subject: [Wikitech-l] Template Oddities

body:
"Mike O" wrote:
> I think I have all the same extensions installed (I could be wrong though,
> I checked Special:Version page and they appear to match save for a few
> things that seem to not be available to the public) so I wonder why this
> happens. Anybody know? If it is a missing extension then which one? Or
> maybe it's a config setting?
>
> Mike O

The difference is probably that you don't have tidy enabled while wikipedia
has. MW shouldn't give such different output if bewing tidied or not, but
it's another matter.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>	<452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com>
	<452E8712.8010107@telus.net>

body:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:18:58 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>Shouldn't a decision to keep or delete be based on the article itself,
>and not on who is doing the editing?

Not always.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>
	<452E7BA7.3030601@telus.net>

body:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:30:15 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>There's nothing wrong with mentioning competitors.  If we describe a
>product, we can also add links to similar products from other
>companies.

Well *you* think that and *I* think that, but *they* obviously don't.
And their actions might very plausibly put the article into the "not
worth the trouble" category.

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

references:
<38a7bf7c0610111522k59d7109fof0bafa5c9267cb5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<eglg4b$d9s$1@sea.gmane.org> <eglhk0$ir2$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0610120905g13dfde7ege5711f938d8e94e7@mail.gmail.com>

body:
> On 10/12/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > We could give *all* red links a different URL than other editing methods.

You don't even need to change the URL.  It should be enough to
detect when the edit form is invoked with an non-existing page.

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


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:
> "Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
>> I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
>> also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
>
> I remember a UseNet discussion about an emoticon for deadpan humour.
>
> It would be better of course to have a header for emails, reminding
> people to boot up their sense of humour.

Say!  That suggests the ideal solution: add a warning about
sarcasm to [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer]].  Problem solved.


from_name: Simon Blandford

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal
 with	defamitory article?

body:
Hi Jossi,

That's very helpful. Thank you.

It seems that the page has received the attention of an admin already
and that's put a full stop to a lot of the nonsense that was going on
there. I am very grateful to Rholton for stepping in. Rholton even
caught the main editor red handed diddling with other people's discussion!

I will try your suggestion below and see what response I get,

Thanks & regards,
SimonB

Jossi Fresco wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:30 PM, bksimonb wrote:
>
>
>> I would just like to discuss strategy for dealing with this. I know
>> Wikipedia has it's own systems, which I am following, but I am also
>> looking
>> for a suitable forum to just talk with other wikipedians as to
>> where best to
>> channel time and energy into this.
>>
>
> One think you can do is establish basic talk-page discipline (you can
> ask an admin to assist you), a follows:
>
>      * Discuss the article, not the subject;
>      * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
>      * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its
> proponent is;
>      * If you feel attacked, do not attack back.
>
> Ask all editors involved to abide by these simple rules, and you may
> have a chance. Be firm, and ask all involved editors to make a public
> statement on the talk page about their intention to abide by such
> talk-page discipline. Only then proceed. If you need time to
> accomplish this, we could protect the article until such a time as
> there is consensus about abiding by these simple rules.
>
> Another thing you can do is apply the "less is more" rule. In my
> experience in these cases, the shorter the article, the easier it is
> to maintain NPOV.  Reducing the article by 50% will be very helpful.
>
> Lastly, you may consider splitting the article, one article dealing
> with the theological aspects of the movement, and another article
> dealing with the organizational aspects.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> -- Jossi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This email and any attachment(s) is intended only for the addressee(s) named. If you are not the named addressee we request that you delete this email and do not disseminate, distribute or copy it. We endeavour to exclude viruses from our data but it is the responsibility of the recipient to check any attachments for viruses. E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free and we do not accept responsibility for any such matters or their consequences.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] List of banned books

body:
On 10/13/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > But log in first.  Being bold while being logged out generally amounts
> > to being reverted.
>
> Being bold while being logged out looks like being a vandal!
>
And here I thought looking like being a vandal would somehow involve
making an article (or whatever page you're editing) worse.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
These arguments over notability to me to be such an incredible
non-issue except for one thing - we can't all just agree on something.

If it were clear which companies were in and which were out, then I
really don't think it matters where that line was drawn.  Any
companies which clearly weren't in could just be included somewhere
else.  If there were a large number of them this could even be done
within a Wikimedia project.

This whole notability argument is getting old.

"Such information on companies is one of our most seriously
underdeveloped areas of knowledge." - I'd say information on freeware
and free software is right up there too.

Anthony

On 10/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >"George Herbert" wrote
> >
> >
> >>There are
> >>around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
> >>WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
> >>loosened up?  Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
> >>million total articles?  Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
> >>enough notability?
> >>
> >>
> >Good question.
> >
> >I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
> >
> If the only information we have about them is the NASDAQ listing we have
> a relatively uninformative stub.  In most cases a little digging can
> probably find more information in the legally required filings for
> public corporations.  If the supporters of a company aren't willing to
> do that little bit of research even the hardest core inclusionists can't
> help them.
>
> >It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
> >
> Private corporations are not listed on NASDAQ, and you cannot buy their
> shares on the open market.
>
> >People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.
> >
> Not at all, but for the fact that the amount of information that we now
> have is very limited.  If it's going to be their only source of
> information you're right on the same level as using Wikipedia references
> on term papers.  Having good NPOV information may not help a person to
> decide what equities to buy, but it can certainly influence him in
> deciding which equities _not_ to buy.
>
> Such information on companies is one of our most seriously
> underdeveloped areas of knowledge.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
On 12 Oct 2006 at 23:18, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>
> >I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
> >also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
> >
> The only problem with that solution is the paradox that when you tag it
> it's no longer what it's tagged to be.

So we need a <paradox> tag too?

--
== 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/


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
On 13 Oct 2006 at 11:24, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> It would be better of course to have a header for emails,
> reminding people to boot up their sense of humour.

Only British people have a "sense of humour"... us Americans have to
make do with a mere "sense of humor".

--
== 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: Abigail Brady

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
On 10/13/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, "small matter of hardware"? Actually now that I think about it,
> since presumably these blocked users still make up a very small
> proportion of total page views (say 1% or less), it could be feasible
> to offer an uncached version? But I'm really talking well and truly
> out of my arse here.

Remember that merely deciding whether the user/ip is blocked and which
version to offer is going to be require a DB hit of some sort.  This
could add up to be quite an overhead?

--
Abi


list: foundation-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposed guidelines in our IRC channels

body:
On 13/10/06, Damian Finol <damian at igluve.org> wrote:

> I don't think that setting some rules to be followed on the IRC channels
> is bad, it's upping the quality of the conversations and channels; is
> not, sometimes stop goofing around, but maybe make it a little more
> serious, removing profanities and related things.

If you think you can stop profanity on #wikipedia, or on IRC, feel
free to try ...

- d.


list: wikimedia-l


body:
On 13/10/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't see any reason why the same standards of behaviour (civility,
> etc) that are applied on the projects shouldn't be adopted as
> principles on the channels. They don't have to be all business, but
> people should still play nice.

It took a while for #wikipedia to get a civility rule. Even then it
takes a bit of work to apply.

Also, it's a favourite troll target. So don't expect it to be kept fit
for general consumption without ridiculous effort.

- d.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Would an appropriate level of prominence for products like this be a
> fairly brief entry with URL on a "List of products of type X" article?

I suspect a case-by-case determination would need to be made, since it's
possible that there are individual products which do warrant an article.
 But I haven't exactly studied the field.

> PS sad observation: why do some of the biggest arguments at Wikipedia
> always  get attached to the stupidest subjects: autofellatio (a
> copyright dispute!), brian peppers (office),

I don't believe Peppers was an Office case, as far as I know Peppers
never actually complained or was even aware of the article. Also, Jimmy
deleted the article with the caveat that it could be recreated in a
year's time (about four months away now, mark your calendars :), which
doesn't seem like a typical Office sort of action to me.

