from_name: Fastfission

body:
Why not? It's not as if people couldn't request to edit it, unprotect
it, or suggest needed changes. The goal of Wikipedia is to produce
good, reliable content, if I recall.

Anyway, I was thinking of it after reading something that Jimbo
himself had written (http://www.ladlass.com/ice/archives/009846.html)
so I don't think saying it's not in the spirit of wiki (as if wiki had
a single spirit, anyway) is really quite going to cut it by itself.

FF

On 10/27/05, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not exactly in the spirit of wiki
>
> On 10/27/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There was a lot of talk not too long ago about possibilities of
> > protecting certain high-profile articles which are reasonably "good",
> > in order to prevent various forms of content degredation which happen
> > even with well-meaning editors, much less from vandals and the
> > problems which come up in problematic reverts, etc.
> >
> > Is there a designated place to discuss this sort of thing?
> >
> > In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for
> > Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the
> > opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby
> > people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article
> > was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This
> > article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit
> > it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of
> > "frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA
> > which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review,
> > no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out
> > (hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those
> > who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which
> > would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a
> > talk page.
> >
> > So anyway, I'm not caught up on the latest status of this debate, but
> > I think something of this sort might be a good idea, and prevent the
> > sort of incoherence that sneaks into even good articles over a long
> > period of time.
> >
> > (And before anyone points out that this would make it hard for new
> > users to edit such articles -- that would be the *point* of such a
> > policy, not an unintended consequence. And it would, ideally, focus
> > users away from such articles and onto the legions which still need
> > basic work).
> >
> > FF
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] Page freezing on "good" articles

body:
Obviously anything "can" be improved. But when articles hit a state
where most of their edits are incremental additions of misc.
information, rather than real contributions of encyclopedic content, I
think it's worth asking whether or not that's helping anything.

FF

On 10/27/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 2005, at 17:16, Fastfission wrote:
> > In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for
> > Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the
> > opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby
> > people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article
> > was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This
> > article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit
> > it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of
> > "frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA
> > which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review,
> > no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out
> > (hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those
> > who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which
> > would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a
> > talk page.
>
> Show me an article so good that it cant be improved.
>
> And reverting can be used to do this if you really want.
>
> Justinc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: copyright and NOR policies re: math and science

body:
On 10/27/05, Brown, Darin <Darin.Brown at enmu.edu> wrote:
> That's funny...given that a lot of mathematical papers consist almost
> entirely of proofs, are you saying that copyright does not apply to them?  I
> think the publisher would beg to differ.

Effort does not have anything to do with whether something is
copyrightable. If they don't have a copyrightable form of "creativity"
involved, then they aren't copyrightable. Now, again, I don't know if
that applies to mathematical proofs, but I would suspect that it might
not -- at least the strict mathematics of it.

WestLaw likes to pretend that they can copyright legal briefs but the
courts keep telling them that they can't. Phone books take a
tremendous amount of effort and cost to put together but they aren't
copyrightable. Publishers aren't the best source for information on
what is copyrightable.

> This is my point -- statements of theorems don't have different "versions"
> of themselves.  (Maybe *equivalent* versions, that's another issue.)  Or at
> least, there's very little room for tinkering.

But if they are strictly "facts", as they claim to be, then they
aren't copyrightable. The catch-22 here is that if they are entirely
fanciful, then they are clearly copyrightable. But if they are just
juggling numbers (however intelligently), then I'm not so sure. But
again, I don't know for sure -- it would come down to a decision of
whether or not a proof was a fact of nature or whether it was an act
of creativity. I don't know how a court would rule.

> But several times I've seen a math person raise an issue like this
> outside of the math community, and people just pounce on them -- imposing
> their own view of a policy to a situation they don't even understand.

I think part of the problem here is that much of what you are arguing
as the mathematical way of proof requires a certain level of
mathematical understanding to agree with. Things which would be
self-evident to a mathematician would not be so to me. So in the end
it is tempting to see it as a simple argument from authority, "This is
right because I am right." Now if we had two people saying that, I
wouldn't honestly know which one to go with, unless one of them could
say, "And furthermore, this very formulation appears in Pearson's
Wonderful World of Math on page 54" which I could easily verify.

Now the obvious solution here, were I in this imaginary content
arbiter role (a nonsensical proposition in itself posited only for the
sake of argument), if such a citation was not able to be produced,
would be to either appeal to an established authority (have some
professor type look it over) or appeal to a number of mathematically
adept Wikipedians with good edit records to look it over for me.

But it is an interesting question, either way, when it comes to things
like NOR. I think a large part of the fear is that people will use
their "mathematical reasoning" to do things which are known to be
impossible (i.e. square the circle) and hide their clever trickery
using the sorts of tricks that mathematicians can do (I know a number
of former mathematicians who do such things for fun amongst
themselves).

But again -- it only really will "matter" if it bubbles up out of the
limited scope of the mathematics-based articles. It's highly unlikely
that I would ever run across such a dispute.

FF


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Michael Turley wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> Ok, Mr. Chasm-bridger, let's see you fix the deletion debate, once and
> for all...
>
> ;-)
>
> (Oh no!  He's gonna delete AfD again!)
>

A better solution would be to ban people who:

 - Make unqualified votes
 - Make unqualified nominations
 - Sound crazy

on AfD.

(Invert criteria and apply to VfU as appropriate.)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2DMOrMAAH8MeUlWAQizrggAs5KyqoOLNPvRKLdRfOg3sN8+AUEvP6yz
zW0iRgGzX0P0OJ6Y0vuXlqcgYXSZCWHVI/kkCG7A5RNQ+m7cJNI2Hpw8kGHzOXHQ
0sL386pYvw0lTHabglIt9uhkbRFE6KHMRn9CWfeGAQJkCN8b19a0BDeAQ8HP4JxU
XQf/7uW4sophmRa99X1WWdEaTWxsCLl68nABg+GhpcBY+auOPrHzp/wknp3Zbz3a
4j/fP1KAhSI1t8zuoZJ1aD2o0BOW7V9XKdPbS0/hgURFIdh5uZ8W8DpFkzUYOdZL
DFrsIdo5HO4MdMtshBOFqzN47gh0r1URE6Z4hJWEcVTWtmVXti42TQ==
=cLiK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unilateral action contrary to a vote from a rouge
	admnin, David Gerard

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

geni wrote:
> On 10/27/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've deleted the scabrous template [[Template:Twoversions]] as a
>>blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point
>>Of View.  It was voted "keep" on TFD, which is complete rubbish
>>because eight people can't vote to violate NPOV on Wikipedia.
>>Currently protected blank.
>>
>>Voting is not only Evil, it's Stupid. Think, dammit.
>>
>>
>>- d.
>
>
> Not all dissputes are over NPOV.
>

I have to concur. There are plenty of disputes over "facts" - I
requested page protection for such an article the other day.

I propose re-creating {{twoversions}} as:

"The editors of this article are crazy and will be shot as soon as a
rouge admin finds them. (Look, there's one! Under the big pile of hay in
the barn! Quick, before 'e gets away! CHARGE!!!!!!1)"

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2DNwLMAAH8MeUlWAQj2ZAgAspj32rwMhYN0EhBy/AdG2VF/CWzDqmN3
zztfKv/bhoV0C3VVbinrjIB/woRvhq67gNHrxP5TZhP1CtAhi6EtMuyVwPPwTjBM
9yrB2O9NtOdQcz5TJ9VaTDYBE99+f+mmY2NJ+z+LnHEJQ8hNSDl63UFQu3VNkw8X
VDJOKWSC1F528rgTkKBbalWTzkffKgIg3Q7G39piS2Rk2+RFVCtJpcrJPlSnEDgi
G1G8Mb42Q1jE8dJebTwXQK6Yn8N8QYabQ/rnMj1w11BUEF/bYKGNeWVkT2LbvAwl
/c7eneqgaJyq79piLHzpuH/0ON2KokLPo3/xDXetBg7yGzqpEwRFig==
=2Sc7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Other projects in Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian,
	Montenegrin, ...?

body:
Hi all,

I'm sending this because I noticed a request for a Bosnian Wikisource:

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Language_domain_requests#bs.wikisource.org_.28Bosanski.29

Now, Jimmy Wales said IIRC that it was due to ignorance and that it
was a mistake that we had separate Wikipedias for these so-called
languages.

For this reason, it strikes me as counterproductive to start up a new
project in Bosnian.

Y?s, there are already Wikisource subdomains for Croatian and Serbian,
which in itself strikes me as unfortunate and counterproductive, but I
think that it would be even more counterproductive to promote such a
farce of forced separation of what could be fantastic combined efforts
when there is a clear path to stop the nonsense without hurting the
status quo -- with Wikisource, there is no Bosnian version yet, and
Croatian and Serbian versions are small, compared to Wikipedias.

Just as Angela said with regards to Simple English projects
(Wikiquotes and Wikibooks), a source is a source. Since Croatian,
Bosnian, and Serbian are 99.9999999% mutually intelligible, it seems
nonsensical to me to separate Wikisources, given that Wikisource isn't
even supposed to have original content.

Now, for all the people out there who would like to tell me that
Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are really separate languages, that's
obviously nonsense.

The best explanation seems to be that it's a single language, called
different names by different people.

