from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: search manipulation

body:
Thanks Suisui, it's awesome!

One last note - is it possible to have different button labels
depending on the user's language setting?

cheers
Brianna

On 20/02/07, min Sui <wm.suisui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
> I forgot one thing.
> you can see it here -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search
>
> thanks.
>
> suisui
> wm.suisui at gmail.com
>
> 07/02/20 ? min Sui<wm.suisui at gmail.com> ????????:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I added MayFlower part to .js.
> > http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js
> > last part of it
> >
> > ?var mayflowero = new Object();
> > ? mayflowero["t"] = "n";
> > ? engine = SearchForm("MayFlower",
> > ?"http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/index.php",
> > ?"http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/mayflower-logo.png",
> > ?
> > "http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/search.php",
> > ?                    "q", "", mayflowero);
> > ? div.appendChild(engine);
> >
> > is for MayFlower,
> > you can select / add / delete what engine you want to use.
> >
> > if you have a good-sized logo of Mayflower, it will be more nicer, tangotango ;)
> >
> > Suisui
> > suisui at gmail.com
> >
> > 2007/2/20, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>:
> > > Could we do this to add a 'Mayflower' button?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > Brianna
> > > user:pfctdayelise
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: min Sui <wm.suisui at gmail.com>
> > > Date: 20-Feb-2007 15:39
> > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Support WMF via GoodSearch
> > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I made a quick javaScript hack for Special:Search
> > > from french wikipedia -> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js
> > >
> > > this shows like this -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search
> > > it's shows this way.
> > > 1. input word(s) to search box
> > > 2. click search
> > > and select search engine you like, will make
> > > result search from paticuler project.
> > > ( my script points to ja.wikipedia.org you can change it ;)
> > > and the source is here -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js
> > > anyone can use it freely.
> > >
> > > thanks.
> > >
> > > suisui
> > > suisui at gmail.com
> > >
> > > 2007/2/15, the wub <thewub.wiki at googlemail.com>:
> > > > You can also use a link like
> > > > http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=812661<http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=xxx>that
> > > > links to the search page with WMF pre-selected, which will be good to
> > > > promote this.
> > > > ** <http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=xxx>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Commons-l mailing list
> > > Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

body:
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also: we will never have a handle on copyright violations. on any
> project, dare I say.

There are ways it could be done. Some of them are even legal.

--
geni


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Matthew Flaschen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and proxy_check

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
>> From my understanding, if a registered user uses an IP that has been
>> blocked, they will also be blocked, correct? If a solution that works
>> as a compromise is to ban just the anonymous edits from this these
>> IPs, while allowing registered users to edit from these IPs, some sort
>> of changes to Mediawiki will have to be put in place to accomodate
>> this, as far as I know.
>
> Such changes were committed some time ago.  They're definitely in 1.9,
> possibly in 1.8 (can't remember offhand).  There's now an option to
> block only anonymous edits from an IP.
>
>> Additionally, this doesn't prevent a vandal
>> from creating multiple accounts, unless there's a way to increase the
>> blocking on the IP to the normal, usual level so that registered users
>> from that IP are also blocked.
>
> It's also possible to block only account creation from an IP, thanks
> to the same set of changes to blocking.  I don't think anyone minds if
> Tor accounts are allowed to edit from registered accounts, the
> question is whether they should a) be allowed to edit anonymously
> (answer: no), and/or b) be allowed to create accounts (answer: maybe).
>
>> Another possibility is that registered users from these IPs will have
>> to confirm their registration via e-mail, if the wiki isn't configured
>> to do so already. It'd be nice to have this option just for this
>> special case.
>
> Interesting point, but you could use the same address for all the
> accounts, surely, and the only ones who could tell (and, e.g., block
> the address somehow) would be people with database access.  So you
> could just create adjgi39qaikc at hotmail.com and use it for all your
> accounts, and no one would be the wiser.  (I assume we don't enforce
> unique e-mail addresses, but even if we do, you could have
> adjgi39qaikc+1 at gmail.com, adjgi39qaikc+2 at gmail.com, etc., which will
> all be delivered to you.)'

Really?  Does that work for all domains?...

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070221/bc23e116/attachment.pgp>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

body:
Reading those two emails confirmed exactly what I thought they would
contain. This user is very rude (calling the admin abusive is the
least of it), disrespectful and generally trollish. Also, at least the
second one of his claims (the only one I looked at, briefly) was
complete BS.

We get a dozen of these guys every week. Seriously, how many people
have accused our admins of being "rouge"? If there is a legitimate
complaint, we have ways to deal with that. Sending trollish comments
to wikien is not one of them.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I have complete trust in the
mods ability to separate legitimate stuff from things like this. There
has been a lot of complaints recently about what you let through and
what you don't, but overall I think you do a great job. And hey, if
you getting backed up, you could hold start a recruitment thread again
like you done before sometimes. I'm sure there are people willing to
help.

--Oskar


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to
	be

body:
People who want to reuse material from Wikipedia need to have permission
too.
If you just have permission to use the image in Wikipedia that's not enough.
You need to ask if they want to release it under a free license.

Mgm

On 2/20/07, Martin, Jon <jmartin at ebmud.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Wales,
>
>
>
> My apologies for bugging you on this. I am a new Wiki contributor
> (fizbin) and am a bit confused by requirements for uploading photo
> images. Below is an email conversation between myself and the owners
> (New York Road Runners) of an online photograph I'd like to insert in
> the Wiki entry for Jordan Hasay. Yet even though they clearly give
> permission to use the photo in the Wiki entry, the Wiki rules you posted
> have me confused as to whether you folks will allow its use. It almost
> seems by what I've read that the only photos allowed will be ones that
> contributors take with their own cameras!
>
>
>
> Please advise. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Jon Martin
>
> Oakland, CA
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Jillian Haber [mailto:jhaber at nyrr.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: Shannon Martin; Martin, Jon
> Subject: Re: Fast Women Photos On Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> You have permission to post that photo of Jordan Hasay from the 2005
> Foot Locker Nationals.  Please include the follow photo credit with the
> photo
>
> Photo Credit: Courtesy of New York Road Runners
>
> Thanks,
> Jillian
>
>
> On 2/20/07 10:52 AM, "Shannon Martin" <smartin at nyrr.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Jon,
> I am copying this message to our photo editor, Jillian. 2005 is the last
> year that NYRR shot photos of the Foot Locker Nationals, so that is
> probably the most up-to-date photo of Jordan that we have.  Jillian
> should be in touch with you soon as to the possibility of using this
> photo.
>
> Thank you!
> Shannon
>
>
> Shannon Martin
> Editor
> Fast-women.com
> Mensracing.com
> smartin at nyrr.org
> New York Road Runners
> 9 East 89th Street
> New York, NY 10128
> 212 860 4455
> Extension 324
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Martin, Jon [mailto:jmartin at ebmud.com]
> <mailto:jmartin at ebmud.com%5d>
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:04 PM
> To: Shannon Martin
> Subject: Fast Women Photos On Wikipedia
>
> Dear Ms. Martin,
>
> While looking up some info I came across the Wikipedia entry for Jordan
> Hasay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hasay). The entry was poorly
> written, and so I spent a little time today cleaning up the beginning of
> it. I was thinking of adding a photo, but got buried in Wiki's fair use
> policy which appears to prohibit linking to pretty much any online
> photos without express consent of the owners, which sounds fair to me. I
> also note that your web site also has similar language.
>
> So this is a request to add one of your site's photos of Jordan Hasay to
> her Wiki entry. This one from the 2005 Footlocker would be good
> (http://www.fast-women.com/photos/2005/footlockerxc05/footlockerxc120.jp
> g), but your site has many pictures and you may have others you feel are
> better for this purpose. If so, please let me know.
>
> Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
> Jon Martin
> Oakland, CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jillian Haber
> Photo Editor
> New York Road Runners
> (212) 423-2237
> jhaber at nyrr.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


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

body:
There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about
Vegas.
"Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic
restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By the
way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.

