from_name: Bogdan Giusca

body:
Speaking of main page FA:

Tomorrow's FA is a little island in Croatia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lastovo

However, I suspect that at least some of the images are copyvios.

Firstly, the map looks like it is taken from a larger map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lastovokarta.jpg

Then, the aerial photo appears to be from a tourist booklet or
something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pasadur.jpg

Googling, I found that it looks very much like this pic, same place,
same time of the day (see the tree shadows):
http://www.lastovo-accomodation.com/slike/iz_aviona.jpg

:-)

Sunday, July 2, 2006, 5:30:42 AM, you wrote:

m> Sorry, I don't look at the main page for weeks at a time =D

m> mboverload

m> On 7/1/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I thought featured articles were obvious.
>>
>> Uma,
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/June_2006#June_25
>> meet Lindsay:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Quistnix

subject: [Wikitech-l] Double quotes in interwiki links don't work

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Quistnix <quistnix at kabelfoon.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>To link to e.g.
>>http://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Comune_d%27%27a_pruvincia_%27e_Avellino
>>  from another Wikipedia is a problem since the double quotes inside an
>>interwiki link are interpreted the same way as in text. Can this be helped?
>
>
> Yep, same way as for categories on the nap Wikipedia in general:
>
> [[nap:Categoria:Comune d''a pruvincia 'e Avellino]]
>
> I tested this here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/sandbox
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________

I see. It seems that there are several ways to link to it, but using the
direct approach (just typing in the quotes) doesn't work. That was the
thing I was referring to.

Quistnix / Anton


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 7/2/06, Quistnix <quistnix at kabelfoon.net> wrote:
> I see. It seems that there are several ways to link to it, but using the
> direct approach (just typing in the quotes) doesn't work. That was the
> thing I was referring to.

Yes. That's actually a bit of a problem, as it's not just a question
of "tell all the nap wikipedia users to use ". Now if anyone
wants to link to nap from any other wikipedia, they need to know about
that.

Or does this only apply to categories? Either way, not ideal...

Steve


list: wikien-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Two movie starlets in two weeks?

body:
Good catch. Mislabeled as GFDL even. I've removed them from the FA +
tagged them as unknown until a source for the GFDL claim is cited.

Erik


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l]  [[Geographic_references]]

body:
The article is now a redirect to [[Geographic coordinate system]], and
the GR
template has been fixed so the redirect to WP:GR is not needed. As always,
feel free to change anything I've done if you feel there is a better
solution.

-kc-


body:
Sunday, July 2, 2006, 5:17:50 PM, you wrote:

EM> Good catch. Mislabeled as GFDL even. I've removed them from the FA +
EM> tagged them as unknown until a source for the GFDL claim is cited.

hm... This image is marked GFDL-self, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kuzma.jpg
from
http://www.lastovo.net/145a.jpg


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the same one, but I saw something very similar
> to that recently. It appears to arise from a conflict between two
> ideas:
> 1) Link to some information to explain how to interpret the
> information in the infobox
> 2) Don't link to wikipedia: space, because that would be a self-reference.
>
> IMHO, the second principle is a bad one. There seems nothing wrong to
> me with linking to some actual useful information *about the infobox*,
> rather than a contrived non-encyclopaedic article in the main article
> space.

I'm the opposite, I think the second principle is very important.
Anything that's not in the article namespace, template namespace or
image namespace is stuff that's not really a part of the encyclopedia
itself - it's just temporary scaffolding and support equipment we're
using while writing it. When Wikipedia gets mirrored or otherwise
distributed all that non-encyclopedia stuff should be pared away. If
there are links to it then those links will automatically become broken.

Far better to switch over to the <ref></ref><references/> system, IMO.
The main problem here is that there are tens of thousands of articles to
convert. I don't suppose there are any bothandlers who'd be willing to
look into doing automated conversion? Rambot articles are probably still
fairly standardized in format. I've noticed that the old Rambot
reference links use section numbers that no longer match anything in the
reference "article", that could perhaps be repaired in the process.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060702/81cd481d/attachment.pgp


body:
BG> Sunday, July 2, 2006, 5:17:50 PM, you wrote:

EM>> Good catch. Mislabeled as GFDL even. I've removed them from the FA +
EM>> tagged them as unknown until a source for the GFDL claim is cited.

