from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Subversion coming

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> SourceForge has begun a beta rollout of Subversion version-control service. I've
> signed us up for this, so at some point in the next few days hopefully we should
> have source over in SVN instead of / in addition to CVS.
>
> In addition to the general niceties of SVN (atomic multi-file commits!),
> anonymous access will not be delayed as it is on SF's CVS. This means that
> people who aren't signed up on our sourceforge project will now be able to get
> commits immediately with a 'svn up'.
>
> Subversion's command-line interface is mostly like CVS, so Unixy types shouldn't
> have much trouble getting used to it. There's a TortoiseSVN for Windows types
> who are used to TortoiseCVS.
>
> Some docs:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/docs/E09
> https://sourceforge.net/docs/B01/en/#svn_client

Good news! Do you have any idea about the directory tree we will use ? :o)

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's not an issue of likeing it. It's more an issue of all the
> > alturnatives being worse. With the exception of PWD they all move
> > power away from the community.
>
> So do you see the existence of SfD as a bad thing, then?
>
> Kirill Lokshin

Err why should I?

--
geni


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unnecessary fork update

body:
In message <20060116211322.GE24123 at thingy.apana.org.au>, David Gerard
<fun-e016Bj8cE8tLBo1qDEOMRrpzq4S04n8Q at public.gmane.org> writes
>Snowspinner (Snowspinner-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org)
>[060117 07:27]:
>
>> I agree. But it's still the best thing that I can do, right now, to
>> deal with a mounting disaster. Hopefully other admins will go along
>> with it and we can get a kind of movement thing going. I made a
>> template {{expert undeletion}}. Add it to your userpage. :)
>
>
>Good one. I've done so. Though you mean {{expert recovery}} ;-)
>
>(Note, of course, the additional text I've put on my page on the subject
>of deletions.)

Wow, that was quick - 9 delete votes on TfD in only 34 minutes!

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Difference between "quoting" and "using" in Fair
	Use	(re ko)

body:
Yongho Kim wrote:

>In the course of it, I argued that Fair Use is about using the image (e.g.
>the Fair Use image or text can be used independent of other textual
>context). He then argued that Fair Use is only about "quoting". I need some
>advice on this - I am looking for a counterproof that the general academic
>practice of quoting up to 5% of a source is NOT what Fair Use stands for.
>Something like a portion in the US Copyright Law that mentions academic
>quotations.
>
While it is fair to say that fair use of an image and related text
should be considered separately we are still talking about the same
law.  Fair use is as applicable to images as to text.  Each situation
must be considered separately on its own merits.

>In case my above dispute-solving-approach is mistaken, I'll introduce the
>context as I understand it.
>
>WonYong is making the following claims:
>
>1) Uploading images in ko is not using it, we are merely uploading them to
>"quote them" in Wikipedia documents.
>
Uploading a whole image in full resolution when it is itself the subject
of the copyright is very probably NOT fair use.  Uploading the same
image when it is a part of a much bigger work that includes many
pictures MAY be fair use.  Similarly uploading a very low resolution
picture as a thumbnail MAY be a fair use "quote" of the picture.

>2) Therefore South Korean Copyright Law regarding academic and media
>"quotation" applies to these images - we can use anything as long as it
>abides by SK CRL Chapter 6 (Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights),
>Art. 25. Said clause states:
>
>?25? (??? ???? ??) ??? ???? ????????????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???
>? ??.
>
>My translation: Art. 25 (Citation/Quotation of copyrighted work accessible
>to the public) Copyrighted work accessible to the public can be quoted for
>media, criticism, education, and research, within a justified range and in
>pursuance to fair custom. http://tinyurl.com/a7frg
>
>My understanding is that under Fair Use you can make copies of a copyrighted
>work. For instance, you can photocopy a work of art and distribute it in
>class for discussion. SKCRL 25 would not allow this. SKCRL is merely
>spelling out the fact that you can quote verbatim up to 5% of a source when
>writing a scholarly paper.
>
What the above citation describes as "fair custom" in ROK law is
consistent with "fair use" in the United States, "fair practice" in the
Berne Convention, and "fair dealing" in the laws of many countries.  One
point that is unusual about United States law on this is its attempt to
describe what that means in greater detail.  In countries which use a
law as short as the quoted one there is much room for argument over just
what "education" and "research" really mean.  In some countries a
photocopy for distribution in class would be perfectly acceptable as
fair use.  The 5% rule that you mention is not in your citation at all.
Such a rule may reflect a practice followed by Korean courts to make the
work of judges easier.  I have heard of a similar 10% rule that is
sometimes used in England.

>3) When I pointed out this to him, he told me that I "misunderstood Fair
>Use" and that Fair Use is pretty much the same thing as SKCRL 25. Americans
>are doing it, we have the samel law, why can't we do it?
>
It pretty much IS the same thing, but American law is interpreted by
American courts and Korean law is interpreted by Korean laws.  Also, as
I said above, American law goes into more detail.

>4) Of course then there is the issue of Mr. WonYong thinking that the Korean
>Language Wikipedia should abide by South Korean Law. I've had serious NPOV
>disputes with him over this - suffice to say that he introduced the idea of
>a "South Korea-specific NPOV". I'll post on this on a separate email.
>
It is a Wikipedia for the Korean *language*, not the South Korean
*nation*.  Of course North Korea is the only other country where the
same language is official, but it's hard to take its laws into account
when the people there have little or no access to the internet..  If we
assume that some distant day their Wikipedia access is made available
what then happen if the two countries had different laws on this?  A
more practical issue is the laws that apply to overseas ethnic Koreans
who continue to read and write the language.  They are still bound by
the laws of the country where they live.  There is no such thing as a
nation-specific NPOV; there is just NPOV.

Ec


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fair use images on user pages and enforcement

body:
On 16 Jan 2006, at 08:28, Interiot wrote:
> Most of them are "a list of everything I'm uploaded".  It's
> fantastic that they've uploaded so many
> images, but it would be still better if all fair-use [[Image:...]]
> were turned into [[:Image:...]]
> links.  Do these look like the sort of things that should be
> changed by a bot?  Given how helpful
> these users have been, I would be more in favor of discussing it on
> their talk pages first.

Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images
helpful? Upload more than a few and its
no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.

Justinc


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Webhosting sans userboxes

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vufors

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060117/abe4fbcf/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Daniel Wunsch

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re[4]: wiki buttons design

body:
On Monday 16 January 2006 17:28, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Please, no cryptic symbols like that. The point of a toolbar is to make
> it intuitive to format wikitext. A newbie neither knows what double
> square brackets mean nor what "~" could stand for. The blue, underlined
> "Ab" works perfectly well. Sure, it's Latin characters, but they are
> internationally recognizable.

i found the underlined Ab misleading -
for me, it looks like "underline my text".

daniel


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> See SPUI (I believe - it may have been somebody else) complaining that
> the SfD regulars were doing funny things with stub redirects.
>

I think the complaint was that they were not leaveing them in place.

> Or, somewhat more generally, would you be opposed to the creation of
> "Webcomics for deletion", "Computer and video games for deletion", "U.
> S. streets for deletion", etc.?
>
> Kirill Lokshin

SFD is a slight odity in that it handles only meta content and exists
because the stuff it deals with isn't properly covered by any other
form of deletion.

Webcomics for deletion is clearly two narrow a band for deletion. It
would require NP patrolers to learn stupidly high numbers of AFD tags.
subdivision into wider bands would probably be desirable if a way can
be found to do it without requireing to great an expenditure of
rescources.~~~~

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, my idea was that step 3 of the AFD nom process would be
> changed, initially placing noms in a holding cell-type area.
> Interested parties (possibly a dedicated deletion-sorting project)
> would then move the noms to a project deletion page, or to the main
> AFD page if no suitable project existed.
>
> Kirill Lokshin

Uses up way too many rescoures and runs into the problem of POV
projects (they have existed and will exist again). Follow the link for
my aproach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni/test

Of course the catigories will need tuneing (at the moment they are
just the ones from the main page).

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 1/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, my idea was that step 3 of the AFD nom process would be
> > > changed, initially placing noms in a holding cell-type area.
> > > Interested parties (possibly a dedicated deletion-sorting project)
> > > would then move the noms to a project deletion page, or to the main
> > > AFD page if no suitable project existed.
> > >
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> >
> > Uses up way too many rescoures and runs into the problem of POV
> > projects (they have existed and will exist again). Follow the link for
> > my aproach:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni/test
> >
> > Of course the catigories will need tuneing (at the moment they are
> > just the ones from the main page).
>
> Interesting.  I would increase the number of categories significantly;
> simply splitting AFD into 8 chunks does little, in my view, to solve
> its main structural problem: that a centralized listing makes pasting
> "* NN, D. ~~~~" into every subpage entirely too easy.
>
> Kirill Lokshin

Increaseing splitting makes life mach harder for NP patrol people and
makes it harder for people to find AFDs. No one copies and pastes NN,D
onto every subpage.  WP:RFC shows that spliting into a small number
catigories increases participation.