Mgm

On 2/21/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic
> > restaurants
> > and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both?"
> > Neither. Those are the visitor attractions of any city that has them. It
> > provides no helpfulm information. If they're all named with address and
>
> Not sure I get your logic. If a casino is a visitor attraction for any
> city that has them, then you would not include the sentence "It is
> renowned for its casinos" in [[Las Vegas]]?
>
> But anyway we are broadly in agreement.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Admins blocking each other

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in
>> fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other
>> admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper
>> channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which
>> are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the
>> blocking...
>
> Well, that's another matter entirely. It's a case of there not being
> enough admins for them to provide checks and balances for eachother.
> I'm not sure what can be done about that...
>
If there are only two regular users (admins or not), is this wiki
currently a sustainable project?

-Rich Holton
[[w:en:User:Rholton]]


list: commons-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons

body:
daniel1978 at uol.com.br wrote:
> Sorry, but categories should have English-language names only.
>
> How can someone find "Bridges in Athens" if the category title was written
> in Greek? Or "Palaces in Istambul"? Or "Rivers in India" (and what alphabet
> should we use in this last case?).
>
Well, if I were a native speaker working on el:, "Bridges in Athens"
would be Greek to me. :-)

My understanding was that we agreed to do category names in English as
an interim compromise pending software improvements. If those
improvements are not happening, then we should consider alternative ideas.

Stan


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:58:29 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill
> <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> THIS IS THE POLICE!
> >> DROP THE STICK AND STEP AWAY FROM THE HORSE CARCASS!
>
> >That's a good first try.  You should use "interrogation
> >officer".  Suggesting you're a public servent may result
> in
> >long term incarceration instead of just getting fired
> and
> >rehired by one of our affiliated corporations.  Also,
> >terrorist detainees will neve have sticks.  Just get
> them
> >naked and drop them on the horse and let nature take
> it's
> >course.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:STICK

So you were being literal and meant "This is the admin;
forget policy, abide by essays, and stop using
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HORSE_CARCASS ?"  You'll
see that I've never created or edited such an article (or
one on stick or horsemeat).

In an effort to further assist your communications, please
note that one can easily view the block as the "carcass"
and its continuance as the ceaseless beating.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


from_name: Eugene Zelenko

body:
Hi!

On 2/21/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> daniel1978 at uol.com.br wrote:
> > Sorry, but categories should have English-language names only.
> >
> > How can someone find "Bridges in Athens" if the category title was written
> > in Greek? Or "Palaces in Istambul"? Or "Rivers in India" (and what alphabet
> > should we use in this last case?).
> >
> Well, if I were a native speaker working on el:, "Bridges in Athens"
> would be Greek to me. :-)
>
> My understanding was that we agreed to do category names in English as
> an interim compromise pending software improvements. If those
> improvements are not happening, then we should consider alternative ideas.
>
> Stan

There are some development in category redirects fixing
(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3311), but I don't know
how ready to production.

With best regards,
Eugene.


from_name: Nick Wilkins

body:
On 2/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about
> Vegas.
> "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic
> restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By
> the
> way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.
>
> Mgm

Reno?  Monte Carlo?

"It is reknowned for its casinos" could easily refer to either of them,
among others.

-- Jonel


list: textbook-l

from_name: Garrett

body:
Regardless of the strictness of the upcoming official statement from the
Foundation, I think our local fair use policy should stipulate that fair use
should only be used when absolutely necessary AND when no PD/copyleft
equivalent exists. Images with stipulations that restrict re-use should also
be disallowed. If someone is creating an image specifically for a Wikibook
it should be released under the GFDL to ensure the maximum compatibility.

I don't think we should go all the way and insist on Commons only, as this
would make many history books difficult to write--it's unlikely some dead
German general is going to claim copyright over a photograph of himself, but
if Commons was the only way such images would be impossible.

The goal is to find a happy medium, and watch non-free uses closely. Other
sites have had trouble with people tagging fair use images as PD or
GFDL-self, so we'll need to watch for that too. I don't think this is an
impossible goal, however.

--Garrett (I almost signed with ~~~~)

On 17/02/07, Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I consider terrifying is the fact that the statute of limitations
> for copyright infringement in the United States is very ambiguous:
> technically, it is only three years, but there are numerous
> contradictory cases.
>
> Consider this example. I publish a book in August 2005. Another person
> copies an entire chapter in December 2005 without permission and for
> profit, directly infringing upon my exclusive right to the material,
> including it in their book. Their book is published September 2006. A
> second edition is published September 2007. It is still on the market
> for several years to come. Courts might consider the December 2005
> copy the original date of infringement, others might consider the
> September 2006, the 2007, or even the later dates when the book is
> still being published. Furthermore, there is ambiguity as to whether
> one can sue for damages only based on the past three years, or on the
> entire time the infringement (in this case) was in print.
>
> I know that it is pure speculation and copyright paranoia, but it is
> frightening. Also, I want to say that even if we decide what we would
> like to limit (or outright ban) regarding fair use, we should: (1)
> wait for the official statement from the board and (2) get help from
> foundation-l or more qualified legal personnel. But I would certainly
> support discussion about what we would like to allow or disallow.
> Also, I think we should seriously consider cleaning out our fair use
> archives...I can testify from roving through the subcategories of
> [[:Category:Wikibooks images]] that we have a lot of things that
> should never be considered fair use.
>
> -Iamunknown
>
> On 2/16/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It's more then just our legal risk in keeping those images and text.
> Under
> > US copyright law, we should be legally allowed to use some copyrighted
> > material under fair use guidelines without causing any problems. There
> are
> > several problems with fair use:
> > 1) Fair Use only applies in the US and a small handful of other
> countries.
> > In countries where fair use is not legal, all instances of it are
> considered
> > copyright infringement. In these countries, it is not legal to print or
> > distribute wikibooks containing fair use media.
> > 2) Fair use, or other limited licensing (such as "the author allows this
> > image to be used on wikibooks only") reduces our ability to print,
> > distribute, and modify our texts. Derivative works, a cornerstone of the
> > GFDL are not compatable with fair use, and using two incompatable
> licenses
> > on a single aggregate project (such as a wikibook) is simply not
> possible.
> > 3) Many people assume that text or an image can be released under fair
> use
> > when it can't be. Images that are uploaded under "fair use" are usually
> (as
> > you pointed out) not properly tagged or referenced. These instances of
> > misuse do constitute copyright infringement, and that could bring
> lawsuits.
> > We allowed fair use for a pretty long time on our project, but it isn't
> the
> > kind of fight that we should be pursuing any longer. There are too many
> > problems with it. -
> >
> > --Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
> >
> >
> > >From: "Matthew Benedict" <mattb112885 at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > >To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Textbook-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 8
> > >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:07:29 -0500
> > >
> > >Now that I have thought some more about it, I do feel that the use of
> > >fair use images should be limited, but the problem is where do we draw
> > >the line? We'd have to ask ourselves if the value of using the images
> > >in the book outweighs the legal risk of listing it under fair use,
> > >especially if the books will eventually be published in some manner,
> > >as I presume is one eventual goal for any book on the project. I think
> > >that only in extreme cases (such as maybe those european history
> > >images) should fair use be presumed, and these cases should be clearly
> > >defined, perhaps on a case-by-case or strict categorical basis.
> > >
> > >As for textual quotations, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> > >presumption of fair use for these (provided they are properly cited of
> > >course) is more common than the presumption of fair use for images. If
> > >we're going to do that we'll need some kind of standard method to
> > >describe the rationale for the fair use argument, like wikipedia has
> > >for images (i.e. this is a screenshot used only for illustration, this
> > >is a low-res company logo used to show what it looks like, etc).
> > >
> > >Speaking of citation, one problem with current fair use images is that
> > >a lot of them don't really cite the source properly; i.e. who created
> > >it? From what source was it derived? This information should be in the
> > >image page, but often they just have descriptions of what the image
> > >is, not where it came from or who the current copyright holder is,
> > >which can cause problems of its own.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Mattb112885
> > >
> > >
> > >On 2/16/07, textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> > ><textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > Send Textbook-l mailing list submissions to
> > > >         textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > >         http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > >         textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > >         textbook-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > > than "Re: Contents of Textbook-l digest..."
> > > >
> > > > Today's Topics:
> > > >
> > > >    1. Regarding fair use (Iamunknown)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com>
> > > > To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:52:49 -0700
> > > > Subject: [Textbook-l] Regarding fair use
> > > > I really don't want fair use to go totally away, but I agree that it
> > >should
> > > > be significantly limited. The clause, "Because of our commitment to
> free
> > > > content, this non-free media should not be used when it is
> reasonably
> > > > possible to replace with free media that would serve the same
> > >educational
> > > > purpose," in Kat Walsh's statement comes to mind. While I have
> expreseed
> > > > concern on-wiki and on-mailing list before about unlicensed images,
> many
> > > > which, if licensed properly, would remained unlicensed and used
> under
> > >fair
> > > > use, I think that we should not outright ban unlicensed content used
> > >under
> > > > fair use. In particular, we should allow very very limited use of
> > >non-free
> > > > media when it would be practically impossible to use free media --
> the
> > >media
> > > > used in the European History wikibook comes to mind -- and for small
> > >textual
> > > > quotations. What are everyone else's feelings?
> > > >
> > > > -Iamunknown
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --===============8126416904983688626==--
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Textbook-l mailing list
> > > > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Textbook-l mailing list
> > >Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best
> route!
> > http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Textbook-l mailing list
> > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Now we're ready for prime time...