BG> hm... This image is marked GFDL-self, too:

BG> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kuzma.jpg
BG> from
BG> http://www.lastovo.net/145a.jpg

also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fumar.jpg
from
http://www.gianfrancogervasi.it/images/fumari_small.jpg

:-)


subject: [WikiEN-l]  [[Geographic_references]]

body:
Thanks, glad I posted here then. Ok, the template works, but all the
gazillion Rambot articles will break. I will undertake the tedious task
of changing all the Rambot article links (prior to changing the redirect
again) if it is determined that is the best course of action, but would
(for obvious reasons) prefer that someone who has and uses AWB or a
similar tool do so.

BTW, GR|2 is broken regardless of what we decide to do here, due to
edits to GR. Other countries work, though. Does that make a difference
in your position? Rambot created primarily US articles, yes?

Anyone have any bright ideas, brilliant fixes?

-kc-


from_name: xaosflux

body:
Restrcitions like this may have unwanted affects on large legit proxy/ ISP
proxy servers.

xaosflux

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Allen Simpson" <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:24 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] page move vandalism restrictions not working

> It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
> by page move vandals.  The current restriction apparently allows moves
> automatically after a week?
>
> So, for example, we see see "User:Thing that goes on feet"
> create a new user on 2006-06-20 07:38:17, make no contributions
> for over a week, and suddenly do nearly 100 moves from 2006-07-01
> 13:46:01 to 13:52:55.
>
> That's right, as many as 4 moves per second!
>
> So, I propose 2 things:
>
> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
> 1 move per minute.  Just reject them.  That should be easy to do
> in software.  And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.
>
> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
> seconds.  Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed.  Of
> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
> may be hurrying to fix a problem.
>
> Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
> response anyway.  But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
> second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
> claimed they aren't using a bot.  Maybe not, but slow them down
> enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
> frames.
>
> Bug 6513
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Mei Wu

subject: [Wikitech-l] smtp server integration in MediaWiki

body:
Hi all,

I installed Mediawiki in a LAN environment. I specified the internal
Microsoft smtp server in the "php.ini" to send out emails. However,
the mails were not sent out although the local smtp server is
listening on port 25. I do not  really know what the problem is and
would appreciate any help.

The computer is directly connected to a router and has an internal IP
(192.168.x.x). The Wiki is running on Apache 2 on port 8080. The smtp
server is listening on port 25 (IIS 5).

Thanks for your help.

Mei


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.

According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but
it's linked by thousands of articles, so...

Any idea what should we do with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references


from_name: Bkonrad

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/2/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I've reverted. There's a direct link to [[Geographic
>> references]] from every Rambot-generated article, things like:
>>
>>   As of the [[census]][[Geographic references#2|2]]
>>   of 2000, there were 1,101 people...
>>
>> - it's a direct citation of a source. Unless we're going to fix all
>> those links first, we shouldn't be redirecting to an article which
>> isn't the source!
>
> Uh, we shouldn't be citing Wikipedia for census information :/

It is not a direct citation. It was apparently an attempt in the pre <ref>
days (probably even predating templatized footnotes) to indicate the
source for the statistices. IMO, all the GR#2 links should be changed
to use <ref> tags. A dog lot of work though, but a bot could probably
help.

Bkonrad


subject: [WikiEN-l]  [[Geographic_references]]

body:
As I mentioned (apparently not clearly enough) GR#2 has been removed
from the WP:GR article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Geographic_references&diff=next&oldid=40750895

-kc-


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:15:41 -0400, "John Lyden"
<rasputinaxp at gmail.com> wrote:

>Move it to Wikipedia:Geographic references?

Yes.  I boldly did just that, reversing the status quo which had a
redirect the other way.

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


from_name: William Allen Simpson

subject: [Wikitech-l] page move vandalism restrictions not working

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/2/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
>> 1 move per minute.  Just reject them.  That should be easy to do
>> in software.  And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.
>>
> Queueing moves? Eep. Why not just reject page move requests that take
> place within 60 seconds of the last, with no restrictions for admins?
>
Sorry, but that's not what I wrote in the paragraph above, "Just
reject them."  I'd include the same restrictions for administrators.