> PPS: dear future web browsing person: please do not hold me in lesser
> esteem for discussing "fleshlights" :)

And same here. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061013/7472a6cc/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>> I'd still like to see some actual policy clarification come out of
>>
>> this. For exmaple, [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] says:
>>
>>
>>> If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny
>>> is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.
>>>
>>>
>> I think it would be better at this point to declare that Dannyisme and
>> Dannyisme _alone_ is the Office account, and that nobody should have any
>> obligation to double-check whether a plain old Danny action is
>> Office-related. If Danny subsequently accidentally uses the wrong
>> account for an edit it'd be his bad, not anyone else's, and nobody
>> should be at risk of a surprise thwacking for reverting it. Or even
>> better, also change the Dannyisme account to some less ambiguous name
>> like [[User:Office Action]] to divest it of its "Dannyness" entirely.
>>
>> Just kicking around some ideas for how to prevent future problems along
>> these lines, since [[Fleshlight]] itself appears to be heading back into
>> conventional editing territory now.
>>
> I don't know if that will be acceptable; it sounds too much like common
> sense. :-)

Well, I don't want this to just vanish into the ether. I guess I'll take
it up on the Office Actions page itself when I've got a little time this
evening.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061013/1a6d4b0c/attachment.pgp


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Edit links have gone crazy

body:
"Simetrical" <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:7c2a12e20610121535u370b343p6046c097931c8030 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 10/12/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk>
wrote:
> > I know there was talk here (or maybe on Bugzilla - I forget) about
improving
> > the edit links, and I guess someone is working on it, because currently
they
> > are screwed on en and mw.org (and presumably all other WM wikis - not
> > checked).
> >
>
> Does the problem still occur?  It appears to be working correctly for me
now.

Yup, fine.... I guess you know that by now, but I didn't want to leave your
question dangling. :)

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
"Lars Aronsson" <lars at aronsson.se> wrote in
message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0610130109240.9022 at localhost.localdomain...
>
> > On 10/12/06, Tim Starling
<tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > We could give *all* red links a different URL than other editing
methods.
>
> You don't even need to change the URL.  It should be enough to
> detect when the edit form is invoked with an non-existing page.
>

...and then what? Bear in mind that the software can't currently tell the
difference between clicking a red link, vistiting a non-existant page and
clicking 'edit' and typing an "?action=edit" URL into the address bar.
Making the distinction between the first type of 'edit' and the second two
means that we could (optionally) have a different response for clicking a
red link and clicking an edit link, which is what I think Tim was
suggesting.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> AGF, please.  That is not what I said.  Danny has made it very clear in
>> the past that he has two accounts.  One he uses for WP:OFFICE actions,
>> i.e. actions taken temporarily by the office based on some emergency
>> situation (usually but not always legal in nature).  And his normal
>> account, which he uses as every other editor on the project.
>>
>
> Would it be reasonable to ask that any "WP:OFFICE" action involve the
> magic phrase "WP:OFFICE" in the edit summary, and any other action
> taken by Danny, regardless of account, be taken to be an ordinary
> account by a respected admin? This seems to be a recurring source of
> confusion.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
>
It would seem better to me that Office actions would use a specific
account (or accounts) only. After all, anyone can add "WP:OFFICE" to the
edit summary. Presumably, only specific people can use (an) identified
account(s).

-Rich


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

references:
<38a7bf7c0610111522k59d7109fof0bafa5c9267cb5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<eglg4b$d9s$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0610120710n59e4aa6ay68e7551ac121547@mail.gmail.com>
	<egmdfp$k7c$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/12/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a cache expert, i can't give very accurate answers, but i'd say the
> devs will
> gladly implement this system for you... as far as you give them the hardware
> to double
> our caching ability :-)

Heh, "small matter of hardware"? Actually now that I think about it,
since presumably these blocked users still make up a very small
proportion of total page views (say 1% or less), it could be feasible
to offer an uncached version? But I'm really talking well and truly
out of my arse here.

Steve


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Maybe it would be a good idea to set up an international semi-official
help-channel? That way channels don't have to be split up, and there is a
larger chance there will hbe someone. In that channel there could be
stricter guidelines (I think those are better as rules) and only on-topic
help-talk. Pages could direct there, with the notice, that if there is
nobody in a preferred language available, you copuld check the "
unofficial"  channel #wikipedia-es , #wikipedia-nl etc.

Greetz, lodewijk

2006/10/13, Damian Finol <damian at igluve.org>:
>
> Hello,
>
> Like the message I left to James F, a few weeks ago I had a college
> professor who joined the IRC channel when he needed help (I'm talking
> about the Spanish Wikipedia channel #wikipedia-es) and the amount of
> profanity, childish behavior and more led him to tell me "Wikipedia
> isn't a serious project" which I replied "The IRC Channel is not the
> same as the Wikipedia" and then he pointed the page at Wikipedia-es
> where it says to join the channel as "official" support, to which of
> course I had to concede.
>
> I don't think that setting some rules to be followed on the IRC channels
> is bad, it's upping the quality of the conversations and channels; is
> not, sometimes stop goofing around, but maybe make it a little more
> serious, removing profanities and related things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Finol
> Maracaibo, Venezuela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
The #wikipedia channel should not have more rules imposed upon it. At the
moment it is a relaxed place where Wikipedians can talk without worry about
channel policy. It helps to build relationships between Wikipedians and it
allows people to debate issues concerning Wikipedia.

The very fact that people can make jokes and have fun is the reason so many
Wikipedians spend such a long time there. The channel wouldn't be as full as
it is if users had to constantly watch their backs.

We can't impose anti-profanity rules on a channel which draws from many
countries, each with different standards. Apart from the reasons already
mentioned, it would give the channel an unneeded classroom atmosphere.

Last time I was using IRC (quite a few months), #wikipedia was the juvenile,
off-topic channel and #wikipedia-en (the official support channel for
en.wikipedia) was largely quiet. But, mainly for non-English speakers, it
may be useful to create an multilingual support channel free from off-topic
conversation.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote

> I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
> also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.

I remember a UseNet discussion about an emoticon for deadpan humour.

It would be better of course to have a header for emails, reminding people to boot up their sense of humour.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/13/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Last time I was using IRC (quite a few months), #wikipedia was the juvenile,
> off-topic channel and #wikipedia-en (the official support channel for
> en.wikipedia) was largely quiet. But, mainly for non-English speakers, it
> may be useful to create an multilingual support channel free from off-topic
> conversation.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

#wikipedia-bootcamp would probably come closest.

--
geni


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<452AC763.8020304@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<kjmli25etqanooed9f6i7nuvuabd1p398i@4ax.com>
	<452ADF94.1020103@shaw.ca>
	<9qepi2d3qtpqgtr1e7b1vh811igmc6a3vf@4ax.com>
	<452E7BA7.3030601@telus.net>

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip>
> There's nothing wrong with mentioning competitors.  If we describe a
> product, we can also add links to similar products from other
> companies.
<snip>

It wasn't even competitors that they were arguing with though - it was
distributors and affiliates.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061013/d20c6ab9/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Where did <onlyinclude> come from?

body:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:17:03PM +0100, Mark Clements wrote:
> I could not find any documentation on MW.org, meta, en.wp or even Google,
> and it is not in any of the release notes going back to 1.6.  Is this a
> hyper-new (1.9) feature, or just very poorly documented?  If the former, is
> it safe to use it yet?  If the latter, is there a reason for hiding this
> feature?

I'm pretty sure it happened in 1.6, as I needed it in a 1.5 install,
and they told me "wait".  :-)

It causes the text inside it, IIRC, only to be returned when the page is
transcluded in as a template, and not when viewed directly; the opposite
of <noinclude>... unless I'm completely insane.

