Users will be somewhat unhappy if all of Wikipedia goes down and never
> comes back. Users will be *much more* unhappy if Wikipedia continues to
> operate but is extremely slow, unreliable, and often down.
>
> > Why would a node that is close by be dead ??
>
> Because people tend to turn off their own computers whenever they want
> to. And because computers sometimes crash, or Internet connections go
> down.
>
> > NB when our customers find the argument "it's cheaper for us" not a good
> > one, they have to realise that they are not paying customers.
>
> (Note that I didn't use the word "customer".)
>
> Timwi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still blocked,
 nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
Walter van Kalken schreef:
>> At least, that's what I read from a discussion at IRC and the Dutch
>> Wikipedia page about the policy. The sysop who actually does the blocking
>> has not said anything about the issue yet.
>>
>>
>>
>
> And that sysop has a history of never ever answering any questions.
>
> Waerth
Hoi,
Actually that sysop has a history of ignoring abuse and abusive people.
Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
George Chriss wrote:
> If the AMA does provide such recommendations.  Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.

Seems to me that having people trust information from Wikipedia about
drug dosages at face value _at all_ is the scary prospect. I wouldn't
bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against
outside sources first, whether the article's history showed vandalism or
not. We already have medical disclaimers specifically intended to cover
this, IMO we shouldn't have to go to great lengths to protect idiots
against themselves.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

references:
<1d9gt25b5nnuc5g0b5ckkns5cmq7ps6qbn@4ax.com>
	<20070218161006.GA486@alva.mail.gmail.com>
	<nr2ht2tcn47l5rd2l0sahlttn6mn4up0ia@4ax.com> <45D89AF2.7070006@shaw.ca>
	<or7ht2l2icej8vvroklvl3p480cvb7qiql@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:29:06 -0700, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> It's not like we don't have lots of other arbitrary criteria for
>> inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this
>> case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably
>> objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it.
>
> OK, so try this:
<snip list of various situations where someone may be notable for their
height while not being very tall in absolute terms - not disagreeing
with any of these possibilites, just saving space>

> So: the list is completely arbitrary in that it excludes many who are
> notable for their height while including many who are just - well,
> tall.

Well, so what? The list's criteria are based on _absolute_ height, not
_relative_ height, and as long as this is pointed out explicitly in the
description of the list I don't see the problem. We've got a list of the
largest asteroids in absolute terms too.

If you're concerned enough about the lack of recognition for tall
ballerinas, pygmys, and such, you're free to create another list titled
something along the lines of [[List of tallest people by profession]],
[[List of tallest people by ethnicity]], or [[List of tallest people by
century]], or whatever. Those can all have explicit criteria spelled out
in their descriptions that take these sorts of things into account. This
can even help ameliorate your objection about the existing list's fudge
rule, by having a ''See: [[list of tallest basketball players]]'' in the
main list; it's common practice to split out specialized articles to
relieve clutter in general articles.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still
	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
Hmmm... Now I see I sent this to wikipedia-l, not foundation-l. Those
interested can read the discussion there. I'm getting as angry as Waerth,
almost...

To put this thing to something that actually belongs on foundation-l: I
would favor repealing the foundation policy that open proxies are blocked.

My reasons are:
* Main reason for the policy is that there is no reason for editing
Wikipedia from a proxy. I disagree, seeing already three;
** Editing on subjects where one could get problems for writing from a
searching POV and/or NPOV
** People who always use a proxy for extra anonymity and have to switch it
off to work on Wikipedia now
** Cases like Waerth who are automatically sent through an anonymous proxy
by their provider
* Large-scale vandalism using many proxies does occur, but is rare enough
that blocking the proxies when they are being used for vandalism is no big
issue.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
geni wrote:
> You haven't told us the IP so there isn't really every much that can
> be done about it
>

I didn't really expect to get that level of cooperation out of him, so on
Wednesday when I was fixing this, I just looked up his IP addresses in the
recentchanges table (i.e. the checkuser data). Unfortunately there was no
obvious IP range that the ISP was using for proxies, so it's entirely
possible I missed some. I'll do another search of the logs now and see if
I can find some more proxies. Unfortunately given his present mood, it
will be rather difficult to tell whether I've found them all. Maybe I
should try to make contact with a calmer representative of the Thai
Wikipedian community. It's not really fair on them to leave this as it is
just because Waerth is being so unhelpful.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: George Chriss

body:
Hi all,

Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on prescription drugs?  I generally remove the following sections on sight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazepam#Dosagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimipramine#Dosagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromazepam#Dosage

Even with a general site disclaimer, the above information may be non-encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a doctor, a pharmacist, a drug buddy, the FDA, or an informational insert packaged with prescription drugs.  Wikipedia is simply a bad place to get medical advice.  A section done well, however:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Dosage
Please let me know what you think, or any links to pre-existing discussion.
Thanks, George
en: [[User:GChriss]]


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> I wonder if you think the same thing when someone dies because they trusted
> the info.