After all, how else is it possible that people who a decade ago spoke
"Serbo-Croatian" now speak a different language? The answer is, it
isn't. They still speak the same language, they just call it different
things.

Mark

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Privacy policy and editing anonymously notice.

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

David Gerard wrote:
> Chris Jenkinson wrote:
>
>>David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>>Firstly, I must apologise for being so terse and shitty on IRC last night.
>
>
>>No you must not! It's fine.
>
>
>
> I stormed off in a huff! (And did in fact switch off the computer and
> go to bed.) How dare you invalidate my hissy fit! YOU ALL SUCK AND I'M
> DELETING MY LIVEJOURNAL!
>
>

The less LiveJournals, the better :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2DTDbMAAH8MeUlWAQiWIggArcLyqGYmAjODwtubWZS3R6P44nTNP5YP
/NpucypR59fLi/aW46Yif5VEN5jka+iYRMaUD9KVhR46cMwZXj0KeqT1f3+wdbAY
arEY5GngtlPHKu1fPj7CZJFH8M7f2JST7XM8mNCNg9AQjz+hk9b60jJOggU4sBYA
4roM0PczSrtkHa7eK9xBgxuk2Dk+YDNKG8WadbZUSb5VgvpZYEM27C6QF8cWSlaV
G+iIJ65GaW5A6chSH5MFkNPvULQCn+rYNlun+BqHXFCYK6gz6d3SKNJtrhEC872p
EzCZnT477g95zIaKfDFDzvCnOpNZUvLHEwaWnALvvoiMZR+zzN9Mtg==
=JgIJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

geni wrote:
> On 10/27/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Note that the disruption is of /Wikipedia/.  It is impossible to
>>disrupt /AfD/ with deletionism, no matter how lunatic -- that entire
>>subsystem is maliciously designed to support and encourage lunatic
>>deletionism.
>>
>
>
> AFD is designed?

*reads fine print*

(c) Microsoft 2003-2005

Well, /there's/ the problem!

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2DVHbMAAH8MeUlWAQiW0wgAqlASPLMZMbolNO2985vTtH0xNni/U9KU
7XrPOJCiORd5tQmAVo3Thx+X+2ZbfgbMRlLTKK1yAoqfxRv3loxybN5NSUe2baXN
W8giJXqHuvEjOlRt/+6oIxB1/8v7UBWLxu230McgLnyP/vEYkcrqyXwO0FBjzTqO
FL36KoT00XprS3ofXmq3GIGiFir6c+Z2Nt/0wdQnTdO3Kj4fKql3PW072ojAJBbq
59iPa4yZ4x0CtOKmN5M1A/VcrmIyEkGinqUQGkGVunR4n+8pYcNy3oK6jT/B6DXP
unRXzfTF9bsB0jg+c8SgBLyQ558WskLNzabXptcmIASkjqZFdYzMMA==
=/S4W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] I've said it before, I'll say it again...

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I am purposefully breaking the thread here:

Ryan Delaney wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>
>>Do you really want deletion in the hands of these people? Other than a
>>mild interest in which of our edit warriors would come out on top I
>>can see nothing posertive about this aproach.
>>
>
> It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in
> general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone
> edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so
> what's the point? If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion
> about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia
> at all. :\
>

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way around.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2DW4LMAAH8MeUlWAQhL/wgAtE3D0s3rQr25G0+ZSaXiDGVSspmamOfZ
Rpa4kZ5Wf2HsFMFOPGXqsyxtQTT023PQ4Xq2SfeSJBzN5Vzn3VPi0Dh4B119IQHi
e/3aB/EbWQvuJFl3ZmZfD2F+oUKm78yDn0WQC92plcZXsFFF/4aJMFi9aZvS5EYJ
Jh7bUaDL+RI4bB5PliXcCPjRoq/E5QTX0u/cI0vUDbE0STmcnm+/XI+trDUvxThv
ZQexy9I15eReBH0q/kcQBdnl4slrdFTu1D5QNC7DXd/K3NWzgJjBLK/mnSRkATaC
knaZHBYI8BXfJRlc3YqN9BGL48xiFg63xIk2L0HeJFwq//7qaCzjFQ==
=ZuAa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 10/27/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
--snip--
> The continuing arguments around VfD/AfD suggests that some of the
> community does not understand -- or believe -- that there is a goal
> to this project, a place where our Wiki will eventually end. I suspect
> that FF has found another end point to our Wiki.

Hogwash.  Unless you intend to stop the flow of time and the recording
of history, there will be no "end" to the work needed at Wikipedia.

Oh, but eventually the sciences will be covered!  Or will they?  Our
pace of scientific discovery hasn't been slowing, it's been
accelerating.

Not only that, but new insight is always coming to the surface.  I
can't think of a single article on any topic that could reach a state
where it should never need to be tweaked or adjusted over the next two
hundred years.  Imagine for a moment, had Wikipedia been started a
hundred years ago.  What would the [[Thomas Jefferson]] article look
like then?  While I'd love to have a hundred years of edit history on
Thomas Jefferson to examine, I know we wouldn't accept any hundred
year old version as the "best it could be".

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly
> > unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them,
> > but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
> >
> > --Mgm
>
>  How can deletion wars be avoided? Through page protection? Page protection
> is available whether we use wiki deletion or the current deletion system. I
> don't see the difference.

The difference is that without PWD we have virtually no deletion wars.
It would create an aditional problem while we should be addressing
people's attitudes instead of the process.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
>  That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users
> delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I don't
> see why it's an advantage either.
>  Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for
> Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed can
> be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual
> article or a redirect.
>  Anthony

Geni was right. Deletion wars are rare because there's clear policy on
it and admins are trusted members of the community who with a few
occasional exceptions follow these rules.

If we were to get rid of AFD, the creator of a crappy article could
repeatedly undelete it. If we were to address how people handle AFD,
they might actually learn why the article wasn't a good idea to start
with. PWD would call for page protection to stop the recreation,
creating loads of needless protected pages and less discussion about
something people should really talk about.

--Mgm


from_name: Fadix

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

body:
True, but very bad articles that requires to be
reorginized and important sections rewritten, will be
left there, until major changes makes those
corrections, which will take time. I am involved in
such an article, and it takes weeks for me to improve
such articles, when the not so good version is left
there. Some times, continual many little changes
doesn't work, and more the article is bad less it
works. So, the worst articles out there will be left
in bad shape for long, because they are those that
need the most changes and the need to get important
sections rewritten. I wonder, what is best, to leave
such articles, or delete them until improving them and
making them encyclopedic. If we can not rely on the
informations in an article, while should it be
accessible like any others? It is true that there are
tags warning people, but how would the common reader
know, what part of the information is OK and what is
bad?

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
> > The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust
> Wikipedia?" in which
> > various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in
> their field of
> > knowledge:
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
> >
> > At the very least, it will draw attention to the
> articles reviewed,
> > particularly the article on [[haute couture]],
> which Vogue's editor
> > rated at 0/10.
> >
> > Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the
> [[Encylopedia]]
> > article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's
> a start... it might
> > well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's
> McHenry Index by
> > improving the quality of this article, and backing
> up its statement
> > with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference
> to Wikipedia own
> > fabulousness might be a useful first step.
> >
> > The other article ratings were:
> >
> > [[Steve Reich]] 7/10
> > [[Basque people]] 7/10
> > [[TS Eliot]] 6/10
> > [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10
> > [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
> >
> > A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an
> interest in one of
> > the fields reviewed, and commented that they were
> somewhat dubious
> > about the factual accuracy of one of the
> criticisms made in the
> > article ;-)
>
> One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability
> to self-correct.  A
> simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in
> the Pepys article can
> be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly.
> What would be more
> interesting would be to have these same critics
> review the same articles
> a month later to comment on the changes that have
> taken place as a
> result of their criticism.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________________
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [wikipedia] Help request from windoze users: can anyone
	read .PM5 (supposedly pagemaker5) files?

body:
Hello,

Maybe someone can help. I was offered a book for
hu.wikipedia which is in .PM5 files and the author
does not have PM5 anymore so we cannot get the
text. It is a binary format and I do not have any
converter under Linux, so I cannot read it either,
and it's supposed to contain pictures too (which
may or may not be useful for commons).

If anyone could convert it to anything readable
please contact me by email.

Thank you!
Peter


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] no speedy criterion for blatent non fair use media

body:
Alphax wrote:

>Justin Cormack wrote:
>
>
>>The speedy delete criteria are too bureaucratic now, things have to
>>be tagged for a week, which is pointless in this case.
>>
>>
>I thought "speedy" meant "admins, provided tagging passes a sanity
>check, delete this on sight"...
>
It only works for admins who have passed a sanity check.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org

body:
Here I find a second issue:

I think that Indonesian and Malay meet an equal threshhold to
Serbocroatian, except that they don't have the same level of emotions
attached.

So, I think there should be a single Malay and Indonesian WS.

On 28/10/05, Stanley W <stanley at e-intidata.com> wrote:
> Hi, I hereby make a proposal for new wikisource language subdomain
> (id.wikisource.org) to be created.
>
>
>
> Please verify that this proposal have meet the requirements needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Stanley
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On Oct 28, 2005, at 12:49 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>>> Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can
>>> delete
>>> articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to
>>> delete an
>>> article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and
>> undeletion.
>>
>
> We do. People just choose to ignore it.
>

Now if only we could all agree on which people.