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


body:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:38:00PM +0100, Mark Clements wrote:
> "Rotem Liss" <rotemliss_net at fastmail.fm> wrote
> in message news:452FC01A.7040009 at fastmail.fm...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > It causes the text inside it, IIRC, only to be returned when the page is
> > > transcluded in as a template, and not when viewed directly; the opposite
> > > of <noinclude>... unless I'm completely insane.
> > >
> >
> > I think that this behavior is the one of <includeonly>, not <onlyinclude>.
> > Anyway, I think all of them (<noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude>)
> > were introduced in 1.6.
>
> Yup - Jay's example is for <includeonly>.

Um, "oops".  There are *both*?

> Both <includeonly> and <noinclude> are well documented in various places,
> including the template page on meta.  <onlyinclude> is not mentioned at all,
> which implies that either it was introduced at a later date, or is
> deliberately 'undocumented' for some reason...

Well, clearly, if I could get that wrong, having both is probably a Bad
Idea... :-)

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


subject: [WikiEN-l] List of banned books

body:
On 10/5/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> But log in first.  Being bold while being logged out generally amounts
> to being reverted.

Being bold while being logged out looks like being a vandal!

(Hi from Muenster!)

Steve


from_name: Adam Atlas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Parser function hooks in MediaWiki 1.8

body:
A few days ago I upgraded my wiki to 1.8.1 (from 1.7.something), and
all of my parser function hooks (the tags with {{#Blah: ...}} syntax
added with $wgParser->setFunctionHook) stopped working. (That is,
they started showing up verbatim, unparsed.) I upgraded the
ParserFunctions extension, the one with the conditional evaluation
things and such, to the latest version, and they now work fine. But
my own custom-written hooks still don't work. I tried comparing the
new version of ParserFunctions to the one I previously had installed,
but I couldn't figure out what changes were necessary to make it work
in the new version. What changed about the semantics of adding such
hooks in MW 1.8?


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote

> Only British people have a "sense of humour"... us Americans have to
> make do with a mere "sense of humor".

<irony>

Quite right. What do the Irish know about wit? Where are the Australian comedians? Canadians ... eh, maybe you do have a point.

</irony>

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Edit links have gone crazy

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> That was me borking up in one of my first commits, last night.  I
> unhardcoded the section edit link style and moved it to stylesheets,
> but didn't bump the stylesheet number, so the old cached versions were
> being used, resulting in no style for the edit links.
>
> Brion bumped the numbers up on Monobook and then resynchronized, so
> this should be fixed in Monobook now (it is for me, anyway).  I just
> bumped up the numbers for all the other skins, so those will be fixed
> in the next resync.  (Actually, I missed at least one, but Brion just
> bumped that up, so it should all be good.)

I've now centralized this in a single global config var, $wgStyleVersion. Bump
this whenever making changes to .css or .js files in the core distribution. When
adding new such files, don't forget to include "?$wgStyleVersion" on the link.

For those not familiar with the technique, this is an easy way to make style
updates cache-friendly. Newly rendered pages which depend on the new styles will
include the links with the bumped number -- the query string is ignored by the
server (which is reading a static file) but the client will consider it a new
URL and so pull the file fresh instead of using the previous cached version.

We had been using this haphazardly; now just bumping that one var in
DefaultSettings.php will bump all imported styles consistently, so it's harder
to forget something.

Note that there can still be problems sometimes with old cached pages and new
styles/scripts, so it's best for new .css/.js file versions to remain reasonably
compatible with older generated HTML.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061013/edee738d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
On 10/13/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2006 at 23:18, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> >
> > >I guess we need to introduce a <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> tag, and maybe
> > >also <irony> and <satire> for those who wish to use those things too.
> > >
> > The only problem with that solution is the paradox that when you tag it
> > it's no longer what it's tagged to be.
>
> So we need a <paradox> tag too?

New slogan:
Wikipedia: we really go for the whole semantic web thing!

--Oskar


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<575.7a654fa5.325b31f8@aol.com>
	<9B0D9C32-0780-494E-95E5-EEB93D6B63A2@gmail.com>
	<89gli2drms7tpdj97peel0nqd5dhgr2egg@4ax.com>
	<9c97dc780610091451o3d5eefa9l5e44b3af5fb59e33@mail.gmail.com>
	<kbmli2tlsoa2l6rj0pk5731r2vaf5tk4vt@4ax.com>
	<452ADE29.4070106@shaw.ca>
	<nvdpi2hinmtm20mgl1aoov95f3g903ge3r@4ax.com>
	<452D1DB6.7050309@shaw.ca>
	<rarqi25tfj8qvm318d6smccfaeq2dvvgs7@4ax.com>
	<452D9EDE.3000201@shaw.ca>
	<192si2dom7u5ub1v2pvgi3oct4jl9el956@4ax.com>
	<452EF448.7040503@shaw.ca>

body:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:04:56 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> No, I was pointing out why the comparison is invalid.  You appear to
>> be asserting that my pointing out that the comparison was invalid, was
>> invalid.  I disagree.

>Whereas I thought I was asserting that you were using the invalid
>comparison to invalidate Fleshlight's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Oh
>the humanity.

A perfect example to ilustrate the premise that if you go looking for
an argument you will likely find one.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:11:23 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan at tobias.name> wrote:

>Only British people have a "sense of humour"... us Americans have to
>make do with a mere "sense of humor".

Uncyclopaedia had a template to that effect at one point.

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for editing refs?

body:
Maury Markowitz wrote:

>>The only situation I can think of where it's not appropriate to have a
>>space _after_ the ref is when there's a string of multiple references
>>grouped together. What situations are you thinking of?
>>
>>
>
>When the next character is a period or comma.
>
>
Most style guides of which I'm aware say that superscripts should be
placed after a period or comma, not before it.  That looks better to me
as well.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/10/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> AGF, please.  That is not what I said.  Danny has made it very clear in
> the past that he has two accounts.  One he uses for WP:OFFICE actions,
> i.e. actions taken temporarily by the office based on some emergency
> situation (usually but not always legal in nature).  And his normal
> account, which he uses as every other editor on the project.

Would it be reasonable to ask that any "WP:OFFICE" action involve the
magic phrase "WP:OFFICE" in the edit summary, and any other action
taken by Danny, regardless of account, be taken to be an ordinary
account by a respected admin? This seems to be a recurring source of
confusion.

Steve


body:
Someone just used an <onlyinclude> tag in a template in MediaWiki.  From
playing with it, it seems that the following two examples are identical:

===EX A
<noincludeHeader</noinclude
Template
<noinclude>Footer</noinclude>

===EX B
Header
<onlyinclude>Template</onlyinclude>
Footer

I could not find any documentation on MW.org, meta, en.wp or even Google,
and it is not in any of the release notes going back to 1.6.  Is this a
hyper-new (1.9) feature, or just very poorly documented?  If the former, is
it safe to use it yet?  If the latter, is there a reason for hiding this
feature?

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.8.2 released

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

October 13, 2006

MediaWiki 1.8.2 fixes several issues in the Fall 2006 snapshot release:

* (bug 7565) Fixed typos in German localisation
* (bug 7562) Fix non-ASCII namespaces on Windows/XAMPP servers

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_8_2/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_8_2/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.8.2.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
79113e7ea8d7e7c5437e633259af4a11  mediawiki-1.8.2.tar.gz

SHA-1 checksum:
d04c9d4c297c7707462626d88cf04d190bd9772b mediawiki-1.8.2.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

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

iD8DBQFFMC1iwRnhpk1wk44RAubEAJ9RdqvA3mKEhI6CMCUTqpZCYo27cgCfQU6X
rh1vb+hKphJxW0tXqro1SAI=
=KuyU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/13/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Well, it's certainly the reason _I_ got involved as much as I have.
>
> In other Fleshlight news, I see the article's moved from DRV to AfD
> again and has been stubbed.

Would an appropriate level of prominence for products like this be a
fairly brief entry with URL on a "List of products of type X" article?
There seems something appealing about having one long list of all the
products of a certain type, perhaps with one photo, one paragraph and
a link, for each one.

Benefits:
* people who just want to know wtf a FleshLight is are satisfied
* unverifiable statements are less likely, due to lack of space.
* easier to patrol additions of spam links, since there's only one article
* provides more information than a redirect, without going to indecent lengths.

