subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on adding (many, relevant) links to articles?

body:
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Seth Price <seth at pricepages.org> wrote:
> > I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks.
> > The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information
> > to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct
> > and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/
> > long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a
> > person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
> >
> > So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my
> > pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park
> > (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http://
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be
> > acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
> >
> > Like (for another example):
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge
> > http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
> >
> > Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought
> > I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them
> > (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
>
> G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you:
> *Contribute other content as well as links. People who only add links
> to their own site in Wikipedia are viewed with some suspicion, whether
> deservedly or not.
> *Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually
> release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our
> repository of multimedia content. Similarly, add information about the
> parks to the park articles in objective, verifiable ways.
> *Take it easy with the links, and go slowly. Add 10, wait a week, and
> see what happens. See if any get removed. See if you get any comments
> on your talk page. Then add another 30, and wait another week. Avoid
> shocking people, and avoid being mistaken for a linkspammer.
> *Only add links if they are among the most informative on the web for
> a given article. I imagine Yellow Stone Park probably has mountains of
> info on the web, but maybe a more obscure park doesn't. Use judgment
> on each link, don't add them all blindly.
> *Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not
> accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That
> is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there
> is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it
> differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the
> universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your
> site to be more informative than it.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Steve

I think these are great suggestions.  I found another one at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam.

"Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute
some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source.
Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add
useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them.
You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off
Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)"

Anthony

(by the way, should I be attaching the text of the GFDL to this
derivative work?  It's not a real question, so don't answer it.)


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org don't work

body:
Hoi,
I do not understand the need for markup in titles. I certainly believe
that when markup prevents correct orthography in titles in any
language, it means that markup cannot be handled in titles and
consequently the markup in titles should not be allowed.

As MediaWiki is about supporting all languages, markup in titles is
clearly at best a nice to have and certainly not a must have.
Representing orthographies is indeed a MUST have feature.

PS I cross-post to the Wiktionary list. As they have as their aim to
include all words in all languages, it affects ALL wiktionary
projects.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5/28/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Brion Vibber schrieb:
> > Sabine Cretella wrote:
> >
> >> We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
> >> italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
> >> and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
> >> for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?
> >>
> >
> > Since '' can't be round-tripped reliably in wikitext, it's most likely that
> > we'll have to make '' explicitly forbidden in wiki page titles in the course of
> > fixing parser bugs.
> >
> > I strongly recommend you find another way of representing page titles that
> > doesn't require the use of markup.
> >
> You mean a language should change its ortography to comply with
> Mediawiki software? That sounds really strange ... and if instead of
> Neapolitan we talked about English, German or any other of the "big"
> languages? Must these then also comply to the software or do we then
> have the momentum when a way is being searched to have these languages
> write their titles correctly? Hmmm ...
>
> So what would you do if the English language had this requirement? Would
> you also say the whole world then must misspell because the software
> does not support it?
>
> Ciao, Sabine
> Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
>  http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org
	don't work


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
On 5/28/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, this is the general view. In particular, don't add unsourced statements
> > to a fully sourced article, don't add spelling mistakes to a proofread
> > article etc. I would like us to formalise this.
>
> That really should not be the case for older FAs. I rewrote two of them because I feared they were
> prime delisting candidates. Oh, and those articles didn't degrade since listing; FA standards
> simply got a lot more rigorous since they were listed.
>

What should happen in this case is that those articles should be
degraded to "A class" (see [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial
Team/Assessment]]). Hopefully this would cause less pain than the
current featured/non featured demotion?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quasi-protection policy proposal

body:
On 5/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the talk page, Jtdirl has quite a good idea - modify
> semi-protection to be "accounts where first edit was more than four
> days ago" rather than "accounts where creation was more than four days
> ago". Less logistics, but certainly a benefit to the sleeper problem.

No, that change could be just as easily gamed as the creation system.
How would you define "edit'? A user who shows up and modifies his user
page? A user who shows up, presses "random page" and makes one trivial
edit? These don't take substantially longer than creating the account.

We probably do need either a genuine trust metric, or a genuine human
trust system, whereby people can indicate their trust in other
editors.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Surprising VfD discussions

body:
Hi all,
  Recently there was a vague request for AfD/VfD discussions which had
radically changed course from keep to delete or whatver. By chance I
stumbled upon a user who has a collection of a dozen or so on his user
page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rossami

Enjoy.

Steve


body:
On 5/27/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
> italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
> and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
> for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?

Just out of curiosity, what's the linguistic background to this? I'm
presuming nap. is the Napoli dialect/language? And by browsing the
site a little, it looks like single apostrophe (') occurs at both the
start and ends of words (Chist' and 'a), as well as in the middle
(p'o). It also seems that you can have an apostrohpe-final word
followed by an apostrophe-initial word (Pe' 'ssap?, ncopp' 'e). Does
the double apostrophe ('') have a different meaning from that - ' '?
If not, would a work around simply be to add a space there
(category:Comune d' 'a Campania)?

Note that all of my examples actually came out of the stub template! :)

Steve


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
> Just out of curiosity, what's the linguistic background to this? I'm
> presuming nap. is the Napoli dialect/language? And by browsing the
> site a little, it looks like single apostrophe (') occurs at both the
> start and ends of words (Chist' and 'a), as well as in the middle
> (p'o). It also seems that you can have an apostrohpe-final word
> followed by an apostrophe-initial word (Pe' 'ssap?, ncopp' 'e). Does
> the double apostrophe ('') have a different meaning from that - ' '?
> If not, would a work around simply be to add a space there
> (category:Comune d' 'a Campania)?
>
> Note that all of my examples actually came out of the stub template! :)
>
>
Sorry, I cannot answer extensively right now - I have more time in the
afternoon.

A space inbetween would be wrong. We actually have a user who puts that
space inbetween where we than have to correct. The grammatical
background is that the preposition and the article become "one word" and
some letters are substituted by ' --> de + la --> d''a

This is similar to the Italian rule where di + la becomes della.

So it would be wrong. Inserting '' seems to work - so we could
live with that one - if people insert '' and then they find italic text
normally they ask or have a look at other pages - so it creates some
questions, but at least it would be a valid solution for us.

Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
We use a similar mechanism which serves the same function, but not on
the a priori basis Larry would have it, but on an as needed basis.
Essentially if things do not go well in the editing of an article, we
fall back on administrative actions and the dispute resolution
process. He would put someone "in charge" whether needed or not.

Fred

On May 28, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Delirium wrote:

> I thought some people might be interested that Larry Sanger's
> written an
> article clarifying what he has in mind for a collaborative model that
> improves on what he sees as Wikipedia's shortcomings:
>
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/5/26/162017/011
>
> (I don't agree with most of the article, but not all his
> suggestions are
> completely wrong, either.)
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
No such user

Fred

On May 26, 2006, at 1:34 PM, le Richard wrote:

> (my username is
> Lerichard)


from_name: David McCabe

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
> Can I file a slight objection to this? :-)

Sure, but we already scrapped it.

> It doesn't have to be a hack, unless you already consider the Special:
> namespace a hack...

Exactly! :)

--
David McCabe


body:
Looks good to me as an external link. We would not want all that
detail in our article, but it would certainly be useful. The site has
a bit of advertising but nothing outrageous.