body:
Wikipedia isn't "Not Ready for Prime Time" any more... we were
recently mentioned in a U.S. prime time broadcast network television
program.  At the end of this past Sunday's episode of "American Dad",
which concerned exposing a historical conspiracy, a character asks
the rhetorical question of where he can publish his expose of the
"true facts" he has uncovered so that people will believe it in
absence of actual proof... then answers it by creating an article on
Wikipedia.  (This actually violates several policies, including No
Original Research and Verifiability / References.)

This may be the most prominent pop-cultural mention we've got so far;
previous TV mentions were mostly on late-night cable shows like The
Colbert Report, but this is on a major network (if you call Fox that)
in prime time (7 or 8 PM - 11 PM in the U.S.).  It's perhaps related
that the Wikipedia traffic ratings spiked up again in Alexa at that
time, with the rank at a new record of #8.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Jeremy Cushman

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates, Response from sysadmin requested

body:
On 2/21/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Could we increase the limit to 12/minute on a trial basis?
>
> Steve

I'd support up to 20/min with approval from one of the sysadmins.
--Mets501


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Moderation on this mailing list

body:
Resending as per Mark Ryan's email on an accidental rejection from queue.

Parker

On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge
> <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> (apologies for non-trimmed top posting)
>
> Ray, I subscribe to unblock-en-l.

So do I.

  The really gross cases, I simply
> don't read.  I'm not capable of extending good faith so some of those
> people, so I leave them alone.

If you're not capable of extending good faith long enough to examine a case,
you have no business with admin powers.

  I *know* some cases are valid even
> though they are stated in obnoxious terms and often by obnoxious
> people.  One who was unblocked under a month ago is now in front of
> ArbCom; the unblock was probably valid but I'd not have unblocked.

Which proves that you don't deserve the power you have, since you're willing
to throw the book at people even when it's clear they've already been abused
by someone else.

 The
> thing is, though, we don't need those cases here.  Here, we discuss
> things which might actually be broken.

If by "discuss" you mean mouth vague platitudes and stonewall...

  Admins blocking abusive trolls
> is not broken.

With this I agree.

  I trust the mods to sort out the abusive trolls from
> the simply rude and obnoxious, I then apply my own filters to the rude
> and obnoxious.

May I suggest you apply your filters through a mirror briefly.

  Overall, the mods are doing just fine.

No, they're not.

  Either the
> seriously batshit cases don't post here, like they do to the unblock
> list, or they are being modded, and actually I don't care which.

The "seriously batshit" cases don't post here, but the cases which do post
here are ignored or pooh-poohed by personages like yourself anyways.

Thus the problems.

Parker

--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com

--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


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

body:
On 2/21/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It appears as though attempts to have any resolution or investigation
> are
> > being stonewalled, the user is being deliberately kept from their
> rightful
> > dispute resolution process, and that there is a severe systematic
> attempt to
> > block complaints because they relate to "high-ranking" administrators.
> >
> > Your response is just one more example of same.
>
> Has anyone approached ArbCom? I believe they accept cases from banned
> users via email.

I have CC'ed an arbcom member with regard to this, as well as sending
private emails urging him to get into contact with the user in question,
repeatedly.

No response to those CC's and no email from said Arbcom member has been
forthcoming.

I wonder if this is the first anyone has actually mentioned this to the user
of even having such an option. Likely so, given the conduct of
administrators in this case and in general; there seems to be a concerted
effort to keep users who are being abused away from the dispute resolution
process at all costs.

I'd also like to say, I have never seen an arbitration committee case
actually be accepted from email, save from "Nathanrdotcom" (which then
turned into a closed, "secret evidence" case vaguely reminiscent of
something "The Party" in Soviet Russia would hold). It seems to be a
"policy" that exists largely to be ignored.\

Then again, our dispute resolution process is so byzantine that it seems
designed to deliberately stop anyone who's not wikilawyering from
successfully navigating it, whereupon they can be accused of wikilawyering
and/or trolling for even getting that far.

Parker
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


body:
I note that you completely ignored the first complaint, that of users trying
to get a longtime user of Wikipedia banned for speaking up on WP:ANI about
abuses by administrators and their complete refusal to answer questions
posted there.

In fact, your approach in general seems to be to attack someone for bringing
valid complaints. This does not speak highly of you.

On 2/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Reading those two emails confirmed exactly what I thought they would
> contain. This user is very rude (calling the admin abusive is the
> least of it), disrespectful and generally trollish. Also, at least the
> second one of his claims (the only one I looked at, briefly) was
> complete BS.

Let's take a look at this in depth, shall we? I find your remark of
"complete BS" to be dismissive, rude, and unhelpful.

Basis of the complaint:
#1 - "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" blocked user:PSPMario. Factually
true:
07:40, 17 February 2007 Sir Nicholas de
Mimsy-Porpington<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington>(
Talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington>|
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington>)
blocked "PSPMario <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PSPMario>
(contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PSPMario>)"
(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite
(Sockpuppet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo>
)

#2 - "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" removed the unblock request:
Factually true.
Diff for original unblock request:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APSPMario&diff=108804649&oldid=104252495

Diff for removal (also the point where Sir Nicholas redirects page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APSPMario&diff=108804754&oldid=108804649

#3 - Unblock request was valid. I am copying the unblock request text here:
"I am no sockpuppet and I demand a REAL checkuser, one I can see. This was
pure bullshit. Unless someone was editing from my house which I REALLY
DOUBT, then the only conclusion is that someone lied about the checkuser
result."

This looks like a valid complaint to me.

#4 - "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" then locked the user's talk page
after redirecting it to the userpage: Factually true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APSPMario&diff=108804787&oldid=108804754

I see this as a completely valid complaint. Not only does Sir Nicholas
remove a valid unblock request when he's the blocking admin - which is a
SERIOUS violation, or at least should be - he then not only locks the talk
page, but redirects it elsewhere.

This makes it that much more difficult for someone trying to track down
what's going on to get to the right place, since linking to the talk page no
longer works properly.

There are no words for this other than abuse of power.

Parker
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:32:06 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill
> <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >So you were being literal and meant "This is the admin;
> >forget policy, abide by essays, and stop using
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HORSE_CARCASS ?"  You'll
>
> Nope, I meant that *NOBODY CARES*.  They might have done
> once, but they don't any more.

And back to the topic of your frustration, this consensus
(the lack thereof in this case) which is frustrating your
ability to apply article policy even though consensus is
only a guideline, and not an article guideline.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097


from_name: Husky

body:
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some projects who have done this:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload
>
> http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1
> (I know there are more...)

The German Wikipedia has also switched to Commons for most uploads.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]


from_name: Annabel

subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps

body:
It's not high priority, that's right, but you should also look at it
from the users point of view. If a large  download breaks at 85%, then
you have to redownload the whole file. I know that there download
managers, but with bitorrent you have extra certainty for the validity
of your file: every 1 MB or so, you have a MD5 hash, so corrupt
downloads can not happen.
Lowering the bandwith on the download server is just an extra advantage.