There are too many administrators that may be well-meaning, but skim
without understanding instructions, or don't bother to fix double
redirects, or are quite simply technically incompetent.

>> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
>> seconds.  Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed.  Of
>> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
>> may be hurrying to fix a problem.
>
I'd thought queuing edits would be OK, with no restrictions for
administrators.  Don't have any idea how hard to implement here.  In
my long ago database days, it was a feature that was implementable in
foxbase, so I'm sure that the fancier tools of today would be easy.

>> Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
>> response anyway.  But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
>> second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
>> claimed they aren't using a bot.  Maybe not, but slow them down
>> enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
>> frames.
>
> It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you
> open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost
> simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions.
> Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.
>
It might be possible, but it's not desirable in a shared environment.

And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 02/07/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
> by page move vandals.  The current restriction apparently allows moves
> automatically after a week?

Moves are restricted to logged-in, autoconfirmed users. Right now,
that means a user whose account has existed for 4 * 86400 seconds, or
four days.

> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
> 1 move per minute.  Just reject them.  That should be easy to do
> in software.  And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.

I explained on the recent bug you filed that the ping limiter was
switched off and even wrote that we'd need to rewrite it.

> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
> seconds.  Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed.  Of
> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
> may be hurrying to fix a problem.

Queuing edits brings problems of its own.

Rob Church


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 02/07/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.

It's essentially a references section for about ten thousand articles
- all the Rambot pages originally linked to it in order to cite the
sources for their data. It seems to have been used for similar things
afterwards.

Probably not the best way to do it by current standards - if it was
done now we'd probably have this stuff in <ref></ref> tags on every
individual page - but it worked well enough.

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


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

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

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>> What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.
>>
>> According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but
>> it's linked by thousands of articles, so...
>>
>> Any idea what should we do with it?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references
>
> I'm not sure if this is the same one, but I saw something very similar
> to that recently. It appears to arise from a conflict between two
> ideas:
> 1) Link to some information to explain how to interpret the
> information in the infobox
> 2) Don't link to wikipedia: space, because that would be a self-reference.
>
> IMHO, the second principle is a bad one. There seems nothing wrong to
> me with linking to some actual useful information *about the infobox*,
> rather than a contrived non-encyclopaedic article in the main article
> space.

Actually, there is a *huge* problem with that.  The articles in main
namespace are the encyclopedic content.  The Wikipedia: namespace is not
encyclopedic content, and thus, it isn't included on most mirrors.
Having thousands of articles linking to a page that mirrors don't even
include is a patently BAD idea.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEqGrZvCEYTv+mBWcRAo16AKCjTiSD9Lu6dRX1coctilAwS9F7/gCgo3qf
oaMmlztWFQ/9C4X3hZmkO7c=
=RFev
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Lord Voldemort

body:
On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> BG> Sunday, July 2, 2006, 5:17:50 PM, you wrote:
>
> EM>> Good catch. Mislabeled as GFDL even. I've removed them from the FA +
> EM>> tagged them as unknown until a source for the GFDL claim is cited.
>
> BG> hm... This image is marked GFDL-self, too:
>
> BG> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kuzma.jpg
> BG> from
> BG> http://www.lastovo.net/145a.jpg
>
> also:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fumar.jpg
> from
> http://www.gianfrancogervasi.it/images/fumari_small.jpg

Just to be sure (I haven't taken a good look at the images), are we
sure _we_ took it from _them_ and not the other way around?  I would
doubt it, but it's always a possibility. --LV


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:47:12 +0100, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
wrote:

>It's essentially a references section for about ten thousand articles
>- all the Rambot pages originally linked to it in order to cite the
>sources for their data. It seems to have been used for similar things
>afterwards.

Would it be worth actually writing an encyclopaedia article on the
references Geographers use?

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal for Wikipedia in European Portuguese

body:
The only reason why I can see two different Portuguese wikis is because the
two (majority) versions -- European Portuguese and Brazillian Portuguese --
are very different. Are they?