Steve

PS sad observation: why do some of the biggest arguments at Wikipedia
always  get attached to the stupidest subjects: autofellatio (a
copyright dispute!), brian peppers (office), fleshlight
(office/notability).
PPS: dear future web browsing person: please do not hold me in lesser
esteem for discussing "fleshlights" :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a
> big-deal artificially scarce commodity.

I've made my thoughts on this known many times. But here they are, condensed:

1) It makes people feel good to know that they're more selective about
who's an admin than the next guy.
2) It makes people feel good to make potential admins jump through
hoops for them.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> As I said, it'd be nice if most editors could get it without
> ever-increasing requirements on RFA. Should there be a requirement
> beyond "will not go batshit with the tools"?

My modest proposal that there even *be* a uniform set of requirements
(without discussing what those requirements would be) was soundly
rejected by the "RfA regulars". People want to make their own
requirements. *All* requirements on any Wikipedia (non)voting process
become stricter with time. It's an axiom or a maxim or something.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging

Why do people want to be on it? I couldn't imagine anything remotely
rewarding about it: as you say, reading lots of stupidity, attempting
to write non-stupidity, and being criticised anyway. And if you get
complimented, you'll be second guessing yourself and wondering if you
were too nice to one side.

At least judges get paid, for god's sake.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/6/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> in a content dispute. Against that, I saw someone lose an RfA (or he
> was losing the last time I looked), because he wasn't putting the
> correct tags on vandals' pages when he reverted them, which was
> absurd. So it's a question of drawing up sensible criteria. I don't

Heh, I remember that. Understanding of policy is far more important
(but difficult to determine) than the stupid things many votes are
based on: edit summary use, range of articles edited, distribution of
edits, occasional uncivil or poorly thought out talk page messages...

Here's an idea: dramatically lower the bar, put the admin on 1 month
probation, and hold the real RfA to see whether he keeps his admin
rights. If he didn't do much good during his month, strip him of the
rights and let him try again later. If he did bad, strip him and don't
let him try later.

Steve


body:
"Rotem Liss" <rotemliss_net at fastmail.fm> wrote
in message news:452FC01A.7040009 at fastmail.fm...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > It causes the text inside it, IIRC, only to be returned when the page is
> > transcluded in as a template, and not when viewed directly; the opposite
> > of <noinclude>... unless I'm completely insane.
> >
>
> I think that this behavior is the one of <includeonly>, not <onlyinclude>.
> Anyway, I think all of them (<noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude>)
were
> introduced in 1.6.

Yup - Jay's example is for <includeonly>.

Both <includeonly> and <noinclude> are well documented in various places,
including the template page on meta.  <onlyinclude> is not mentioned at all,
which implies that either it was introduced at a later date, or is
deliberately 'undocumented' for some reason...

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


subject: [WikiEN-l] jello

body:
On 10/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I'm always pleased when our CBC makes reference to Wikipedia.
>
> This afternoon, after playing Tom Lehrer's "New Math", they refered to
> our note about his invention of the jello shot.  What more evidence do
> we need for the usefulness of such information.

Shh, next we'll have a paragraph saying that CBC referred to the fact
that Tom Lehrer invented the jello shot...

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Status updates: image slowness and Europe downtime

body:
Just some updates for those not following the logs or IRC channel closely:

Images have been very slow during peak hours as load has continued to raise to a
level where the disk array on the backend server can no longer keep up with peak
demand. Several measures have been put in place over the week to alleviate this
a bit:

brion: The image-based 'captcha' on some sites has been temporarily replaced
with a text-based one until the proper captcha is updated to search its files in
a more efficient way

mark: The proxy servers in front of upload.wikimedia.org have been tweaked to
cache more aggressively

JeLuF: A portion of thumbnails for commons are now served through an alternate
server (bacon) instead of the central one (amane)

and probably a few other tweaks.

New cache and fileserver boxes are on order and should hopefully arrive soon
(some have arrived already, I think, and should be installed shortly), which
will let us share the load more evenly.

There has also been some downtime to Europe due to routing problems which
intermittently shut off access to our Amsterdam cluster for a few minutes while
the routers scream at each other. There's not a lot we can do directly about
this other than hoping that the Surfnet issues get worked out soon; it's
upstream of us.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061013/7eadc3a0/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 10/13/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
> I could not find any documentation on MW.org, meta, en.wp or even Google,
> and it is not in any of the release notes going back to 1.6.  Is this a
> hyper-new (1.9) feature, or just very poorly documented?  If the former, is
> it safe to use it yet?  If the latter, is there a reason for hiding this
> feature?

According to the emails that get posted to wikitech-l, it's been in
the automatic test suite since June the 10th. To answer the "when did
this happen" side very literally.

I'm curious what the intended uses of it are.

Steve


from_name: Rotem Liss

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

Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> It causes the text inside it, IIRC, only to be returned when the page is
> transcluded in as a template, and not when viewed directly; the opposite
> of <noinclude>... unless I'm completely insane.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra

I think that this behavior is the one of <includeonly>, not <onlyinclude>.
Anyway, I think all of them (<noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude>) were
introduced in 1.6.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFL8AaqahN/0dU8mcRAugCAJ9afuBX8YC0rupNyGsKylS5dBRDwwCePmp0
VaGxtEY4YAUFYzXKhHfvC0k=
=fOqh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 10/13/06, Damian Finol <damian at igluve.org> wrote:
>
> Like the message I left to James F, a few weeks ago I had a college
> professor who joined the IRC channel when he needed help (I'm talking
> about the Spanish Wikipedia channel #wikipedia-es) and the amount of
> profanity, childish behavior and more led him to tell me "Wikipedia
> isn't a serious project" which I replied "The IRC Channel is not the
> same as the Wikipedia" and then he pointed the page at Wikipedia-es
> where it says to join the channel as "official" support, to which of
> course I had to concede.
>
> I don't think that setting some rules to be followed on the IRC channels
> is bad, it's upping the quality of the conversations and channels; is
> not, sometimes stop goofing around, but maybe make it a little more
> serious, removing profanities and related things.

I agree. The channels are distinct from the projects, as they are a
place for the community to congregate and interact off the wiki, the
playground to complement the workspace. But that shouldn't mean that
it's open slather, since as your example demonstrates, it's still
likely that the channels will reflect on the projects, no matter how
we try to distinguish them.

I don't see any reason why the same standards of behaviour (civility,
etc) that are applied on the projects shouldn't be adopted as
principles on the channels. They don't have to be all business, but
people should still play nice.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Where to discuss best approach to deal
	with	defamitory article?

body:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Simon Blandford wrote:

> Hi Jossi,
>
> That's very helpful. Thank you.

My pleasure. Don't hesitate to drop me a line in my talk page if you
need any help.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
On 10/13/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > PS sad observation: why do some of the biggest arguments at Wikipedia
> > always  get attached to the stupidest subjects: autofellatio (a
> > copyright dispute!), brian peppers (office),
>
> I don't believe Peppers was an Office case, as far as I know Peppers
> never actually complained or was even aware of the article. Also, Jimmy
> deleted the article with the caveat that it could be recreated in a
> year's time (about four months away now, mark your calendars :), which
> doesn't seem like a typical Office sort of action to me.

Oh right, "benevolent fascism/notability" instead.

