body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >> The reason why our encyclopedias have to be
> >>NPOV is because our audience is a  general one.
> >>The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV
> >>is because our audience is very focused (the
> biology
> >>student, for example) and we need to  bring that
> >>student through the material in a logical and
> efficient
> >>way.
> >
> >No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away
> >NPOV just for the reason the audience is more
> >focused. That has nothing to do.
>
> No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it?
> In the future it would be
> nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of
> others. OK?)

Well, no. Actually, it does not sting. Sorry. I accept
being told I am wrong :-)
As for respect, I had no intention to lack respect to
you. In my mind, saying *here* (on opinion, rather
than facts) "wrong" and "disagreeing" are similar,
except for the fact the second one is tougher to write
:-)
By "wrong" here, I mean "not agreeing". I thought that
was clear. Apologies. All what I will wrote below is
"not agreeing".

> >Logical and efficient is totally compatible with
> >NPOV. What you suggest is "cutting" very
> >important information, that students will later
> >need to make informed decisions. Removing
> >infos is neither logical nor efficient in the long
> >term.
>
> You are confusing a completely liberal education
> with the very real fact that
> most courses are designed to get students through a
> certain /limited/ set of
> material as efficiently as possible. In none, not
> one, of my college
> textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of
> Creationist viewpoints.
> That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a
> college-level biology textbook.
> In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal
> with that subject.

It is your opinion that it is not relevant. It is not
everyone opinion. In France, most biology textbooks
introduce good notions of economics and ethics. They
do not restrict themselves entirely to the tech topic.
I am surprised to read that we have a "completely
liberal education" :-)

And in college books, such as in agronomical
textbooks, all these are certainly included, to quite
a length. Because we learn/practice animal/vegetal
manipulations and experimentation that may be
questionable to some people.

I think I know more of american education than you do
about french education.
In short, there are *no* separate classes that deal
with that subject. Teachings are integrated in a
common class. Did you know that ? Our educational
systems are *very* different. And what you call
irrelevant is for us the basics of our education.
American tend to know very well a little bunch of
topics (for which they are very efficient as soon as
they look for a work), while we learn superficially
many different things, and how to learn about them by
ourselves. This is true at least in the type of
schools I went to :-).

Now, I do not know if british system is nearer than
yours, are nearer than ours. I think the question
deserve to be ask.

I don't say your system or our system is better. Both
have benefits and both drawbacks. But please, do
consider that education systems are not "identical" to
american system. And that english textbooks could
maybe be useable by more than american people.

What I say is just that you should not say "it's
irrelevant. Final point."

I think that it is not good to bluntly say it would
"of course" have not to respect NPOV but DPOV. This is
an important point, which must be discussed together.
The outcome does not appear as much obvious to me as
it seems to you.

Also, before any discussion on this topic, I think the
scope of the project should be better defined. Are we
talking of college textbook or are younger students
also considered ? If these are papers after a while,
how are students gonna learn from mere links to an
online encyclopedia ?

Before you say "well, do whatever you want in french,
and less us deal with english matters", I will just
say that potentially textbooks are a wikipedia wide
project. Right now, all wikipedias have a set of
common rules, such as gfdl, neutrality, collaboration.
We agree *together* on all those rules.

If textbook project is gonna be wikipedia wide, but
each language respect very different rules, because no
initial polite discussion was made on the topic, it
will be detrimental to the project, because it won't
be a common proposition.

I don't think any textbook done along your definition
of what is good, would be any good by french education
standards.
I would certainly not support our educational system
to suggest them to students. Because it does not fit
with our principles.

> >> Same thing is true for a section of a medical
> >> textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the
> >> history and the different political views on the
> >> subject and just talk about the procedure itself
> >> and maybe have a single paragraph at the
> >> end sating something about access to the
> >> procedure and that risks doctors  face when
> >> they choose to specialize in this area.
>
> >I disagree with you Mav.
>
> Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?

And I am not sure that here I am the one showing less
respect to another.

> >By thus doing, we will only propose technical
> >books, cold and disincarnated. That is against
> >what some people consider education is.
>
> Maybe what /you/ consider to be what education is.
> You are more than welcome
> to write liberal education textbooks that treat each
> area taught in a
> comprehensive, inter-disciplinary way. But don't
> stop other people from
> making more technically-focused works since that is
> what actually gets used
> in most college classrooms (at least in the US).

As I said, you seem to be proposing a fork even before
the project has started. Curious.
Well, maybe is it like the sifter projects with kids
censorships. One project for each country. I think we
will be loosing energy and time if we do that.

> Also, most people take /separate/ classes in
> history, science and ethics. So
> the history of the how an element has been used is
> irrelevant to the
> chemistry student taking inorganic chemistry; ALL
> that is relevant to that
> student is is the chemical reactions of the element,
> and its properties and
> placement in the periodic table (of course a nice
> and short intro on why the
> element is important would be a good thing to have
> but not vital to the
> subject matter). The other stuff is optional
> background information that is
> easily found in the element's encyclopedia article.
>
> The goal of an encyclopedia is to present a summary
> of the sum total of all
> human knowledge known about a particular subject.
> The goal of a textbook is
> to focus on one particular part of that knowledge so
> that students can learn
> about that aspect in detail.
>
> We /already/ have a comprehensive resource in the
> encyclopedia for all the
> info about a certain element. Let's not confuse
> encyclopedia articles  with
> textbook entries or otherwise a textbook project
> will not be differentiated
> enough to exist for long if at all.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

you are right. But making links will have no sense
when textbooks are printed.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Goatausaur for sysop

body:
>Dante Alighieri wrote:
>>Isn't it currently the convention to use [[Wikipedia:Requests for
>>adminship]] for this?
>>
>>At 01:09 PM 6/21/2003, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I want to propose Goatasaur to become a sysop. (This is my third attempt.
>>>Two previous attempts ran into technical difficulties!) In my experience
>>>Goatasaur is a competent, serious contributor who would make a extremely
>>>good and effective sysop. It is a pleasure to propose him.
>>>
>>>JT
>>>
Given that I could not get onto wiki without getting error messages, and
when I /did/ get onto wiki, it was so slow it took 26 minutes to open Mav's
talk page (or rather, after 26 minutes I gave up), using
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] was not an option. The only way to make
a nomination was via this route (and even this way involved getting messages
telling me that the wiki-list is a members' only list and I wasn't a
member!!!

JT

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


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] DONATION

body:
--- maryjohn197500 at 444.net wrote:
> My Lordship/Friend, Calvary greetings in the name of
> our Lord Jesus
> Christ, I am former Mrs MATHEW STACY, now Mrs Mary
> John , a widow to Late
> MATHEW STACY. I am 72years old, I am now a new
> Christian convert,suffering
> from long time cancer of the breast. From all
> indications, my condition is
> really deteriorating and is quite obvious that I may
> not live more than
> six months, because the cancer stage has gotten to a
> very severe stage. My
> late husband was killed during the Gulf war, and
> during the period of our
> marriage we had a son who was also killed in a cold
> blood during the Gulf
> war. My late husband was very wealthy and after his
> death, I inherited all
> his business and wealth. My personal physician told
> me that I may not live
> for more than six months and I am so scared about
> this. So, I now decided
> to divide part of this wealth, by contributing to
> the development of
> evangel ism in Africa, America, Europe and Asian
> Countries. This mission
> which will no doubt be tasking had made me to
> recently relocated to
> Nigeria, Africa where I live presently. I selected
> your church after
> visiting the website for this purpose and prayed
> over it, I am willing to
> donate the sum of $6.000,000.00 Million US Dollars
> to your Church/Ministry
> for the development of evangelism and also as aids
> for the less privileged
> around you. Please note that, this fund is lying in
> a Security Company in
> Switzerland and the company has branches, therefore
> my lawyer will file an
> immediate application for the transfer of the money
> in the name of your
> ministry. Please, do not reply me if you have the
> intention of using this
> fund for personal use other than enhancement of
> evangelism. Lastly, I want
> you/your ministry to be praying for me as regards my
> entire life and my
> health because I have come to find out since my
> spiritual birth lately
> that wealth acquisition without Jesus Christ in
> one's life is vanity upon
> vanity. If you have to die says the Lord, keep fit
> and I will give you the
> crown of life. May the Grace of our Lord Jesus
> Christ, the love of God,
> and the sweet fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with
> you. I await your
> urgent reply. Yours in Christ Mrs .MARY JOHN. Christ
> Live Church, Bodija,
> Ibadan, Nigeria. To her [Mary] I entrust you, that
> the New Woman, Mother
> of the Church and of the New Humanity, may be your
> inspiration in the
> discovery of a new feminine identity in the Gospel
> perspective. - John
> Paul II, Sept. 4, 1988

How did spam end up on the list?
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
On 6/22/03 11:22 PM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
>>> The reason why our encyclopedias have to be
>>> NPOV is because our audience is a  general one.
>>> The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV
>>> is because our audience is very focused (the biology
>>> student, for example) and we need to  bring that
>>> student through the material in a logical and efficient
>>> way.
>>
>> No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away
>> NPOV just for the reason the audience is more
>> focused. That has nothing to do.
>
> No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be
> nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)

Mav, you might try remembering English isn't her native language before you
assume she's not showing respect for your opinions.

