references:
<opsjc3gtrv2okkek@arcadia.attbi.com>	<F68965C0-53B0-11D9-BF17-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>	<41CA1B17.3040207@softhome.net>
	<E0493A6D-547F-11D9-BBBD-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<41CA1C5F.5060606@softhome.net>

body:
I've created a <charinsert> extension which produces the little
javascript inserter bits for the characters you feed it. This can be
used in wikitext, such as the 'copyrightwarning' messages which was
previously HTML.

I set up the English Wikipedia chars again using this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

Please feel free to set up the appropriate equivalents at the other
'pedias, 'tionaries, and all.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/attachments/20041223/3358029f/attachment.pgp


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
We can establish several panels, for example of 5 arbitrators each; have
cases decided by arbitrators selected by the parties (one party selects one,
the other party selects one, the two selected select the third); or
establish what amounts to a small claims court. So lots of scalable options.

Fred

> From: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:46:43 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
>
> Unlike wiki itself, the AC arrangement is not scalable, save
> perhaps through making mediation (which can readily absorb new
> community members) better and more active.


body:
I think we've always known that every arbitrator participating in every case
would eventually become unwieldy. Different options raise different
questions about practicality and comfort for the parties. For example,
should a decision by a small panel be appealable to the whole Committee? Or
should the parties be able to strike an arbitrator on motion? Or should be
abandon election and simply select arbitrators at random from the
administrators (with the understanding that some might refuse or not work
out)?

I think a lot of heat, read emotion, is being generated by the feeling that
we have instituted a creeping caste system. You can see this in parties
changing their focus from the issues raised by their own behavior to
concerns about the arbitration process. The problem for the existing
arbitrators is that having been presented with a mess, they must find some
remedy that restricts its scope. Which comes down to bans and partial bans
and other restrictions on editing.

In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying
essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which
restricts.

Fred

> From: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:36:04 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:34:11 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> We can establish several panels, for example of 5 arbitrators each; have
>> cases decided by arbitrators selected by the parties (one party selects one,
>> the other party selects one, the two selected select the third); or
>> establish what amounts to a small claims court. So lots of scalable options.
>
> Sounds great.  I had the impression that this was explicitly not
> desired...  +sj+
>
> +sj+
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths

body:
Sj wrote:
> If they are now being fought over, rather than so undesirable that
> Jimbo has to twist a few arms to fill seats, then perhaps we should
> address that issue, rather than opting to hold elections as
> infrequently as possible.

I would say that the problem wasn't with them being fought over.  I
would say that most of the candidates chose to run out of a feeling of
it being a necessity and valuable, not out of any actual desire to
have the post.

The ugliness in the election was due primarily (imho) to problem users
trolling and attacking the people who were running.

--Jimbo


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Muke Tever

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Doing things we used to be able to do,
	in the new upgrade

body:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:53:06 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> I've created a <charinsert> extension which produces the little
> javascript inserter bits for the characters you feed it. This can be
> used in wikitext, such as the 'copyrightwarning' messages which was
> previously HTML.

Excellent!  Thanks!

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admitted sockpuppet making continual abusive comments

references:
<BAY13-F38005F2A42AABB5A601B9AB0A40@phx.gbl>
	<BDEF2C18.9DD3%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<1bfe3eb04122213106960dc56@mail.gmail.com>

body:
It's now done (not by me).

-- ambi

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:10:24 +0000, Theresa Knott
<theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just block the account. The block policy is clear on this matter
>
> "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be
> blocked permanently."
>
> Theresa
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:53:06 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> I've created a <charinsert> extension which produces the little
> javascript inserter bits for the characters you feed it. This can be
> used in wikitext, such as the 'copyrightwarning' messages which was
> previously HTML.

Hmm, it doesn't seem to work properly.
On la: I click the y-breve (which is two unicode characters, y and combining
breve) and I get: y%CC%86%CC%86

If I click the o-breve (only one character) I get: %C5%8F

But it only seems to do this in Opera, as I just checked in Firefox and it
works okay.

[Of course, the insert feature didn't really work in Opera to begin with;
clicking to insert a character inserts it in a text field between the
edit toolbar and the main article-editing text area, from whence it can
be easily copied and pasted--Firefox doesn't even have this text field;
I was surprised at how much easier inserting characters was, the first time
I tried it.]

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Sj

body:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:34:11 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> We can establish several panels, for example of 5 arbitrators each; have
> cases decided by arbitrators selected by the parties (one party selects one,
> the other party selects one, the two selected select the third); or
> establish what amounts to a small claims court. So lots of scalable options.

Sounds great.  I had the impression that this was explicitly not
desired...  +sj+

+sj+


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
Sj stated for the record:

> To address one of Angela's points, these posts should not be ones for
> which one aggressively campaigns for reelection, perhaps not even
> posts for which one stands for reelection.  If they are now being
> fought over, rather than so undesirable that Jimbo has to twist a few
> arms to fill seats, then perhaps we should address that issue, rather
> than opting to hold elections as infrequently as possible.

I for one am very willing to address that issue, but the mechanism seems
alarmingly straight-forward:

1: There are people who believe Wikipedia is not working as well as it
should.

2: Those people believe that other people are the problem.

3: Those people also believe that the ArbComm has the power to remove
the people who are the problem.

Therefore, those people want to be on the ArbComm so that they can
remove from Wikipedia the people who they believe are the problem.

As a corollary, some people believe that the wrong people are being
punished (eg, themselves) and want to be on the ArbComm to protect those
people from punishment.

Therefore, unless we find a way to make one of these premises untrue,
ArbComm membership is desirable, and to be aggressively campaigned for.

Note that I believe #1 and #2 myself.  #3 is untrue only in that the
ArbComm acts purely as a judiciary, not an executive -- we judge those
whom others bring before us, we don't bring charges ourselves.  One
could assume that an arbiter with an agenda might have friends who could
be counted on to bring charges against the people the aggressive arbiter
didn't like, so that separation of powers is not a particularly strong
bulwark against abuse.

--
  Sean Barrett     | Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this
  sean at epoptic.com | country are decent, hard-working Americans. It's
                   | the other lousy 2% that get all the publicity.
                   | But then, we elected them. --Lily Tomlin


from_name: Yann Forget

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: RC customization (new 1.4 on
	WIktionary)

body:
Hi,

Le Wednesday 22 December 2004 22:17, Ashar Voultoiz a ?crit :
> Hello Yann,
>
> Yann Forget wrote:
> | Hi,
> |
> | Wiktionary:Recentchanges was used to customize RC head.
> | How to do it now with the new 1.4 ?
> | cf. http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionnaire:Recentchanges
>
> It really should be MediaWiki: . Looks fixed now, can you confirm ?

It WAS Wiktionary:Recentchanges, but I copied the content to
MediaWiki:Recentchanges after getting the info from Mike, so it's fixed.
Thanks, Mike.

> Also by copy+pasting the text from Wiktionnaire: to MediaWiki: you lost
> the history, that should be fixed ! :p
>
> cheers,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admitted sockpuppet making continual abusive comments

body:
Ya. I'll not unblock. I wish this stuff wasn't done through the mailing
list, because I don't often check it. Nor should I have to.

Would now be a good time to tell people about [[WP:AN]]?

Ta bu shi da yu

Charles Podles wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:01:06 -0500, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's now done (not by me).
>>>
>>>-- ambi
>>>
>>
>>And now it has been undone, by Ta bu shi da yu.  There seems to be no remedy
>>for this.
>>
>>Jay.
>
>
> And it has been redone for what I hope will be the final time, but
> this time the block has been fully and incontrovertibly explained.
>
> --Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Special:Wantedpages sorting backwards?

body:
The last time [[Special:Wantedpages]] was cached [sometime in the past
day, since the Wikipedia upgrade], it seems to have been done in reverse,
sorting from fewest links to most links.

Is that expected behavior now, or did something unusual happen?

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

references:
<opsjc3gtrv2okkek@arcadia.attbi.com>
	<F68965C0-53B0-11D9-BF17-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<41C91C69.2000501@softhome.net>

body:
I created a monobook.js file to add this capability for myself on
en.wiktionary. Basically
because I wanted to be able to use various sets of special characters
from time to
time and didn't want to force them onto people who didn't want them on en.

So you could certainly make such a .js that any interested user can
copy to their own
.js file. Or maybe there is a per-wiki .js that a sysop can add to.
That ought to be a
more structured long term solution.