On 7/2/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry for my English. Recently, a newbie from Portuguese Wikipedia has
> proposed on meta a vote to create Wikipedia in european portuguese. He
> don't
> talked about it with any editor from pt:Wikipedia and that proposal has
> discovered by me, accidentally. I send a note in Village Pump from
> pt:wikipedia. More than 30 editors has voted against that proposal.
> Unconsoled with this, he was suspended that voting and is imposing to, in
> a
> new vote about it, only europeans speakers can vote on it.
>
> Is all ok to the current rules for request a new language?
>
> Links related to this:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&diff=384871&oldid=384837
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_new_languages#Discussion_of_the_poll_concerning_the_creation_of_an_European_Portuguese_Wikipedia
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tugazo
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/Tugazo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Liviu Andronic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where are the decision makers?

body:
I would have to object to the position taken by people who can make a
difference.

IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me. I do not
want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all this junk.

I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an issue. I
agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an unimportant
Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire community. If this
issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all possible
Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and Moldovan
Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a problem.

Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty war that I
personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for those who
can make a difference to just ignore?

Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create confusion
and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free encyclopedia
of the highest possible quality"?

Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to take and
implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and impossible
arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and all over
the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests to do is use
common sense to decide on this issue.

It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by stewards and
bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.

But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance to adopt. I
still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop deliberately
ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not cease
re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an entire
country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million persons) are
incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me - if no one
else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a two-three months
time.

If you managed to read till this point, thank you.

Liviu

On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Jacky PB wrote:
> > Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
>
> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved would mean
> wasting
> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something unimportant. The
> safest
> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same as we do
> with
> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>

--
Liviu


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:18:57 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>Would it be ok with everyone if I declared this exit interview over?

One vote for "go right ahead".  Polling is evil...

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


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
G'day Rob,

> If the majority of editors on the page agree that the block quote is
> inappropriate, this is concensus.   If you disagree with this
> decision, you can initiate a discussion on the talk page, and ideally
> these editors would discuss the issue with you.

I hope this was just a brain fart, and you weren't really arguing that
majority == consensus.

If we have 7 editors discussing an article, and 4 think Jon's right and
3 think Jon's wrong (or vice versa), that could well, depending on the
circs, be described as "a bloody row", but not "consensus".

Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
"But the visibility was very poor, and you yourself admit that you were
being struck by thunderbolts all the time, which must have distracted
your attention, so it is more than probable you were mistaken."
- Esmond Haddock, /The Mating Season/


body:
On 7/2/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
> 1 move per minute.  Just reject them.  That should be easy to do
> in software.  And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.
>
> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
> seconds.  Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed.  Of
> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
> may be hurrying to fix a problem.

Queueing moves? Eep. Why not just reject page move requests that take
place within 60 seconds of the last, with no restrictions for admins?

> Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
> response anyway.  But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
> second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
> claimed they aren't using a bot.  Maybe not, but slow them down
> enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
> frames.

It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you
open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost
simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions.
Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.

Steve


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problems    using    mwdumper.jar

body:
If you must cross-post, please send the mail with all headers properly so we
have a chance of sending the reply correctly.

-- 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/20060702/4d67fef2/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Emmanuel Engelhart

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problem with rebuildImages.php and SVG images

body:
Hi coders

I corrected the problem by modifying FiveUpgrade.inc like follows:

kelson at camber:/var/www/mediawiki/maintenance$ svn diff FiveUpgrade.inc
Index: FiveUpgrade.inc
===================================================================
--- FiveUpgrade.inc     (r?vision 15240)
+++ FiveUpgrade.inc     (copie de travail)
@@ -716,7 +716,7 @@
                # Height and width
                $gis = false;
                if( $mime == 'image/svg' ) {
-                       $gis = wfGetSVGsize( $this->imagePath );
+                       $gis = wfGetSVGsize( $filename );
                } elseif( $magic->isPHPImageType( $mime ) ) {
                        $gis = getimagesize( $filename );
                } else {