--
geni


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion coming

body:
Update regarding this issue:

Brion had sourceforge begin a conversion of our cvs repository as
described here: https://sourceforge.net/docs/E09 . After that  I
downloaded our cvs tarball and tried to convert it to a subversion
dump locally with the steps described here:
http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/cvs2svn . As you can see there's a
slight corruption in our repository which the sourceforge conversion
presumably stopped on (bug report filed by Brion here:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1407846&group_id=1&atid=596964
)

Having solved that I proceeded to import my local dump into a
subversion repository using the bdb filesystem, running into another
issue: http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/svn2bdb (bug report filed by me
here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1407877&group_id=1&atid=596964
), I then tried again with the fsfs filesystem which worked, but there
might still be some corruption.

Anyway I have my own publically accessable "fork" of the MediaWiki
repository available now at http://avar.lir.dk/mw_svn/ It's publically
+rw so feel free to play around with it if only to learn how
subversion operates. As a tribute to our two previous forks it's
called ?notifwiki and you can only commit to it if you promise to obey
my coding style which is that you must use negative indentation, code
must be right-aligned at the 80th column. Also, all comments have to
be in either Hungarian or Klingon.

= Statistics
874M svn dump file
176M unpacked cvs repository
284M  fsfs filesystem
# of files in the fsfs filesystem: 25454

= How to get it running:

$ svn co http://avar.lir.dk/mw_svn/trunk/phase3

or

$ svn co http://avar.lir.dk/mw_svn/trunk

for the whole thing

then just modify something, "svn diff file" (no -u) and "svn ci file"

and of course there's other neat svn stuff, like every commit getting
a single revision (no more per-file-revisions,just try svn diff
-r12716:12717) and file properties etc.


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>
> On 16 Jan 2006, at 08:28, Interiot wrote:
>
>> Most of them are "a list of everything I'm uploaded".  It's
>> fantastic that they've uploaded so many
>> images, but it would be still better if all fair-use [[Image:...]]
>> were turned into [[:Image:...]]
>> links.  Do these look like the sort of things that should be  changed
>> by a bot?  Given how helpful
>> these users have been, I would be more in favor of discussing it on
>> their talk pages first.
>
>
> Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images
> helpful? Upload more than a few and its
> no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.

For postage stamps alone, there are about 200 modern countries, and
one would want at least five recent (still under copyright by their
postal admins) stamps just to illustrate basic facts, so there's
a thousand unavoidable fair-use images right there. The world is a
big place...

Stan


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
Snowspinner (Snowspinner at gmail.com) [060117 06:40]:

> A) Most of the horrifying incivility in the webcomics debate actually
> came in trying to write guidelines.
> B) The MUSIC guidelines are deeply, deeply flawed.

WP:MUSIC only got as far as it did by its supperorters saying "no no it
isn't policy, it's only a guideline!" then turning around once it was
entrenched and saying "actually it might as well be policy." It's grossly
popcentric and US-centric for a start.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
Snowspinner (Snowspinner at gmail.com) [060117 07:27]:

> I agree. But it's still the best thing that I can do, right now, to
> deal with a mounting disaster. Hopefully other admins will go along
> with it and we can get a kind of movement thing going. I made a
> template {{expert undeletion}}. Add it to your userpage. :)

Good one. I've done so. Though you mean {{expert recovery}} ;-)

(Note, of course, the additional text I've put on my page on the subject
of deletions.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
Matt R (matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk) [060117 08:27]:
> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Looks like the doll-collector's wiki is saying "bugger Wikipedia" and
> > picking a CC license specifically to maintain incompatibility -
> > they've been put off the idea of Wikipedia *that badly*.

> I haven't really been following this, but are you sure they felt the need to
> fork because of AfD?

Go read the threads. Yes, explicitly because of the webcomics debacle and
the way experts are actually treated on AFD/DRV, which is to say really
very badly. They didn't even want to risk that.

I'm shouting about it because (a) it's a completely unnecessary fork and
quite definitely happened for this reason and (b) this just happens to be
one we *know about*.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [060117 08:32]:
> Matt R (matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk) [060117 08:27]:
> > --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Looks like the doll-collector's wiki is saying "bugger Wikipedia" and
> > > picking a CC license specifically to maintain incompatibility -
> > > they've been put off the idea of Wikipedia *that badly*.

> > I haven't really been following this, but are you sure they felt the need to
> > fork because of AfD?

> Go read the threads. Yes, explicitly because of the webcomics debacle and
> the way experts are actually treated on AFD/DRV, which is to say really
> very badly. They didn't even want to risk that.
> I'm shouting about it because (a) it's a completely unnecessary fork and
> quite definitely happened for this reason and (b) this just happens to be
> one we *know about*.

I should add: it's distinctly odd and disquieting to see so many people
reacting to this with apparent denial - claiming it couldn't really be
because Wikipedia has places that threat people badly enough that outsiders
don't want to risk it any more, it must be some other barely-plausible
reason. (I remember geni trying to make this out to be the case with the
Comixpedia fork even when it was explicitly because AFD were being complete
arses.) This is actually a problem and I submit that it's a serious one.
Is two enough? Will it be a problem with three or four? It's not the fact
of the forks, it's the reason for them.

- d.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Desysopping procedure against
	waerth

body:
This is truly sad. I think we need Jimbo to declare that NL will have an arbcom to get things
going. I would recommend that he appoint you as its first member. De-sysop indeed. Things must be
very bad on nl if somebody I trust as much as I trust you gets desysoped there.

Maybe you should tell them that I and the board trust you so much that you have read access to the
foundation PayPal account and can edit the foundation wiki. You have never abused those rights and
are still very much so trusted.

Everybody on every wiki needs to know that rules *only* exist to serve our goal of creating and
distributing the best encyclopedia in the world. They should *never* be used as weapons against
people you happen to not like for whatever reason and they certainly do *not* exist for their own
sake. That is in fact what the ignore all rules policy is all about.

-- mav

--- Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:

> A desysopping procedure against me has started on nl:
>
> A brilliant timing btw my sysopstatus will be taken away on my birthday.
> As I have said before. If I get desysopped something breaks in me. As I
> have always done a lot for the community. It is ironic that on nl: the
> trolls can stay, as they do not even get blocked! And the one who is
> constantly trying to keep things going looses his modstatus.
>
> I have tried after a year of discussing to finally get a blockpolicy
> going on nl: that allows blocks for more than 24 hours. 7 proposals have
> been made by 7 users. But no what do they want on nl: they want to
> discuss things further. Meanwhile trolls feast on nl: and multiple users
> have left already. Also an arbcom has been discussed for over a year.
> And everytime someone has a proposal they discuss further and further
> and further. NL: has become a discussionforum in which proposals are
> discussed, but never ever implemented. I tried to further it by warning
> people on their userpages that wikipedia is not a discussionforum. They
> responded with a desysoppingprocedure here:
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Afzetting_moderators
>
> This is the worst birthday gift after over 2 years of hard work. I
> defended nl.wikipedia a number of times over the radio as a
> presscontact. everyone said I had done a good job. I now feel stupid
> sorry for doing  such a good job. This community doesn't deserve people
> who are willing to work hard.
>
> Waerth/Walter
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Desysopping procedure against waerth


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
Kirill Lokshin (kirill.lokshin at gmail.com) [060117 08:56]:

> I'll point out that there are certain portions of the Wikipedia
> population which LIKE the culture of AFD.  These portions are quite
> vehemently against any major reform; and so long as AFD continues to
> operate (and it will, barring another Uncle Ed incident) they have no
> incentive to negotiate over the issue.

And the regular assumption that AFD as it is is the only way a deletion
process could ever be. "AFD is fucked." "What, you want to keep
everything? RADICAL INCLSUIONIST!!1!" Apparently regulars such as Geogre
consider me a "radical inclusionist." WTF.