>> Logical and efficient is totally compatible with
>> NPOV. What you suggest is "cutting" very
>> important information, that students will later
>> need to make informed decisions. Removing
>> infos is neither logical nor efficient in the long
>> term.
>
> You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that
> most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of
> material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college
> textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints.
> That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook.
> In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.

Are there nonserious mentions of Creationist viewpoints?

>>> Same thing is true for a section of a medical
>>> textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the
>>> history and the different political views on the
>>> subject and just talk about the procedure itself
>>> and maybe have a single paragraph at the
>>> end sating something about access to the
>>> procedure and that risks doctors  face when
>>> they choose to specialize in this area.
>
>> I disagree with you Mav.
>
> Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?

Now, that's being rude.

Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly kettle of fish. We even
already have new poorly conceived acronyms.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] DONATION

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>How did spam end up on the list?
>
By e-mail, apparently.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >> The reason why our encyclopedias have to be
> >>NPOV is because our audience is a  general one.
> >>The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV
> >>is because our audience is very focused (the
> biology
> >>student, for example) and we need to  bring that
> >>student through the material in a logical and
> efficient
> >>way.
> >
> >No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away
> >NPOV just for the reason the audience is more
> >focused. That has nothing to do.
>
> No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it?
> In the future it would be
> nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of
> others. OK?)
>
> >Logical and efficient is totally compatible with
> >NPOV. What you suggest is "cutting" very
> >important information, that students will later
> >need to make informed decisions. Removing
> >infos is neither logical nor efficient in the long
> >term.
>
> You are confusing a completely liberal education
> with the very real fact that
> most courses are designed to get students through a
> certain /limited/ set of
> material as efficiently as possible. In none, not
> one, of my college
> textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of
> Creationist viewpoints.
> That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a
> college-level biology textbook.
> In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal
> with that subject.
>
> >> Same thing is true for a section of a medical
> >> textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the
> >> history and the different political views on the
> >> subject and just talk about the procedure itself
> >> and maybe have a single paragraph at the
> >> end sating something about access to the
> >> procedure and that risks doctors  face when
> >> they choose to specialize in this area.
>
> >I disagree with you Mav.
>
> Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?
>
> >By thus doing, we will only propose technical
> >books, cold and disincarnated. That is against
> >what some people consider education is.
>
> Maybe what /you/ consider to be what education is.
> You are more than welcome
> to write liberal education textbooks that treat each
> area taught in a
> comprehensive, inter-disciplinary way. But don't
> stop other people from
> making more technically-focused works since that is
> what actually gets used
> in most college classrooms (at least in the US).
>
> Also, most people take /separate/ classes in
> history, science and ethics. So
> the history of the how an element has been used is
> irrelevant to the
> chemistry student taking inorganic chemistry; ALL
> that is relevant to that
> student is is the chemical reactions of the element,
> and its properties and
> placement in the periodic table (of course a nice
> and short intro on why the
> element is important would be a good thing to have
> but not vital to the
> subject matter). The other stuff is optional
> background information that is
> easily found in the element's encyclopedia article.
>
> The goal of an encyclopedia is to present a summary
> of the sum total of all
> human knowledge known about a particular subject.
> The goal of a textbook is
> to focus on one particular part of that knowledge so
> that students can learn
> about that aspect in detail.
>
> We /already/ have a comprehensive resource in the
> encyclopedia for all the
> info about a certain element. Let's not confuse
> encyclopedia articles  with
> textbook entries or otherwise a textbook project
> will not be differentiated
> enough to exist for long if at all.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

The goal of this textbook certainly isn't to be used.
It is to be a good textbook. Which idea would make a
better textbook, I think, would be the off-topic
mentionings.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote:

>>>I've uploaded the new LanguageFr.php.
>>>(yay! it worked!)
>>>Please could it go live fairly soon, the fr: have been waiting for
>>>their dates to be fixed for several weeks!
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>how many people have the power to move files from the CVS to the test
>>server or the real server?
>>
>>
>
>Only those with ssh access to the server (not everyone marked as a
>developer has ssh access. I don't.). That would be Lee, Brion, Magnus,
>Nick, and the Bomis folks.
>
>
How soon can one of them upload the new LanguageFr.php? It's now in the CVS.

If they are too busy, perhaps we need to give more people access?

I thiiiiiiink, it would be great a french-speaking person does have access one day. Especially a long-time contributor, bilingual to avoid misunderstanding, dedicated, cool-spirited...cough

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030623/dff66be7/attachment.html>


from_name: Nick Reinking

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:11:17AM -0700, Anthere wrote:
>
>
> tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >>>I've uploaded the new LanguageFr.php.
> >>>(yay! it worked!)
> >>>Please could it go live fairly soon, the fr: have been waiting for
> >>>their dates to be fixed for several weeks!

Unfortunately, although I can update LanguageFr.php, I'm not sure of the
update procedures.  If we just copy LanguageFr.php to htdocs*/w/ on
pliny, well, that's easy enough - but I'm not sure if there is some more
complicated procedure that we follow...

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible
> with the GNU FDL.
>
> What say you?

I agree.  But, what is it?  British Crown?

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Light rewriting = moving some phrases around and changing some words with
> equivalent words just enough to pass an exact phrase Google test. Nothing
> major or too time consuming.

I think that's not really the right approach.  Facts aren't
copyrightable, but particular presentations are.  Simply moving stuff
around and changing some words created a derivative work, rather than
an original work based on information gleaned from their work.

It's a gray area, and we surely want to stay very much on the "clean"
side of that fuzzy line.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Which reminds me that gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com are also owned by Bomis
> (IIRC). Are these domain names included with point 1?

Yes.

> Is there a way for Wikipedia authors to grant Wikimedia the ability
> to defend the author's GNU FDLd copyrighted text without requiring
> the author to transfer ownership to Wikimedia? Or am I confusing
> "ownership" and "assignment"?

I think all of these are possible.  One possibility is to sell the
copyrights to Wikimedia foundation for $1 whenever it seems helpful to
a realistic cause, i.e. some kind of "live issue".

Like, let's say someone produces a work based on our work, but which
egregiously violates the GNU FDL and we can't talk them or pressure
them into stopping it.  So we end up trying to go to court to enforce
the GNU FDL.  At that point, it *might* be convenient to consolidate
our claims in a single entity.  But, lawyers at that time would advise
us the best course of action.

--Jimbo


list: textbook-l

from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] textbook ideas

body:
Hi, I am the guy who made the initial request to open up a
spot on Wikipedia for textbook development. I have a
physics book I am writing and want to donate and probably
give a good start to an organic text as well.

Text of an email I just sent to Mav, who asked me to sent
it thru the mailing list:

It seems like some people on the mailing list want things
defined real well from the onset. Is that necessary or can
we just wing it and develop policies as time and need
warrant ?

I had the idea that textbooks could be started as units
with a defined goal and audience. For example, my physics
book could be designated as an introductory college-level
text suitable for pre-meds.

I am imagining the textbook development as beginning
general and moving towards specific, as one basic "unified"
text for each discipline that eventually differentiates
into multiple books over time. Books for more narrowly
defined audiences, levels, goals, study guides, etc. Since
textbooks have a voice could we not allow this to happen
naturally and even allow multiple voices ?

My opinion is that rules and regs should be a bit lax on
the textbook subdomain until needed ... I agree that NPOV
should not be required .. there is also an issue that
authors styles can be quite different, some study guides
even use little jokes to help you remember information.