Kelson


from_name: mboverload

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
They're a warped mirror.   People don't expect warped mirrors to work
properly.  Shit, they don't even expect most web links to work =D

mboverload

On 7/2/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> >> What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.
> >>
> >> According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but
> >> it's linked by thousands of articles, so...
> >>
> >> Any idea what should we do with it?
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is the same one, but I saw something very similar
> > to that recently. It appears to arise from a conflict between two
> > ideas:
> > 1) Link to some information to explain how to interpret the
> > information in the infobox
> > 2) Don't link to wikipedia: space, because that would be a
> self-reference.
> >
> > IMHO, the second principle is a bad one. There seems nothing wrong to
> > me with linking to some actual useful information *about the infobox*,
> > rather than a contrived non-encyclopaedic article in the main article
> > space.
>
> Actually, there is a *huge* problem with that.  The articles in main
> namespace are the encyclopedic content.  The Wikipedia: namespace is not
> encyclopedic content, and thus, it isn't included on most mirrors.
> Having thousands of articles linking to a page that mirrors don't even
> include is a patently BAD idea.
>
> - --
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
>
> ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEqGrZvCEYTv+mBWcRAo16AKCjTiSD9Lu6dRX1coctilAwS9F7/gCgo3qf
> oaMmlztWFQ/9C4X3hZmkO7c=
> =RFev
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
Just to expand:  They don't need to mirror the Wikipedia: content.  All they
have to do is link back to the actual site.  TaDa - problem fixed.

mboverload

On 7/2/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> They're a warped mirror.   People don't expect warped mirrors to work
> properly.  Shit, they don't even expect most web links to work =D
>
> mboverload
>
>
> On 7/2/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > >> What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.
> > >>
> > >> According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but
> > >> it's linked by thousands of articles, so...
> > >>
> > >> Any idea what should we do with it?
> > >>
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this is the same one, but I saw something very similar
> > > to that recently. It appears to arise from a conflict between two
> > > ideas:
> > > 1) Link to some information to explain how to interpret the
> > > information in the infobox
> > > 2) Don't link to wikipedia: space, because that would be a
> > self-reference.
> > >
> > > IMHO, the second principle is a bad one. There seems nothing wrong to
> > > me with linking to some actual useful information *about the infobox*,
> > > rather than a contrived non-encyclopaedic article in the main article
> > > space.
> >
> > Actually, there is a *huge* problem with that.  The articles in main
> > namespace are the encyclopedic content.  The Wikipedia: namespace is not
> > encyclopedic content, and thus, it isn't included on most mirrors.
> > Having thousands of articles linking to a page that mirrors don't even
> > include is a patently BAD idea.
> >
> > - --
> > Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
> >
> > ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
> >
> > iD8DBQFEqGrZvCEYTv+mBWcRAo16AKCjTiSD9Lu6dRX1coctilAwS9F7/gCgo3qf
> > oaMmlztWFQ/9C4X3hZmkO7c=
> > =RFev
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.
>
> According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but
> it's linked by thousands of articles, so...
>
> Any idea what should we do with it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references

It's not an article, but it forms part of many articles.  In a sense,
it's almost an 'external template' - common reference content for a
bunch of articles.

While it's not an article, it's encyclopedia-space content.  It should
NOT be placed under Wikipedia: space, IMO.

-Matt


body:
I do not want to make you write again on this issue.

I just wanted to note that people desiring to close, move or delete the
Moldovan Wikipedia are not necessarily desiring to worsen. They are mostly
trying to make things better. As these are quite wrong at the moment. In my
opinion, of course.

What concerns "Vivi e lascia vivere", not all the proposed solutions are
against this principle. For example, moving the entire mo.wikipedia.org to
mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would end all the confusion, would cease hurting
Moldovan nationals' feelings, would cease Wikipedia-I being flooded by posts
on this issue, and - most importantly - wouldn't hurt anyone. And would just
make everyone involved breathe easily. If one day a community of Cyrillic
Moldovan editors (either from Transnistria or from Moldova) arises, the
Wikipedia will be right there and could flourish on the bases already set by
Mark Williamson.

And personally, if this move takes place, I will seriously consider taking
care about the quality of the articles present on the Moldovan Wikipedia.
Otherwise, I would feel like doing the wrong thing.

