body:
Your right, There's probably not going to be any technical
enhancements anytime soon. So basically what of this can be
implemented  without software changes?

for the make I'm on another wiki messages standardized you could do:

A redirection template, could be included in the editintro for all new
user pages (i think its something like mediawiki:userpageintro ).
something along the lines of:

just writing here, to go to other wikis to talk to you? please just
use <charinsert>{{redirMessage|wikiquote:fr:user:foo}}</charinsert>.

This way its in a standardized format, and if someone comes along to
make a bot to copy *important* messages over there, it'd make it way
easier for them.

-bawolff

On 11/11/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/06, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps have some sort of optional field in the registration form,
> > that says: I come from this wiki project. and if they fill it out, a
> > bot will copy automatic deletion notices over there too. If they come
> > to commons:special:userlogin/create_account (or whatever the link is)
> > from another wiki well logged in, this part of the form can be passed
> > with get arguments e.g
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=user:enwiki
> >
> > of course single user login is a better solution, but I see that
> > happening a long time form now (If it ever happens)
> > -bawolff
>
> OK, that would be brilliant, but I see SUL being implemented before I
> see specialised signup pages being written just for Commons!
>
> Anyway, I made a bug request that Commons get email notification (
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7870 ). I also notice
> there is an open request to enable it on basically all the wikis (
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5505  - well, if they do
> it for the "major wikis", I don't understand why they wouldn't do it
> for all).
>
> Anyway, one problem (again) is the technical, of getting Enotif, the
> second is the social problem of training people to actually turn it on
> and use it. (Unless we turn it on by default for new accounts, that
> would be awesome...)
>
> From the other discussion -- I am not to keen on the idea of switching
> warnings to email only. For one thing, they're /invisible/ to the
> wiki. No one else can tell if a person has already been warned or not.
> For another, I don't really feel the need to reveal my email address
> to every jerk copyright ignorer on the planet :P although I could get
> a Wikimedia only one, but eh... hassle!
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
>


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] safari problem

body:
Liz Kim wrote:
> I am having problems with Safari.
>
> In my localsettings, $wgUrlProtocols has been set to
> 'http:|http:\/\/|https:\/\/|ftp:\/\/|irc:\/\/|gopher:\/\/|mailto:'.
> In order to get relative external links to work. (for example:
> [http:../../mypage/ MyHTML Page])
>
> I just discovered that this does not work on safari...

Yes, that's not actually a legal URL. While some browsers happen to
allow it to work, others don't, so you shouldn't rely on it.

Note that you can use the {{SERVER}} variable to make full URLs with
whatever the local server is.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: wikien-l

from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:55:52 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>This is a backwards approach.  Citing an ephemeral policy in the course
>of an arbitration does not ipso facto create validity for the policy.

It does, however, endorse the principles on which it is based, which
in the end come back to NPOV and V.

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


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speaking of bad and wrongness

body:
On 11/11/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> For the last week I've had an MfD open for an egregious example of
> process gone wrong. It'd be good to get some comments on it from
> list-members.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/A-D

I think the biggest problems faced by those pages are that they are too
unweildy and too many of the opinions are out of date and undated.

I don't see how this can be considered "process gone wrong" or "instruction
creep".  The underlying idea is good.  I remember when I first came across
adminship.  It seemed like a cool idea.  Then I read that people with "less
than 500-1000 edits" were unlikely to pass the vote.  Since I had just a few
hundred edits I wandered off and learned about policy and all sorts of other
things, and ended up passing my RFA easily.  In part it was because of the
standards publicised by jguk - he said (at the time) that he would oppose
anyone without an FA to their name, and support a candidate with one.
Putting a good article together did not, in and of itself, prepare me for
adminship, but the time it took gave me a chance to learn about policy and
learn about Wikipedia.

Anyone who has even had an "oppose" vote with little explanation wishes for
a list of standards.  Some people have said that criteria belong in a
person's user space.  If so, then there needs to be a central directory of
these userspace criteria - so something like this list would be needed
anyway.  People who do post criteria should be required to update them, or
at least certify them, every few months, but that's a different matter...


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
Added Travis Derouin (travis) from WikiHow, to commit extensions they've
developed.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opinions of commentators

body:
zero 0000 wrote

> One of the common problems in articles related to current events
> seems to slip between the cracks of the main policies like V, RS and
> NPOV.  If I'm wrong and there are policy or guideline pages already,
> please tell me where to look.

Policies are necessary, but not sufficient. NPOV in a sense is supposed to be a 'sufficient' master policy. Verifiability is nothing like sufficient.

> The problem is as follows.  Whenever a controversial event happens,
> there are (literally) hundreds of journalists and commentators having
> their say about it in hundreds of places.  What happens next is that
> some editor, or group of like-minded editors, starts adding extracts
> from these commentaries one after another until the article has pages
> of quotations all saying more or less the same thing.  These extracts
> may individually satisfy the requirements of V and RS, so they can't
> be deleted on those grounds.  There is also a straightforward way to
> fix the NPOV problem, namely to add a long list of similar extracts
> from commentaries giving the other point of view.  But that just
> makes the article look even more horrible.

Unbalancing the article clearly goes against NPOV.

> So I think there should be a policy that can be used to keep
> quoted commentaries within reasonable bounds.  It would say that
> common threads of opinion should be succinctly summarised with
> citation of some examples - say what the choir is singing but don't
> try to quote each of the members of the choir.

Our 'house style' is to do that, surely. Repetitive material can be tightened up, paraphrased, and generally made into a lean, taut piece. There is a greater consensus for that than one might think. (Smart partisans understand that saying something once well, rather than twice badly, works here. Not talk radio, are we?)

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
> participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
> conflicts.

Any ordinary person reading this in a straightforward way would take an
instruction to "avoid" doing something as a statement that it is not
allowed.

Telling users to avoid doing something and then saying that that doesn't
prevent legitimate uses because it isn't a ban, is expecting everyone who
reads the policies to be a Wikilawyer.  This is absurd.  Policies need to
be comprehensible by ordinary people.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sourcing "popular culture" items

body:
Guy Chapman wrote

>  Some of the scariest
> words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
> contestants are inherently notable".

"Reality contestants are inherently not able" to deal with reality, might be more it.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
Phil Sandifer wrote

> May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with
> ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"

Be my guest. But I consider it established that all debates on notability leave one staring into an abyss.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Proposed decision]] also cites WP:COI (may have been on my mind more).

> This is a backwards approach.  Citing an ephemeral policy in the course
> of an arbitration does not ipso facto create validity for the policy.

Ray, it's not a policy, and it's not ephemeral. Further, the ArbCom can come up with whatever principles it likes, as explication, in particular because it is not bound by its own precedents. If there is a page to cite, it is likely to be referenced. If not, Fred Bauder would likely create something from scratch.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
For the last week I've had an MfD open for an egregious example of
process gone wrong. It'd be good to get some comments on it from
list-members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/A-D

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> The leader of
> Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
> raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly uses
> data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
> current the results are bound to be chaotic.

Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ian Tresman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Arbitrators exempt from WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING?

body:
Must Arbitrators abide by WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING, or are they exempt
during an arbitration case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil

1. I am embroiled in an arbitration case in which one of the editors
has been cited of being uncivil against me (with evidence provided),
using Ad hominems such being "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance",
advised me not to "be a dick", etc.

An Arbitrator has disagreed (no problem), but has then commented that
it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade", which may Oxford
English Dictionary defines as:

	"to call things by their real names, without any euphemism or
mincing of matters; to use plain or blunt language; to be
straightforward to the verge of rudeness."

To me this reads as if the Arbitrator is justifying the language,
because it is considered accurate.

2. The same editor is citing as using "strong negative language"
against living people (cf. WP:LIVING), and the same Arbitrator has
made the same comment.

3. The same Arbitrator has also noted that "I do not believe Ian
Tresman's deserve good faith"

It does seem to me that if editors can not use such language at any
time, then Arbitrators should be setting an example, otherwise
editors will loose faith in the Arbitration process.