Fred

On May 26, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Seth Price wrote:

> I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks.
> The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information
> to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct
> and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/
> long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a
> person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
>
> So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my
> pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park
> (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be
> acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
>
> Like (for another example):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge
> http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
>
> Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought
> I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them
> (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
> Thanks,
> Seth
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I hope we are not that dumb. How many campsites in individual
campgounds is way too much detail for us.

Fred

On May 28, 2006, at 4:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> *Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not
> accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That
> is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there
> is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it
> differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the
> universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your
> site to be more informative than it.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
Celebrities move. Phone books get outdated.
Besides, there's more people with the same last name. A phone book is a bad
source when you want the address for a specific person. All it gives is the
last name.

Mgm

On 5/27/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > When we choose to publish facts on private people
> > versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
> > "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
> > private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
> > e.g. phone books.
>
> Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source.  It's
> pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book.  Also I'd say
> there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely
> identify a person anyway.
>
> I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as
> Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a
> public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or
> "non-notable".
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 288

body:
On 28 May 2006 at 00:19, "John Lyden" <rasputinaxp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself,
> Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New
> York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least
> Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> It's all a conspiracy perpetrated by THE CABAL. Fnord.

Waitaminnit... Marvel Team-Up (1st series, 1972-1985) ended at issue
#150 (there were also 7 annuals), while its second series (1997-1998)
was canceled after issue #8.  Thus, there was never any #193... or is
there just a conspiracy to cover up its existence?  (Source: The
Standard Catalog of Comic Books, Krause Publications, 2002; obviously
part of the conspiracy.)

--
== 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: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
On 5/26/06, le Richard <lerichard at free.fr> wrote:
>
> As a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I'd like to give you some feedbacks.
> I edited a few pages, some of them about Mathematics or Science (my
> username is
> Lerichard). In a very short time most of my contributions disappeared,
> removed
> by users with privileges, or users that were very active on wikipedia.
> However
> I contributed a few pages about comics that stayed.
> Someone claimed we reached the death of Wikipedia. I think that's
> exagerated and
> provocative, but there could be a dangerous shift.
> My impression is that many popular articles are not made of the best
> contributions, rather they are made by people who are willing to spend a
> lot of
> time on wikipedia, and contribute a lot, editing and removing others
> contributions, knowing exactly what are the rules, making the rules and so
> on.
> It makes less room for the ones who are not willing to spend hours each
> day on
> wikipedia, but would be able to contribute a bit sometimes. But when I see
> my
> contributions being removed shortly after, I just do not want to
> contribute
> anymore, just use it.
> This is not bad per se, but it makes things indeed slightly less
> democratic, and
> creates a difference between those who are wikipedians, and casual users.
> Rather than restricting editing of pages, I would rather restrict the
> number of
> contributions that an individual can do. That would be much more
> democratic.
> Rich

Are you sure about the user name?  I can't find any contribs from a
[[User:Lerichard]] or [[User:Le_Richard]] or other variant.  Without knowing
what the actual edits are, it's difficult to come to figure out what's going
on.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
On 28 May 2006 at 11:34, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> Mark Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > You were not being a legitimate critic.  You were building a hit list.
>
> I wouldn't call it a hit list. It was more like a list of (virtual)
> victims of the J-P cartoon controversy article.

Victims or perpetrators... depends on your POV, I guess.

--
== 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: Raphael Wegmann

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
 personal attack

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Raphael,
>
>> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
>> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
>> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
>> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
>> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
>> removed an insult on their religious belief.
>>
>> I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
>> I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
>> I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
>> blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
>> some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
>
> You were not being a legitimate critic.  You were building a hit list.

I wouldn't call it a hit list. It was more like a list of (virtual)
victims of the J-P cartoon controversy article.

> This is inappropriate.

Why?

And why isn't it inappropriate for administrators to block editors
to "keep Wikipedia from my brand of censorship" (IIRC I haven't
removed the cartoons since I created my account, instead I've moved
them behind a link) and enforce their brand of censorship instead?

--
Raphael


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request

body: OK, your autoblock has been lifted. Have fun! :D


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lost posts?

body:
On 5/26/06, Selina . <wikipediareview at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I never received the last 3 posts on this page:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/%28+First+post+%29+RE%3A+%22In+which+Snowspinner+pwns+WR.%22-t1685546.html
>
>
> What's up with that, am I still subscribed to this list or am I being
> censored already? :?
> I tried joining again but it didn't send any new email then either
>
> -Selina
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

You're not being censored.

--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk


body:
Raphael, if the images affect you so much, why not use monobook to hide that
image?
--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - waiting for unblock

body:
On May 28, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>   Hi Jesse,
>   So, will someone unblock me form editing?
>   Thank you,
>   Ceyda ([[User:Light&Truth]])

No.  I have reviewed the evidence at the CheckUser subpage, and
considering the history Rgu has with creating fake other people who
share his typos, only edit when he isn't editing, and otherwise are
clear sockpuppets, I have changed my opinion.  I no longer believe that
you are in fact a different person, and Rgu has without any question
worn out his welcome here.  Sorry.

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> I definetly mean not only but also changing the rule for both titles
>> and text. The suggestion of allowing for a per-wiki basis would
>> currently break where Interwikis link to a project like the
>> Neapolitan.
>
> Depends on how it's implemented. If the rule was that links to "
> (double quotes) were treated as links to '' (two apostrophes),

That way lies madness.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060528/8da639cf/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0

body:
On 28 May 2006 at 20:43, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> A radical proposal for you all then:
>
> Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to
> a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users
> who have done them, viewable only by other admins.

That would *really* get the critics talking about the "Wikipedia Hive
Mind", wouldn't it?

--
== 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/


body:
Hoi,
I would not advocate a requirement from not having '' in titles. I
would advocate the interpretation of titles for the inclusion of
markup if this is what it takes to prevent for correctly spelled
titles to be presented in a decidedly wrong way.

Replacing the double apostroph with one obscure character would be
unacceptable from a usability point of view. The Dutch language has
the ? character. This is typically written as both an i and a j. The
consequence is that when a word like ijsselmeer is at the start of a
sentence, it is always spelled incorrectly as Ijsselmeer. All text
processors do this incorrectly including when the Dutch language is
indicated as the language.

What I understand of the usage of the double apostrophe is, that it is
always used in the middle of a word. This means that this could be
fixed by not interpreting "markup" when it is in the middle of a word.

So to repeat, the '' is a valid and necessary structure in titles in
the Neopolitan language and it is necessary to allow for its inclusion
in titles and text. The <nowiki> strategy is a "make work" strategy
that used to work. It was essential to allow for correct orthography;
the inclusion of the new functionality broke the Neopolitan wikipedia
and consequently needs to be ammended or removed.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5/28/06, Brion Vibber <brion.vibber at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do not understand the need for markup in titles. I certainly believe
> > that when markup prevents correct orthography in titles in any
> > language, it means that markup cannot be handled in titles and
> > consequently the markup in titles should not be allowed.
>
> Understand that here you are advocating the requirement that '' and
> ''' be forbidden from titles (since they are markup). That's the easy
> answer, and I would certainly agree with that under ideal
> circumstances.
>
> I don't expect you guys will let me do that, though.
>
> > As MediaWiki is about supporting all languages, markup in titles is
> > clearly at best a nice to have and certainly not a must have.
> > Representing orthographies is indeed a MUST have feature.
>
> Here I'm guessing you mean that we should have a workaround, where ''
> and ''' can be used in titles, but (hopefully, maybe) they will be
> (somehow?) prevented from being interpreted as markup in things that
> are titles (consistently, we hope).
>
> That's tricky to do right, as it involves some combination of guessing
> what people intended (very unreliable and inconsistent, probably) or
> forcing people to follow obscure escaping conventions (very unreliable
> to get people to follow them, especially newbies).
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Seth Price

body:
Thanks for your help. I've made a username (Mailseth) and fixed up
some articles and added links. National Parks are pretty good
already, so it's hard to find much to contribute, but I did notice an
English malfunction. I've also added images for Custer State Park in
SD (under the GFDL).