Have a quiet week,
Liviu

On 6/30/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> Brion Vibber schrieb:
> > Jacky PB wrote:
> >
> >> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
> >>
> >
> > No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved would mean
> wasting
> > a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something unimportant. The
> safest
> > course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same as we do
> with
> > dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> >
> Thank you Brion! This is the answer most of us can sign.
>
> Don't know if this saying is the same in English, but I try to
> translate: live and let live ...
>
> And I say: help where you can - if you cannot: do nothing. If something
> is not good enough to your opinion you need to help to make things
> better, not to make things worse ...
> .
> Have a great week-end!
>
> Sabine
>
>
> Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
> http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Liviu


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
You do not get it.

It is an annoyance. One of the points made is that the Moldovan
wikipedia is just trolling. Consider what makes a troll thrive;
attention. The more attention that you give it, ANY attention the more
it will get entrenched. There is this saying: "I do not care what they
say about me as long as they write my name correctly", all this
attention makes the mo.wikipedia "relevant". If it is not relevant,
refrain from giving it attention and at some time it will just
evaporate. If it does not, it cannot be considered trolling and you are
plain wrong.

The best thing for you to do: shut up. Ignore this project. Everybody
will be happier and maybe you will be proven to be right.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Liviu Andronic wrote:
> I would have to object to the position taken by people who can make a
> difference.
>
> IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me. I do not
> want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all this junk.
>
> I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an issue. I
> agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an unimportant
> Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire community. If this
> issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all possible
> Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and Moldovan
> Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a problem.
>
> Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty war that I
> personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for those who
> can make a difference to just ignore?
>
> Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create confusion
> and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free encyclopedia
> of the highest possible quality"?
>
> Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to take and
> implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and impossible
> arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and all over
> the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests to do is use
> common sense to decide on this issue.
>
> It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by stewards and
> bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.
>
> But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance to adopt. I
> still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop deliberately
> ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not cease
> re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an entire
> country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million persons) are
> incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me - if no one
> else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a two-three months
> time.
>
> If you managed to read till this point, thank you.
>
> Liviu
>
> On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Jacky PB wrote:
>>
>>> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
>>>
>> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved would mean
>> wasting
>> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something unimportant. The
>> safest
>> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same as we do
>> with
>> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
>>
>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 02/07/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> The article is now a redirect to [[Geographic coordinate system]], and
> the GR
> template has been fixed so the redirect to WP:GR is not needed. As always,
> feel free to change anything I've done if you feel there is a better
> solution.

Sorry, I've reverted. There's a direct link to [[Geographic
references]] from every Rambot-generated article, things like:

   As of the [[census]][[Geographic references#2|2]]
   of 2000, there were 1,101 people...

- it's a direct citation of a source. Unless we're going to fix all
those links first, we shouldn't be redirecting to an article which
isn't the source!

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


from_name: Luiz Augusto

body:
Sorry for my English. Recently, a newbie from Portuguese Wikipedia has
proposed on meta a vote to create Wikipedia in european portuguese. He don't
talked about it with any editor from pt:Wikipedia and that proposal has
discovered by me, accidentally. I send a note in Village Pump from
pt:wikipedia. More than 30 editors has voted against that proposal.
Unconsoled with this, he was suspended that voting and is imposing to, in a
new vote about it, only europeans speakers can vote on it.

Is all ok to the current rules for request a new language?

Links related to this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages&diff=384871&oldid=384837

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_new_languages#Discussion_of_the_poll_concerning_the_creation_of_an_European_Portuguese_Wikipedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tugazo
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/Tugazo


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
On 7/2/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> Puppy do what puppies do, to wit, [expletive deleted],
> but while we're collecting testymoanials on my doorstep,
> flaming or otherwise, here is what one of my co-editors
> said about me with respect to the issue of originality
<snip>

Ok, enough's enough. This conversation is going nowhere, and since
you're not banned from Wikipedia, would you mind carrying out this
character defence there rather than here?

Any point to this thread seems to have disappeared a long time ago.
With the possible and limited exception of banned users, we are not
here to discuss the merits of individual editors, who in any case have
apparently decided they no longer want anything to do with us.