Annabel

Delirium schreef:
> Annabel wrote:
>
>> Bot users are able download database dumps of the wikimedia projects at
>> http://download.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html.
>> These bzipped dumps can be fairly large (especially for the English
>> language). Would not it be handy to have a bitorrent link to lower the
>> load on the download server?
>>
>>
>
> This was recently discussed briefly on wikitech-l, and the tentative
> consensus seemed to be that, while that might be useful, it's not a high
> priority because downloads of the database dumps don't currently account
> for a large percentage of Wikimedia's total bandwidth consumption, and
> so aren't the first place to look for bandwidth savings.
>
> -Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps


body:
On 2/21/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
>
> Parker Peters wrote:
> > The abject refusal of anyone to make any serious enquiry into his
> complaint,
> > the ongoing abuse of his talk page when he tried to file for unblock,
> and
> > the continual abusive tactics displayed by many administrators in trying
> to
> > shut off further enquiry on the WP:ANI board aren't helping him to calm
> > down, either. They're more proving his accusations had some truth behind
> > them.
> >
>
> I think a point where we can agree is that I think many administrative
> and cleanup actions (not just blocks, but speedy deletions, regular
> deletions, and reverts) would go better if editors and admins were more
> patient with strong emotions, troublemaking, and the confusion of
> novices.

The problem is, administrators are not so. The current crop of
administrators are a bunch of hotheads, a provocative group who see any
chance to do something to try to provoke a reaction as justified because
they are the ones in power.

> In many cases, that could help people like "Samuel" to calm
> down, and it can keep people from turning into enemies.

Instead, admins on wikipedia and on this list consistently have done nothing
but the opposite. You've been doing your level best to turn every new editor
that comes in, any editor that comes to try to say "this isn't right", into
an enemy of wikipedia. And you're doing a very good job of it, because we
have more and more enemies every day thanks to your efforts.

That's part of
> why I'd like to see more admins, so that each one has more time and more
> patience.

Provided they actually showed patience, this would be a good thing, yes.
However, every system option that's been proposed so far has looked more
like a way for a group of admins to get more of their cronies made into
admins, than an honest way to get an honest group of administrators who can
enforce the rules fairly, neutrally, and remain calm and remember to treat
people with respect.

On the rest of it, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm open to
> being persuaded that the current admin system is prone to the sort of
> collusion and systemic bias that crops up regularly in police
> departments. But this isn't the case that will do it for me.

This is precisely the case that shows it for me. Look at the sheer number of
problem admins:

- The_Epopt abuses a user once.

- Steel359 follows up The_Epopt's action and makes a nasty, incivil comment,
continues to try to provoke the user, blocks them, then locks the user page
and talk page and personally removes an unblock request.

- Sir Nicholas de Mimsy Porpington blocks a user, removes unblock request,
locks the talk page, AND redirects the talk page elsewhere to make it that
much harder to do a proper check.

- A completely innocent user, Miss Mondegreen, posts questions in regard to
this abuse and the deliberate provocation by Steel359, and is accused of
"trolling" and we see people calling for giving her a 6-month ban just for
speaking up.

- Trebor Rowntree (now curiously an admin candidate despite plenty of poor
behavior) abuses a user's talk page, removing unblock requests even though
he's not an admin.

- Yamla/Ryulong connection: I've been doing some studying, and two admins,
Yamla and Ryulong, are  answering probably far more unblock requests than
they should be, but since unblock declines aren't logged in an easy to check
way, it's hard to get real statistics. Regardless, this probably doesn't
help the situation, since their attitudes are rude at best.

- Regarding Jpgordon and the Checkuser, one of the few nice things about
being an old admin is that I still have a few contacts (who will remain
nameless for reasons you know well), and I've got the checkuser data myself.

Basis for a "probable" or "likely" check on CountPointercount and
RunedChozo? Zero edit collision (never a revert to each other or anything).
Possible IP address collision, but CountPointercount says he travels and the
IP is at a large university which likely has an open wireless network, so
that's no real proof either way. It would be easy enough to have
CountPointercount just go somewhere else and log in to prove he travels, but
that still has to get past people who are willing to falsify the results of
a CheckUser.

Basis for a "probable" or "likely" check on PSPMario and RunedChozo: editing
on two of the same articles (PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 3). PSPMario
reverts to RunedChozo's work on one occasion that I can find. Zero IP
address connection. The edit in question is related to a popular
webcomic/website (you may have heard of Penny Arcade?) and in regard to a
debatably popular, or at least widely noted in the newsmedia, game console.
We draw editors to these quite often, and claiming that PSPMario is a
"sockpuppet" based on this revert is a real stretch, especially since
Wikipedia's tools are specifically designed for things like reverts and
copying back of older versions/sections of a page.

Basis for a "probable" or "likely" check on PSPMario and CountPointercount:
the only possible confluence is that they both spoke up against the abusive
treatment RunedChozo received at the hands of Steel359. No edit collision,
no IP collision.

It's more likely that CountPointercount is a sockpuppet than PSPMario, and
even that is unlikely, definitely not the basis for a "likely" finding in
CheckUser.

JPGordon either misread the results or else deliberately wrote up his
"likely" summary to get rid of users who were question the behavior of
administrators, which is not a good thing. He likely didn't bother to run
the question on PSPMario at all, which doesn't say much for competence. I'm
willing to assume it was incompetence rather than malice for now, on his
part.

JKelly's indefinite block of CountPointercount can be excused on the basis
of "following orders" since JPGordon's bad checkuser was listed and Trebor
and "Ex-Nintendo Employee" were agitating to try to get everyone they
possibly can banned.

So yes, I'd say this has all the hallmarks of police dept-style corruption,
based on everything - all truthful - that I've just listed.

The_Epopt's involvement may explain why the arbitration committee members
are so curiously unwilling to respond to emails requesting that this be
written up as a case, and why administrators were so quickly trying to
"archive" it and otherwise quash investigation: they were probably easily
afraid that any action to the contrary would mean Epopt, or one of his
cronies, starting up an arbcom case to try to remove their own admin status.

Parker
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


from_name: Kusma

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
On 2/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> These usually get rejected over at [[WP:RFBOT]].  The last one rejected I
> can find is [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot]], with the
> reasonable basis that it was being proposed by an operator that was indef
> blocked.
>
> Some of the issues that come up with this perenial proposal are:
> *Dealing with dynamic IP addresses when welcoming anons and
> *Being "personal", the idea below about putting  a random (rotating) contact
> on the message may address that, but without leaving specific instuctinos
> the new user may try to reply to "you the welcomer" by editing their own
> talk, and noone will be watching it.
>

I personally think welcoming should be done by new page patrollers and
recent changes patrollers and basically anyone, not by some sort of
welcoming committee or bot. Any time you see somebody with a redlinked
talk page create an article that does not merit a warning, welcome
them, thank them specifically for the article, and point them to a
useful page like a related WikiProject. Perhaps we could use the
sorting features of projects like  [[User:AlexNewArtBot]] a bit more
and get newbies welcomed by people from projects related to the
articles they create.

Any purely automatic welcome should not be done by bot, but coded into
the software, keeping the beautifully redlinked user talk page that is
useful for vandal patrolling. Anyway, why should we welcome anyone who
doesn't edit? Once people have edited, we can start talking to them,
thank them for their edits, and point them in new directions.
Enculturation of newbies cannot be done by bots, and a welcome bot
will lessen the chance that a newbie gets a personal welcome related
specifically to his edits.

Kusma


from_name: Tangotango

subject: [Commons-l]  Raising the connection limit for tangotango

body:
Larry, thanks for posting this.
Having investigated the situation, it appears that the problem was
due to a case of bad coding on my part. I have changed the SQL
queries, and most searches should complete faster now, so 15
simultaneous connections should *probably* be okay.

If, however, anybody sees the "Oops, too many users" error message
quite frequently, please tell me, and I will ask DaB. to up the limit
for my account.