Please feel free to look at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Hippietrail/monobook.js - this is
my first ever Javascript and I know it's horrible so also feel free to
improve it. I've
been wanting to add a per-language popup menu for instance. Also with the new
upgrade I want the text to appear before the "templates in this article" stuff.

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:04:09 +0100, cookfire <cookfire at softhome.net> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 2004, at 6:20 AM, Muke Tever wrote:
> >
> >> Now, you help me. :p  It used to be that a few wiktionaries edited
> >> [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]] to allow users to click and insert
> >> necessary special characters... but it seems it is no longer possible
> >> to insert the script (/style/wikibits.js) to allow this. Is there a
> >> workaround, or a better way to do it now, or will it just have to
> >> revert to a copy-and-paste plain-text list?
> >
> >
> > Arbitrary HTML and JavaScript in the MediaWiki: messages is dangerous,
> > and is something that's being phased out. There are a couple reasons
> > for this.
> >
> > The first is security: on our larger sites we have literally
> > *hundreds* of sysops with permissions to edit these messages. With
> > those numbers, it's hard to assign sufficient 'trust'; even if we
> > believe every one of them to be upstanding, well-meaning individuals
> > the likelihood of a compromised account increases with every new
> > sysop. If a broken-into (or malicious) sysop account can be used to
> > add arbitrary HTML or JavaScript code, it could be used to exploit
> > security vulnerabilities in web browsers or more simply attack and
> > subvert the wiki accounts of other users. Such an attack might be
> > found and reverted immediately, or it might attack dozens or hundreds
> > -- or thousands -- of visitors before being stopped.
> >
> > The second is robustness: accidentally or maliciously placed invalid
> > HTML could break the site. As the web moves towards more XML (which is
> > very strict about proper markup syntax) it can become difficult to
> > recover from such a breakage without manual intervention.
> >
> > There's still a lot of places with raw HTML in messages, so it's an
> > ongoing process. Text fragments are being moved to either plaintext or
> > wikitext, depending on their use and purpose. (Paragraph-level blocks
> > such as the copyright warning are generally wikitext.)
> >
> > It would probably be worthwhile to write up the special character
> > inserter as a MediaWiki extension -- then it could be inserted into
> > the wikitext message in a safe, secure way.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> Hi Brion,
>
> I understand the security implications and I must admit I was already
> somewhat surprised that it was possible to add javascript to these
> pages. I have been creating a very comprehensive template for allowing
> to insert all the accented characters I was able to cram out of my
> Mandrake Linux Unicode keyboard. It wasn't totally ready yet and it was
> good to be able to develop it in real time. I will forward it to you
> tonight. I don't know how to create MediaWiki extensions. Is there a
> place where this is described. I can program a little, so I should be
> able to do it with just a few pointers.
>
> Polyglot
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Copyright Violation

body:
Ian Monroe wrote:

>I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to divine the definitions
>of words.
>
I can't say; I never use it.  I do have 20 or 30 other books that I can
reference as required.

>How are you not saying that a dictionary has no place being
>developed in a wiki-way?
>
I nver said that.

>Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of
>inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me
>from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I
>finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make
>sure I got it right.
>
I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to
believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct.  I
frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with
that and the OED.  The big advantage of these works is their use of
quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's
definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.

A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
language.... certainly not to create original definitions.

>Information isn't under copyright, expressions of
>information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for
>having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the
>book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what
>people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever
>extending, quite the opposite.
>
I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a
song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary.  Fair use (at
least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is
substantiality.  Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is
not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code> ? 107.) You need to
consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases.  Whether fair us
will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would
proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable.  It
is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot
less restrictive than what people think it is.

>If it is possible to copy definitions in a fair-use manner, IANAL and
>probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is
>precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close.
>Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
>from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
>
Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation.  And don't
expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at
their table.  Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of
action.  I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would
suggest.

Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright
dictionaries.  The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the
wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source)
were in need of repair.  But we also haven't seen him in a week, and
don't know if he will ever come back.  Maybe he found that even a
straightforward copying was too boring.  Your technique for discouraging
newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all.  If he
is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you
might just as well quietly fix the affected articles.  If he's a
registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will
be a lot more productive.

>"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What
>do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the
>wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what
>I had in mind. Ex.
>http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.35.3.81
>
>While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I
>just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and
>could be simplified.
>
??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL.  If you have a problem with that,
take it up with them.

>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:04:06 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ian Monroe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now that Wiktionary 1.4 is settling in, thought I would bring up an
>>>issue thats been on the en:Beer parlor for a while, which may benefit
>>>
>>>
>>>from some ideas from other wikt's. Plus it would take a sysop,
>>
>>
>>>{{sofixit}} isn't an option ;)
>>>
>>>Here it is:
>>>
>>>Its fairly common that we find copyright infringing articles. I
>>>hypothesize this is not someone trying to poison Wiktionary, but is
>>>due to ignorance. If you are like me, you've read it once and then
>>>forget that it says the following at the buttom of every edit page:
>>>
>>>   You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied
>>>it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT
>>>COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
>>>
>>>Really I think this assumes the reader understands copyright as well
>>>as understands what folks in the Free Software movement consider to be
>>>'free'. I mean, dictionary.com is free as in beer, but it isn't
>>>'similar free' which is kind of expecting a bit from Joe User. The
>>>paragraph previous to that already gets the legal crap over with by
>>>stating you are releasing under the GFDL, I don't think we need to
>>>cover every case. It should talk to the anonymous junior high student
>>>who sees noctilucent doesn't have a definition. I'm not claiming to be
>>>a great wordsmith, but here is a try:
>>>
>>>   All definitions must be written by yourself or borrowed from a
>>>public domain resource. Do not use content from copyrighted resources
>>>such as dictionary.com.
>>>
>>>I think dictionary.com is the biggest culprit, so naming it
>>>specifically will be helpful. Also its a good example of what a
>>>copyrighted resource is. We could also throw on something nice to it,
>>>like 'we want to know what you think' or 'we apperciate your input'.
>>>I'm not sure how to put it. Just to be nice and to reiterate the
>>>'your'.
>>>---
>>>There wasn't any further discussion of it, though Eclecticology stated
>>>his belief in their being legal gray area around copyrights on
>>>dictionaries.
>>>
>>>Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>I really don't think that the problem is as bad as Ian makes out.  The
>>copying of any single definition from another dictionary may just as
>>easily be fair use.  Though when the definition is copied  from another
>>source that source needs to be referenced.  Copyright infringement would
>>depend on a pattern of behaviour.  Writing one's own brand new
>>definitions is not as sound a practice as Ian suggests.  If one is to do
>>that it should properly be accompanied by evidence of identified
>>quotations that illustrate the use of the word in just that way.
>>
>>We've already had the argument about protologisms as original work, but
>>so too are definitions that take a word into areas where it has never
>>been used before.  Writing one's own definitions is not as easy as it
>>seems.
>>
>>A significant statement in the GFDL license is "You accept the license
>>if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission
>>under copyright law."  Fair use does not require these permissions.
>>
>>Ec
>>


from_name: Robin Shannon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Questions about recusal

body:
Could i just humbly request that people stop refering to people by
actions and not by names. It really doesnt give anonimity to those in
the know ("the cabal" :P), and to those who are not in the know, it
just makes them feel excluded and also makes futher research into what
has been said very difficult. I write this in reply not just to
jamesday, but to several different people on different threads
reacently.

thanks,
[[User:The bellman]]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:37:24 -0500, user_Jamesday
<user_Jamesday at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking, for example, of an arbitrator who appeared happy that an arbcom interim >action would prevent someone from standing in the arbcom elections, because they were >(at least in the view of that arbitrator) prohibited from editing the page to indicate their >candidacy.

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] When is an oil painting "published?"

body:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:12:33 -0000, apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk
<apw at ap-woolrich.co.uk> wrote:
> Check out 'Reproduction Fees' on Wikipedia. Its possible for an out
> of copyright image to attract a reproduction fee from the library
> holding it and providing the image. These fees can be very high and
> even prohibit the publication of limited-run publications since the
> finances do not add up.

Indeed they can and do.  The fact is that the owner of an original
image is under no obligation to let you copy that original, and is
free to charge fees and make you sign a contract before they give you
that original to copy.

However, those fees and contracts are not binding on anyone else under
present US law, unless they are themselves placed under contract
before being given a copy.