Would it be ok with everyone if I declared this exit interview over?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 02/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I've reverted. There's a direct link to [[Geographic
> > references]] from every Rambot-generated article, things like:
> >
> >   As of the [[census]][[Geographic references#2|2]]
> >   of 2000, there were 1,101 people...
> >
> > - it's a direct citation of a source. Unless we're going to fix all
> > those links first, we shouldn't be redirecting to an article which
> > isn't the source!
>
> Uh, we shouldn't be citing Wikipedia for census information :/

We're not. It's just that rather than have the links for the sources
on each and every page, we link to a single central page with the
details of the sources. ("census daya is sourced from X, place names
are taken from these two databases, etc.")

It's a kludge, and it's not how we'd do it now, but the fact is it's there.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> What is this page? It's not an article, but it's in the mainspace.
>
> According to speedy deletion criteria, it would be speediable, but
> it's linked by thousands of articles, so...
>
> Any idea what should we do with it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_references

I'm not sure if this is the same one, but I saw something very similar
to that recently. It appears to arise from a conflict between two
ideas:
1) Link to some information to explain how to interpret the
information in the infobox
2) Don't link to wikipedia: space, because that would be a self-reference.

IMHO, the second principle is a bad one. There seems nothing wrong to
me with linking to some actual useful information *about the infobox*,
rather than a contrived non-encyclopaedic article in the main article
space.

Steve


body:
No, are only dialects and Portuguese Wikipedia have a police to support both
variants pacifically, see more about it on
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LPT (in portuguese)

From: James Hare <messedrocker at ...>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Wikipedia in European Portuguese
Newsgroups: gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation
Date: 2006-07-03 02:02:25 GMT

>The only reason why I can see two different Portuguese wikis is because the
>two (majority) versions -- European Portuguese and Brazillian Portuguese --
>are very different. Are they?


body:
On 7/3/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Restrcitions like this may have unwanted affects on large legit proxy/ ISP
> proxy servers.

Not if they're done per username, rather than per IP.

Steve


from_name: Berto

body:
LOLOL

> would cease Wikipedia-I being flooded by posts on this issue,
Am I wrong, or we are getting blackmailed? We either do what they want or
get flooded to death :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))) FYI, there is a thing
called spam filter. The adresses of the people flooding about the MO-RO
issue were just dropped in it. This is my last email on the subject. Hope
it's clear enough.

Bye
B?rto


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/2/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I've reverted. There's a direct link to [[Geographic
> references]] from every Rambot-generated article, things like:
>
>   As of the [[census]][[Geographic references#2|2]]
>   of 2000, there were 1,101 people...
>
> - it's a direct citation of a source. Unless we're going to fix all
> those links first, we shouldn't be redirecting to an article which
> isn't the source!

Uh, we shouldn't be citing Wikipedia for census information :/

Steve


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-03

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{SCRIPTPATH}}... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{SERVER}}... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{SERVERNAME}}... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!

Passed 391 of 407 tests (96.07%) FAILED!


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
mboverload wrote:
> Just to expand:  They don't need to mirror the Wikipedia: content.  All they
> have to do is link back to the actual site.  TaDa - problem fixed.

How will that work on a DVD version?

I think it is incumbent on us to _solve_ this problem, not to dump it in
our users' laps and say "here, figure out how to clean this up
yourself." We now have some nice referencing syntax built into
Wikimedia, laziness is no excuse not to use it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060703/f4b0eaf0/attachment.pgp


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/3/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > BG> Sunday, July 2, 2006, 5:17:50 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > EM>> Good catch. Mislabeled as GFDL even. I've removed them from the FA +
> > EM>> tagged them as unknown until a source for the GFDL claim is cited.
> >
> > BG> hm... This image is marked GFDL-self, too:
> >
> > BG> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kuzma.jpg
> > BG> from
> > BG> http://www.lastovo.net/145a.jpg
> >
> > also:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fumar.jpg
> > from
> > http://www.gianfrancogervasi.it/images/fumari_small.jpg
>
> Just to be sure (I haven't taken a good look at the images), are we
> sure _we_ took it from _them_ and not the other way around?  I would
> doubt it, but it's always a possibility. --LV

See the uploaders talk page. There are other things (image size,
resulution lack of meta data) that also point in the direction of non
original content. Wikipedians images tend to follow a certian style.

