body:
On May 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:

> At this point, we had the fuckup; someone mistakenly identified him as
> the suspect. It appears that no-one was actually able to compare him
> to photographs of the suspect, and was going on verbal descriptions;
> this part is unclear, because the security services refuse to say
> anything. But about the time he entered the station, the people on the
> scene had been told by their control room that he was the man they
> were after.
>
> They followed him onto the train, there was some shouting, he
> apparently began moving towards him and they decided he was a threat.
> And then...
>
> Yes, he was shot because he was mistaken for a Muslim sucide bomber.
> But he was not shot because the police saw him and thought "hey, a
> Muslim, open season!". He was not shot because of some grand policy
> that all Muslims were suicide bombers.
>
> He was shot because the men in front of him had been *told* that he
> was a probable suicide bomber; they were jumpy, expecting him to try
> and do something. Then he, tragically, didn't know what was going on
> and acted in a way that caused them to jump too far.

Specifically, he was accosted by armed, plainclothes policemen and
panicked. (When I see people wearing civilian clothes coming at me
with guns, my first reaction wouldn't be "oh, they must be police!"
either.) As I recall, he was tackled to the ground and shot in the
head execution style. Any eyewitness would have no reason to believe
that police were involved, and would conclude that some sort of awful
US-style gang-related murder had taken place.

Police are brutes, counter-terrorism police especially so. In parts
of the United States, it's worse--for instance, some police
departments have a policy that SWAT teams must serve all search
warrants. And let's not even get into our federalized airport security.

This paramilitary approach to law enforcement led directly to the
deaths of two innocent people at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1993 (the
survivor later winning a wrongful death lawsuit against the federal
government) while contributing to the tragic end of the Waco standoff
that same year. (In contrast, the Montana Freemen standoff of 1996
was resolved successfully by non-paramilitary tactics used by the
Montana Highway Patrol. Montana's constitution prohibits law
enforcement teams--even federal law enforcement--from entering the
state without the permission of the governor or state legislature, so
in the Montana Freemen incident, the FBI instead assigned the Montana
Highway Patrol to the standoff. It was resolved peacefully and the
Montana Highway Patrol billed the FBI for costs later.)

My point is that the institutional culture of police departments
became poisoned and needlessly violent as SWAT tactics became
prevalent. (Ever notice that SWAT stands for "Special Weapons And
Tactics"? The original idea was that acting like paramilitary thugs
was necessary in special situations. If you do it all the time it's
not so special!) This predates the "War on Terra" and will likely
survive it. It's the result of a needlessly poisoned culture among
policemen.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
>
> Doesn't Jimbo have total autocratic powers? I don't think he needs to
> ask the board for anything. Could be wrong.
>
Other than his cult of personality (which is probably what is being
used in this case), he only has whatever powers the board gives him.
They may have given him the power to do anything he wants, but I'm not
aware of it.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Baidupedia (the downside to free content?)

body:
On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the
> GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?

Our thoroughly NPOV article on it seems to indicate that they are in
breach of GFDL. What damages could we demonstrate though?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
Hi,
  I note in the previous message that the user was given the block
message "3rr, evasion with sock" - I wonder, how could any new user
possibly understand what that means? Wouldn't it be better to use
plain language, even if it does mean taking slightly longer to block?
In this case "Repeatedly undoing other people's changes to an article,
using alternate accounts to get around having their account blocked".

Steve


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
It would be even better to modify one's monobook.js to add usual block
messages. It's possible to add buttons with usual delete messages on
Your_page&action=delete pages, so I think it's possible to add some buttons
on [[Special:Blockip/Your_vandal]].

Thus, you could add buttons which enter usual messages in plain language,
even with a wiki link to [[WP:3RR]] for example, just by clicking.

g.

On 5/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>   I note in the previous message that the user was given the block
> message "3rr, evasion with sock" - I wonder, how could any new user
> possibly understand what that means? Wouldn't it be better to use
> plain language, even if it does mean taking slightly longer to block?
> In this case "Repeatedly undoing other people's changes to an article,
> using alternate accounts to get around having their account blocked".
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Guillom
"Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
Good point, I guess I am a bit prejudiced against 9/11 conspiracy
theory so did not look closely enough.

Fred

On May 12, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Timwi wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> It was already in the article further down under 9/11 conspiracy
>> theories.
>>
>
> He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about
> him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits
> repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others
> repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a
> reason.
>
> What is he supposed to think of this?
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
On 5/12/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be even better to modify one's monobook.js to add usual block
> messages. It's possible to add buttons with usual delete messages on
> Your_page&action=delete pages, so I think it's possible to add some buttons
> on [[Special:Blockip/Your_vandal]].
>
> Thus, you could add buttons which enter usual messages in plain language,
> even with a wiki link to [[WP:3RR]] for example, just by clicking.

I'm sure I saw something like this once - maybe it was on French
wikipedia? Yet another great idea that hasn't been adopted widely.
Sort of the trouble with customisability - someone suggests a feature,
and the response is "you can customise your environment, stop
bothering us" :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
On 5/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sort of the trouble with customisability - someone suggests a feature,
> and the response is "you can customise your environment, stop
> bothering us" :)

As long as you find nice javascript kings to improve your environment :D

g.

On 5/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/12/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would be even better to modify one's monobook.js to add usual block
> > messages. It's possible to add buttons with usual delete messages on
> > Your_page&action=delete pages, so I think it's possible to add some
> buttons
> > on [[Special:Blockip/Your_vandal]].
> >
> > Thus, you could add buttons which enter usual messages in plain
> language,
> > even with a wiki link to [[WP:3RR]] for example, just by clicking.
>
> I'm sure I saw something like this once - maybe it was on French
> wikipedia? Yet another great idea that hasn't been adopted widely.
> Sort of the trouble with customisability - someone suggests a feature,
> and the response is "you can customise your environment, stop
> bothering us" :)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Guillom
"Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to bring back people who don't want to bother?

body:
On 5/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> The authority of such a person would be separately determined for each
> sister project.  The issue really breaks down to what kind of person
> would be suitable to the task.
>     1.   The person must have the Jimbo's trust to the extent that Jimbo
> will not override his decisions without first discussing the issue
> fairly but not necessarily publicly with him.
>     2.   The person must have the broad trust of the community even when
> he takes unpopular decisions.
>     3.   The person must be seen as more a conciliator than one who
> insists that there is only one solution for every problem.
>     4.   The person must be capable of finding a balance between public
> consensus and established policy. There are times when rigid adherence
> to policy is completely wrong, and other times when public consensus
> fails to consider the broader implications of that consensus.
>     5.   The person must accept that he will sometimes make decisions
> that will incur hostile responses.
>     6.   The person needs to be appointed rather than elected.  The risk
> in an election is that it leaves a minority that may not feel
> represented by the person.
>     7.   Etc.

Gosh, do you have to be so obvious when you're describing me?

I'm blushing!


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] BBC radio refer listeners to the wikipedia entry on
	the doosra

body:
On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >Who or what is Aggers?
>
> A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home
> Service, m'lud.

And who are "The Beatles"?


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
>
> The Arbitration Committee decided that he had this power.

The Arb Com doesn't have any right to make such a decision.

> The Board doesn't generally interfere with the running of the wikis.

Which is fine.  The problem is that one of the board members *is*
interfering with it.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
> > >
> > > The Arbitration Committee decided that he had this power.
> >
> > The Arb Com doesn't have any right to make such a decision.
> >
>
> It is pretty hard to overule arbcom. Possible but pretty hard.
>
Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com.  That's very different
from saying anyone has to listen to them.