-Phil


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005

body:
There are several paradigms thru which one can view any data, but the
facts are still just as obvious. Also, there is quite alot more to it
than name recognition alone.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 10/27/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I haven't seen as much of that, lately.  The voting blocks I believe
> > to exist seem more to be based on social networks rather than any
> > particular position on Wikipedia policy.  Of course, at least one of
> > these social networks does seem to have a strong deletionist bent.
> >
> > It would be interesting to do a social proximity analysis based on RFA
> > supports (and maybe also RFC opinion supports); I suspect you'd find
> > several well-defined cliques.
> >
> > Kelly
>
> I could just be that people have a tendancy to vote for people they
> have herd of.
>
> --
> geni


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to implement wikibooks like module on mediawiki

body:
Lionel Brits:
> Can anybody point me in the right direction as to what software is
> required to get mediawiki acting like wikibooks? I.e. how name/spaces
> automatically create links between modules of a book? I've done quite a
> lot of searching but I haven't found the answer. Apologies if this is
> the wrong place to ask.
>

You probably mean
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Subpage_feature

Hope that helps. Please post future support questions to mediawiki-l:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Best,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
Snowspinner wrote:

> Another argument in favor, to my mind, is that even for experts,
> citation takes time. Research is a non-trivial task. On an article,
> this is fine - it's not a race, and citations and information can be
> added whenever. Sooner is nice, eventually is acceptable.
>
> Deletion debates, you have five days, assuming you notice it off the
> bat. When you get stretches like we're getting with webcomics,
> whereby huge strings of comics are nominated in a row, citation-based
> responses become impossible. But even in the case of an individual
> article on a topic, it is absurd to demand that subject experts get
> their work done in five days. Especially when we are so wedded to
> process that a closed AfD is growing more and more impossible to
> overturn.

Just knowing about the nomination is a problem for an editor with
once-a-week computer access.  With a five day cycle an article can be
nominated and deleted befor he comes back the following week.

Ec


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 28 Oct 2005, at 01:15, Jtkiefer wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>
>
>> Well to add some seriousness do the RfA (someone else has moved
>> the  really
>> blatent joke votes off the page) I am seeing what happens if I try
>> to  get
>> him to improve the article. Possibly cruel and unusual punishment,
>> but I
>> suspect that he might be more pleased if I change my oppose vote
>> than  with
>> the votes of the legions of fans.
>>
>> Justinc
>>
>
> I'd strongly urge against it since doing so would be pointless not
> to mention disruptive.

Well he responded well so far, and now the RfA has got sensible I
shall move the rest elsewhere.

Justinc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org

body:
You think, perhaps, but linguists would beg to differ.

The differences between Indonesian and Malay are mostly on the level
of US vs UK differences -- minor differences of spelling, a few dozen
different words...

But even most reasonable Indonesians do not believe that they truly
speak a different language than Malaysians.

Are there any _true_ differences between the languages?

I think a particularly telling proof is that if I copy the text of an
article from the Malay WP and run it through an Indonesian
spellchecker, there are 0 mistakes. Hmm.

Mark

On 28/10/05, Stanley W <stanley at e-intidata.com> wrote:
> There is significant difference between Indonesian and Malay language I think.
>
> Also there is no Malay wikisource subdomain right now.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 14:28
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org
>
> Here I find a second issue:
>
> I think that Indonesian and Malay meet an equal threshhold to
> Serbocroatian, except that they don't have the same level of emotions
> attached.
>
> So, I think there should be a single Malay and Indonesian WS.
>
> On 28/10/05, Stanley W <stanley at e-intidata.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I hereby make a proposal for new wikisource language subdomain
> > (id.wikisource.org) to be created.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please verify that this proposal have meet the requirements needed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Stanley
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
> Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
> Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
> envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
> Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
> envie-me uma mensagem.
> Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> I think it's important to get some discussion started on the way the
> arbitrators will be chosen at the end of this year, as Jimbo Wales has
> recently altered the elections page[1], saying that this year there
> will be a new system. As he hasn't decided, it's our responsibility as
> Wikipedians to help pick the best arbitrators with the best possible
> system.
>
> Currently his idea is on a appointments and confirmation procedure,
> roughly equivalent to the process that judges become United States
> Supreme Court members - i.e., Jimbo Wales picks a number of
> Wikipedians and they go through for a confirmation vote from the
> community. This obviously differs greatly from the previous system,
> where candidates put their name forward and any candidate willing to
> stand was added to the 'ballot paper' (similar to an election in most
> democratic countries).

In principle this would be a good change.  Elections do not necessarily
produce the best results.  Or they can bring out the people who do not
have the perseverence to stick out a term of office.

Arbcom appointments don't need to be all at the same time.  Whether
Jimbo should be doing this alone is a dubious proposition because of the
time demands that it would put on him.  A nominating committee of
trusted people could be a more practical idea.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org

body:
This is exactly right.

"Bahasa Melayu" is a broad term which refers to many Sundic dialects
spoken throught the archipelagio. It includes Indonesian and the
language of Brunei Darussalam, as well as the national language of
Malaysia and Singapore.

"Bahasa Indonesia" is a more narrow term, referring to the national
language of Indonesia. It's almost identical to the national language
of Malaysia.

Mark

On 28/10/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Here I find a second issue:
> >
> > I think that Indonesian and Malay meet an equal threshhold to
> > Serbocroatian, except that they don't have the same level of emotions
> > attached.
> >
> > So, I think there should be a single Malay and Indonesian WS.
> >
>
> As I understand it, "Indonesian" was created as an attempt by the
> Indonesian Government to assert their rule over the former Dutch East
> Indies, and is basically Malay with a fancy name.
>
> I am willing to step back from this position should a native speaker of
> Malay say otherwise.
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEVAwUBQ2HZvrMAAH8MeUlWAQi6xwf+OXTQ832Tcjy3DNh1PVvk4dwTiKxc6ky+
> iIaqu49YMakOLuCTjsE13i2xkvmwe74p9oIjK5kUxBDQkL9oH90Yg01s2NmRjLD5
> gIKdG9xbx2EDJ7zbrLLieNhGfCytlDlEjyP7WdFwA9OgrxRFelOVFfVSd4CLpkk2
> Gg4OCpxD1y2Hn92aqjiTyDfsUATkjLrahv7E3mxTBdJwBYR+HmfDORKEan4wGPKW
> jSV1HA5ntt2h3jT/+qRRmL4hacqKFpcAklh4cxeS9k2rpFqB3tGYxsuGE4C6ev6+
> 2IdMk/k/aqxbNr1Y1Z0ags7dYMFRU0DfkGiu189abO2+gGULWXikAQ==
> =/eBF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org

body:
So, if Indonesian and Malay are so amazingly different, do you mean to
tell me you can't read http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawit ??

I doubt it!

Mark

On 28/10/05, Stanley W <stanley at e-intidata.com> wrote:
> I think you shall ask for other language expert for some judgement about this issue.
>
> My english is bad so I may not have the skill to give you what I have in mind. But I think some Indonesian words is not recognized in Malay and vice versa, some recognized in both language but have different meaning. It is so difficult for making article but satisfying users from both language.
>
> As far as I know. There is no Malay (ms) subdomain language wikisource ever requested. So there is no point why id subdomain can not be created.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 15:53
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org
>
> You think, perhaps, but linguists would beg to differ.
>
> The differences between Indonesian and Malay are mostly on the level
> of US vs UK differences -- minor differences of spelling, a few dozen
> different words...
>
> But even most reasonable Indonesians do not believe that they truly
> speak a different language than Malaysians.
>
> Are there any _true_ differences between the languages?
>
> I think a particularly telling proof is that if I copy the text of an
> article from the Malay WP and run it through an Indonesian
> spellchecker, there are 0 mistakes. Hmm.
>
> Mark
>
> On 28/10/05, Stanley W <stanley at e-intidata.com> wrote:
> > There is significant difference between Indonesian and Malay language I think.
> >
> > Also there is no Malay wikisource subdomain right now.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Williamson
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 14:28
> > To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] id.wikisource.org
> >
> > Here I find a second issue:
> >
> > I think that Indonesian and Malay meet an equal threshhold to
> > Serbocroatian, except that they don't have the same level of emotions
> > attached.
> >
> > So, I think there should be a single Malay and Indonesian WS.
> >
> > On 28/10/05, Stanley W <stanley at e-intidata.com> wrote:
> > > Hi, I hereby make a proposal for new wikisource language subdomain
> > > (id.wikisource.org) to be created.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please verify that this proposal have meet the requirements needed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stanley
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
> > Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
> > Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
> > envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
> > Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
> > envie-me uma mensagem.
> > Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
> Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
> Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
> envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
> Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
> envie-me uma mensagem.
> Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Deactivating upload on nds.wikipedia

body:
I agree.

You can also post a message to the effect of "Image uploads to this
Wiki are discouraged, please use Commons instead".

That way, you will get less uploads.