Steve


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

Mark Clements wrote:
> I could not find any documentation on MW.org, meta, en.wp or even Google,
> and it is not in any of the release notes going back to 1.6.  Is this a
> hyper-new (1.9) feature, or just very poorly documented?  If the former, is
> it safe to use it yet?  If the latter, is there a reason for hiding this
> feature?
>
> - Mark Clements (HappyDog)
>

<includeonly> and <noinlcude> were added here (7 August 2005):
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=10399

<onlyinclude> was added here (25 Ocobter 2005):
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=11494

Parser tests for all of them were added here (25 October 2005):
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=11495

1.5 was branched before all of them were added (1 August 2005), and therefore
none of them is exist in 1.5:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=10341

1.6 was branched after all of them were added (5 April 2006), and therefore all
of them were added in 1.6:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=13501
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFL8WxqahN/0dU8mcRAriVAJ9cjyu2DyxX8f45pNyZe2PpcK/D7QCfdAur
en8IS3Zf6I17TRpzYUr4+Ck=
=Ixgz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Delirium wrote:
> Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
>>> The only situation I can think of where it's not appropriate to have a
>>> space _after_ the ref is when there's a string of multiple references
>>> grouped together. What situations are you thinking of?
>>>
>>>
>> When the next character is a period or comma.
>>
>>
> Most style guides of which I'm aware say that superscripts should be
> placed after a period or comma, not before it.  That looks better to me
> as well.

And Wikipedia's style guide is one such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags
Apparently based on the Chicago Manual of Style.

I see now that there's one other situation where there's no space after
the </ref> tag; when it has a dash following it. I expect that's a
fairly rare occurrence.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061013/e93afd5f/attachment.pgp


list: commons-l

from_name: Jason Spiro

subject:
[Commons-l] Ogg Theora is too hard to play. We
	needYouTube-style Flash streaming video.

body:
On 2006-09-30, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> 1) The majority of video formats used on the web require some degree
> of installation, although some of them can be autodownloaded into
> Windows Media Player
[snip]

Ah, I remember what you mean. Sometimes when you view a file in WMP it
says "Downloading codecs..." for a short time, then the file plays. It's
quite a good system.

How could the Ogg codecs be made auto-downloadable into WMP?

--
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will
walk carefully.
                -- Russian Proverb


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Insight into users' behaviour

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 10/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There's something about some en: admins making them explain everything
>>in mind-numbingly excessive detail. Something that would take a simple
>
> I'd love to go over some of these excessively wordy messages and trim
> them. Especially all the ones that go, "You can do X at the [[whatever
> page]]". Instead of just "Click [[whatever page|here]] to do X".

I'm surprised you think that's better. "Click here" links are generally
considered evil, and I generally agree with that. "Click here to do X"
only tells me how to do X *now*, not where to go if I ever want to do X.

Timwi


from_name: Sean Whitton

body:
On 13/10/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it would be a good idea to set up an international semi-official
> help-channel?
Do you mean for IRC? We currently have #wikipedia, #wikimedia-irc and
#wikimedia-ops. Sorry if this doesn't answer your question :S

S

On 13/10/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it would be a good idea to set up an international semi-official
> help-channel? That way channels don't have to be split up, and there is a
> larger chance there will hbe someone. In that channel there could be
> stricter guidelines (I think those are better as rules) and only on-topic
> help-talk. Pages could direct there, with the notice, that if there is
> nobody in a preferred language available, you copuld check the "
> unofficial"  channel #wikipedia-es , #wikipedia-nl etc.
>
> Greetz, lodewijk
>
> 2006/10/13, Damian Finol <damian at igluve.org>:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Like the message I left to James F, a few weeks ago I had a college
> > professor who joined the IRC channel when he needed help (I'm talking
> > about the Spanish Wikipedia channel #wikipedia-es) and the amount of
> > profanity, childish behavior and more led him to tell me "Wikipedia
> > isn't a serious project" which I replied "The IRC Channel is not the
> > same as the Wikipedia" and then he pointed the page at Wikipedia-es
> > where it says to join the channel as "official" support, to which of
> > course I had to concede.
> >
> > I don't think that setting some rules to be followed on the IRC channels
> > is bad, it's upping the quality of the conversations and channels; is
> > not, sometimes stop goofing around, but maybe make it a little more
> > serious, removing profanities and related things.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Damian Finol
> > Maracaibo, Venezuela.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


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

Adam Atlas wrote:
> A few days ago I upgraded my wiki to 1.8.1 (from 1.7.something), and
> all of my parser function hooks (the tags with {{#Blah: ...}} syntax
> added with $wgParser->setFunctionHook) stopped working. (That is,
> they started showing up verbatim, unparsed.) I upgraded the
> ParserFunctions extension, the one with the conditional evaluation
> things and such, to the latest version, and they now work fine. But
> my own custom-written hooks still don't work. I tried comparing the
> new version of ParserFunctions to the one I previously had installed,
> but I couldn't figure out what changes were necessary to make it work
> in the new version. What changed about the semantics of adding such
> hooks in MW 1.8?
>

Now you have to use only one hook - LanguageGetMagic - instead of three, and you
use 'foo' (as a string) instead of MAG_FOO (as a constant) as the magic word ID.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFL9uCqahN/0dU8mcRAq7qAJ9+p5xUiYwg5gnKONWo1y6HM97p5ACgwC91
YFjWhk7vV6JstQ6dhA9aoPE=
=0AYs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
Well, we do have an article on [[doomsday machine]]s... not quite the
same... but it's something...

FF

On 10/11/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Mark Clements

body:
"Rotem Liss" <rotemliss_net at fastmail.fm> wrote
in message news:452FC5B2.70507 at fastmail.fm...
>
> Mark Clements wrote:
>> I could not find any documentation on MW.org, meta, en.wp or even
>> Google, and it is not in any of the release notes going back to 1.6.  Is
>> this a hyper-new (1.9) feature, or just very poorly documented?
>> If the former, is it safe to use it yet?  If the latter, is there a
>> reason for hiding this feature?
>
[SNIP]
>
> 1.6 was branched after all of them were added (5 April 2006), and
> therefore all of them were added in 1.6:

Thanks for that very detailed breakdown.  Given that answer, is there a
reason that <onlyinclude> is not documented anywhere?  I find it an odd
omission if they were all introduced at the same time...

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
Shinjiman wrote:
> Oldak Quill <oldakquill at ...> writes:
>> And why do we need both <noinclude> and <includeonly>? Do they not, when
>> placed around slightly different sections of text, perform the same
>> function?
>>
>
> But something interesting that is, any difference between <includeonly> and
> <onlyinclude>??

Yes, they do completely different things:

One of them makes the enclosed part only appear during a template inclusion. The
other makes an inclusion include only that part.

The better question is, which one is which? :)

These are terribly named, but of course now we're stuck with them for
compatibility. Remember this when you next add a feature...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061013/1da10dde/attachment.pgp>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-14

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 421 of 437 tests (96.34%) FAILED!


body:
Nick Jenkins wrote:
>>> Only the upload interface? o.O
>>
>> I invited Celeste to the hacking days to brief us on the general
>> findings of the OpenUsability.org evaluation of the German
>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> http://openusability.org/download.php/89/germanwikipedia_usabilitytest_edit.pdf
>
> Interesting MediaWiki / Wikipedia usability study.
>
> I've had a brief look at some of the suggestions that seem easiest to
> me to do something about:
>
> Page 13, the "[Edit]" links are too far up from the horizontal line
> that marks a new section (thus leading new users to think they are
> for the section above, not the section below).
>
> Tried adding:
> ----------------
> div.editsection { vertical-align: bottom; }
> ----------------
> to main.css ; that made no difference (in Firefox). Any CSS guru want
> to indicate whether it's possible to do this (move the "[Edit]" text
> down closer to the horizontal new section line), and if so maybe how
> ?

Why don't you just copy the JavaScript from the German Wikipedia? (Look
at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js under "BEGIN
Mooving of the editsection links" (and yes, they really did misspell
"moving" -- I'm not an admin there so I can't fix it! :) )

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 6464

body:
Travis Derouin wrote:
> Does anyone have any suggestions about this bug?
>
> http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6464
>
> More and more users on our site are experiencing it and actually are
> able to edit articles as other users. I can't reproduce it myself,
> unfortunately.