> > Which is fine.  The problem is that one of the board members *is*
> > interfering with it.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Ad a minium we need someone to tell us about DMCA notices and the like.
>
Sure, someone needs to take down illegal content.  That's not what
this is about.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
Date: Mar 11, 2006 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>And honestly, you should know me well enough by now.  No amount of
>>political, financial, or legal leverage in the entire universe would
>>persuade me to do the wrong thing by our mission.  We have, as a
>>community, principles and integrity.  This is what we are all about.
>
>
> You've changed a lot from the early days.  What started out as a
> laissez faire "let the community decide for itself" attitude has grown
> more and more despotic over time.

In what way?  I think that's a pretty silly claim.


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
    likely to get you much traction in getting his decision reversed. Some of us
    are glad that he stepped in and very depressed that people are nonetheless
    still arguing so vehemently over such a pointless issue.

Some +1.  I think you could justify this based on user name policy and WP:NOT.  People already have blogs, my-things, bulletin boards, chat rooms, etc. to proclaim their beliefs, stomp up and down, and post photos, graphics, etc.  An encyclopedia doesn't and shouldn't be providing yet another platform for unfounded rants.  Besides, there's Wikibooks if you feel like you and your box buddies feel like you have a book and cover in you.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 12/05/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >Who or what is Aggers?
> >
> > A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home
> > Service, m'lud.
>
> And who are "The Beatles"?

Nobody important. :P

Rob Church


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> It would be even better to modify one's monobook.js to add usual block
> messages. It's possible to add buttons with usual delete messages on
> Your_page&action=delete pages, so I think it's possible to add some buttons
> on [[Special:Blockip/Your_vandal]].
>
> Thus, you could add buttons which enter usual messages in plain language,
> even with a wiki link to [[WP:3RR]] for example, just by clicking.

Firefox at least will helpfully offer to autocomplete your block
messages based on what you've entered earlier.  So you only need to type
  each block message once, and you can then reuse it as often as you like.

Also, a little-known and often misunderstood feature of block messages
is that templates included in them are expanded when the message is
shown to the blocked user (but not in the block log).  I'm not sure how
many templates designed for this already exist, since they don't seem to
be categorized in any way, but at least {{blocked proxy}} has been used
like this.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: charles matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] BBC radio refer listeners to the wikipedia entry
	onthe doosra

body:
>> And who are "The Beatles"?
>
> Nobody important. :P

> Rob Church

Yeah, right, and [[Paul Is Dead]].

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
On 12/05/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> > Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive
> > as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm
> > sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed
> > Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and
> > disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous
> > and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".
>
> What's your take on the "OMG it's a big ass *animated GIF*! With extra
> blink! In a userbox!" argument?

"Big-ass GIF images" have no place on the web, let alone a website
that tries to convince people it's a serious attempt at collating
information and making it available to others.

Rob Church


from_name: Matt R

body:
Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
 > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
 >
> Anyone know if they use the actual content from Wikipedia or not?
 >
 > If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the
 > GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?

Please, let's not. I see it as a good thing that people can access and read Wikipedia articles in some way, whether or not the site is GFDL-compliant. Isn't that why we contribute our time here, to have people read our articles? The most basic freedom for information is the freedom to access and read it. Baidupedia is better than nothing for technically-unsavvy people in mainland China.

-- Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
On 5/12/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> These people know exactly what they've been doing, we don't need to
> explain it to them.

Well, for someone who's just trying to help out by explaining in the
introduction of an article that George Bush is responsible for the
deaths of millions of people, their conception of "exactly what
they've been doing" might differ from ours.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
On 5/12/06, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive
> as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm
> sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed
> Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and
> disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous
> and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".

It's extremely well known that any depiction of Mohammed is offensive.
I've never heard of anyone specifically referring to cross spinning as
offensive.

There are other differences: I don't believe the cartoons were
originally meant to offend Muslims as the primary goal, and certainly
their republication in places like Wikipedia wasn't. However I imagine
that the whole incident with the Christian userbox was intended to
annoy/offend/irritate its users, ie. Christians.

Steve


body:
On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> >
> Good luck with that.

The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.

Rob Church


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] title case mapping and Wiktionary links

body:
Steve Summit wrote:
> Minh Nguyen proposed:
>
>>>{{#ifeq: [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]] |
>>>{{:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}}} | | Did you mean
>>>'''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]]'''? }}
>
> With a bit of tweaking (see below), this seems to work perfectly.
> If you're curious, see
>
> 	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cypriot
> 	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tamper
> 	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nowordatall

Nice.  I've posted a suggestion for a somewhat simplified version at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:noarticletext .

> At some point, once Tim recovers from (or becomes inured to) his
> horror at sending us down this slippery slope in this hell-bent
> handbasket, we can think about introducing a proper built-in
> {{exists:}} operator, to eliminate the need for the bizarre
> compare-the-substitution-to-the-redlink hack.  (Though I *am*
> appreciative of whoever devised it...)

Agreed.  It's not as if it'd even be hard to implement, seeing as
MediaWiki already has a simple method call for checking this.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Grace Pastorelly Ruiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] New committers and restricted SVN shell

body:
i tried to create the branch "mlmw" and i got an error:

svn: Can't create directory '/svnroot/mediawiki/db/transactions/14182-1.txn':
Permission denied

could you check it please?

On 11/05/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Added two new SVN committers: Dominic Arkwright (dom) and Grace Pastorelly
> (grace). They're contractors working on multilingual stuff for WiktionaryZ
> /
> WikiData; they'll be working in a branch for now.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_MediaWiki
>
>
> Also, I've set up a restricted shell on the SVN server for most of the
> accounts.
> Please let me know if it breaks anything, or if you need an open shell to
> fiddle
> with something else on the server. (Currently Tim's got a full shell so
> that he
> can add new committer accounts if I'm unavailable.)
>
> I spent some time poking around the web for nice, lightweight restricted
> shells
> with a convenient option for Subversion, but couldn't find anything that
> didn't
> look dreadful. So I whipped up a quick crappy one in Python:
>
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/tools/sillyshell/
>
> As far as I know it should not be any less secure than the Subversion
> server
> program itself, though it might be buggy.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
un cordial saludo,
grace


subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive
> as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm
> sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed
> Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and
> disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous
> and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".

What's your take on the "OMG it's a big ass *animated GIF*! With extra
blink! In a userbox!" argument?

My personal opinion on that image is that it's useful for no purpose
other than vandalism, and ought to be speedied as such -- regardless of
its subject matter.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [Wikitech-l] SoC idea, speed of light again

body:
On 12/05/06, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
> > Can anyone come up with an idea how to adapt this:
> >
> > http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/lights-most-exotic-trick-yet-so-fast-
> > it-goes-backwards-10590.html
> >
> > to our distributed clusters?
> >
> > Domas
>
> Or we can go faster than the speed of light:
>
> http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html

According to the article, making light go backwards makes it
instantaneous, or something. Instantaneous > c^2 et al.

Rob Church


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:37:36 +0100, you wrote:

>And who are "The Beatles"?

I believe the correct form of words is "a popular beat combo, m'lud"

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


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/12/06, Grace Pastorelly Ruiz <gpasto at gmail.com> wrote:
> i tried to create the branch "mlmw" and i got an error:
>
> svn: Can't create directory '/svnroot/mediawiki/db/transactions/14182-1.txn':
> Permission denied

1) Which operating system are you using?
2) What is the exact command you entered when you got this error message?
3) Are you using an URL which includes the authentication bits, e.g.
svn+ssh://grace at svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/mlmw/phase3 ?

Thanks,
Erik


body:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:59:07 +0100, you wrote:

>> And who are "The Beatles"?
>Nobody important. :P

'''Delete''' bandcruft.  Oh, wait...

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


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
>
> Anthony

IIRC, Jimbo has the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia. So I guess that he
has the power to do anything else, because if push comes to shove, he could
just ban the people who flaunt his authority.

