subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Power of the Board and wikimedians (was Re:
	Bounties and expenses)

body:
Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:

> I think there are two separate issues on this debate.
>
> 1. Are the Trustees expected to serve as the "top" for us?
> 2. Is the meeting of the Trustees that important compared to others?
>
> For the first question, I think the majority opinion is that the
> Trustees are supposed to listen to us, serve as, and act upon our
> (multilingual wikimedia communty's) concensus. And from what Angela
> and Anthere expressed when running for the election, we can believe
> that they want to do that.
>
> Mark should not worry that much, and I think many people are not that
> different from Mark's view on this issue.

Tomos is very insightful here. While I sympathize with Mark's concerns
about top-down decision-making by the board, I am quite surprised that
he apparently considers it such a significant present danger. I have yet
to see any indication that Angela or Anthere are going to start
dictating decisions to the community, and they have gone to considerable
lengths to solicit community input so far. And from what I can judge of
their personalities, Angela and Anthere both are among the last people I
would expect to adopt a top-down management style, which may have
something to do with why we elected them to the board.

> Regarding the second question

...

> I am surprised to see that so many on this list seem to be on the
> strong supportive side.
>
> In the future, there might be a meeting in the U.S. Is it okay to pay,
> say, 1500 dollars to reimburse the travel expenses of the two Trustees
> from Europe? I don't know. I would like to know the agendas for the
> meeting and think how important it is, rather than to say "Trustees
> should always be paid for that."
>
> But if we decide not to pay, it means that some quality people might
> not run for the next election because they do not have enough money to
> attend the meeting. This is not a happy consequence for us, either.

I think that as to this second question, Tomos, most people understand
that we have an extraordinary opportunity (in terms of physical
proximity), that the cost will be minimal, and that there are real
benefits to having the Trustees meet in person at least once. That is
why so many people are willing to be generous with their money. If we
can show this kind of value and efficient use of donations in all our
fundraising efforts, getting the funds we need should be a
straightforward proposition.

This is not a precedent that the Foundation will start paying travel
expenses for all meetings, because it is also not a precedent as to how
future meetings will be held. I'm sure that Angela, Anthere, and Jimbo
will have several more meetings during the year, but they will probably
conduct these by telephone or IRC or some other means.

--Michael Snow


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Michael Snow


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: zh.wikipedia.org - having a single
	unified	portal

body:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:10:12 +0200 (MEST) "Ting Chen" <Wing.Philopp at gmx.de>
wrote:

>So, one technical solution could be we save the articles always in
>traditional form in the database. If a user has in his user-setting
>simplified, then the server would convert that article into simplified.
>After his edition, the server can compare the changes and only converse the
>changed part into traditional and save it into database.
>
>This last part is the only place, where the conversion could make failure
>because it is possible, that one simplified character is conversed into a
>false traditional character. But that is no problem, for one, we can place
>some commonly used context related conversions into the program. Second,
>the
>other users can manually correct the failure.

I don't like this. It would mean that we run the risk of saving wrong what
the submitter has submitted right. I would prefer to translate to
traditional characters only where the translation is 100% certain, and keep
simplified characters elsewhere. Traditional characters would of course
always be kept. Then when seeing the page, there will be warning when one
looks traditional and there are some transcriptions from simplified that are
not 100% sure. As an option, one could (for example) show these in another
colour, and have the choice to declare the translation wrong or right.

Still, I don't know whether this idea of mine can work. It depends on the
number of 'doubtful' characters in an average simplified text. If it's 3 or
4 on a page, this can handle it. If it is more like 1 per line, declaring
transcriptions correct will quickly get boring for the users, and therefore
not be done. Can one of the Chinese give us an estimate of this?

Andre Engels


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rowan Collins [IMSoP]

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Volunteer work

body:
> 1) It worries me that programmers would avoid making changes to
> MediaWiki just because it's hard to figure out where to make those
> changes. For my own part, I have to admit that I kind of dread going
> into the MW source -- it sometimes feels like a jungle in there.

Perhaps at the very least we need to come up with some way of documenting how the source works -
like the boring bit of coursework projects where you have to write up a report to make it look like
you "designed" the thing, rather than just writing it and fiddling with it till it worked (I hope at
least *some* of you have had to do this kind of coursework at some stage...). Dull as they are, it
wouldn't half help if there were some bits like data flow diagrams - even just a breakdown of what
*classes* exist in the codebase (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_code_layout currently
reveals little more than "ls" + a bit of common sense).

And yes, I know I should do it myself rather than complaining - and seeing as I just graduated [2:1!
2:1!!], I may just have the chance to do that; document while I familiarise myself...

--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]


list: wikien-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fuzzy Bunny Awards

references:
<40D8FAA4.A89B87BE@shaw.ca> <40D9726E.1010003@yahoo.com>
	<cbcu6c$duc$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> I think wikipedia is badly missing opportunities to show others we
>> appreciate their work, and making our pleasure visible publicly.
>
>
> Can't you just put something on their user talk page, or even their user
> page, or post to the mailing list, or anything? It's not like there's no
> way to say something, you know.
>
> Timwi

We'll discuss of this again, next time a good editor leaves Wikipedia in
dispair ...


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] this is a test

body: this is a test


subject: [Foundation-l] this is a test

body: this is a test


subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses

body: this is a second test


subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses

body: this is a second test


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Bounties and expenses

body: this is a test


body: this is a test


body: this is the forth test


body: this is the forth test


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>How are they going to come to the users?  Are they going to have
>>thousands of meetings?  It would take about 5-10 meetings in the US
>>alone to come within range of a decent majority of users, another 10-15
>>in Europe, 5-10 in Asia, and so on.
>>
>>
>
>Individual users would travel to the meetings. A day of driving or on a train
>can cover a large geographic area. Other international groups also rotate where
>they meet in order to cover as much of the world as possible. But creating
>these kind of ties is needed for the long-term survival of the foundation.
>
>
I'm not sure you realize how big the world is---a day of driving or on a
train covers a miniscule fraction of the world.  Covering even 80% of
Wikimedians within a day's train or car distance would require on the
order of hundreds of meetings.  In the US alone, it would require
meetings in:
* Some city in the northeast (Boston, NYC, etc.)
* Seattle
* Chicago
* One of San Francisco, Los Angeles, or San Diego
* Phoenix
* One of Houston, Austin, or Dallas
* Atlanta
* Denver
* Somewhere in Florida

Of course we would also need meetings in Canada, 2-3 countries in
northern europe, 2-3 countries in eastern and southern europe, Korea,
the PRC (at least a few cities), the ROC, Singapore, South Africa,
Israel, Turkey, Russia (probably multiple cities), Egypt, Brazil,
Argentina, Australia ... and those are just a bare-bones start.

So I really don't see how regular meetings with a significant portion of
the membership could possibly be a feasible option even in the long
term, unless perhaps suddenly plane flight becomes dirt-cheap, or
Wikimedia becomes willing to fund travel of ordinary users to the meetings.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses


body:
Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:

>You've made your point plenty. As a basic and regular suscriber to this
>list, I'm getting tired of *your* point of view, not because it's yours but
>because I got it enough. When you have nothing to say but to repeat over and
>over the same stuff, you're on the verge of spam. Thanks.
>
>
If all you're going to write is "lolz shuts up plz!!!!!!!!!!!", then
please don't post.

Thanks,
Mark


body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Delirium wrote:
>
>
>>It's quite possible that the majority of Wikimedians have a different
>>view from me of what the board ought to be, but this was never really
>>consulted in forming the board.  The board was *not* formed because we
>>
>>
>
>The difference between a cow grassing on a meadow and a man at a beer
>table, says the old Icelandic Edda, is that the cow knows when to
>stop.  When she is full, she walks home.
>
>
So where does the person who goes around telling people to shut up
rather than offering any reasonable comments fall in?

-Mark


from_name: John

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problem with category listing?

body:
In the Category on Domesticated animals
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Domesticated_animals) the
article Domesticated animal
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_animal) is listed under the
letter C. Why is this?

Thanks


from_name: Denni

subject: [WikiEN-l] What's the issue?

body:
I don't get it, Timwi. Correct me if my perception is wrong, but it's
like you're against cheers and pats on the back. PLEASE correct me.
Yeah, when someone bothers to leave me a note about how they liked my
article or photo, I'm happy, but I consider myself fortunate to have
huge amounts of experience with both writing and photography; if the
plaudits I've earned by exemplary performance (no humility here) are
reflective of what the "average" writer/illustrator gets, then there's a
pathetically abyssmal level of feedback and encouragement going on. We
have lost, or so it would seem, two talented and capable writers in the
last month because it's easier to bitch and criticise than to support
and praise. Or at least to yell "patent nonsense" when we should have
just kept our bleeding gobs shut until we had bothered to determine
whether or not we were peeing on our own shoes.

As an easy example, try this: SETI Online offers online certificates for
work units completed. I am coming up on certificate four - 1000 work
units - and I'm excited. Work for SETI? Zero. Their web page (or a
counting applet attached) counts the returned work units and
automatically adds access to new certificates as I am eligible for them.
We have some crackerjack coders here who could, I'm sure, easily
implement a routine to do such a thing. Volunteer work (pick me!!) can
design 500 edits/1000 edits/2000 edits etc. certificates, and then it's
all up to the editor to download certs as they show up on his /her
userpage. (I can print as many 100 workunits as I want - it's my
printer, my ink, and my money. I could paper my walls or send one to all
my friends. What does it cost Wiki? Does zero sound like a good number
to you?)