Why wouldn't I? I'd feel bad for them and their survivors, but the fact
that they actually went ahead and did something that I considered to be
an idiotic thing doesn't change my opinion of how idiotic it was to do
it. If anything it reinforces my opinion.

We've got information about the composition of thermite, too. Should we
remove it in case someone tries making some and burns his house down?

> There's so many different ways to dose medicine that there's not one
> all-inclusive dose.
> If we can't include one reliable dose, we shouldn't include any at all.

This sort of caveat should be mentioned right in the article itself. A
range of typical doses is still useful and interesting information.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
The tallest true pygmy belongs on that list, see below for a comment on opera.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman at spamcop.net]
>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 05:45 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated
>
>I am very frustrated.
>
>We have on Wikipedia a list with the following selection criteria:
>
>-----------------
>
>This is a list of notable tall men, starting at 198 cm (6 ft 6 in). In
>several cases these men were among the tallest in their profession,
>their province, or nation.
>
>The concept of "what is tall" can vary by average height of any given
>population. In the United States the highest percentile of height
>given by the FAA is the 99th percentile, which is 75.2 inches or
>approximately 191 centimetres.[1] Pediatricians place tall stature at
>2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean for age and gender.[2][3]
>In adult males this begins at around 192 cm. An additional 6 cm is
>added to this second figure due to height variation and to assure that
>comparative tallness is a part of the individuals notability or
>significance.
>
>Note: Names placed in this list must have their height be a part of
>their fame or significance. As basketball players are noted as having
>above average height this means they will need to be taller than the
>cut-off point in order to be notable as tall. Exceptions to this is
>members of the Philippine Basketball Association, as heights above 213
>cm are essentially unheard of in their league, and early twentieth
>century basketball players as they lived in an era where player height
>was much smaller.
>
>-----------------
>
>Tall is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally
>verifiable definition.  After five or six deletion debates, no
>consensus third-party definition of tall has been produced.  Average
>height is increasing over time so the list naturally favours
>contemporary figures.  Average height varies by country, so this list
>favours Western (and especially Dutch) figures.  Average height varies
>by ethnicity, so this list works against Vietnamese and Japanese, to
>name but two.  We don't have a place in here for Edward I
>("Longshanks"), whose height is an integral part of his notability,
>because he's below the arbitrary criterion.  The height has changed
>from 6'3" to 6'7" and up and down, based primarily on the size of the
>resulting list, not any objective definition of tall.  We have to take
>special measures (i.e. additional arbitrary criteria) to stop it
>simply being a list of basketball players, which it more or less
>became.
>
>To me this list exemplifies all that is worst about the worst
>Wikipedia lists.  The definition of tall is original research, the
>selection of tall and men is indiscriminate anyway, the list has no
>evident utility, is systemically biased in numerous ways.  We might as
>well have [[List of stuff I like]] and leave it at that.
>
>Compare with another list:
>
>-----------------
>
>This list provides a guide to the most important opera composers, as
>determined by their presence on a majority of compiled lists of
>significant opera composers. (See the "Lists Consulted" section for
>full details.) The composers run from Jacopo Peri, who wrote the first
>ever opera in late 16th century Italy, to John Adams, one of the
>leading figures in the contemporary operatic world. The brief
>accompanying notes offer an explanation as to why each composer has
>been considered major. Also included is a section about major women
>opera composers, compiled from the same lists. For an introduction to
>operatic history, see Opera. The organisation of the list is by
>birthdate.
>
>-----------------
>
>Here we have a list explicitly based on external criteria.  The list
>has objective validity, and evident utility in identifying the most
>significant composers in a particular genre.  Sadly we also have the
>tacked-on section of "major women opera composers", of whom there are,
>according to the sources, none at all, which was added in order to
>appease a soapboxing editor who was absolutely determined to add a
>composer whose work is published by his company.  It was asserted that
>the lack of women was "systemic bias".  No, it's more that opera is
>ludicrously expensive to produce, and for most of its history women
>composers were vanishingly rare anyway.
>
>Sadly, although we managed to delete the list of tall me once, that
>was sent back to AfD and there is no consensus to delete it.  No
>consensus in this case means that there is no clear majority of !votes
>- policy and guidelines (which reflect a much wider consensus) are
>that we do not have original research, and there is no credible
>rebuttal of the assertion that the list of tall men is based on just
>that.
>
>OK, now I'll get off my soapbox.
>
>Guy (JzG)

The opera case was a hard fought arbitration case, mostly over the absence of women on the list. Sources were demanded and provided. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau

Fred


body:
...