My point is that there isn't much of anything that Jimbo has to ask anyone
permission to do. And lawyering the political situation in Wikipedia isn't
likely to get you much traction in getting his decision reversed. Some of us
are glad that he stepped in and very depressed that people are nonetheless
still arguing so vehemently over such a pointless issue.

Ryan


body:
On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the
> GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?

The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't hold the copyrights over Wikimedia
content, it is merely a user that must follow the terms of the GFDL
like any mirror or fork. Wikimedia could, however, provide financial
or legal assistance to the authors whose copyright is infringed in a
lawsuit.

While the use of censorship as a competitive advantage is morally
reprehensible, Baidu is still a fairly large publicly traded company
and not just some random .cn spam site. If they're in violation of the
GFDL, communicating with them is probably going to be more effective
than suing them. I suspect that the copyleft part is what they'll
mainly have problems with.

I would be interested in an actual report about the content, policies
and practices of this fork. In fact, I think it might be a good idea
for Wikimedia US or one of its chapters to pay for such a report.
Otherwise we'll be basing much of our arguments about the project on
hearsay.

Erik


from_name: Joe Anderson

body:
It is legal, sadfully, IMO. If it was in North Korea, it wouldn't be, per US
export law.

On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/12/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >  > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >  >
> > > Anyone know if they use the actual content from Wikipedia or not?
> >  >
> >  > If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of
> the
> >  > GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> >
> > Please, let's not. I see it as a good thing that people can access and
> read Wikipedia articles in some way, whether or not the site is
> GFDL-compliant. Isn't that why we contribute our time here, to have people
> read our articles? The most basic freedom for information is the freedom to
> access and read it. Baidupedia is better than nothing for
> technically-unsavvy people in mainland China.
> >
> > -- Matt
>
> First of all, I'm not the one who wrote those sentences your email
> client attributed to me.
>
> Secondly, I tend to agree with you that suing over a breach of the
> GFDL is not a good idea.  And frankly, I doubt it would work.
>
> Whether or not a grossly censored Baidupedia is better than nothing, I
> don't know.  Depends, I suppose, how censored it is, but I get the
> impression that the censorship is much tighter than say the censorship
> of Google.  From what I know of the situation I'd guess a censored
> version of Wikipedia is worse than nothing, because at least with
> nothing more people will go through the technical hoops to get around
> the firewall.
>
> If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
> Wikipedia to the masses in China (no client-side setup required), I'd
> love to help.  Maybe some sort of network of distributed servers
> providing https access through dynamically rotating IP addresses.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the pop culture

body:
G'day Alphax,

> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>>G'day Steve,
>>>But they would say "I looked it up in the encyclopaedia" - maybe they
>>>think "wiki" is just some weird web term, so it would be like saying
>>>"I looked it up in the weblopaedia" or something. Rather than
>>>realising there is *one* Wikipedia. ?
>>
>>Imagine, decades from now, the fans of other web encyclopaedias saying
>>things like "those guys are SO arrogant.  What gives them the right to
>>say that they are *THE* Wikipedia?"
>
> Because Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> We should be defending our trademark as vigorously as possible.

See, historically, when a joke has fallen flat, there has still been one
person who got it.  That person is usually named "Alphax".  Damn it.

Now I'll need a new Official Interpreter.  Any volunteers?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/337 - Release Date: 11/05/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
G'day Ben,

> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>>I agree entirely.  Ben and Greg displayed a remarkable lack of maturity
>>in this issue.  I can see how they got a bit carried away after some
>>idiot changed "is Christian" to "claims to be Christian", but deliberate
>>could-be-perceived-as-vandalism[0], complete with rotating crucifix[1],
>>was quite disgusting behaviour for an admin.
>
> ...
>
>>[1] I know what Cyde was aiming for: "seeing from all angles", etc.  But
>>     the end result was simply offensive.
>
> I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not
> seeing it.  How is it offensive?  All of the Christians I personally
> know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying,
> but not offensive.

Mocking the cross?  You can't see what's wrong with that?

> For what it's worth, I guess you could consider this Wikipedian
> space-training, because in space, there is no up, and you are liable to
> routinely see things from all angles.
>
> That's me, always thinking ahead.  Yup.

Watch my sides split.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/337 - Release Date: 11/05/2006


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com.  That's very different
> > from saying anyone has to listen to them.
> >
>
> Historicaly admins are the group most likely to publicaly dissagree
> with arbcom (other than those on the reciving end).
>
That's ridiculous.  Admins are the ones that enforce the arb com
decisions.  If they disagree so strongly, then why would they enforce
the decisions?


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
> >
> > Anthony
>
>
> IIRC, Jimbo has the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia. So I guess that he
> has the power to do anything else, because if push comes to shove, he could
> just ban the people who flaunt his authority.
>
> My point is that there isn't much of anything that Jimbo has to ask anyone
> permission to do. And lawyering the political situation in Wikipedia isn't
> likely to get you much traction in getting his decision reversed. Some of us
> are glad that he stepped in and very depressed that people are nonetheless
> still arguing so vehemently over such a pointless issue.
>
> Ryan

I think you're wrong that Jimbo has any ultimate power over Wikipedia.
 Sure, if he wanted to ban someone he'd probably get away with it, but
only if the community accepted it.

And if it's such a pointless issue, then why does it have to be
addressed in the first place?


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
topics?

I don't get this.
Timwi


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] OT (was Re: Are these userbox templates NPOV?)

body:
On 12/05/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, Muslims are being shot at railway stations actually. However in
> this case, it was not a Muslim at all, it was a Brazilian man who
> looked like a Muslim on account of his brown skin. The London
> Metropolitan Police however assumed that he was a Muslim and shot him
> dead on the spot. Again the police were acting in the belief that
> since he (in their judgement) was a Muslim, he was probably carrying a
> bomb.

You may be unaware of this detail, but ~3% of the population of the UK
is Muslim. If the Metropolitan Police were indeed randomly executing
people on the streets purely for being Muslim, then London would be a
good bit emptier.

This case is somewhat more complex than you suggest. The day before,
London was attacked, two weeks after major bombings. The suicide
attacks failed; four people were known to be on the run from police,
and there were serious worries that they might attack again.

The places where the attempted attacks took place were combed for
evidence; based on something which was found with an address on, a
block of flats was staked out. The next morning, Mr Menezes came out
of the flats, and was quietly followed by a policeman, while someone
tried to identify him from photographs.

At this point, we had the fuckup; someone mistakenly identified him as
the suspect. It appears that no-one was actually able to compare him
to photographs of the suspect, and was going on verbal descriptions;
this part is unclear, because the security services refuse to say
anything. But about the time he entered the station, the people on the
scene had been told by their control room that he was the man they
were after.

They followed him onto the train, there was some shouting, he
apparently began moving towards him and they decided he was a threat.
And then...

Yes, he was shot because he was mistaken for a Muslim sucide bomber.
But he was not shot because the police saw him and thought "hey, a
Muslim, open season!". He was not shot because of some grand policy
that all Muslims were suicide bombers.

He was shot because the men in front of him had been *told* that he
was a probable suicide bomber; they were jumpy, expecting him to try
and do something. Then he, tragically, didn't know what was going on
and acted in a way that caused them to jump too far.

It was a fuckup; it wasn't helped by the underlying racism the Met has
failed to shake off, no doubt*, but it's still a fuckup at heart and
it's not, generally speaking, evidence for anything more than that.

*The Met is the only organisation I know of to dismiss someone for
sending racist hatemail... in a case where he himself was the
recipient. (He won a court appeal)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
> did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
> handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
> harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
> topics?