Timwi, Wiki has to be in part about the fun of doing it, and that
=somebody= sees and appreciates the effort you're contributing. That is
one area where Wiki could do a vastly better job. E2 has a chatbox, so
community links can develop quickly and effectively (they also have a
bunch of level 3+ editors who need a good cuff on the side of the head
for the way they treat newbies, but that's another topic). Village Pump
is not exactly chat, and IRC, as wonderful as I'm sure it is, is
prodigiously threatening to the newbie user. The only contact with other
Wikipedians is what the newbie initiates herself/himself.

I don't know how best this can be done. Do we create a WikiCommittee
whose job it is to track users and drop comments on their user page? Do
we ask a codejunkie to write a script to autogenerate certificate
messages? Help me out here, allies. Whatever we do, if anything, I offer
my assistance, because the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
stronger they get.

Denni

--
?"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. " -- Pablo
Picasso


subject: [Foundation-l] A Challenge: Sending Angela to gay Paree!

body:
I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has pledged money for
me to go to Paris. If I've converted the various currencies correctly,
it amounts to around ?83/ ?125/ $151, which is almost the exact cost
of a train from Colchester to Waterloo and the Eurostar train from
London to Paris. As the meeting is for one day only, I don't intend
claiming any money for accommodation. I really appreciate the
donations that people have made for this as it means no money needs to
come out of existing funds. I expect that meeting Anthere and Jimbo in
person to discuss our plans for the forthcoming year will be very
beneficial and I'm grateful for the support of others who see it this
way.

For anyone interested in new pages related to the foundation, please
see the new Wikimedia category on Meta at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation.

Angela.


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> This is not a precedent that the Foundation will start paying travel
> expenses for all meetings, because it is also not a precedent as to
> how future meetings will be held. I'm sure that Angela, Anthere, and
> Jimbo will have several more meetings during the year, but they will
> probably conduct these by telephone or IRC or some other means.

This is not how I understood it.  If it were a single meeting, done
because of convenient circumstances, that would not be an enormous
issue.  However, the email introducing this issue (the first one with
the subject "Funding for the newly elected Board Members") said:

"...I would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our
elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia work.
For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the
Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband connection
should be covered by the Foundation as well."

This sounded more like a routine budget than an extraordinary one-time
expense.  Several other people also do seem to explicitly favor regular
in-person meetings, with the one in Paris being merely the first of
many, and even an overhead/expenses budget allowed to run as high as 10%
of our total income.  Those are different sorts of matters than a single
one-of-a-kind trip.

-Mark


from_name: Tomos at Wikipedia

subject:
[Foundation-l] Power of the Board and wikimedians (was Re: Bounties
	and expenses)

body:
I think there are two separate issues on this debate.

1. Are the Trustees expected to serve as the "top" for us?
2. Is the meeting of the Trustees that important compared to others?

For the first question, I think the majority opinion is that the Trustees
are supposed to listen to us, serve as, and act upon our (multilingual
wikimedia communty's) concensus. And from what Angela and Anthere expressed
when running for the election, we can believe that they want to do that.

Mark should not worry that much, and I think many people are not that
different from Mark's view on this issue.

But sometimes, the Trustees have to make decisions on behalf of wikimedians
without clear concensus - just like wikimedia administrators are pressured
to do sometime. There may be no clear concensus. The matter is kind of
urgent that there is no time to consult with wikimedia community. There may
be some technical dimensions regarding how to interpret the concensus into
concrete actions and technical choices.

Because of these situations, we elect someone we can trust. Someone who
knows wikimedia better, someone who is not likely to abuse the discretionary
power. Like the admins for wikimedia projects, they do handle important
matters. But they do so according to community concensus.

So the answer to the first question is no.

Of course, there is a hierarchical structure to an extent. But this is
supposedly a positive move from the Jimbo's dictatorship to more democratic
governance.

And as in the case of administrators' actions, transparency is important so
that we can monitor and give feedback to the Trustees whenever it is
beneficial.

Regarding the second question, it seems that this is more of a matter of
belief so far.

- Some believe that face-to-face meeting is very important. It is even a
matter of principle for some - Trustees expenses should be reimbursed, that
is the way it is supposed to be.
- Others believe that compared to the cost, it has merit.
- Others may believe that compared to the cost, it does not have enough
merit.
- Yet others believe there are always better ways to spend money than this.

I am surprised to see that so many on this list seem to be on the strong
supportive side.

In the future, there might be a meeting in the U.S. Is it okay to pay, say,
1500 dollars to reimburse the travel expenses of the two Trustees from
Europe? I don't know. I would like to know the agendas for the meeting and
think how important it is, rather than to say "Trustees should always be
paid for that."

But if we decide not to pay, it means that some quality people might not run
for the next election because they do not have enough money to attend the
meeting. This is not a happy consequence for us, either.

Best,

Tomos

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Your edit appears unobjectionable, and while it might be considered
controversial, even tenditious, is factual although it is to a certain
extent background as opposed to figure. After all, "the poor are always with
us." However, regardless of how right you are you cannot revert more than 3
times.

As to discussion of the phrase you added, I don't see any discussion by you
either on the talk page. The persistance of poverty during even the most
prosperous times in the United States belongs in Wikipedia somewhere,
perhaps in the article for every President, perhaps in the article Economy
of the United States.

Fred

> From: James Marshall <jsm at jmarshall.com>
> Reply-To: james at jmarshall.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"
>
> My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .
>
> Today I added a phrase to an article which clarified an important point.
> Two or three people who don't want the phrase there have been deleting it
> all day, without giving a reason, and marking their deletion as "minor"
> (it's against policy to mark a deletion as minor).  They have also lied,
> calling my edit "vandalism" when they know very well it's not (and anyone
> can see this for themselves).
>
> I have restored the phrase each time.  Now, without warning, I've just
> been told that I've been blocked by 40277.  The reason given is the cutesy
> but meaningless phrase "Strike 3 bucko".  Strike 3 of what?  I'm not the
> one violating policy here.  Other people are.  (Are they blocked too?)  I
> haven't vandalized.  Rather, others have been deleting text with no
> reason, which, while not technically vandalism, is much closer to it than
> anything I've done.
>
> If I was blocked but the other users weren't, then user 40277 is misusing
> her/his blocking authority and violating policy; maybe some things need to
> be explained to her/him.  In any case, s/he needs to do a better job of it
> than just giving the lame "Strike 3 bucko".
>
> You don't need me to tell you that if the administrators use their power
> to promote their point of view, rather than to do their non-biased duties,
> then the whole Wikipedia becomes less relevant in the long run.
>
> You can trace some of the dispute here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history
>
>
> If anyone is in doubt of the relevance of my addition, then I'm happy to
> explain it fully and give supporting evidence.  So far, none of the
> deleters have cared for that.
>
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Finances

body:
Hello dear all,

Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
So, we need some people to take care of financial issues.

Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on holidays :-)
Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for several months as far as I can remember. I did not hear there were any problems. He also is interested in working on the budget.

However, we wish that you have time to express disagreement if there is need to. So, if one doubts this is a wise decision, please say it so and *provide arguments*.

This is not meant to be a top-down decision, it is mostly that Mav said he was interested to do it, had done it well for many months, we trust him, and no one else has ever (afaik) said he would be willing to do it as well. My apologies if someone did and we did not realise :-)

Other people might be interested as well to participate in financial issues. In particular, the perspective of a professionnal on legal issues or on accounting would be most welcome. I think we should thrive to have teams as much as possible, and people with various perspectives, as it is more productive and usually more successful. A group of 3-5 people would be neat :-)

So, if someone is interested in being part of the financial committee, please speak up :-)

Criticism and/or nomination may be public or private.

Ant/Flo

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040624/d4ad1e8c/attachment.htm


subject: [Foundation-l] Finances

body:
Hello dear all,

Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
So, we need some people to take care of financial issues.

Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on holidays :-)
Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for several months as far as I can remember. I did not hear there were any problems. He also is interested in working on the budget.

However, we wish that you have time to express disagreement if there is need to. So, if one doubts this is a wise decision, please say it so and *provide arguments*.

This is not meant to be a top-down decision, it is mostly that Mav said he was interested to do it, had done it well for many months, we trust him, and no one else has ever (afaik) said he would be willing to do it as well. My apologies if someone did and we did not realise :-)

Other people might be interested as well to participate in financial issues. In particular, the perspective of a professionnal on legal issues or on accounting would be most welcome. I think we should thrive to have teams as much as possible, and people with various perspectives, as it is more productive and usually more successful. A group of 3-5 people would be neat :-)

So, if someone is interested in being part of the financial committee, please speak up :-)

Criticism and/or nomination may be public or private.

Ant/Flo

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040624/d4ad1e8c/attachment-0001.htm


subject: [Foundation-l] Finances

body:
Hello dear all,

Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
So, we need some people to take care of financial issues.

Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on holidays :-)
Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for several months as far as I can remember. I did not hear there were any problems. He also is interested in working on the budget.