Regards,
Ian Tresman


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On 10 Nov 2006 at 20:30, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
> participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
> conflicts.  If Angela participates in a discussion about deleting an
> article about her why should anyone object.  Her wiki work has made her
> notable, but the final decision on this is not hers.  I have no reason
> to believe that her comments will be other than within the bounds of
> acceptable editing.  What would be a conflict of interest would be for
> her to exercise her influence with the highest levels of WMF as the
> basis for either including or excluding an article about her.

It seems to all depend on just how the affected party goes about such
participation.  If they simply write a polite, courteous, concise
piece contributing an explanation of why, from their openly noted
perspective of involvement in the article's subject, they believe the
article should be [kept | deleted | etc.], then there's no reason to
object, especially if the conflict-of-interest is noted and
acknowledged and the comments are not formatted in the style of a
"vote", but rather as information to contribute to the discussion.

On the other hand, if somebody comes into such discussions with a
chip on their shoulder, makes long rants about how evil Wikipedia and
Wikipedians are because they don't all automatically take the "right"
side on the issue, makes personal attacks and legal threats, brings
in sockpuppets and meatpuppets to "vote" along with them, and replies
to any criticism with further rants which lead to flame wars and
pissing contests that make the AfD page in question a mile long and
with an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio, then they are not making
a very constructive contribution.

I'm not sure what sort of rule, guideline, or policy could be made
that encourages the former while discouraging the latter.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Unfortunately I am not online at the moment so I can't look at the
history.  But I wanted to comment quickly now in case I forget later.

The version that was live on the site when I wrote my original post was
an apparent copyvio, and it was later confirmed to be a copyvio.
Anthony wants to pretend that I was talking about some other version,
but that's Anthony for you.

The image was a blatant copyvio.

--Jimbo

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
>>>
>>>
>> I did not say that.  The point is, it is NOT verifiable.  It is likely a
>> copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from
>> reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
>>
>> It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with
>> respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them.  I see no
>> reason to trust anything about the article at all.
>>
>> In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and
>> in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources.  And any
>> movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the
>> view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
>>
> This is an overreaction.  While there may be some basis for suspecting
> that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the
> article is a bit of a stretch.  There is not much information in the
> article to start with.  It is a stub, but that is more an argument for
> the proposed merge than outright deletion.  How can you say that
> something is "likely a copyvio"?  Either it's prima facie a copyvio or
> it's not.  Either you have compared it with some original text, or you
> haven't.  Wouldn't it be better to verify a claim that someone is acting
> illegally before making it.  If we are going to criticize such
> unsubstantiated claims when they are made about the subject of an
> article, shouldn't the same standard apply to claims about our fellow
> contributors.
>
> I would not presume to say whether the information is verifiable or
> not.  I do not understand Tagalog, and I do not regularly keep tabs on
> what is being said in Philippine publications..  Do you?
>
> And what really is the standard for pop culture notability?  There is
> an  extensive article for the 9th place finisher from the most recent
> ''American Idol''.  This was the first season of ''Philippine Idol''.
> Why wouldn't it's 9th place finisher merit the same treatment, including
> the way that publicity shots are accepted?  This project isn't just
> about what goes on in those countries that have a high proportion of
> Wikipedians.  It isn't just about the sophisticated standards that have
> developed over a long period of time in our key countries.  It's also
> about educating editors in other countries, and you don't accomplish
> that with automated messages about the evils of copyvios.  These
> techniques that one would associate with Gringo imperialism do nothing
> to draw newbies into our fraternity.
>
> I don't see User:The Green Archer as having with a serious problem.  In
> the spirit of "Don't bite the newbies" someone writing him a personal
> message or taking this "lad" under wing would have accomplished more in
> educating a new editor.  Simply welcoming with an automated message that
> shows newcomers the way to "Help" and "FAQ" pages is our equivalent to
> an automated telephone message telling us to "Press 1 if ..., Press 2 if
> ..., Press 3 if... , ..."
>
> 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
>


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd:  Fwd: Dispute Resolution

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Dispute Resolution
To: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>

On 11/10/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> I haven't read it in enough detail to follow what you are saying.
>
> Fred
>
>

Synopsis:

Plaintiff filed Mediation Request based upon allegation that defendant
"misrepresented sources".  Two questions were raised:

(1) the correct name to be used for a Federal Agency;

(2) the attributation within that report of the phrase, "The following
were members of the Perlo Group".

After lenghty discussion it was agreed upon by the parties that the
original name defendant used was to be changed from the sucecessor
agency which hosted the Report on its website, to the original defunct
agency (the Report had been release after the original "issuing
agency" had gone defunct).  This was no longer an "issue in dispute"
when Mediation was requested.

The attribution of the phrase, "The following were members of the
Perlo Group" was further complicated by the fact that, while the
texted was footnoted (Footnote 59), the Endnotes to the Agency Report
covering that particular portion of text remained classified, i.e.
were withheld from publication.

Defendant demonstrated through other supporting documents that
Plaintiff's theory of attribution was not viable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff&diff=prev&oldid=23802054

4 days later Plaintiff pursued, and was granted, a Mediation Request
based upon the false premise that (1) the name of the Agency Report
citation was still in dispute (2) presented as "Disputed Text" the
phrase, "The following were members of the Perlo Group", his version
entiely culled from defendants' response to the charge of
"misrepresentation"

http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_mediation_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html#2_-_What_text_relating_to_Magdoff_is_being_disputed.3F

In otherwords, there was no dispute. The RfM was not pursued in Good Faith.

There is a mountain of other evidence to support this abuse of
process, and I will happy to detail if so enquired.  Thank you.

nobs01


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 11/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the
> current version.  It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.

>From the deletion log:

* 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Jeli
Mateo" (1 revisions restored: undelete non copyvio material)
* 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Jeli
Mateo" (g12 much taken from or derived from
http://starmometer.com/2006/09/20/jellica-jelli-marie-mateo-philippine-idol-top-12/)

Those deleted revisions, leaving out the post-Jimbo ones, were:

#  13:38, 1 November 2006 . . 202.81.173.73 (Talk | block)
# 22:37, 17 October 2006 . . Lectricky (Talk | contribs | block) (stub update)
# 12:23, 13 October 2006 . . 125.60.185.149 (Talk | block)
# 08:31, 30 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.114 (Talk | block)
# 15:36, 29 September 2006 . . The Green Archer (Talk | contribs | block)
# 14:49, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
# 14:32, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
# 13:38, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
# 13:34, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)

So, yes, plenty of material was added after the 17th and was posted at
the time of the original message.

>  So when he irresponsibly uses
> data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
> current the results are bound to be chaotic.
>
> Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact
> remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.

...no, the fact remains that it wasn't, it just looks like it was.

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


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version
>> that had the copyvio problems.
>>
> What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the
> current version.  It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.

No, Anthony misled you.  The current version at the time I used this as
an example was first theorized by me to be a copyvio.  Then it was
proven by Geni to be so, and those revisions were deleted.

> If
> anyone but Jimbo had written this way it would have been treated as
> trolling.

Ray, I hope you will apologize to me for this remark.  I was not
trolling, you misread the history, ok?  The revisions which I speculated
to be copyvios were copyvios, and subsequently deleted it.

>  He even said, "(I would delete it now, but I want people to
> take a quick look at it first)", but the picture was already gone.  It
> was reloaded but not linked from the new article.  The leader of
> Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
> raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly uses
> data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
> current the results are bound to be chaotic.

I think you should also apologize to me for this.  I said nothing
"irresponsibly".

> Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact
> remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.

No, that is not true.  Please review the history again, and remember
that AGF applies even to me. :)  I don't make up crazy irresponsible
examples.  The bits I complained about were live on the site when I
complained about them.

Please acknowledge this.

--Jimbo


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] hi

body:
Hoi,
The Gagauz language (ISO-639-3 code gag) has already been proposed as a
new language. The only reasonable argument why not to grant it a
Wikipedia is because there seem to be no native people willing to
support this project. In the mean time there is nothing stopping you
starting creating content on the incubator under the gag code.

There is also little stopping you from working on the localisation of
the Gagauz language User Interface on Betawiki. On BetaWiki you will
have to find one of the developers willing to set up the necessary
infrastructure. I would recommend them to do just that.