E.g. a book publisher might pay some art gallery a lot of money to
copy their old paintings for publication.  That does NOT prevent J.
Random Wikipedia Editor from buying or lending that book, scanning the
individual images of those paintings, and placing them on Wikipedia as
public domain.  (The text and the arrangement and layout ARE
copyrighted).

The laws of other countries probably differ on this matter, since it's
not one regulated by the Berne Convention or whatever.

-Matt (User:Morven)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Painting copyright

body:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:37:04 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I know, certainly in some jurisdictions very little
> modification of public domain or out of copyright work may be required
> to create a new copyrighted work.
>
> While we don't want to be too fussy, as it's unlikely an uncertain
> case will be challenged, we should keep an eye on photos of such
> objects (to pick a contrived copyrighted example, an inspired photo of
> a row of old paintings - i.e. an original work to some extent despite
> the paintings not being the work of the photographer)

Also, as a practical matter, I suspect that even in those
jurisdictions, since the work is in the public domain and only the
copies have a claimed copyright, the owners would have to prove WHICH
copy you in turn copied.  After all, there's no original copyright to
defend, so proving a resemblance to the original is not enough to
prove infringement.  I suspect being unable to determine which
copyright was in fact infringed would make a case rather difficult to
prove.

~~~~


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia offline?

body:
Is it just me, or has the Wikipedia just gone down?

Slim


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Is Wikipedia offline?

body:
Whatever it was, it's okay now. For about 5-10 minutes, I couldn't get
into any page, not even the main page.

Slim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:05:41 -0700
Subject: Is Wikipedia offline?
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org

Is it just me, or has the Wikipedia just gone down?

Slim


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Erdal Ronahi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia upgrade to MediaWiki 1.4

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:

> At this point most of our wikis have been upgraded to MediaWiki 1.4,
> which has a few spiffy new features, some bug fixes, and some
> performance improvements in page rendering.

As always: Thanks for your precious work. Wikipedia becomes better and
more beautiful every day.

Erdal


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Registration system and blocks

body:
On Dec 23, 2004, at 3:00 PM, Abe Sokolov wrote:
> A user keeps on getting blocked but returns with returns with one new
> sockpuppet after another. He wrote on my page:
>
> Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a registration system
> that requires input of an actual email address. Haha.
>
> He's right... Why don't we have one?

I'm sure you're aware that wouldn't do anything to stop sockpuppets,
given the vast quantity of adware webmail providers.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20041223/01273747/attachment.pgp


from_name: cookfire

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Doing things we used to be able to do,	in the
	new upgrade

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> I've created a <charinsert> extension which produces the little
> javascript inserter bits for the characters you feed it. This can be
> used in wikitext, such as the 'copyrightwarning' messages which was
> previously HTML.
>
> I set up the English Wikipedia chars again using this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning
>
> Please feel free to set up the appropriate equivalents at the other
> 'pedias, 'tionaries, and all.

Outstanding! Thanks,

Polyglot


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>
>In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying
>essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which
>restricts.
>
Ah yes, the rise of "arbcom lawyers". My impression is that it
would help the arbitration process for the AC to be seen as
somewhat unpredictable, a la irascible courtroom judges - revert
an edit or mouth off on an evidence page, boom, banned for a week
with no appeal, irrespective of the merits of the overall case.
After reading some of what gets thrown in front of the AC, I can
see why the "contempt of court" concept was invented! :-)

Stan


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia offline?

body:
It was offline for me a few minutes ago, I'll check again now.

>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: slimvirgin at gmail.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia offline?
>Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:05:41 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mc9-f31.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.38]) by mc9-s18.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:15:01 -0800
>Received: from mail.wikimedia.org ([207.142.131.234]) by
>mc9-f31.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 23 Dec 2004
>13:05:49 -0800
>Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63D61158376;Thu, 23 Dec 2004
>21:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.192])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723A2115832Ffor
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:05:46 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so137507rnefor
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:05:41 -0800 (PST)
>Received: by 10.38.207.5 with SMTP id e5mr191729rng;Thu, 23 Dec 2004
>13:05:41 -0800 (PST)
>Received: by 10.38.125.75 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:05:41 -0800 (PST)
>X-Message-Info: jl7Vrt/mfsp3hzh1h+DSc8U5Z5e9GdZf
>X-Original-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Delivered-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;
>d=gmail.com;h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;b=Abh8t9UZAZ54iZQvKODrHnOb5AjObFcHKxy4etFxqxkVozs1kSJ3ihz5eZ/chBPzFm+nfpepKgm8NrlrMyZjFZ/zW1OiZ1VJhQLpUGyCXz1am8dIhHvK1prHMltFVNuy4lgyHhOl5tn9bBqq7MTJHmrm92gWJ/TGu0I0Y0P+VDo=
>References:
><20041221044144.362311AC02B8 at mail.wikimedia.org><41C7E70D.80000 at earthlink.net><742dfd060412230146323bfda2 at mail.gmail.com>
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5c2
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2004 21:05:50.0183 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[2E40F770:01C4E933]
>
>Is it just me, or has the Wikipedia just gone down?
>
>Slim
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikipedia-l] question re Wikipedia for PDA

body:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:31:43 -0500, Marshall Wold <mbenj at mail.com> wrote:
> How can I obtain either a download or a CD of Wikipedia for my PDA (palm OS), Tome Raider 3 version text only?

A note at the bottom of http://download.wikimedia.org/ suggests you
look at http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TomeRaider_database (which in
turn links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TomeRaider_database_-_download_instructions)

I don't know anything more about this, but I hope those pages provide
the information you require.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
The sample size is pretty small, so hard to generalize, but I was
struck by recent cases where temporary injunctions got people's
attention, and other cases where people withdrew their complaints.

Can't be timid either - people have to know that upping the ante
ends in the certainty of a permanent ban. I think it's safe to
say that anyone engaging in that kind of behavior is not actually
interested in building the encyclopedia, so what loss in getting
rid of them?

Stan

Fred Bauder wrote:

>I've been doing a bit of that, but it seems to up the ante and open the
>floodgates rather than awe and silence.
>
>Fred
>
>
>>From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
>>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:53:52 -0800
>>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
>>
>>Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying
>>>essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which
>>>restricts.
>>>
>>>
>>Ah yes, the rise of "arbcom lawyers". My impression is that it
>>would help the arbitration process for the AC to be seen as
>>somewhat unpredictable, a la irascible courtroom judges - revert
>>an edit or mouth off on an evidence page, boom, banned for a week
>>with no appeal, irrespective of the merits of the overall case.
>>After reading some of what gets thrown in front of the AC, I can
>>see why the "contempt of court" concept was invented! :-)
>>
>>Stan
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I've been doing a bit of that, but it seems to up the ante and open the
floodgates rather than awe and silence.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:53:52 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>
>> In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying
>> essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which
>> restricts.
>>
> Ah yes, the rise of "arbcom lawyers". My impression is that it
> would help the arbitration process for the AC to be seen as
> somewhat unpredictable, a la irascible courtroom judges - revert
> an edit or mouth off on an evidence page, boom, banned for a week
> with no appeal, irrespective of the merits of the overall case.
> After reading some of what gets thrown in front of the AC, I can
> see why the "contempt of court" concept was invented! :-)
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Jesse the man

subject: [WikiEN-l] Interviews

body:
I got a request to a phone interview by a journalist at Wired
magazine. I have declined the interview request because I don't think
my parents would appreciate my getting interviews and I don't think
they would understand exactly why. Also, I don't particularly feel
like doing one at the moment anyway.

Has anyone else gotten phone interviews?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Upgrades

body:
On Dec 23, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> As the co-founder of scn:wiki, I am appreciative of the assistance
> provided by Mark Williamson and everyone else involved with wikipedia.
>  I note that some upgrades have taken place over the past few weeks or
> so.  Everyone may be aware by now that the special characters at the
> bottom of the editing pages have disappeared.  I am wondering whether
> there is an easy way to salvage these (it took me forever to work out
> how to get them there in the first place!).  I am confident that many
> other languages besides Sicilian are affected.  Can anyone suggest
> something I might be able to do?

Some formerly HTML UI bits are now wikitext to increase security,
resilience against mistakes and bugs, and aid general ease of use. You
can now create the special character insertions using an extension,
which should actually be much easier than the old way of cut-n-pasting