However, we wish that you have time to express disagreement if there is need to. So, if one doubts this is a wise decision, please say it so and *provide arguments*.

This is not meant to be a top-down decision, it is mostly that Mav said he was interested to do it, had done it well for many months, we trust him, and no one else has ever (afaik) said he would be willing to do it as well. My apologies if someone did and we did not realise :-)

Other people might be interested as well to participate in financial issues. In particular, the perspective of a professionnal on legal issues or on accounting would be most welcome. I think we should thrive to have teams as much as possible, and people with various perspectives, as it is more productive and usually more successful. A group of 3-5 people would be neat :-)

So, if someone is interested in being part of the financial committee, please speak up :-)

Criticism and/or nomination may be public or private.

Ant/Flo

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040624/d4ad1e8c/attachment.html>


subject: [Foundation-l] Finances

body:
Hello dear all,

Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
So, we need some people to take care of financial issues.

Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on holidays :-)
Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for several months as far as I can remember. I did not hear there were any problems. He also is interested in working on the budget.

However, we wish that you have time to express disagreement if there is need to. So, if one doubts this is a wise decision, please say it so and *provide arguments*.

This is not meant to be a top-down decision, it is mostly that Mav said he was interested to do it, had done it well for many months, we trust him, and no one else has ever (afaik) said he would be willing to do it as well. My apologies if someone did and we did not realise :-)

Other people might be interested as well to participate in financial issues. In particular, the perspective of a professionnal on legal issues or on accounting would be most welcome. I think we should thrive to have teams as much as possible, and people with various perspectives, as it is more productive and usually more successful. A group of 3-5 people would be neat :-)

So, if someone is interested in being part of the financial committee, please speak up :-)

Criticism and/or nomination may be public or private.

Ant/Flo

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040624/d4ad1e8c/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Philip Newton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Categories considered harmful

body:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:21:15 +0000, David Gerard wrote:

> On 06/21/04 23:57, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Anything to kill off those accursed article boxes.

Anything? How about "different article boxes"?

I like them. *shrugs*

(I've even restored one to a series of pages where an editor had removed
the article box after categorising the pages.)

Cheers,
Philip


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Dust has settled" considered euphemistic (re:172 & VV)

body:
Abe (user:172) has asked me to inform the mailing list that I have
"retracted" my request to ban him. I'd like to take this opportunity to
clarify a few points.

When I asked, "Can we ban 172 and VV?", I was using a rhetorical device.
What I sought was merely that ALL parties concerned, would be in
compliance with Wikipedia policy. Be cooperative, or be elsewhere:
nothing more, nothing less.

I've broken a lot of log jams at Wikipedia, and when I set out to do
something here I've always succeeded. If it's an article, I've always
been able to find a way to get all the contributors to agree on both the
process and the product. If it's a 'troublesome user', it's a bit more
involved.

The best outcome is that the user sees the light and chooses
_voluntarily_ to support Wikipedia policy: chiefly, no insults and no
reversion wars. Other alternatives include getting an "official warning"
or being blocked (temporarily) or banned (indefinitely). The last
alternative is always farthest from my mind, because it's the worst for
all involved.

But some people think that calling someone to account comprises a
personal affront: "How dare you tell me to follow the rules!" Well,
somebody has to do it. Better me than Jimbo, because most people who
tangle with Jimbo wind up getting exiled. I'm much more patient and easy
to deal with.

But Abe handled the "shape up or ship out" confrontation rather well.
It's a pity that the process was so disturbing to him, but I don't feel
I have anything to apologize for. My job (as I see it) is to ensure that
articles are accurate and unbiased; my method is to encourage users to
contribute with courtesy.

It's not dis-courteous to insist that another user conform to Wikipedia
policy. Contrariwise, it's my duty.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Bureaucrat


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Categories in 1.3beta

body:
Rowan Collins [IMSoP] wrote:
> it's kind of central to the concept of a wiki that it uses real page names as the unique identifier

Imagine that the software had a way to recognize disambiguation pages.
When a page is saved and contains the {{disambig}} tag, the software
could set cur.cur_is_redirect = 2. Then assume that [[Napoleon]] is
such a disambiguation page.

Now, when I write an article and link to [[Napoleon]] and preview my
edit, the system consults the cur table to see if the link should be
red or blue.  But in the case of a disambiguation page, it could
instead harvest that page for links and insert an HTML form selector
(a drop down menu) where I can select which one of the people I want
to link to.  In the next step (save or preview), the edited text would
be disambiguated to [[Napoleon I of France | Napoleon]].

This link harvesting would only take place on preview, and not during
the normal display of an article.  I think this could be implemented
without compatibility problems.  In fact, the same link disambiguation
during preview could also be performed for links to redirects.  In a
way, a redirect is merely a disambiguation page with just one link.

This is how I imagine that the editing user interface to IMDb works.
I don't think the IMDb editors open a separate browser window to find
out that Pierce Brosnan is "nm0000112" before creating a new link. I
think such ideas can be incorporated into a wiki without killing the
wiki spirit.  At one time, some people said that CamelCase was an
essential part of a wiki, and we proved that they were wrong.

(Today in the English Wikipedia, [[Napoleon]] is a redirect to
[[Napoleon I of France]], and the disambiguation page is called
[[Napoleon (disambiguation)]]. That disambiguation page contains a lot
more than links to the non-ambiguous terms.)

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: zh.wikipedia.org - having a single unified portal

body:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:08:55 +0100, Timwi wrote:

> I don't know if any traditional
> character can unambiguously be converted to a simplified one. Your
> message appears to imply this, is that correct?

In general, yes, but not always; see, for example, section 3.5 of
http://www.basistech.com/papers/chinese/c2c.html which was mentioned
earlier in this thread.

(However, the number of problematical TC-to-SC characters is fairly low,
I think. I do not know enough Chinese to assess how "high freqency"
certain problematical characters such as the zhe/zh? one mentioned are.)

Cheers,
Philip


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Long pages

body:
Stan Shebs wrote

> Please note that I'm not saying to change everything today; it's
> just that the availability of additional software support in the
> form of categories opens up all kinds of possibilities, one of which
> Magnus pointed out at the start of this thread, and we should be
> thinking about creative ways to make use of the software, not fold
> our arms and insist on doing everything the same old way.

Well, what most concerns me is that some of the comments posted here could
start an 'urban myth' that lists have had their day, their only current use
is as pathfinders for those adding categories, and that the correct thing is
to treat lists as 'to do' things for the categories.

Of course some lists are neglected - as are some pages, and some whole areas
of WP with too little editorial support. So what?

'Insist on doing everything the same old way' - what does that mean?  Wiki
works as a system of permissions.  My version of being 'creative' has long
been, where I can, to put topics in a logical order on a list, rather than
alphabetical.  What is 'creative' about delegating things to a subcategory
that provides an ABC list in a none-too-readable format?

And doesn't encourage me.  To take something on my mind- one day I might
move the magic square topics off [[list of number theory]] topics to their
own list.  Time required 15 seconds.  Time required for me to add tags to
all those: more than I care to devote to magic squares - but someone might
follow my lead.

Charles


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: zh.wikipedia.org - having a single unified
	portal

body:
Just a reminder to folks that there is a new wikizh-l at wikimedia.org
mailing list, which might be good to copy on some of these messages.

-Andrew


body:
Delirium wrote:

> It's quite possible that the majority of Wikimedians have a different
> view from me of what the board ought to be, but this was never really
> consulted in forming the board.  The board was *not* formed because we

The difference between a cow grassing on a meadow and a man at a beer
table, says the old Icelandic Edda, is that the cow knows when to
stop.  When she is full, she walks home.

Havamal, verse 21:

  Herds know the hour
  of their going home
and turn them again from the grass;
  but never is found
  a foolish man
who knows the measure of his maw.

  Hjar?ir ?at vitu
  n?r ??r heim skulu
ok ganga ?? af grasi;
  en ?svi?r ma?r
  kann ?vagi
s?ns of m?l maga.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Unususally, I have to agree with Fred on the substance of this issue.  I
still am not a fan of the 3-revert rule as well.  In all of his long
explanation, James did not once quote the offending phrase, even though
it was short.  Those of us who are not directly involved with editing a
particular article don't really want to wade through a lot of edits
(Over 250 in the last month) just to figure out what the problem is. We
have other things to do with our Wiki time.

Registering and developping a user page and user talk page is important
to make communication easier

In your support, I think that comments like "Strike 3 bucko" (which I
don't know where to find) show *very bad manners* on the part of a
sysop.  There are a large number of newby-sysops who don't seem to know
anything about Wikiquette, and seem to find more delight in tracking
down and harassing newbies than on improving the 'pedia.  Rather than
trying to open discussion with an apparent offender, they apply
condescending boilerplate messages laced with threats of banning.