I do welcome you to create the Babel templates on WiktionaryZ. We have
portal pages for more than half of the 7602 languages that have been
recognised under the ISO-639-3 standard. We are working on the rest and,
we welcome anybody to check out if the Babel templates in his/her
language are already there.

Consequently, there is already a lot that can be done. It just needs doing.

Thanks,
     GerardM

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Gagauz
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://nike.users.idler.fi/dev/index.php?title=ISO-639-3/gag&redirect=no
http://wiktionaryz.org/Portal:gag

Faxri T.Karimli wrote:
> in your language list dont exists gagauz language, i think it is trouble problem. in this language of Moldova speak about 200 000 population, mostly form Gagauzia Autonomous Region


body:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:59:53 +0000, "Earle Martin"
<wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:

>For the last week I've had an MfD open for an egregious example of
>process gone wrong. It'd be good to get some comments on it from
>list-members.

Not "process gone wrong" at all, I'd say, but it is a questionable use
of resources.  The failure of process is the whole business of
arbitrary demands for shrubberies at AfD, documenting or not
documenting the demands won't make them go away.

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


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On 11/11/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> Any ordinary person reading this in a straightforward way would take an
> instruction to "avoid" doing something as a statement that it is not
> allowed.

"Avoid" is pretty clear language in any case.

Wikipedia has a social environment which is different from many other places.

Generally you can even do things which are forbidden so long as
everyone who cares agrees that doing so was good.  This, of course,
happens elsewhere too.. but it's quite common on Wikipedia. I've
previously argued in detail that this is the natural result of working
in an environment where almost everything can be totally undone with
less effort than it took to do.

So the language we've used is just a reflection of reality: Your
ability to get away with such edits is conditional on the approval of
all the established Wikipedians who are watching. We can't tell people
they are permitted to do something but then yell when they do
something unacceptable, nor is it fair to give a firm no but later
ignore the rule when they've done something everyone agrees on.

If we were to try to write a rule which explained the conditions we'd
find that it would need to become nearly as long as the entire body of
meta-discussion on Wikipedia before it did a good job at helping the
reader tell if their action would be accepted or not ...  even long
standing and respected users sometimes have a hard time guessing how
the community will react.

> Telling users to avoid doing something and then saying that that doesn't
> prevent legitimate uses because it isn't a ban, is expecting everyone who
> reads the policies to be a Wikilawyer.  This is absurd.  Policies need to
> be comprehensible by ordinary people.

No. It's a hope that no one is a wikilawyer.

The rules are to help people quickly understand what is generally
accepted and expected. A suggestion to avoid does exactly that... and
only a wikilaywer wants rules to be more than that.

If the rule says you should avoid, but you do it, and the community
does not agree.. This isn't time for you to start arguing rules.. this
is the time for you to realize that it's the communities position
which is actually binding.


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

body:
Anthony wrote:
> Brion, Tim,
>
> We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification
> of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons.  Can one of
> you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other
> reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?

Woops, probably should have done it along with meta. On now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Platonides wrote:
> "Anthony" wrote:
>> Turning on email notification when you get a message on your talk page
>> would be a good solution in the mean time.  In fact, for some people
>> (like myself) who don't check their Wikipedia talk page that much
>> either, it might even be a better solution.
>>
>> I believe this email notification has already been coded up.  What
>> would be the problems with turning it on?  Can someone be specific
>> here and answer exactly why it hasn't been turned on?  How many
>> additional servers would be needed to support it?
>>
>
> I guess the problem of email notification could be a lot of emails being
> sent.
> But email notification wouldn't be necessary. When the Single User Login
> gets implemented, it'd be easy to have a second "You have new messages"
> text.

It's actually closer than that:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/API#userinfo_.2F_ui

Parameters: uiprop=isblocked|hasmsg|rights|groups, uioptions=<opt name>|...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061111/244a5879/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sourcing popular culture items

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
<snip>
> So, when do I get my Wikipedia article?
>

When your other parent does.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061111/6471e4c6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On 11/11/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2006 at 20:30, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
> > participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
> > conflicts.  If Angela participates in a discussion about deleting an
> > article about her why should anyone object.  Her wiki work has made her
> > notable, but the final decision on this is not hers.  I have no reason
> > to believe that her comments will be other than within the bounds of
> > acceptable editing.  What would be a conflict of interest would be for
> > her to exercise her influence with the highest levels of WMF as the
> > basis for either including or excluding an article about her.
>
> It seems to all depend on just how the affected party goes about such
> participation.  If they simply write a polite, courteous, concise
> piece contributing an explanation of why, from their openly noted
> perspective of involvement in the article's subject, they believe the
> article should be [kept | deleted | etc.], then there's no reason to
> object, especially if the conflict-of-interest is noted and
> acknowledged and the comments are not formatted in the style of a
> "vote", but rather as information to contribute to the discussion.
>
> On the other hand, if somebody comes into such discussions with a
> chip on their shoulder, makes long rants about how evil Wikipedia and
> Wikipedians are because they don't all automatically take the "right"
> side on the issue, makes personal attacks and legal threats, brings
> in sockpuppets and meatpuppets to "vote" along with them, and replies
> to any criticism with further rants which lead to flame wars and
> pissing contests that make the AfD page in question a mile long and
> with an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio, then they are not making
> a very constructive contribution.
>
> I'm not sure what sort of rule, guideline, or policy could be made
> that encourages the former while discouraging the latter.
>
Maybe a rule/guideline/policy against ranting about how evil Wikipedia
is, against making personal attacks, against making legal threats,
against using sockpuppets to "vote"?

Is there a rule against ranting about how evil Wikipedia is?

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On 11/11/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
> > participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
> > conflicts.
>
> Any ordinary person reading this in a straightforward way would take an
> instruction to "avoid" doing something as a statement that it is not
> allowed.
>
Yes, if what is really meant is that it's perfectly OK to participate
in a deletion discussion over a company you work for, but that we want
to "warn [people] that this sometimes leads to conflicts", then the
page should be rewritten to warn people that "this" sometimes leads to
conflicts, not to tell people to "avoid" "it".

'Cause I've always taken "avoid X" to mean "try not to do X", and I
don't think I'm the only one who thinks this way.

And if I were writing the guideline, I'd say "X is encouraged", where
X is "participating politely in a deletion discussion over
yourself/your company/your favorite TV show/anything you know a lot
about.

Anthony


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 10 Nov 2006 at 20:30, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
>>participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
>>conflicts.  If Angela participates in a discussion about deleting an
>>article about her why should anyone object.  Her wiki work has made her
>>notable, but the final decision on this is not hers.  I have no reason
>>to believe that her comments will be other than within the bounds of
>>acceptable editing.  What would be a conflict of interest would be for
>>her to exercise her influence with the highest levels of WMF as the
>>basis for either including or excluding an article about her.
>>
>>
>It seems to all depend on just how the affected party goes about such
>participation.  If they simply write a polite, courteous, concise
>piece contributing an explanation of why, from their openly noted
>perspective of involvement in the article's subject, they believe the
>article should be [kept | deleted | etc.], then there's no reason to
>object, especially if the conflict-of-interest is noted and
>acknowledged and the comments are not formatted in the style of a
>"vote", but rather as information to contribute to the discussion.
>
This is all fair enough, but the distinction between casting a vote and
information is a bit hairsplitting.  To the extent that anyone is voting
it is after all only one vote, and in a hotly contested request it's
importance will be marginalized.

>On the other hand, if somebody comes into such discussions with a
>chip on their shoulder, makes long rants about how evil Wikipedia and
>Wikipedians are because they don't all automatically take the "right"
>side on the issue, makes personal attacks and legal threats, brings
>in sockpuppets and meatpuppets to "vote" along with them, and replies
>to any criticism with further rants which lead to flame wars and
>pissing contests that make the AfD page in question a mile long and
>with an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio, then they are not making
>a very constructive contribution.
>
When all this stuff happens conflict of interest is put on the back
burner because all of these more serious problems have come into play.
As with the more civilised participant, their vote (sockpuppets
excluded) is still only one vote.  The more outrageous the comments the
less they need responses; they speak for themselves in more ways than
simply expressing the person's stand on the issue.  If they are
outrageous enough they may drive voters to the other side.