Much of the information on my site is compiled on-the-fly (like
weather reports and yahoo maps), so it would be difficult for people
to copy all of my content into Wikipedia.
~Seth

On May 28, 2006, at 7:23 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/27/06, Seth Price <seth at pricepages.org> wrote:
>>> I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks.
>>> The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information
>>> to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct
>>> and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/
>>> long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a
>>> person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
>>>
>>> So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my
>>> pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park
>>> (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia
>>> (http://
>>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be
>>> acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
>>>
>>> Like (for another example):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge
>>> http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
>>>
>>> Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought
>>> I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of
>>> them
>>> (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
>>
>> G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you:
>> *Contribute other content as well as links. People who only add links
>> to their own site in Wikipedia are viewed with some suspicion,
>> whether
>> deservedly or not.
>> *Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually
>> release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our
>> repository of multimedia content. Similarly, add information about
>> the
>> parks to the park articles in objective, verifiable ways.
>> *Take it easy with the links, and go slowly. Add 10, wait a week, and
>> see what happens. See if any get removed. See if you get any comments
>> on your talk page. Then add another 30, and wait another week. Avoid
>> shocking people, and avoid being mistaken for a linkspammer.
>> *Only add links if they are among the most informative on the web for
>> a given article. I imagine Yellow Stone Park probably has
>> mountains of
>> info on the web, but maybe a more obscure park doesn't. Use judgment
>> on each link, don't add them all blindly.
>> *Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not
>> accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That
>> is, people will probably want to add everything informative that
>> there
>> is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it
>> differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the
>> universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your
>> site to be more informative than it.
>>
>> Hope that helps!
>>
>> Steve
>
> I think these are great suggestions.  I found another one at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam.
>
> "Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
> not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute
> some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source.
> Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add
> useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them.
> You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off
> Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)"
>
> Anthony
>
> (by the way, should I be attaching the text of the GFDL to this
> derivative work?  It's not a real question, so don't answer it.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Chris Lüer

subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
At 03:34 PM 5/26/2006, le Richard wrote:
>As a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I'd like to give you some feedbacks.
>...
>My impression is that many popular articles are not made of the best
>contributions, rather they are made by people who are willing to
>spend a lot of
>time on wikipedia, and contribute a lot, editing and removing others
>contributions, knowing exactly what are the rules, making the rules and so on.

It's certainly true that the rules are made by those people that
spend the most time on Wikipedia. If you have a job or a family, it's
quite tough to keep up with all the students and retired people.

On the other hand... the people with a surplus of spare time are also
the same ones who contribute a lot of good work, so one can't really complain.

I guess you already found the solution to the problem: stick to
obscure articles, and leave the big, popular topics to the obsessive
editors. That's what I do.

         Chl


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

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

body:
Hoi,
When you want to treat different cased titles for articles as potential
redirects, I would want this behaviour to be something that you can
configer. This behaviour is not necessarily what makes sense on all
projects. It certainly would be extremely controversial in a
Wiktionary(Z) environment.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Elliott F. Cable wrote:
> which is why I like his idea of treating them as redirects - just
> same link (appears in the upper-right hand of the content area in
> Monobook) as normal user-created redirects.
> On May 10, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Steve Summit wrote:
>
>
>> Timwi wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot follow this line of reasoning. The purpose of "being
>>> caseful",
>>> as you call it, is to have (1) correct article titles, and (2) the
>>> potential capability of having separate entries differing only in
>>> their
>>> capitalisation.
>>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> My worry -- which I may not have thought through far enough --
>> was that if there was *too* much mapping from the case variant
>> that didn't exist to the case variant that did, it would be
>> impossible to create that second entry differing only in its
>> capitalization


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
I have a better idea. You could take the legitimate criticisms of admins
that they have, and work on them.

And when someone complains about wikipedia, legitimate or otherwise (but
especially legitimate), you could work on trying to resolve the problem
rather than spamming them with links to wikipediareview.

I saw this all the time watching the IRC channel back in January and
February. Every time someone came in, the channel would light up with 4-5
admins (usually the same ones) spamming them to "oh just go to
wikipediareview."

If it's populated with nincompoops, it's wikipedia's own nincompoops who
sent them there. And yes, wikipediareview DOES have legitimate posters and
legitimate calls for reform.

But then again, coming from someone whose greatest desire is to "destroy"
another website for daring to criticize you...

A. Nony Mouse

On 5/28/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Still, it saddens me greatly whenever
> > a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do
> > more to help them.
>
> I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to
> actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive
> criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 5/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I understand of the usage of the double apostrophe is, that it is
> always used in the middle of a word. This means that this could be
> fixed by not interpreting "markup" when it is in the middle of a word.

Do you mean in general, or only for page titles? Changing that rule in
general would surely break heaps of articles across all the
Wikipedias. I imagine various products would have italics for half a
word and so forth. But perhaps it could be enabled on a per-Wiki
basis?

Other possibilities might be inclusion of a nothing-character
(some'<nothing/>'word, or even some'<!---->'word) or a flag whereby
the page title maps some other character/sequence of characters (such
as the double quote) onto the taboo sequence (two apostrophes). This
latter suggestion would be like what we were discussion a month or two
ago about fixing lower case characters at the start of titles.

In fact it could be generalised:

{{Titlemap|"|''}} (titlemap|double quote|two apostrophes) could, for
example, request that that substitution take place in the title. All
pages linking to this one would still have to use double quotes rather
than two apostrophes, however. It's a kludge though.

Failing that, I can't think of much. I'm actually surprised that there
isn't a way of easily producing the '' sequence other than <nowiki>. I
suppose it's a side-effect of the less-than-optimal choice of '' for
italics and ''' for bold - if two different characters had been chosen
(say __ for bold), then you could produce a '' with '''' and you could
produce a __ with ____. Then, bold italics would be either
__''bolditalics''__ or ''__italicsbold__'' . But anyway.

Steve


body:
John Lyden wrote:
>> To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to
>> change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is
>> "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV"
>> (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).
>
> Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself,
> Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New
> York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least
> Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
>

I never said, that we are ALL very anti-Muslim.
But my impression so far is, that many editors indeed
have an anti-Muslim bias. What is even worse is,
that even some admins have an anti-Muslim bias,
which influences their blocking habits.

Have you checked how many of the editors in your list
are currently blocked?

--
Raphael


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
On 5/28/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Would you like some more community support before you do that
> and, if so, in what form?
>
> (Ilmari, how contentious is the question for the main namespace?
> What are the objections?)