Perhaps new sysops should be required to pass a test in Wikiquette
before they are appointed.
Ec

Fred Bauder wrote:

>Your edit appears unobjectionable, and while it might be considered
>controversial, even tenditious, is factual although it is to a certain
>extent background as opposed to figure. After all, "the poor are always with
>us." However, regardless of how right you are you cannot revert more than 3
>times.
>
>As to discussion of the phrase you added, I don't see any discussion by you
>either on the talk page. The persistance of poverty during even the most
>prosperous times in the United States belongs in Wikipedia somewhere,
>perhaps in the article for every President, perhaps in the article Economy
>of the United States.
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>>From: James Marshall <jsm at jmarshall.com>
>>Reply-To: james at jmarshall.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"
>>
>>My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .
>>
>>Today I added a phrase to an article which clarified an important point.
>>Two or three people who don't want the phrase there have been deleting it
>>all day, without giving a reason, and marking their deletion as "minor"
>>(it's against policy to mark a deletion as minor).  They have also lied,
>>calling my edit "vandalism" when they know very well it's not (and anyone
>>can see this for themselves).
>>
>>I have restored the phrase each time.  Now, without warning, I've just
>>been told that I've been blocked by 40277.  The reason given is the cutesy
>>but meaningless phrase "Strike 3 bucko".  Strike 3 of what?  I'm not the
>>one violating policy here.  Other people are.  (Are they blocked too?)  I
>>haven't vandalized.  Rather, others have been deleting text with no
>>reason, which, while not technically vandalism, is much closer to it than
>>anything I've done.
>>
>>If I was blocked but the other users weren't, then user 40277 is misusing
>>her/his blocking authority and violating policy; maybe some things need to
>>be explained to her/him.  In any case, s/he needs to do a better job of it
>>than just giving the lame "Strike 3 bucko".
>>
>>You don't need me to tell you that if the administrators use their power
>>to promote their point of view, rather than to do their non-biased duties,
>>then the whole Wikipedia becomes less relevant in the long run.
>>
>>You can trace some of the dispute here:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history
>>
>>
>>If anyone is in doubt of the relevance of my addition, then I'm happy to
>>explain it fully and give supporting evidence.  So far, none of the
>>deleters have cared for that.
>>
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

body:
James Marshall wrote

> I have restored the phrase each time.

You may be correct in asserting something about wealth distribution, there.
I don't see that you have used the talk page.  I do see various edit
summaries making the point that wealth qua GDP or whatever is not the same
notion as personal wealth distribution.  So, if you want to hash out the
wording in such a way that the two things both stand there, you probably do
need to go to the talk page, address this issue with some sort of evidence
that personal wealth distribution was skewed by the Reagan time, and
generally engage with the other folk editing the page.

Charles


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: cookfire

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: De-capitalisation-isation

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>> flip the switch (so [[blah]] and [[Blah]] become separate articles)
>
>
> Hi all.
>
> It seems that I have made a number of wrong assumptions when I started
> all of this.
>
> Firstly, I assumed that just about everyone would agree to want to
> have article titles lower-case if that is how the word is spelt. I am
> indescribably surprised that this is not the case, but oh well, that's
> wiki-democracy I guess.
>
> Secondly, I assumed that at least a majority, if not everyone, would
> agree with me that engl. "kind" and German "Kind" are separate words
> and should hence have separate articles. (I'm sorry for bringing the
> same example over and over again, but I got used to it ;-).) Again,
> I'm surprised that this does not seem to be the case. Apparently some
> people actually *like* to have unrelated words on the same page, which
> completely mystifies me.
>
> Thirdly, I assumed people would know what I'm talking about when I
> said "case-sensitivity" and "[[kind]] and [[Kind]] should be separate
> articles", etc. :-p
>
> Fourthly, I fell into a pitfall that I fell into numerous times in the
> past (and, by implication, will probably fall into again numerous
> times in the future :-p). What I'm talking about here is that people
> emotionally attach to what they've got and what they're used to. There
> is a strong opposition to any kind of change, and arguments cannot
> change it. Just as long as the current way "somehow works", people
> seem to look for only the negative things (the "arguments against") in
> the proposal. The people who are in favour of the idea don't defend it
> as vehemently as the others oppose it.
>
> Bottom line: It is futile for me to try to be of help with these kinds
> of things. I'm only glad I never even started writing that script; it
> would have been a waste of time.

Hi Timwi,

The voting page has been moved over to the English Wiktionary by
Eclecticology. It will probably be a lot more visible there. Now we have
a lot of no votes from people I don't see contributing all that much on
Wiktionary. Eclecticology is in favor of your proposal as well, so don't
give up yet. On the talk page I tried to give an example how
[[Polish]]/[[polish]] would be treated in the new situtation and I also
commented that we should be glad there (finally) is a developer who
wants to care of this. I agree with you that if FullCasSensitivity or
NoInitialCaps would not have been on since the beginning nobody would
have made an issue of it. I still remember we requested it back then,
but we were supposed to use the software as it was back then. We
accepted that, adapted to it, started to work around it and got used to
that.
It is not truly a problem that unrelated words are on the same page. The
Dutch word [[kind]] (child) will still remain on the same page as the
English word [[kind]]. They are separated by ----, which makes clear
that they are words in different languages. Only the German [[Kind]]
will move over. I guess that on the page for [[kind]] there could still
be a German section referring people to [[Kind]]. That way it still
remains visible that a word with almost the same spelling exists in
another language. (Which is what we think of as interesting) (Even more
interesting are words that are pronounced the same across different
languages, but that's a totally different discussion...)

If you do write that script, I would like to check it out and comment on
it before it gets run though. Maybe I have some suggestions to improve
it, so less manual labor remains afterwards. What programming language
do you use?

Polyglot


subject: [WikiEN-l] What's the issue?

body:
>. Whatever we do, if anything, I offer
> my assistance, because the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
> longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
> stronger they get.
>
> Denni

Could we all just agree that we will all work to promote a good atmosphere,
in whatever aspect of WP we are involved?

Maybe this sounds too like WikiLove soft soap; but surely it defines what
the aim is.  I find quite a contrast between folk who use words like
'stupid' in edit summaries, and those who find something pleasant to say;
and that is not so related to their Wikipedian productivity.  A culture of
mutual recognition and support is what it's about.

Charles


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Capitalisation the Nl: way

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
>
>> For the method that is being develloped on nl:wiktionary, the method
>> of identifying if existing words are capitalised or not, can be done
>> by the defenition of the word; as a word can exist in a language both
>> capitalised and not, we write the word in bold to start with, then
>> the gender, the translation, then the explanation.
>>
>> This was done to reflect the impossibility to create words in lower
>> case. As all words start off identifying the language, we can have
>> many defenitions on the same page.
>>
> The layout of articles has nothing to do with it.  Repeating the word
> in each section is only a temporary work-around while we wait for the
> bug that forces the first letter of a title to be capitalized. to be
> fixed.
>
> Ec

In fact, this is one of the things that are being taken care of the same
way between the English and Dutch Wiktionaries. It is a workaround we
started to apply because of the undesirable functionality of the
Wikipedia software. We should be glad there is a developer who wants to
finally solve this problem, instead of opposing the change.

Polyglot


subject: [Wikitech-l] Rebuild of index

body:
LS,
I had a look at http://wikimedia.org/rebuildtextindex.log and noticed that there is no message for completion of the he: database. It should go to 17268 it stops at 6500 and it does not have a completion message.

It is great that the rebuild is rolling again though :)
GerardM


body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>When I asked, "Can we ban 172 and VV?", I was using a rhetorical device.
>What I sought was merely that ALL parties concerned, would be in
>compliance with Wikipedia policy. Be cooperative, or be elsewhere:
>nothing more, nothing less.
>
The difficulty with rhetorical devices is that audience  too easily
takes them literally, and you reap a whirlwind.

Ec


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Theora and video policy...

body:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Rowan Collins [IMSoP] wrote:
[...]

My main problem about non-free formats is partly ideological ("gnu world"),
but most importantly practical: to use a format we need _encoders_ and
_decoders_ *generally* available under most platforms.

"Available but not useable legally" is probably not acceptable, so mp3 is
out of question no matter how popular it is: you either paid the licence for
your encoder [and probably decoder too!] or you're screwed. (Yes, exceptions
may apply but it means that the format is not *generally* available.) Same
problem I guess with RealMedia: I do not remember having an available
(legal, free) un*x encoder around.

I do not think we should PAY anything for using a format when it's not
absolutely necessary. And I do not think we should use a format which makes
contribution impossible for a definitive amount of contributors just because
they do not fit in the exception section of a commercial license.

(I still wonder how many formats have free, available linux *encoders* apart
from Theora. It would make automatic conversion possible, but I have my
strong doubts about their suspected availability. Debating about nonexisting
or nonavailable software is pretty uselss.)

Peter


from_name: Ting Chen

body:
Hello Timwi and Andre,

Timwi: about the question: Unambiguity traditional -> simplified, as far as
I know this is to be sure. This was also the way, how they introduced
simplified characters in the 1960s. But, as you know a language is a living
thing and as a living thing it breaks out from the rules one tried to set
for it. So, I am not 100% sure that there would be some new development (for
example in slams) where exceptions developped.

Andre: surely we can let the character remain simplified and let the user to
correct it. Perhaps the program can even learn while the user is doing such
corrections. As far as I know, the ambiguity is not so often. Naturally
there could be articles where there are more ambiguity because a character
is very often used in that special article, but I reckon it would be in
average less the 1 in an article.

Can you give me some links where I can begin with wiki programming? (I am a
quite skilled Java and C/C++ programmer and I can work with Linux. But I
need some startpoint. Thanks.)

Greetings.
Ting.