If it's possible for you to upgrade to 1.8 and see if it goes away, that would
be super. I have some theories, but have never been able to reproduce the
problem itself so can't confirm whether it's been fixed.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061014/d1419cfe/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/14/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/06, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How could the Ogg codecs be made auto-downloadable into WMP?
>
> By, through a global popular revolution, stripping Microsoft of their
> intellectual property rights and, upon copylefting Windows Media Player,
> making it compatible with open and free formats.

Um. Or ... we could get a contact and point out that the formats we're
using are open speced with BSD licensed reference implimentations, and
er.. unlikely to compete with their formats due to a lack of support
for DRM.

:)

I won't hold my breath, but there is no glaring reason beyond lack of
demand that they wouldn't support it in the codec installer.  There
are many non-msft codecs which are installed that way, ... I would
expect there is a procedure for getting supported.  I haven't had time
to research it yet.

It would be quite amusing to see MSFT with support for Ogg/* in IE
before firefox gained any open video format support. :)


from_name: Shinjiman

body:
Oldak Quill <oldakquill at ...> writes:

>
> On 13/10/06, Mark Clements <gmane at ...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for that very detailed breakdown.  Given that answer, is there a
> > reason that <onlyinclude> is not documented anywhere?  I find it an odd
> > omission if they were all introduced at the same time...
>
> And why do we need both <noinclude> and <includeonly>? Do they not, when
> placed around slightly different sections of text, perform the same
> function?
>

But something interesting that is, any difference between <includeonly> and
<onlyinclude>??

Shinjiman


from_name: Oldak Quill

references:
<c241693f0609281935s5e15f98am1fa538830efae1a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<742dfd060609282112ia6cf264ja08532d533d331de@mail.gmail.com>
	<efk9ki$ju5$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e692861c0609292147h12a1c877nc0f5c6733ef3f384@mail.gmail.com>
	<slrneivqgv.4u7.spiro@localhost.localdomain>

body:
On 13/10/06, Jason Spiro <jasonspiro4+news at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How could the Ogg codecs be made auto-downloadable into WMP?

By, through a global popular revolution, stripping Microsoft of their
intellectual property rights and, upon copylefting Windows Media Player,
making it compatible with open and free formats.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061014/ea9d011d/attachment.htm


references:
<egoe5h$o7s$1@sea.gmane.org> <452FC5B2.70507@fastmail.fm>
	<egp321$a95$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 13/10/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:

> Thanks for that very detailed breakdown.  Given that answer, is there a
> reason that <onlyinclude> is not documented anywhere?  I find it an odd
> omission if they were all introduced at the same time...

And why do we need both <noinclude> and <includeonly>? Do they not, when
placed around slightly different sections of text, perform the same
function?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: ikiroid

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Doomsday" threat?

body:
You could check out [[m:Worst cases]], which is just a big casserole of
[[WP:BEANS]].

---Iki


from_name: Steve Bennett

references:
<452AE1BE.20901@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEDBJAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<7c2a12e20610092336n6578989awb1e02082b2d4552e@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140610100023w28fd2a0ata405696ca35b6ff3@mail.gmail.com>
	<f1c3529e0610100034y1a149c8ai8217c559e5f55143@mail.gmail.com>
	<egonhg$svj$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> I'm surprised you think that's better. "Click here" links are generally
> considered evil, and I generally agree with that. "Click here to do X"
> only tells me how to do X *now*, not where to go if I ever want to do X.

The only justification I've seen for them being considered "evil" was
that it's redundant: you're on the web, you click on hyperlinks,
therefore a hyperlink that says "click here" is redundant. However,
redundancy isn't always bad: it reduces ambiguity. Is a link that says
"download" a description of what downloading is, or a place where you
can actually download? A link that says "click here to download" is
unambiguous.

So my reasoning says that if you're quickly navigating an interface,
and you know that the link to change your user parameters is there
somewhere, a link that says "click here to change your user
parameters" is quicker and easier to use than some text that says
"There are various user parameters that you can set,
including language and stylesheet</A." There, the
first link is something that you can actually do, while the second two
are just information *about* that activity.

I've probably overlooked something though.

Steve


body:
On 10/14/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> These are terribly named, but of course now we're stuck with them for
> compatibility. Remember this when you next add a feature...

Compatibility with what? Sounds like almost no one is aware of
onlyinclude's existence, let alone brave enough to use an
undocumented, unannounced feature...?

Incidentally, are there no ambiguous situations (or at least
siutations requiring precedence rules to solve) when these various
tags are combined? What happens with this text:

<noinclude>foo</noinclude>
<onlyinclude>boo</onlyinclude>
<includeonly>moo</includeonly>
schmoo

I guess when viewed directly you see "foo boo"? (doesn't seem to be
clear from above whether <onlyinclude> sections are visible when
viewed directly) But when included as a template, do you get "boo" or
"boo moo"? I guess only "boo"?

And what about this:

<onlyinclude><noinclude>foo</noinclude></onlyinclude>

? - presumably returns blank.

What if there are multiple <onlyinclude> tags:

<onlyinclude>foo</onlyinclude>
<onlyinclude>boo</onlyinclude>
moo

- I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what should/would happen.

I guess this is why documentation would be handy :)

Steve


body:
"Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:f1c3529e0610140027u76fe39e2o6b2ef20968f56a25 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 10/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > I'm surprised you think that's better. "Click here" links are generally
> > considered evil, and I generally agree with that. "Click here to do X"
> > only tells me how to do X *now*, not where to go if I ever want to do X.
>
> The only justification I've seen for them being considered "evil" was
> that it's redundant: you're on the web, you click on hyperlinks,
> therefore a hyperlink that says "click here" is redundant. However,
> redundancy isn't always bad: it reduces ambiguity. Is a link that says
> "download" a description of what downloading is, or a place where you
> can actually download? A link that says "click here to download" is
> unambiguous.
>

No - as I said in an earlier post, the biggest problem is with
accessibility.  People using screen readers navigate a site using a links
list generated by their screen reader, which is useless if all it says is
'Link 1: click here, Link 2: click here, etc.'.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Ligulem

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Yes, they do completely different things:
>
> One of them makes the enclosed part only appear during a template inclusion. The
> other makes an inclusion include only that part.

I don't understand. Could someone explain this in an unambiguous way?

"The other makes an inclusion include only that part."

If I take this literally, my understanding of this would be:

As soon as a template contains an <onlyinclude>, then the default mode
of transcluding template content changes from "transcluding" to "not
transcluding" for that whole template.

Um, this would require a prescan of the whole template searching for the
existence of <onlyinclude> in order to determine the initial mode
("transcluding content" versus "not transcluding content").

I fear I'm in error. But then what is it?

Puzzled,

--Ligulem


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:34:34AM +0100, Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 13/10/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
> > Thanks for that very detailed breakdown.  Given that answer, is there a
> > reason that <onlyinclude> is not documented anywhere?  I find it an odd
> > omission if they were all introduced at the same time...
>
> And why do we need both <noinclude> and <includeonly>? Do they not, when
> placed around slightly different sections of text, perform the same
> function?

Do this, don't do that; can't you read the signs...?

They reason for such a complimentary pair of operators is that they're
self documenting: you can markup what you actually mean, rather than
'not what you don't mean', which can make it easier for latecomers to
figure out your intent without extraneous comments.

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Public Domain and Non-Commercial at the same time

body:
Many of them appear to be official seals, for which an appropriate fair
use rationale could indeed be given.

Others, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Food.jpg

which is linked from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_the_Philippines

can and should be deleted immediately and replaced as soon as possible
with a free alternative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jinggoy.jpg
is a photo of a living, actively serving politician.  This is another
one which should be deleted and replaced with a free alternative.

Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
> from Philippines.
>
> Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
> and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
> the current template claims so:
>
>    "this work is only available in the public domain under a
>    non-commercial and permission-based license"
>
> Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with
> Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any
> fair-use rationale...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
On 10/14/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
> > thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
> > slightly less trivial than that.
>
> I think the equivalence with the Kevin Bacon "degrees of separation"
> is a good one, but I don't think it speaks for its lack of triviality.
> I don't think we should start categorizing actors by their degrees of
> separation from Kevin Bacon, either, and I don't think we should
> categorize people based on their degrees of publication separation
> from Paul Erdos.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

It's fundamentally trivial (in nature), however it's also excessively
popular, in the sense that any serious mathematician seems to know
their Erdos number.  It's not a focus of serious discussion, but it's
part of the field's internal folklore.