There was a vote at the start of last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow

Some discussion on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nofollow

See also this Signpost article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-24/Nofollow_tag

It's probably time for another substantive discussion on this, the
position has certainly changed in the past 15 months (since the last
vote). It's an EN matter though, so at this point the discussion
should go on-wiki or to WikiEN-l.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request

body:
On 5/26/06, Nick Booth <nick9999 at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Because my IP is blocked I cant create a new user name or request a
> user name change for createaccount - so for one dumb decision I'm
> permanently excluded from contributing.
>
> It may also help you to know that I had some edits reverted because
> one of the administrators was concerned that I including to many
> links to my own site - which is www.podnosh.com.  In every case I was
> confident that I was adding links to relevant information.  If you
> check you should be able to see that my IP has been used for
> constructive contributions and I would like a chance to keep doing that.

Hi Nick,
  Thanks for coming to the list and explaining this...definitely the
right attitude. I can't help you with the unblock, but I can explain
that we have so many unhelpful contributors that someone who turns up
with a silly username, and immediately adds what looks like spam is
probably not going to be given the immediate benefit of the doubt.
Admins just don't have the time to look into every contribution and
determine whether a link is relevant or not.

Hopefully you'll be unblocked. It'd then be good if you could refrain
from adding links to your site, at least for a while. Perhaps they're
relevant, perhaps they're not - but they'll certainly make people
uneasy, because they *look* like spam.

Thanks,
Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and consensus

body:
On 5/27/06, Selina . <wikipediareview at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuperButchBitch ? Read this
> article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_and_femme - it was pretty clearly meant
> in that context, so banning her for being gay was pretty out of it
>
> see
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive24#Block_of_User:SuperButchBitch_-_.22inappropriate_username.22

Interesting case. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "banning her for
being gay" - it looks like the ban and subsequent upholding of the ban
was on the basis that the name was offensive and/or shocking. I don't
see any comments to the effect that the contributor herself was not
welcome.

Steve


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
On 5/27/06, Will Sceptre Noble <tintower at tintower.tk> wrote:
> I have to admit, that is disgusting. Especially sgrayban, who I can't
> believe thinks destroying someones career is ethical.

You have a bunch of people who tend to be somewhat socially difficult
to begin with, add another bunch of people who are not just difficult
but downright mental, and give them a single enemy to focus on.
Witness what humanity is capable of and be glad that it's just a
website on the Internet. "He's a member of group X, therefore common
human decency no longer applies."

Unfortunately, being an active admin these days means that sooner or
later, you're going to be the target of some abuse. It's almost like
our anal criteria of adminship (x% edit summaries, >n% in namespace
foo, etc.) have evolved to make sure that only those who are
sufficiently die hard Wikipedians will be exposed to this ugly side of
a large, open online community. Still, it saddens me greatly whenever
a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do
more to help them.

Erik


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/27/06, Seth Price <seth at pricepages.org> wrote:
> I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks.
> The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information
> to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct
> and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/
> long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a
> person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
>
> So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my
> pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park
> (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be
> acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
>
> Like (for another example):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge
> http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
>
> Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought
> I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them
> (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.

G'day, welcome, and a couple of suggestions to you:
*Contribute other content as well as links. People who only add links
to their own site in Wikipedia are viewed with some suspicion, whether
deservedly or not.
*Links are of some value, but we would love it if you would actually
release the photos under GFDL and upload them to Commons, our
repository of multimedia content. Similarly, add information about the
parks to the park articles in objective, verifiable ways.
*Take it easy with the links, and go slowly. Add 10, wait a week, and
see what happens. See if any get removed. See if you get any comments
on your talk page. Then add another 30, and wait another week. Avoid
shocking people, and avoid being mistaken for a linkspammer.
*Only add links if they are among the most informative on the web for
a given article. I imagine Yellow Stone Park probably has mountains of
info on the web, but maybe a more obscure park doesn't. Use judgment
on each link, don't add them all blindly.
*Remember that Wikipedia is inherently egotistical - it does not
accept that better sources of information can or should exist. That
is, people will probably want to add everything informative that there
is to know from your site, then cut off the link. To put it
differently, Wikipedia wants to be the most informative site in the
universe on US national parks, and will not respect the right of your
site to be more informative than it.

Hope that helps!

Steve


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
I definetly mean not only but also changing the rule for both titles
and text. The suggestion of allowing for a per-wiki basis would
currently break where Interwikis link to a project like the
Neapolitan.

This could however be language dependent behaviour; the Multilingual
MediaWiki might be able to allow for this kind of specific behaviour.
It would however necessitate the indication of an embedded text being
in a specific language. This is in essence a great idea because we do
have embedded text in other languages.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I understand of the usage of the double apostrophe is, that it is
> > always used in the middle of a word. This means that this could be
> > fixed by not interpreting "markup" when it is in the middle of a word.
>
> Do you mean in general, or only for page titles? Changing that rule in
> general would surely break heaps of articles across all the
> Wikipedias. I imagine various products would have italics for half a
> word and so forth. But perhaps it could be enabled on a per-Wiki
> basis?
>
> Other possibilities might be inclusion of a nothing-character
> (some'<nothing/>'word, or even some'<!---->'word) or a flag whereby
> the page title maps some other character/sequence of characters (such
> as the double quote) onto the taboo sequence (two apostrophes). This
> latter suggestion would be like what we were discussion a month or two
> ago about fixing lower case characters at the start of titles.
>
> In fact it could be generalised:
>
> {{Titlemap|"|''}} (titlemap|double quote|two apostrophes) could, for
> example, request that that substitution take place in the title. All
> pages linking to this one would still have to use double quotes rather
> than two apostrophes, however. It's a kludge though.
>
> Failing that, I can't think of much. I'm actually surprised that there
> isn't a way of easily producing the '' sequence other than <nowiki>. I
> suppose it's a side-effect of the less-than-optimal choice of '' for
> italics and ''' for bold - if two different characters had been chosen
> (say __ for bold), then you could produce a '' with '''' and you could
> produce a __ with ____. Then, bold italics would be either
> __''bolditalics''__ or ''__italicsbold__'' . But anyway.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Nick Booth

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request

body:
Thanks Mark,

I'm now Brumnick

On 28 May 2006, at 11:41, Mark Gallagher wrote:

>
> G'day Nick,
>
> <snip/>
>
>> "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by
>> "Createaccount". The reason given for Createaccount's block is:
>> "Username block"." when requesting an unblock as an administrator can
>> not help you without that information, they might also need your IP
>> address (82.36.106.161), so give that too if possible."
>>
>> Because my IP is blocked I cant create a new user name or request a
>> user name change for createaccount - so for one dumb decision I'm
>> permanently excluded from contributing.
>
> I have undone the autoblock.  Please let me know if you have any
> further
> trouble creating an account.
>
>> It may also help you to know that I had some edits reverted because
>> one of the administrators was concerned that I including to many
>> links to my own site - which is www.podnosh.com.  In every case I was
>> confident that I was adding links to relevant information.  If you
>> check you should be able to see that my IP has been used for
>> constructive contributions and I would like a chance to keep doing
>> that.
>
> The block had nothing to do with the links you were adding, so
> that's no
> problem.  If you'll mind a word ... external links on Wikipedia are
> added to make our articles more useful to readers.  That's the
> essential
> test.  We don't care the a website deserves to be on the list, or is
> sufficiently relevant, or is popular, or whatever: we care if the
> article it's placed on is improved as a result.
>
> It may be that your website does this (having not looked closely at
> it,
> I'm certainly not about to argue otherwise).  If so, well, that's
> great.
>   Just please remember this metric: does it improve the *article*
> it's in?
>
>
> Happy editing!
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Andrew Gray

body:
On 27/05/06, Seth Price <seth at pricepages.org> wrote:
> I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks.
> The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information
> to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct
> and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/
> long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a
> person browsing related Wikipedia articles.
>
> So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my
> pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park
> (http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be
> acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?
>
> Like (for another example):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge
> http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594
>
> Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought
> I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them
> (at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.