And one unrelated question: Do you have an idea of
copyright issues, specifically, if I use the chapter
structure of an existing book written by another author for
a Wiki book or is that infringement ? I am imagining I
could lift the overall structure from one of my old orgo
textbooks for the basis of a book on O Chem ..I read that
the information itself is not under copyright, just the
"creative presentation" of it. Do you happen to know where
the chips would fall in this case ?

Thanks,
Karl

PS Thank you for your support of the wiki textbook concept
..

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karlwick

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why I don't believe (any more) in NPOV

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it.
>At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
>
>Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
>arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
>says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
>is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
>his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
>against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
>
Yes!  That's the proof that it works.  The cubical Earth argument may be
a straw man in the absence of supporters, but an inspired scientist
needs to allow for the possibility of such a thing, however improbable.
 There is no limit to the number of strange ideas that dwell in the gar
reaches of our probability space.  The strongest adherent of the
scientific method admits and accepts that no scientific hypothesis is
absolutely true.  He does not feel threatened by the emergence of some
bizarre theory, and is probably more effective in his refutations by
allowing for the possibility of a new and perhaps unlikely hypothesis.
 Crying "pseudoscience" can only lose arguments, not win them; it brings
out supporters that were never there before in the same way that it
happens when some Wikipedian is called a vandal.

>To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds
>very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for
>me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others.
>I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political
>or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the
>mainstream scientific point of view.
>
I believe that it must apply to everything, including science.  The test
of whether free speech is working is in how it treats unpopular subjects
and views.  Supporters of a majoritarian POV have a tendency to depend
on the unproven hypothesis that the mainstream view is necessarily
correct.  I think that the scientific method needs to be applied
recursively.  I also support the view that the burden of ''prima facie''
proof lies with the proponent of an improbable theory.  This is not a
very high burden, but it doesn't accomplish a lot either.  It at least
deals with those virtual hypotheses that spring purely from one
individual's imagination.

>Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if
>someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It
>sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can
>probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000
>years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we
>just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally
>it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder
>than now"?
>
The tropical Siberia hypothesis is likely more probable than the cubic
Earth hypothesis, and that makes it more difficult.  The proponent puts
forth his arguments, and you express your contrary arguments.  If you
have put your arguments well, you shouldn't need to add anything
further.  You need to trust the reader to make the right decision.
 There is no obligation to win any argument.. A Zen approach is far more
rewarding.

Another thing that happens with science is the feeling that you need to
defend ALL of science.  If your area of expertise is in astrophysics,
why should you need to defend the views of climatologists.  By getting
into an unfamiliar scientific discipline you can end up with your foot
in your mouth, promoting more arguments and feeling very very frustrated.

>What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people
>of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we
>should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all
>over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong.
>Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find
>working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is
>not what one expects to get from a hobby.
>
That there is no problem does not make you wrong; that argument is a
''non-sequitur". There is no magic wand solution; finding it could be
fatal to the project.  If you feel you have put your views fairly on a
subject, and you still feel irritated by the reactions of others it's a
sign that, at least in the near future, your time would be better spent
on some other subject.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
> Maybe it is flat.

The Horror! The Horror!

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intention to (re-)ban: Pizza Puzzle (Lir)

body:
Oliver Pereira wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, cprompt wrote:
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>>Unless there are objections, I intend to ban "Pizza Puzzle", who is
>>>another incarnation of Lir.
>>>
>>I haven't had much interaction with this account, so I can't really
>>speak for or against them. I will say that Adam hasn't told me about
>>this account, and other than being suspiciously similar to Adam, and
>>making lots of edits, what's the harm? If it is another incarnation of
>>Lir, and they have the same writing style and habits, why ban them if
>>they aren't harassing other users or defacing pages? (Or are they?)
>>
>
>I have an objection. Mr. Puzzle has made quite a few useful edits, and has
>hardly annoyed anyone. The long sequences of small edits can become
>annoying, but as far as I'm aware we're not running out of disc space, and
>I hear rumours that we may be getting an enhanced "diff" feature in which
>non-consecutive page versions can be compared using radio buttons, and if
>that's the case then I don't think it would matter quite as much.
>
There has to be a way for people to redeem themselves.  For Lir, leaving
aside the multiple incarnation issue, the multiple small edit issue, may
be an editing style that annoys some people, but looked at alone I would
not consider it a banning offence.  What are his other '''recent'''
offences?

Ec


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Why I don't believe (any more) in NPOV

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it.
> At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
>
> Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
> arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
> says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
> is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
> his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
> against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
>
> To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds
> very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for
> me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others.
> I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political
> or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the
> mainstream scientific point of view.
>
> Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if
> someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It
> sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can
> probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000
> years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we
> just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally
> it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder
> than now"?
>
> What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people
> of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we
> should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all
> over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong.
> Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find
> working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is
> not what one expects to get from a hobby.
>
> At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. There you have it.
>
> Goodbye(?)
>
> Andre Engels

I must say, you have some good points


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Proper foreign names RESPONSE 2 MAV

in_reply_to: <00cb01c3382f$62fa6020$7b67e90c@attbi.com>; from stevertigo@attbi.com on Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:57:46PM -0700

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
> Well, you might consider the notion that people come to an
>encyclopedia to learn something.

But naming articles with the common English word does not prevent such
learning at all!  If the article starts out be telling us that people
in Japan call the country "Nihon" or "Nippon", we've learned
something.  But the correct name of Japan, in English, is Japan.

> Only people who are vain about what they know, feel disturbed by
>what they dont. An Encyclopedia is here to present information - not
>to simply agree with what people already know.

This is a red herring, though.  No one has ever argued that we should
not present information, or attempt to conceal that different places
have different names to different people.

In fr.wikipedia.org, there is an article "Londres":
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londres

Shall we tell the French that they are wrong, that they should title
the article "London" because the "real" name is London?  Good luck
telling the French that they should use English words.  :-)

> But you do have some strong points to address - however, Im calling
>for a change of convention - Im not making claim that its *not
>conventional to simply follow convention. I'm calling to question the
>*merits of that convention - and whether its a convention from another
>era - say, 1672.  (Before telephones, I might add.)

It is not a convention from another era for different things to have
different names in different languages.

Look, it's simply *wrong* to act, in a French encyclopedia, as if the
"la capitale de l'Angleterre et du Royaume-Uni" is "London".  (Not to
mention, what the hell is this Angleterre Royaume-Uni crapola, let's
make those French people use the REAL NAME, huh?)

I think this is a big stink about nothing, and I think that the
position that you have taken -- which is nearly identical as far as I
can tell to the position of Lir -- is incoherent on the face.

Of course, we can be sensitive to language uses that are strange or
offensive to people.  But if fr.wikipedia wants to call London
"Londres", that's *correct*, because that's what you call it *in
French*.  And if we want to call Prague "Prague", that's *correct*,
because that's what you call it *in English*.

--Jimbo


body:
Another pov about Earth.

Put sound on, at least it could sooth you perhaps

http://membres.lycos.fr/spiritualitequebec/gaia.htm

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I thiiiiiiink, it would be great a french-speaking person does have
>access one day. Especially a long-time contributor, bilingual to avoid
>misunderstanding, dedicated, cool-spirited...cough

Yes, me too!  Are you a technical person?

--Jimbo


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but it certainly is
quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote
from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote&diff=1070567&oldid=1070564

Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really get
a vote? )"

I would also like to point out that I've seen PP make some quality edits as
well, so this message shouldn't be interpreted as unqualifiedly negative.
Nevertheless, I felt that I ought to bring this to the attention of those
on the list.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
At 12:32 PM 6/23/2003, you wrote:
>At 12:13 23/06/2003 -0700, Dante wrote:
>>I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but it certainly is
>>quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote
>>from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
>>
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote&diff=1070567&oldid=1070564
>>
>>Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really
>>get a vote? )"
>
>Just for the record, what was meant by the summary was that the person
>whose vote was removed had made only one other edit apart from that vote.
>I think that Pizza Puzzle had a point here - it would be easy for somebody
>to rig a vote by creating lots of new usernames and voting with each of
>them (I'm not saying that's what was going on here by the way, this is
>just a general observation). People who are interested in voting as a
>decision-making process probably need to discuss this and come up with
>some sort of policy.
>
>One could say that whatever the case, PP removing the vote in question
>without discussion was wrong. Then again, one could argue he was just
>being bold in updating pages, and that it's not beyond anybody to
>reinstate the vote.
>
>Lee (Camembert)
>WikiKarma: [[Grimshaw]]

I don't think it would be fair to characterize him as "bold in updating"
the page. He removed another user's vote unilaterally. Whether or not the
length of a user's edit history SHOULD be relevant, policy-wise, it isn't
currently convention. As I understand it, one typically updates pages based
on convention... it is "dangerous" to engage in such controversial activity
with neither convention nor discussion in support.