Mark

On 28/10/05, monk at zoomcon.com <monk at zoomcon.com> wrote:
> Hello Marcus,
>
> Thursday, October 27, 2005, 8:05:56 PM, you wrote:
>
> > I made a request for this on the wiki since July [1]. There were little response
> > to this (but this is not astonishing, because there a few regular contributors
> > at all) and no real concerns against it. Reasons for the deactivating are, that
> > we have no expertise on legal issues regarding images so we couldn't sort out
> > violations of licences effectively if such would occur. Additionally we have
> > only generated around 100 images in two and a halv years of existence of which
> > I already deleted 50, because they were duplicates of images which are now on
> > Commons. So it seems better, when users of nds.wikipedia esteem the Commons as
> > their main image repository.
> I think it is wrong to disable image uploads on any Wikipedia. Users
> should have place to upload any images that are either 1) interesting
> only to this local wikipedia, not any other; 2) not totally free, just
> fair use or smth.
>
> While you are admin, you should enforce right copyright policy and
> delete unappropriate images; but you shouldn't request blocking the
> ability of uploading at all.
>
> IMHO.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  monk                            mailto:monk at zoomcon.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


from_name: Brian

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd:  AOL vandalbot

body:
I came across what most likely was a vandal bot using IPs on the range
152.163.100.*, and some other IPs I don't remember, creating a couple
dozen articles with random titles and the same block of nonsense in the
body. They would appear 3 or 4 at a time, each on a different IP. I've
been told this is an AOL range, and that if it's a bot, that's bad. So,
just letting you all know....

--brian0918

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Wikipedia e-mail: AOL vandalbot
Date: 	Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:26:18 GMT
From: 	David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
To: 	Brian0918 <brian0918 at gmail.com>

(I also put this on your talk page.)

Please hop on IRC and let the devs on #wikimedia-tech know straight away - vandalbots coming from AOL is a doomsday scenario, owing to their stupidly broad proxy network, and Tim Starling really wants to know about this stuff if it springs up. Try to keep it to as small ranges of AOL as possible, though Tim says he'd happily block the whole ISP if the alternative is making the wiki read-only. Drop a line to Wikitech-L as well (you have to subscribe first), detailing what makes you think it's a vandalbot and so on, best detail possible. (If it turns out not to have been a bot, blame me ;-) I'd rather you raised an unnecessary alarm than fail to raise a necessary one.)

- d.


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can you trust Wikipedia?

body:
> From: Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net>
>>> The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in
>>> which
>>> various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of
>>> knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
>
> As I also posted in another thread roughly on this topic, although we
> should be concerned whether or not Wikipedia is trustworthy we
> shouldn't
> get ourselves too concerned about the register's "articles" about
> Wikipedia since every single article is clearly biased against
> wikipedia
> beyond factuality so the register slamming us with criticism is just
> business as usual.

No, but we _should_ be concerned about the _Guardian's_ articles
about Wikipedia.

Because the Register isn't trustworthy, but the Guardian is.

On a trustworthiness scale of 0 to 10, I'd pesonally score the
Register as 3, the Guardian as 9.5.

And Slashdot as 2, Drudge as 4, and Wikipedia as, um, about a 7?

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l]	Infinite
	BlockbyAbusiveAdmin/Extortion/Harassment/Fraudulent use

in_reply_to:
<20051028123713.59566.qmail@web86406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (message
	from MAURICE FRANK on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:37:12 +0100 (BST))

body:
> >Wikipedia is NOT a "public forum". It is a website
> >run by a private
> >organisation. You agreed that you would abide by
> >certain terms and
> >conditions; if you have broken those terms and
> >conditions, you have no
> >legal comeback.
> >
> >- --
> >Alphax
>
> Aha!
> Yes he does have his comeback, if Wiki itself has
> broken either its own self-described terms or another
> law, towards him. Good luck to him: you've been asking
> for it with your gloating claims to be above every law
> in the world.

If that were true, you would, of course, have the same recourse.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo's RFA or whatever trigram

body:
You should have a real appeal, not a fig leaf. If Jimbo is too busy
then someone else, or a small group, should consider appeals. I think
we made good findings regarding an isolated set of incidents, but
those incidents do not define your whole body of work as an
administrator nor do they purport to.

Fred

On Oct 27, 2005, at 7:20 PM, steve v wrote:

> And
> while I am considering making an appeal to Jimbo, he
> is now a rather busy man in charge of running an
> international foundation. I can't imagine how his
> dealing with conduct disputes on en.wikipedia could be
> considered an advance of his mission. Further, I cant
> imagine how such a busy person, regardless of his
> proven judgement and temperment, can be expected to
> properly investigate the case findings of fact which I
> maintain are incorrect.


from_name: steve v

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> You should have a real appeal, not a fig leaf. If
> Jimbo is too busy
> then someone else, or a small group, should consider
> appeals. I think
> we made good findings regarding an isolated set of
> incidents, but
> those incidents do not define your whole body of
> work as an
> administrator nor do they purport to.
>
> Fred

I understand and I'm considering making one,
but the RFA process (as the Arbcom directed) is
continuing --despite the apparent problems of using a
70 percent threshold nomination scheme for a
referendum vote, in a case that (as Mindspillage let
spill out) was "deadlocked" --is continuing. (Indeed
the different uses--promotion and demotion--suggest
very different ways of reading the votes.)

But as Ive said, it should be regarded as a total
failure of the Arbcom to make a proper case--not
merely a failure with respect to its remedy. I dont
have access to private Arbcom discussions, and the
Arbcom has chosen to be rather tight-lipped about its
own internal "deadlock" re. the case. In addition, as
Ive said many times now, the Arbcom appears to have
assumped a rather tight-lipped posture even during the
period in which the case was heard. Hence its overall
level of responsiveness--before, during, and after the
case--appears to be substandard for an "open" project
that likes to claim to be fully in the public view.

I appreciate your distinction between using the case
as a referendum on my conduct, from using it as a
referendum on my character. But in fact that's what it
was, and thats indeed what the "remedy" appears
designed to be--looking at votes which refer directly
to the fresh and lacking-in-explanatory-detail RFAR
FOF. I would suggest that the Arbcom take it upon
itself to review its own "remedy" and make appropriate
changes to it in light of recent criticism, rather
than obliquely defer to the esteemed Founder, who no
doubt has better things to do.

Sincerely,
SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/28/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and
> undeletion.
>
> We do. People just choose to ignore it.
>
> --Mgm

Do you care to explain where this clear policy is?

"Each deletion category has a slightly different procedure. See the page for
that category for details. *Give the reason why you think it should be
deleted*. It will remain there for a time, giving other users the chance to
comment on whether they think deletion is in fact appropriate. After an
appropriate lag time, an administrator will delete the page if a rough
consensus is reached - see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for
administrators#Rough_consensus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus>."
Going to that page:

"Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be
as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough
consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard
opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they
were not made in good faith<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_faith>.
Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock
puppets<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet>,
being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits
are to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Some opinions can override all others. For instance if someone finds a
copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If a page was to be deleted,
but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the
article, the page might be kept. If the consensus so far was to delete, but
it is requested that a page be userfied, then typically the page will be
moved into the user namespace."
That doesn't seem very clear to me at all. Undeletion policy is somewhat
more clear, although with the new speedy deletion criteria there is quite a
bit of ambiguity as to what constitutes being "speedily deleted
out-of-process". Of course, even undeletion policy has the huge loophole of
saying that "If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including
the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are
currently in favor of undeletion, the page *may* be undeleted by a sysop."
Emphasis is in the original, and trust me, there are many admins that like
to point out that loophole.

So, unless you mean that the deletion and undeletion policies are clear that
admins can do basically anything they want, then no, the policies aren't
clear. Somewhat of a de-facto unwritten policy has emerged, but that's about
it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete
> > articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an
> > article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
> >
>
> By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.

We do. People just choose to ignore it.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/28/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and
> undeletion.
>
> >From the POV of adminship action we do. It is very hard to come up
> with a situation where both sides in an admin vs admin deletion war
> can make a halfway legit case under the rules
>
>
> --
> geni

I think this has much more to do with the fact that admin vs admin deletion
wars are highly frowned upon and therefore rare. Tying this back to the
concept of pure wiki deletion, there can still be clear policy on deletion
and undeletion under it, and delete wars can still be prohibited.

Anthony


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Infinite
	BlockbyAbusiveAdmin/Extortion/Harassment/Fraudulent use
	ofWikipediaAbuse Emails

body:
You need to address this material to Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia
Foundation.

Fred

On Oct 27, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>
> Fred,
>
> Here's the settlement.  Roll the page back to the agreed content
> and lock it and unblock my accounts so I can edit
> in the cultural areas.  Leaving me blocked is grounds for action.
> Why should I be blocked when it was your admins
> who violated the laws?    Blocking me to avoid claims when you
> allow others to edit is unlawful.  Was I blocked due to
> my race?  Or perhaps due to my religious or culturual beliefs.  See
> where this could go?   From my perspective, I was
> a victim of stalking on this site, and I was blocked for political
> reasons, not because I did anything wrong.  Making
> claims you can block people for legal threats in the case of this
> person may become a self fulfilling prophecy.
> There's right and wrong, and you are an attorney.  You cannot block
> a public forum for any reason or no reason.  It violates
> the CDA and anti-trust legislation.  Think about it.
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Dirk Riehle

subject: [Foundation-l] Missed the Wiki Symposium (WikiSym 2005)?

body:
Interested in wiki research and practice?

If you want to learn more, please check out the conference
proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, the first
of its kind, at: http://www.wikisym.org/ws2005/proceedings .