- d.


from_name: Claudi Meneghin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] ligurian wikipedia, updated

body:
Sirs,
  so far (14/01/06) the request for a Ligurian wikipedia is approved, nor has it been moved elsewhere by anybody.
  So I would like to request a Ligurian wikipedia, with domain

  http://lij.wikipedia.org   ;

  now this is a 'standard' request, since there is no odd story as to this subject. Many thanks.
  Yours sincerely,

  Claudio Meneghini

---------------------------------
 Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.T?l?chargez la version beta.


from_name: Heinz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Cannot change content of navigation bar because
	$wgUseDatabaseMessages=false

body:
Jan Vanoverpelt schrieb:
> Dear,
>
> After installation of the Mediawiki-software, I changed the default
> "English" language into Dutch by changing $wgLanguageCode in
> localsettings.php AND by setting $wgUseDatabaseMessages=false in
> defaultsettings.php (the latter had to be done in order to see the changes,
> like is indicated in the Mediawiki-FAQ).
>
> My problem is that because $wgUseDatabaseMessages=false, I cannot display
> the page "special:allmessages" anymore, neither can I change the content of
> the navigation bar. As a solution for this problem, the FAQ-answer proposes
> to run the script rebuildMessages.php in the maintenance-folder. I did this
> by running an FTP-program, selecting the remote file and pressing "execute"
> but without any results.
>
> Does anyone know how I can fix this problem so I am allowed to see the page
> special:allmessages and change the content of the navigation bar while I
> still have my wiki-site in the Dutch language?
>
> thanks in advance!
Have a look on http://en.giswiki.de I made use of

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ#Using_a_wikipage_as_a_source_for_a_navigation_bar

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/

-> MediaWiki_FAQ#Using_a_wikipage_as_a_source_for_a_navigation_bar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikidata - Where can i find up-to-date PHP-code

body:
Where can i find up-to-date PHP-code of WIKIDATA - development.

thx, Heinz


from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conlang Wikipedia

body:
On 1/16/06, Mike Kuklinski <admin at kuattech.com> wrote:
>     I know that this would never go on 'officially' for Wikipedia, but
> if I assembled a Wikipedia on one of my servers for my conlang,
> Dasprach, and it had substantial amounts of information (better than
> most of the 'real' Wikipedias), do you think it would be allowed for me
> to move my user-page for Dasprach
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antman/Dasprach) (an improved
> version) to the main namespace?

Whether you write or lot or not about it doesn't matter: the chief
issue here is notability.  Many people run Wikis on personal servers,
and many people have invented conlangs.

To write about your conlang on Wikipedia, this conlang wiki would
first have to be notable.  A minimal requirement for this, IMO, would
be a significant number of users, articles, and links to the site from
the Internet at large.

In general, it's probably not a good idea to start a project with the
goal of meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements so you can write
about it on Wikipedia.  It's hard to decide objectively when exactly
it's notable enough when you're the one doing the work.  I'd say do
the project for its own sake, and if it takes off, it'll get written
about eventually.

regards,

Steve


from_name: STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unexisting Wiki policy is enforced?

body:
I would like to know if it's possible for editors on
Wiki to be blocked for things that are not covered in
the policy of Wikipedia. This is what has happened to
me. I was blocked for displaying a photo on my
userpage. The photo in question was of another user
and was in "good standing". I was given an ultimatum
to remove the photo or be blocked. I argued that I had
the right to display the photo on my userpage and that
there was nothing in the policy that disallowed me
from doing so. I also argued that the user in question
agreed to release the photo under GDU at the time when
they uploaded the photo.

FeloniousMonk blocked me for 24-hours for harassment
and disruption. I don't see how I did any of that by
having the photo displayed on my userpage. Nowhere in
your policy does it say that we can disrupt by having
a photo in "good standing" displayed on our userpage.
I would like to know whether I am in the wrong, and if
so, why; and I would like to be unblocked. Thank you.

Anittas.

Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Warning

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


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: mwdumper problems

references:
<dpqefb$8m4$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<8a93c6a0601081431w46005a66x49aa8f4336a2fe50@mail.gmail.com>
	<dqi8lj$nh3$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
What does Special:Allpages show?

Rob Church

On 17/01/06, candy <ccanddyy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jitse Niesen wrote:
> > On 1/8/06, candy <ccanddyy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I tried to import the entire english wikipedia dump(some 15 gigs) in to
> >>mediawiki1.4.
> >>The entire process took 2 days and then, it seems nothing happened !
> >>I got an error like the following in between somewhere.
> >>
> >>ERROR 1062 (23000) at line 28: Duplicate entry '1' for key 1
> >>
> >>But the import was not aborted. So I let it continue.
> >
> >
> > I never tried importing the dump in MediaWiki 1.4, but I had the same
> > problem in 1.5. The solution for me was to empty some tables first. In
> > 1.5, the following does the trick: Run "mysql -u root -p wikidb" and
> > give the commands "truncate page; truncate revision; truncate text;".
> > My guess is that in 1.4 you need to do "truncate cur;".
> >
> > Jitse
>
>
> I did as you instructed by emptying the cur, old ,and blobs tables. The
> import went on for 3 days. The size of the database wikidb(in this case)
> increased to 4.1 GB. only although the total dump is 15 gig big.
> After the import was over, I started the http server, and if I try to
> search some page say "FRance" in the search field, no results are
> obtained showing the import was not successful. What do you think is the
> problem.
> Is there something more I should do?
>
> Candy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
On 1/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 1/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Actually, my idea was that step 3 of the AFD nom process would be
> >>changed, initially placing noms in a holding cell-type area.
> >>Interested parties (possibly a dedicated deletion-sorting project)
> >>would then move the noms to a project deletion page, or to the main
> >>AFD page if no suitable project existed.
> >>
> >>Kirill Lokshin
> >
> >
> > Uses up way too many rescoures and runs into the problem of POV
> > projects (they have existed and will exist again). Follow the link for
> > my aproach:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni/test
> >
> > Of course the catigories will need tuneing (at the moment they are
> > just the ones from the main page).
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting

Nice!  Of course, it doesn't appear to have any plans to remove sorted
items from the main AFD list - which is pretty much what I'm getting
at.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On 17/01/06, Heinz <h-j.luecking at t-online.de> wrote:
> Where can i find up-to-date PHP-code of WIKIDATA - development.

Well, there's a "wikidata" branch in the CVS repository which Erik has
checked some preliminary changes into, so get yourself a CVS client
(or maybe SVN, see other posts here...) and check out that branch
(module "phase3", as normal). Whether there's stuff on his hard-drive
that's not committed there yet, I couldn't say, but that's as
up-to-date as a *public* copy is likely to be.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
I've started dropping messages on some of their talk pages, suggesting
they remove the links or change them to the [[:Image: format instead.
A bot might be useful for some of these cases though (inactive users,
or very large pages).

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] PHP & APC intermittent method call failure problem

body:
We've been having a problem with some method calls failing mysteriously on the
servers, which seems worse under PHP 5 with the APC opcode cache.

Tim's filed a bug report here, which has got some feedback likening it to a
known problem with mixed early binding and late binding:

http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=6503

Since the PHP documentation doesn't cover this early / late binding issue at
all, I want to make sure we actually know what it is. :)

Poking about I found this commit notice which has some relatively clear
explanations: http://news.php.net/php.pecl.cvs/4288

As I understand it, the problem is situations like this...

A.php:
  class A { ... }

B.php:
  require_once 'A.php'
  class B extends A { ... }

Early-binding scenario:
  require_once 'A.php';
  require_once 'B.php'; // A is already defined when *compiling* B

Late-binding scenario:
  require_once 'B.php'; // A is loaded only when B is *run*

The Zend bytecode compiler emits different code depending on whether the base
class was known at compile time, so APC's caching can get confused when you pop
back and forth between these cases.

Our problem is that whether A or B (or C or D) gets loaded is a runtime
decision, and the code that loads one or the other doesn't know about B's
dependencies.

The cases where this seems to frequently come up are:
* Localization handlers, where we have some classes inherit code from a similar
language or variant ("LanguageZh_tw extends LanguageZh")
* Skins, where some are slight variants on a base skin

One possible quickie workaround is to toss in another include which loads the
depdendencies that aren't guaranteed to be preloaded, and hit it first:

LanguageZh_tw.php:
  require_once 'LanguageZh.php';
  class LanguageZh_tw extends LanguageZh { ... }

LanguageZh_tw.deps.php:
  require_once 'LanguageUtf8.php';
  require_once 'LanguageZh.php';

Setup.php:
  ...
  wfSuppressWarnings();
  include_once("$IP/languages/$wgLangClass.deps.php");
  include_once("$IP/languages/$wgLangClass.php");
  wfRestoreWarnings();
  ...

Still wrapping my head around this issue, but I think this makes some kind of
sense...

-- 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/20060117/98453484/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
The first problems I see are 1. transparency and 2.
linking to prior AfD debates if the page is nominated
again. Can't we just add AfD to robots.txt? There's
not any reason that I can fathom that anyone besides
people who are actually on Wikipedia anyway would need
to see it. Or is there something about that that I'm
missing?

Point 1 should be essential, though. [[WP:AGF]] and
all that. Not all articles about non-notable people
are submitted by the people themselves.

-Hermione1980

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

[snip]
>
> 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion
> is deleted.  If there
> is a need to have a stub page left there to guide
> people to the fact
> that there was a prior debate, then create that stub
> fresh, with the
> history gone.  In the event it is needed, the
> history can always be
> resurrected by some admin.
>
> Is there anything wrong with this concept?

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


from_name: Martin Baumann

subject: [Wikitech-l] renaming index.php to index.cgi

body:
Hi everyone!

First of all I explain the problem.
I installed and configured mediawiki and it works so far. The only problem is uploading files.

The server used here is used by a lot of users. Therefore it is configurated in a way that makes it necessary for all php scripts that do file operations (such as uploading images) to be renamed to cgi and add a new line in the beginning that calls the correct interpreter for this cgi script. Only this way safe mode restrictions can be handled on this machine.