That being said, as I stated previously, I'm not supporting a ban on PP,
just saying that his action on the above page was perhaps relevant to the
pre-existing discussion.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


body:
> There has to be a way for people to redeem themselves.  For Lir, leaving
> aside the multiple incarnation issue, the multiple small edit issue, may
> be an editing style that annoys some people, but looked at alone I would
> not consider it a banning offence.  What are his other '''recent'''
> offences?
>
> Ec

He knows he is banned yet is trying to be here with another phony user name.
He was not patient enough to wait til ban was legitimately lifted. (Assuming
it is Lir).

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] textbook emails

body:
I sent out an email about some of my ideas and questions
about textbook development to the new list (Thanks Brion
!!).

One question: has it been discussed the possibility of
having search results from one wiki site turning up
secondary results from the affiliate sites ? Such as, I do
a search for "organic chemistry" on wikipedia and, maybe
down below, the search engine gives me the relavent hits on
the Wiktionary site as well an any other affiliate sites ?

Karl

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it.
At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.

Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?

To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds
very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for
me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others.
I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political
or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the
mainstream scientific point of view.

Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if
someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It
sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can
probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000
years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we
just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally
it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder
than now"?

What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people
of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we
should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all
over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong.
Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find
working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is
not what one expects to get from a hobby.

At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. There you have it.

Goodbye(?)

Andre Engels


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>>I've uploaded the new LanguageFr.php.
>>>(yay! it worked!)
>>>Please could it go live fairly soon, the fr: have been waiting for
>>>their dates to be fixed for several weeks!
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>how many people have the power to move files from the CVS to the test
>>server or the real server?
>>
>>
>
>Only those with ssh access to the server (not everyone marked as a
>developer has ssh access. I don't.). That would be Lee, Brion, Magnus,
>Nick, and the Bomis folks.
>
>
How soon can one of them upload the new LanguageFr.php? It's now in the CVS.

If they are too busy, perhaps we need to give more people access?


subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
--- Dante Alighieri <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
wrote:
> I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but
> it certainly is
> quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly
> removed another user's vote
> from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and
> numbers)/vote]].
>
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote&diff=1070567&oldid=1070564
>
> Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with
> only one edit really get
> a vote? )"

Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have
done similar things. Ie, considering the point of view
of editors who had made a very small number of
contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that
makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and make
the change with noone being aware of it, since he put
a comment.

I think were more and more things be decided by votes
(how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether
there is no double voting.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> > I thiiiiiiink, it would be great a french-speaking
> person does have
> >access one day. Especially a long-time contributor,
> bilingual to avoid
> >misunderstanding, dedicated, cool-spirited...cough
>
> Yes, me too!  Are you a technical person?
>
> --Jimbo

No, sorry Jimbo. I am not really.
I would more dangerous than worthy :-)
My wonderful skills do not rely there :-)))

(and I am neither bilingual, nor cool-spirited ;-))

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] some new CSS styles for images

body:
I'd like to add some CSS classes to our stylesheets, based on the
popular image layouts listed on this page:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AImage_markup_gallery

For example, instead of this:
------------

[[Image:image name|alt text]]

''Caption''

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

we could write this:

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

[[Image:image name|alt text]]

''Caption''

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

and the style rules would be in our stylesheet as:

div.floatright { float:right;margin:0 0 1em 1em; }
div.floatright p { font-style: italic; }

Advantages:

1. easier to type for contributors
2. less "evil" code in the wiki text. It's easier for the average reader
to understand what the "evil" code does.
3. we have built-in formatting for captions which is applied
consistently across all pages
4. when we switch to a markup such as: "{{floatright}}[[Image:foo]]",
the css is already in place and the way rendered pages look will not change.
5. we can easily choose to apply borders to all our images, or a soft
background color.

I propose to add:
1. float right, as above
2. float left
3. centered block
4. "gallery", see the example in the attached document
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030623/ec5bd1e0/attachment.html>


from_name: Peter Gervai

body:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 01:48:09PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
> NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it.
> At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
>
> Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
> arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
> says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
> is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
> his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
> against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?

I'm nothing. I hardly exist. But anyway IMHO the article should look like:

  Earth

  Earth is a round place where we have the fun. (external links:
  http://www.nasa.gov/)

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

  Other sources state that it's flat and rests on four turtles. (see
  references: http://flat.example.com/)

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

  The Bowlists believe in that Earth is of the shape of a bowl, and we
  are the rice in it. (http://www.bowl/)

Three independent views, no connection.

I do not see any reason to have arguments. Maybe it is flat. We have enough
bits to list all opinions which have some basis to exist. If there are no
real support (any referenced facts or people supporting) behind a
stupidity^Wweird idea then its submitter could be Talk'ed out of it.
(One-man ideas probably doesn't worth listing, but if the Bowlists
Association [15 billions of members] does believe in something then it could
be listed. (Maybe on 'Earth (Bowl)', that's beyond my foretelling.)

> To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds
> very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for

I've seen beautiful articles as an example. Most of the political hotspots
(arabs, jews, war, etc) try to be neutral, and some of them does it pretty
well. IMHO.

> years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know.

That would probably help deciding whether to revert such informations. No
source - no reason to keep. ["If life would be THAT easy!" -- Woody Allan]

> Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find
> working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is
> not what one expects to get from a hobby.

Interaction with people equals irritation. Maybe if we could get rid of
them...

Bests,
Peter


from_name: Axel Boldt

body:
--- Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de> wrote:

> Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or
> even start pages all over at times.

I don't think we should be unhappy at all about deleting, radically
rewriting and refactoring material. Cancerous growth is nice and all,
but every once in a while a surgeon's knife is needed.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again.

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Zoe wrote:
>
> >I'm being considered a vandal
>
> Then by my new policy, I automatically agree with
> you.
> Except that I can't find where anybody did this!
> (I'm referring only to the conflict over [[New River
> Gorge Bridge]].)
>
> >Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere?
> I
> >don't like you, either.  And if anyone proposes you
> >for sysophood, I will vote no.
>
> That's a good idea!
> Both Martin and anthere are longtime good
> contributors to Wikipedia.
> I hereby nominate them -- but they're already
> admins!

That was very nice of you !
Let's have good ideas ! Quercus has been a longtime
good contributor to Wikip?dia.
I nominate him also -- but he already is !

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Something is wrong with our edit box on IE 6.0

body:
As an anonymous user with IE 6.0 (I haven't tried 5.5), go edit a page
whose wiki source contains a very long line. Initially, everything
looks good, the edit box fits into the browser window, you have a
vertical scroll bar to the right of it, and the long line is broken
into pieces and completely visible. Now when you type anything, the
scrollbar goes away and the edit box extends to the right to accomodate
the long line; there is no horizontal scroll bar and there is no way to
view text near the end of the long line (short of buying a monitor of
Times Square proportions and enlarging the browser window).

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>While I strongly sympathize with you, the correct approach is to have a
>semi-automatic update procedure from CVS:
>
>1) Code is updated on CVS (someone from fr. should definitely have CVS
>access)
>2) Code is automatically installed on test.wikipedia.org using a cronjob
>3) Code that has been on test.wikipedia.org for more than a week is
>automatically installed on all Wikipedias every day.
>
>
>
This sounds great!
But in the meantime -- could someone upload the LanguageFr.php file to
the live server?


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Then would you have to write
>
><div class="floatright" style="width:300px;">
>
>to get the pixel width? This is important for preventing the caption from
>expanding the floating frame.
>

write shorter captions?

 > What's with the 0 0 1em 1em anyway? margin:10px works fine.

I don't know. I copied the style from the recommended markup on the
Image Use Policy page.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Andre-
> Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
> arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
> says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
> is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
> his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
> against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?

Sure. And when this takes up a substantial portion of the [[Earth]]
article, someone will complain on [[Talk:Earth]] that this is a fringe
theory, held only by very few persons, and in accordance with [[NPOV]]
should probably be moved to [[Cubical Earth]]. We already do have [[Flat
Earth]] and [[Flat Earth Society]], by the way, and I rather like it. :-)

We have managed to deal with historical revisionism regarding the
Holocaust, we have managed to deal with fringe philosophical views, and so
on. I see no reason why NPOV should not be scalable. People are smart.
They know when to split up stuff, remove arguments which are obviously
bogus etc.

> Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what
> if someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago?

Evidence? Studies? References? Is this just their opinion? Then delete it.
Can they provide references to authorities who have actually made that
claim? Then discuss it together with other studies on the subject. Nobody
on Wikipedia knows about the subject to refute it? Then it will possibly
be wrong until someone who does comes along and fixes it. Big deal.

If you want an encyclopedia that is carefully checked not to contain
idiosyncratic, unchecked material, the Sifter project is for you. I
predict that this will be up and running in less than a year.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Anthere-

> I thiiiiiiink, it would be great a french-speaking person does have access
> one day. Especially a long-time contributor, bilingual to avoid
> misunderstanding, dedicated, cool-spirited...cough

While I strongly sympathize with you, the correct approach is to have a
semi-automatic update procedure from CVS:

1) Code is updated on CVS (someone from fr. should definitely have CVS
access)
2) Code is automatically installed on test.wikipedia.org using a cronjob
3) Code that has been on test.wikipedia.org for more than a week is
automatically installed on all Wikipedias every day.

This requires some rather complex scripting to make sure the correct
revisions are used, but once it's up and running, it should be fairly
straight-forward and wiki-like (Note: Stuff like Magnus installing scripts
directly on test.wiki would no longer be allowed -- there could be an
experimental wiki for that.). I'm sure we'll set up something like this
once the Wikimedia foundation has some resources.

Regards,

Erik


body:
tarquin-
> I'd like to add some CSS classes to our stylesheets, based on the
> popular image layouts listed on this page:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AImage_markup_gallery

> For example, instead of this:
> ------------
>
[[Image:image name|alt text]]

> ''Caption''

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

> we could write this:

> ---------------
>
[[Image:image name|alt text]]

Then would you have to write

to get the pixel width? This is important for preventing the caption from
expanding the floating framge. And the resulting code seems more complex
than before because you now need two attributes. What's with the 0 0 1em
1em anyway? margin:10px works fine.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:35:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Anthere-
>
> > I thiiiiiiink, it would be great a french-speaking person does have access
> > one day. Especially a long-time contributor, bilingual to avoid
> > misunderstanding, dedicated, cool-spirited...cough
>
> While I strongly sympathize with you, the correct approach is to have a
> semi-automatic update procedure from CVS:
>
> 1) Code is updated on CVS (someone from fr. should definitely have CVS
> access)
> 2) Code is automatically installed on test.wikipedia.org using a cronjob
> 3) Code that has been on test.wikipedia.org for more than a week is
> automatically installed on all Wikipedias every day.
>
> This requires some rather complex scripting to make sure the correct
> revisions are used, but once it's up and running, it should be fairly
> straight-forward and wiki-like (Note: Stuff like Magnus installing scripts
> directly on test.wiki would no longer be allowed -- there could be an
> experimental wiki for that.). I'm sure we'll set up something like this
> once the Wikimedia foundation has some resources.

But it's not code, just updated language files, not ?


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Various Comments, various topics, NPOV....

body:
>Somebody wrote: Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly >kettle
of fish. We even already have new poorly >conceived >acronyms.

Yes - and nobody ( I think ) mentioned that most basic of contradictions --
making a static textbook out of a dynamic website.  And think of all the
trees....

>Jimbo:At that point, it *might* be convenient to consolidate
>our claims in a single entity.  But, lawyers at that time would >advise us
the best course of action.

Yes, "give us your money."

>Andre Engels, 3Dan : Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't >know. What
I do >know is that I find working on Wikipedia a >rather irritating thing to
do lately. And irritation is not what >one expects to get from a hobby.
> At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. >There you have it.

Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW.  It does seem that there is a
conflict (related to the textbook issue) of professionals and other
institutionalized people - being trained to standards, and convention..
(lets face it...before the web, a lot of this culture was bound by mere
convention) and then all of a sudden finding some sort of finite and solid
foundation - in an environment more infinitely open than any other.  Its
hard to reconcile these two things, especially since the progeny of each
school both treat their conventions like a tradition.

Steve, 2k

>Axel: Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on >pages, or >
even start pages all over at times. I don't think we >should be unhappy at
all about deleting, radically rewriting and >refactoring material. Cancerous
growth is nice and all,
>but every once in a while a surgeon's knife is needed.

Ah, I see. Why does the above remind me of this?:

"Waiting to cut out the deadwood.
Waiting to clean up the city.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to put on a black shirt.
Waiting to weed out the weaklings.

Would you like to see Britannia
Rule again, my friend?
All you have to do is follow the worms."

>ANON: Your idea is one of the worst and most poorly thought >out that >I
have yet encountered in wikipedia discussions.

Well, like I said, It was food for the lions.  If there wasnt any meat on
it, y'all wouldnt have jumped on it.  The discussion served its purpose,
which was to activate some latent idea. I have that idea now, and Im
processing it now.  I keeping with the above critique, however - I have
reconsidered my naive strategy of free speech and will submit it to the
class only when I know for a fact that the class will find it agreeable. Go
figure that one out.

-Stevertigo-


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de> writes:

> What is the solution?

There is none -- and that's probably okay.  Take a break and read
Thomas Mann's Joseph triology ;-)

Yes, of course it's okay to wipe out stupid texts from the wikipedia --
no need to discuss matters which are just plain wrong.  But if you are
not sure either look up the subject in a library or just leave it as is.

Or add an comment to the talk page.

> At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. There you have
> it.

There is nothing wrong with doing other things that might make you
happy; some time in the future I'll leave the project because I don't
like the loosy file format :)

--
                                                         |      ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |    _-\_<,
ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home)               |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
--- Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> wrote:
> Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW.  It does
> seem that there is a
> conflict (related to the textbook issue) of
> professionals and other
> institutionalized people - being trained to
> standards, and convention..
> (lets face it...before the web, a lot of this
> culture was bound by mere
> convention) and then all of a sudden finding some
> sort of finite and solid
> foundation - in an environment more infinitely open
> than any other.  Its
> hard to reconcile these two things, especially since
> the progeny of each
> school both treat their conventions like a
> tradition.

I agree. Like the encyclopedia, we should concentrate
on creating a good textbook, rather than making it in
a way that everyone will accept. (In previous posts, I
may have said something contradictory to this, but
have since changed my mind.) Which idea would make the
best textbook?
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
This should all be on the Textbook-l mailing list. I'm
sorry I responded. Why don't you join the list, steve?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

body:
--- Graham Burnett <grahamburnett at blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> > >Reasons for enforcing ban:
> > >
> > >In spite of repeated warning, persists in his
> annoying habit to make
> > >dozens of edits per page within an interval of
> seconds,
> >
> > Banning somebody for making too many edits to one
> article in too short a
> > space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think
> it's even close to a a
> > good reason for banning.
> >
>
> Well I guess I'd have to be banned too 'cos I'm
> frequently guilty of this as
> well.
>
> Graham (quercus robur)

I used to make many multiple edits to an article, but
as soon as it was pointed out that this was bad (with
lir), I've tried to avoid it.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
| This should all be on the Textbook-l mailing list. I'm
| sorry I responded. Why don't you join the list, steve?

Because I didnt know there was one. - And the idea is at best
a marketing tool - if I understand it correctly. What, after all is the
point of making textbooks out of wikimatter? Its philosophically
contradicted to the premise of WP. I think it also opens WP up to liability
issues. Its one thing to act as a publisher -- its a different ballgame
altogether.
Besides, I thought the web pedia was to put an end to the others.

Dont you people see? Dont you people see? DogGammit.

-Stevertigo-


body:
tarquin-

> Erik Moeller wrote:

>> Then would you have to write
>>
>> <div class="floatright" style="width:300px;">
>>
>> to get the pixel width? This is important for preventing the caption from
>> expanding the floating frame.
>>

> write shorter captions?

Hardly an option, since you don't even know how wide it can be, and
results are going to vary under different configurations. Sorry, I would
suggest not to use the CSS at this time. I do encourage you to work on a
redesign of the image handling code, though.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia (silently) slashdotted

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> This Slashdot article:
>
>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/23/217212&mode=nested&tid=137
>
> contains a reference to Wikipedia's article about
> "Deep Thought" from the
> Douglas Adams book trilogy. I don't think it will
> cause too much traffic,
> though, since it is not the focus of the article.
> It's interesting because
> Slashdot for some time used Everything2 links to
> explain stuff like that
> -- apparently Wikipedia is a more valuable resource,
> at least in the
> opinion of the submitter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

Well, that's probably only because e2 has many more
articles. But look at the respective articles. Ours is
obviously much better.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Oliver Pereira

body:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, cprompt wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >Unless there are objections, I intend to ban "Pizza Puzzle", who is
> >another incarnation of Lir.