>I'm not sure what sort of rule, guideline, or policy could be made
>that encourages the former while discouraging the latter.
>
It doesn't need more rules.  Just deal with evident bad behaviour as
what it is.  Adding more rules instead of relying on the existing ones
only serves to ensnare editors who already behave themselves in a web of
legalisms.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-11-11

body:
brion at pobox.com wrote:
> Passed 422 of 439 tests (96.13%) FAILED!

I've made a couple of additions to the parser test system:

First, the results can now be stored in the database for comparison
between runs. This means that new tests, fixes, and regressions can be
more visibly marked.

At the moment the reporting change is simply to list the number of
new/removed/changed tests, but this could be improved further to give
more prominence to specific regressions.

Second, the test suite can run from multiple source files. Extensions
with their own test files can append them to $wgParserTestFiles, and
they'll get automatically run alongside the main tests.

It might be nice to break up the big test file into smaller, more
manageable pieces.

If you want to try the recording mode yourself, source the tables from
maintenance/testRunner.sql and pass the --record option to parserTests.php.

Note that the recording system requires each test to have a unique name;
this isn't currently enforced when not recording, but assume it will be. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Florian Straub

body:
 "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote on Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20
PM:

> Anthony wrote:
>> Brion, Tim,
>>
>> We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification
>> of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons.  Can one of
>> you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other
>> reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?
>
> Woops, probably should have done it along with meta. On now.

Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations
on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?

Regards,

Flo


body:
At 14:10 11/11/2006, Mark wrote:
>Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a
>dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know
>the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try
>to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise
>you are  being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or
>whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to
>stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such
>language isn't considered rude.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I have to disagree with your
comments on "Don't be a dick". How the phrase is used will surely
determine whether it is being used as an Ad hominem, no matter how it
is meant. As the description itself says, "Telling someone 'Don't be
a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself".

There are other ways of criticising someone, and referring them to
the phrase (described as an essay, not a policy or guideline).

Regards,
Ian Tresman


from_name: Mark Clements

body:
> brion at pobox.com wrote:
> Passed 422 of 439 tests (96.13%) FAILED!

That line has always puzzled me... it appears to say that 96.13% of tests
failed...

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image thumbnail (re)generation etc

references:
<d20d84ea0611072035s391f6080l95c30bec89e30521@mail.gmail.com>
	<eirtip$o1l$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d20d84ea0611080001u73f449calb12ded55a4b5e698@mail.gmail.com>
	<eisuj0$brn$1@sea.gmane.org> <eitj7f$830$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<eiu45d$nno$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d20d84ea0611090606y4bf92cc4y90751ed016107729@mail.gmail.com>
	<ej1i0i$fa6$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 10/11/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> action=purge on the image description page has the additional effect of
> deleting all existing thumbnails for that image, and sending purge requests
> to the squids for those thumbnails. It's a special case for image
> description pages, action=purge for any other page purges only the HTML cache.

OK that's good to know... so, um, why doesn't it seem to work? :)

> > Could we please have more information about any limits set by the
> > software that might cause thumbnail generation to fail? From
> > http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2888  there are comments
> > about a "runtime memory limit", "12.5 Mpixel hard limit for PNG
> > images", problems with "PNGs and progressive JPGs". Of course, I would
> > prefer that thumbnails don't fail, but while they do, the next best is
> > to have specific advice to give users to solve this problem. They tend
> > to get rather agitated when they upload files and they don't appear to
> > be there.
>
> The limits are:
> * 12.5 Mpixel for the source image, for raster images other than JPEGs (e.g.
> PNGs)
> * 100MB memory limit (ulimit -v)
> * 100MB maximum created file size (ulimit -f)
> * 180 seconds of CPU time (ulimit -t)
>
> Anything that makes ImageMagick crash will, of course, not be rendered.

As in, just corrupted files?

OK so if I understand correctly, PNGs like all files are subjected to
a 20MB file size, but also a uncompressed 12.5Mpixel limit, which may
well kick in before the 20MB.

And progressive JPGs are evil. Got it. Is there an easy way to tell if
a JPG is progressive?

cheers,
Brianna


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Fwd: [afrophonewikis] for the attention of the
	editors of Yoruba Wikipedia

body:
Forwarding this here because I thought this experiment on Yoruba might
be of interest to some of you .. there've been many responses on the
list already so no need to respond directly. However, those interested
in the growth of African language Wikipedias will want to subscribe to
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: adewole lawrence
Date: Nov 4, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: [afrophonewikis] for the attention of the editors of Yoruba Wikipedia
To: afrophonewikis at yahoogroups.com

Yoruba scholars in Nigeria are being encouraged to
 contribute to Yoruba Wikipedia and they have started
 doing this but then, there are some problems (i) They
 do not know how to break the articles into pages. One
 or two of the articles are more than 32kb and they
 need to be broken into pages for easy editing. We
 would like the editors to help us break the articles
 into pages and advise us how we can do this. (ii) Some
 of the aricles are not placed where they should be.
 The article under FOLKLORE should be under FOLKTALE.
 The one under EDEE YORUBA should be under AWADA
 (HUMOUR). The one under ORILE-EDEE YORUBA should be
 under YORUBA PLACE NAMES and the one under LITERATURE
 should be under ORIKI: YORUBA DESCRIPTIVE POETRY. We
 would also like to be advised how titles are created
 for new articles.
 L.O. Adewole

 Lawrence Olufemi Adewole
 Department of African Languages and Literatures
 Obafemi Awolowo University
 Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
 cellphone: 0803-471-4476

 __________________________________________________________
 Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
 (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/)

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote
>
>
>>The leader of
>>Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
>>raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly uses
>>data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
>>current the results are bound to be chaotic.
>>
>>
>Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
>
I'm not about to be intimidated by your veiled threats.

Ec


body:
On 11/11/06, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps have some sort of optional field in the registration form,
> that says: I come from this wiki project. and if they fill it out, a
> bot will copy automatic deletion notices over there too. If they come
> to commons:special:userlogin/create_account (or whatever the link is)
> from another wiki well logged in, this part of the form can be passed
> with get arguments e.g
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=user:enwiki
>
> of course single user login is a better solution, but I see that
> happening a long time form now (If it ever happens)
> -bawolff

OK, that would be brilliant, but I see SUL being implemented before I
see specialised signup pages being written just for Commons!

Anyway, I made a bug request that Commons get email notification (
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7870 ). I also notice
there is an open request to enable it on basically all the wikis (
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5505  - well, if they do
it for the "major wikis", I don't understand why they wouldn't do it
for all).

Anyway, one problem (again) is the technical, of getting Enotif, the
second is the social problem of training people to actually turn it on
and use it. (Unless we turn it on by default for new accounts, that
would be awesome...)

>From the other discussion -- I am not to keen on the idea of switching
warnings to email only. For one thing, they're /invisible/ to the
wiki. No one else can tell if a person has already been warned or not.
For another, I don't really feel the need to reveal my email address
to every jerk copyright ignorer on the planet :P although I could get
a Wikimedia only one, but eh... hassle!

cheers,
Brianna


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
One problem seems to be diacritics. Yoruba WP should have a diacritic
thing below the edit box like Romanian WP, Navajo WP, or Minnan WP.
Chances are, users' keyboards do not have the appropriate diacritics
for writing the Yoruba language. Most will also not know how to type
them using a Unicode editor.

Diacritics are very important to the writing of the Yoruba language
because: 1) they represent tones, which can make distinctions in
meaning, and 2) they represent distinctions between certain vowels
which can also cause changes in meaning.

For example see
http://yo.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A0%C3%ACj%C3%ADr%C3%AD%C3%A0 which
is completely without diacritics.