I think that they're so well known and so common that they are simply
too notable not to have articles about, even though they're trivial.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>
>>geni wrote
>>
>>
>>>On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Should we have a category which says that the subject of the
>>>>article (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician
>>>>who collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
>>>> with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
>>>>mathematician Paul Erd?s?
>>>>
>>>>Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
>>> articles on everything that could fall within that category.
>>>
>>>
>>That's a misapprehension of what this is about.
>>
>>I'd have voted for deletion myself. This is about as pop-cultural as
>>mathmos get (I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced
>>with the Prince of Wales).
>>
>>
>Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
>thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
>slightly less trivial than that.
>
It's important to put the emphasis on the word "slightly" in that last
comment.  I have a priestly cousin who likes to hand out pictures of
himself shaking hands with the late pope.  He gave me one of those
pictures.  This would give me a degree of separation from JP2 of 2.
Speaking as a person who usually favours inclusionist policies, could we
consolidate these templates into one about degrees of triviality?

Ec


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] wtf

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2006 at 11:24, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be better of course to have a header for emails,
>> reminding people to boot up their sense of humour.
>
> Only British people have a "sense of humour"... us Americans have to
> make do with a mere "sense of humor".
>

I made a point similar to that a few days ago...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061014/167e199a/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
On 10/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> >Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
> >thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
> >slightly less trivial than that.
> >
> It's important to put the emphasis on the word "slightly" in that last
> comment.  I have a priestly cousin who likes to hand out pictures of
> himself shaking hands with the late pope.  He gave me one of those
> pictures.  This would give me a degree of separation from JP2 of 2.
> Speaking as a person who usually favours inclusionist policies, could we
> consolidate these templates into one about degrees of triviality?

Does everyone in your profession have a "Papal Number", talk about it
sometimes over beer, and sometimes put it in resumes?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/14/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging
>
> > Why do people want to be on it? I couldn't imagine anything remotely
> > rewarding about it: as you say, reading lots of stupidity, attempting
> > to write non-stupidity, and being criticised anyway. And if you get
> > complimented, you'll be second guessing yourself and wondering if you
> > were too nice to one side.
> > At least judges get paid, for god's sake.
>
> Quite a lot get drafted into nominating because others think they'd do
> well. First time I ran (mid-2005), it was because someone said "X is
> running, fergoshsakes please run so they don't get in." In Soviet
> Wikipedia, job finds YOU.
>
> - d.

In passing...

Thanks, to you and all the other current and former Arbcom people.

I don't think that gets said often enough.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Is There Life After Wikipedia?]

body:
FYI.

WebProNews mass article mailing about Wikipedia.

Jeff


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> Should we have a category which says that the subject of the article
> (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician who
> collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
> with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
> mathematician Paul Erd?s?
>
> Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.

False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
articles on everything that could fall within that category.

--
geni


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
geni wrote
>
> On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > Should we have a category which says that the subject of the article
> > (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician who
> > collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
> > with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
> > mathematician Paul Erd?s?
> >
> > Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.

> False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
> articles on everything that could fall within that category.

That's a misapprehension of what this is about.

I'd have voted for deletion myself. This is about as pop-cultural as mathmos get (I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales).

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> I'm curious what the intended uses of it are.
>
It being <onlyinclude>, the intended use is that you can write a page which
is intended to be transcluded and demarcate those parts of the page which
should appear, rather than those parts which should not.

This would make it simpler when adding further annotation, since it would
not have to be labelled as such; when using <noinclude> you have to make
sure you add extra text either inside the existing tags or inside new tags.

There is an existing item on BugZilla requesting that when viewing a
template, those areas marked with <noinclude> or <onlyinclude> be given a
CSS class to allow users to see them more clearly; I forget what the current
state of that item is.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Where-did-%3Conlyinclude%3E-come-from--tf2438184.html#a6815064
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for enhancement

body:
Mark Clements wrote:

> "Lars Aronsson" <lars at aronsson.se> wrote in
> > You don't even need to change the URL.  It should be enough to
> > detect when the edit form is invoked with an non-existing page.
>
> ...and then what? Bear in mind that the software can't currently
> tell the difference between clicking a red link, vistiting a
> non-existant page and clicking 'edit' and typing an
> "?action=edit" URL into the address bar.

Yes, there are many cases, let's limit ourselves to the four you
mention:

 1. User goes to an existing article and clicks "edit"
 2. User goes to a non-existing article and clicks "edit"
 3. User enters ?action=edit in the browser's location field
 4. User clicks a red link

All four brings up the edit form.  In cases 1-3 the user knows
this should happen, and isn't surprised by it. The only case that
can cause surprise is 4, if the user doesn't know that red links
indicate non-existing articles.

The problem we're dealing with here and now is when a user on a
blocked network (a school or a library or AOL) clicks a red link
(case 4) not knowing that this should bring up an edit form, and
thus becomes very surprised at the message that he is blocked.
This is the kind of surprise we want to eliminate.  It represents
one very specialized case in a matrix of possible cases.

One way to deal with this problem is to have a unique part of the
red link URL, e.g. &linkcolor=red or &linktype=newarticle, and if
this CGI parameter is present and the user or network is blocked,
the edit form message should provide an extra explanation of how
red links and blocking works.  This solves the problem, and this
is fine.  The cost is that red link URLs need to be changed.

The alternative way that I proposed is to have the edit form
recognize the case that the article was non-existing.  This of
course invades on cases 2 and 3.  So my solution might provide an
extra explanation about how blocking works in cases 2 & 3, because
it doesn't provide any way to distinguish cases 2, 3 from 4.  But
providing this explanation a little too often is no real loss.
The real benefit of my scheme is that it doesn't require any
change of URLs.

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


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

body:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
from Philippines.

Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
the current template claims so:

   "this work is only available in the public domain under a
   non-commercial and permission-based license"

Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with
Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any
fair-use rationale...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> geni wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Should we have a category which says that the subject of the
>>>>> article (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician
>>>>> who collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
>>>>> with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
>>>>> mathematician Paul Erd?s?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
>>>> articles on everything that could fall within that category.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's a misapprehension of what this is about.
>>>
>>> I'd have voted for deletion myself. This is about as pop-cultural as
>>> mathmos get (I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced
>>> with the Prince of Wales).
>>>
>>>
>> Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
>> thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
>> slightly less trivial than that.
>>
> It's important to put the emphasis on the word "slightly" in that last
> comment.  I have a priestly cousin who likes to hand out pictures of
> himself shaking hands with the late pope.  He gave me one of those
> pictures.  This would give me a degree of separation from JP2 of 2.
> Speaking as a person who usually favours inclusionist policies, could we
> consolidate these templates into one about degrees of triviality?
>
> Ec

   I think comparisons to things like this or "dancing with XXX" or
"having meet YYY" are not accurate.  This is a verifiable part of the
mathematical subculture.  Just because it is not (aside form the
calculation) mathematical in nature does not mean that it does not say a
lot about that sub-culture.

   I have mixed feelings about the categories, but I think it is a
significant and notable thing to include.  This is probably a good
compromise, as putting such things in the article itself (even in a box)
would be I think giving it too much significance.

   I like to think of categories in terms of "would someone ever be
interested in finding articles with this".  In this case I think the
answer is with out a doubt yes.

SKL


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
Should we have a category which says that the subject of the article
(a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician who
collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
mathematician Paul Erd?s?

Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_8#Erd.C5.91s_number_categories

What is the limit of triviality? We have many people who love trivia,
but I think we should try to keep trivia outside of the category system
and keep only the defining characteristics for the articles.