a lot of JavaScript links.

For an example, see the source for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20041223/c1f27838/attachment.pgp


subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Interviews

body:
Yup, he was the guy who asked if I wanted to be interviewed or not.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stacey Greenstein <stacey.nj at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:03:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Interviews
To: Jesse the man <viciouskatana.man at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

I haven't, but there was a reporter from Wired (Daniel Pink) at the
recent meetup in NYC.

Stacey (UtherSRG)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:31:57 -0600, Jesse the man
<viciouskatana.man at gmail.com> wrote:
> I got a request to a phone interview by a journalist at Wired
> magazine. I have declined the interview request because I don't think
> my parents would appreciate my getting interviews and I don't think
> they would understand exactly why. Also, I don't particularly feel
> like doing one at the moment anyway.
>
> Has anyone else gotten phone interviews?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stacey Greenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Interviews

body:
I haven't, but there was a reporter from Wired (Daniel Pink) at the
recent meetup in NYC.

Stacey (UtherSRG)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:31:57 -0600, Jesse the man
<viciouskatana.man at gmail.com> wrote:
> I got a request to a phone interview by a journalist at Wired
> magazine. I have declined the interview request because I don't think
> my parents would appreciate my getting interviews and I don't think
> they would understand exactly why. Also, I don't particularly feel
> like doing one at the moment anyway.
>
> Has anyone else gotten phone interviews?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
It violates a principle, which originated with Stephen Gaskin, "Is it
helpful? Is it kind?" Not nice to provoke people.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:28:14 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
>
> The sample size is pretty small, so hard to generalize, but I was
> struck by recent cases where temporary injunctions got people's
> attention, and other cases where people withdrew their complaints.
>
> Can't be timid either - people have to know that upping the ante
> ends in the certainty of a permanent ban. I think it's safe to
> say that anyone engaging in that kind of behavior is not actually
> interested in building the encyclopedia, so what loss in getting
> rid of them?
>
> Stan
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> I've been doing a bit of that, but it seems to up the ante and open the
>> floodgates rather than awe and silence.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:53:52 -0800
>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
>>>
>>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying
>>>> essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which
>>>> restricts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah yes, the rise of "arbcom lawyers". My impression is that it
>>> would help the arbitration process for the AC to be seen as
>>> somewhat unpredictable, a la irascible courtroom judges - revert
>>> an edit or mouth off on an evidence page, boom, banned for a week
>>> with no appeal, irrespective of the merits of the overall case.
>>> After reading some of what gets thrown in front of the AC, I can
>>> see why the "contempt of court" concept was invented! :-)
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Can't edit in Wikibooks?

body:
On Dec 23, 2004, at 7:06 PM, kelvSYC wrote:
> For some reason I am now unable to revert a page that was blanked on
> en.  Is this a problem with the beta or has there been something going
> on?

Can you be more specific?

* Which page
* Which revision
* Manual editing, or the 'revert' sysop tool?
* What's the exact symptoms? Error message, edit conflict, crash,
explosion?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/attachments/20041223/94fae66b/attachment.pgp


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposed to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia

body:
Do you actually speak this language, or have you asked somebody who
does and they have pledged their support?

If that is the case, then I support it, although I'm not sure how it
should be written - people disagree as to what romanisation should be
used, so it can't be done exactly that way like the Minnan Wikipedia.
Hanzi are OK (Unicode supports Cantonese-specific hanzi), but that
would only draw even MORE opposition from many people at the zh:
community (it has already been suggested on meta, Shizhao opposed it)

Mark

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:18:08 +0800, Creme <cdelacreme at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> information from http://www.ethnologue.org/show_language.asp?code=YUH
>
> CHINESE, YUE: a language of China
>       SIL code:  YUH
>       ISO 639-1: zh
>       ISO 639-2(B):  chi
>       ISO 639-2(T): zho
>
>       Population 52,000,000 in mainland China, 4.5% of the population (1984). Includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries 71,000,000 (1999 WA).
>       Region Spoken in Guangdong (except for the Hakka speaking areas especially in the northeast, the Min Nan speaking areas of the east, at points along the coast as well as Hainan Island), Macau, and in the southern part of Guangxi. Also possibly in Laos. Also spoken in Australia, Brunei, Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, Indonesia (Java and Bali), Malaysia (Peninsular), Mauritius, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, USA, Viet Nam.
>       Alternate names   YUET YUE, GWONG DUNG WAA, CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH, YUEYU, BAIHUA
>       Dialects YUEHAI (GUANGFU, HONG KONG CANTONESE, MACAU CANTONESE, SHATOU, SHIQI, WANCHENG), SIYI (SEIYAP, TAISHAN, TOISAN, HOISAN, SCHLEIYIP), GAOLEI (GAOYANG), QINLIAN, GUINAN.
>       Classification Sino-Tibetan, Chinese.
>       Comments The Guangzhou variety is considered the standard. Subdialects of Yuehai are Xiangshan, spoken around Zhongshan and Shuhai, and Wanbao around Dongwan City and Bao'an County. Official language. Grammar. SVO; prepositions; genitives, relatives after noun heads; articles, adjectives, numerals before noun heads; word order mainly distinguishes subjects, objectives, indirect objects; passives usually indicated by adding a word in front of the verb; tonal. Outside of mainland China, many Cantonese-specific characters are used in the writing system. TV. Bible 1894-1981.
>
> Also spoken in:
>       Brunei    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 3,500 in Brunei, 6.93% of ethnic Chinese (1979).
>             Alternate names   YUE, YUEH, CANTONESE
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Costa Rica    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 4,500 including Mandarin and Hakka speakers (1981 MARC).
>             Alternate names   YUE, YUEH, CANTONESE
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Indonesia (Java and Bali)    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 180,000 in Indonesia (1982 CCCOWE).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Malaysia (Peninsular)    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 748,010 in Malaysia, including 704,286 in Peninsular Malaysia, 24,640 in Sarawak, 19,184 in Sabah (1980 census).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH
>             Dialects CANTONESE, TOISHANESE.
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Panama    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Alternate names   YUE, YUEH, CANTONESE
>             Comments Bilingualism in Spanish. Merchants. Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Philippines    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 6,000 to 7,200 or 1.2% of Chinese population (1982 CCCOWE).
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Singapore    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 314,000 speakers in Singapore (1985), 12.3% of the population, out of 338,000 in the ethnic group (1993).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH, GUANGFU
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Thailand    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 29,400 in Thailand, .5% of Chinese-speaking Chinese in Thailand (1984 estimate).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Viet Nam    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 900,000 in Viet Nam (1993 Dang Nghiem Van).
>             Alternate names   SU?NG PH?NG, QUANG DONG, HAI NAM, HA XA PHANG, MINH HUONG, CHINESE NUNG, NUNG, LOWLAND NUNG, HOA, HAN, TRI?U CHAU, PH?C KI?N, LIEM CHAU, SAMG PHANG
>             Comments Renowned fighters. Came from Canton, China as railroad workers and soldiers several decades ago. They are not the same as the Nung in the Tai family or the Tibeto-Burman Nung (Nu) of China and Myanmar. Chinese calligraphy. Daoist, Christian. Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
> Entries from the SIL Bibliography about this language:
>   Huang Yuanwei. 1997. "The interaction between Zhuang and the Yue (Cantonese) dialects."
>
>   Shepherd. 2000. "Messages from a treasure box."
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Textbook-l] Can't edit in Wikibooks?

body:
On Dec 23, 2004, at 7:30 PM, kelvSYC wrote:
> [[en:Video Game Walkthroughs: TI 83 Plus]]
>
> reverting to the version on 22:28, 20 Jul 2004 due to blanking
>
> I don't have sysop privileges at any Wikimedia wiki.
>
> No visible changes were made after saving the page.  I tried lots of
> times, so if there was significant delay in processing, I fear that I
> will be made to look like someone who edited the page without changing
> anything lots of times.

I can confirm that I too saw no visible change following this technique:
* go to page
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Video_Game_Walkthroughs:_TI_83_Plus
* click 'history'
* click the previous revision
* click 'edit'
* fill in summary and save

When i tried again with these steps it worked:
* follow above steps up to clicking 'edit'
* select all text and copy
* click 'Article'
* click 'edit'
* paste text
* fill in summary and save

then it worked.

I haven't been able to reproduce the old-revision-edit problem on a
test page yet, I'm not sure what caused it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/attachments/20041223/c1dcef44/attachment.pgp


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Altering policy handling uncertified RFCs

body:
Currently RFCs which have not been certified by two or more users (the
requirement for certification is having discussed the matter at hand
with the defendant of the RFC and failing to achieve substantial
compromise) are deleted after 48 hours, or are supposed to anyway. To
match the reality of the fate of most RFCs, a proposal is underway to
amend this policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Deleting_uncertified_RFCs