A disadvantage of this is that cgi scrips are ran more slowly than php scripts on this server. Therefore it would be best to use index.cgi for uploading images and index.php for all other purposes.

I tried to use index.cgi only: I renamed index.php to index.cgi and added the interpretar line into it. Further I replaced 'index.php' calls in all media wiki script files by 'index.cgi' calls.
But it didn't work: when I opend the index.cgi in a browser (I tried several browsers) it took some time and then the following error was shown:
Redirection limit for this URL exceeded.

Is there a simple way to make changes to media wiki such that it is started as a cgi and not as php script file?
Does anyone have experience with this?

Thanks, MB
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
I hope you realise that there is more to this than meets the eye.
Waerth has been doing things that were awfull. This list is not nice
and I will not bother you with a complete decomfiture. Understand that
I like Waerth as a person. I do admire his hard work. The fact is also
that I found it necessary to vote.

I have been warned on my user page by Waerth because I dared to
suggest that it would be good to take some time and reduce the number
of options to vote for in a block policy to something more manageable.
Some eight admins were threatened with a desysop procedure for the
same reason. It is abuse of power like this that made me decide to
vote.

The fact that vandals need to be dealt with does not mean that
everything is allowed in this fight. It may be true that much time was
wasted, but there is always another day.

I do not mind when you vote for Waerth, but when you do, please do it
after having learned the reasons why it came this far in the first
place.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 1/17/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> A desysopping procedure against me has started on nl:
>
> A brilliant timing btw my sysopstatus will be taken away on my birthday.
> As I have said before. If I get desysopped something breaks in me. As I
> have always done a lot for the community. It is ironic that on nl: the
> trolls can stay, as they do not even get blocked! And the one who is
> constantly trying to keep things going looses his modstatus.
>
> I have tried after a year of discussing to finally get a blockpolicy
> going on nl: that allows blocks for more than 24 hours. 7 proposals have
> been made by 7 users. But no what do they want on nl: they want to
> discuss things further. Meanwhile trolls feast on nl: and multiple users
> have left already. Also an arbcom has been discussed for over a year.
> And everytime someone has a proposal they discuss further and further
> and further. NL: has become a discussionforum in which proposals are
> discussed, but never ever implemented. I tried to further it by warning
> people on their userpages that wikipedia is not a discussionforum. They
> responded with a desysoppingprocedure here:
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Afzetting_moderators
>
> This is the worst birthday gift after over 2 years of hard work. I
> defended nl.wikipedia a number of times over the radio as a
> presscontact. everyone said I had done a good job. I now feel stupid
> sorry for doing  such a good job. This community doesn't deserve people
> who are willing to work hard.
>
> Waerth/Walter
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Rowan Collins:
> On 17/01/06, Heinz <h-j.luecking at t-online.de> wrote:
>> Where can i find up-to-date PHP-code of WIKIDATA - development.
>
> Well, there's a "wikidata" branch in the CVS repository which Erik has
> checked some preliminary changes into, so get yourself a CVS client
> (or maybe SVN, see other posts here...) and check out that branch
> (module "phase3", as normal). Whether there's stuff on his hard-drive
> that's not committed there yet, I couldn't say, but that's as
> up-to-date as a *public* copy is likely to be.

That's correct. The WIKIDATA branch contains the complete namespace
manager changes, as well as slightly modified title rendering code. In
addition to this branch, there's the files of the current GEMET
read-only implementation at
http://epov.org/wd-gemet/index.php/Main_Page

The view code is not going to CVS since it's very preliminary, but I
will commit the importer (probably to a separate module) and the table
definitions as soon as they have reached some stability.

If there's anything in particular you're interested in, drop me a line.

Best,

Erik


from_name: ea

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Automatic Capitalisation: als, br, nah,
 sr Wiktionary - please turn off

body:
Hello, please could you turn off the automatic capitalisation on the
following four Wiktionaries: als, br, nah, sr

1.) http://als.wiktionary.org
The native speaker Melancholie is supporting this request on the
Alemannic Wiktionary, see:
http://als.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Stammtisch#ZuTun
and
http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Melancholie#Automatic_Capitalisation

2.,3.) The Breton and Nahuatl Wiktionaries have no community yet, but it
would make sense to turn the capitalisation off because Nahuatl is
mostly written decapitalised and also Breton does differ between
capitalised and non capitalised words.
http://br.wiktionary.org
http://nah.wiktionary.org

4.) http://sr.wiktionary.org
see the voting:
http://sr.wiktionary.org/wiki/??????????:?????_?????????#??????_?????
(http://sr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%9E%D0%BF%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5#.D0.92.D0.B5.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B0_.D1.81.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0)

It makes perfect sense to turn off the autocapitalisation while those
Wiktionaries are still small.
Als has 1 (2) active members willing to make the necessary changes
afterwards,
on Br there is no work to do at all, on Nah I myself will do the changes
(which also are very few).
on Sr there is a community which is in favor of the changes (with no
votes against) and willing to do the changes.

Many thanks in advance,
best regards
Elisabeth Anderl (aka Spacebirdy)


from_name: Andreas Vilén

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Registering www.wikipedia.se for sv.wikipedia.org

body:
Hi, I've started a discussion at svwiki about registering the address
www.wikipedia.se (.se is the primary domain of Sweden), but it's
currently owned by someone, and it will probably cost money to buy it.
I have not contacted the person who owns it yet, but I'm checking if
there's any way this could be financed by Wikimedia? I also see that
for example www.wikipedia.de, www.wikipedia.no and www.wikipedia.pl
already exists.

I think registering the .se address would increase traffic to the
Swedish Wikipedia, since many today probably believe there is only an
English version of it, and I don't know, but I suspect that traffic to
svwiki is relatively low, at least we have pretty few editors.

Is there any possibility this could be done?

Thank you!

Andreas


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
I'm afraid I don't see the "deeply deeply flawed" nature of WP:MUSIC.  In my
experience, it's an incredibly useful tool.  It's also made a lot of AfD
discussions less contentious for WP newbies.  Instead of what seems like
dozens of people passing judgement on your band, it's people pointing to a
set of guidelines which doesn't allow for your band's inclusion.

The guidelines may be pop and Western oriented, but that's largely a
response to the specific problems which WP has had, namely with garage bands
from Western countries.  I don't see this as a indication of the flawed
nature of these guidelines.  As geni noted, when we are overrun with vanity
articles from music students in opera school promoting themselves, we can
add more specific sub-guidelines regarding opera.  Is there really a problem
with regards to non-pop or non-Western music?  The guidelines are vague and
inclusive enough that anything remotely notable can make it through provided
one is willing enough to provide a solid source or two, which should be
required anyway under WP:Cite your sources.

As far as this new template goes, I find it appalling that people find it
appropriate to openly declare their contempt for consensus in such a manner,
and I find it no better than that speedy deleted template which declared an
intention to violate image copyrights.  In my experience, a decent source or
two is all that's needed to save the shakiest article.  I really don't see
evidence of widespread loss of articles on notable topics, just an
occasional anomaly or two like Elf Only Inn that gets deleted. I'm sorry if
you find afd or vfu onerous and offensive, but let's let the system work
before you storm the Bastille, eh?  When the Cyrus Farivar article was on
Afd, Snowspinner openly declared his intention to override consensus and
that he'd insure the article was kept regardless.  It turned out there was
no consensus for delete, so Snowspinner's unilateral declaration was
completely unnecessary, but now what was a normal run of the mill deletion
vote looks like an illegitimate result.


from_name: Urs Richle

subject: [Wikitech-l] WebService for MediaWiki-Visualizations

body:
Hello
On purpose to visualize the semantic content of MediaWiki, I wrote a
WebService as a MediaWikiExtension. With this WebService it would be
possible to create independent visualizations outside of MediaWiki with the
technologie of your choice.
The WebService proposes the semantic net content of MediaWiki through tree
m?dthods:

 1) getTopicNames()
This method returns the different topic names of the MediaWiki plateform.
Topics can be of different types: existing or wanted category, existing or
wanted article, author, image. The methode returns an array : (topicTypeName
=> array(array(name, url))).

2) getTopicLinkage($term)
This method returns an array with the topic name, his type, the number of
links to this topic, the URL and an array with all links from this topic to
other topics (each link is an array(name, type, url)) types can be: existing
or wanted category, existing or wanted article, author, image. If no topic
matches to the term sent, NULL is returned.

3) getTopicMap()
This method returns the semantic content of the MediaWiki platform in XTM
(Topic Maps) standardised format. You can read the returned topic map with
applications like TMNav and TMBrows from TM4J.org or Omnigator from
ontopia.net. The returned topic map file is an XML file respecting the XTM
dtd with the extension "xtm".