CSD T1 was decreed from above.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > Rob Church wrote:
> > > CSD T1 was decreed from above.
> >
> > By who? I don't see how this is within the competence of anyone other
> > than the community.
>
> Jimbo Wales. I can't find the original addition in history, but it's
> reaffirmed with
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=38415187&oldid=38398379.
>
>
> Rob Church

That edit says that "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" are
CSD candidates.  The current version says "Templates designed for user
pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions,
or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which
are otherwise divisive or inflammatory."

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
>   I am attempting to overcome having been, I believe, unfairly blocked
> by User:Tom harrison.

It appears that you were blocked because you re-inserted the same two
sentences more than three times. We have a rule that prohibits this.

However, in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed
at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will
elaborate.

Here's a link for others to see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=52396066&oldid=52394304

Timwi


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> "China's biggest Internet search site, Baidu.com, has launched a
> Chinese-language encyclopedia inspired by the cooperative reference
> site Wikipedia, which the communist government bars China's Web
> surfers from seeing.   However, entries on Baidupedia, the service
> from Nasdaq-listed Baidu.com launched last month, are censored by the
> Chinese Government."
>
> http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19100960%255E1702,00.html
>
> Anyone know if they use the actual content from Wikipedia or not?

Why don't you just go and check? Look here:

http://baike.baidu.com/lemma-php/dispose/view.php/51931.htm

and here:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%84%92%E5%AE%B6

Yep, same content.

Timwi


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Can anyone come up with an idea how to adapt this:
>
> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/lights-most-exotic-trick-yet-so-fast-
> it-goes-backwards-10590.html
>
> to our distributed clusters?
>
> Domas

Or we can go faster than the speed of light:

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html

:o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
>>did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
>>handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
>>harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
>>topics?
>
> CSD T1 was decreed from above.

By who? I don't see how this is within the competence of anyone other
than the community.


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark Gallagher wrote:
> >Ben wrote:
> >> I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not
> >> seeing it.  How is it offensive?  All of the Christians I personally
> >> know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying,
> >> but not offensive.
> >
> > Mocking the cross?  You can't see what's wrong with that?
>
> I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
<snip>
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

I don't worship icons either. I'm completely atheist, but I would
never DREAM of mocking it. It's simple human decency not to mock
something that many people love, and worship. It is, at the very
least, a massive breach of WP:CIVIL.

And even if I'm not religious and don't get personally offended by
mockery of religious symbols, there are many things that if mocked I
would get enourmously offended by. For instance, I'm swedish, and if
anyone says a cross word about Anna Lindh (our Minister of Foreign
Affairs, who were murdered a couple of years ago), I'm gonna punch him
out. I'm sure americans say the same thing about, for instance, the
people who died on 9/11. I'm sure you have a number of things to that
you wouldn't want mocked, but that other people may not care about.

Also, as Mark Gallagher said, there is a HUGE difference between this
and the Mohammad Cartoons. Those were for an article on a very notable
event that demanded that the images were displayed for context. You
were mocking the worlds largest religion, just for fun.

We're talking simple human decency and civility here. You need to apologise.

--Oskar


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > > Rob Church wrote:
> > > > > CSD T1 was decreed from above.
> > > >
> > > > By who? I don't see how this is within the competence of anyone other
> > > > than the community.
> > >
> > > Jimbo Wales. I can't find the original addition in history, but it's
> > > reaffirmed with
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=38415187&oldid=38398379.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Church
> >
> > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy#How_are_policies_enforced.3F.
> The CSD is classed as policy.
>
> "Much of Wikipedia policy dates from before 2002. Policy change now
> comes from three sources:
>
>     * A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See Wikipedia:How
> to create policy)
>     * A slow evolution of convention and common practice eventually
> codified as a policy.
>     * Jimbo, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright,
> legal issues, or server load."
>
>
> Rob Church

So you read it on a Wikipedia project page, and this makes it so?

I can't even find out where this CSD "was decreed from above" in the
first place.

I think I've been misled.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
>>Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
>>did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
>>handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
>>harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
>>topics?
>
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or
> religious issues.  Userbox templates and user templates group
> Wikipedians into competing factions.  This infrastructure has been used
> in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking.

The obvious logical conclusion is not that userbox templates are
unsuitable for Wikipedia, but that voting is unsuitable for decision-making.

> If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your
> userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so.

If you really feel it is necessary to stop people from proclaiming
anything about them (not even specifically religions) using templates,
you are free to voice this opinion, but you are not entitled to delete
any such templates without community concensus.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Rob Church wrote:
> > On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
> >>did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
> >>handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
> >>harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
> >>topics?
> >
> > CSD T1 was decreed from above.
>
> By who? I don't see how this is within the competence of anyone other
> than the community.

Jimbo Wales. I can't find the original addition in history, but it's
reaffirmed with
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=38415187&oldid=38398379.

Rob Church


body:
> Please, let's not. I see it as a good thing that people can access
> and read Wikipedia articles in some way, whether or not the site is
> GFDL-compliant. Isn't that why we contribute our time here, to have
> people read our articles? The most basic freedom for information is
> the freedom to access and read it.

I agree with this, but it should still be recognised that some people
contributed their work under the assumption or expectation that they
would be credited for the work.

Timwi


from_name: XaosFluX

subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
The blocking templates are very helpful in most of these situations.  I
recently updated [[MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext]] to include a note and link
to the [[Category:User block templates]].  Most of these are wikified,
written in plain english, and clear.

xaosflux
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

> Hi,
>  I note in the previous message that the user was given the block
> message "3rr, evasion with sock" - I wonder, how could any new user
> possibly understand what that means? Wouldn't it be better to use
> plain language, even if it does mean taking slightly longer to block?
> In this case "Repeatedly undoing other people's changes to an article,
> using alternate accounts to get around having their account blocked".
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
One method would be to send it to them off-wiki, as part of the email
confirmation message.

xaosflux
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claudi Meneghin" <clamengh at yahoo.fr>
To: <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:18 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

Hello,
  I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
  I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a
welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
  Many thanks.

  Sincerely yours,

  Claudi

---------------------------------
 Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour retrouver directement
vos services pr?f?r?s : v?rifiez vos nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches
et suivez l'actualit? en temps r?el. Cliquez ici.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Claudi Meneghin

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
Hello,
  I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
  I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
  Many thanks.

  Sincerely yours,

  Claudi

---------------------------------
 Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour retrouver directement vos services pr?f?r?s : v?rifiez vos nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches et suivez l'actualit? en temps r?el. Cliquez ici.


from_name: Fastfission

body:
I had sent Prasad a few e-mails trying to encourage him that
exaggerating wildly undercut his message more than it did help it, and
was trying to keep it off-list since it has nothing to do with
Wikipedia at all. In any case, I apologize for this getting dragged
back in.

Prasad, again, I do not support most of the policies of the United
States towards terrorism (and certainly do not support racial or
religious stereotyping, coercive interrogation techniques, rendition,
illegal wire-tapping, etc.), but I think you exaggerate the situation
in a way which makes the critical view into a caricature -- an easy
straw man for people to knock down. My goal was not so much to try and
engage in a long discussion over this, but only to suggest that the
sober truth hits harder than does hysterical hyperbole. You are free
to ignore this, of course, as you no doubt will.