Cheers,

Tangotango

On Tue Feb 20 14:13:47 UTC 2007, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

<snip />
But unfortunately it's bumping into the 15 connection limit already.
<snip />
Please consider raising that limit, a lot. Not sure how much but a lot
because commons searches are quite frequent.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps

references:
<ereiq6$462$1@sea.gmane.org> <45DB2F17.3060901@hackish.org>
	<erh44s$lu0$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> It's not high priority, that's right, but you should also look at it
> from the users point of view. If a large  download breaks at 85%, then
> you have to redownload the whole file. I know that there download
> managers, but with bitorrent you have extra certainty for the validity
> of your file: every 1 MB or so, you have a MD5 hash, so corrupt
> downloads can not happen.
> Lowering the bandwith on the download server is just an extra advantage.

A download manager is a better way to increase your chances of a clean
download. Bittorrent only works if you have lots of people downloading
at the same time (or at least similar enough times that the people
that have finished haven't given up seeding) - I'm not sure that's the
case with Wikipedia DB dumps.


subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps


body:
On en it is absolutely forbidden for an admin to unblock themselves
(unless they have the consent of the blocking admin, for example when
testing things). An admin blocking another admin is frowned upon and
would need a very good reason, but it tolerated under some (rare)
circumstances (eg. you have reason to think the account has been
compromised, although you would actually need an emergency desysopping
in that case).

So, in your situation, I would say you were definitely in the wrong,
the blocking admin was probably in the wrong.

You should have requested another admin to unblock you, just like any
other use would.
The blocking admin should have gone through the proper channels
(ArbCom or equiv.).


from_name: Luna

subject:
[Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves
	inpt.wikipedia.orgThankyou

body:
On 2/18/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it only requires some alterations of the site configuration file.
> Nothing major, actually...

That does sound like a long time, but I'm not involved in that wiki, so
doesn't seem my place to question too deeply. On the other hand, I'm not
entirely sure about how this all is set up -- would changing the "able to
move pages" threshold also change the "able to edit semi-protected pages"
threshold?

And if those are the same variable, would it be reasonable to make them
distinct variables?

Just something to consider,
-Luna


body:
> It appears as though attempts to have any resolution or investigation are
> being stonewalled, the user is being deliberately kept from their rightful
> dispute resolution process, and that there is a severe systematic attempt to
> block complaints because they relate to "high-ranking" administrators.
>
> Your response is just one more example of same.

Has anyone approached ArbCom? I believe they accept cases from banned
users via email.


subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps

body:
> If the bandwidth isn't a problem, then you can use web seed[1] to back
> the torrent up when there aren't enough regular seeders. surely,
> bittorrent is the safest way to get uncorrupted downloads.

If you're using the Wikipedia server as the main seed, then you might
as well download it directly. Bittorrent only does so many checks
because it's so easy for it to get corrupted when you're downloading
from so many people. A direct download is much safer.


subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and proxy_check

body:
On 2/21/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Simetrical wrote:
> > (I assume we don't enforce
> > unique e-mail addresses, but even if we do, you could have
> > adjgi39qaikc+1 at gmail.com, adjgi39qaikc+2 at gmail.com, etc., which will
> > all be delivered to you.)'
>
> Really?  Does that work for all domains?...

Not really on-topic, but no.  Gmail is probably the best known, but
some other hosts have similar schemes.  See:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=plus+addressing&btnG=Search>


from_name: bbatsell

body:
On Feb 21, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> This may be the most prominent pop-cultural mention we've got so far;
> previous TV mentions were mostly on late-night cable shows like The
> Colbert Report, but this is on a major network (if you call Fox that)
> in prime time (7 or 8 PM - 11 PM in the U.S.).

Wikipedia was mentioned on Emmy Award-winning "The Office" (the US
version, NBC) a couple of weeks ago (specifically, the [[Droit de
seigneur]] article).


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
On 2/21/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> If there is a technical problem with high rate editing then we will limit
> the rate by technical means. We can't rely on policy to maintain good
> performance. Recommended bot edit rates are there for non-technical
> reasons, such as to allow time for review.
>
> Currently there is a technically imposed limit of 8 edits per minute on
> IPs and new accounts, to mitigate bot-driven vandalism. There is no limit
> on established accounts.
>
> -- Tim Starling

OK, I propose raising the edit rate to 15 edits per minute.
I will mention it on the community noticeboard and see if there are any
objections there before putting it into the policy.
--Mets501


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
On 21/02/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
> resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
> comments and suggestions.
>
> This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
> actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
>
> ==Applicable definitions==
> ; Project
> : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
> or Wikisource, and a language.

This excludes Meta, Species, wwwwikisource, MediaWiki, Foundation
wikis which don't have language versions. And did you notice you used
the word "project" in the definition of the word "project"? We have a
major ambiguity problem here. :)
Also excludes Commons but that seems covered below.

> # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
> community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
> EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
> easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

Define 'machine readable format'. (Or maybe there is a definition I don't know?)

> # Such EDPs must be minimal.

Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of
such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or
even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person
who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and
even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I
know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who
dislike fair use too.

> #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
> EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
> to coordinate this process.

This is great. Put this in bigger font and re-emphasise to the
projects who are worried.

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
Wow, I think that is the first time I have started a thread on this
mailing list that has received so many replies. :)

I posted here in the hope of receiving guidance from the list
subscribers about what they consider to be acceptable on this mailing
list, so that the WikiEN-l moderators can tailor our moderation to
suit the subscribers. For weeks we have been receiving messages like
"who let this through to the list" and "why isn't this person banned
from the list" in relation to various people, and I was unsure to what
extent the 'tolerance' of the subscribers to the mailing list endured.

On 20/02/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> Calling someone "abusive" is still an ad hominem statement. Rather
> than saying "Admin X is abusive!1!" the person should say "Admin X
> engaged in behaviour on Y page that seemed abusive to me, here's some
> diffs..."

Yes, that's what I was getting at. You can raise the issue of
questionable behaviour by an administrator without resorting to
calling them "abusive". I guess that makes this an issue of civility
rather than personal attacks? But this thread, if anything, indicates
that calling someone abusive is not considered to be as grave as I had
thought. Maybe it's becoming so widely used that people have become
desensitised to the accusation. Anyway, at least one other user had
their emails rejected because of this, and they readily re-submitted
the email modified to remove such accudsatory language, and it was
accepted onto the mailing list.

I'm not interested in rejecting any email simply because it accuses an
admin of misconduct. If that happened, how would dodgy admins be
exposed? But what I am hoping to avoid is WikiEN-l becoming "the new
Wikipedia Review", wherein a crowd of overly paranoid banned users sit
and go through every single admin action of their most hated
administrator (generally the admin who blocked them in the first
place). I recognise that it is a balancing act between total
censorship and a total free-for-all. I just wanted to know in which
direction the balance should tip, according to the wishes and
sensitivities of the subscribers to the mailing list.

For the record, and since the mailing list has generally expressed an
opposition to the moderation of such messages, I copy below the
messages whic I moderated. Please look into the person's complaints.

~Mark Ryan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Samuel L Bronkowitz" <countpointercount at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:31:12 -0600
Subject: Just the latest
Not satisfied with trying to silence those they've banned, the abusive
admin crew are now trying to silence Miss Mondegreen for speaking up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Stop_archiving.21_in_re_RunedChozo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Proposed_Community_Ban_of__Miss_Mondegreen

"Mackensen" has also been routinely "cleaning" comments regarding his
behavior off of the page.

But you don't care about systemic abuse, obviously.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: more abusive administrator behavior
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APSPMario&diff=108804787&oldid=108804649
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:PSPMario

User "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" blocked him, removed his
unblock request, redirected the page to his talk page, then locked
them both.

He claimed "Trolling" for PSPMario legitimately trying to file an
unblock request.

How long do you plan to keep up the charade that there's no systemic
abuse of administrator powers going on?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
On 2/21/07, Jeremy Cushman <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, I propose raising the edit rate to 15 edits per minute.
> I will mention it on the community noticeboard and see if there are any
> objections there before putting it into the policy.
> --Mets501
>

Whoops, I meant to say the village pump.  I've proposed it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Bot_edit_rate
Feel free to comment there if you have any issues.
--Mets501


body:
Effeietsanders hit on all the major reasons a project might want or
not want to move to Commons-only upoads. I do plan to write a guide on
Commons called something like 'Turning off local uploads', with advice
for projects about how to make this transition smoothly. But I haven't
written it yet.