--
+++ Jetzt WLAN-Router f?r alle DSL-Einsteiger und Wechsler +++
GMX DSL-Powertarife zudem 3 Monate gratis* http://www.gmx.net/dsl


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

body:
Rowan Collins [IMSoP] wrote:
>  > The attitude some have taken against Theora reminded me of Mozilla
>
>> developments attitude towards MNG, which led to its removal from the
>> 1.4 trunk in favour of Flash (?!), Animated GIF (!!) and SVG.
>
>
> I know this is drifting off topic (oh, crap, I'm not even subscribed to
> this list am I - there's too many!) but I did look through some of the
> stuff on the MNG controversy. The first thing I want to say is - since
> when has Mozilla, or *any* browser, or in fact any software distributed
> by anyone other than Macromedia, been able to play Flash files!? I don't
> know what's so "!!" about animated GIFs either, they may have recent
> legal problems, but they've been the standard format since the dawn of
> time.
>

== Reply ==

    Wait, wait.  You know why there were exclamation marks?  Because
those are not open-source and/or not free things.  Gerv, Greg and Glenn,
the 3G as I call them, are wonderful people who did their best to make
the code suitable for the ?maintainers? needs and whims.  It can be well
seen that those with power in the issue didn?t do anything to support
the free and open solution, even worse, this has been said [1]:

| While these formats have some interesting features, I think it's
| worth considering removal of this decoder from the mozilla tree.
| Some of the reasons:
|
|   * mng decoder module is roughly the same size as all the other
|       image decoders and libpr0n logic combined.
|
|       Linux sizes:
|
|         261796  libimglib2.so
|         241492  libimgmng.so
|
|       MS-Windows sizes:
|
|         155024  imglib2.dll
|         170336  imgmng.dll
|
|   * mozilla integration is rather rough, partly due to a necko bug
|       (possibly fixed by darin's recent async changes) and partly
|       due to the lack of active, interested maintainers.
|
|   * animated gifs and flash (and possibly svg in the future) cover
|       much of the feature set of mng.  jng is a bit more interesting,
|       but not in ways that most people will care about.
|
|   * the formats are little used in the wild.
|
|   * the formats are not w3c recommended.
|

    While I agree that the sizes had to be worked on, quite some of
those ?reasons? are BS, to say the least.  For one, please, let?s take
out PNG transparency support, CSS3 support and half of CSS2 ? everyone
develops under Internet Explorer anyway.

    It all went against the wish of at least 500 bugzilla voters and
without a real notice, Pavlov chimed in with something like ?Hi, I
removed it from the trunk. Bye.? and never came back for more than a month.

    Decent reasons and well-thought filesize requirements (again though,
what /is/ 120KiBs of a library these days?) were not stated for an
unforgiveably long time.

== Readworthies ==

[1] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195280
[2] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574

> But we don't have to worry about
> that, because we're not proposing software to *process* any such media,
> only distribute it.
>

    A good point.

> Geez, I didn't realise this was going to be such a long message.
> Hopefully it contains something for someone to think about...
>

    I don?t have comments on the second part, it was interesting to
read, too, and had good points.

--
R.


from_name: Charles Podles

body:
--- James Marshall <jsm at jmarshall.com> wrote:
> My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .

<snip>

>  Now, without
> warning, I've just
> been told that I've been blocked by 40277.  The
> reason given is the cutesy
> but meaningless phrase "Strike 3 bucko".  Strike 3
> of what?  I'm not the
> one violating policy here.  Other people are.  (Are
> they blocked too?)  I
> haven't vandalized.  Rather, others have been
> deleting text with no
> reason, which, while not technically vandalism, is
> much closer to it than
> anything I've done.
<snip>

I agree that this block was unjustified, especially
since the edit was not vandalism (POV, perhaps, but
not vandalism) and blocking sysop (user:Oberiko) made
no attempt to explain the three-revert guideline
before the block. I have undone the block.

Mr. Marshall, I hope this bad first experience won't
turn you off contributing to Wikipedia.
You seem to be a polite and reasonable person, not a
vandal by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't
doubt that you're capable of discussing disputed edits
on talk pages, as is our practice.

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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


from_name: Thomas Jost

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Something strange with categories on
	French	Wiktionary

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

Brion Vibber a ?crit :
| As you'll see in many places, we don't yet have language-proper sorting.
| Characters are sorted according to Unicode position; all accented latin
| chars come after the plain ASCII ones.

Ok. Well, it doesn't matter. ? will be after o, that's all :-) Thanks
for your answer ;-)

MagicTom
[[w:fr:Utilisateur:MagicTom]]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFA2qF78qG/0bshvCcRArbqAJ4hMvQ0NdZq38aRhDhlcEf0CZHw5gCdE38s
h5woXItUHxHIK7+FXwWQSl0=
=ZxJt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Rick

body:
Your addition was POV.  Please see Wikipedia's policy on [[Neutral point of view]].

RickK (who was not involved in this dispute)

James Marshall <jsm at jmarshall.com> wrote:
My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .

Today I added a phrase to an article which clarified an important point.
Two or three people who don't want the phrase there have been deleting it
all day, without giving a reason, and marking their deletion as "minor"
(it's against policy to mark a deletion as minor). They have also lied,
calling my edit "vandalism" when they know very well it's not (and anyone
can see this for themselves).

I have restored the phrase each time. Now, without warning, I've just
been told that I've been blocked by 40277. The reason given is the cutesy
but meaningless phrase "Strike 3 bucko". Strike 3 of what? I'm not the
one violating policy here. Other people are. (Are they blocked too?) I
haven't vandalized. Rather, others have been deleting text with no
reason, which, while not technically vandalism, is much closer to it than
anything I've done.

If I was blocked but the other users weren't, then user 40277 is misusing
her/his blocking authority and violating policy; maybe some things need to
be explained to her/him. In any case, s/he needs to do a better job of it
than just giving the lame "Strike 3 bucko".

You don't need me to tell you that if the administrators use their power
to promote their point of view, rather than to do their non-biased duties,
then the whole Wikipedia becomes less relevant in the long run.

You can trace some of the dispute here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history

If anyone is in doubt of the relevance of my addition, then I'm happy to
explain it fully and give supporting evidence. So far, none of the
deleters have cared for that.

James

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040624/b9a85ddb/attachment.htm


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What's the issue?

body:
--- Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

>> ...blah blah...
> are incomprehensible to common folk such as myself. :-p

Let's all recall that the W is international.

> The problem with these awards is that
> each
> award makes *one* person happy, and a *load* of people unhappy.

Indeed, so in keeping with Drew Carey's TV show Who's Line Is It
Anyway, everybody gets 1000 points.

In any case. If you want to thank someone for their contrubution:
Send them a personal email. Make it sweet, like: "Thank you for
working on Wikipedia. I personally appreciate your hard work."

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: moink

body:
> In your support, I think that comments like "Strike 3 bucko" (which I
> don't know where to find) show *very bad manners* on the part of a
> sysop.  There are a large number of newby-sysops who don't seem to know
> anything about Wikiquette, and seem to find more delight in tracking
> down and harassing newbies than on improving the 'pedia.  Rather than
> trying to open discussion with an apparent offender, they apply
> condescending boilerplate messages laced with threats of banning.
>
> Perhaps new sysops should be required to pass a test in Wikiquette
> before they are appointed.
> Ec

I would like to respectfully argue that rude behaviour is not limited
to newer administrators.  In fact, in my opinion, some of the most
frequently discourteous administrators are some who have been around
for a very long time.

moink


from_name: Delirium

body:
Peter Gervai wrote:

>"Available but not useable legally" is probably not acceptable, so mp3 is
>out of question no matter how popular it is: you either paid the licence for
>your encoder [and probably decoder too!] or you're screwed. (Yes, exceptions
>may apply but it means that the format is not *generally* available.) Same
>problem I guess with RealMedia: I do not remember having an available
>(legal, free) un*x encoder around.
>
>
I'm not so sure about mp3.  Certainly there are parties who *claim* it
is not usable legally, but the software is in fact generally available
for all operating systems, and to my knowledge there have been no
lawsuits attempting to put an end to its availability (and certainly no
successful ones).  The decoder at the very least is almost certainly
legally okay, and widely available in players like winamp and xmms, and
even the encoders, like LAME, are rather common and have not received
legal threats.

-Mark


body:
Ting Chen wrote:

>Can you give me some links where I can begin with wiki programming? (I am a
>quite skilled Java and C/C++ programmer and I can work with Linux. But I
>need some startpoint. Thanks.)
>
>
The MediaWiki software that runs Wikimedia projects has a site at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/, with source code for download.  It's
written in PHP, which probably shouldn't be too hard to learn since
you're already skilled in other programming languages.  I'm not sure how
good the documentation is, but you can subscribe to the wikitech-l
mailing list and ask there if you have any questions.

-Mark


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Breton Wikipedia

body:
From: "Timwi"
> Trocheris Yann wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I could not find more than a home page when I tried to start working on
> > the breton wikipedia
> > I'd rather propose to start a new blank one
>
> Uhm... then why don't you?...

Thanks to Brion, a new Breton Wikipedia is already running at
http://br.wikipedi.org.
There are already at least one Breton speaker working on it.
I will ask temporary admin right to help him (but I don't speak Breton).
All willingness are welcome.