FF

On 5/12/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> . The problem is not that Muslims are being shot in
> > airports -- this is not occurring -- the problem is a larger one about
> > perception, about international understanding, about the limits of
> > security states. But all that gets lost when you exaggerate it into
> > some sort of Nazi regime, which it is not. It is not great, but it is
> > something a bit different.
> >
> > FF
> >
> Yes, Muslims are being shot at railway stations actually. However in
> this case, it was not a Muslim at all, it was a Brazilian man who
> looked like a Muslim on account of his brown skin. The London
> Metropolitan Police however assumed that he was a Muslim and shot him
> dead on the spot. Again the police were acting in the belief that
> since he (in their judgement) was a Muslim, he was probably carrying a
> bomb. This event occured shortly after 7/7. As for the "Nazi regime",
> kindly take the time to observe how U.S Marines in Abu Ghraib are
> dragging leashed Muslim men around the place like animals, are using
> attack dogs to torment them, are electrocuting them, and are even
> going so far as to make them form "naked pyramids". Now these
> activities are eerily reminiscent of what Nazi S.S Guards did to Jews
> in concentration camps. Admittedly, the Nazi atrocities occured on a
> much larger scale but the pain and humiliation suffered by the victims
> is the same. A U.S spokesperson responded by saying that the
> atrocities were being looked into-but was quick to add that POWs are
> "trained to fabricate accounts of abuse"- although that does not
> explain the photographs of Ms.Lyndde England putting a leash around a
> naked,cowering Iraqi's neck and dragging him in front of the camera.
> As to complaints of  prisoners at Guatanamo Bay being put through some
> sort of "sensory deprivation"(again notice the photographs of
> prisoners being blindfolded,earmuffed,gagged,and face-masked) and
> other innovative "interrogation techniques" the spokesperson chose to
> remain silent. So you will forgive me if I draw a few parallels
> between such atrocities and those committed by the Nazis (albeit,as I
> said, on a much,much larger scale).
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Rob Church wrote:
> > > > On 12/05/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
> > > >>did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
> > > >>handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
> > > >>harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
> > > >>topics?
> > > >
> > > > CSD T1 was decreed from above.
> > >
> > > By who? I don't see how this is within the competence of anyone other
> > > than the community.
> >
> > Jimbo Wales. I can't find the original addition in history, but it's
> > reaffirmed with
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=38415187&oldid=38398379.
> >
> >
> > Rob Church
>
> When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy#How_are_policies_enforced.3F.
The CSD is classed as policy.

"Much of Wikipedia policy dates from before 2002. Policy change now
comes from three sources:

    * A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See Wikipedia:How
to create policy)
    * A slow evolution of convention and common practice eventually
codified as a policy.
    * Jimbo, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright,
legal issues, or server load."

Rob Church


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/12/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> It is legal, sadfully, IMO. If it was in North Korea, it wouldn't be, per US
> export law.
>

I thought the whole PGP thing put that in question?

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann <Heiko.Evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> ok Mark, you asked for it. Here is my opinion. (Meinung, nicht Deinung,
> Wirung oder Unserung, if you understand this German pun.)

Well, I know what Meinung means, so yes, I get it.

> > The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide
> > according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or
> > 65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of
> > Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).
> 9 Mio is quite a lot.

Yes, it is.

> > In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject
> > for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between
> > 75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).
> >
> > The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by
> > the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka,
> > codified in the 1960s.
> Ah, this means that there is an official standard. That is fine. That makes
> things a lot easier.

Sort of -- people will accuse us of being pro-government and/or
pro-Soviet if we support Narkamauka over Tarashkievitsa.

About half of Belarusan bloggers use Tarashkievitsa; svaboda.org and a
couple of newspapers are written in it... it's not quite so clear-cut
as in most countries, where there is an official spelling system, and
all of the alternatives are small and enjoy little or no regular use.

> > However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older
> > Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the
> > more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet,
> > called Latsinka.
> Wikipedia should use an official standard, if there is one. Here we do have
> one, so use it.

I agree with you, but undoubtedly the nationalists won't.

> > Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official
> > Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.
> >
> > By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the
> > first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there
> > write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in
> > it too.
> That is unfortunate.
>
> > New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety,
> > however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the
> > alternative style. According to proponents of the official
> > orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give
> > that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
> It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed
> dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of
> struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have
> nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy
> and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.

Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for
example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings
of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left
instead of shouting louder.

You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other
Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and
orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais,
Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but
they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.

The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien
even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use
different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are
writing.

The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed
in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in
the Breton Wikipedia.

> The main question is whether or not these two Belorussian groups can get
> along with each other. If the differences are so big that they cannot
> cooperate, then they should get two wikipedias. (This seems to be the case)
> BUT the main wikipedia (the one with the official ISO-code) should be the
> one using the official language that is taught in the schools.

I agree with that.

> So the real question is: should the alternative people get their alternative
> wikipedia. My answer is: yes. Development of underdeveloped languages is an
> important task and if the Wikipedia can help, that is fine. If they really
> think that they can give an important cultural input into the further
> development of the Belorussion language, then I see no reason to put
> stumbling blocks on their road. Time will show, whether or not they make
> progress. Give both teams a chance, leave them alone, let them do their
> work. Revisit in a year and see what happens.

The two systems are different, but not so different that it would
really make sense to have two separate Belarusan Wikipedias. However,
I do agree that if they really want it, we should give them a chance.

> > In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia
> > community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to
> > evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.
> It is always better to provide opportunities instead of taking opportunities

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
Thanks for the overview of your thoughts on this.  It's my intuition
that there's gotta be a way to get around this, even without resorting
to any special client configuration.  If enough people work together
maybe we can at least get it working some large percentage of the
time.  I mean, short of going to a whitelist configuration I don't see
how the Chinese government can keep up (the insecurity of the DNS
system gives them a big advantage, though).

I have some other ideas, but someone must have thought of these
already, and this is really beyond the scope of this mailing list
anyway.  Reading http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06045/654754.stm, I
think I've found some places to look for more information.

Anthony

On 5/12/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
> > Wikipedia to the masses in China (no client-side setup required), I'd
> > love to help.  Maybe some sort of network of distributed servers
> > providing https access through dynamically rotating IP addresses.
>
> I don't think there's any solution left which will work without client
> configuration, except for a number of loopholes that the Chinese Government
> hasn't gotten around to closing yet. The foremost among these is our own SSL
> gateway:
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/zh/wiki/
>
> There are various unblocked HTTP proxies, although all unencrypted traffic
> is sampled, so any popular proxy will be rapidly blocked.
>
> Traffic within China isn't subject to the Great Firewall, which is why a
> proxy like wikipedia.cnblog.org worked. More proxies like that could be set
> up, but our recent experience suggests that the Government is watching for
> such things, and you can fully expect a knock on your door if you set one up.
>
> Periodically changing the IPs returned by a specific DNS entry almost
> certainly won't work. They have the ability to poll DNS.
>
> So that leaves client configuration. The Tor network is still not blocked,
> but that might be only a matter of time. And the downside is that it has no
> system for dealing with abuse.
>
> Having numerous SSL tunnel servers would be useful, along the lines of
> Anthony's suggestion. However, you need to have some way to distribute the
> server IPs to the users without letting the Government find them out. I
> can't think of any way to do this with a public protocol without leading to
> a very high rate of compromise of IP addresses, assuming the authorities are
> on the ball. A simple HTTPS gateway like secure.wikimedia.org could be
> compromised automatically by simply connecting to it and downloading the
> index page.
>
> We can go on exploiting known holes in the firewall for the time being, but
> it will certainly become increasingly difficult for people inside China to
> access Wikipedia, especially for those who are non-technical or not
> especially motivated.
>
> If Baidupedia does take off, I hope they will license locally generated
> content under GFDL, to allow for a continuing exchange of content between
> Wikipedia and Baidupedia.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical to
	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
No, it's not right to use "zh-hant" for zh-min-nan. That Wikipedia is
written in Latin letters, some are special diacritics that don't show
up in most Traditional Chinese fonts. This was an issue before -- when
it said "zh-min-nan" in the tag, it caused the text to display wrong
in some browsers. I'm not sure what tag is used at present, though.