> I haven't had much interaction with this account, so I can't really
> speak for or against them. I will say that Adam hasn't told me about
> this account, and other than being suspiciously similar to Adam, and
> making lots of edits, what's the harm? If it is another incarnation of
> Lir, and they have the same writing style and habits, why ban them if
> they aren't harassing other users or defacing pages? (Or are they?)

I have an objection. Mr. Puzzle has made quite a few useful edits, and has
hardly annoyed anyone. The long sequences of small edits can become
annoying, but as far as I'm aware we're not running out of disc space, and
I hear rumours that we may be getting an enhanced "diff" feature in which
non-consecutive page versions can be compared using radio buttons, and if
that's the case then I don't think it would matter quite as much.

Oliver

+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira                            |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton                 |
| omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk                    |
+-------------------------------------------+


from_name: Lee Pilich

body:
At 05:04 22/06/2003 +0200, Erik wrote:
>Unless there are objections, I intend to ban "Pizza Puzzle", who is
>another incarnation of Lir.

[snip]

>Reasons for enforcing ban:
>
>In spite of repeated warning, persists in his annoying habit to make
>dozens of edits per page within an interval of seconds,

Banning somebody for making too many edits to one article in too short a
space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think it's even close to a a
good reason for banning.

I don't know if Pizza Puzzle is Lir, incidentally. Whether he is or not,
he's behaved reasonably up to now (so it seems to me), and if this is the
only thing he's done wrong... well, as I say, I don't think it's a good
enough reason to ban somebody.

(I'm a bit late with this reply by the way - I wrote it at the weekend and
forgot to send it until I saw Oliver P's post just now.)

Lee (Camembert)


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Magnus-
> > Using the "Enhanced recent changes" really helps
> getting the Recent
> > Changes flood under control :-)
>
> I use it, but it's not the default and doesn't work
> in every browser. Last
> I checked, only 362 of 11474 users used it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

I like that feature, but is there any way you could
impliment it for newpages, making the whole history
drop down with those same arrows? That would be very
useful, as I use newpages much more often than
recentchanges.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] SQL query

body:
Sheng Jiong wrote:

>Hi, everybody. Some sysops in Chinese Wikipedia want to know how to check the number of artiles that are *edited* in a *day* through sql query. Anyone has any idea?
>
Try this:

SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rc_title) FROM recentchanges
WHERE rc_namespace=0 AND rc_timestamp LIKE '20030623%'

Change '20030623' to the desired date you want to check; note that the
recentchanges tables usually only stores the last few days' worth
(recent, no? ;)

If you want to also count non-article pages, change to:

SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rc_namespace,rc_title) FROM recentchanges
WHERE rc_timestamp LIKE '20030623%'

It should be possible to rig it up to check exactly the last 24 hours or
whatever, but since we don't use the standard date/time column type it's
a little tricky to do ad-hoc.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
--- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Dante Alighieri
> <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense,
> but
> > it certainly is
> > quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly
> > removed another user's vote
> > from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and
> > numbers)/vote]].
> >
> >
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote&diff=1070567&oldid=1070564
> >
> > Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with
> > only one edit really get
> > a vote? )"
>
> Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have
> done similar things. Ie, considering the point of
> view
> of editors who had made a very small number of
> contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that
> makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and
> make
> the change with noone being aware of it, since he
> put
> a comment.
>
> I think were more and more things be decided by
> votes
> (how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether
> there is no double voting.

IMHO, software-bound voting could help in most cases.
We shouldn't be facing the problem of people deleting
other people's votes. There is probably a php/mysql
script for it, and if not, we can just use an external
voting system (many websites will let you set up a
poll for free).
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] textbook emails

body:
--- Karl Wick <karlwick at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I sent out an email about some of my ideas and
> questions
> about textbook development to the new list (Thanks
> Brion
> !!).
>
> One question: has it been discussed the possibility
> of
> having search results from one wiki site turning up
> secondary results from the affiliate sites ? Such
> as, I do
> a search for "organic chemistry" on wikipedia and,
> maybe
> down below, the search engine gives me the relavent
> hits on
> the Wiktionary site as well an any other affiliate
> sites ?
>
> Karl

That would be very useful. It would be very useful if
the #1 hit on Google were shown, but I know how hard
it is to program an API for Google.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> tarquin wrote:
>
>> But in the meantime -- could someone upload the LanguageFr.php file
>> to the live server?
>
>
> Done. Tell me if I made a mess ;-)
>
we've lost all the accented characters!
They've all turned into "?".
They are "?" in the HTML source as displayed by Mozilla too.

But I saved a page and loaded it in  Textpad and all is fine.

(oh crap .... please don't tell me my first submission to the CVS had
broken eveything!)


subject: [WikiEN-l] textbook emails

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Karl Wick <karlwick at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I sent out an email about some of my ideas and
> > questions
> > about textbook development to the new list (Thanks
> > Brion
> > !!).
> >
> > One question: has it been discussed the
> possibility
> > of
> > having search results from one wiki site turning
> up
> > secondary results from the affiliate sites ? Such
> > as, I do
> > a search for "organic chemistry" on wikipedia and,
> > maybe
> > down below, the search engine gives me the
> relavent
> > hits on
> > the Wiktionary site as well an any other affiliate
> > sites ?
> >
> > Karl
>
> That would be very useful. It would be very useful
> if
> the #1 hit on Google were shown, but I know how hard
> it is to program an API for Google.
> -LDan

Oops, I mean UI for google. I'm so terrible at
computer acronyms.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
At 12:13 23/06/2003 -0700, Dante wrote:
>I'm not saying that this is a bannable offense, but it certainly is
>quesitonable. PP seems to have singlehandedly removed another user's vote
>from [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote]].
>
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote&diff=1070567&oldid=1070564
>
>Note, the edit comment read: "(should a user with only one edit really get
>a vote? )"

Just for the record, what was meant by the summary was that the person
whose vote was removed had made only one other edit apart from that vote. I
think that Pizza Puzzle had a point here - it would be easy for somebody to
rig a vote by creating lots of new usernames and voting with each of them
(I'm not saying that's what was going on here by the way, this is just a
general observation). People who are interested in voting as a
decision-making process probably need to discuss this and come up with some
sort of policy.

One could say that whatever the case, PP removing the vote in question
without discussion was wrong. Then again, one could argue he was just being
bold in updating pages, and that it's not beyond anybody to reinstate the vote.

Lee (Camembert)
WikiKarma: [[Grimshaw]]


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>
> Not if you switch to "Western ISO-8859-1"...

but it was fine before you put the new file in place!

>> But I saved a page and loaded it in  Textpad and all is fine.
>>
>> (oh crap .... please don't tell me my first submission to the CVS had
>> broken eveything!)
>
>
> Should I change it back for the time being?

Yes. there is clearly a problem: Recent Changes is called "Recent
Changes" in ENGLISH!
Restore the previous version. I will try to work out what has gone wrong.

Could it be that TextPad has killed the accented characters? I thought
it was a well-behaved text editor!
Or should ALL accented characters in the PHP source be written as
entities or Unicode codes? Could that be the problem?

>
>
>


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>write shorter captions?
>>
>>
>
>Hardly an option, since you don't even know how wide it can be, and
>results are going to vary under different configurations. Sorry, I would
>suggest not to use the CSS at this time. I do encourage you to work on a
>redesign of the image handling code, though.
>
>
>
That is beyond my current skills. I don't know any PHP. I learn
languages fast, but on my platform (Win98) I can't run the Wikipedia
script to play with it & teach myself how it works. I plan on installing
Linux but I need to clean up my HD and make some partitions.

Quote from [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] --

"Markup for images is quite complicated."

This suggests something must be done.

And:

"If your caption is longer than a few words, you may need to explicitly
set the |div| width."