Aoineko


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>> The decoder at the very least is almost certainly legally okay, and
>> widely available in players like winamp and xmms, and even the
>> encoders, like LAME, are rather common and have not received legal
>> threats.
>
> As far as I'm aware, LAME is specifically paying the patent royalties.
>
> Decoding MP3 is patent-free, that is correct. Same with GIF.

Our content license requires that we provide materials in editable form.
That means we expect people to create, as well as consume, these
materials; indeed we've built the whole project around people like us
coming to visit and contribute material, rather than a central
controlling entity producing materials itself that visitors merely consume.

Formats that can't be encoded aren't really fitting with that.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040624/7949fa4e/attachment.pgp


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
If adding it was Point of View, so was removing it.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: james at jmarshall.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

Your addition was POV.  Please see Wikipedia's policy on [[Neutral point of
view]].

RickK (who was not involved in this dispute)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040624/6120764b/attachment.htm


from_name: Timwi

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Something strange with categories on French
	Wiktionary

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Thomas Jost wrote:
>
>> edited [[Cat?gorie:Pr?positions fran?aises]] and added
>> "[[Cat?gorie:Langue fran?aise|Prepositions francaises]]" to fix this
>> error. But now, there are 2 "P" sections in [[Cat?gorie:Langue
>> fran?aise]]:
>> ~  P * Pronoms fran?ais
>> ~  V * Verbes fran?ais
>> ~  P * Pr?positions fran?aises
>> Is this a bug or did I do something wrong ?
>
> "P" comes after "C" (as in "Cat?gorie:").

I don't understand this answer. I don't think there should be *two* "P"
headings on a category page. There is no "C" heading, and no sort key
seems to use the word "Cat?gorie", so I don't understand what you're
talkinga bout.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Problem with category listing?

body:
John wrote:

> In the Category on Domesticated animals
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Domesticated_animals) the
> article Domesticated animal
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_animal) is listed under the
> letter C. Why is this?

Not anymore. :) This was a bug that has already been fixed.


from_name: James Marshall

body:
Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses.  Answering several at once:

No, I didn't include the edit in question because my post on this list was
about procedure and policy being violated, rather than about content.  If
policy had been followed, the content issue may have worked itself out.
I wasn't trying to hide anything; I figured that anyone interested could
follow the link I provided.  I will address the content issue below.

As for the 3-revert rule, my own reverts were actually undoing of
unexplained reverts by others.  Why were those others not blocked as well?
Furthermore, their reverts were *deletion* of content, which is
discouraged in about a thousand places on various policy pages, while my
reversion is an (encouraged) addition (one which is more factual than you
may think-- see below).

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the content on the talk page.  The ones
who were reverting my edit did not seem to be so willing.  They merely
wrote demeaning comments and called my addition "nonsense" and
"vandalism", which it clearly is not; they also never responded to the
points I made, but rather repeated their "vandalism" comments.  If we
can't communicate on this basic level, what chance is there of working
anything out in discussion?  (I browsed a few more pages and found that
the worst violator yesterday (Texture) has a pattern of doing this with
other people, and is pretty blatant about inserting his POV into articles.
Bafflingly, I found out s/he is a sysop!)  In any case, it's true that I
did not start a discussion on the talk page, but neither did anyone else.

The "Strike 3 bucko" comment is on the page listing blocked IP addresses.
Or rather, it was, but I've been unblocked now (thanks Charles).

In trying to resolve this, I browsed many Wikipedia pages yesterday about
various policy, Wikiquette, editing guidelines, etc.  Each of these pages
I browsed, it seemed I could find several more examples of how my
detractors were violating these things-- probably a dozen or more
violations in all.  And I, even as a newbie here, was getting it pretty
much right.  Then I found out that the two worst violators (Texture and
Oberiko) were sysops!  What does that say?  How did that happen?

In any system, those who are given power should be able to correctly use
it, rather than just getting it because they "earned" it (though that may
be part of it too).  We're not the Mexican police force here, or we don't
want to be, anyway.

Fred said:

> If adding it was Point of View, so was removing it.

Thank you, Fred.  That's what I'm saying here, that the others are bound
by the same editing policies as me, regardless of their sysop status.
Besides just the plain rudeness, and unconstructiveness.

Stormie's post just came through-- Stormie, don't misrepresent it.  Some
of your post is answered above, but for what isn't:  I did not ignore the
comments on my talk page, though I didn't see the last one before I was
banned.  The first ones were insults toward me, and my response to Texture
was firmly-worded, but hardly a "mischievous attack"-- it was modeled on
what Texture said to me, to illustrate the symmetry of the situation.  In
any case, he avoided answering my points and merely repeated his usual
"vandalism" mantra.  As for my not discussing it, it was Texture, Oberiko,
and Jiang who seemed to not want to discuss it.  Further still, what I
added was less POV than what those others wanted.  Why aren't you applying
your complaints to the others?  Double standards, maybe?

----------

Now, about that content, for anyone interested.  If you're not, thanks for
reading, and you can skip the rest.  On the page about Ronald Reagan, I
changed the first below to the second:

"Yet, President Reagan's tenure marked a time of economic prosperity for
the United States."

"Yet, President Reagan's tenure marked a time of economic prosperity for
the United States, at least for the wealthy."

I see the first as a broad generalization that is untrue, or at least very
controversial.  I see my addition as a clarification that makes it closer
to the truth.  Reagan's tenure was prosperous only if you don't count the
lower classes as being part of the US.  Not just the poor, but many in the
middle class too.

In boolean terms, note that anytime the first statement is true, the
second is true; thus, my addition can only make it more truthful, not
less.  We all agree the 1980's were good for the wealthy, but there is
deep and bitter controversy over whether that was true for the poor and
working class.  Thus, my new sentence affirms what we agree on, and leaves
what we disagree on open to question (I *don't* say it *only* helped the
wealthy; I just say it *at least* helped the wealthy).  The 1980's were
certainly good for investors and business owners-- anyone who had money
made more money.  You may say that many of the middle class own stocks
(actually not so much in the 1980's), but that's only a small fraction of
stocks owned by the most wealthy.  A more accurate version of my statement
may therefore be "Reagan's tenure was prosperous to citizens, in rough
proportion to how much money they had."  Anytime you have an equation like
that, the overwhelming bulk of the wealth, and thus benefit, is held by a
relative few.

If you're an IT worker, don't forget that we tend to make a lot more money
than others, so we can't really extend our own wealth experiences to the
rest of the middle class.  People do it anyway, I know.

Here's evidence of hard times in the 1980's:  I was in Houston from 1983
to 1990.  For most of that time, this fourth-largest US city was very
economically depressed.  You could drive down most streets in most
neighborhoods and see "for rent" signs on every block.  The job market was
very tough, similar to what we've had since 2001.

Other factors in the 1980's made it unprosperous for the lower classes.
Much social spending was cut.  The prison population exploded, especially
for minorities.  I bet it wasn't for white-collar crimes, either.  (On a
tangent, did you know that 1 out of 75 US males is now in prison?  That
means that US males spend an average of a year in prison during their
lives.  For black males, it's more like 3 years.)

So, yeah, most of this probably belongs on the Reagan talk page, if a
discussion were to start there.

Thanks for reading this far!

Cheers,
James


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>The edit I saw qualified a POV statement making it less POV.
>
>Original statement:  Yet, President Reagan's tenure marked a time of
>economic prosperity for the United States.
>
>Modified statement: Yet, President Reagan's tenure marked a time of economic
>prosperity for the United States, at least for the wealthy.
>
>Both statements are POV.
>
It would have helped if James had quoted the above in his original
post.  I have no problems admitting that my own sentiments are closer to
his POV, but this is not the place to solve the question of how those
events should be best interpreted.

The issue here has more to do with peremptory banning, and rudeness to
newbies.  I don't know [[user:Oberiko]].  Perhaps someone should bring
him into the discussion.  The person who nominated him to be a sysop
should know him well enough to discuss this matter with him.

Ec


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses

body:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:15:25 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > No, the board emphatically should not handle any of those things you
> > listed.  These are decisions to be made by the Wikimedia community, not
> > a committee.  Top-down committee decisions are not the wiki way of doing
> > things.
>
> The 'committees' you talk about will be almost entirely composed of non-board
> members. But the board provides the legal and financial backbone. Somebody has
> to sign the checks and somebody has to be held responsible for making sure
> progress is being made on projects. That is where the board comes in.

To amplify this - don't forget the bulk of Wikipedia is being
supported by Jimbo/Bomis resources given for free.  This cannot last
in the long term. Colocation, bandwidth, electricity, hardware and
labor are all donated by them because of their kindness, but this is
not sustainable or robust.  We need to plan right now while Wikipedia
is in a state of financial and social healh.  This is exactly the time
to have designees think about how to achieve this.  It is not
abandoning wiki principles by imbuing individuals with the
responsibility of overseeing this process. The bills have to be paid
to keep the project going.

These were all issues that were brought up during the face-to-face
Wikimeetup in London, and something several of the Wikipedians
discussed over dinner.  The conversations were never to hijack the
decision-making as the "cabal" of individuals who happened to be
there.  The question of "What would the community think about this?"
was ever-present.

That's what the Trustees vote was for - to designate those individuals
with this responsibility.  The vision statements, candidate positions
and discussion during the election indicate most people feel it was
more than simply to satisfy the letter of the law.