Mark

On 10/05/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brion Vibber <brion at ...> writes:
>
> >
> > Shinjiman wrote:
> > > The issue has been mentioned at
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-
> > > l/2006-March/034397.html in wikitecl-l, and also in BugZilla:5790
> > > http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5790.
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As I've mention that pages above, some Wiki sites has the incorrect lang
> tags
> > > which neither assiciated with ISO-693 nor IANA language tags. So I've
> examined
> > > this issue, and have a patch sibmitted to BugZilla. However the patch I've
> > > made cannot be accepted as Brian said that this would break up the caching
> > > system.
> >
> > There was not any such patch for this, and it would be totally unnecessary to
> > make one. Just let us know what the incorrect ones are and we'll fix the
> > configuration.
> >
> > Are you maybe thinking of the patch for something totally different which
> tries
> > to guess the visitor's language variant and change the lang attribute based
> on it?
> >
>
> For Example:
> For Simple English Wikipedia, it's show the lang tag as "simple" which do not
> exists neither ISO639 nor IANA language tag tag. For 'Simple English', the
> lang code should be "en" (English).
>
> And for Traditional Chinese readers reads a Traditional Chinese webpage, it's
> supposed to read a page using the Traditional Chinese font. However this does
> not apply to Wikipedia (and various wiki site running MediaWiki). As the
> Chinese Wikipedia (and various Chinese based wiki sites that running
> MediaWiki) has been introduced the LanguageConverter class. The lang tag
> is "zh" (Chinese). It's not the problem for the Simplified Chinese readers
> while the (major) browsers will using the Simplified Chinese fonts. However,
> it's having a problem for Traditional Chinese readers to reading the Chinese
> context using a Simplified Chinese font.
>
> As your opinion mentioned, to use the language variant to determine the
> language code that the user is using, it's quite impossible to determine the
> lang tag by languge variant. Since currently many users in Chinese Wikipedia
> sets to disable the language variant by default because the Chinese words
> conversion cause much problems currently have. (This is the main point of the
> issue) Including me, I'am also using a Traditional Chinese (UI language = zh-
> hk) interface language and _without enable_ any of language variants (Variant
> = zh). So as the patch I've submitted, it's not to determine the lang tag only
> by the language variant, but checks with both interface language and
> $wgContLanguageCode (Global interface language).
>
> So summarising my statement above, I've suggested to adding a new attribute to
> assign the lang tag correctly, by using arrays, or something like to provides
> a similar functionally. For example:
>
>  Language code            | Language tag
>  -------------------------+----------------------------------------------
>  en                      | en
>  de                      | de
>  simple (Simple English) | en
>  zh-cn                   | zh-cn <= originally supposed to be zh-hans (R1)
>  zh-sg                   | zh-sg <= originally supposed to be zh-hans (R1)
>  zh-tw                   | zh-hant
>  zh-hk                   | zh-hant
>  zh-mo                   | zh-hant
>  zh-min-nan              | zh-hant <= (R2)
>  zh-yue                  | zh-hant <= (R2)
>
> *Remarks:
>  1. The tags is used as zh-cn/zh-sg instead of zh-hans for browsers
> compatibility (likely IE6 will misunderstand the zh-hans lang tag).
>  2. The tags is used as zh-hant instead of zh-min-nan/zh-yue browsers
> compatibility (likely both IE/Firefox will misunderstand both zh-min-nan and
> zh-yue lang tag).
>
> For that table about is about to construct a lang tag mapping against various
> languages.
>
> And after this kind of language mapping is done, it's need to modify the
> OutputPage.php (for older skins) and Monobook.php (for newer skins) to output
> the <html xml:lang"XXX" lang="XXX"> correctly ("XXX" is the correct lang code
> instead using the $wgContLanguageCode directly) to address this issue.
>
> Hope my information I've proveded would help you to ongoing and addressing
> this kind of issue more smoothly. :)
>
> regards
> Shinjiman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Shinjiman wrote:
> Please note that the original purpose/goal of the Language Converter is to
> changing the page(article, project page, portal, etc.)'s content *only* (For
> example: [?????] in Chinese and also [standardize?standardize] in
> English). Seems Brion is not understanding the original purpose/goal of this,

I understand it just fine. I have no idea how it relates to what you're
proposing, which appears to be something totally unrelated trying to snag the
user-agent's Accept-Language string (?!??!!?)

> As this, we still don't have any values that defines the lang attribute in the
> HTML tag, but currently defined by the $wgContLanguageCode. However, if Brion
> (or any developers having the shell access) changed the $wgContLanguageCode
> from "simple" into "en" in the LocalSettings.php at simple, it can correct the
> mislabelled tag. But this change is going to *break up* the user language
> settings to using the English messages instead of Simple English messages,

No it won't. There is no "simple English" language, it's just English. The
defined user interface messages on the wiki will be shown when English is selected.

> On the posts that I've mentioned, as there's some users that using the [zh-
> tw/zh-hk] user interface language, but have the language variant *turned off*
> [zh]. It is impossible to determining the new lang attribute by the language
> variant.

I don't understand what this means. Can you explain it?

If you mean, "some people haven't selected a language variant", then in that
case we cannot assign anything more specific than "zh" to that page display.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060512/bbe1b435/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?

The Arbitration Committee decided that he had this power.  The Board
doesn't generally interfere with the running of the wikis.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> It appears that you were blocked because you re-inserted the same two
> sentences more than three times. We have a rule that prohibits this.
>
> However, in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed
> at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will
> elaborate.

Just to stick my oar in, it's important to understand that 3RR applies
whether or not the person's contributions were correct, NPOV, welcome,
etc or not. Edit-warring is the crime, not "making bad edits" or
whatever.

No idea about the specifics of this instance though.

Steve


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Threads: any plans

body:
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Rapplean
>>>>> <mythobeast at gmail.com> writes:
Hello

   Robert> Always happy to explain it to people.  I've submitted an
   Robert> abstract to the Wikimania conference for a 30 minute
   Robert> presentation, will be releasing a podcast explaining the
   Robert> idea some time around the beginning of next month, and have
   Robert> quite a bit of design work done in a wiki at
http://www.consensusengine.org/wiki

I tried to log in there, but for some reason, I don't get the usual
form for creating an account,  (my cookies are enabled and I use
mozilla 1.7.2)

   Robert> I already dropped a rather long description of it on this
   Robert> list, so I'll send you more details in person.  I really
   Robert> need to update the base content of the main site, too, and
   Robert> will probably do that as I build the content for the
   Robert> podcast.

May be this is off topic, but would it be possible to add Talk Pages,
a nntp interface, so that they could be displayed with a newsreader?

Uwe


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
> did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
> handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
> harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
> topics?

Yeah, because religious or controversial topics never did any harm to anyone...

Steve


body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I think people seem to be missing the point.  Sure, Baidu might be in
> technical violation of the GFDL, in which case pretty much every
> fork/mirror in the world is in technical violation of it.  I was more
> focussed on the fact that "entries on Baidupedia, the service from
> Nasdaq-listed Baidu.com launched last month, are censored by the
> Chinese Government".  This is especially horrible because the real
> Wikipedia *isn't accessible in China* to the average internet user who
> doesn't jump through a bunch of technical hoops.

I don't see what's horrible here - the Chinese government didn't
invent censorship yesterday.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> It was already in the article further down under 9/11 conspiracy
> theories.

He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about
him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits
repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others
repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.

What is he supposed to think of this?

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?

Doesn't Jimbo have total autocratic powers? I don't think he needs to
ask the board for anything. Could be wrong.

Steve


from_name: Grace Pastorelly Ruiz

body:
ok, i tried with svn+ssh and i got this error:
Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive).
svn: Connection closed unexpectedly

this is my public key, i changed it because i couldn't remember the frase
for the last one.

---- BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY ----
Comment: "2048-bit RSA, converted from OpenSSH by grace at pollet"
AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAABIwAAAQEAv4Sh97e4upIlSRCFSi9BY9RigqVTy1tI5F1urAEZG2
7SpvHoCXuIWtTc72u6d/ZAo3ZhoZnjd00lKKrJtPhOZNnO5obZpBRl1Nf3wzmpav/7l7VQ
BLmKEEHNt0P2EJsg7dmrHZLFcqC6nFByX1eCviXHEHBiKUfeCiSeyby+WVgaR7iJwKX3hm
4Rz+6St1iPIPQH8hZEsktxO03nsjC0H3T9UTL+AALCu4v5URy4mrKft22+r424GJcYlXh3
oEAzecJKMpnqkiKByKz6wtQt1bMzWux2qsClrK7BpLzj0PvAZYxeYdXCZpk+mqN02MMDc1
3MckXaph0DdEYy0lvxBQ==
---- END SSH2 PUBLIC KEY ----

On 12/05/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Grace Pastorelly Ruiz wrote:
> > i tried to create the branch "mlmw" and i got an error:
> >
> > svn: Can't create directory '/svnroot/mediawiki/db/transactions/14182-
> 1.txn':
> > Permission denied
>
> Sounds like you tried to use an http url; you need to use svn+ssh. See
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Subversion
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
un cordial saludo,
grace


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On May 12, 2006, at 7:56 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:

>> Yes, because all the Nazis did was put the Jews into sensory
>> deprivation and ask them questions to try and prevent terrorist
>> attacks.
>>
>> --
>> Philip L. Welch
>
> Yes, that's such a good analogy, since  we all know that all the
> prisoner deaths were pure unfortunate accidents and completely
> unrelated to America.

Every time a prisoner is killed in custody, it's analogous to the
Holocaust?

There is an immense difference between "using extreme, unethical, and
highly violent measures to prevent terrorism" and "trying to
exterminate the Jews". I don't support any of the things that have
happened with regard to Abu Ghraib and the US prisons for terror
suspects. I'm also capable of being a reasonable human being when I
explain why.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:45:05 +0100, you wrote:

>in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed
>at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will
>elaborate.

Undue weight.  It is already mentioned elsewhere in the article.  I'm
with Fred on this: crank theories can be discussed, but not generally
in the lead of an article on a significant historical event.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org> <4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>
	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:04:25 +0100, you wrote:

>If you really feel it is necessary to stop people from proclaiming
>anything about them (not even specifically religions) using templates,
>you are free to voice this opinion, but you are not entitled to delete
>any such templates without community concensus.

You are way behind the curve here, this has been discussed to death.
The redux as far as I recall is that templates proclaiming a point of
view are divisive, that the declaration of a point of view on a user
page is not in itself wrong even so, but that it is a poor use of
server resources to transclude such declarations and a poor precedent
to imply that such declarations are officially sanctioned by including
them in template space.  Some of them were patently inflammatory, and
those were removed first and fastest.  Others included unfree images,
a problem in itself.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
> >
> > The Arbitration Committee decided that he had this power.
>
> The Arb Com doesn't have any right to make such a decision.
>

It is pretty hard to overule arbcom. Possible but pretty hard.

> Which is fine.  The problem is that one of the board members *is*
> interfering with it.
>
> Anthony

Ad a minium we need someone to tell us about DMCA notices and the like.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:37:51 -0400, you wrote:

>The problem is that one of the board members *is*
>interfering with it.

Who the hell does he think he is - Jimbo Wales?  Oh, wait...

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


from_name: Steve Block

body:
Matt R wrote:
> Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>  > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>  >
>> Anyone know if they use the actual content from Wikipedia or not?
>  >
>  > If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the
>  > GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
>
> Please, let's not. I see it as a good thing that people can access and read Wikipedia articles in some way, whether or not the site is GFDL-compliant. Isn't that why we contribute our time here, to have people read our articles? The most basic freedom for information is the freedom to access and read it. Baidupedia is better than nothing for technically-unsavvy people in mainland China.

It appears I got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and I apologise for
and retract my above statement.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/336 - Release Date: 10/05/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > On 5/12/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
> > > >
> > > > The Arbitration Committee decided that he had this power.
> > >
> > > The Arb Com doesn't have any right to make such a decision.
> > >
> >
> > It is pretty hard to overule arbcom. Possible but pretty hard.
> >
> Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com.  That's very different
> from saying anyone has to listen to them.
>

Historicaly admins are the group most likely to publicaly dissagree
with arbcom (other than those on the reciving end).

> Sure, someone needs to take down illegal content.  That's not what
> this is about.

In terms of other activities board involvement is generaly kept to a
minium simple because most of them don't have the time to spend the
hours each day it requires to know what is going on en.wikipedia. On
top of that the language barrier means they are going to have to
accept most wikipeidia being run without significant involvement from
them.

--
geni


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 5/12/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
....
> Yes, because all the Nazis did was put the Jews into sensory
> deprivation and ask them questions to try and prevent terrorist attacks.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch

Yes, that's such a good analogy, since  we all know that all the
prisoner deaths were pure unfortunate accidents and completely
unrelated to America.

~maru


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com. That's very different
> > > from saying anyone has to listen to them.
> > >
> >
> > Historicaly admins are the group most likely to publicaly dissagree
> > with arbcom (other than those on the reciving end).
> >
> That's ridiculous. Admins are the ones that enforce the arb com
> decisions. If they disagree so strongly, then why would they enforce
> the decisions?

Not at all. Ever hear of the term [[Loyal opposition]]? Same idea.

Even if the idea of a loyal opposition is irrelvant, there are a lot
of admins, and it doesn't take all that many to enforce Arbcom
decisions in the absence of wheel wars- heck, Arbcom alone could
account for a good deal if they absolutely had to.

~maru


from_name: Keith Old

body:
On 5/12/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Aggers has just referred those listeners who wish to know what a doosra
> > is to the wikipedia entry.
>
> Who or what is Aggers?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

A BBC cricket commentator.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Agnew


from_name: Essjay

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
Claudi Meneghin wrote:
> Hello,
>   I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
>   I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
>   Many thanks.
>
>   Sincerely yours,
>
>   Claudi
You could have a bot to scan the new user log and subst: a welcome
template on the talk page of any account created. It'd be more complete
than the email suggestion, given that every new user has a talk page,
while not everybody supplies an email address.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


from_name: Prasad J

body:
. The problem is not that Muslims are being shot in
> airports -- this is not occurring -- the problem is a larger one about
> perception, about international understanding, about the limits of
> security states. But all that gets lost when you exaggerate it into
> some sort of Nazi regime, which it is not. It is not great, but it is
> something a bit different.
>
> FF
>
Yes, Muslims are being shot at railway stations actually. However in
this case, it was not a Muslim at all, it was a Brazilian man who
looked like a Muslim on account of his brown skin. The London
Metropolitan Police however assumed that he was a Muslim and shot him
dead on the spot. Again the police were acting in the belief that
since he (in their judgement) was a Muslim, he was probably carrying a
bomb. This event occured shortly after 7/7. As for the "Nazi regime",
kindly take the time to observe how U.S Marines in Abu Ghraib are
dragging leashed Muslim men around the place like animals, are using
attack dogs to torment them, are electrocuting them, and are even
going so far as to make them form "naked pyramids". Now these
activities are eerily reminiscent of what Nazi S.S Guards did to Jews
in concentration camps. Admittedly, the Nazi atrocities occured on a
much larger scale but the pain and humiliation suffered by the victims
is the same. A U.S spokesperson responded by saying that the
atrocities were being looked into-but was quick to add that POWs are
"trained to fabricate accounts of abuse"- although that does not
explain the photographs of Ms.Lyndde England putting a leash around a
naked,cowering Iraqi's neck and dragging him in front of the camera.
As to complaints of  prisoners at Guatanamo Bay being put through some
sort of "sensory deprivation"(again notice the photographs of
prisoners being blindfolded,earmuffed,gagged,and face-masked) and
other innovative "interrogation techniques" the spokesperson chose to
remain silent. So you will forgive me if I draw a few parallels
between such atrocities and those committed by the Nazis (albeit,as I
said, on a much,much larger scale).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about
> him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits
> repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others
> repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.
>
> What is he supposed to think of this?