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
> from Philippines.
>
> Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
> and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
> the current template claims so:
>
>    "this work is only available in the public domain under a
>    non-commercial and permission-based license"

Then it's not really available in the public domain. Public domain
means that you don't need a license from a copyright holder.
Non-commercial stipulations are types of licenses.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
On 10/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
> thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
> slightly less trivial than that.

I think the equivalence with the Kevin Bacon "degrees of separation"
is a good one, but I don't think it speaks for its lack of triviality.
I don't think we should start categorizing actors by their degrees of
separation from Kevin Bacon, either, and I don't think we should
categorize people based on their degrees of publication separation
from Paul Erdos.

FF


from_name: Angela

body:
On 10/14/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Compatibility with what? Sounds like almost no one is aware of
> onlyinclude's existence, let alone brave enough to use an
> undocumented, unannounced feature...?

I've used it, and since it's been around since 1.5, I'm sure there are
many other uses too.

> What happens with this text:
>
> <noinclude>foo</noinclude>
> <onlyinclude>boo</onlyinclude>
> <includeonly>moo</includeonly>
> schmoo

If you looked at the template, it would say foo boo schmoo. If you
include that template, it would say boo. (The same is true if you swap
the order of onlyinclude and includeonly.)

> And what about this:
>
> <onlyinclude><noinclude>foo</noinclude></onlyinclude>

The template would say foo. If used, it would be blank.

> What if there are multiple <onlyinclude> tags:
>
> <onlyinclude>foo</onlyinclude>
> <onlyinclude>boo</onlyinclude>
> moo

The template would say foo boo moo. If used, it would say foo boo.

There is a test wiki at http://test.wikipedia.org/ where you could try it.

Angela


from_name: Delirium

body:
the wub wrote:

>The relevant bit of the law (from
>http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_10/RA08293.pdf) reads:
>
>SEC. 176. Works of the Government. ? 176.1. No copyright
>shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines.
>However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein
>the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
>work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things,
>impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval
>or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
>statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
>addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in
>courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative
>assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par.,
>P.D. No. 49)
>
>
The second part sounds like actual public domain ("no prior approval or
conditions"), so I guess wikisource can freely use, for example, public
speeches made by the president.  The list does not include pictures, sadly.

-Mark


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 14 Oct 2006 at 23:12, "the wub" <thewub.wiki at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> So they explicitly state there is no copyright (rather than saying "public
> domain"), then go on to claim no commercial use is allowed.
> Something of a contradiction I think, but it seems pretty clear what the
> intention is. Such images would not be acceptable on Wikipedia (other than
> under fair use)

What it sounds like is that the Philippine government is creating a
separate type of intellectual property which is explicitly not
"copyright", but which still restricts the commercial (but not
noncommercial) use of the applicable material.  Governments are
allowed to do such things by law (within whatever constraints their
constitution may make), but such laws apply only within their own
borders (unless extended elsewhere by treaty).  Since, as far as I
know, there are no international treaties protecting non-copyrighted
governmental works that have use restrictions by national law (this
wouldn't fall under copyright treaties since it's not a copyright),
they would only be able to enforce this restriction within the
Philippines, and in the rest of the world the works would be entirely
public domain.  (But I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice.)

--
== 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: Milos Rancic

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] According to Alexa graphs,
	Wikipedia is on the 8th place

body:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?compare_sites=myspace.com+sina.com.cn+yahoo.co.jp&range=max&size=large&y=r&url=wikipedia.org

"Today" Wikipedia is on 11th place, one week place is 12th and three
months place is 16-17th.

But, according to the graphs, Wikipedia is on 8th place. Wikipedia is
better then myspace.com (6th place), sina.com.cn (7th place) and
yahoo.co.jp (9th place), but live.com (8th place) and youtube.com
(10th place) are better then Wikipedia.


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

references:
<452AE1BE.20901@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEDBJAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<7c2a12e20610092336n6578989awb1e02082b2d4552e@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140610100023w28fd2a0ata405696ca35b6ff3@mail.gmail.com>
	<f1c3529e0610100034y1a149c8ai8217c559e5f55143@mail.gmail.com>
	<egonhg$svj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0610140027u76fe39e2o6b2ef20968f56a25@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 09:27:19AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I've probably overlooked something though.

Google.

Google makes good use of the *contents* of a hyperlink.  I've never
*searched* google for "click here", but...

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

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 13/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging

> Why do people want to be on it? I couldn't imagine anything remotely
> rewarding about it: as you say, reading lots of stupidity, attempting
> to write non-stupidity, and being criticised anyway. And if you get
> complimented, you'll be second guessing yourself and wondering if you
> were too nice to one side.
> At least judges get paid, for god's sake.

Quite a lot get drafted into nominating because others think they'd do
well. First time I ran (mid-2005), it was because someone said "X is
running, fergoshsakes please run so they don't get in." In Soviet
Wikipedia, job finds YOU.

- d.


from_name: David Alexander Russell

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

Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
> from Philippines.
>
> Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
> and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
> the current template claims so:
>
>    "this work is only available in the public domain under a
>    non-commercial and permission-based license"
>
> Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with
> Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any
> fair-use rationale...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov
>
>

I think that is probably a mistranslation of original government text.
My guess is that it actually means 'this work is only available _to the
public_ under a non-commercial and permission-based license'. Not having
seen the original (and not being able to understand any language other
than English or /extremely/ basic French) I can't guarantee this however.

Cynical
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFMVaVg8fvtQYQevcRAsjNAJ0Xq9mQsgJ0ujyZ7tVp/xMI9rgBkQCZAdrh
uFheVzQdrU6luaCxmWCV5zw=
=cYDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 14/10/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
> from Philippines.
>
> Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
> and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
> the current template claims so:
>
>    "this work is only available in the public domain under a
>    non-commercial and permission-based license"
>
> Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with
> Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any
> fair-use rationale...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov

This may well be a mistranslation or misconception. "Public domain"
only means "free without restrictions and out of copyright" when used
to talk about copyright; however, it's perfectly possible to, say,
call a recent publication "in the public domain" in that it is
*available* to the public, it's not restricted by secrecy legislation
or the like.

In other words, it can mean "is not copyrighted" or "is not an
official secret" or - often - both.

I see this a lot with various Freedom of Information / Access to
Information legislation - the laws themselves, or the explanatory
material, often talk about "putting material in the public domain"
without ever mentioning copyright issues, and people jump to the
conclusion that it means the former and not just the latter, because
we communally get a bit hung up on copyright and assume people are
talking about it all the time...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: the wub

body:
The relevant bit of the law (from
http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_10/RA08293.pdf) reads:

SEC. 176. Works of the Government. ? 176.1. No copyright
shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines.
However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein
the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things,
impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval
or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in
courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative
assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par.,
P.D. No. 49)

(English is an official language of the Phillipines, and this is from an
official site, so I presume this is a good translation)

So they explicitly state there is no copyright (rather than saying "public
domain"), then go on to claim no commercial use is allowed.
Something of a contradiction I think, but it seems pretty clear what the
intention is. Such images would not be acceptable on Wikipedia (other than
under fair use)

the wub

On 10/14/06, David Alexander Russell <david at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> > There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
> > from Philippines.
> >
> > Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
> > and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
> > the current template claims so:
> >
> >    "this work is only available in the public domain under a
> >    non-commercial and permission-based license"
> >
> > Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with
> > Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any
> > fair-use rationale...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov
> >
> >
>
> I think that is probably a mistranslation of original government text.
> My guess is that it actually means 'this work is only available _to the
> public_ under a non-commercial and permission-based license'. Not having
> seen the original (and not being able to understand any language other
> than English or /extremely/ basic French) I can't guarantee this however.
>
> Cynical
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFMVaVg8fvtQYQevcRAsjNAJ0Xq9mQsgJ0ujyZ7tVp/xMI9rgBkQCZAdrh
> uFheVzQdrU6luaCxmWCV5zw=
> =cYDk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>