-Andrew


subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

body:
Stormie wrote:

> Dan Drake wrote:
>
>> Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in
>> a revert war..
>
> The sysop in question's only participation in the edit war was to
> revert our anon user's _11th_ and _12th_ insertion of the offending
> phrase. The way you say that makes it sound like he war actively
> involved in the POV-feuding.

Apparently, he was.  If you're going to start banning people for a
violation of the 3-revert rule you need to apply it equally to everyone
who violated the rule in the article, without regard to the POV
expressed by either party.

>> and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action under
>> 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment
>> that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?
>
> The comment was a bit flip, but obviously a reference to the fact that
> the user had ignored the two messages posted to his talk page, and
> continued to revert and revert and revert, with no attempt at
> conversation beyond a mischievous attack on Texture which certainly
> made it seem to ME that he was no newbie.

If two or more people work together passing off the revert duties so
that each of them avoids being affected by the 3-edit rule that's a
conspiracy to put themselves in a superior position to the newby, who
obviously hasn't had time to develop his own alliances.  All parties to
such a conspiracy should be banned just as much as the newby.

> Serious question: what would you have done? This anon user was clearly
> displaying his intent to continually revert an article, without ever
> discussing it, and ignore all attempts to converse with him on the
> issue. He was showing signs of being a troll rather than an honest
> newbie. As far as I can see, there's only 3 possibilities:
>
> 1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
> 2) Protect the article
> 3) Block him
>
> Can you think of another alternative? Or do you just think that #2 is
> the better of the options?

A sysop should have enough experience to know that if he waits for
24-hours, the alleged offender will probably just go away.  He will then
probably be able to reimpose his POV without hindrance.

Perhaps sysops should bew limited to one revert in 24 hours.

Ec


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:44:39 -0400
  John <flockmeal at gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Category on Domesticated animals
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Domesticated_animals) the
>article Domesticated animal
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_animal) is listed under the
>letter C. Why is this?

Originally all pages were alphabetized with the text of the link, being
[[Category: Domesticated_animals]] in this case. It was later corrected to
not use the 'Category:'-part, but pages that were categorized before are
still under the C. Any edit to the page [[Domesticated animal]] should solve
this problem.

Andre Engels


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
Ed Poor wrote

>When I asked, "Can we ban 172 and VV?", I was using a rhetorical device.

Ed, I took a long time to decide whether you were a licensed clown around
here, or Machiavellian.  My conclusion: both.

> My job (as I see it) is to ensure that
articles are accurate and unbiased; my method is to encourage users to
contribute with courtesy.

In the same vein: I have found your edits to WP to be remarkable only for
their tendentiousness.  As far as courtesy is concerned, I have no
complaints in our personal dealings - in fact the opposite.

Charles


from_name: Catherine Munro

subject: [WikiEN-l] What's the issue?

body:
>>I don't know how best this can be done. Do we create a WikiCommittee
>>whose job it is to track users and drop comments on their user page? Do
>>we ask a codejunkie to write a script to autogenerate certificate
>>messages? Help me out here, allies. Whatever we do, if anything, I offer
>>my assistance, because the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
>>longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
>>stronger they get.
>
>What we need, quite simply, is for people to drop notes on other users
>talk pages saying "hey, that's some great work you've been doing there!"
>I've been doing some of that myself, _I_ enjoy doing it, and I'm sure that
>the recipients are happy too. So my advice: more of that. Less talking on
>mailing lists about awards and certificates, less organising of
>committees, just get out there and leave the personal message saying "well
>done!"

I'll admit, my editing tends to go in spurts:  I'll spend a day or two
creating swathes of new text (creating or greatly expanding articles) --
then I'll spend another three to ten days doing "housecleaning" - typo
patrols, Cleanup pages, disambiguation, lately the Orphaned Categories
page.  Why?  Because I hope against hope that the major contributions I
made will be at least be noticed to the extent that someone fixes a typo or
adds an external link, and I wait, patiently checking my watchlist, for a
few days before I'm convinced (and discouraged) that a new article has
vanished into the ether.  It certainly feels like the housework gets more
credit; at least, I'm more likely to get feedback when I clean up someone
else's article.  (I know, I know about article ownership.)   I'm not
exemplary about complimenting people either (and it's always easier to do
so via the edit summary than actually going to their user page), but I'll
make more of an effort.  I just wanted to add my two cents -- I've been a
steady editor for a year and a half, and I know exactly what others are
saying about feeling like giving up sometimes because no one notices what
you do unless you're a troll, or deliberately seek out controversial areas,
or participate in every policy discussion.

the quiet one in the back,
Catherine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro


from_name: Dan Drake

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

body:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:25:39 UTC, Stormie
<wikien-l-RB5ZwyA4Hgu1Z/+hSey0Gg at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Dan Drake wrote:
> > Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in a
> > revert war..
>
> The sysop in question's only participation in the edit war was to revert
> our anon user's _11th_ and _12th_ insertion of the offending phrase. The
> way you say that makes it sound like he war actively involved in the
> POV-feuding.

Looks as if I didn't read the history with enough care.  My bad.  I
withdraw the "participant" remark -- mostly.  See below.

>
> > and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action
> > under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment
> > that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?
>
> The comment was a bit flip, but obviously a reference to the fact that
> the user had ignored the two messages posted to his talk page,

A bit flip?  It assumes that the user knows and is willfully violating
3-reverts.  The first message you refer to merely told him to stop making
his changes because Texture considered them wrong, or rather, nonsense.
The second, from Oberiko, finished with "I will ban you if you add your
currently POV edit into the text again."   Can you find where that
mentions the *valid* reason for banning him?  I mean, the 3-revert rule.
Offending a sysop is not supposed to be valid reason for banning --
particularly if the sysop has taken part in the revert war, however
innocently and properly (at least, so I read a whole lot of the discussion
that has taken place here in the last couple of months).

The first part of Oberiko's message is good, I agree.  A pity he couldn't
stick to the point, and explain that what 24.4 did was more than just bad
manners and non-cooperation -- how quickly do we ban people for bad
manners and misbehavior?  does anybody remember 72 and Wik??? -- it's a
specific action violating a specific (though widely disliked) policy that
justifies immediate, unilateral banning.

 and
> continued to revert and revert and revert, with no attempt at
> conversation beyond a mischievous attack on Texture which certainly made
> it seem to ME that he was no newbie.

By mischievous attack, I assume you mean calling Texture a newbie.  Pretty
funny, in a way, if done by a newbie; seriously out of place if he knows
anything of the facts, or if he troubles to examine publicly available
data before popping off.  But it's not an unbelievable error in a newbie
who has just been accused of vandalism and considers himself innocent of
it.  (BTW I think that in calling it vandalism Texture is dead wrong -- a
highly unusual condition, but apparently nobody is perfect.)

What's the point of this ramble?  That his actions don't conclusively
prove that he's a knowledgeable vandal; not even to the extent of
overriding "assume good faith [and ignorance]" so that one would be
obliged NOT to mention the 3-revert rule.

>
> Serious question: what would you have done?

Easy: Refer him to the three-revert rule.  By the way, if that was the
11th revert (taking your word for it, not counting), then where the hell
was everybody else?  Why did nobody complain on the fourth through tenth
reverts?  Here we have several people, not just Oberiko, deciding not to
take the rule seriously, preferring rather to engage in edit wars.

And one could do other things, like starting out on his Talk page with
less hostility and assumption of bad faith.  And perhaps making similar
changes in the approach to writing edit summaries.  (Followers of Benjamin
Franklin are referred to the last line of this posting.)

>...  He was showing signs of being a troll rather than an honest
> newbie.

You can interpret it that way.  Another can interpret it the opposite way.
 Which approach is more likely to lead to progress in Wikipedia, and which
is asking for another long, more or less acrimonious debate on WikiEn-l?

> As far as I can see, there's only 3 possibilities:
>
> 1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
> 2) Protect the article
> 3) Block him
>
> Can you think of another alternative? Or do you just think that #2 is
> the better of the options?

Well, I've given some.  Lots more, and better ones, have appeared in this
list recently. Alas, most of them need to be applied early on.  Once the
hole has been dug, there may be no good way of climbing out -- I wouldn't
think of mentioning the Middle East here -- and the unsatisfactory
possibilities seem to be,

1a) Three-revert warning, even though one thinks this guy is a troll and
is laughing at one -- hideous fate, since one cares so much for the
opinions of trolls and vandals; together with

1b) User-Talk messages and Edit summaries strongly urging use of the Talk
page and stressing that one must learn not to get into edit wars, and
couched in the most polite and least hostile terms available; non-flaming
at this point may require outside assistance.  Followed, if need be, by

2) If these are ignored, then a ban or protection, at discretion of sysop,
who of course will consult with one or more peers before doing anything
more than a quick ban for a simple 3-revert violation.

One good thing about giving other people good advice: It raises the
standard I'll have to hold myself to, the next time I'm tempted to a
shoving match.

Cheers,
Dan Drake


body:
phil hunt wrote:

> I wasn't aware there was a policy on what counts as minor -- can you
>
>>You can trace some of the dispute here:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history
>>
>>
>
>I've had a look at one of your edits --
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=4234337&oldid=4234278
>
>and this one is IMO an NPOV violation and contains a misspelling.
>
If you are editing to remove the other person's that's not minor.  If
you had edited for the sole purpose of correcting the misspelling it
would be.