If you missed the conference, you can still read up on the talks of
the likes of Ward Cunningham, father of the wiki, and Jimmy Wales,
founder of Wikipedia, at http://ws2005.wikisym.org . The whole
symposium has been documented on a wiki, so you can learn about the
results of workshops and BoFs, and how the talks, panels, etc. went!

Wikis are are a new breed of (web-based) content management system,
primarily used to support collaborative work. (But not just that; the
fundamental flexibility of wikis has found its applications in
software development, workflow management, knowledge management,
education, and more.)

If you are curious now, we would like to invite you to join the
wikisym-announce mailing list at
www.wikisym.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wikisym-announce . The list
is moderated and will be the primary place to announce WikiSym 2006,
the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, to be held in the 2nd half of 2006.

WikiSym 2005 is an archival, peer-reviewed conference, sponsored by the ACM.

For the WikiSym 2005 committee,

Dirk Riehle
Chair, WikiSym 2005

Interested in wikis? Please go to http://www.wikisym.org!
Take a Geek's Tour of Silicon Valley! http://www.ageekstour.com
Dirk Riehle | +49 172 184 8755 | http://www.riehle.org


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

body:
You are all missing the bigger story - what baseline are they
comparing against for a "10" rating? The numbers are virtually
meaningless unless you compare against what other encyclopedias
provide (like Encarta or Britannica).

Here's a simple example - Steve Reich. It got a "7" even though the
reviewer Mike Barnes said, "Factually, the entry on the composer Steve
Reich is sound. All the facts that I have cross-checked were correct,
but some of the writing is unhelpful... But with the Reich entry
itself, and the links to other minimalist composers' entries and
websites, one can access an impressive amount of information quickly."

To me, an educator, that would not merit a "C" grade, which is what I
would consider a 7/10. How about the others?

On Encarta, it's behind the paid firewall.
On Britannica, also behind a paid firewall, but the description:
	Reich, Steve... (75 of 234 words)
On Wikipedia, around 1900 words, not including external links and
notable works list.

I would find it hard to believe Mike Barnes could give Britannica more
than a 3/10 just based on the length. It would be interesting to see
how many words Encarta has.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 10/25/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which
> various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
>
> At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed,
> particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor
> rated at 0/10.
>
> Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article
> at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be
> worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the
> quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites.
> Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a
> useful first step.
>
> The other article ratings were:
>
> [[Steve Reich]] 7/10
> [[Basque people]] 7/10
> [[TS Eliot]] 6/10
> [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10
> [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
>
> A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of
> the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about
> the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
>
> -- Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 10/28/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > What do you call it when the same article gets recreated and deleted
> over
> > and over again?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_deleted_pages
> >
>
> Low grade vandalism which requires no subjective judgement on the part
> of admins.

And yet you wouldn't call any delete war low grade vandalism? I believe
Jimbo has gone so far as to call any revert war vandalism. Unless you
propose that we only allow admins to create pages, blank pages, or change
pages into redirects, I don't see how allowing non-admins to delete and
undelete is going to change the ability of vandals to vandalize. Even then,
you'd probably have to turn off the ability of non-admins to edit at all to
have much of an effect on vandalism.

Deletion was given only to admins when adminship was supposed to be no big
deal. Maybe if adminship were no big deal again you could restrict deletion
only to admins.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd:  AOL vandalbot

body:
The login with captchas requirement sounds like the best possibility for
remedying this. It forces the person to remain in the loop and waste
their time, although if they're willing to make a bot to vandalize
wikipedia, they obviously have time to waste.

Neil Harris wrote:

> Brian wrote:
>
>> I came across what most likely was a vandal bot using IPs on the
>> range 152.163.100.*, and some other IPs I don't remember, creating a
>> couple dozen articles with random titles and the same block of
>> nonsense in the body. They would appear 3 or 4 at a time, each on a
>> different IP. I've been told this is an AOL range, and that if it's a
>> bot, that's bad. So, just letting you all know....
>>
>> --brian0918
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     Wikipedia e-mail: AOL vandalbot
>> Date:     Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:26:18 GMT
>> From:     David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>> To:     Brian0918 <brian0918 at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> (I also put this on your talk page.)
>>
>> Please hop on IRC and let the devs on #wikimedia-tech know straight
>> away - vandalbots coming from AOL is a doomsday scenario, owing to
>> their stupidly broad proxy network, and Tim Starling really wants to
>> know about this stuff if it springs up. Try to keep it to as small
>> ranges of AOL as possible, though Tim says he'd happily block the
>> whole ISP if the alternative is making the wiki read-only. Drop a
>> line to Wikitech-L as well (you have to subscribe first), detailing
>> what makes you think it's a vandalbot and so on, best detail
>> possible. (If it turns out not to have been a bot, blame me ;-) I'd
>> rather you raised an unnecessary alarm than fail to raise a necessary
>> one.)
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There really is no excuse for AOL not to tag their user proxy accesses
> with some kind of token that can be used for abuse complants.
>
> The simplest way round this problem would be to "greylist" AOL, by
> preventing anon editors from editing from AOL proxy address space.
>
> AOL currently has roughly 22% of the U.S. ISP market [source:
> http://www.isp-planet.com/research/rankings/usa.html]. Applying this
> restriction would thus have no effect on 78% of potential anon
> Wikipedia editors, and might even _increase_ the overall quality level
> of Wikipedia anon contributions.
>
> Any legitimate AOL contributor need only create an account to be able
> to edit, an this could be made easy for them by diverting the "edit
> this page" link for anons to a login page which said:
>
> "Because of problems with vandalism by some AOL users, you will need
> to register a username before editing. Creating a Wikipedia username
> is free, and has many benefits... &c. &c."
>
> Of course, this would not stop AOL-hosted vandalbots from repeatedly
> registering accounts in order to edit, but it would be possible to
> limit this by throttling the rate of new account registrations from
> AOL IPs in the usual way, as well as other possible anti-vandalbot
> measures such as requiring the use of CAPTCHAs (with an E-mail
> automation alternative for the disabled) for AOL account registrations.
>
> -- Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Why article creation/deletion is different from text
	creation/deletion

body:
Encylopedia articles have structures. And encyclopedias taken as a whole have
structures.  They are not simply loose conglomerations. (The means Wikipedia
uses to produce an encyclopedia means that in progress it tends to look more
like loose conglomeration than other encyclopedias, but that is not the
goal).

I doubt that many people actually use the Britannica "Propaedia" but the
quality of the Britannica is probably due in part to its existence.

Conversely, the value of the "yearbooks" that encyclopedia publishers hawk to
"keep your encyclopedia up to date" is low because even though the individual
articles in it may match those of the rest of the encyclopedia in quality,
the "yearbooks" do not fit into the structure of the main encyclopedia. This
is not simply a matter of indexing them; successive editions of encyclopedias
are _not_ produced by incorporating the yearbook articles into them in
alphabetical order.

The effect of editing within an article affects the structure of a single
argle. The effect of creating or deleting an article affects the structure of
the encyclopedia as a whole and is therefore a more significant event than
edits within an article.


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> What do you call it when the same article gets recreated and deleted over
> and over again?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_deleted_pages
>

Low grade vandalism which requires no subjective judgement on the part
of admins.

--
geni


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: How to use "--output=mysql" option of mwdumper?

body:
> > I don't understand the "Expected file stream, got SQL connection?"
> > error ... surely an SQL connection in this case is a good thing?
>
> You need to put the --output:mysql *before* the --format=sql:1.4.

Ah, OK! Thank you! That gets it started.

Can I please make a suggestion (for the README.txt, not mwdumper.jar) ?

The commands are described in the abstract, but converting from the
abstract to a concrete command-line is non-trivial due to:
* Different call syntax required when using the JDBC driver.
* Order of args matters when using both --output and --format.
* The ampersand in the username/password mysql URI being interpreted
as backgrounding unless escaped.

Therefore it would really help to include a concrete working example
of running mwdumper in this way in the README.txt. I would suggest
adding something like the following:

========================================================
Example of using mwdumper with a direct connection to MySQL:

/usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -classpath
mysql-connector-java-3.1.11/mysql-connector-java-3.1.11-bin.jar:mwdumper.jar
org.mediawiki.dumper.Dumper
--output=mysql://127.0.0.1/testwiki?user=wiki\&password=wiki
--format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2

Notes:
* You will need the mysql-connector JDBC driver (can be downloaded
from mysql's website).
* The JRE does not allow you to mix the -jar and -classpath arguments
(hence the different command structure).
* The --output argument must before the --format argument.
* The ampersand in the MySQL URI must be escaped on Unix-like systems.