Mark

On 11/11/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Forwarding this here because I thought this experiment on Yoruba might
> be of interest to some of you .. there've been many responses on the
> list already so no need to respond directly. However, those interested
> in the growth of African language Wikipedias will want to subscribe to
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis/
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: adewole lawrence
> Date: Nov 4, 2006 1:01 PM
> Subject: [afrophonewikis] for the attention of the editors of Yoruba Wikipedia
> To: afrophonewikis at yahoogroups.com
>
> Yoruba scholars in Nigeria are being encouraged to
>  contribute to Yoruba Wikipedia and they have started
>  doing this but then, there are some problems (i) They
>  do not know how to break the articles into pages. One
>  or two of the articles are more than 32kb and they
>  need to be broken into pages for easy editing. We
>  would like the editors to help us break the articles
>  into pages and advise us how we can do this. (ii) Some
>  of the aricles are not placed where they should be.
>  The article under FOLKLORE should be under FOLKTALE.
>  The one under EDEE YORUBA should be under AWADA
>  (HUMOUR). The one under ORILE-EDEE YORUBA should be
>  under YORUBA PLACE NAMES and the one under LITERATURE
>  should be under ORIKI: YORUBA DESCRIPTIVE POETRY. We
>  would also like to be advised how titles are created
>  for new articles.
>  L.O. Adewole
>
>  Lawrence Olufemi Adewole
>  Department of African Languages and Literatures
>  Obafemi Awolowo University
>  Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
>  cellphone: 0803-471-4476
>
>  __________________________________________________________
>  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
>  (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/)
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> Be my guest. But I consider it established that all debates on
> notability leave one staring into an abyss.

I won't go quite so far as Charles, but certainly I think it is quite
safe to say that whenever and wherever we can find something more easily
amenable to consensus evaluation than "notability," we are advised by
long experience to try to rely on that to do the heavy lifting for us.

Is Ms. Mateo "notable"?  Impossible question to answer...

Are there reliable sources for the information in question?  Ah, now we
have something that we have long success in at least using to move
forward successfully to a reasonable degree.

--Jimbo


body:
On 11/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >> First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version
> >> that had the copyvio problems.
> >>
> > What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the
> > current version.  It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
>
> No, Anthony misled you.  The current version at the time I used this as
> an example was first theorized by me to be a copyvio.  Then it was
> proven by Geni to be so, and those revisions were deleted.
>
I misled no one.  In fact, I specifically said that the version I was
quoting didn't seem like it was the same version that you were
referring to.

Please stop spreading lies about me.

Anthony


from_name: Mike O

subject: [Wikitech-l] where are mediawiki extensions?

body:
Where are the Mediawiki extension hidden at ? Pages in meta have the wrong links, to cvs at sourceforge.

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Mark Clements wrote:
>> brion at pobox.com wrote:
>> Passed 422 of 439 tests (96.13%) FAILED!
>
> That line has always puzzled me... it appears to say that 96.13% of tests
> failed...

The final "FAILED!" indicates that not all tests passed.

In a perfect world, you'd see 100% PASSED! :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

body:
BTW, I've merged most of the related articles to be "Philippine Idol contestants", and retagged the images as {{tv-screenshot}}, which they likely are, do to the proportion and the resolution. Four of the contestants with more detailed articles still are seperate.

I've also found where some of the info on Ms. Mateo comes from, a post to Idolnews.com that wasn't archived, however was Google cached. The text doesn't seem to be copyvio in her case, can't say about the others.

Nick

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
"Gregory Maxwell" wrote

> The rules are to help people quickly understand what is generally accepted and expected.

Exactly. The right order in which to do things is: get the outline policies, guidelines and community norms; learn the ropes; worry later about the harder questions. The wrong order is: become a specialist in a policy area where you intend to sail close to the wind; try your luck; seek advice and common sense guidance last of all.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/06, James Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
>
> > I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really
> > don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as
> > it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something
> > like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current
> > fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued
> > donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and
> > understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
>
>
> We wouldn't get away with naming the company in the sitenotice - it'd
> have to be a link to a page listing the matching donations. Think
> that'd work for anyone?

Why not? Simply stating that a particular person/organization is going to match all donations made
in a certain day of the drive is not advertising. It is simply giving credit where credit is due
and inducing individual donations. Having different large donors sponsor each day of the drive in
this way would be great.

-- mav

____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Ken Arromdee wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
>>participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
>>conflicts.
>>
>>
>Any ordinary person reading this in a straightforward way would take an
>instruction to "avoid" doing something as a statement that it is not
>allowed.
>
That may be consistent with your view of the "ordinary person", but
others may see it differently.  Avoidance is a restriction that one
applies on one's own self.  It does not depend on the imposition of
external authority.  It favours the exercise of judgement and the
ability to know one's own limits.  An outright ban on an activity could
easily be stated with less equivocation.,

>Telling users to avoid doing something and then saying that that doesn't
>prevent legitimate uses because it isn't a ban, is expecting everyone who
>reads the policies to be a Wikilawyer.  This is absurd.  Policies need to
>be comprehensible by ordinary people.
>
Quite the contrary.  Some "ordinary people" don't need to be led through
by the hand like little children.

Ec


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 06:42:38PM +0100, Mike O wrote:
> Where are the Mediawiki extension hidden at ? Pages in meta have the wrong links, to cvs at sourceforge.
>
Hello,

The extensions can be found in our SVN repository at

	http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/

Regards,

	jens


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>If we were to try to write a rule which explained the conditions we'd
>find that it would need to become nearly as long as the entire body of
>meta-discussion on Wikipedia before it did a good job at helping the
>reader tell if their action would be accepted or not ...  even long
>standing and respected users sometimes have a hard time guessing how
>the community will react.
>
We've pretty well all had these moments.

>>Telling users to avoid doing something and then saying that that doesn't
>>prevent legitimate uses because it isn't a ban, is expecting everyone who
>>reads the policies to be a Wikilawyer.  This is absurd.  Policies need to
>>be comprehensible by ordinary people.
>>
>>
>No. It's a hope that no one is a wikilawyer.
>
>The rules are to help people quickly understand what is generally
>accepted and expected. A suggestion to avoid does exactly that... and
>only a wikilaywer wants rules to be more than that.
>
>If the rule says you should avoid, but you do it, and the community
>does not agree.. This isn't time for you to start arguing rules.. this
>is the time for you to realize that it's the communities position
>which is actually binding.
>
Well put.  The wording "avoid" leaves room to test the waters.  If
someone objects it's a good time to start looking for a constructive
compromise.

Ec


body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:

>continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying
>
That is a complete fabrication on your part.  Show the evidence or
apologize.

Ec


from_name: James Hare

body:
I'm not about to be taken in by all this. Can't we have constructive
discussion that don't culminate in...

DRAMA!?

On 11/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >Ray Saintonge wrote
> >
> >
> >>The leader of
> >>Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
> >>raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly uses
> >>data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
> >>current the results are bound to be chaotic.
> >>
> >>
> >Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this way for
> convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
> >
> I'm not about to be intimidated by your veiled threats.
>
> 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
>


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Keres Pueblo Languges Added

body:
I travelled to New Mexico this weekend to visit with family in
Albuquerque and met today at the Santa Domingo Pueblo with
several native speakers about the preservation efforts for the Keresan
Language family.

Keres is spoken on the Acoma, Cochiti, Laguna, San Felipe, Santa Ana,
Santo Domingo, and Zia Pueblos.  There are four distinct
languages spoken in the pueblos, and they are completly unrelated
language families.

Lexicons and grammar references for machine translation are under way
for support for Keres.

Jeff


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote
>>
>>
>>> The leader of
>>> Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
>>> raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly
>>> uses
>>> data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
>>> current the results are bound to be chaotic.
>>>
>>>
>> Ray, you're at a signpost, and one of the directions says 'this
>> way for convinced trolls'. Suggest you pull back.
>>
> I'm not about to be intimidated by your veiled threats.

OK, you don't have to be intimidated, but you are totally wrong, and
continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying or being irresponsible when
evidence has been presented by several people, Jimbo included, that
you're wrong.

Which, you know, is the sort of thing that one could reasonably call
trolling.

-Phil


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
On 11/11/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Mark Clements wrote:
> >> brion at pobox.com wrote:
> >> Passed 422 of 439 tests (96.13%) FAILED!
> >
> > That line has always puzzled me... it appears to say that 96.13% of tests
> > failed...
>
> The final "FAILED!" indicates that not all tests passed.