I really think that if a caption is more than a few words, writers
should consider either:
* reintegrating the text into the page somehow
* centering the image so the caption is read as part of the flow

I don't know what proportion of images need the width setting and what
proportion don't, so I don't know how good a trade-off this is. I don't
think that this:

<div class="floatright" style="width:300px;">

is a *huge* complication -- in fact, it is rather clear which part is
*standard*, and which part is specific to *this* image.

How about we ask at the village pump or the image use page and see what
people at large find easiest? I don't think better image markup will be
happening for some time, and this seems to me to be a good "halfway house".


body:
--- james duffy <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There has to be a way for people to redeem
> themselves.  For Lir, leaving
> > > aside the multiple incarnation issue, the
> multiple small edit issue, may
> > > be an editing style that annoys some people, but
> looked at alone I would
> > > not consider it a banning offence.  What are his
> other '''recent'''
> > > offences?
> > >
> > > Ec
> >
> >He knows he is banned yet is trying to be here with
> another phony user
> >name.
> >He was not patient enough to wait til ban was
> legitimately lifted.
> >(Assuming
> >it is Lir).
> >
> >Fred
> >
> Fred is quite correct. Remember this is a user who
> has been hard banned
> numerous times. They approached Jimbo and PROMISED
> that they would not come
> on under an assumed identity again. They gave their
> word. In the
> circumstances, they could have got Jimbo's agreement
> to come on again as
> themselves. They could have waited for the specified
> period then come back.
> But they instead went back on their word (yet again)
> and came on as an
> assumed identity, in the process giving the two
> fingers to Jimbo and the
> wiki rules on banning. As to Adam not committing
> offences - it isn't for the
> want of trying. One of Adam/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan
> Mason/Dietary Fiber/Shino
> Baku etc's standard 'games' has been to provoke
> rows. One particular stunt
> they used to pull was to enter a page where an edit
> war had been taking
> place and just as peace was breaking out say or do
> something that would
> re-ignite it. I have seen 'Pizza Puzzle' try that
> once so far. (Luckily the
> people in question from past experience knew the
> 'game' and wouldn't play!)
>
> PP placed bizarre messages on talk pages (I got one
> that said ''Adam
> [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll'), in a attempt to provoke a
> reaction. Knowing Adam's
> 'game' I ignored it.) When that failed a provocative
> message was left on
> PP's user page by PP, proclaiming how they were a
> troll, again to see could
> they start a row. By then people had pretty much
> worked out PP's identity
> and after some emails and AIM messages (used so that
> Adam could not read
> them, which he would do if they were on talk pages)
> decided to ignore his
> latest bit of 'look at me. I'm a troll. Wanna
> fight?' antics.
>
> So he tried another tried and trusted method. He
> voted then 'unvoted' on the
> dates vote page, in the hope that (as happened when
> he was 'Susan Mason')
> someone would react with a 'what the fuck do you
> think you are doing'
> response; he could then assume victim mode and get a
> few newbies to rush to
> his defence and turn the page into a nasty fight.
> But only one person
> challenged him on that, so that fizzled out.
>
> Next try - remove someone's vote. So far that hasn't
> resulted in a major row
> of the sort that Adam as Lir, Vera and Susan seemed
> to love starting.
>
> All of which poses the question: so what is next?
> What stunt with Adam try
> next to stir up a row? Going by past experience he
> will keep trying. Rows
> are the one thing Adam in all his identities has
> contributed to wiki. He
> seems to get a kick out of starting them off.
>
> If wiki is to thrive as an encyclop?dia, it needs to
> be able to deal with
> the likes of Adam (now back on when he shouldn't
> be), Michael (though banned
> numerous times still coming on daily to vandalise
> pages) and Ron (aka DW,
> Black Widow, Elliot, Jacques Delson, 64.228.30.125,
> Joe Canuck and now
> ChuckM). Ron has been on almost continually, not
> withstanding constant
> hardbans since August 2002. Indeed Ron's contempt
> for wiki can be seen in
> the fact that he often has two 'identities' in use
> at once, an IP for
> editing and a named page for insulting. The fact
> that ChuckM, which he
> created on the 10th of June could suddenly be
> brought back on the 22nd,
> after his previous identity Joe Canuck was banned on
> the 20th shows his
> contempt for wiki - one of his first acts was to
> remove the ban notice from
> Canuck's page, then insult MyRedDice and accuse
> Wapcaplet, then remove a
> note from me on the VfD page urging a quick deletion
> of Canuck's dodgy
> images.
>
> Our 'softly softly . . . maybe they might change'
> nonsense is not working.
> Michael still defaces articles. Ron still downloads
> dodgy images and Adam
> swans back giving Jimbo two fingers again and again
> and again. As a
> hardbanned user, there should be no need for a
> debate. The rules said
> explicitly that Adam should be banned immediately.
> Whether he writes good
> articles is irrelevant. He has no right to be here
> and as someone who can't
> even be bothered to keep his promises to Jimbo, we
> owe it to ourselves,
> Jimbo and Wiki to ban him as soon as possible, as
> often as needs be. So that
> Adam, Ron, Michael and everyone else gets the clear
> unambiguous message
> 'wiki is a troll-free zone. All trolls will be
> barred on sight.', rather
> than our current message ' em . . . we'll talk about
> it and talk about it,
> and then talk about it a bit more. And when you are
> finally banned and come
> back, we'll do a lot more talking, not acting. So
> you have nothing to worry
> about.'
>
> JT

I don't think banning will work in any of these cases,
since the users keep comming back, as you said.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin wrote:

>
>
> Could it be that TextPad has killed the accented characters? I thought
> it was a well-behaved text editor!
> Or should ALL accented characters in the PHP source be written as
> entities or Unicode codes? Could that be the problem?

I don't know how to view an old version in CVS, but I've examined the diff.

Assuming 1.2 is what was on the server until today, not *that* much has
changed.

The "recent changes" name certainly hasn't.
Some accents are changed, some not:

1.2 has:
Jetez un coup d'œil sur ces pages: [[Wikip?dia:FAQ|Foire aux
questions]],
1.3 has:
Jetez un coup d'****?****il sur ces pages: [[Wikip****?****dia:FAQ|Foire
aux questions]],
(the **** are mine to highlight)

CVS says:
\ No newline at end of file

Could this be the problem?


body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> How about "width=1"? Works for tables (the table gets resized by the
> image). Is this true for <div> as well?

I will test this on various browsers tomorrow.


body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Oliver Pereira wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, cprompt wrote:
> >
> >>Erik Moeller wrote:
> >>
> >>>Unless there are objections, I intend to ban
> "Pizza Puzzle", who is
> >>>another incarnation of Lir.
> >>>
> >>I haven't had much interaction with this account,
> so I can't really
> >>speak for or against them. I will say that Adam
> hasn't told me about
> >>this account, and other than being suspiciously
> similar to Adam, and
> >>making lots of edits, what's the harm? If it is
> another incarnation of
> >>Lir, and they have the same writing style and
> habits, why ban them if
> >>they aren't harassing other users or defacing
> pages? (Or are they?)
> >>
> >
> >I have an objection. Mr. Puzzle has made quite a
> few useful edits, and has
> >hardly annoyed anyone. The long sequences of small
> edits can become
> >annoying, but as far as I'm aware we're not running
> out of disc space, and
> >I hear rumours that we may be getting an enhanced
> "diff" feature in which
> >non-consecutive page versions can be compared using
> radio buttons, and if
> >that's the case then I don't think it would matter
> quite as much.
> >
> There has to be a way for people to redeem
> themselves.  For Lir, leaving
> aside the multiple incarnation issue, the multiple
> small edit issue, may
> be an editing style that annoys some people, but
> looked at alone I would
> not consider it a banning offence.  What are his
> other '''recent'''
> offences?
>
> Ec

He has had no recent offences within the articles,
AFAIK just on various talk pages about voting.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> (Note that I'm currently having trouble getting my initial message
> through to textbook-l at wikipedia.org, so I'm not 100% sure if I set it up
> right, though. Or, that may just be because there aren't any list
> members yet.)

There's at least one now.

>> We still do need to clone you, BTW. ;)
>
> Will this involve a secret offshore medical research facility in an
> undisclosed location with a mysterious, inexhaustable source of funding?
> If so, sign me up. :)

You forgot to ask for the mysterious woman to extract the DNA sample ;-D

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>> Restore the previous version. I will try to work out what has gone
>> wrong.
>
>
> I'll have a look myself.
>
With the old file in place, many accents are still broken.
eg from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3ALe_Bistro
" Bienvenue au Bistro Wikip???dia"

I am very very sorry about this.
I am out of my depth. Off to drown my sorrows down the pub.