Waerth, for two hours this morning I spoke with you and with dutch
people to try to sort it out, even try to solve the problem, you keep
insulting people...

What's the point? I try to do what I can, peacefully, and you you
insults everyone.
You're angry? Fine, but this is more than useless as long as your
insults are annoying people who would have helped you...

The funny thing is I'm pretty sure if you said "please" "I apologize"
"I'm sorry" instead of "fuck" more people would have helped you.

--
schiste


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/17/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >>There is no such consensus.  The RfA system works for you because you
> >>use it, as do all the others who participate.  There are far more people
> >>who just wash their hands of it, and just limit their activities to
> >>some narrow topic.
> >>
> >>
> >On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that
> >decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy
> >decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins
> >has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep
> >things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal
> >might gain approval, but none have so far.
> >
> I made no mention of referenda.  Your highly questionable interpretation
> of "consensus" should probably have the words "at that time" added to
> it.  In many of these decisions the attitude is, "If you didn't know the
> discussion was going on, too bad, you've forfeited your right to
> participate anyway."
>
> It's no wonder that any attempts at improving admin selection are
> rejected.  Those who have a vested interest in the way things are, or
> who participate regularly in the RfA cabal keep a close watch on the
> current rules.  Those who would like improvement include many who
> consider the present state of things hopeless, and thus never bother
> looking there.  If a good rule change is proposed they simply don't know
> about it, even if there are more of them.  Any suggestion that the
> decision making process that happens there is consensus is a load of crap.
>
> Ec

And, this, to me, is the biggest problems with admins on Wikipedia, it is a
BIG deal, it's such a big deal, that no one who has ever attained it should
ever have it removed--according to the lucky few who've managed to convince
their peers that they're just like them.    Adminship is given by people who
spend most of their time on the web to others just like them, outsiders need
never apply.  So, is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia that anyone can edit
(the best idea of its time), or is it a private club for people who spend
all their time editing Wikipedia?  It's the latter, now, and that will
always be the entrenched ownership of Wikipedia: a small group of
like-minded people who spend a lot of time online, people who,
realistically, cannot be the experts or best editors for the bulk of general
Wikipedia articles, because they don't go to libraries, they only use online
resources, they don't know how to access resources not found in cyberspace,
which is not currently the depository of all knowledge.

There is no willingness or ability to de-admin someone because in order to
jump through all the necessary hoops, one has to be one of the editors who
is like the ownership cabal: living in cyberspace, and these people would
never risk their own future chance to join the exaulted ranks just to take
down an administrator who does things that could get a regular editor
permanently banned from Wikipedia.

Adminship on Wikipedia is too special, too elitist, too permanent--have the
right number of edits and move directly to tenure, do whatever you want
afterwards.  Editors know how to admin shop--if you have a certain bias and
want an article to stay with your bias, there's just the perfect admin to
take it to, instead of requests for protection, if you are one of the many
Wikipedia editors with nationalistic agendas, you can admin-shop to make
sure your agenda is well-represented.

If it's really no big deal, it shouldn't be handed out like it is a big
deal, with the knowledge that it's permanent, that you've achieved status,
that you can do whatever you want, that you can now protect the pages you
want to make certain that your POV is locked in.

I think that people underestimate the real damage being done to Wikipedia by
the way admins are chosen, given absolute power, made an elite class, and
given tenure the instant they pick up the tools.  Yet, essentially there is
no way to desysop a bad administrator at Wikipedia, because being an admin
at Wikipedia IS a very big deal.  The RfA process is a big deal, your status
at Wikipedia when given admin tools is a big deal, your ability to keep that
power no matter that you do things that would get an ordinary editor, the
common, banned, is a big deal, and your ability to manipulate Wikipedia to
suit your agenda is a big deal.

Ec is correct, there is no consensus, besides that which the ownership of
Wikipedia by the cyber-living has already established.  At some point, imo,
it has to be decided, is Wikipedia a general online encyclopedia that
anybody can edit, or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of
people who live in cyberspace?  Because this latter group is none too fond
of the anybodies of the world.

KP


body:
> * Why for logged in users?
I agree. If I give you my login then it means I already did all I could to identify myself, and the rest is beyond my control.

Someone MAY steal my password, that's true, but then you can have (for example) a once-a-week email sent to me with the list of my edits, if I login from behind an open-proxy.