========================================================

Also, I encountered the following the problem/error when importing in this way:

========================================================
ludo:/home/nickj/wikipedia# /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M
-server -classpath
mysql-connector-java-3.1.11/mysql-connector-java-3.1.11-bin.jar:mwdumper.jar
org.mediawiki.dumper.Dumper
--output=mysql://127.0.0.1/testwiki?user=wiki\&password=wiki
--format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
1,000 pages (58.661/sec), 1,000 revs (58.661/sec)
2,000 pages (76.502/sec), 2,000 revs (76.502/sec)
3,000 pages (88.556/sec), 3,000 revs (88.556/sec)
4,000 pages (89.71/sec), 4,000 revs (89.71/sec)
5,000 pages (90.874/sec), 5,000 revs (90.874/sec)
Exception in thread "main" java.io.IOException: java.sql.SQLException:
Not a valid escape sequence: {| border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"2\"
cellspacing=\"0\"  style=\"float:right; empty-cells:show;
margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:0,5em; background:#DEFFAD;\"\n!
align=\"center\" colspan=\"2\" | Statistics\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| [[Peripheries of Greece|Periphery]]:|| [[South
Aegean]]\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Capital: ||
[[Ermoupoli]]\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Area: || 2,572 [[square
kilometre|km?]] [[List of the prefectures of Greece by
area|Ranked 24th]]\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Elevation: ||
Lowest: [[Aegean Sea]]
Highest: [[Mount Zeus]] \n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\" valign=\"top\"\n| Inhabitants: || 119,549
[[List of the prefectures of Greece by population|Ranked
26th]]\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Population density: ||
43.23/km?\'\'(2001)\'\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| [[ISO
3166-2:GR|ISO 3166-2]]: || GR-82\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n|
[[FIPS]] code: || GR49\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| [[License plates
in Greece|Car designation]]: || \'\'\'EM\'\'\'
(\'\'\'E\'\'\'r\'\'\'m\'\'\'oupolis)\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n|
[[YPES|Code for the municipalities]]: || ??xx\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Municipalities: || 20\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Independent communes: || 11\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| [[Area codes in Greece|Area/distance code]]: ||
[[Greek dialing codes beginning with 228|228x0]] \n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n|[[List of postal codes in Greece|Postal code]]
|| 84x xx\n|---- bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| Name of inhabitants: ||
Cycladean \'\'sing.\'\'
-s \'\'pl.\'\'\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n| 2-letter abbreviation/HASC: ||
CY\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n! colspan=\"2\" bgcolor=\"#DEFFAD\" | Map\n|----
bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\"\n! colspan=\"2\" align=\"center\" |
[[Image:GreeceCyclades.png|240px|Map showing Cyclades within
Greece]]\n|}__NOTOC__\n\nThe \'\'\'Cyclades\'\'\', from the [[Greek
language|Greek]] Κυκλάδες,
(\"circular,\" modern Greek \'\'Kykl?des\'\'; see also [[List of
traditional Greek place names]]) form an [[island]] group south-east
of the mainland of [[Greece]]. They are a part of the [[Greek
islands|vast number of islands]] which constitute the Greek
[[archipelago]] in the [[Aegean Sea]]. The name was originally used to
indicate those islands that formed a rough circle around the sacred
island of [[Delos]] (\'\'map\'\').\n\nThe Cyclades are comprised of
around 220 islands, with the major ones being [[Amorgos]], [[Anafi]],
[[Andros|?ndros]], [[Antiparos]], [[Delos]], [[Ios]], [[Kea
(island)|K?a]], [[Kimolos]], [[Kynthos]],  [[Milos|M?los]],
[[Mykonos]], [[Naxos, Greece|N?xos]], [[Paros|P?ros]],
[[Pholegandros]], [[Serifos]], [[Sifnos]], [[Sikinos]],
[[Siros|S?ros]], [[Tinos|T?nos]], and [[Santorini|Santorini (Thira)]].
\n \n\n[[Ermoupolis]], on S?ros, is the chief town and administrative
center of the group.  \nThe islands are peaks of a submerged
mountainous terrain, with the exception of two [[volcano|volcanic]]
islands, [[Melos]] and Santorini (Thera). The  [[climate]] is
generally dry and mild, but with the exception of Naxos the soil is
not very fertile: agricultural produce includes [[wine]], [[fruit]],
[[wheat]], [[olive oil]], and [[tobacco]].  Cooler temperatures are in
higher elevations and mainly do not receive wintry weather.  In
transportation, the Cyclades is the only prefecture in Greece that is
not linked with a state-maintained highway or a highway number.  All
of its roads in the island complex are secondary or provincial.\n\nThe
significant Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age \'\'\'Cycladic
culture\'\'\' is best known for its schematic flat female idols carved
out of the islands\' pure white marble centuries before the great
Middle Bronze Age (\"[[Minoan civilization|Minoan]]\") culture arose
in Crete, to the south: these figures have been looted from burials to
satisfy a thriving Cycladic antiquities market since the early 20th
century. \n\nA distinctive Neolithic culture amalgamating Anatolian
and mainland Greek elements arose in the western Aegean before 4000
BCE, based on [[emmer wheat]] and wild-type barley, sheep and goats,
pigs, and tuna that were apparently speared from small boats (Rutter).
Excavated sites include Saliagos and Kephala (on [[Keos]]) with signs
of copper-working, Each of the small Cycladic islands could support no
more than a few thousand people, though Late Cycladic boat models show
that fifty oarsmen could be assembled from the scattered communities
(Rutter), and when the highly organized palace-culture of Crete arose,
the islands faded into insignificance, with the exception of Delos,
which retained its archaic reputation as a sanctuary through the
period of Classical Greek civilization.\n\nThe first archaeological
excavations of the 1880s were followed by systematic work by the
British School at Athens and by Christos Tsountas, who investigated
burial sites on several islands in 1898-99 and coined the term
\"Cycladic civilization\"   Interest lagged, then picked up in the
mid-20th century, as collectors competed for the modern-looking
figures that seemed so similar to sculpture by [[Jean Arp]] or
[[Constantin Brancusi]]. Sites were looted and a brisk trade in
forgeries arose, but more accurate archaeology revealed the broad
outlines of a farming and seafaring culture that had immigrated from
Asia Minor \'\'ca\'\' [[5th millennium BCE|5000 BCE]]. Early Cycladic
culture evolved in three phases, between \'\'ca\'\' [[33rd century
BCE|3300]] - [[20th century BCE|2000 BCE]], when it was increasingly
swamped in the rising influence of Minoan Crete.\nThe culture of
mainland Greece contemporary with Cycladic culture is termed
[[Helladic culuture|Helladic]]. \n\nIn recent decades the Cyclades
islands have become extremely popular with [[Europe]]an and other
[[tourist]]s, and as a result there have been problems with
[[erosion]], [[pollution]], and water
shortages.\n\n\n\n==Area
codes==\n\n:[[Greece dialing code 22810|22810]] - [[Syros]], including
[[Kythnos]], [[Serifos]] and [[Syros]] islands\n:[[Greece dialing code
22820|22820]] - [[Andros]]\n:[[Greece dialing code 22830|22830]] -
[[Tinos]]\n:[[Greece dialing code 22840|22840]] - [[Paros]] and
[[Sifnos]] islands\n:[[Greece dialing code 22850|22850]] - [[Amorgos]]
and [[Naxos, Greece|Naxos]] islands\n:[[Greece dialing code
22860|22860]] - [[Folegandros]], [[Ios]], [[Santorini]] and
[[Sikinos]] islands\n:[[Greece dialing code 22870|22870]] -
[[Kimolos]] and [[Milos]]\n:[[Greece dialing code 22880|22880]] -
[[Kea Island]]\n:[[Greece dialing code 22890|22890]] -
[[Mykonos]]\n\n==Municipalities and communities==\n\n{| border=\"1\"
cellpadding=\"2\" cellspacing=\"0\"\n|- bgcolor=\"#efefef\"\n!
Municipality !! YPES code !! Seat !! Postal code !! Area code \n|-\n|
Amorgos || 3101 || [[Amorgos]] || 840 08 || 22850-2\n|-\n| Andros ||
3103 || [[Andros]] || 845 00 ||  22820-2\n|-\n| Ano Syros || 3105 ||
[[Ano Syros]] || 841 00 || 22810-8\n|-\n| Drymalia || 3107 ||
[[Chalkio (Naxos), Greece|Chalkio]] || 843 02 || 22850\n|-\n|
Ermoupoli || 3109 || [[Ermoupoli]] || 841 00 || 22810-2\n|-\n|
[[Exomvourga]] || 3108 || [[Xinara]] Naxou || 842 00 || 22850-5\n|-\n|
Ios || 3112 || [[Ios]] || 840 01 || 22860-9\n|-\n| Kea || 3113 ||
[[Kea Island|Kea]] || 840 02 || 22880-2\n|-\n| Korthio || 3115 ||
[[Ormos]] Korthiou || 845 02 || 22820-6\n|-\n| Kythnos || 3117 ||
[[Kythnos]] || 840 06 || 22810-3\n|-\n| Milos || 3118 || [[Milos]] ||
848 00 || 22870-2\n|-\n| Mykonos || 3119 || [[Mykonos]] || 846 00 ||
22890-2\n|-\n| Naxos || 3120 || [[Naxos]] || 843 00 || 22850-2\n|-\n|
Paros || 3123 || [[Paros]] || 844 00 || 22840-2\n|-\n| Poseidonia ||
3124 || [[Episkopi Posidonias]] || 841 00 || 22810-4\n|-\n| Serifos ||
3125 || [[Serifos]] || 840 02 || 22810-5\n|-\n| Sifnos || 3127 ||
[[Sifnos]] || 840 03 || 22840-3\n|-\n| Thira || 3111 || [[Thira]] ||
847 00 || 22860-2\n|-\n| Tinos || 3129 || [[Tinos]] || 842 00 ||
22830-2\n|-\n| [[Ydrousa]] || 3130 || [[Gavrio]] || 845 01 ||
22820-7\n|- bgcolor=\"#efefef\"\n! Community !! YPES code !! Seat !!
Postal code !! Area code \n|-\n| Anafi || 3102 || [[Anafi]] || 840 09
|| 22860-6\n|-\n| Antiparos || 3104 || [[Antiparos]] || 840 07 ||
22840-6\n|-\n| Donoussa || 3106 || [[Donoussa]] || 843 00 ||
22850-5\n|-\n| Folegandros || 3131 || [[Folegandros]] || 840 11 ||
22860\n|-\n| Heraklia || 3110 || [[Heraklia (Cyclades),
Greece|Heraklia]] || 843 00 || 22870-7\n|-\n| Kimolos || 3114 ||
[[Kimolos]] || 840 04 || 22870-5\n|-\n| Koufonissa || 3116 ||
[[Koufonissa]] || 843 00 || 22870-7\n|-\n| Oia || 3121 || [[Oia]] ||
847 02 || 22860-7\n|-\n| Panormos || 3122 || [[Panormos]] || 842 01 ||
22830-3\n|-\n| Schoinoussa || 3128 || [[Schoinoussa]] || 843 00 ||
22870-7\n|-\n| Sikinos || 3126 || [[Sikinos]] || 840 10 ||
22860-5\n|}\n\nSee also: [[List of settlements in the Cyclades
prefecture]]\n\n==Further reading==\n*J. A. MacGillivray and R. L. N.
Barber, editors, \'\'The Prehistoric Cyclades\'\' (Edinburgh) 1984.
\n*R. L. N. Barber, \'\'The Cyclades in the Bronze Age\'\' (Iowa City)
1987.\n\n==External
links==\n\n*[http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html
Jeremy B. Rutter, \"The Prehistoric Archaeology of the Aegean\" ]:
especially Lessons 2 and 4: chronology, history,
bibliography\n\n[[Category:The
Cyclades|*]]\n[[Category:Archipelagoes]]\n[[Category:Islands of
Greece]]\n[[Category:Prefectures of
Greece]]\n\n[[da:Kykladerne]]\n[[de:Kykladen]]\n[[et:K?klaadid]]\n[[el:????????]]\n[[es:C?cladas]]\n[[fr:Cyclades]]\n[[gl:C?cladas]]\n[[it:Cicladi]]\n[[la:Cycladae]]\n[[nl:Cycladen]]\n[[pl:Cyklady]]\n[[pt:C?clades]]\n[[fi:Kykladit]]\n[[sv:Kykladerna]]','the
picture of santorini is not really relevent to this
article',331014,'AlbertR','20051012000833','',0,0,0,RAND(),DATE_ADD('1970-01-01',
INTERVAL UNIX_TIMESTAMP()
SECOND)+0,'79948987999166'),(6594,0,'Casimir_IV_Jagiello','#REDIRECT
[[Casimir IV of
Poland]]\n\n','*M',0,'66.47.62.78','20020517222455','',0,1,0,RAND(),DATE_ADD('1970-01-01',
INTERVAL UNIX_TIMESTAMP()
SECOND)+0,'79979482777544'),(6595,0,'Computer_Vision','#REDIRECT
[[Computer vision]]\n','Automated conversion',0,'Conversion
script','20020225155115','',0,1,1,RAND(),DATE_ADD('1970-01-01',
INTERVAL UNIX_TIMESTAMP(
[##### NOTE: LOTS MORE LINES OF SQL IN HERE THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FOR
BREVITY ###### ]
the Dune saga? */',0,'82.20.215.163','20051013190422','',0,0,0,RAND(),DATE_ADD('1970-01-01',
INTERVAL UNIX_TIMESTAMP() SECOND)+0,'79948986809577')
        at org.mediawiki.importer.XmlDumpReader.readDump(Unknown Source)
        at org.mediawiki.dumper.Dumper.main(Unknown Source)
========================================================