MediaWiki-WebService uses the NuSOAP library:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nusoap

You can get the WebService Package here:
http://tecfax.unige.ch/portails/mediawiki/index.php/Special:SemanticWiki

An example of a WebService-Client you will find here:
http://tecfax.unige.ch/portails/mediawiki/extensions/WebService_CLIENT/

Comments and further developpement welcome!
Urs Richle


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Paying for providing data to customers

body:
*facepalm*...I don't think this'll get anywhere mostly because it's an
idiotic idea.

On 1/17/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> GerardM wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay
> > transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet.
> >
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54B748D6CF26%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=
> >
> > They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should
> > welcome this.
> >
> > This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our
> > mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth
> > Corp. knocking on our doors..
>
> I invite the honourable organisation to review the concept of bandwidth.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Jenkinson
> chris at starglade.org
>
> "Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
>   -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)


subject: [Wikitech-l] modified TouchGraph Visualization

body:
Hello
I've modified the TouchGraph Applet for MediaWiki Visualizations. There are
two menus added to select the visualization parameters: 1) types of links to
show and 2) size of nodes (in relation to counter, size or modifications for
each article).

The semantic-Wiki-content is updated daly by a cron-job.
You can download the hole package and install it on your own MediaWiki.

The running visualization is here:
http://tecfax.unige.ch/portails/mediawiki/index.php/Special:WikiViz

The download you will find here:
http://tecfax.unige.ch/portails/mediawiki/index.php/Special:SemanticWiki

Comments and further developpement welcome!

Urs Richle


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> It is increasingly common that non-notable people write to me after they
> find their own name in Wikipedia via a google search.  They are finding,
> of course, their own AFD entry ... They feel sad and annoyed enough
> to write letters to me about it.

> What I recommend is the following procedure: ...
>
> 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.

I like the idea of deleting the VfD page when the debate has closed. I
remember one debate about a teenager who had killed himself, where the
discussion about whether he was notable involved allegations that his
parents were implicated in his death. That very hurtful page is
probably still floating out there on Google.

The broader issue is why we allow Google to pick up any of our talk or
project pages, where NPOV, NOR, and V don't apply. Can anyone explain
why we allow that?

Sarah


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
I don't agree with this move. I think that Wikipedia.se should be a
portal with links to the Swedish, Finnish, and Sami Wikipedias because
they are all languages of Sweden.

Mark

On 17/01/06, Andreas Vil?n <andreas.vilen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I've started a discussion at svwiki about registering the address
> www.wikipedia.se (.se is the primary domain of Sweden), but it's
> currently owned by someone, and it will probably cost money to buy it.
> I have not contacted the person who owns it yet, but I'm checking if
> there's any way this could be financed by Wikimedia? I also see that
> for example www.wikipedia.de, www.wikipedia.no and www.wikipedia.pl
> already exists.
>
> I think registering the .se address would increase traffic to the
> Swedish Wikipedia, since many today probably believe there is only an
> English version of it, and I don't know, but I suspect that traffic to
> svwiki is relatively low, at least we have pretty few editors.
>
> Is there any possibility this could be done?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
Whatever happened to trusting the community? When cs.wiki... umm...
well, whatever it was that happened there, the mantra of "Trust Local
Bureaucrats" was repeated over and over again.

Now that something is amiss at the Dutch Wikipedia, though, we decide
we must intervene because We Loves Walter?

Can we try to be consistent, here, people? Please?

Mark

On 17/01/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is truly sad. I think we need Jimbo to declare that NL will have an arbcom to get things
> going. I would recommend that he appoint you as its first member. De-sysop indeed. Things must be
> very bad on nl if somebody I trust as much as I trust you gets desysoped there.
>
> Maybe you should tell them that I and the board trust you so much that you have read access to the
> foundation PayPal account and can edit the foundation wiki. You have never abused those rights and
> are still very much so trusted.
>
> Everybody on every wiki needs to know that rules *only* exist to serve our goal of creating and
> distributing the best encyclopedia in the world. They should *never* be used as weapons against
> people you happen to not like for whatever reason and they certainly do *not* exist for their own
> sake. That is in fact what the ignore all rules policy is all about.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> --- Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> > A desysopping procedure against me has started on nl:
> >
> > A brilliant timing btw my sysopstatus will be taken away on my birthday.
> > As I have said before. If I get desysopped something breaks in me. As I
> > have always done a lot for the community. It is ironic that on nl: the
> > trolls can stay, as they do not even get blocked! And the one who is
> > constantly trying to keep things going looses his modstatus.
> >
> > I have tried after a year of discussing to finally get a blockpolicy
> > going on nl: that allows blocks for more than 24 hours. 7 proposals have
> > been made by 7 users. But no what do they want on nl: they want to
> > discuss things further. Meanwhile trolls feast on nl: and multiple users
> > have left already. Also an arbcom has been discussed for over a year.
> > And everytime someone has a proposal they discuss further and further
> > and further. NL: has become a discussionforum in which proposals are
> > discussed, but never ever implemented. I tried to further it by warning
> > people on their userpages that wikipedia is not a discussionforum. They
> > responded with a desysoppingprocedure here:
> > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Afzetting_moderators
> >
> > This is the worst birthday gift after over 2 years of hard work. I
> > defended nl.wikipedia a number of times over the radio as a
> > presscontact. everyone said I had done a good job. I now feel stupid
> > sorry for doing  such a good job. This community doesn't deserve people
> > who are willing to work hard.
> >
> > Waerth/Walter
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

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

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>Hermione1980 wrote:
>>
>>>The first problems I see are 1. transparency
>>
>>I see no problem with transparency.  Transparency doesn't mean that we
>>are in any way required to carry every little snippet of non-notable
>>discussion on things forever.
>
>
> It pretty much does.

To my amazement, I agree with geni.

I want to keep a public record of exactly how mind-boggling hostile AfD
is, and what a horrific experience it is to have an article one has
worked on subjected to that vicious process.

We need AfD to remain /fully/ transparent, at least internally, so that
the myriad insults and assumptions of bad faith are not hidden.

You think AfD is toxic now, just wait until no one can be held
accountable for their attacks!

- --
 Sean Barrett     | To bite off your shadow is neither easy nor
 sean at epoptic.org | painless. It demands a single-mindedness
                  | that is almost unknown in this day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDzYUgMAt1wyd9d+URAreCAJ4xYv/2FT8mTGXl/VBtpbjmJj3PYQCcDzc9
SQF6WDb1vWlwDbDinBmBMu4=
=GVaQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Brock Batsell

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Sam Korn wrote:

> Can robots.txt use wildcards?

Not according to the Robots Exclusion Standard, so no.

Regards,
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060117/8c032654/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

> Isn't there something you can put in the head of a html page that
> makes search engines not index that page. It would be trivial to
> change the mediawiki code to include that in all articles starting
> with "Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion", wouldn't it?

Yes, although in the past this hasn't been as widely supported as
robots.txt (it may be pretty much equal now).  I do believe that
disallowing spiders from /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion would
do the trick rather nicely.  The only way we can find out is to give
it a shot!

Regards,
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060117/e6fd39dc/attachment.pgp


from_name: Alexander Bobrov

subject: [Wikitech-l] wiki buttons design

body:
>> Of course, I will. I made these buttons specially for Wikipedia.
>> But to my shame I never used GPL before. How can I do it? Please be my
>> guide.

RC> See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

RC> But for present purposes, just posting a link to the source files
RC> (i.e. the most editable form of your images) to this list, with a
RC> comment like "these are hereby under the GPL" is fine, since the idea
RC> is to incorporate them into MediaWiki, at which point the general
RC> licensing info will cover them anyway.

These are hereby under the GPL:
  http://tactics.indians.ru/tmp/wiki/wiki_buttons.zip

  [2 PSD files in 1MB ZIP archive]

Alex Bobrov____________________________________________
Indian Summer Studio                 http://indians.ru/

......................................................................
This product was cruelly tested on small, furry animals.
......................................................................


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Snowspinner wrote:

> I disagree - the problem is, I think, created by the expectation
> and compulsion of comment. When your opinion is measured by whether
> you speak instead of by what you say, you are given more of a
> license to speculate. It doesn't matter what you say after
> "delete," after all. You're not really accountable for it, because
> the substantive part of what you say is "keep" or "delete."
> Everything else is posturing.
>
> If the content of your comment is your reason, and if your voice
> doesn't matter save for the reason you give to it, you are obliged
> to not be stupid in your reasons. Whereas right now, your reasons
> don't matter - just your right to put things in boldface.

I must say I think I agree with the gist of what Phil is saying ? I
don't think anyone on this list is harboring any ideas that AfD is
working perfectly at the moment.  I am concerned about the added
pressure and time required of the administrator closing this type of
AfD debate.  Are there any ways to alleviate this problem?

[[en:User:Bbatsell]]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060117/748cf3bc/attachment.pgp


from_name: gediza at gmail.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Kurdish wikipedia - copyrights

body:
It has came to my attention that Kurdish wikipedia is begining to be an
increasingly problematic issue as more and more copyrighted material appears
on it. This extends from identical chunks of text from hear and there pasted
to Kurdish wikipedia (many articles are unwikified implying such a violation
I have one example for such a violation and I did not look hard for it.)