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin wrote:
> But in the meantime -- could someone upload the LanguageFr.php file to
> the live server?

Done. Tell me if I made a mess ;-)

Magnus


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> tarquin-
>>write shorter captions?
>
> Hardly an option, since you don't even know how wide it can be, and
> results are going to vary under different configurations. Sorry, I would
> suggest not to use the CSS at this time. I do encourage you to work on a
> redesign of the image handling code, though.

How about "width=1"? Works for tables (the table gets resized by the
image). Is this true for <div> as well?

I don't think we should just hack some special image code; maybe Lee's
wiki-tables are the answer.
And, if you want special code, there's always my "Nupedia thumbnail
preview" code ;-)

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> tarquin wrote:
>>
>>> But in the meantime -- could someone upload the LanguageFr.php file
>>> to the live server?
>>
>>
>>
>> Done. Tell me if I made a mess ;-)
>>
> we've lost all the accented characters!
> They've all turned into "?".
> They are "?" in the HTML source as displayed by Mozilla too.

Not if you switch to "Western ISO-8859-1"...

> But I saved a page and loaded it in  Textpad and all is fine.
>
> (oh crap .... please don't tell me my first submission to the CVS had
> broken eveything!)

Should I change it back for the time being?

Magnus


from_name: Imran Ghory

subject: [Textbook-l] textbook ideas

body:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Karl Wick wrote:
> It seems like some people on the mailing list want things
> defined real well from the onset. Is that necessary or can
> we just wing it and develop policies as time and need
> warrant ?

It's probably best to get the basics sorted and let the rest develop
"naturally", as otherwise there's the risk of stagnation.

> And one unrelated question: Do you have an idea of
> copyright issues, specifically, if I use the chapter
> structure of an existing book written by another author for
> a Wiki book or is that infringement ?

My understanding is that the book structure itself is copyright unless it
is a logically obvious structure.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>> Should I change it back for the time being?
>
>
> Yes. there is clearly a problem: Recent Changes is called "Recent
> Changes" in ENGLISH!

Back as it was. Strangely, the whole interface appeared in English. That
shouldn't be affected by the Language files alone, except Language.php
was entirely broken for some reason.

> Restore the previous version. I will try to work out what has gone wrong.

I'll have a look myself.

Magnus


from_name: Menchi Zh-En WP

subject: [Wikitech-l] CJK Revision diff -- Vanadalism Detection

body:
The revision history diff is impossible difficult to read, unless you
possess an android eyeball.

1) If somebody changed a single CJK char, _several_ sentences around it
became red (until both edges encounter a non-CJK character) in the diff.

2) The following example is even more bizarre. There's no space added, no
char changed, but yet 3 sentences were reddened:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:%E5%B8%B8%E8%A7%81%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E8%A7%A3%E7%AD%94&diff=0&oldid=5224

Such difficulties renders what could be obvious vandalism in Western
Wikipedias quite subtle in CJK Wikipedia.s

Menchi Zh-En

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] A proof (was: CJK Revision diff -- Vanadalism Detection)

body:
>From: "Menchi" ...
>2) The following example is even more bizarre. There's no space added, no
>char changed, but yet 3 sentences were reddened:
>
>http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:%E5%B8%B8%E8%A7%81%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E8%A7%A3%E7%AD%94&diff=0&oldid=5224
>
>Such difficulties renders what could be obvious vandalism in Western
>Wikipedias quite subtle in CJK Wikipedia.s
>
>Menchi Zh-En

Ok, after the 6 inspections of that Chinese Wiki-diff -- 1 of which C-&-P'ed
to Notepad, another to Word -- I gave you above: I found the difference,
finally. It is a vandal (and I honestly thought just a newbie wanting to
perfect our Mandarin wording! I mentioned vandalism merely as a
possibility).

The vandal changed the mentioning of the English WP creation year fr. 2001
-> 2006. A moronic joke or Anglophobist it is.

Anyway, that just further proofs the flaw of the current diff detection.

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>>> Restore the previous version. I will try to work out what has gone
>>> wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll have a look myself.
>>
> With the old file in place, many accents are still broken.
> eg from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3ALe_Bistro
> " Bienvenue au Bistro Wikip???dia"

Strange. I replaced everything exactly as it was.

> I am very very sorry about this.
> I am out of my depth. Off to drown my sorrows down the pub.

Before you leave: It seems that "Language.php" is the guilty party
somehow (I copied that as well, as it contains "fallback" items in case
the LanguageFr.php isn't up to date or missing something). I'd guess
it's the "global $IP" thingy at the very end of the file. Working on it...

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Before you leave: It seems that "Language.php" is the guilty party
> somehow (I copied that as well, as it contains "fallback" items in case
> the LanguageFr.php isn't up to date or missing something). I'd guess
> it's the "global $IP" thingy at the very end of the file. Working on it...

Adding:

Yes, was the $IP variable that is now defined in the new, improved
GlobalFunctions.php. Copied that as well, and all the accents are in
place again (or is that just the usual dirt on my screen? ;-)

Magnus


body:
Oliver-
> I have an objection. Mr. Puzzle has made quite a few useful edits, and has
> hardly annoyed anyone. The long sequences of small edits can become
> annoying, but as far as I'm aware we're not running out of disc space, and
> I hear rumours that we may be getting an enhanced "diff" feature

*cough* I'm the person who's supposed to write that one. That might help,
but still, every save takes considerable time, slows down wiki for
everyone, and clutters up Recent Changes.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Still, I think that a person who is already
officially banned should at least make some attempt to accommodate others
if they do not want this ban to be effectively enforced.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Oliver-
>
>>I have an objection. Mr. Puzzle has made quite a few useful edits, and has
>>hardly annoyed anyone. The long sequences of small edits can become
>>annoying, but as far as I'm aware we're not running out of disc space, and
>>I hear rumours that we may be getting an enhanced "diff" feature
>
>
> *cough* I'm the person who's supposed to write that one. That might help,
> but still, every save takes considerable time, slows down wiki for
> everyone, and clutters up Recent Changes.

Using the "Enhanced recent changes" really helps getting the Recent
Changes flood under control :-)

Magnus


from_name: Graham Burnett

subject: [WikiEN-l] too many edits???

body:
>
> >Reasons for enforcing ban:
> >
> >In spite of repeated warning, persists in his annoying habit to make
> >dozens of edits per page within an interval of seconds,
>
> Banning somebody for making too many edits to one article in too short a
> space of time is pretty draconian. I don't think it's even close to a a
> good reason for banning.
>

Well I guess I'd have to be banned too 'cos I'm frequently guilty of this as
well.

Graham (quercus robur)


body:
Magnus-
> Using the "Enhanced recent changes" really helps getting the Recent
> Changes flood under control :-)

I use it, but it's not the default and doesn't work in every browser. Last
I checked, only 362 of 11474 users used it.

Regards,

Erik


body:
This Slashdot article:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/23/217212&mode=nested&tid=137

contains a reference to Wikipedia's article about "Deep Thought" from the
Douglas Adams book trilogy. I don't think it will cause too much traffic,
though, since it is not the focus of the article. It's interesting because
Slashdot for some time used Everything2 links to explain stuff like that
-- apparently Wikipedia is a more valuable resource, at least in the
opinion of the submitter.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] PP and ban

body:
Anthere wrote:

>Well. Other perfectly well integrated editors have
>done similar things. Ie, considering the point of view
>of editors who had made a very small number of
>contributions had less weight than them. Imho, that
>makes sense. Also, he did not try to "cheat" and make
>the change with noone being aware of it, since he put
>a comment.
>
>I think were more and more things be decided by votes
>(how sad), there is perhaps need to check whether
>there is no double voting.
>
If we end up in a situation where votes make a difference, we shouldn't
put ourselves in a position where double voting will have any
significant effect.  That's better than trying to devise schemes for
frustrating the cheaters.

Where votes are taken they can only give us temporary solutions.  New
people who join after the vote should have the opportunity to have their
influence mean something even if it means reversing a policy..

Ec


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Magnus-
>
>>Using the "Enhanced recent changes" really helps getting the Recent
>>Changes flood under control :-)
>>
>
>I use it, but it's not the default and doesn't work in every browser. Last
>I checked, only 362 of 11474 users used it.
>
That 11474 includes many people who only stay a short while.  Most of
the regulars should know about it.

Ec