Just as a fair warning, there was an active - and very, very impolite
- spammer a couple of months back who insisted on adding links to his
site from every US national park article, and then kicked up a massive
fuss when they went away, demanding (as I recall) that "disciplinary
action" be taken against admins, etc etc.

So... people may be a little touchy!

User:Nationalparks is quite involved in these articles, as I recall
from that farce - you might want to run the idea past him first for
comments.

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


from_name: John Lyden

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 294

body:
> From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
>
> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> > On 28 May 2006 at 00:19, "John Lyden" <rasputinaxp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself,
> >> Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New
> >> York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least
> >> Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.
> >>
> >> It's all a conspiracy perpetrated by THE CABAL. Fnord.
> >
> > Waitaminnit... Marvel Team-Up (1st series, 1972-1985) ended at issue
> > #150 (there were also 7 annuals), while its second series (1997-1998)
> > was canceled after issue #8.  Thus, there was never any #193... or is
> > there just a conspiracy to cover up its existence?  (Source: The
> > Standard Catalog of Comic Books, Krause Publications, 2002; obviously
> > part of the conspiracy.)
> >
>
> It's going to be written in the future. You assume that The Cabal does
> *not* have access to time-travel technology? Sheesh, who do you take
> them for? The Justice League?

TINJLA?

Clearly, we are the Great Lakes Avengers of the Intarweb.

--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp at gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac


subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0

body:
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to
> a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users
> who have done them, viewable only by other admins.

Not good, because you then also have to create secret communication
channels (for users to ask questions, admins to explain and discuss
their actions in complex situations, etc.). Everything2 has a similar
system called "Klaproth" which is used to anonymously "nuke"
write-ups. See the FAQ at:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=E2%20FAQ%3A%20Klaproth

This should give you an idea about some of the complex problems that
result from such an approach.

Everything2 also has the "Everything Death Borg" who anonymously
swallows people who make inappropriate comments in the chatterbox. I
don't think either approach is likely to engender a more pleasant
working atmosphere in an open project that is already suffering
constant accusations of cabalism.

Since we would still require a public list of admins (due to RfA), it
should also be noted that some of the people who target admins do so
indiscriminately. You're an admin? That means you're a member of the
ruling class, baby.

Erik


from_name: Ceyda Lacin

body:
   Hi Jesse,
   So, will someone unblock me form editing?
   Thank you,
   Ceyda ([[User:Light&Truth]])