Adding the "..." as in the lines above would indicate that "422 of 439
tests failed" is not the preferred reading.

Mathias


body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On 11/11/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>> Mark Clements wrote:
>>>> brion at pobox.com wrote:
>>>> Passed 422 of 439 tests (96.13%) FAILED!
>>> That line has always puzzled me... it appears to say that 96.13% of tests
>>> failed...
>> The final "FAILED!" indicates that not all tests passed.
>
> Adding the "..." as in the lines above would indicate that "422 of 439
> tests failed" is not the preferred reading.

Indeed; done!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 11/11/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone who has even had an "oppose" vote with little explanation wishes for
> a list of standards.  Some people have said that criteria belong in a
> person's user space.  If so, then there needs to be a central directory of
> these userspace criteria - so something like this list would be needed
> anyway.

After thinking about it some more I have made a lengthy proposal. I
would value comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/A-D

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

body:
Raimond Spekking wrote:
> Brion Vibber schrieb:
>> A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
>> logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
>> of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
>>
>> There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
>> announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
>> admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
>>
>> If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
>> days.
>
> Time to change now? Or are there any reasons against I havn't read?

Woops, just forgot to get back to it. :)

Set now in r17550, which will go live at some point shortly.

Sound the alarms!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
>> continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying
>>
> That is a complete fabrication on your part.  Show the evidence or
> apologize.

"The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm
his comments can
raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly
uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were
still current the results are bound to be chaotic. "

That pretty clearly shows that you think Jimbo deliberately made
unfactual comments.

Now, since the evidence that you were completely wrong in throwing
your accusations around has shown itself, apologize period.

-Phil


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately I am not online at the moment so I can't look at the
> history.  But I wanted to comment quickly now in case I forget later.
>
> The version that was live on the site when I wrote my original post was
> an apparent copyvio, and it was later confirmed to be a copyvio.
> Anthony wants to pretend that I was talking about some other version,
> but that's Anthony for you.
>

He isn't an admin so he can't see exactly what happened. Mistakes
under such conditions can be understood.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 11/11/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> And progressive JPGs are evil. Got it. Is there an easy way to tell if
> a JPG is progressive?

This was the first I've heard of this one. I *always* create
progressive JPEGs where possible because they display more nicely in a
web page, so I got in the habit. Eep!

- d.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-11-12

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
A database query syntax error has occurred.
The last attempted database query was:
"SELECT  img_size,img_width,img_height,img_bits,img_media_type,img_major_mime,img_minor_mime,img_metadata  FROM `uncommons`.image  WHERE img_name = 'Noimage.png'   LIMIT 1 "
from within function "Image::loadFromDB".
MySQL returned error "1142: SELECT command denied to user 'alphauser'@'localhost' for table 'image' (localhost)"


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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

  13 new PASSING test(s) :)
Passed 435 of 452 tests (96.24%)... FAILED!


subject: [Foundation-l] APDIP Donates 15 e-Primers to Wikibooks

body:
Discovered this by coincidence -- haven't seen anything on it in the
mailing list archives.

http://www.apdip.net/news/wikibooks

APDIP Donates 15 e-Primers to Wikibooks

APDIP realizes how fast a published book gets out-of-date, especially
in the fast-moving field of information and communications technology
for development (ICT4D). APDIP has therefore donated 15 of its
e-Primers to Wikibooks for free use and update (see list below).

15 e-Primers are now available on Wikibooks for all to use and update.

Nine of the e-Primers are part of APDIP's "e-Primers for the
Information Economy, Society and Polity" series that detail the
concepts, issues and trends surrounding different aspects of ICT4D,
including e-commerce, education, e-government, Internet governance,
legal and regulatory issues, and ICT for poverty reduction.

Six of the e-Primers are part of the "e-Primers on Free/Open Source
Software (FOSS)" series that introduce various aspects of FOSS,
including education, government policy, licensing, localization and
open standards. The FOSS series of e-Primers is developed by the
International Open Source Network (http://www.iosn.net), an initiative
of UNDP-APDIP supported by the International Development Research
Centre of Canada.

Wikibooks is our chosen platform because it facilitates collaboration.
Every day, volunteers are improving Wikibooks, making many changes,
writing, updating, and correcting books. Wikibooks maintains quality
control and has policies and guidelines that users need to follow.
Wikibooks are also available for all to freely distribute and
reproduce as covered by the GNU Free Documentation License.

We would like to invite you to visit the Wikibooks and contribute your
knowledge and experiences in the relevant ICT4D topics. Forthcoming
APDIP e-Primers on network infrastructure and security, open content
and other topics will all automatically be donated to Wikibooks.

The original published e-Primers will remain in
http://www.apdip.net/elibrary#iesp (and, in the case of the e-Primers
on FOSS, at http://www.iosn.net/publications/foss-primers), and the
version in Wikibook will be linked to these. This way any user will be
able to see the original version alongside the (modified) Wikibook
version.

e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Polity
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:ICT4D_Books

1. The Information Age
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Information_Age

2. Legal and Regulatory Issues in the Information Economy
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Legal_and_Regulatory_Issues_in_the_Information_Economy

3. Nets, Webs and the Information Infrastructure
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nets,_Webs_and_the_Information_Infrastructure

4. Information and Communication Technologies for Poverty Alleviation
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Information_and_Communication_Technologies_for_Poverty_Alleviation
5. Internet Governance
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Internet_Governance

6. e-Government
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/E-government

7. e-Commerce and e-Business
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/E-Commerce_and_E-Business

8. ICT in Education
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ICT_in_Education

9. Genes, Technology and Policy
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Genes,_Technology_and_Policy

e-Primers on Free/Open Source Software
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:FOSS_Books

10. Free/Open Source Software: A General Introduction
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_A_General_Introduction

11. Free/Open Source Software: Education
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Education

12. Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Government_Policy

13. Free/Open Source Software: Licensing
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Licensing

14. Free/Open Source Software: Localization
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Localization

15. Free/Open Source Software: Open Standards
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Open_Standar

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] APDIP Donates 15 e-Primers to Wikibooks


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
On 10/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> By the way, we should also think of ways that more editors can be
> stimulated to help on OTRS for free.
>
> We have a need for people to help on press inquiries as well.
>
> We apparently also lack help for writing press releases.
>
> Volunteers welcome. And ideas to stimulate them as well ;)

We somehow need to make people among the general Wikimedia population
aware that they could be more effectively working for for Wikimedia.
Programmers need to know that they could make a much-appreciated
contribution, those who are eloquent writers should be made aware that
they could help on press releases and whatnot.

I'm not exactly sure how this could done but it should probably
involve utilizing community areas and selectively reaching out to some
users.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >Any ordinary person reading this in a straightforward way would take an
> >instruction to "avoid" doing something as a statement that it is not
> >allowed.
> That may be consistent with your view of the "ordinary person", but
> others may see it differently.  Avoidance is a restriction that one
> applies on one's own self.  It does not depend on the imposition of
> external authority.  It favours the exercise of judgement and the
> ability to know one's own limits.

My point is that anyone who reads that will interpret the *intentions of the
writer* to be that the act is not allowed.  It doesn't matter what he thinks
avoidance is, but what he thinks the policy-maker meant by it.

> An outright ban on an activity could
> easily be stated with less equivocation.,

Policies are full of attempts to state things in "less harsh" language
that could easily have been said directly, but weren't.  A reader would just
think this is another one.


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kill CSD A7!

body:
Don't forget those great garage bands!