Since kurdish wikipedia servers are in the US (I presume) at the very least
we should have some sort of regulation on Kurdish wikipedia.

Wikipedia link:
http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_%28rojname%29

Suspected copyvio:
http://www.copyscape.com/view.php?o=57949&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amidakurd.com%2Famida_Pirozbayi.html&t=1137507449&s=http%3A%2F%2Fku.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKurdistan_%2528rojname%2529&w=162&c=1

http://www.copyscape.com/view.php?o=57949&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kurdistanmedia.com%2FKurmanci%2Frojnameya_Agiri%2Fagiri_6%2F106saliya_rojnamevaniya_kurdi_pirozbe.htm&t=1137507449&s=http%3A%2F%2Fku.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKurdistan_%2528rojname%2529&w=59&c=1

Also there are image vios. Many images are not tagged. I do not want to say
all but I could not find a single tagged image.
http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galeriya_%C5%9Eeh%C3%AEd%C3%AAn_PKK

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

Furthermore I have serious concernes regarding the factual acuracy of
ku.wikipedia as there is little citation.

Some articles such as the galery above talks about the "fallen PKK comrades"
wikipedia is NOT a memorial (although the inaproporateness of
911.wikipediahas not been resolved yet). Nor is wikipedia median for
propoganda.

                          Cool Cat


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> The Zend bytecode compiler emits different code depending on whether the base
> class was known at compile time, so APC's caching can get confused when you pop
> back and forth between these cases.
[snip]
> One possible quickie workaround is to toss in another include which loads the
> depdendencies that aren't guaranteed to be preloaded, and hit it first:

I've added these for the skin and language files that have extra dependencies.
Hopefully that'll be the last we see of these errors in the logs...

-- 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/20060117/0e5f8c7c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
It is increasingly common that non-notable people write to me after they
find their own name in Wikipedia via a google search.  They are finding,
of course, their own AFD entry.

In these entries there are very very very VERY VERY VERY often comments
which suggest a suspicion that the entry was vanity.

"Non-notable scientist vanity.  Has very few publications. If he ever
publishes anything he should submit the page again then." -- paraphrase
of example problematic comment

Now imagine that you are very innocently minding your own business and
then you discover that this is the top ranked link in google for your
name.  How would you feel?

I can tell you how most people feel.  They feel sad and annoyed enough
to write letters to me about it.  And justifiably so.  And then I have
to figure out what to do with it.

What I recommend is the following procedure:

1. A general meme that it is extremely discourteous without absolute
positive proof to speculate that the author of some non-notable
biography is the subject himself or herself.  Yes, it is often true, but
there is zero gain to us from assuming this rather than assuming the
opposite.  We really don't care who wrote it: we care if it is worthy
for inclusion or not.

2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.  If there
is a need to have a stub page left there to guide people to the fact
that there was a prior debate, then create that stub fresh, with the
history gone.  In the event it is needed, the history can always be
resurrected by some admin.

Is there anything wrong with this concept?


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.  If there
> is a need to have a stub page left there to guide people to the fact
> that there was a prior debate, then create that stub fresh, with the
> history gone.  In the event it is needed, the history can always be
> resurrected by some admin.

Why delete (instead of just replacing the debate with a notice,
perhaps even protecting it that way, without deleting the existing
history) unless there's some compelling reason? Non-admins also ought
to be able to go back and look at the debate.

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast
upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
On 1/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting
>

Far to many catigories and would eat far too many rescources.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Can we prevent google from indexing Vfd discussion pages?  Preventing these
discussions from being a top google hit on a minor person or company is
something I strongly agree with, and this would be a way to do this without
sacrificing any openness or useful history.   I'd say delete them, but
vanity articles and articles that appear to be vanity are often resurrected
and old vfd discussions are useful in those instances.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 1/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay
> transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet.
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54B748D6CF26%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=
>
> They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should
> welcome this.
>

Seems to me like they're just trying to offer an additional service
(faster, more reliable) on top of the ones they already offer.  I
don't see the big deal.

Anthony


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:

> On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.  If
>> there
>> is a need to have a stub page left there to guide people to the fact
>> that there was a prior debate, then create that stub fresh, with the
>> history gone.  In the event it is needed, the history can always be
>> resurrected by some admin.
>
> Why delete (instead of just replacing the debate with a notice,
> perhaps even protecting it that way, without deleting the existing
> history) unless there's some compelling reason? Non-admins also ought
> to be able to go back and look at the debate.

Indeed - with the number of debates that close with two or three
votes - many of which are deeply flawed closes - I would be wary of
making it so fewer people can find bad debates.

I think another important thing here would be to do away with voting
on deletion. We supposedly did that when we called it AfD instead of
VfD, except we kept the vote structure. Why don't we just stop with
the bulleted list of boldfaced keep and delete votes and have it be
an actual discussion. You know. "This guy doesn't seem like a very
important figure in his field - I can't find any publications," says
one person. "I just found one in Journal X." "Oh, yeah, but he's
third author, and that's his only publication - he's probably a grad
student." And people who just want to chime in with "me too" delete
votes, well, don't have to.

Then closing admins can just read the discussion, read the arguments,
look at past precedent and make a call, remembering things like "when
in doubt, don't delete."

Best,
Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
If it's possible to do, it seems to me the solution requiring the least
potential future work (undeleting, etc.) would be simply fixing it so that
search engines can't archive these kinds of pages.

K.

On 1/17/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > It is increasingly common that non-notable people write to me after they
> > find their own name in Wikipedia via a google search.  They are finding,
> > of course, their own AFD entry ... They feel sad and annoyed enough
> > to write letters to me about it.
>
> > What I recommend is the following procedure: ...
> >
> > 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.
>
> I like the idea of deleting the VfD page when the debate has closed. I
> remember one debate about a teenager who had killed himself, where the
> discussion about whether he was notable involved allegations that his
> parents were implicated in his death. That very hurtful page is
> probably still floating out there on Google.
>
> The broader issue is why we allow Google to pick up any of our talk or
> project pages, where NPOV, NOR, and V don't apply. Can anyone explain
> why we allow that?
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> 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] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Phil,

The problem under discussion isn't created by the words "keep" and "delete"
on AFD pages, it's about the tenor of the discussion itself.  This solution
doesn't fix the base problem.

K.

On 1/17/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> > On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.  If
> >> there
> >> is a need to have a stub page left there to guide people to the fact
> >> that there was a prior debate, then create that stub fresh, with the
> >> history gone.  In the event it is needed, the history can always be
> >> resurrected by some admin.
> >
> > Why delete (instead of just replacing the debate with a notice,
> > perhaps even protecting it that way, without deleting the existing
> > history) unless there's some compelling reason? Non-admins also ought
> > to be able to go back and look at the debate.
>
> Indeed - with the number of debates that close with two or three
> votes - many of which are deeply flawed closes - I would be wary of
> making it so fewer people can find bad debates.
>
> I think another important thing here would be to do away with voting
> on deletion. We supposedly did that when we called it AfD instead of
> VfD, except we kept the vote structure. Why don't we just stop with
> the bulleted list of boldfaced keep and delete votes and have it be
> an actual discussion. You know. "This guy doesn't seem like a very
> important figure in his field - I can't find any publications," says
> one person. "I just found one in Journal X." "Oh, yeah, but he's
> third author, and that's his only publication - he's probably a grad
> student." And people who just want to chime in with "me too" delete
> votes, well, don't have to.
>
> Then closing admins can just read the discussion, read the arguments,
> look at past precedent and make a call, remembering things like "when
> in doubt, don't delete."
>
> Best,
> Phil
> _______________________________________________
> 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] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On 1/17/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's possible to do, it seems to me the solution requiring the least
> potential future work (undeleting, etc.) would be simply fixing it so that
> search engines can't archive these kinds of pages.
>
> K.
>

I still think (and I don't remember if it was my idea originally or
someone else's now :-)) that AfD needs to be in its own namespace and
not indexed by Google so it has the added bonus of not making searches
in Wikipedia: space useless by cluttering it up with noise.

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast
upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay
> transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet.
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54B748D6CF26%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=
>
> They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should
> welcome this.
>
> This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our
> mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth
> Corp. knocking on our doors..

I invite the honourable organisation to review the concept of bandwidth.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Katefan0 wrote:

> Phil,
>
> The problem under discussion isn't created by the words "keep" and
> "delete"
> on AFD pages, it's about the tenor of the discussion itself.  This
> solution
> doesn't fix the base problem.

I disagree - the problem is, I think, created by the expectation and
compulsion of comment. When your opinion is measured by whether you
speak instead of by what you say, you are given more of a license to
speculate. It doesn't matter what you say after "delete," after all.
You're not really accountable for it, because the substantive part of
what you say is "keep" or "delete." Everything else is posturing.