All the best,
Nick.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.

>From the POV of adminship action we do. It is very hard to come up
with a situation where both sides in an admin vs admin deletion war
can make a halfway legit case under the rules

--
geni


from_name: Brown, Darin

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: copyright and NOR policies re: math and science

body:
Fastfission said:

>>> Effort does not have anything to do with whether something is
copyrightable. If they don't have a copyrightable form of "creativity"
involved, then they aren't copyrightable. Now, again, I don't know if that
applies to mathematical proofs, but I would suspect that it might not -- at
least the strict mathematics of it.

Well, you raise some very interesting points.  I know that research papers
in math have a copyright attached to them...I have always assumed that this
meant something along the lines of "don't photocopy this and sell it".  (As
if that's going to happen.)  The copyright of math research papers always
seemed bizarre to me -- mathematicians *WANT* their papers photocopied and
distributed without permission!!  Maybe not their textbooks or monographs,
but certainly their research papers.  It promotes their ideas.  It gets
people interested in their field and problems.  It advances their careers.
As far as researh papers are concerned, the entire copyright issue only
exists because of publishing houses.  We'd be perfectly content to do our
own peer review, trade papers electronically, etc.  And this is starting to
be done.

To be honest, the only thing math people really care about with regard to
research is attribution and rigour.  I could take someone's paper and
paraphrase all their results and proofs, and then sell it to people.  Is
that a copyright violation?  Depends, I guess.  If I'm just changing "x"'s
to "t"'s or what not, then yes.  If I'm really giving a novel presentation
of the results, (e.g. presenting them in a pedagogically novel way) then no.
There is no easy answer.

>>>But if they are strictly "facts", as they claim to be, then they
aren't copyrightable. The catch-22 here is that if they are entirely
fanciful, then they are clearly copyrightable. But if they are just juggling
numbers (however intelligently), then I'm not so sure. But again, I don't
know for sure -- it would come down to a decision of whether or not a proof
was a fact of nature or whether it was an act of creativity. I don't know
how a court would rule.

It's an issue that philosophers of math aren't agreed upon, let alone
judges!!

I think this is a case of the community largely policing itself.
Mathematicians would intuitively have a sense of when something was just
"stealing" vs. an original contribution.

>>>I think part of the problem here is that much of what you are arguing
as the mathematical way of proof requires a certain level of mathematical
understanding to agree with. Things which would be self-evident to a
mathematician would not be so to me. So in the end it is tempting to see it
as a simple argument from authority, "This is right because I am right." Now
if we had two people saying that, I wouldn't honestly know which one to go
with, unless one of them could say, "And furthermore, this very formulation
appears in Pearson's Wonderful World of Math on page 54" which I could
easily verify.

>>>Now the obvious solution here, were I in this imaginary content
arbiter role (a nonsensical proposition in itself posited only for the sake
of argument), if such a citation was not able to be produced, would be to
either appeal to an established authority (have some professor type look it
over) or appeal to a number of mathematically adept Wikipedians with good
edit records to look it over for me.

Exactly!  We agree!  People get caught up in citations to the literature as
an end unto itself, rather than a *means* to an end.  After all, why do we
cite the literature?  Because when something is in the literature, it has
passed peer review and has been given the stamp of approval by qualified
experts.  All it means is, "Someone sent this paper to a human being(s), who
read it, researched it, checked it, and proclaimed it good."  Now, it's
possible to interpret this as merely an "argument from authority"!  After
all, in a sense, *all* citations are just "arguments from authority"!  They
just say, "This person checked it, thought about it, verified it, and we
should trust them."  What is that, except an argument from authority?!?  And
that's all that goes on when I say, "suppose a proof is easily verifiable by
any professional editor in the field at wikipedia".  There's little
difference between that and submitting something for peer review -- it's the
same process.

>>>But it is an interesting question, either way, when it comes to
>>>things like NOR. I think a large part of the fear is that people will use
their "mathematical reasoning" to do things which are known to be impossible
(i.e. square the circle) and hide their clever trickery using the sorts of
tricks that mathematicians can do (I know a number of former mathematicians
who do such things for fun amongst themselves).

Well, that's what the experts are here for...to catch such things.  Just
like they catch such things in peer reviewed journals.

This is an interesting discussion (IMO).

darin


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

body:
Andrew,
 The Encarta article has 563 words with internal links but no external
links.
 If you use the MSN search tool, you get access to Encarta pages relevant to
your search. I copied the article into Word and did a word count.
 I think we can rate Wikipedia the winner in terms of content in that
exercise. It would be interesting to do a comparative test on all of the
articles listed in the Guardian article.
 Regards
   *Keith*

 On 10/28/05, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are all missing the bigger story - what baseline are they
> comparing against for a "10" rating? The numbers are virtually
> meaningless unless you compare against what other encyclopedias
> provide (like Encarta or Britannica).
>
> Here's a simple example - Steve Reich. It got a "7" even though the
> reviewer Mike Barnes said, "Factually, the entry on the composer Steve
> Reich is sound. All the facts that I have cross-checked were correct,
> but some of the writing is unhelpful... But with the Reich entry
> itself, and the links to other minimalist composers' entries and
> websites, one can access an impressive amount of information quickly."
>
> To me, an educator, that would not merit a "C" grade, which is what I
> would consider a 7/10. How about the others?
>
> On Encarta, it's behind the paid firewall.
> On Britannica, also behind a paid firewall, but the description:
> Reich, Steve... (75 of 234 words)
> On Wikipedia, around 1900 words, not including external links and
> notable works list.
>
> I would find it hard to believe Mike Barnes could give Britannica more
> than a 3/10 just based on the length. It would be interesting to see
> how many words Encarta has.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
>
>
> On 10/25/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which
> > various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge:
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
> >
> > At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed,
> > particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor
> > rated at 0/10.
> >
> > Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article
> > at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be
> > worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the
> > quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites.
> > Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a
> > useful first step.
> >
> > The other article ratings were:
> >
> > [[Steve Reich]] 7/10
> > [[Basque people]] 7/10
> > [[TS Eliot]] 6/10
> > [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10
> > [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
> >
> > A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of
> > the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about
> > the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
> >
> > -- Neil
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can you trust Wikipedia?

body:
>
> I'd actually give Wikipedia an 8-8.5 on trustworthiness. Writing quality
> is another thing entirely.
>

Lets not delude ourselves. We have a long way to go.  I was just
looking at some old EB articles the other day; Guerrilla [warfare],
written by   ..........  T. E. Lawrence.  And Space-time, written by
..........  Albert Einstein.