On 11/12/06, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the
> wanna-be-a-big-businesses.


from_name: J JIH

subject: [Commons-l] Commons-l Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1

body:
On 11/10/06, commons-l-request at wikimedia.org <
commons-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:58:32 -0500
> From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 14
> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <98dd099a0610291358w27b32633kf10caee0a2b32e7d at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/29/06, J JIH <jus168jih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please explain how the template is probably misleading at best for most
> > people. The content of [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] has been based on USA
> > copyright law and prolonged discussions at English Wikisource when so
> many
> > UN Security Council Resolutions have arised the copyright concern. If
> you
> > can think of better content, please be more specific. Users outside the
> USA
> > must also be aware of the laws in their countries as countries that are
> > party to Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention done at Paris
> on
> > 24 July 1971 require copyright protection for works published for the
> first
> > time by the United Nations.
>
> I think most people who see something that is a PD-UN template will
> assume that there is some special reason that the UN material is PD.
> As the template explains in a round-about way, this isn't true. You
> might as well not have a PD-UN template, or have it say very
> explicitly "UN material is subject to US copyright. Please see
> such-and-such a page about US copyright law to determine if this is in
> the public domain."
>
> Having PD templates seems to imply special PD categories -- 90% of
> them say, "This work is PD because of this reason." It's better, in my
> opinion, to not have PD templates which say, "This is PD because of
> one of the four reasons, none of which have anything specifically to
> do with the UN." It makes it hard for anyone else to know WHY it is
> PD, for one thing (which reason is it?), and it is probably extra-hard
> on people whose English isn't that great (since it is a rather
> complicate way to explain, "UN material is the same as any other
> copyrighted material in the US."
>
> Just my take on it, but I'm not leading any campaign against it.
>
> FF
>

I have an excellent news from English Wikisource. After a major copyright
dispute for one year about UN resolutions, they are now found to be in the
public domain. Please see the revised [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] and it is much
better, isn't it? I will prepare to add a trilingual tag from Chinese,
English, and French Wikisource to Commons soon.

Jusjih
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061112/cdacb5ed/attachment.htm


from_name: Chris Picone

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kill CSD A7!

body:
I've been lloking at the usage of CSD A7, and it's out of control.
People are using it to delete things with a claim of notability, or
even argubly notable things! These shoud be debated! It's intended for
things with *no* claim of notability, even a small claim is supposed
to be debated, but it's abused and aused time after time todelete even
clearly notbale things.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:

>On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>continuing to accuse Jimbo of lying
>>>
>>>
>>That is a complete fabrication on your part.  Show the evidence or
>>apologize.
>>
>>
>"The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm
>his comments can
>raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly
>uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were
>still current the results are bound to be chaotic. "
>
>That pretty clearly shows that you think Jimbo deliberately made
>unfactual comments.
>
>Now, since the evidence that you were completely wrong in throwing
>your accusations around has shown itself, apologize period.
>
Not at all.  There is nothing in there to imply "deliberately".  Lack of
attention to details, or negligence, or erroneous interpretation are but
a few circumstnces that can lead to statements that are not completely
factual.  I do not deny that I referred to an irresponsible action,
which is why I was careful to remove that when I responded to you.
Irresponsibility, nevertheless, is a substantially lesser sin than a
deliberate lie, and your extrapolation is totally unwarranted and
offensive.

If I want to call anyone a liar, I have no need to avail myself of
circumlocutions.

Ec


from_name: bawolff

subject: [Commons-l] Alexa (was: Re: FW: Commons != kindergarden)

references:
<HCEBJHBGLNDEFMFPMHPNCEDCDFAA.plugwash@p10link.net>
	<ea8e5e7f0611120854j4065fb30r4cefe4f2d2b54b83@mail.gmail.com>
	<1e6691340611120956w7fbf33b2l8670f0ad5e00f04c@mail.gmail.com>
	<45576372.305@free.fr>

body:
And even then that, I would like to add that many english users remove
alexa or use firefox opera lynx etc without the toolbar

-bawolff
On 11/12/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> Barcex wrote:
>
> >   I agree that educating better to the users could help, but it will
> > never stop the problem, because people just don't care, they just want
> > to upload an image, and they do not care about licensing, and I'm not
> > very optimistic in that sense. Most of them are new users. The problem
> > is seen on the Spanish Wikipedia users just because it is a very
> > active Wikipedia (the second in number of accesses according Alexa)
>
> PLEASE (this is offtopic for the conversation but I think it's important
> to set this straight)
>
> Alexa's numbers are derived from measurements done from users of Alexa's
> toolbar, which is available only in English. As a consequence, its
> measurements are meaningful only for anglophone users. Alexa's numbers
> CANNOT be used to compare the number of accesses of the various languages!
>
> (If I were to make a wild guess, I'd think that the large number of
> hispanophones with the Alexa toolbar are from the "Hispanic" population
> in the US.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

.


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
I'm sorry, but the last thing we need on Wikipedia is affirmative action.

On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually
> signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional
> wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently
> not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad
> thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just
> saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There
> is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't
> want to be a boys-club.
>
> --Oskar


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] AntiSpoof issues

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> If we merge all these pairs into a set, following the relations, we obtain
> the result that latin n is the same as latin H. This is incorrect, and is
> the cause of most of the bizarre false positives that we see with AntiSpoof.
>
> The problem is that merging sets is fairly fundamental to the way AntiSpoof
> works....

Clearly a more flexible/sophisticated approach, rather than
calling all these characters "equivalent", would be to assign
some quantitative visual difference between them, and when
traversing a chain such as n -> eta -> Eta -> H, to sum the
numbers (or something) rather than considering the equivalences
to be a purely transitive relationship.

But obviously that's much more expensive than computing, storing,
and indexing a single canonical representation for each string.

A hybrid approach I've contemplated (but not implemented, so I
can't prove it works) is to use the canonical representations to
generate expansive sets of candidate collisions, but then to do
a more sophisticated (perhaps distance-based) comparison of just
those candidates, to weed out the false positives.

Anyone interested in this issue should consult Unicode Technical
Standard #39, "Unicode Security Mechanisms", at <http://www.unicode.org/
reports/tr39/>.  In particular, its discussion of "confusables"
is basically the same issue we're talking about here.  See also
the Unicode data file "confusables.txt".


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
Sigvardsson seemed to be suggesting that we need to do something to
"fix" the gender imbalance issue on Wikipedia.  I think that nothing
can be done, people will and should come and go as they please,
regardless of gender.  I'm not really sure what kinds of ideas
Sigvardsson might have other than, as Barrett pointed out, quotas,
which are totally ridiculous and unnecessary in these circumstances.
Sorry if my inference was incorrect/mangled.

On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Ryan Wetherell wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, but the last thing we need on Wikipedia is affirmative
> > action.
>
> To equate a concern over the fact that there is an imbalance in the
> representation of various groups on Wikipedia with "affirmative
> action," a term so broad as to have minimal meaning beyond the
> pejorative, is unnecessary, and serves largely to stifle legitimate
> discussion and concern.
>
> Is there a specific proposal or course of action on the table that
> you object to? Or are you throwing heated terms into the debate for
> the fun of it?
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
That's all fine and good, but it just seems irrelevant and
out-of-touch with Wikipedia's open nature.  I see it as inherently
unfair to evaluate somebody based on what they are-and-can't-change.

On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Ryan Wetherell wrote:
>
> > Sigvardsson seemed to be suggesting that we need to do something to
> > "fix" the gender imbalance issue on Wikipedia.  I think that nothing
> > can be done, people will and should come and go as they please,
> > regardless of gender.  I'm not really sure what kinds of ideas
> > Sigvardsson might have other than, as Barrett pointed out, quotas,
> > which are totally ridiculous and unnecessary in these circumstances.
> > Sorry if my inference was incorrect/mangled.
>
> Quotas are not the only way to encourage female participation in
> aspects of Wikipedia.
>
> 1) Encourage female friends who are knowledgeable about subjects to
> contribute
> 2) Encourage female contributors to stand for adminship and the arbcom
> 3) Consider the importance of gender balance in arbcom in making your
> selections in the arbcom elections.
>
> None of these involve establishing quotas - they involve considering
> issues of gender (or race, or sexuality, or anything else you're
> invested in here) in making choices.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kill CSD A7!

body:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the
wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was
"unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the
admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.

On 11/12/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been lloking at the usage of CSD A7, and it's out of control.
> People are using it to delete things with a claim of notability, or
> even argubly notable things! These shoud be debated! It's intended for
> things with *no* claim of notability, even a small claim is supposed
> to be debated, but it's abused and aused time after time todelete even
> clearly notbale things.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

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

Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:

> If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually
> signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional
> wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently
> not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad
> thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just
> saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There
> is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't
> want to be a boys-club.