If the content of your comment is your reason, and if your voice
doesn't matter save for the reason you give to it, you are obliged to
not be stupid in your reasons. Whereas right now, your reasons don't
matter - just your right to put things in boldface.

-Phil


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> Can we prevent google from indexing Vfd discussion pages?
>>
>
> This would be a start, and I've talked to the dev's about it.  But I
> don't think it is sufficient.   Deletion seems much preferable to me.
>
How about a compromise position of just blanking the AfD page, perhaps
with a template to indicate that the old discussion can be found in
history? That way non-admins can examine old AfD results as well.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fair use images on user pages and enforcement

body:
"Justin Cormack" <justin at specialbusservice.com>
wrote in message
news:2487477A-0722-4E58-932B-D0B9B911F75E at specialbusservice.com...
[snip]
> Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images  helpful?
> Upload more than a few and its
> no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.

I'm sorry, did some Deity declare a hard limit on the number of unique
images in the universe while I wasn't looking?

If you were to upload one fair use image per day, complying properly with
the rules for each one, you would have 365 after a year, having broken no
laws.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Ben Emmel

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem - alternative proposal

body:
On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > I don't see the need to delete debates and as noted before, it would
> cause
> > problems when linking to earlier debates. And it would be harder for
> newbies
> > to figure out why "their" article was deleted.
>
> Ok, it sounds like everyone disagrees with me and I'm basically
> convinced by this argument.  I don't see much need for random people to
> look at these pages (and probably they almost never do), but certainly
> if newbies just suddenly find their article deleted and can't read way,
> they'll just be a pain in the neck by recreating over and over.
>
> So, I bow to the wisdom of others, and suggest this alternative
> (suggested by others):
>
> 1. blank and protect
> 2. leave the history there, but don't call special attention to it (this
> is so the victims don't feel that the blanking is pointless -- any
> wikipedian, even newbies, will know to click on 'history')
> 3. ask brion to see what he can cook up for blocking search spiders from
> it
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Do you mean blanking and protecting all VFD/AFD debates on
people/buisinesses that we have on record currently, or to start this
practice right away, and continuing it for only new debates? I think I agree
with geni here, going back to all the former debates and blanking/protecting
is going to take a very large amount of resources in terms of server load
and editor time.

However, I think I generally agree with this proposal. I recently had to
blank a AfD myself because of some hurtful comments about the subject.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
bratsche1 at gmail.com
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On 1/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > Hermione1980 wrote:
> > > > The first problems I see are 1. transparency
> > >
> > > I see no problem with transparency.  Transparency doesn't mean that we
> > > are in any way required to carry every little snippet of non-notable
> > > discussion on things forever.
> >
> > It pretty much does.
>
> Not to be facetious, but that does depend exactly *how much*
> transparency.  I think Jimbo's point is that there is no meaningful
> loss in transparency.
>
> > > If there's ever any reason anyone needs
> > > to look at it, then they can look at it.
> > >
> >
> > Not without some difficulty.
>
> Again, that is the balance to be struck.
>
> --
> Sam

I think that deleting VFD/AFD debates does eliminate a certain degree of
transparency. At the very least, we should keep a record on the comments and
result on the subpage, if not the actual comments themselves. I don't think
it is '''Delete''' that we are worrying about, but rather the actual text
that follows.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
bratsche1 at gmail.com
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
geni wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the rule I am suggesting could be limited to living persons and
>> existing companies, or something like that, but I really don't think
>> there's much use at all in these pages unless and until there is a
>> second debate.
>>
>
> I'm not sure it would be even technicaly posible. Well over 100 afds a
> day. We'd have to cheack through tens of  thousand of afds to find the
> ones that talk about living people.
>
We could just put the AfD pages up on AfD to determine whether they fall
under the guidelines requiring it to be deleted...


body:
geni wrote:
> Going over the archives is still going to be a major comitment of
> rescorces (unless we give a bot admin powers and people are still not
> completely happy about doing that).
>
A blanking-bot wouldn't require admin powers. Protecting them would, but
I expect that the vast majority of the blankings would never get
reverted so we can skip that for the time being on the old pages.

As for server resources, just adjust the bot's speed to whatever level's
acceptable. There isn't a pressing deadline.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
Change the value of $wgScript and related variables in
LocalSettings.php to prevent MediaWiki from redirecting back to
index.php.

Rob Church

On 17/01/06, Martin Baumann <mailsgetlost at web.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> First of all I explain the problem.
> I installed and configured mediawiki and it works so far. The only problem is uploading files.
>
> The server used here is used by a lot of users. Therefore it is configurated in a way that makes it necessary for all php scripts that do file operations (such as uploading images) to be renamed to cgi and add a new line in the beginning that calls the correct interpreter for this cgi script. Only this way safe mode restrictions can be handled on this machine.
>
> A disadvantage of this is that cgi scrips are ran more slowly than php scripts on this server. Therefore it would be best to use index.cgi for uploading images and index.php for all other purposes.
>
> I tried to use index.cgi only: I renamed index.php to index.cgi and added the interpretar line into it. Further I replaced 'index.php' calls in all media wiki script files by 'index.cgi' calls.
> But it didn't work: when I opend the index.cgi in a browser (I tried several browsers) it took some time and then the following error was shown:
> Redirection limit for this URL exceeded.
>
> Is there a simple way to make changes to media wiki such that it is started as a cgi and not as php script file?
> Does anyone have experience with this?
>
> Thanks, MB
> ______________________________________________________________
> Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
> Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] RfC: Multilingual MediaWiki

body:
A component milestone of Wikidata/WiktionaryZ development is true
multi-language support for page titles and content on the MediaWiki
level. We have funding to pay a developer to implement it (I'll be
working on versioning and object/relational mapping in the meantime),
and I have written the first set of specifications for this:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_MediaWiki

Note that this is in no way a proposal to merge existing Wikimedia
projects; in fact, MediaWiki should be fully backwards compatible and
continue to act exactly as it does now in monolingual installations
(there'll be a couple of new features, such as persistent UI language
selection for anonymous users). However, multilanguage support should be
enabled for wikis like Commons and Meta, where multiple languages are
handled in a single database.

I think I've come up with a fairly clever way of dealing with the
community issues of language filtering, but see for yourself. In any
event, I'd much appreciate feedback on this proposal before we go ahead
with the implementation, especially from Brion as the release manager. :-)

Best,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Rob wrote:
> Can we prevent google from indexing Vfd discussion pages?

This would be a start, and I've talked to the dev's about it.  But I
don't think it is sufficient.   Deletion seems much preferable to me.


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Hermione1980 wrote:
> The first problems I see are 1. transparency

I see no problem with transparency.  Transparency doesn't mean that we
are in any way required to carry every little snippet of non-notable
discussion on things forever.  If there's ever any reason anyone needs
to look at it, then they can look at it.

> and 2.
> linking to prior AfD debates if the page is nominated
> again.

What I'm suggesting is that we keep a page there, noting the existence
of a prior AfD debate, so that we can quickly yank that back into public
view if there's a good reason.

The point is: the problem isn't google indexing (though of course that's
a start), the problem is us retaining pages that hurt innocent people's
feelings for no reason.  I see no compelling argument for this.

If anyone ever accuses us for lack of transparency for doing this, my
mind will boggle.  SEKRET CABAL COVERS TRACKS?

--Jimbo


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> In these entries there are very very very VERY VERY VERY often comments
> which suggest a suspicion that the entry was vanity.
>
> "Non-notable scientist vanity.  Has very few publications. If he ever
> publishes anything he should submit the page again then." -- paraphrase
> of example problematic comment

This is actually how a friend of mine, Steuard Jensen, first got
interested in Wikipedia. He's somewhat notable amongst theoretical
physicists and J.R.R. Tolkien researchers (both small communities) and
someone put an article up about him. Which was promptly AFD'd with lots
of comments about his assumed vanity in writing it. His name is on lots
of pages Google references so it gets lost in the shuffle and wasn't as
big a deal, but still not a good thing.

> 1. A general meme that it is extremely discourteous without absolute
> positive proof to speculate that the author of some non-notable
> biography is the subject himself or herself.  Yes, it is often true, but
> there is zero gain to us from assuming this rather than assuming the
> opposite.  We really don't care who wrote it: we care if it is worthy
> for inclusion or not.

Human nature. You can try to get people to be 'nice'. With alot of work
you can even do it... for a while. However, after going through the
thirtieth bio about J. Smith who won the Kramer County spelling bee
championship (or whatever) >someone< is going to make a comment. Even if
  that somehow weren't the case... AfD is in many ways >inherently<
offensive. It declares a person/group/whatever 'not notable'... when
they will quite often disagree.

The whole 'Blooferlady' incident (on articles for 'Joseph Vargo' his
band), which I believe you got involved in, is a good example. She and
her partner sold quite alot of records and met alot of the listed
standards for music notability... but she was writing an article about
her business partner (which also had POV issues) so people voted to
delete it... and then she had this Google hit saying that her partner
was an un-notable hack. Yes, she was clearly trying to use Wikipedia to
'advertise' and that might well be a reason to delete, but not to put
out what amounts to >negative< advertisement.