For people who think Commons is 'not being nice'... please write to me
PRIVATELY and I will seriously do everything I can to solve problems
you have had or are having, and improve relations between your project
and Commons. I really consider that is very important for Commons and
will take what you say seriously. I am always open on that front.

Anyway, here is the first step towards 'Commons-only' uploads, for
those who are interested: point your upload link on the sidebar to a
page [[Project:Upload]] instead of [[Special:Upload]]. Then on this
page you can explain about source, licensing, copyright, direct people
to Commons if they want.

All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced
BIG, significant drops in  upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as
many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even
if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend
it.

Some projects who have done this:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1
(I know there are more...)

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 21/02/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like
> english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not
> being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too
> big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on
> youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as
> well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy
> locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save
> WMF-diskspace etc.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/20, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com>:
> >
...
> > And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
> > Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the
> > influx
> > of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)


body:
> This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in
> fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other
> admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper
> channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which
> are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the
> blocking...

Well, that's another matter entirely. It's a case of there not being
enough admins for them to provide checks and balances for eachother.
I'm not sure what can be done about that...


from_name: Rob

body:
On 2/20/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Shouldn't unblock-en-l serve that function now?
>
>
> If it were actually properly monitored and served a real enforcement
> function? Perhaps. Instead, it's just something ignored, yet another rubber
> stamp with no real meaning.

So what's the solution then?  You have a tiresome amount of things to
say here about imagined malfeasance, so what do you propose we do
about this supposed problem?  It would be preferable to come up with a
solution that doesn't expose our volunteers to daily abuse and attacks
and make this list a troll free-for-all.


body:
On 21/02/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced
> > BIG, significant drops in  upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as
> > many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even
> > if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend
> > it.
>
> I hate to see anyone from commons recommending this while we still do
> not have a handle on copyright violations on commons.
>
> Our goal should be a reduction in the percentage of uploaded copyright
> infringements wikimedia wide, and I've yet to see evidence that
> switching things to commons improves the situation.

I am not convinced that that is what happens (although neither of us
can prove either way). I think having the additional page, without the
upload form, encourages people to actually read what it says, instead
of skipping ahead to find the 'submit' button. Hopefully what happens
is, some free images go to Commons, some copyvios don't get uploaded
at all, some confused users get redirected to a Help desk, and overall
uploads are halved.

Also: we will never have a handle on copyright violations. on any
project, dare I say.
(That's not a reason not to strive for copyvio-free projects, of course.)

cheers
Brianna


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: increased bot edit rates on en:wp

body:
Bots are problematic enough as is, we have any number that malfunction or do
things based on an ill-considered script already.

The faster you allow them to edit, the faster two bots could conceivably get
into a war as well.

Parker

On 2/21/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Bot_edit_rate
>
> This has been discussed on wikitech-l a bit in the last few days. Tim
> Starling says there's no technical reason for a limit, the current
> limit's to allow workable human review; so it's a matter for local
> policy. Further discussion at above URL.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Moving the contents to the side panel

body:
The contents box seems to cause endless problems with article layout,
particularly when combined with an infobox[1], or when the intro
section is short compared to the number of sections in the article.[2]
The result always seems to be a huge white space between the intro and
the rest of the article.

Would it be possible to have the contents box appear in the side panel
of the GUI, perhaps above the toolbox? This could either be a
per-article setting or perhaps site-wide.

Steve

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/2/21, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:

> You should have requested another admin to unblock you, just like any
> other use would.
> The blocking admin should have gone through the proper channels
> (ArbCom or equiv.).
>

This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in
fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other
admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper
channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which
are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the
blocking...

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


from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hooks inside extensions

body:
Thanks for bringing this up, Jim.

For reference, what he's referring to is the practice of creating one's own
hooks from within an extension.  In this case, we did so via a line like
this:

wgRunHooks('PagesOnDemand', array( &$title, &$article));

The key here being that it would be up to another extension to hook onto
'PagesOnDemand' and perform some processing.  (We refer to these extensions
as 'extension modules' casually amongst ourselves to distinguish them from
first-order extensions).

The question is, should we document publicly (other than in our own
documentation) the hook "PagesOnDemand" in order to reduce the likelihood of
collisions with other extensions' hooks?  If so, where would be a good place
for it?

This presupposes - to an extent - that others also are in the practice of
writing "meta extensions" - extensions which provide hooks for other
extensions.  I'm not sure how widely this is done.

Regarding Cite in particular - it would be useful to some if there were
strategically placed calls to wfRunHooks which expose some of the internals
to third-party extensions.

In Jim's case, he needs to be able to modify a <ref>'s inner text based on
the value of the 'name' key (if provided).  This could be met by injecting
the following at the beginning of the stack() method:

wfRunHooks('CiteBeforeStack', array( &$str, &$key ));

''Note: I'll be happy to provide a patch if necessary''

He could then hook 'CiteBeforeStack' and modify $str to be whatever he
needed.  As it is today, he hacks the Cite extension to do what he wants.

So, in general, what is the community's standpoint on extensions hooking
into extensions?  Is this encouraged, discouraged, common or uncommon?  We'd
like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks in advance,

Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)

On 2/21/07, Jim Hu <jimhu at tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> There are cases where it would be useful to run hooks from inside
> extensions.  For example, there's a hook in an extension that Jim
> Wilson and I just wrote, and I wish there were hooks in Cite.php.
>
> Seems to me that this should be accompanied by registering the hook
> name with mediawiki to avoid name collisions.  Should extension
> authors just go and add these to the mediawiki.org and meta hooks
> documentation?  Or should there be some recommendation for hook names
> from extensions?
>
> Jim
> =====================================
> Jim Hu
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
> 2128 TAMU
> Texas A&M Univ.
> College Station, TX 77843-2128
> 979-862-4054
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Hooks inside extensions

body:
Sorry all for the dupe - Gmail's wigging out on me :(

On 2/21/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, Jim.
>
> For reference, what he's referring to is the practice of creating one's
> own hooks from within an extension.  In this case, we did so via a line like
> this:
>
> wgRunHooks('PagesOnDemand', array( &$title, &$article));
>
> The key here being that it would be up to another extension to hook onto
> 'PagesOnDemand' and perform some processing.  (We refer to these extensions
> as 'extension modules' casually amongst ourselves to distinguish them from
> first-order extensions).
>
> The question is, should we document publicly (other than in our own
> documentation) the hook "PagesOnDemand" in order to reduce the likelihood of
> collisions with other extensions' hooks?  If so, where would be a good place
> for it?
>
> This presupposes - to an extent - that others also are in the practice of
> writing "meta extensions" - extensions which provide hooks for other
> extensions.  I'm not sure how widely this is done.
>
> Regarding Cite in particular - it would be useful to some if there were
> strategically placed calls to wfRunHooks which expose some of the internals
> to third-party extensions.
>
> In Jim's case, he needs to be able to modify a <ref>'s inner text based on
> the value of the 'name' key (if provided).  This could be met by injecting
> the following at the beginning of the stack() method:
>
> wfRunHooks('CiteBeforeStack', array( &$str, &$key ));
>
> ''Note: I'll be happy to provide a patch if necessary''
>
> He could then hook 'CiteBeforeStack' and modify $str to be whatever he
> needed.  As it is today, he hacks the Cite extension to do what he wants.
>
> So, in general, what is the community's standpoint on extensions hooking
> into extensions?  Is this encouraged, discouraged, common or uncommon?  We'd
> like to hear your thoughts.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
>
>
> On 2/21/07, Jim Hu < jimhu at tamu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > There are cases where it would be useful to run hooks from inside
> > extensions.  For example, there's a hook in an extension that Jim
> > Wilson and I just wrote, and I wish there were hooks in Cite.php.
> >
> > Seems to me that this should be accompanied by registering the hook
> > name with mediawiki to avoid name collisions.  Should extension
> > authors just go and add these to the mediawiki.org and meta hooks
> > documentation?  Or should there be some recommendation for hook names
> > from extensions?
> >
> > Jim
> > =====================================
> > Jim Hu
> > Associate Professor
> > Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
> > 2128 TAMU
> > Texas A&M Univ.
> > College Station, TX 77843-2128
> > 979-862-4054
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>


from_name: Mohamed Magdy

subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps

body:
> A download manager is a better way to increase your chances of a clean
> download. Bittorrent only works if you have lots of people downloading
> at the same time (or at least similar enough times that the people
> that have finished haven't given up seeding) - I'm not sure that's the
> case with Wikipedia DB dumps.
>
If the bandwidth isn't a problem, then you can use web seed[1] to back
the torrent up when there aren't enough regular seeders. surely,
bittorrent is the safest way to get uncorrupted downloads.