Well, I think it goes without saying that we need to establish an
acceptable quota of females on the ArbComm.  Then we need a procedure to
follow if insufficient numbers of females run for the Committee, to
impress enough to meet the quota.

Then we need to ensure that a proper percentage of articles are being
written by women, and then that a proper percentage of those articles
are deleted.  Quotas must be met.

Of course to prevent fraud, we must verify that all editors truthfully
state their sexes (and genders, if they have them).  A DNA sample
submission upon account creation is probably adequate.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | The Internet is not something you just dump
 sean at epoptic.com | something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of
                  | tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes
                  | can be filled.... --Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFV4O2/SVOiq2uhHMRAjAlAKDkcHdYQd1s8P5SOayOGVNMHYn4cgCfe+ei
U0RmhlsHRG7MoAlkyHL63eI=
=KNvP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

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

Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:

> If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually
> signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional
> wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently
> not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad
> thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just
> saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There
> is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't
> want to be a boys-club.

Skipping the sarcasm, why would a "brilliant female editor" want to be
on the ArbComm?  It's a nasty job no sane person would ever want to do.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | The Internet is not something you just dump
 sean at epoptic.com | something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of
                  | tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes
                  | can be filled.... --Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFV4Pu/SVOiq2uhHMRAoQGAJ0X5ZOaBs3TmkMrszwFBivaclqL/QCggPd7
P9YyHYzFSVdbgB6lX3BVuYY=
=4HPE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Commons-l]  Commons != kindergarden

body:
I just wanted to say this is nothing new, and I don't see this ending
soon. Like look at
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Bots&oldid=339247
that happened a while ago, but esentially is still just commons and
another wikimedia project having a spitting contest. The problem is
you can't get in touch with the majority of uploaders, and you don't
have enough people to get in touch with the ones you can. That is very
hard to fix.

[[user:Bawolff]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> It doesn't matter what he thinks avoidance is, but what he thinks
> the policy-maker meant by it.

Sure, but...

> ...anyone who reads that will interpret the *intentions of the writer*
> to be that the act is not allowed.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

> Policies are full of attempts to state things in "less harsh" language
> that could easily have been said directly, but weren't.

Are they?

> A reader would just think this is another one.

If I read, "You should avoid doing X", I would assume the writer
meant, "you should generally not do X" or "you should do X only
under exceptional circumstances" or "you shouldn't do X unless
you know what you're doing".  (I'd assume those interpretations
anyway, but I'd *especially* assume them in an environment that
includes WP:IAR.)  If X really was forbidden or prohibited,
I would expect the policy to say, "you should not do X", or
"you must not do X", or "X is forbidden", or "X is prohibited",
or "X is illegal".


from_name: Husky

body:
That's great news! Hopefully some other publishers will follow their
example!

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 11/12/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Discovered this by coincidence -- haven't seen anything on it in the
> mailing list archives.
>
> http://www.apdip.net/news/wikibooks
>
> APDIP Donates 15 e-Primers to Wikibooks
>
> APDIP realizes how fast a published book gets out-of-date, especially
> in the fast-moving field of information and communications technology
> for development (ICT4D). APDIP has therefore donated 15 of its
> e-Primers to Wikibooks for free use and update (see list below).
>
> 15 e-Primers are now available on Wikibooks for all to use and update.
>
> Nine of the e-Primers are part of APDIP's "e-Primers for the
> Information Economy, Society and Polity" series that detail the
> concepts, issues and trends surrounding different aspects of ICT4D,
> including e-commerce, education, e-government, Internet governance,
> legal and regulatory issues, and ICT for poverty reduction.
>
> Six of the e-Primers are part of the "e-Primers on Free/Open Source
> Software (FOSS)" series that introduce various aspects of FOSS,
> including education, government policy, licensing, localization and
> open standards. The FOSS series of e-Primers is developed by the
> International Open Source Network (http://www.iosn.net), an initiative
> of UNDP-APDIP supported by the International Development Research
> Centre of Canada.
>
> Wikibooks is our chosen platform because it facilitates collaboration.
> Every day, volunteers are improving Wikibooks, making many changes,
> writing, updating, and correcting books. Wikibooks maintains quality
> control and has policies and guidelines that users need to follow.
> Wikibooks are also available for all to freely distribute and
> reproduce as covered by the GNU Free Documentation License.
>
> We would like to invite you to visit the Wikibooks and contribute your
> knowledge and experiences in the relevant ICT4D topics. Forthcoming
> APDIP e-Primers on network infrastructure and security, open content
> and other topics will all automatically be donated to Wikibooks.
>
> The original published e-Primers will remain in
> http://www.apdip.net/elibrary#iesp (and, in the case of the e-Primers
> on FOSS, at http://www.iosn.net/publications/foss-primers), and the
> version in Wikibook will be linked to these. This way any user will be
> able to see the original version alongside the (modified) Wikibook
> version.
>
>
> e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Polity
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:ICT4D_Books
>
> 1. The Information Age
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Information_Age
>
> 2. Legal and Regulatory Issues in the Information Economy
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Legal_and_Regulatory_Issues_in_the_Information_Economy
>
> 3. Nets, Webs and the Information Infrastructure
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nets,_Webs_and_the_Information_Infrastructure
>
> 4. Information and Communication Technologies for Poverty Alleviation
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Information_and_Communication_Technologies_for_Poverty_Alleviation
> 5. Internet Governance
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Internet_Governance
>
> 6. e-Government
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/E-government
>
> 7. e-Commerce and e-Business
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/E-Commerce_and_E-Business
>
> 8. ICT in Education
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ICT_in_Education
>
> 9. Genes, Technology and Policy
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Genes,_Technology_and_Policy
>
>
> e-Primers on Free/Open Source Software
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:FOSS_Books
>
> 10. Free/Open Source Software: A General Introduction
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_A_General_Introduction
>
> 11. Free/Open Source Software: Education
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Education
>
> 12. Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Government_Policy
>
> 13. Free/Open Source Software: Licensing
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Licensing
>
> 14. Free/Open Source Software: Localization
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Localization
>
> 15. Free/Open Source Software: Open Standards
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Open_Standar
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Pissing contest,
	was Re:  Sourcing "popular culture" items

body:
On 12 Nov 2006 at 01:25, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > That is a complete fabrication on your part.  Show the evidence or
> > apologize.
...[snip]...
> Now, since the evidence that you were completely wrong in throwing
> your accusations around has shown itself, apologize period.

This "discussion" has long since gone away from being a rational
discussion of issues relevant to the topic of this list, and into
being a personal pissing contest.  Trying to prove who was right or
wrong, and whether wrong statements were intentional lies or
accidental misstatements, or making demands and counterdemands for
apologies, accomplishes nothing towards the purpose of developing
sensible policy for Wikipedia.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Avoidance, was Re:  WP:COI violation

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 12 Nov 2006 at 12:41, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If I read, "You should avoid doing X", I would assume the writer
>>meant, "you should generally not do X" or "you should do X only
>>under exceptional circumstances" or "you shouldn't do X unless
>>you know what you're doing".  (I'd assume those interpretations
>>anyway, but I'd *especially* assume them in an environment that
>>includes WP:IAR.)  If X really was forbidden or prohibited,
>>I would expect the policy to say, "you should not do X", or
>>"you must not do X", or "X is forbidden", or "X is prohibited",
>>or "X is illegal".
>>
>>
>The Internet RFCs have a very specifically defined set of terms for
>use in such contexts; they define what SHOULD means versus MUST, and
>similarly SHOULD NOT vs. MUST NOT.  (The all-caps words are used to
>emphasize that they have specific meanings when used in RFCs.)
>

Link please?

I've had this kind of distinction come up in other contexts too. The
conditional "should" tends to be on a similar plane with "avoid".  I
have run into the argument when drafting by-aws for an arganization, but
then it has more to do with the difference between "shall" and "must".
The difference between these too can be more subtle.  Conditional words
have more affinity to guidelines than rules.

Andrew's request for putting all this more "snappily" may be impossible
to achieve.

Ec