Comments/brickbats would be appreciated.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Propose to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia

body:
Ah, well, I guess that answers my question.

If you have a method you would write it in, then...

I see no problem here, but undoubtedly it will be cast in an extremely
negative light by some of the users on zh: who will probably oppose it
on the grounds that it will take oh-so-many valuable users away from
the oh-so-poor zh.wikipedia.

Before somebody brings that argument up, let me address it.

zh.wikipedia is already over 10000 articles. There are still ongoing
issues with the complex situation of Chinese in relation to Wikipedia,
although this was somewhat alleviated by the fact that automatic
sc<>tc conversion has been implemented (in addition, it will adjust
for country-specific terminology, having Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
and Singapore).

If a Cantonese person wants to start a separate Cantonese Wikipedia,
even after they see the advantages and disadvantages, I think that to
deny them is like denying a Nynorsk Wikipedia.

However, the issue of Chinese varieties (I won't use the terms
language or dialect here as they will bring up political issues and
start unnessecary side-arguments) is still very complex. The Minnan
Wikipedia barely made it in, and that was *after* they had proven
themselves as a healthy separate site (Holopedia) with over 200
articles.

Some people might argue that all people who speak Cantonese can read
baihua, but the same argument applies to other populations as well,
for example how many Basque monolinguals are there? But they have a
Wikipedia because they have a right (well, they don't "have a right",
but you know what I mean)

Mark

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:20:12 +0800, David Chang <cdelacreme at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello I am a Cantonese speaker from Hong Kong, and I am interested to set up a Wikipedia based on Cantonese.  Cantonese is spoken by around 70 to 80 million people, in Hong Kong, Macau, the Chinese province of Guangdong, and many Chinese communities in Europe, North America and Southeast Asia.  Attached below is the information of the language on Enthnologue.org.
>
> David Chang
>
> information from http://www.ethnologue.org/show_language.asp?code=YUH
>
> CHINESE, YUE: a language of China
>       SIL code:  YUH
>       ISO 639-1: zh
>       ISO 639-2(B):  chi
>       ISO 639-2(T): zho
>
>       Population 52,000,000 in mainland China, 4.5% of the population (1984). Includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries 71,000,000 (1999 WA).
>       Region Spoken in Guangdong (except for the Hakka speaking areas especially in the northeast, the Min Nan speaking areas of the east, at points along the coast as well as Hainan Island), Macau, and in the southern part of Guangxi. Also possibly in Laos. Also spoken in Australia, Brunei, Canada, Costa Rica, Honduras, Indonesia (Java and Bali), Malaysia (Peninsular), Mauritius, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, USA, Viet Nam.
>       Alternate names   YUET YUE, GWONG DUNG WAA, CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH, YUEYU, BAIHUA
>       Dialects YUEHAI (GUANGFU, HONG KONG CANTONESE, MACAU CANTONESE, SHATOU, SHIQI, WANCHENG), SIYI (SEIYAP, TAISHAN, TOISAN, HOISAN, SCHLEIYIP), GAOLEI (GAOYANG), QINLIAN, GUINAN.
>       Classification Sino-Tibetan, Chinese.
>       Comments The Guangzhou variety is considered the standard. Subdialects of Yuehai are Xiangshan, spoken around Zhongshan and Shuhai, and Wanbao around Dongwan City and Bao'an County. Official language. Grammar. SVO; prepositions; genitives, relatives after noun heads; articles, adjectives, numerals before noun heads; word order mainly distinguishes subjects, objectives, indirect objects; passives usually indicated by adding a word in front of the verb; tonal. Outside of mainland China, many Cantonese-specific characters are used in the writing system. TV. Bible 1894-1981.
>
> Also spoken in:
>       Brunei    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 3,500 in Brunei, 6.93% of ethnic Chinese (1979).
>             Alternate names   YUE, YUEH, CANTONESE
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Costa Rica    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 4,500 including Mandarin and Hakka speakers (1981 MARC).
>             Alternate names   YUE, YUEH, CANTONESE
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Indonesia (Java and Bali)    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 180,000 in Indonesia (1982 CCCOWE).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Malaysia (Peninsular)    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 748,010 in Malaysia, including 704,286 in Peninsular Malaysia, 24,640 in Sarawak, 19,184 in Sabah (1980 census).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH
>             Dialects CANTONESE, TOISHANESE.
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Panama    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Alternate names   YUE, YUEH, CANTONESE
>             Comments Bilingualism in Spanish. Merchants. Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Philippines    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 6,000 to 7,200 or 1.2% of Chinese population (1982 CCCOWE).
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Singapore    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 314,000 speakers in Singapore (1985), 12.3% of the population, out of 338,000 in the ethnic group (1993).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH, GUANGFU
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Thailand    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 29,400 in Thailand, .5% of Chinese-speaking Chinese in Thailand (1984 estimate).
>             Alternate names   CANTONESE, YUE, YUEH
>             Comments Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
>       Viet Nam    Language name   CHINESE, YUE
>             Population 900,000 in Viet Nam (1993 Dang Nghiem Van).
>             Alternate names   SU?NG PH?NG, QUANG DONG, HAI NAM, HA XA PHANG, MINH HUONG, CHINESE NUNG, NUNG, LOWLAND NUNG, HOA, HAN, TRI?U CHAU, PH?C KI?N, LIEM CHAU, SAMG PHANG
>             Comments Renowned fighters. Came from Canton, China as railroad workers and soldiers several decades ago. They are not the same as the Nung in the Tai family or the Tibeto-Burman Nung (Nu) of China and Myanmar. Chinese calligraphy. Daoist, Christian. Bible 1894-1981. See main entry under China.
>
> Entries from the SIL Bibliography about this language:
>   Huang Yuanwei. 1997. "The interaction between Zhuang and the Yue (Cantonese) dialects."
>
>   Shepherd. 2000. "Messages from a treasure box."
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interviews

body:
He's a decent guy and is wrking on an article about Wikipedia for the
hard copy version of Wired.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:30:21 -0600, Jesse the man
<viciouskatana.man at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup, he was the guy who asked if I wanted to be interviewed or not.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stacey Greenstein <stacey.nj at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:03:15 -0500
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Interviews
> To: Jesse the man <viciouskatana.man at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>
> I haven't, but there was a reporter from Wired (Daniel Pink) at the
> recent meetup in NYC.
>
> Stacey (UtherSRG)
>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:31:57 -0600, Jesse the man
> <viciouskatana.man at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I got a request to a phone interview by a journalist at Wired
> > magazine. I have declined the interview request because I don't think
> > my parents would appreciate my getting interviews and I don't think
> > they would understand exactly why. Also, I don't particularly feel
> > like doing one at the moment anyway.
> >
> > Has anyone else gotten phone interviews?
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: kelvSYC

subject: [Textbook-l] Can't edit in Wikibooks?

body:
For some reason I am now unable to revert a page that was blanked on
en.  Is this a problem with the beta or has there been something going
on?


subject: [Textbook-l] Can't edit in Wikibooks?

body:
On Dec 23, 2004, at 8:20 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Dec 23, 2004, at 7:06 PM, kelvSYC wrote:
>> For some reason I am now unable to revert a page that was blanked on
>> en.  Is this a problem with the beta or has there been something
>> going on?
>
> Can you be more specific?
>
> * Which page
>

[[en:Video Game Walkthroughs: TI 83 Plus]]

> * Which revision

reverting to the version on 22:28, 20 Jul 2004 due to blanking

> * Manual editing, or the 'revert' sysop tool?

I don't have sysop privileges at any Wikimedia wiki.

> * What's the exact symptoms? Error message, edit conflict, crash,
> explosion?
>

No visible changes were made after saving the page.  I tried lots of
times, so if there was significant delay in processing, I fear that I
will be made to look like someone who edited the page without changing
anything lots of times.


from_name: Matt McLauchlin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 17

body:
> Finally, a question for our style gurus: is it "Wikipedia" or "the
> Wikipedia"?

I see Wikipedia far more often than the Wikipedia, which I think is similar
to other projects without the word "encyclopedia" in their name, such as
Encarta.

Matt

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004


from_name: Abe Sokolov

body:
A user keeps on getting blocked but returns with returns with one new
sockpuppet after another. He wrote on my page:

Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a registration system that
requires input of an actual email address. Haha.

He's right... Why don't we have one?

-User:172

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


from_name: Pablo Saratxaga

body:
Kaixo!

> Brion Vibber schrieb:
>
> >At this point most of our wikis have been upgraded to MediaWiki 1.4,
> >which has a few spiffy new features, some bug fixes, and some
> >performance improvements in page rendering.

Since the upgrade a lot of " " in the translations are being
displayed on screen (that is, they act as "&nbsp;") instead
of showing a real non breaking space.

The problem is that writting a 0x00a0 character doesn't seem to
produce a non breaking space but a normal space instead...

On a different topic: I would like to add to Walloon wikipedia a feature
similar to the one in French wikipedia that dynamically puts non
breaking spaces at some positions; the rules for placement are not
exactly the same as in French, so I would know who I should contact
to talk about it.

Thanks.

--
Ki ?a vos v?ye b?n,
Pablo Saratxaga

http://chanae.walon.org/pablo/		PGP Key available, key ID: 0xD9B85466
[you can write me in Walloon, Spanish, French, English, Catalan or Esperanto]
[min povas skribi en valona, esperanta, angla aux latinidaj lingvoj]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20041223/b25835c7/attachment.pgp


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks

body:
Because then we'd stop being a wiki, and loose a huge
number of contributors who just stop by to fix things,
and then stay, but still not exclude persistant
troublemakers.
Mark

--- Abe Sokolov <abesokolov at hotmail.com> wrote:

> A user keeps on getting blocked but returns with
> returns with one new
> sockpuppet after another. He wrote on my page:
>
> Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a
> registration system that
> requires input of an actual email address. Haha.
>
> He's right... Why don't we have one?
>
> -User:172
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN
> Search!
>
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Objection set up Cantonese wp

body:
Shizhao, I think your usage of the e-mail address you're using with
the name you're using in conjunction with this list is highly
deceptive.

Without inspection, it appears that your post speaks for the whole of
zh.wikipedia, which is not true.

Cantonese *is* a Chinese language, along with Mandarin.

I presume you would've had a similar objection if this were a post
requesting the now-established Minnan Wikipedia?

Do you speak Cantonese? At all?

Cantonese as it is spoken colloquially is significantly different from
baihua (standard written language).

The following is a short excerpt from the book "The Languages of
China", written by an *expert*, S. Robert Ramsey:

Cantonese: Pak?-fong? tong?-ma:i? yat?-t'au?, yau? yat?-ts'i? hai?-s??
tsang?-l?n? k'?i? l?ng?-ko? tsi?-tsong? pin? yat?-ko? pun?-si? ta:i?.

Mandarin cognate translation: b?if?ng t?ng(-) r?t?u, y?u y? c? (-)ch?
zh?ngl?n (-) li?ngge zh?zh?ng (-) y? ge b?nsh? d?.

I ask you not to focus on the phonetic differences (they are of course
irrelevant in this case unless the proposal is to write in the Roman
alphabet), but rather on these two facts:

1. Every (-) in the Mandarin cognate translation is a placeholder for
a word that doesn't exist in Mandarin.
2. Even so, the Mandarin reading is ungrammatical.

Of course this is colloquial, but if the proposal *is* for colloquial
Cantonese (as opposed to baihua, which is based originally on
Mandarin, read with Cantonese readings for characters), then this
information is relevant.

If, however, it is seeking to write in Baihua (which I don't believe
it is), I cannot see the purpose behind it as the two Wikipedias would
be basically the same.

Mark

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:00:53 +0800, ZH Wikipedia <zh.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Objection! The way dissimilarity that Cantonese and Chinese languages
> just talk, but the sames all use the Chinese characters to write of.
>
> [[zh:user:shizhao]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Nicholas Knight

body:
Abe Sokolov wrote:
> A user keeps on getting blocked but returns with returns with one new
> sockpuppet after another. He wrote on my page:
>
> Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a registration system that
> requires input of an actual email address. Haha.
>
> He's right... Why don't we have one?

Because, as has been discussed many, many, MANY times, such a system
would inconvenience legitimate contributors while having absolutely no
effect on determined vandals.

Do you know how many perfectly valid, functional email addresses I have?
35 active at the moment. I could have as many as I want. I could create
millions of addresses if I wished, the only limit being system storage
and RAM. Anyone with less than US$7 and an internet connection that
gives them a world-routable IP address can have all the email addresses
they could possibly want. They wouldn't be particularly reliable, but
they're plenty good enough for getting around any system Wikipedia could
institute.

Having a valid email address -- or thousands -- means nothing, and
registration systems that rely on verifying email addresses to prevent
abuse are inherently broken.


from_name: Ian Monroe

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Copyright Violation

body:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:22:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>
> >I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to divine the definitions
> >of words.
> >
> I can't say; I never use it.  I do have 20 or 30 other books that I can
> reference as required.
>
> >How are you not saying that a dictionary has no place being
> >developed in a wiki-way?
> >
> I nver said that.
>
> >Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of
> >inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me
> >from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I
> >finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make
> >sure I got it right.
> >
> I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to
> believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct.  I
> frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with
> that and the OED.  The big advantage of these works is their use of
> quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's
> definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
>
> A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
> language.... certainly not to create original definitions

"A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
language" sounds like your quoting me in the protologism debate. Of
course I agree with that. But ok, whatever.

> >Information isn't under copyright, expressions of
> >information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for
> >having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the
> >book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what
> >people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever
> >extending, quite the opposite.
> >
> I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a
> song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary.  Fair use (at
> least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is
> substantiality.  Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is
> not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code> ? 107.) You need to
> consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases.  Whether fair us
> will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would
> proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable.  It
> is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot
> less restrictive than what people think it is.

No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings. To me, common sense
says you can't go around selling a dictionary with definitions from
another dictionary. I would even hope fair-use doesn't cover that.

> >If it is possible to copy definitions in a fair-use manner, IANAL and
> >probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is
> >precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close.
> >Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
> >from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
> >
> Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation.  And don't
> expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at
> their table.  Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of
> action.  I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would
> suggest.

Avoidance of action?

How is IANAL logically fallacious? It's a statement of fact.

> Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright
> dictionaries.  The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the
> wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source)
> were in need of repair.  But we also haven't seen him in a week, and
> don't know if he will ever come back.  Maybe he found that even a
> straightforward copying was too boring.  Your technique for discouraging
> newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all.  If he
> is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you
> might just as well quietly fix the affected articles.  If he's a
> registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will
> be a lot more productive.

What is my new rule exactly? Aren't you the one making a new rule? Is
the current rule "stand by idly while folks pollute our supposedly
GFDL work"? All I'm trying to do is rephrase the statement at the
bottom of the edit box. Not trying to change the substance of what it
says (as is your apparent crusade, though I suspect its just being
contrary) - just make it more clear.

> >"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What
> >do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the
> >wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what
> >I had in mind. Ex.
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.35.3.81
> >
> >While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I
> >just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and
> >could be simplified.
> >
> ??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL.  If you have a problem with that,
> take it up with them
I was not referring to the GFDL which is why I said "current copyright
statement" that "could be simplified" not the GFDL. From my reading
you were using the GFDL to indicate that the current copyright
statement is wrong. The statement makes no mention of a fair-use
reason to copy and paste entire entries, quite the opposite (in big
bold cap letters).

I actually hadn't really noticed Wikipedia's statement until
yesterday, the copyright part of it is good:
  By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied
it from public domain resources ? this does not include most web
pages.
  DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

Just change it to "most web pages and dictionaries" and it would work
well on Wiktionary.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Textbook-l] Can't edit in Wikibooks?

body:
On Dec 23, 2004, at 7:48 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I can confirm that I too saw no visible change following this
> technique:

It was a problem with how old edit were being loaded which triggered
automatic edit conflict resolution. On a straight revert this puts back
all the subsequent edits, resulting in a null edit which is ignored.

The bug was caused by a slip-up in my fix for the problem with 'preview
first edit' mode causing constant edit conflicts. It should be fixed
now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/attachments/20041224/d63c30f1/attachment.pgp


from_name: Giuseppe DAngelo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Upgrades

body:
As the co-founder of scn:wiki, I am appreciative of the assistance provided by Mark Williamson and everyone else involved with wikipedia.  I note that some upgrades have taken place over the past few weeks or so.  Everyone may be aware by now that the special characters at the bottom of the editing pages have disappeared.  I am wondering whether there is an easy way to salvage these (it took me forever to work out how to get them there in the first place!).  I am confident that many other languages besides Sicilian are affected.  Can anyone suggest something I might be able to do?
A merry Xmas to all!  Bon natali e capu d'annu!
Salutamu
pippu

---------------------------------
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica
 Scaricalo ora!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Copyright Violation

body:
Ian Monroe wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:22:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ian Monroe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of
>>>inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make sure I got it right.
>>>
>>>
>>I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to
>>believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct.  I
>>frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with
>>that and the OED.  The big advantage of these works is their use of
>>quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's
>>definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
>>
>>A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
>>language.... certainly not to create original definitions
>>
>>
>
>"A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
>language" sounds like your quoting me in the protologism debate. Of
>course I agree with that. But ok, whatever.
>
This sounds more as though you oppose newly made up words, but not newly
made up definitions.  That doesn't seem very consistent.

>>>Information isn't under copyright, expressions of
>>>information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for
>>>having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the
>>>book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what
>>>people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever
>>>extending, quite the opposite.
>>>
>>>
>>I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a
>>song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary.  Fair use (at
>>least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is
>>substantiality.  Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is
>>not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code> ? 107.) You need to
>>consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases.  Whether fair us
>>will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would
>>proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable.  It
>>is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot
>>less restrictive than what people think it is.
>>
>>
>
>No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings.
>
In other words, you don't want your POV to be confused by facts.

>To me, common sense
>says you can't go around selling a dictionary with definitions from
>another dictionary. I would even hope fair-use doesn't cover that.
>
Fair use allows for some level of such material.  Definitions from
another dictionary includes material from PD sources.

>>>If it is possible to copy definitions in a fair-use manner, IANAL and
>>>probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is
>>>precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close.
>>>Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
>>>
>>>
>>>from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
>>
>>
>>Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation.  And don't
>>expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at
>>their table.  Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of
>>action.  I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would
>>suggest.
>>
>>
>
>Avoidance of action?
>
Yes, you said yourself that "we shouldn't even get close."  That sounds
like copyright paranoia, and is somewhat cowardly.

>How is IANAL logically fallacious? It's a statement of fact.
>
The bare statement may be factual, but it is the fallacy of appealing to
authority.  It is also irrelevant.

>>Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright
>>dictionaries.  The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the
>>wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source)
>>were in need of repair.  But we also haven't seen him in a week, and
>>don't know if he will ever come back.  Maybe he found that even a
>>straightforward copying was too boring.  Your technique for discouraging
>>newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all.  If he
>>is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you
>>might just as well quietly fix the affected articles.  If he's a
>>registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will
>>be a lot more productive.
>>
>>
>
>What is my new rule exactly? Aren't you the one making a new rule? Is
>the current rule "stand by idly while folks pollute our supposedly
>GFDL work"? All I'm trying to do is rephrase the statement at the
>bottom of the edit box. Not trying to change the substance of what it
>says (as is your apparent crusade, though I suspect its just being
>contrary) - just make it more clear.
>
It's not a question of any specific new rule but your apparently rigid
approach to rules.  Where is the rule to "stand by idly while folks
pollute our supposedly GFDL work" that you cite?  As for crusades, look
to yourself; you're the one that started off with your "anti-pollution"
rhetoric.  To me rules should be viewed with maximum flexibility.

>>>"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What
>>>do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the
>>>wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what
>>>I had in mind. Ex.
>>>http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.35.3.81
>>>
>>>While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I
>>>just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and
>>>could be simplified.
>>>
>>>
>>??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL.  If you have a problem with that,
>>take it up with them
>>
>>
>I was not referring to the GFDL which is why I said "current copyright
>statement" that "could be simplified" not the GFDL. From my reading
>you were using the GFDL to indicate that the current copyright
>statement is wrong. The statement makes no mention of a fair-use
>reason to copy and paste entire entries, quite the opposite (in big
>bold cap letters).
>
True, it does not mention fair use, but that doesn't make it invalid.
The statement probably needs softening so it does not shout, and is more
user friendly.

>I actually hadn't really noticed Wikipedia's statement until
>yesterday, the copyright part of it is good:
>  By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied
>it from public domain resources ? this does not include most web
>pages.
>  DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
>
>Just change it to "most web pages and dictionaries" and it would work
>well on Wiktionary.
>
The statement does not now include "this does not include most web
pages" as you claim.  adding a reference to dictionaries would
accomplish nothing.

Ec


from_name: Cool Hand Luke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Complicity in hoaxing - how to proceed?

body:
That's very peculiar because ExplorerCDT encourages deleting things he
sees as insignificant, to the point of encouraging "statement VfDs"
(ie Jean-Luc Picard, nominated by another user at his suggestion).
He's also made and many, many deletion replies in VfDs like
[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anya Schiffrin]]. Yet this anticruft
crusader recently nominated [[Festivus]] for FAC. All of this is
completely baffling to me.

But we can't ban someone for making "bad votes", even if they _are_
misleading editors, right?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:31:09 -0000, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The current listing at VfD of [[Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix]] has
> flushed out User:ExplorerCDT, who at the very least knew this was a hoax
> page, and posted comments at VfD designed to obfuscate and mislead.
>
> User:ExplorerCDT is apparently otherwise in good standing as a Wikipedian.
> How to proceed in such a case?
>
> Context is that there have been a number of attempts to place hoax pages in
> mathematics in the English Wikipedia. This example is evidently written with
> at least a well-informed graduate student knowledge (as with the recent
> vandalism attack by [[User:Slim Jim]], with plausibe disinformative
> tweaking).  The page was been around for eight months, since it has the
> look-and-feel of a piece of obscure, dull abstract mathematics quite
> accurately.
>
> For myself I would like to see User:ExplorerCDT banned, for bad faith
> editing.
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
People have been banned before for breaking rules as a way of demonstrating
that they need to be changed rather than discussing change directly. Most
recently VeryVerily.

As to proceeding, if the charge is true, please get together the material
that would demonstrate that to laypeople and follow the dispute resolution
procedure (although it might be accepted, with strong proof, as is, for
arbitration).

Fred

> From: Cool Hand Luke <failure.to.communicate at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Cool Hand Luke <failure.to.communicate at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:20:46 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Complicity in hoaxing - how to proceed?
>
> That's very peculiar because ExplorerCDT encourages deleting things he
> sees as insignificant, to the point of encouraging "statement VfDs"
> (ie Jean-Luc Picard, nominated by another user at his suggestion).
> He's also made and many, many deletion replies in VfDs like
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anya Schiffrin]]. Yet this anticruft
> crusader recently nominated [[Festivus]] for FAC. All of this is
> completely baffling to me.
>
> But we can't ban someone for making "bad votes", even if they _are_
> misleading editors, right?
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:31:09 -0000, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> The current listing at VfD of [[Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix]] has
>> flushed out User:ExplorerCDT, who at the very least knew this was a hoax
>> page, and posted comments at VfD designed to obfuscate and mislead.
>>
>> User:ExplorerCDT is apparently otherwise in good standing as a Wikipedian.
>> How to proceed in such a case?
>>
>> Context is that there have been a number of attempts to place hoax pages in
>> mathematics in the English Wikipedia. This example is evidently written with
>> at least a well-informed graduate student knowledge (as with the recent
>> vandalism attack by [[User:Slim Jim]], with plausibe disinformative
>> tweaking).  The page was been around for eight months, since it has the
>> look-and-feel of a piece of obscure, dull abstract mathematics quite
>> accurately.
>>
>> For myself I would like to see User:ExplorerCDT banned, for bad faith
>> editing.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
A user keeps on getting blocked but returns with returns with one new
sockpuppet after another. He wrote on my page:

Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a registration system that
requires input of an actual email address. Haha.

He's right... Why don't we have one?

-User:172

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


body:
It is by no means a necessary conclusion that the user ought to be banned.
The explanation should be interesting.

Fred

> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:58:15 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Complicity in hoaxing - how to proceed?
>
> Fred Bauder wrote
>
>> As to proceeding, if the charge is true, please get together the material
>> that would demonstrate that to laypeople and follow the dispute resolution
>> procedure (although it might be accepted, with strong proof, as is, for
>> arbitration).
>
> The hoax is 'admitted' (i.e. the user under discussion has now on the VfD
> page and article talk said it is a hoax, having previously strenuously
> denied that with cod references to a large standard text).  I am willing to
> collate what I know about this; but it being Christmas Eve I don't have that
> much time to commit to that.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Charles Podles

subject: [WikiEN-l] Undeletion: new ability and policy on its use

body:
When undeleting pages, sysops now have to ability to restore selected
revisions rather than the full deleted history. I have posted some
questions about the use of this feature to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Undeletion_policy and
would appreciate comments there. The feature seems useful but has
potential for abuse; a policy discussion is needed.

I have also added an explanation of what I figured out by testing the
feature to [[Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops]]
( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages_by_sysops&diff=8781571&oldid=8754475
); I would be grateful if the technical team would make sure I've
explained it properly.

--Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
The current listing at VfD of [[Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix]] has
flushed out User:ExplorerCDT, who at the very least knew this was a hoax
page, and posted comments at VfD designed to obfuscate and mislead.

User:ExplorerCDT is apparently otherwise in good standing as a Wikipedian.
How to proceed in such a case?

Context is that there have been a number of attempts to place hoax pages in
mathematics in the English Wikipedia. This example is evidently written with
at least a well-informed graduate student knowledge (as with the recent
vandalism attack by [[User:Slim Jim]], with plausibe disinformative
tweaking).  The page was been around for eight months, since it has the
look-and-feel of a piece of obscure, dull abstract mathematics quite
accurately.

For myself I would like to see User:ExplorerCDT banned, for bad faith
editing.

Charles


body:
> Hello,
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > If you have a method you would write it in, then...
> >
> > I see no problem here, but undoubtedly it will be cast in an extremely
> > negative light by some of the users on zh: who will probably oppose it
> > on the grounds that it will take oh-so-many valuable users away from
> > the oh-so-poor zh.wikipedia.
>
> *cough* I'm a Cantonese speaker from Hong Kong and I don't think we
> should. There's the issue that Mark already brought up, what method
> should we write it in: romanization has never been standardized and
> traditional Chinese but with Cantonese words is, well, redundant...

Heh, what I meant was that, if you write in Baihua, but just read it
in Cantonese, it's redundant, but if you write it in *colloquial*
Cantonese, but with characters, it wouldn't be redundant (but perhaps
still a bit strange).

While for Minnan and Hakka the current trend seems to be to write them
in "Peh-oe-ji", for Cantonese it seems to me like the trend is to use
hanzi, but it includes some hanzi not used in writing baihua (this
isn't a problem as Unicode supports almost all 'fangyanzi' from
Cantonese, but not nessecarily from others).

While there is an official romanisation system for Cantonese used in
Hong Kong, I was under the impression that it was only for place names
and had no provisions for marking tones. Jyutping seems to be gaining
in popularity, but then there is also Cantonese Pinyin, and Yale
romanisation, and then of course IPA (but who uses IPA?).

Another huge problem here is the fact that some people who try to
write colloquial Cantonese on the mainland use Simplified characters,
as opposed to Traditional in Hong Kong and Macau.

> > Some people might argue that all people who speak Cantonese can read
> > baihua, but the same argument applies to other populations as well,
> > for example how many Basque monolinguals are there? But they have a
> > Wikipedia because they have a right (well, they don't "have a right",
>
> Well, just because we can doesn't mean we should. ;)

Nonono, that's not what I meant. I meant, if Cantonese speakers want
one, people like Shizhao should just let them instead of opposing it
so much.

Mark


body:
Cool Hand Luke wrote

>All of this is
> completely baffling to me.
>
> But we can't ban someone for making "bad votes", even if they _are_
> misleading editors, right?

I could speculate on the motivation of someone who had a beef about 'soft'
content, and also wished to make a point about the lack of rigour in
attending to the validity of supposed 'hard' content.

Sticking to the facts, defending hoax material knowingly is a pretty serious
charge.  It is also an attack on the Assume Good Faith principle, if the
motivation is to create more of a climate of suspicion.  I say that this is
one of the things the community in no way needs.

Charles


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Is Wikipedia offline?

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com (slimvirgin at gmail.com) [041224 08:18]:

> Whatever it was, it's okay now. For about 5-10 minutes, I couldn't get
> into any page, not even the main page.

A hiccup in the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.4 beta, apparently - all should be
fine now.

- d.


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Copyright Violation

body:
> >"A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
> >language" sounds like your quoting me in the protologism debate. Of
> >course I agree with that. But ok, whatever.
> >
> This sounds more as though you oppose newly made up words, but not newly
> made up definitions.  That doesn't seem very consistent.
Um, no. Thats wrong. And I think you know that.
> >No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings.
> >
> In other words, you don't want your POV to be confused by facts.

Pretty much. I like the current policy.

> >To me, common sense
> >says you can't go around selling a dictionary with definitions from
> >another dictionary. I would even hope fair-use doesn't cover that.
> >
> Fair use allows for some level of such material.  Definitions from
> another dictionary includes material from PD sources.

Whose contesting that PD isn't OK? Define "some level"? Define "some
level" in five words or less to make a concise statement to put at the
bottom of the edit box... or just not mention it.

> >>>If it is possible to copy definitions in a fair-use manner, IANAL and
> >>>probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is
> >>>precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close.
> >>>Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation.  And don't
> >>expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at
> >>their table.  Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of
> >>action.  I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would
> >>suggest.
> >Avoidance of action?
> >
> Yes, you said yourself that "we shouldn't even get close."  That sounds
> like copyright paranoia, and is somewhat cowardly.

Yes, I'm over here eating my freedom fries. I don't see whats wrong
with cowardly in regards to copyright.

> >How is IANAL logically fallacious? It's a statement of fact.
> >
> The bare statement may be factual, but it is the fallacy of appealing to
> authority.  It is also irrelevant.

Appealing to authority is a fallacy and irrelevant when working with
the authority of international law?

> It's not a question of any specific new rule but your apparently rigid
> approach to rules.  Where is the rule to "stand by idly while folks
> pollute our supposedly GFDL work" that you cite?  As for crusades, look
> to yourself; you're the one that started off with your "anti-pollution"
> rhetoric.  To me rules should be viewed with maximum flexibility.

Copying and pasting of definitions is not allowed. I never thought
that was some ground breaking idea. I think it probably isn't.

> >I was not referring to the GFDL which is why I said "current copyright
> >statement" that "could be simplified" not the GFDL. From my reading
> >you were using the GFDL to indicate that the current copyright
> >statement is wrong. The statement makes no mention of a fair-use
> >reason to copy and paste entire entries, quite the opposite (in big
> >bold cap letters).
> >
> True, it does not mention fair use, but that doesn't make it invalid.
> The statement probably needs softening so it does not shout, and is more
> user friendly.

{{sofixit}}

> >I actually hadn't really noticed Wikipedia's statement until
> >yesterday, the copyright part of it is good:
> >  By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied
> >it from public domain resources ? this does not include most web
> >pages.
> >  DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
> >
> >Just change it to "most web pages and dictionaries" and it would work
> >well on Wiktionary.
> >
> The statement does not now include "this does not include most web
> pages" as you claim.  adding a reference to dictionaries would
> accomplish nothing.
>
> Ec
Well, this statement I guess is a reflection of your tendency to read
what you want and inability to google. I mean its right there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning
And at the bottom of more then 430,000 edit pages. I think the whole
statement is an improvment over the Wiktionary's rather confusing
current message. Wikipedia used to have the statement we now have, but
was changed  within two months from the MediaWiki default for the same
reason ("rephrase to avoid copyvios") I suggest we should change ours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ACopyrightwarning&diff=2259391&oldid=2259383

Merry Christmas/Saturnalia,
Ian


body:
Fred Bauder wrote

> As to proceeding, if the charge is true, please get together the material
> that would demonstrate that to laypeople and follow the dispute resolution
> procedure (although it might be accepted, with strong proof, as is, for
> arbitration).

The hoax is 'admitted' (i.e. the user under discussion has now on the VfD
page and article talk said it is a hoax, having previously strenuously
denied that with cod references to a large standard text).  I am willing to
collate what I know about this; but it being Christmas Eve I don't have that
much time to commit to that.

Charles


from_name: ZH Wikipedia

body:
re: Propose to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia

Objection!The way dissimilarity that Cantonese and Chinese languages
just talk, but the sames all use the Chinese characters to write of.

[[zh:user:shizhao]]


body:
Objection! The way dissimilarity that Cantonese and Chinese languages
just talk, but the sames all use the Chinese characters to write of.

[[zh:user:shizhao]]