>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 22:30:02 -0500
>From: "Ceyda Lacin" <ceyda-lacin at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Deal!
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Message-ID: <BAY122-F14B7CB14D08364C66B4701F19C0 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>    I would agree on that. It is OK with me to wait a few more months while
>editing on other articles and gain more experience. Please note that, none
>of my edits were out of acceptable limits. I took all my edits serious on
>Gulen talk page too, as you can easily see from quality of my edits. I
>believe this Wikipedia project can be improved further and I am ready and
>willing to offer my help.
>    On the other hand, I canot accept your statements which imply that I am
>editing barely to support someone else. With my whole respect, that is not
>a
>kind and good statement. I am not a blind follower of someone and Dr.
>Gulerdem who is an adorable person, a gentleman with an unbelievably good
>mind did not asked me to back up him on that dispute. It is not something
>he
>can do, and it is not something I could agree on. He mainly introduced the
>project to me, in particular pointed out the Gulen article. I thought I can
>do something about it myself. I do not know why those people feel animosity
>towards Dr. Gulerdem (other than some ideological or religious hatred) but
>I
>think one should consider it as a chance for Wikipedia, if he still wants
>to
>continue on editing.
>    Thank you for your recommendation and understanding.
>    Ceyda Lacin
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 14:28:39 -0700
>From: Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - We are not a group acting
>	like one	person
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <adb306998433c836aadd1f27e0416e1a at netwood.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>On May 27, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> >  Please note that my contributions to the Gulen article is no more
> > than my contributions to other articles.
>According to the contributions of Light&Truth
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Light%26Truth ):
>The account made 11 edits to Fethullah G?len (or the talk page).  7
>more edits to user_talk and Wikipedia pages related to the controversy
>on the Fethullah G?len page and/or the account's relationship to
>Rgulerdem. A few edits to the user page; and a total of 8 edits to any
>other page.  Of those 8 edits:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>title=Speech_act&diff=prev&oldid=47905348 was changing quote marks;
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>title=Amoeba&diff=prev&oldid=47906593 was a good, useful addition
>(which I appreciate),
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:
>Myosin&diff=prev&oldid=47908396 and
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:
>Integrin&diff=prev&oldid=47908564 were apparently useful suggestions;
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>title=Ezra_Crack&diff=prev&oldid=54071880 was changing quote marks;
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>title=Papiamento&diff=prev&oldid=54072104 was apparently changing a
>space, or at least, nothing shows up on the diff;
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>title=History&diff=prev&oldid=54073468 was an apparently useful
>clarification of the def;
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>title=Cuiheng&diff=prev&oldid=54075558 was a small, but useful
>rephrasing.
>
>Looking this over, it seems clear that the account was started on
>Wikipedia to participate in the Fethullah G?len controversy (as over
>50% of the edits are on that subject), but that the account holder is
>apparently honestly willing and interested in contributing to Wikipedia
>in other areas.  Bringing new users to Wikipedia in order to sway the
>outcome of a controversy is justly frowned upon, however, on this
>evidence alone, I would recommend an unblock if, and only if, the
>account holder agrees to avoid the Fethullah G?len controversy for a
>period of time (at least a few months, and maybe a year).
>
>Jesse Weinstein
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 15:34:57 -0500
>From: "Ceyda Lacin" <ceyda-lacin at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - We are not a group acting like
>	one	person
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Message-ID: <BAY122-F6FFC06F3F742306E32F0DF19F0 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>
>    Did you mean Users Azate and Netscott should be blocked because they
>are
>acting like a single person? Maybe sysop Cyde too? Please note that my
>contributions to the Gulen article is no more than my contributions to
>other
>articles. To interpret us like 'a group acing together' will mislead you in
>your decision. We both know some abuout the issue and wanted to contribute
>to the article. You will see that it is not a blind support to Mr. Gulerdem
>if you check the talk page. All actions and edits are within the limits of
>Wikipedia rules. Please check Gulen talk page.
>    Thank you,
>    Ceyda Lacin
>
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Message: 3
> >Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 07:49:11 -0600
> >From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Further explanations of the
> >	case
> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >Message-ID: <00A1A72E-6418-49B0-A620-888CCCF01D7A at ctelco.net>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
> >	format=flowed
> >
> >A small group of people who act like one person may be treated as one
> >person.
> >
> >Fred
> >
> >On May 27, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> >
> > > I will try to explain as briefly as possible:
> > >
> > > Please check the following links to see the case clearly:
> > > * [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> > > * [[Fethullah Gulen]]
> > > * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem]
> > >
> > > Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid
> > > background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I
> > > have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he
> > > has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue
> > > but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few
> > > books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to
> > > the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried
> > > to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles.
> > >
> > > Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on
> > > Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We
> > > quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and
> > > [[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity
> > > towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without
> > > much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or
> > > cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him,
> > > together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified
> > > indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user
> > > does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions
> > > took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems
> > > to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again
> > > indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no
> > > doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in
> > > Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on
> > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem]).
> > > He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because
> > > Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under
> > > some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried
> > > really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can
> > > ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block
> > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem]).
> > > That is the main picture in my mind.
> > >
> > > Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him
> > > to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a
> > > check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate
> > > his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what
> > > they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is
> > > strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact
> > > not a violation except under some certain situations which are not
> > > applicable to our case.
> > >
> > > What are these guys doing on that Gulen article:
> > >
> > > [[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at
> > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem#Response]).
> > > A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier
> > > accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has
> > > been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also
> > > asking about any possible relation between these two users but it
> > > was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and
> > > quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that
> > > and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening.
> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my
> > > critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at
> > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/
> > > Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]).
> > > Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about
> > > who is doing what on that article.
> > >
> > > [[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits
> > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%
> > > BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962])
> > > over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on
> > > the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is
> > > irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant
> > > contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active
> > > in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never
> > > provided a reason
> > > to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable.
> > > I should also add that
> > > [[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the
> > > article from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of
> > > the main article. I hope this gives some insight
> > > about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The
> > > links are provided at
> > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem#Response]
> > > you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the
> > > quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from
> > > a block
> > > that is applied to two others in the same conflict
> > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not
> > > be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I
> > > have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing
> > > Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at
> > > the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems
> > > with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it
> > > from his talk page.
> > >
> > > Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the
> > > middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we
> > > know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check
> > > user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and
> > > the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations,
> > > there is no a single serious statements made among those
> > > accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan
> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok)
> > > and Dr. Gulerdem
> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > > Rgulerdem#Response).
> > >
> > > Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also
> > > change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and
> > > want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate
> > > accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a
> > > just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I
> > > doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem.
> > >
> > > Ceyda Lacin
> > >
> > >
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Message: 6
> > >> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600
> > >> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar
> > >> IP's
> > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >> Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > >> Message-ID: <BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77 at ctelco.net>
> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> > >>
> > >> Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia.
> > >> Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the
> > >> very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three
> > >> accounts will not wash.
> > >>
> > >> Fred
> > >>
> > >> On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >    No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not
> > >> > looking at the
> > >> > case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page
> > >> are not
> > >> > legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am
> > >> > expecting a
> > >> > sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later.
> > >> >    Thank you.
> > >> >    Ceyda.
> > >> >
> > >> > Message: 9
> > >> > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600
> > >> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > >> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
> > >> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >> > Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > >> > Message-ID: <1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA at ctelco.net>
> > >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> > >> >
> > >> > There is more to it than that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Fred
> > >> >
> > >> > On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I wonder how you can say, they are the same user,
> > >> >> when all you can check is that they are using the
> > >> >> same IP-address.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> best regards
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Raphael
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked
> > >> this. I
> > >> >>> doublechecked.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Fred
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>    Hi,
> > >> >>>>    I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username
> > >> >>>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
> > >> >>>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my
> > >> >>>> friend know
> > >> >>>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project.
> > >> >>>> Unfortunately
> > >> >>>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face
> > >> to an
> > >> >>>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my
> > >> >>>> partner
> > >> >>>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not
> > >> >>>> true. I tried
> > >> >>>> to explain it on the check user page:
> > >> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > >> >>>> Rgulerdem.
> > >> >>>>    I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all
> > >> >>>> living at the
> > >> >>>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's
> > >> randomly. I
> > >> >>>> understand that check user made his decision based on that.
> > >> >>>>    I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as
> > >> much as I
> > >> >>>> can. I
> > >> >>>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are
> > >> >>>> not the
> > >> >>>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
> > >> >>>>    Thank you in advance.
> > >> >>>>    Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> >>>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> > >> >>>> it's FREE!
> > >> >>>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> >>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > _________________________________________________________________
> > >> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> > >> > it's FREE!
> > >> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://
> > > search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
>Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the talk page, Jtdirl has quite a good idea - modify
>> semi-protection to be "accounts where first edit was more than four
>> days ago" rather than "accounts where creation was more than four days
>> ago". Less logistics, but certainly a benefit to the sleeper problem.
>
> Unfortunately, that will only lead to bots adding spurious interwiki
> links, null edits, switching commas, and so on. The vandals we're
> talking about are highly determined, so they're probably not going to
> be deterred by algorithmic measures alone.
>
> Having a layer between semi-protection and full protection is likely
> to lead to a lot of added complexity and does have the "jump through
> hurdles" problem Anthony described. The "positive" way to implement
> such systems is through clearly indicated "levels" which users can
> advance in. Everything2 does that, as do most RPGs.
>
> I don't think we want to go that way. If we create a trust-based
> model, then I think it should replace the current semi-protection
> model, rather than being layered above it. The question is, how to
> best implement it?
>
> I think it could be combined with the culture of welcoming users. A
> "welcome" tab on the talk page might lead to a new screen, which
> offers two options:
>
>     [x] Trust this user to edit semi-protected pages
>     [x] Send welcome message
>
>     Hello, Foo, and welcome to Wikipedia!_________
>     ___________________________________________
>     ___________________________________________
>
> This wouldn't be too hard to implement. I'm not sure a model where
> only admins can set the "trust this user" flag would scale, though.
>

How about the same trust model that Advogato uses?

--
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/20060528/a34000cf/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0

body:
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> A radical proposal for you all then:
>
> Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to
> a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users
> who have done them, viewable only by other admins.

Or simply, create a new account for admins at around the time they are
adminified. Some effort would be needed to make the connection between
that account and their real account not too obvious.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0

body:
On 28/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A radical proposal for you all then:
> >
> > Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to
> > a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users
> > who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
>
> Or simply, create a new account for admins at around the time they are
> adminified. Some effort would be needed to make the connection between
> that account and their real account not too obvious.

Not that I'm sold on it, but if you're going down *that* avenue, just
RFA in batches of twenty or thirty and hand out accounts en bloc...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem (was: katefan0)

body:
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, we may just have to have a secret cabal, and deal with it.
> Openness is exposing people to too much risk.

It's almost but not quite a truism: being open and transparent is more
likely to make people mad at you than being secretive and doing things
behind closed doors. That is the reason, not maliciousness, cabals
typically form in the real world. I think the level of openness and
transparency in Wikipedia (and I would distinguish it from Wikimedia,
the organization) is exemplary and should be retained. However, given
the ever increasing amount of outside harassment, I think it would be
fair to add a note to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] that
becoming an admin may expose you to such harassment, regardless of
your actions.

There are plenty of people, myself included, who don't mind dealing
with that kind of thing. I've been called a "child molester" on WR, am
a proud member of the "Hive Mind", have been accused repeatedly in
lengthy rants off-Wikimedia of being a "corrupt admin", etc. It goes
with the territory. I'm a freelancer without family, so there are very
few ways in which a person on the Internet can harm me -- and my
feelings don't get hurt if someone whose opinion doesn't matter to me
harasses me.