> 2. At the close of all VfD debates, the discussion is deleted.  If there
> is a need to have a stub page left there to guide people to the fact
> that there was a prior debate, then create that stub fresh, with the
> history gone.  In the event it is needed, the history can always be
> resurrected by some admin.

Any way we can keep them out of Google works for me. Whether that's
deleting, blanking, putting them on 'ignore' lists, or whatever... any
of those options would be better than the current situation.


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
Kat Walsh wrote:
> Why delete (instead of just replacing the debate with a notice,
> perhaps even protecting it that way, without deleting the existing
> history) unless there's some compelling reason? Non-admins also ought
> to be able to go back and look at the debate.

Well, that's what I've done in a few cases, blank the page as a
courtesy.  But it is often the case that the poor person complains about
it being in the history.

My thinking is that it could be standard practice to temporarily
undelete it upon request anytime anyone has a reason to look at it.

In this way, we take the maximal steps to be sure that we're not
annoying innocent people for no reason, while still ensuring that we
have good information in the event of a second VfD.

Perhaps the rule I am suggesting could be limited to living persons and
existing companies, or something like that, but I really don't think
there's much use at all in these pages unless and until there is a
second debate.


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Paying for providing data to customers

body:
Hoi,
The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay
transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54B748D6CF26%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=

They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should
welcome this.

This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our
mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth
Corp. knocking on our doors..

Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> I don't see the need to delete debates and as noted before, it would cause
> problems when linking to earlier debates. And it would be harder for newbies
> to figure out why "their" article was deleted.

Ok, it sounds like everyone disagrees with me and I'm basically
convinced by this argument.  I don't see much need for random people to
look at these pages (and probably they almost never do), but certainly
if newbies just suddenly find their article deleted and can't read way,
they'll just be a pain in the neck by recreating over and over.

So, I bow to the wisdom of others, and suggest this alternative
(suggested by others):

1. blank and protect
2. leave the history there, but don't call special attention to it (this
is so the victims don't feel that the blanking is pointless -- any
wikipedian, even newbies, will know to click on 'history')
3. ask brion to see what he can cook up for blocking search spiders from it

--Jimbo


from_name: Angela

body:
> This is what was done with wikimedia.org.uk and .co.uk - though,
> oddly, not with wikipedia.co.uk and .org.uk, which both redirect to
> en.wiki. Their choice of the six languages to list is a little odd,
> though - sco. has about 1300 pages, whereas gv. has under 20!

There was never a decision to exclude sco. The Scots Wikipedia didn't
exist until June 2005. I created what became the portal in September
2004 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Portal.png>. Which reminds
me... I just randomly pasted in text from the intro on various
Wikipedias and as far as I know, it has never been checked by a native
speaker. It was meant as a demo, not something which would really
become wikimedia.co.uk. :)

This would be better as the Wikipedia portal, not Wikimedia one, since
it's excluding the rest of the projects and saying nothing about the
Wikimedia UK chapter.

Angela.


from_name: Mark Bergsma

body:
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay
> transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet.
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54B748D6CF26%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=
>
> They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should
> welcome this.
>
> This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our
> mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth
> Corp. knocking on our doors..

Without having read the entire article, it strikes me as odd that the
word 'transit' is not mentioned anywhere.

--
Mark

mark at nedworks.org


from_name: Maru Dubshinki

body:
On 1/17/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Seems to me like they're just trying to offer an additional service
> (faster, more reliable) on top of the ones they already offer.  I
> don't see the big deal.
>
> Anthony

The way these businesses work things, the slippery slope argument is
*very* applicable. Even if they charge for traffic, and they merely
impose extra charges on all new services and speeds,  eventually you
will have no choice but to pay, because bandwidth requirements go ever
up-  analogously, if someone offered you a totally free 512 bps
Internet connection, would you take it? What if "paying for premium
connections" had gotten started when 512 bps were the norm for home
users?

~Maru


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:

>On 1/16/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I have just added the following text to my userpage.
>>
>>==Expertise and deletion==
>>
>>If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject
>>considered notable enough to include on Wikiedia, I will, on your say-
>>so, close any deletion debate as "keep" within your field of
>>expertise, and will undelete any articles within your field that you
>>say are notable.
>>
>>It's a small step, but it's what I can do.
>>
>>
>
>Going for that coveted "Admin with the most RFCs filed against him"
>spot, I see ;-)
>
>It's a nice sentiment, but the approach really won't scale that well
>(unless a lot more admins go along with it) and will result in lots of
>upset users.  We really need broader institutional changes to the
>deletion process.
>
>Kirill Lokshin
>
>
I agree, Phil. I really think you should clarify this (probably on a
subpage linked to from your statement) or remove it. Even if it's meant
in good faith, it's way too easy for some well-meaning (yes, believe it
or not, a good number of the AfD crowd *are* acting in good faith)
people to take this the wrong way, as I see has already been done on
[[WP:ANI]].

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
On 1/17/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I still think (and I don't remember if it was my idea originally or
> someone else's now :-)) that AfD needs to be in its own namespace and
> not indexed by Google so it has the added bonus of not making searches
> in Wikipedia: space useless by cluttering it up with noise.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Kirill Lokshin (kirill.lokshin at gmail.com) [060117 08:56]:
>
>
>
>>I'll point out that there are certain portions of the Wikipedia
>>population which LIKE the culture of AFD.  These portions are quite
>>vehemently against any major reform; and so long as AFD continues to
>>operate (and it will, barring another Uncle Ed incident) they have no
>>incentive to negotiate over the issue.
>>
>>
>
>
>And the regular assumption that AFD as it is is the only way a deletion
>process could ever be. "AFD is fucked." "What, you want to keep
>everything? RADICAL INCLSUIONIST!!1!" Apparently regulars such as Geogre
>consider me a "radical inclusionist." WTF.
>
>
>- d.
>
>
>
>
Then what sort of process would you propose? Bear in mind that proposals
to merely *streamline* the deletion process (i.e.
[[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]]) were strongly opposed by both
hard-line inclusionists and deletionists. I can't even imagine the sort
of scandal over real major reform. And besides, what can be done? Give
more weight to "experts"? (I'm not anti-expert or anything; I just can't
see how this sort of thing can be accomplished without opening ourselves
up to POV pushers from the realm of academia - it's a slippery slope,
IMO - or getting the community's co-operation on this. Not to mention
how we might end up getting flooded with false claims of expertise on a
particular piece of subject matter.)

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD courtesy problem

body:
geni wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>Hermione1980 wrote:
>>
>>>The first problems I see are 1. transparency
>>
>>I see no problem with transparency.  Transparency doesn't mean that we
>>are in any way required to carry every little snippet of non-notable
>>discussion on things forever.
>
>
> It pretty much does.

No, it pretty much does not.

Should we do this a few more times, or can we perhaps add some content
to the discussion?


body:
Ben Emmel wrote:
> Do you mean blanking and protecting all VFD/AFD debates on
> people/buisinesses that we have on record currently, or to start this
> practice right away, and continuing it for only new debates? I think I agree
> with geni here, going back to all the former debates and blanking/protecting
> is going to take a very large amount of resources in terms of server load
> and editor time.
>
> However, I think I generally agree with this proposal. I recently had to
> blank a AfD myself because of some hurtful comments about the subject.

I'm assuming that if we adopt a general blank/protect policy going
forward, then people who care about the old ones could get around to
doing them whenever they feel like it.

"X takes a lot of work" doesn't usually deter someone from taking up the
challenge and doing it. :-)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary fork update

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 1/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Actually, my idea was that step 3 of the AFD nom process would be
>>changed, initially placing noms in a holding cell-type area.
>>Interested parties (possibly a dedicated deletion-sorting project)
>>would then move the noms to a project deletion page, or to the main
>>AFD page if no suitable project existed.
>>
>>Kirill Lokshin
>>
>>
>
>Uses up way too many rescoures and runs into the problem of POV
>projects (they have existed and will exist again). Follow the link for
>my aproach:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geni/test
>
>Of course the catigories will need tuneing (at the moment they are
>just the ones from the main page).
>
>
>--
>geni
>
>
I like this. Along with Preliminary Deletion, the categorisation of
deletions has always been one of my favoured proposals for reforming the
deletion process.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/17/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Justin Cormack" <justin at specialbusservice.com>
> wrote in message
> news:2487477A-0722-4E58-932B-D0B9B911F75E at specialbusservice.com...
> [snip]
> > Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images  helpful?
> > Upload more than a few and its
> > no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.
>
> I'm sorry, did some Deity declare a hard limit on the number of unique
> images in the universe while I wasn't looking?
>

Sure it depends on the size,resolution and number of bits per pixel of
the image. A 100 pixel by 100 pixel area that allows either black or
white pixels limits you to 2^10,000 images (in realilty the highest
amount that most people would accept as different is about a quater of
that number)

--
geni