If including it was a NPOV violation, then so was deleting it.

Ec


from_name: James Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] The incident in which a new user was blocked

body:
Sorry, I get emails in digest form...I'm sure I'm
"breaking a thread" -- my apologies.

I'd suggest that a couple of things happen.  It's my
impression that James deserves an apology, not because
he was treated shamefully, but because we ought to be
a little more welcoming than we were.  Sometimes, as
an admin, I have acted too hastily and made a decision
that upset someone.  Even where I feel I was
justified, I have done my best to always offer an
apology and an explanation for my actions.  I have
never regretted doing this, and have made some
excellent Wiki-friends as a result.  I hope Texture
and Oberiko will consider doing so.

I think the community as a whole needs to remember a
forgotten page --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
When I first came here, we quoted it often.  I haven't
seen it mentioned in a long time, and I don't believe
it has been mentioned in this case, where it is so
obviously warranted.  If it has been, sorry for
showing late to the party.  I think we all, myself
included, could do with a refresher in bite-free
welcomes.  Let's make a concerted effort to assume
good faith, and open our arms to new contributors.  We
are big, yes, and we have plenty of good editors, but
they are not in such grand supply that we have the
luxury of turning them aside.  I have no idea if James
will become one, but I hope very much he will, and
that we can encourage others who arrive here, that
they too may become positive additions here.

That's my two cents,

James R. (Jwrosenzweig, as though that wasn't apparent)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
The edit I saw qualified a POV statement making it less POV.

Original statement:  Yet, President Reagan's tenure marked a time of
economic prosperity for the United States.

Modified statement: Yet, President Reagan's tenure marked a time of economic
prosperity for the United States, at least for the wealthy.

Both statements are POV.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"
To: james at jmarshall.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

Your addition was POV.  Please see Wikipedia's policy on [[Neutral point of
view]].

RickK (who was not involved in this dispute)


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] No more outing. No more threats. This is not a joke.

body:
User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have
to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post
personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it
is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a
flame war.

In the recent past I already have received a death threat
from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members of the
Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what some
interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr. Natural
Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was Jewish,
lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived in NY.
The threat was clear.

I am not willing to allow more such threats to be made.
Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must it ever
allow private personal information to be put online.

Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records so that
such personal information is permanently removed. ZW must
be banned immediately.

I take my personal safety, and the safety of my family,
very seriously. I do not want to have to initiate legal
action against anyone here in order to protect myself. But
it is now a common pattern for those people who hate me to
try and expose me, and then threaten me. If Wikipedia
doesn't take action to stop such outing and threats, then
Wikipedia effectively becomes to party to them, as it
enables them to occur without disability.

This shouldn't be controversial to any sane person. If any
of you are here privately, then you do not want your
private information outed, and you do not want to be
threatened. You don't want people to out your name, then
maybe your address?  You don't want Wikipedia to work on
the level of threats, do you? I merely feel the same way as
most of you.

Robert (RK)

=====
"No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge....A person who has knowledge has everything.  A person who lacks knowledge, what has he? Once a person acquires knowledge, what does he lack?  [Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 41a]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Link table corruption due to templates (was Re:
 Setting up for the Greek language)

references:
<40CD966B.70105@cs.ucy.ac.cy>	<40CFECA5.4000702@cs.ucy.ac.cy>	<cb6vr0$vff$2@sea.gmane.org>	<40D70F19.3080409@hackish.org>	<cb7jtj$gnn$1@sea.gmane.org>	<40D7551C.5000701@hackish.org>	<cb83dc$drf$1@sea.gmane.org>	<40D7AE94.5080909@hotmail.com>
	<cba0ai$tm2$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Let's go back a few posts and I'll try to explain what's going on.

Timwi wrote:
 > Tim Starling wrote:
 >
 >>> OK. Next idea:
 >>>
 >>> (1) Set the month names to be the possessive forms, e.g.
 >>> "Ioun?ou", so they can be used normally in dates throughout the
 >>> site. (2) Create thingies in the Template namespace that contain
 >>> the nominative forms, e.g. [[Template:Nominative-Ioun?ou]] would
 >>> contain "Io?nios". (3) Whenever you need the nominative, instead
 >>> of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} write
 >>> {{Nominative-{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}}}.
 >>
 >>
 >> Putting variables in links or template names causes link table
 >> corruption. We should have left it disabled.

Here I said "we should have left it disabled" because I have spent so
long on "custom message" and template features that I've become rather
bitter about them. It seems as if a large proportion of the total time
I've spent on MediaWiki has been on templates, and I don't even agree
with the way they are being used in Wikipedia. I think they make editing
difficult. But here I am, implementing them anyway. Why? I don't know,
popular demand I guess. Anyway, I'm sick of them and I have no interest
in fixing bugs or adding more related features.

 > Can't you put in a little "if" at the right spot that will prevent
 > these tags from adding anything to the links table? Yes, we'll have a
 > missing line in "What links here", but at least the links table will
 > stop getting corrupted.

Timwi's priorities are different to my priorities. What I work on in
MediaWiki depends on what is rewarding for me, not what is rewarding for
him.

Before I became a developer, I also found that what was important to me
was different to the priorities of the existing developers. But instead
of trying to annoy the developers into making me happy, I decided to do
it myself. I see this as a much more positive activity.

Timwi has made 500 edits and 25 mailing list posts in the last week, and
he tells us he has no time. I think he just has different priorities.
Learning how to write MediaWiki code is not a full time job. It might be
challenging, but what is life without challenges?

-- Tim Starling


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 6/24/04 10:07 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Abe (user:172) has asked me to inform the mailing list that I have
> "retracted" my request to ban him. I'd like to take this opportunity to
> clarify a few points.
>
> When I asked, "Can we ban 172 and VV?", I was using a rhetorical device.
> What I sought was merely that ALL parties concerned, would be in
> compliance with Wikipedia policy. Be cooperative, or be elsewhere:
> nothing more, nothing less.
>
> I've broken a lot of log jams at Wikipedia, and when I set out to do
> something here I've always succeeded. If it's an article, I've always
> been able to find a way to get all the contributors to agree on both the
> process and the product. If it's a 'troublesome user', it's a bit more
> involved.

Wow. Like George W. Bush, incapable of thinking of a single failure.

Ed, why don't you just admit that your question was inappropriate and
incendiary, instead of arguing that it somehow helps matters?


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] logo updates

body:
I'm thinking about simplifying logo updates by simply using

$wgLogo = $wgUploadPath.'/b/bc/wiki.png';

This way all the users need to do is uploading the image to Image:Wiki.
png. The image should probably be protected, but that's up to the
sysops.

This might also be a sensible default in DefaultSettings.php, we'd need
to supply images/b/bc/Wiki.png in that case.

Any thoughts?
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fuzzy Bunny Awards

body:
Anthere wrote:
>
>
> Timwi wrote:
>
>> Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> I think wikipedia is badly missing opportunities to show others we
>>> appreciate their work, and making our pleasure visible publicly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't you just put something on their user talk page, or even their
>> user page, or post to the mailing list, or anything? It's not like
>> there's no way to say something, you know.
>>
>> Timwi
>
>
> We'll discuss of this again, next time a good editor leaves Wikipedia in
> dispair ...

It would be good to see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Great_editing_in_progress

used more.

This a public way of thanking people that complements "private" thanks
messages such as messages on user talk pages. A barnstar is another way
of thanking people.

Pete/Pcb21


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: logo updates

body:
Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> I'm thinking about simplifying logo updates by simply using
> $wgLogo = $wgUploadPath.'/b/bc/wiki.png';
> This way all the users need to do is uploading the image to Image:Wiki.
> png. The image should probably be protected, but that's up to the
> sysops.

Is it currently possible to protect an image? Does that actually prevent
new uploads (as opposed to preventing edits to the description page)?


body:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:36:42 UTC, Charles Podles
<travelingmirv at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I agree that this block was unjustified, especially
> since the edit was not vandalism (POV, perhaps, but
> not vandalism) and blocking sysop (user:Oberiko) made
> no attempt to explain the three-revert guideline
> before the block. I have undone the block.
>

Perhaps it's a little worse than not explaining.

Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in a
revert war, and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action
under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment
that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?  (When the user in question
is likely to be a newbie, from his not having a login name.)  (And is
confirmed as a newbie by a glance at his contributions list.)

is this what we want in sysops?   Is assuming good faith just another
fantasy of Uncle Ed's?

Hey, if we can drive out people like James, we won't have to deal with all
that whinging about driving away good contributors, because we won't have
a chance to find out whether they're any good.


subject: [Wikitech-l] clamping image upscale values

body:
Finlay McWalter wrote:
> Is there a ceiling on the size to which an image may be upscaled?

If you scale an image larger than its actual pixel size, the image isn't
thumbnailed to that size; rather the larger size is simply put on the
<img> tag's width and height attributes, so it displays larger in the
browser.

This might be annoying, but won't eat up server time.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040624/a76ede63/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fennec Foxen

body:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:52:50 -0400, The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> Wow. Like George W. Bush, incapable of thinking of a single failure.

You trying to hit two birds with one stone, eh?