Erik


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Raphael,

> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
> removed an insult on their religious belief.
>
> I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
> I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
> I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
> blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
> some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]

You were not being a legitimate critic.  You were building a hit list.
This is inappropriate.  I don't personally hold the free speech views of
many of our American friends, but I *do* agree with them on some
important points, in particular: if you even look like you're going to
re-create that page, you *will* be banned from Wikipedia.  You were
abusing your privileges as a Wikipedia editor, and such abuse will not
be tolerated.

That is not a controversial view.  This is not "censorship", it is an
attempt by you to *abuse* our resources, and by Wikipedia administrators
to prevent you doing so.  Pull your head in and get a bloody Clue.

<snip/>

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


from_name: folengo at netcourrier.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] [[:fr:template:rand]]

body:
[[:fr:user:Solensean]] wants [[:fr:template:rand]] (1) to be deleted without
any "Vote for deletion" [[:fr:WP:P?S]] procedure. He says on the French
Village Pump ? Pour plus de pr?cisions, vous pouvez contacter
m:User:Brion <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brion>, le d?veloppeur
principal du logiciel, pour lui demander son avis sur #rand, ou le mod?le
l'?mulant. ?. (2)

My position on whether we should keep or delete [[:fr:template:rand]] is
nuanced. My position on using Brion's name to enact what amounts to
an infringement of the Deletion Policy  ([[:fr:WP:P?S]]) is somewhat less
nuanced.

To my best knowledge, no abuse of [[:fr:template:rand]] has been
reported so far.

Teofilo

Links :
(1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod?le:Rand
(2) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip?dia:Le_Bistro/28_mai_2006#Mod?le:Rand


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tajik Wikipedia

body:
Hi Francis,

I have a suggestion to improve this software: build a corpus from the
Tajik RFE website http://www.ozodi.org/

As you can pretty obviously tell, not all vowels are indicated in
Farsi, so in some cases there *should* be multiple candidates for
transliteration. For example, Farsi "yeh" can be transliterated in a
number of different ways.

In these cases, a simple search of the corpus should reveal which
alternative is an actual word, or which is most frequent, and select
it.

Mark

On 28/05/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
> Are there actually any Tajik native speakers working on the Tajik
> Wikipedia at the moment?
>
> I'd like to discuss some software I'm making with them...
>
> http://82.133.33.43/~spectre/tajik/tajik.php
>
> I've had a look over at tg. but it seems to be very inactive.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fran
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tajik Wikipedia

body:
...having said that, that won't fix the fact that Tajik uses more
Russian loanwords than Farsi.

Mark

On 28/05/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Francis,
>
> I have a suggestion to improve this software: build a corpus from the
> Tajik RFE website http://www.ozodi.org/
>
> As you can pretty obviously tell, not all vowels are indicated in
> Farsi, so in some cases there *should* be multiple candidates for
> transliteration. For example, Farsi "yeh" can be transliterated in a
> number of different ways.
>
> In these cases, a simple search of the corpus should reveal which
> alternative is an actual word, or which is most frequent, and select
> it.
>
> Mark
>
> On 28/05/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
> > Are there actually any Tajik native speakers working on the Tajik
> > Wikipedia at the moment?
> >
> > I'd like to discuss some software I'm making with them...
> >
> > http://82.133.33.43/~spectre/tajik/tajik.php
> >
> > I've had a look over at tg. but it seems to be very inactive.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>

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


body:
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> with the territory. I'm a freelancer without family, so there are very
> few ways in which a person on the Internet can harm me -- and my
> feelings don't get hurt if someone whose opinion doesn't matter to me
> harasses me.

Out of curiosity, doesn't being a freelancer mean your reputation is
quite important to your income? Wouldn't you be hurt if "Eric Moeller
is a child molester" was the first thing that came up on Google under
your name?

(and pray that this post doesn't make that a reality :))

Steve


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tajik Wikipedia

body:
Also, I noticed that you seemed to use italics for what you took to be
incorrect transliterations.

In fact:

"?????" is an incorrect transliteration of "?? ????", same with "????"
and "??????"; "?????" and "?????"; "????" and "?? ???", "???????" and
"??????????"; "???" and "????"; "??????" and "?????????" (except for
the -and suffix); "?????" and "??????"; "?????????" and "?? ???????";
and possibly even "?? ???? ??????" and "??????????".

This is because not all vowels are always explicitly indicated in
Farsi. The only way to know is to be a native speaker or to use a
dictionary.

Mark

On 28/05/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...having said that, that won't fix the fact that Tajik uses more
> Russian loanwords than Farsi.
>
> Mark
>
> On 28/05/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Francis,
> >
> > I have a suggestion to improve this software: build a corpus from the
> > Tajik RFE website http://www.ozodi.org/
> >
> > As you can pretty obviously tell, not all vowels are indicated in
> > Farsi, so in some cases there *should* be multiple candidates for
> > transliteration. For example, Farsi "yeh" can be transliterated in a
> > number of different ways.
> >
> > In these cases, a simple search of the corpus should reveal which
> > alternative is an actual word, or which is most frequent, and select
> > it.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 28/05/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
> > > Are there actually any Tajik native speakers working on the Tajik
> > > Wikipedia at the moment?
> > >
> > > I'd like to discuss some software I'm making with them...
> > >
> > > http://82.133.33.43/~spectre/tajik/tajik.php
> > >
> > > I've had a look over at tg. but it seems to be very inactive.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Fran
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>

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


body:
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, doesn't being a freelancer mean your reputation is
> quite important to your income? Wouldn't you be hurt if "Eric Moeller
> is a child molester" was the first thing that came up on Google under
> your name?

It certainly helps that my name has an umlaut which Google cannot deal
with very well, so it treats a few variants (such as Erik M?ller or
Erik Moller) as equivalent. The only case that has ever led to a
misunderstanding were some comments in my homepage guestbook (which I
since deleted), which I had left unattended for a while. It was taken
over by two strange subcultures, satanists and religious
fundamentalists, who decided that my personal guestbook was the best
place to wage the great war between these uncompromising ideologies.
One of them even ended up posting under my name (the guestbook didn't
have any authentication).

Of course, there's the occasional case where someone contacts me only
to be never heard from again, and I sometimes wonder if they decided
to google me. ;-)

Erik


body:
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> It certainly helps that my name has an umlaut which Google cannot deal
> with very well, so it treats a few variants (such as Erik M?ller or
> Erik Moller) as equivalent. The only case that has ever led to a
> misunderstanding were some comments in my homepage guestbook (which I
> since deleted), which I had left unattended for a while. It was taken
> over by two strange subcultures, satanists and religious
> fundamentalists, who decided that my personal guestbook was the best
> place to wage the great war between these uncompromising ideologies.
> One of them even ended up posting under my name (the guestbook didn't
> have any authentication).
>
> Of course, there's the occasional case where someone contacts me only
> to be never heard from again, and I sometimes wonder if they decided
> to google me. ;-)

Ah, cool. Well, I recently discovered that I don't figure in the first
10 pages of Google searches for "Steve Bennett". Overall, that's
probably a good thing.