[1]=http://www.bittornado.com/download.html


subject: [Foundation-l] Database dumps


subject: [Wikitech-l] Announcing UsenetSyntax Extension

body:
> Woohoo.  :-)

Thanks - I'm glad you approve!

> FWIW, the customary rendering (IME) is _italics_, since handwritten
> underlining is usually rendered as italics in typesetting, and most
> computer displays have, traditionally, not had a good way to render
> underlining...

Dang.  When I asked everybody on the IRC channel, they told me it was
*bold*, _underline_, and /italics/

The change is trivial to make in the code - I just need to know what the
"accepted format" is - I've never used Usenet.

-- Jim

On 2/21/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:34:13PM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > There was some buzz on this list a while back about supporting Usenet
> syntax
> > - such as *bold*, /italics/ and _underscores_.
> >
> > I have created an extension which provides this facility, which you can
> read
> > about here:
> >
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:UsenetSyntax
>
> Woohoo.  :-)
>
> > I welcome all feedback - and thanks in advance to anyone who wants to
> give
> > it a shot.
>
> FWIW, the customary rendering (IME) is _italics_, since handwritten
> underlining is usually rendered as italics in typesetting, and most
> computer displays have, traditionally, not had a good way to render
> underlining...
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth
> jra at baylink.com
> Designer                          Baylink                             RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87
> e24
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647
> 1274
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Gregory Kohs

subject: [WikiEN-l] What would satisfy MyWikiBiz?

body:
A thought came over me last night -- it seems that all Gregory Kohs does is
complain about Wikipedia, namely the actions of certain admins, and their
treatment of his organizations MyWikiBiz and International Communications
Research within the Wikipedia space.  Has anyone thought about what would
satisfy this persistant level of complaint?  Well, who better to ask that
question than the complainant himself?

I would love to move forward as a renewed supporter of Wikipedia and hone my
skills as a NPOV contributor to the encyclopedia (on topics like dogs, board
games, waterfalls, etc.) if the following terms could be met by the
Wikipedia community.  I'll leave it to this list to discuss (hopefully
fairly) as to whether these requests are reasonable or not.

(1) Gregory Kohs and MyWikiBiz have both expressed that they are no longer
interested in creating or editing articles within Wikipedia in exchange for
payment or favor of any kind.  They are working for payment in the
development of another wiki directory site called
Centiare.com<http://centiare.com/>.
Properly used, Centiare (in a vein similar to Wikia.com <http://wikia.com/>)
might even be an attractive alternative to Wikipedia to lure away
self-promoting POV-pushers whose content is not welcome on Wikipedia.
Nonetheless, Kohs promises that he will not attempt to use or exploit
Wikipedia as an advertising platform for Centiare or any other of his
business affiliations.  If other independent editors choose to discuss these
business affiliations, that's their decision.

(2) With that being said, it would seem only fair for Wikipedia's
administrators to commit to the following remedies:
     (a) Encourage either the OTRS, ArbCom, or Jimmy Wales that the current
statement posted by Wales on the User:MyWikiBiz page is now irrelevant, and
it is somewhat damaging to the reputation of MyWikiBiz as a business.  It
would be like saying "Never buy an armored tank from the Ford Motor
Company!"  Ford built tanks during WWII, but no longer does so; therefore,
why would anyone need to warn customers of Ford not to buy their tanks,
unless its sole purpose was to malign the current Ford company?
     (b) Allow Kohs to regain "membership" in the Wikipedia editing
community by lifting the ban on either User:Thekohser or User:MyWikiBiz, and
salting/vanishing the other account.  Granted, his edits will be VERY
closely monitored for months and months to come; but if he wishes to
demonstrate that he can be a productive member of the Wikipedia community,
that too should become apparent, perhaps even to some of his former
detractors.
     (c) There are a number of editors (User:WAS 4.250, User:JzG,
User:Calton, etc.) who have characterized MyWikiBiz as a "spammer" and a
company that "broke the rules" of Wikipedia.  Kohs has repeatedly tried to
correct these characterizations, because he feels that when he founded
MyWikiBiz, "spam" was certainly not the company's purpose, and no rules
existed on Wikipedia that would prohibit his activity.  Indeed, Jimmy Wales
himself drew up an agreement whereby MyWikiBiz could fairly practice under
the GFDL license on its own site, and independent editors could scrape the
site for useful Wikipedia-worthy content.  That's exactly what happened
regarding the [[Arch Coal]] article, but Wales tried to delete that
article.  He said it was because the article was corporate "fluff".  Kohs
maintains that Wales deleted the article out of spite over Kohs' handling of
the [[WP:COI]] discussion that was evolving at the time.  At least five
other independent editors in good standing felt that the original Arch Coal
article presented content that was beneficial to Wikipedia, not
harmful.  And, thus, the article was DRV'd and re-written with some minor
changes to the original content.
          Considering all of that, let's just say that User:WAS 4.250,
User:JzG, User:Calton, and the like are probably never going to change their
minds about how they characterize MyWikiBiz.  And likewise, Kohs is unlikely
to change his mind.  However, could we agree that any claims made by these
parties within Wikipedia about the actual history of the User:MyWikiBiz
account should be backed up with factual diffs that would support the
characterizations made by either side?  I maintain that I was trying to
provide such diffs in various places on Wikipedia Talk pages (admittedly
coupled with a snitty tone), but these diffs were consistently reverted by
the users listed above (bringing us to the whole "abusive admins" debate
about how admins can advantageously alter their arguments with blocked
users).
          Going forward, Kohs would be willing to let bygones be bygones,
but when someone mischaracterizes the history of the User:MyWikiBiz account,
Kohs should have at least the right to notate an appropriate diff under the
perceived mischaracterization, so that other users can draw their own
conclusions.  Continued removal of these diffs only contributes to the
claims of censorship and a cabal at work.

(3) With these principles in place, Kohs would like to return to Wikipedia,
to help the project with its primary mission, and only that mission: to
become the world's best and largest free encyclopedia that contains
properly-cited, neutral point-of-view information about every encyclopedic
topic under the sun.  Kohs would even consider resumption of his earlier
financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Would the admin community consent to any or all of these terms?

I realize that some may/will respond -- "Gregory Kohs gave us nothing but
grief, why should we help him now?"  To which I would answer, look at all
the time and effort we have each expended on this particular battle alone.
Imagine the productive improvements that could have been made to Wikipedia
in that time.  Do you want Gregory Kohs as an ally, or would you prefer that
he remain a perpetual critic of the project?

In fact, as a gesture of my willingness to cooperate, I would even consent
to being allowed to edit for a period of 1 month, AFTER which the admin
community could make the determination of whether to address any or all of
the other remedial concerns outlined above.  I'm a reasonable enough adult
to see that I may have the onus of proving my worth to the community before
the community takes strides to patch things up with me.

Kindly,

   Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


from_name: Jim Hu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hooks inside extensions

body:
There are cases where it would be useful to run hooks from inside
extensions.  For example, there's a hook in an extension that Jim
Wilson and I just wrote, and I wish there were hooks in Cite.php.

Seems to me that this should be accompanied by registering the hook
name with mediawiki to avoid name collisions.  Should extension
authors just go and add these to the mediawiki.org and meta hooks
documentation?  Or should there be some recommendation for hook names
from extensions?

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


from_name: Peter van Londen

body:
Hallo,

If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves
that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the
Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one:
allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are
according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and
non-derivative).