I agree with your point, but there's a logical fallacy: your edits
can't be undone repeatedly if you aren't redoing them repeatedly.

(again, nothing to do with the specifics of this case)

Steve


from_name: Heiko Evermann

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
Hi everyone,

ok Mark, you asked for it. Here is my opinion. (Meinung, nicht Deinung,
Wirung oder Unserung, if you understand this German pun.)
>
> The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide
> according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or
> 65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of
> Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).
9 Mio is quite a lot.
>
> In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject
> for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between
> 75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).
>
> The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by
> the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka,
> codified in the 1960s.
Ah, this means that there is an official standard. That is fine. That makes
things a lot easier.
>
> However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older
> Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the
> more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet,
> called Latsinka.
Wikipedia should use an official standard, if there is one. Here we do have
one, so use it.

> Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official
> Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.
>
> By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the
> first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there
> write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in
> it too.
That is unfortunate.

> New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety,
> however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the
> alternative style. According to proponents of the official
> orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give
> that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed
dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of
struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have
nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy
and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.

The main question is whether or not these two Belorussian groups can get
along with each other. If the differences are so big that they cannot
cooperate, then they should get two wikipedias. (This seems to be the case)
BUT the main wikipedia (the one with the official ISO-code) should be the
one using the official language that is taught in the schools.

So the real question is: should the alternative people get their alternative
wikipedia. My answer is: yes. Development of underdeveloped languages is an
important task and if the Wikipedia can help, that is fine. If they really
think that they can give an important cultural input into the further
development of the Belorussion language, then I see no reason to put
stumbling blocks on their road. Time will show, whether or not they make
progress. Give both teams a chance, leave them alone, let them do their
work. Revisit in a year and see what happens.

> In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia
> community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to
> evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.
It is always better to provide opportunities instead of taking opportunities
away.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann

--
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>>When did the board give Jimbo the power to pass CSD criteria?
>
> Doesn't Jimbo have total autocratic powers? I don't think he needs to
> ask the board for anything.

He needs to ask the community though. If a majority disagree with his
decision, then he is de facto powerless. If he loses face with the
community, but attempts to continue to exercise dictatorial force, forks
will likely appear very soon. It is therefore in both his own and in
Wikipedia's interests that he take a step back and not try to push this
one through no matter what anyone thinks.

Timwi


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-13

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 303 of 313 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:04:25 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>If you really feel it is necessary to stop people from proclaiming
>>anything about them (not even specifically religions) using templates,
>>you are free to voice this opinion, but you are not entitled to delete
>>any such templates without community concensus.
>
> You are way behind the curve here, this has been discussed to death.

Forgive me for not reading absolutely every edit to absolutely every
page in the Wikipedia namespace, the Wikipedia talk namespace, the
Template talk namespace, and whatever else.

> The redux as far as I recall is that templates proclaiming a point of
> view are divisive, that the declaration of a point of view on a user
> page is not in itself wrong even so, but that

The templates do not provide any additional possibility of proclamation
that plain text on the user page wouldn't already provide. Since you
agree that the declaration of a point of view on a user page is not in
itself wrong, it logically follows that the mere fact that the templates
proclaim a point of view does not make them wrong.

> it is a poor use of server resources to transclude such declarations

It is highly doubtful that any significant amounts of server resources
are at stake. It is even more doubtful that the load would be
significantly increased compared to the current situation which already
allows a significant number of humorous (and therefore irrelevant)
userboxes. Either way, a proper analysis of the consumption of server
resources has not been made.

> a poor precedent to imply that such declarations are
> officially sanctioned by including them in template space.

There is nothing about the templates that makes them any more
"officially sanctioned" than text on a user page on a
Wikimedia-controlled server already is.

> Some of them were patently inflammatory, and those were removed first
> and fastest.  Others included unfree images, a problem in itself.

These are separate issues that I am not contesting. A proclamation of
any belief is possible without breaching any of those two requirements
(not being inflammatory and not using non-free images).

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>Uhm... I'm completely flattered. WTH is the reasoning behind CSD T1? How
>>did that ever pass community concensus? I can't believe more than a
>>handful of people would agree to that! What on Earth is supposed to be
>>harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
>>topics?
>
> Yeah, because religious or controversial topics never did any harm to
> anyone...

And, like, unilateral deletions from people who feel no need to justify
themselves never did any harm to anyone...


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> What on Earth is supposed to be
> harmful about users proclaiming their view on religious or controversial
> topics?

As far as I can see, CSD T1 only prohibits me from creating
[[Template:User thinks religion is an irrational construction of the
mind]], not from putting the same information on my user page without
a template (inside a colored box or without one). It seems more like a
structural measure than a content-related policy. From that point of
view, I find it hard to get very excited about this change. We didn't
even have templates until Tim added the feature to MediaWiki.

Templates are meant for the encyclopedia and its processes. When you
allow highly individual/personal content in the template space, you
effectively encourage userpage policy creeping into the template
namespace, i.e. claims of content ownership and lack of NPOV. As for
the "vote-stacking" and grouping, that issue has two sides, a good one
and a bad one, but I tend to agree that on highly divisive issues, the
disadvantages tend to prevail.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about
>>him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits
>>repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others
>>repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.
>>
>>What is he supposed to think of this?
>
> I agree with your point, but there's a logical fallacy: your edits
> can't be undone repeatedly if you aren't redoing them repeatedly.

I'm aware of that, but the point is that the user (usually) isn't. It is
non-obvious that putting the stuff back in can be viewed as "undoing
someone else's changes". It is far more obvious to refer to the removal
as "undoing changes". An admin who doesn't see this, shouldn't be
blocking people.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
>
> Some of us are glad that he stepped in and very depressed that people
> are nonetheless still arguing so vehemently over such a pointless
> issue.

It might be an indication that it's not as "pointless" an issue to some
people as it is to you and/or possibly Jimbo. Which in turn means that
neither you nor Jimbo should think you know for definite that it is
truly objectively pointless.

Timwi


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com.  That's very different
> > > from saying anyone has to listen to them.
> > >
> >
> > Historicaly admins are the group most likely to publicaly dissagree
> > with arbcom (other than those on the reciving end).
> >
> That's ridiculous.  Admins are the ones that enforce the arb com
> decisions.  If they disagree so strongly, then why would they enforce
> the decisions?

Because mostly they agree and when they don't it is normaly only a few
who dissagree.

--
geni


from_name: KWH

body:
On 5/12/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

> > He was shot because the men in front of him had been *told* that he
> > was a probable suicide bomber; they were jumpy, expecting him to try
> > and do something. Then he, tragically, didn't know what was going on
> > and acted in a way that caused them to jump too far.
>
> Specifically, he was accosted by armed, plainclothes policemen and
> panicked. (When I see people wearing civilian clothes coming at me
> with guns, my first reaction wouldn't be "oh, they must be police!"
> either.) As I recall, he was tackled to the ground and shot in the
> head execution style. Any eyewitness would have no reason to believe
> that police were involved, and would conclude that some sort of awful
> US-style gang-related murder had taken place.

Just an FYI, we have a fantastic article on this at [[Jean Charles de Menezes]].

-KWH