Steve


body:
On 5/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I definetly mean not only but also changing the rule for both titles
> and text. The suggestion of allowing for a per-wiki basis would
> currently break where Interwikis link to a project like the
> Neapolitan.

Depends on how it's implemented. If the rule was that links to "
(double quotes) were treated as links to '' (two apostrophes), then
nothing would be broken - other wikipedias should simply link to the
version with two apostrophes. In practice, it's probably fairly easy
to set up redirects for all articles with two apostrophes, much as on
EN wikipedia, it's pretty common to set up redirects with and without
accents like circumflexes for all foreign words.

Steve


from_name: Drini drini

subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
As a mathematician I'm particularly interested on his contributions to see
why (if they were correct) were removed and think of possible reasons, but
again, no user with that username

On 5/28/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> > As a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I'd like to give you some
> feedbacks.
> > I edited a few pages, some of them about Mathematics or Science (my
> > username is
> > Lerichard).
>
> I can't find User:Lerichard.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Surprising VfD discussions

body:
Well, it's always good to know that there are examples of AfD doing
its job well.

For each bad example, people cry "omg AfD is terribly wrong, it's
broken.. etc etc", so good examples are refreshing

On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Recently there was a vague request for AfD/VfD discussions which had
> radically changed course from keep to delete or whatver. By chance I
> stumbled upon a user who has a collection of a dozen or so on his user
> page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rossami
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Hoi,
You have to allow for the way the pywikipedia bot works. There is a
whole infrastructure around MediaWiki. and interpreting these things
differently depending will create breakage.
Depending on what software you use two double quotes and two two
apostrophes are displayed in a different way. It is therefore
important to keep things as they are in that language. It is imho much
better to have language dependent behaviour.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I definetly mean not only but also changing the rule for both titles
> > and text. The suggestion of allowing for a per-wiki basis would
> > currently break where Interwikis link to a project like the
> > Neapolitan.
>
> Depends on how it's implemented. If the rule was that links to "
> (double quotes) were treated as links to '' (two apostrophes), then
> nothing would be broken - other wikipedias should simply link to the
> version with two apostrophes. In practice, it's probably fairly easy
> to set up redirects for all articles with two apostrophes, much as on
> EN wikipedia, it's pretty common to set up redirects with and without
> accents like circumflexes for all foreign words.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0

body:
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> A radical proposal for you all then:
>
> Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to
> a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users
> who have done them, viewable only by other admins.

No openness is important. In any case there is still the WR admin around.
--
geni


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
Hi!

> In LQT, there is a many-to-many relationship between articles and talk
> pages (which we call 'channels'). When you click 'discuss' for an
> article, you'll be taken to the article's primary, default channel,
> but at the top of the page, there will be a list of other channels
> that are attached to the article.

Can I file a slight objection to this? :-) This idea would entirely get
rid of wiki talk pages. Personally, I think they should be kept, and
they should be used to give summaries of a discussion, overviews of the
different viewpoints in an issue, etc. They should be a collaborative
effort like any other wiki page. :)

You can easily arrange a many-to-many relationship by letting people add
something like "[[Channel:Blah]]" on a talk page. The talk page would
then list these channels at the top or something, but it would still be
a wiki talk page. If you want, talk pages could have an inherent "main
channel" that you can't remove because there's no [[Channel:]] tag for it.

Obviously, this is just a suggestion, and if sufficiently many people
think traditional talk pages are not necessary when we have
LiquidThreads, then feel free to ignore me.

> So, the URL for a given talk page must include both the article and
> the specific channel being viewed.

Instead, you could have a URL for just a channel. This channel page
could display the articles (talk pages) that link to it. Though I
understand the convenience some people see in the tabs at the top. Needs
some more thought :)

> And I guess we'll have to hack in a Channels: namespace, since
> channels are not ordinary pages, and since putting it in the Special:
> namespace would be pretty ugly. Any ideas?

It doesn't have to be a hack, unless you already consider the Special:
namespace a hack... But please call it Channel:, not Channels:! :-)

You might also want to think about whether a single Channel namespace is
enough, or whether you want "Wikipedia channel:" and others too.

Timwi


body:
> Inserting '' seems to work

And so would '' or ''. If you want to type as fast as possible,
you might want to use one of those. :)


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Separating admin accounts from user accounts (Re:
	katefan0)

body:
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not that I'm sold on it, but if you're going down *that* avenue, just
> > RFA in batches of twenty or thirty and hand out accounts en bloc...
>
> I'm not sold either, but the debate should perhaps be had. There are
> basically three broad options:
>
> 1. "The borg" - all admins by default act through the same account. It
> is possible, but with difficulty, to determine who performed which
> administrative act. - Major problems of accountability of course.
> 2. "Pseudonyms" - each admin has an account used exclusively for
> administrative actions. At his discretion, he may disclose this link.
> Problems - maintaining the secrecy, convincing users that
> accountability is maintained, users having no idea of the history of
> each admin (where they suddenly came from...)
> 3. As current - problems: targetability, admins having more sway than
> is reasonable when acting outside their role (eg, content disputes)
> etc.
>
> Comments and opinions pls.

This proposal doesn't seem to have any advantages that I can see, but
I can think of one or two major ones.

If you can't tell the identity of the person who performed an
administrator action, then there's no way to detect administrators who
abuse their powers to gain advantage during a content dispute.

If you have the "borg" solution then it becomes very difficult even
for the system to track who actually performed which sysadmin action.

If instead you have a shadow admin account for each admin user, we're
back where we started, but with the disadvantage that we can't see
anything about an admin except his admin actions.  I cannot see what
possible good such concealment could do.  Administrators need to be
accountable. We need to see who is up to what.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>> It's more the opposite: I consider in-person meetings of such low value
>> that they are not worth going out of my way to attend or send someone to
>> attend.  This is not 1930; internet projects for decades now have been
>> coordinated solely by means of the internet.
>
> In person meetings may be of low value to you, but I've found them to be extremely productive
> compared to email/IRC or even phone. For example, we accomplished more in a single weekend during
> the January face-to-face meeting of all the board members and most of the officers than we did in
> the six months prior to that.

That is absolutely right.  A LOT can be done face to face which is
difficult or impossible online.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
I believe that is because you are looking at the wrong Wikipedia.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Lerichard

Perhaps?

A. Nony Mouse

On 5/28/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As a mathematician I'm particularly interested on his contributions to see
> why (if they were correct) were removed and think of possible reasons, but
> again, no user with that username
>
> On 5/28/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > As a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I'd like to give you some
> > feedbacks.
> > > I edited a few pages, some of them about Mathematics or Science (my
> > > username is
> > > Lerichard).
> >
> > I can't find User:Lerichard.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Heh, ok, but by "what's the lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
> should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
> now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.

Sorry I'm replying to this weeks-old message, but ... "big payoff"? How
is the payoff any bigger than before? I think you're forgetting that if
Google gets faster at indexing new articles, it also gets faster at
removing articles from its index as they get deleted from Wikipedia.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
On 29 May 2006 at 01:17, "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to
> actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive
> criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.

That would be sinking to their level, wouldn't it?

However, I, too, am disappointed that WR has taken the low road and,
instead of providing constructive criticism (which every project
needs; goodness knows that there are plenty of problems and issues
with Wikipedia which could be brought out constructively), has been a
gathering place for people determined to destroy Wikipedia, by any
means no matter how sleazy.

--
== 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/