But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing
non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just
outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the
freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use
images. That would be
clarity.

I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to
cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find
a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest
community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities
to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members
not reading this list, will use this.

The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who
have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is
described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures
under the EDP (that is speculation though).

I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception
for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/2/21, Kat Walsh <mindspillage op gmail.com>:
>
> On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders op gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
> put
> > the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
> just
> > claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
> dont
> > even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
> on
> > as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
>
> That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
> previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
> can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
> whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
> ND  or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
> should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
> reserved under than policy.
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Hallo,

If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves
that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the
Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one:
allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are
according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and
non-derivative).

But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing
non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just
outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the
freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use
images. That would be
clarity.

I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to
cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find
a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest
community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities
to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members
not reading this list, will use this.

The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who
have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is
described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures
under the EDP (that is speculation though).

I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception
for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/2/21, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com>:
>
> On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
> put
> > the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
> just
> > claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
> dont
> > even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
> on
> > as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
>
> That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
> previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
> can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
> whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
> ND  or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
> should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
> reserved under than policy.
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
2007/2/21, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>:

> This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and
> in fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other
> admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper
> channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which
> are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the
> blocking...
>

Little slip of the keyboard - where I wrote 'all blocked users' please
disregard the word 'blocked'.

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


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi
It is irrelevant when the Dutch Wikipedia crowd votes both on the ESA
images and on the Wikipedia only; they are explicitly prohibited by the
draft resolution. The best it does is that images that are in these two
categories will only be mandatory deleted in 2008 and not sooner.

Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the
Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is
probably much easier to just use Commons.

When you post an unfree picture it does not matter at all how it is
unfree; the license is in and of itself irrelevant. The saving grace for
such material is that it will be tagged as "FAIR USE". With the license
registered as well, it indicates under what conditions it is available
otherwise. Consequently ND or NC material that is ALSO fair use will be
replaced and deleted once alternative material is available. ND and NC
material that is not fair use will be deleted in 2008.

A key thing you forget is that the legal council is part of the process
of approving any ESA. The option is not open to allow for NC or ND works
under a local ESA proposal. The legal council is bound to reject any
such proposals. This is not democratic and intentionally so, this is a
consequence of it being a WMF resolution.

When some people have opinions that are not shared by the majority of a
community, with the majority opinion in line with the "Licensing Policy
Resolution", they will find that they are entitled to their opinion. It
will however not be the policy of that community.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Peter van Londen schreef:
> Hallo,
>
> If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves
> that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the
> Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one:
> allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are
> according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and
> non-derivative).
>
> But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing
> non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just
> outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the
> freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use
> images. That would be
> clarity.
>
> I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to
> cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find
> a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest
> community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities
> to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members
> not reading this list, will use this.
>
> The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who
> have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is
> described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures
> under the EDP (that is speculation though).
>
> I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception
> for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.
>
> Kind regards, Londenp
>
>
> 2007/2/21, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
>>>
>> put
>>
>>> the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
>>>
>> just
>>
>>> claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
>>>
>> dont
>>
>>> even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
>>>
>> on
>>
>>> as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
>>>
>> That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
>> previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
>> can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
>> whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
>> ND  or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
>> should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
>> reserved under than policy.
>>
>> -Kat


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Exporting sections of pages

body:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:49:16AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Well, one suggested solution was piping the
> >
> > ==section header tag|secthead==
>
> One obvious weakness with this is we don't have a way of terminating
> sections. Granted, that's a problem in general with sections of this
> sort, but it crops up here. Perhaps we would allow something like this
> as a terminator:
> ==|==
>
> (pretty isn't it :))

Sections terminate at either the next section header marker, or the
next one at that level -- doesn't matter which, as long as it's
declared at release time.  Both have advantages.

> > but while I understand why that is most intiutive to people who *get*
> > Wikipedia, I suspect it's a bit too breakable when confronted with
> > people who don't--and there are a lot more of them.  So I like a
> > template or parser function that takes an argument and expands to the
> > appropriate hidden markup to support the pointer, myself.
>
> So something like this?
> {{section header tag|secthead}}
>
> Or do you mean:
> ==section header tag==
> {{sectionmagicword|secthead}}

The latter, yes.  If you're tagging something for remote retrieval, you
want the tag decoupled from both the accidental section number, and
the human changeable section header text.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

body:
2007/2/21, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the
> Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is
> probably much easier to just use Commons.
> </snip>

Thats why i asked whether the foundation will advice on the local law part
(as there are little or no lawyers on nl.wikipedia) and whether the
foundation has to agree upon the EDP (as otherwise, the community might just
push it through) I hope  both will be answered with 'yes'.

Lodewijk


body:
2007/2/21, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the
> Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is
> probably much easier to just use Commons.
> </snip>

Thats why i asked whether the foundation will advice on the local law part
(as there are little or no lawyers on nl.wikipedia) and whether the
foundation has to agree upon the EDP (as otherwise, the community might just
push it through) I hope  both will be answered with 'yes'.

Lodewijk


body:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:34:13PM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote:
> There was some buzz on this list a while back about supporting Usenet syntax
> - such as *bold*, /italics/ and _underscores_.
>
> I have created an extension which provides this facility, which you can read
> about here:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:UsenetSyntax

Woohoo.  :-)

> I welcome all feedback - and thanks in advance to anyone who wants to give
> it a shot.

FWIW, the customary rendering (IME) is _italics_, since handwritten
underlining is usually rendered as italics in typesetting, and most
computer displays have, traditionally, not had a good way to render
underlining...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Request for OTRS account

body:
Can you please send me at dmenard AT wikimedia PUNTO org:

login: tietew
preferred email address (the one where you want to receive OTRS stuff)
real name (in latin alphabet and Japanese) or "real sounding name" so
that I can put this in the system.

We require that anyone operating on OTRS use a "real name" (or, as I
said a "real sounding name" if you do not wish to disclose your real
name to the public).

Thank you,

Delphine

On 2/21/07, Tietew <tietew at tietew.net> wrote:
> Hi.
> I'm a sysop and a member of info-ja team of ja.wikipedia. (see
> signature)
>
> I request for OTRS account named "tietew" and maintener of
> info-ja queue. Other member of info-ja will request OTRS account
> later.
>
>
> I'm trying to make OTRS fully-compatible with Japanese at
> otrs-dev mailing list. (see http://lists.otrs.org/)
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> [[User:Tietew]] <tietew at tietew.net>
> Blog: http://www.tietew.jp/
> Wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tietew
> PGP/GPG: 26CB 71BB B595 09C4 0153  81C4 773C 963A D51B 8CAA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
NB. Cette adresse est utilis?e pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
email personnel envoy? ? cette adresse sera probablement perdu.


subject: [Foundation-l] Request for OTRS account


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Commons-l] One new and one old tool

body:
On 2/20/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote on  Sunday, February 18,
> 2007 11:44 AM:
>
> > On 18/02/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> >> "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > It would be useful if a few things were changed:
> >> > * possibility to input image url instead of image ID. (shouldn't be
> >> > that hard...)
> >>
> >> It could be difficult, since there are various kinds of image urls at
> >> flickr, but I'll see what I can do.
>
> > well, it doesn't have to be perfect. The two obvious cases (the image
> > page, where comments and tags are, and the 'photo zoom' version which
> > has different sizes) should be relatively easy. for anything else, it
> > can always throw an error which explains how to find the image ID.
>
> still thinking ....
>
I have a set of regexes which I believe cover all available Flickr
urls. i will look them up when I am at home.

Bryan


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 2/21/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There's a difference. It is reknowned for its casinos is clearly about
> > Vegas.
> > "Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic
> > restaurants and art galleries" could be about any city in the world. (By
> > the
> > way, gastronomic restaurants is either a tautology or pleonasm.
> >
> > Mgm
>
>
>
> Reno?  Monte Carlo?
>
> "It is reknowned for its casinos" could easily refer to either of them,
> among others.
>
> -- Jonel

True, but renowned for its casinos can apply only to a limited number of
places, the line I quoted could applies to virtually any town on the face of
the planet.

Mgm