Besides, anyone can be stolen his/her password, even when they do NOT use an open proxy.

B?rto ?d S?ra
Personagi dl?ann 2006 p?r l?arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti voj?otri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> You haven't told us the IP so there isn't really every much that can
>>> be done about it
>>>
>>
>> I didn't really expect to get that level of cooperation out of him, so on
>> Wednesday when I was fixing this, I just looked up his IP addresses in the
>> recentchanges table (i.e. the checkuser data). Unfortunately there was no
>> obvious IP range that the ISP was using for proxies, so it's entirely
>> possible I missed some. I'll do another search of the logs now and see if
>> I can find some more proxies. Unfortunately given his present mood, it
>> will be rather difficult to tell whether I've found them all. Maybe I
>> should try to make contact with a calmer representative of the Thai
>> Wikipedian community. It's not really fair on them to leave this as it is
>> just because Waerth is being so unhelpful.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> I'll add that I do not think Tim should spend hours looking for an
> information, when someone has this information at hand and could save
> him (and consequently the whole project) time to do other tasks which
> are also much needed.

It's alright, it's done now. I found another 18 proxies and increased my
knowledge of awk along the way.

function inrange(s) {
        split(s, ip, ".")
        return (ip[1] == 61 && ip[2] == 91 && ip[3] >= 160 && ip[3] <= 191) ||
                (ip[1] == 203 && ip[2] == 144 && ip[3] >= 128 && ip[3] <= 144)
}

inrange($5) {
        printf("%-20s %s\n", $5, $13)
}

I ran a gigabyte of access logs through it and sorted the output, only
took about a minute. Awk is quite a neat language, maybe we should rewrite
MediaWiki in it ;)

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikitech-l] An RSS extension I'd like to see

body:
> > So you reject links to categories as well, presumably. And
> > disambiguation links to mediawiki and wikipedia namespaces?
>
> I was waiting for this answer.
>
> A [[Category:Foobar]] link can *easily* be stripped out of the text. In every
> stage of the artice it is clear that it cannot be embedded into text (just
> because it is always displayed outside the text) so none will come to the
> idea making removal of a category hard ([[:category:foobar]] is something
> different and is evil in articles).

I was talking about [[:Category:...]] links. Since we were talking
about "evil" links across namespaces. Let's take an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_Connecticut

Note the links:
* See also: Category:Villages in Connecticut

This is obviously a useful link. It takes the user to a dynamic,
always-up-to-date list of every article in Wikipedia that is about a
village in Connecticut. There's nothing remotely "evil" about it.

Here's another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ski_areas
The category links effectively tell the reader "this page may not be
up to date. click here for a guaranteed up to date list".

> > This is not an argument against linking from one space to another. If
> > you're worried about downstream content reusers, the easy solution is
> > to use a template like {{selfref}} to indicate that a link is not part
> > of the encyclopaedic content.
>
> I am not interested in inventing yet another meta content template. It is hard
> enough handling the existing ones (like navigation bars and this is a $foobar
> stub and foobar-display-problems) already.

How does "use a template like {{selfref}}" equate to "invent yet
another meta content template"?

> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Sonnensystem. Also cross
> wiki links in articles about Wikipedia itself are a common problem. They
> should be done as usual weblinks also in order to reflect distance to
> oneself.

Wait, so now it's ok to make links to articles about Wikipedia, as
long as they're formatted as [http:// ] links rather than [[ ]] links.
And yet you really don't want to use templates? You're clearly trying
to encode a semantic distinction ("distance to oneself"), so why not
use a semantic template?

Steve


body:
Hi,

I agree that providing well-sourced "typical amounts" (perhaps with a historical perspective?) is useful information.  That is not an issue.  Here is an abstract from [[Trimipramine]] without a citation:

"The recommended initial dose is 75 mg daily in two or three divided
doses. Initial tolerance may be tested by giving the patient 25 mg on
the evening of the first day...."

Which would be better written:

"The American Medical Association recommends a dosage of 75mg for the treatment of acute <whatever> without complications.^A"
A) The AMA reference (not rxlist.com)

If the AMA does provide such recommendations.  Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.

Thanks, George
en: [[User:GChriss]]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:02:48 +0000  English Wikipedia  wrote:

On 18/02/07, George Chriss <GChriss at psu.edu> wrote:

> Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on
prescription drugs?  I generally remove the following sections on sight:

Please don't do that. It's useful knowledge to know what dosages are
typically given for what.

e.g. amitryptyline, which has quite different dosages for depression
and for chronic pain relief (and has come into its own for the latter
after SSRIs beat it for the former).

- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] One week later and I am still
 blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.

Is that a threat or a promise?

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