EB has literally tens of thousands of superb, first rate articles
written by the world's leading experts and polished by an editorial
staff. Yet we enjoy make fun of a handful of embarrassing errors or
shortcomings that have.

Conversely, Wikipedia has literally thens of thousands of piles of
festering crap, a huge amount of unverified, uncited information and
only a handful of first rate articles. We've been the media's little
darling for a long time, not because we are great, but because
Wikipedia works _at all_. The media honeymoon won't last forever.

Article validation might help some, but we also need a check valve to
keep the good stuff and reject the bad. Experts and great writers
aren't going to stick around and watch their work perpetually
degraded.

Lest I sound too harsh, remember that the OED, also written with the
help of volunteers, took over fifty years to fully publish.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Just knowing about the nomination is a problem for an editor with
> once-a-week computer access.  With a five day cycle an article can be
> nominated and deleted befor he comes back the following week.

Insert my 30-day AfD proposal here again. :) Of course they shouldn't
_have_ to last that long, if a solid consensus develops before then one
way or the other there shouldn't be a problem ending it early. Bearing
in mind that "solid consensus" means more than just a tally of 66%
"keep" or "delete". Insert my "disregard unexplained votes" proposal
here again. :)


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

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

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> I think this has much more to do with the fact that admin vs admin
> deletion
>
>wars are highly frowned upon and therefore rare. Tying this back to the
>concept of pure wiki deletion, there can still be clear policy on deletion
>and undeletion under it, and delete wars can still be prohibited.
>
>Anthony

Yeah, absolutely. Pure wiki deletion doesn't mean "delete whatever you
feel like should be deleted". The criteria for deletion would be no
different. The only difference is the mechanism by which stuff gets
deleted.

Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDYjzt6MKb8lYmCtcRAswFAJ0XYWyDHCowp7xtVobGiuaKN9kJmACeN9fT
CgSlnIMsfhubvcC/PU+lEyw=
=MwRC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Jayjg wrote:
>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>

>>Then you're not watching.  The existence of voting blocks is quite
>>evident in RfA.

>In the past you've alleged voting blocks in RfA based on their "deletionist"
>tendencies, and this was discussed on this mailing list.  Are you still
>making this claim?

Alphax's RFA.

- d.


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

subject: [Foundation-l] Hebrew Wikinews set into development

body:
Avichai and six other Hebrew Wikipedians and Wikiquoters have signed up to
create a Hebrew Wikinews.

I've checked out their contributions, approved the request to start
development on Meta-Wikipedia.

So you know,
Nick Moreau/Zanimum


subject: [WikiEN-l] Case sensitivity

body:
dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote:

>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>
>[[Formosa's Law]]. Could all lucid persons connected to reality please
>leave this thread alone. Thanks.
>
>Did you mean to cite Formosa's Law, or Formosa's law? We have articles on both.
>
>
No longer. :)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Ranking articles using machine-generated stats

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

[snip spectacularly good document on machine-ranking of articles]

>Before any of this could be possible, we would in any case need the
>article ranking system to be up and running for some time, which we need
>anyway for the manual approach.

Sounds good. Please help fix the flagged problems! I'm not a coder,
but you are ;-)

- d.


body:
On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Put yourself forward
> as someone who will ignore the typical "d nn" and "keep we need all
> articles" votes, and wow! They all get mad and shoot you down in flames.

Sure anyone who states that they are going to go against common
practice (and probably policy) to such a degree should be opposed.
Adminship does not exist to further political causes.

--
geni


body:
geni wrote:
>On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Put yourself forward
>> as someone who will ignore the typical "d nn" and "keep we need all
>> articles" votes, and wow! They all get mad and shoot you down in flames.

>Sure anyone who states that they are going to go against common
>practice (and probably policy) to such a degree should be opposed.
>Adminship does not exist to further political causes.

*ahem* Against common AFD practice, *with* policy.

Tony Sidaway got RFCed for following policy in deletion debate
closings, remember.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Case sensitivity

body:
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>

[[Formosa's Law]]. Could all lucid persons connected to reality please
leave this thread alone. Thanks.

Did you mean to cite Formosa's Law, or Formosa's law? We have articles on both.


body:
On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any
> article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the
> reasons are for the keep votes"?

Maybe.

--
geni


body:
On 10/28/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> *ahem* Against common AFD practice, *with* policy.
>

No if we stick with formal policy you have to go with the rough consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Decision_Policy

> Tony Sidaway got RFCed for following policy in deletion debate
> closings, remember.
>
>
> - d.

Triggering a deletion war is not a good idea.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can you trust Wikipedia?

body:
On 10/28/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> On a trustworthiness scale of 0 to 10, I'd pesonally score the
> Register as 3, the Guardian as 9.5.

You relise that from now on if you ever try and edit anything
political on wikipedia you will be accused of haveing a massive left
wing bias?

--
geni


from_name: Ilia Alshanetsky

subject: [Wikitech-l] PHP 5.1.0RC4 testing

body:
Hello!

You are receiving this email because your project has been select to
take part in a new effort by the PHP QA Team to make sure that your
project still works with PHP versions to-be-released. With this we hope
to make sure that you are either aware of things that might break, or to
make sure we don't introduce any strange regressions. With this effort
we hope to build a better relation between the PHP Team and the major
projects.

If you do not want to receive these heads-up emails, please reply to me
personally and I will remove you from the list; but, we hope that you
want to actively help us making PHP a better and more stable tool.

The fourth and hopefully the final RC of PHP 5.1.0 has released today,
it can be downloaded from http://downloads.php.net/ilia/. Since this is
the final release, we ask you to test it extensively with your software
to ensure that no regressions have occurred. If you discover any (we
hope not) please notify PHP's QA team at "php-qa at lists.php.net".

In case you think that other projects should also receive this kinds of
emails, please let me know privately, and I will add them to the list of
projects to contact.

regards,

Ilia Alshanetsky
5.1 Release Master


subject: [WikiEN-l] Page freezing on "good" articles

body:
On 10/28/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> There was a lot of talk not too long ago about possibilities of
> protecting certain high-profile articles which are reasonably "good",
> in order to prevent various forms of content degredation which happen
> even with well-meaning editors, much less from vandals and the
> problems which come up in problematic reverts, etc.
>
> Is there a designated place to discuss this sort of thing?

No designated place, but this is a proposal is similar not in
protecting articles, but having a "marker" to signal a stable or last
agreed upon version.

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

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


body:
On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any
> >>article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the
> >>reasons are for the keep votes"?
> >
> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> >
>
> I went looking through last week's AFD pages (eg. October 17-21). I saw
> a few articles where the "majority" of votes were to delete, but the
> last few votes included statements such as "keep, I have verified and
> rewritten the article..." and "keep after excellent rewrite".
>
> Are you telling me that you would have deleted such articles? Why don't
> we actually go back to "votes for deletion" and implement voting
> software for the page? If the process is so mechanical and requires no
> brainpower whatsoever, why not just automate it?

Socks, copyvios and meatpupets call for judgements.

Lets take a real senario (for resons of avoiding percived bias I could
never close and AFD on delete).  The 3RR. Two people have broken the
3RR. One I know two be a POV pusher. the other just got a bit wound
up. What do I do? Another case. Someone respected by the community (an
arbcom memember) has broken the 3RR. What do I do. Final case once
again the 3RR has been broken but thier oponenent has not broken it.
However this is only because there oponent is a highly skilled edit
warroir to the point where it doesn't even look like they are gameing
the rule. What do I do?

In each case I block the person who has broken the rule. Why? Because
if fail to follow policy for a good reason sooner or latter I will
fail to do it for a bad one.

Overuleing policy to do what you belive is right is adictive. It seems
to make everything so right in the short term.

> (Oh yes, I forget to mention: I have a fully-functional auto-voter which
> merely requires you to edit the AFD subpage in question. Contact me
> off-list for details.)

Ctrl-v yes?
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> I think this has much more to do with the fact that admin vs admin deletion
> wars are highly frowned upon and therefore rare. Tying this back to the
> concept of pure wiki deletion, there can still be clear policy on deletion
> and undeletion under it, and delete wars can still be prohibited.
>
> Anthony

Revert wars are prohibited. Here is the list of ones where the revert
warriours were unskilled.

[[WP:AN/3RR]]

--
geni