--
geni


from_name: Ronald Chmara

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Harassment on wikipedia

body:
After weeks and weeks of debate on this topic, and complaints to
parties to "do something", I have decided to "do something".

... Drastic.

1. I declare that I am the new wikipedia overlord, super-administrator,
and god-king. If, oh, the "community" or that "jimbo" guy wishes to
appeal anything to me, it must be accompanied by a sufficient grovel.
Oh, and animal/vegetable/mineral sacrifice of some kind might help,
along with 20 questions about why they should be listened to.

2. I declare that since wikipedia is primarily a textual medium, and
not a spoken medium, I hereby declare that what defines a wikipedia
"language" will be documentation of textual expression, of a spkoken
language, in a specific character set, by 1000 people or more, at any
given point in time. Thus, the myriad of chinese languages, which use
multiple character sets, will be available with those characters.
Likewise, since romanian languages have been historically documented as
using cyrillic character sets by more than 1000 people, they will also
be available.

3. I declare that in conjunction with the above, patent nonsense and
straw-men, like using a klingon character set for writing articles in
ancient hebrew, is straight out, as there is no verifiability that 1000
ancient hebrews wrote in klingon character sets.

4. I also declare that wikipedia has no stake in debates as trivial and
annoying as "you put jelly in my peanut butter!" or "you put peanut
butter in my jelly!" or "you put cyrillic in my romanian!". Wikipedia
is not the appropriate place to express whether or not a certain
condiment *should* have been used, or that a certain character set
*should* have been used. If a character set has been widely used, we
should make such a language and character set combination available.

5. If people are offended that their language, and how it has been
written, over time, are offended, that they build time machines to fix
the problem. Wikipedia does not censor the past, wikipedia documents
the past. If folks are offended that their language was written in
another character set, I suggest that those who are offended travel to
the past to ensure that such a thing never happened.

6. I hope that you, my faithful subjects, will abide by my decrees, or
I will put jelly in your peanut butter.

Signed by your new overlord, super-administrator, and god-king:
-Ronabop, New God-king of wikipedia


from_name: Essjay

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/3/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Restrcitions like this may have unwanted affects on large legit proxy/ ISP
>> proxy servers.
>>
>
> Not if they're done per username, rather than per IP.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
So, we should allow unrestricted editing if you're logged out, but not
if you're logged in? What's the point of restricting it for logged in
users if you'll inconvenience legit editors, who may then leave, and
vandals will just go right on vandalizing while logged out.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/3/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> G'day mboverload,
>
> [I'm not even going to bother fixing the top-posting on this one, so
> 'bye-'bye context.  Please, Dan Tobias posted a link explaining this.]
>
> > Just to expand:  They don't need to mirror the Wikipedia: content.  All
> they
> > have to do is link back to the actual site.  TaDa - problem fixed.
>
> Once again, I think you've missed the point.  We want Wikipedia to be as
> accessible as possible.  This means:
>
> a) We *want* to be mirrored
>     We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  For that purpose,
>     everything we write is licensed under the GFDL.  All our work is
>     *explicitly* available to anyone who wants to take it, provided they
>     abide by the rules set out in the GFDL.  In addition, much of the
>     revenue that pays for servers and so on comes from mirrors like
>     answers.com who kick back some of their income (even though they
>     don't have to) as a "thank you" to us for providing free-as-in-speech
>     content.  What, you thought our donations were enough to pay for
>     *everything*?  Our mirrors owe us.  And we owe *them*.  We can't just
>     dismiss them.
>
> b) We cannot assume our readers are using Wikipedia itself
>     We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  That means we
>     encourage people to re-use our work.  We don't want to limit that by
>     deliberately making life difficult for re-users.
>
> c) We cannot assume our readers are connected to the Internet
>     We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  The result, Wikipedia,
>     is *not* a website: it's an encyclopaedia that happens to be written
>     in hypertext and hosted on the Web.  The content would not stop being
>     our content if it were not used in the context of our website.  We're
>     taking advantage of the semantic and formatting opportunities
>     available through HTML and CSS, but we don't need to be a website for
>     that.  Wikipedia content needs to be able to stand alone as well as
>     any other encyclopaedia's content could.
>
> d) We cannot assume our readers are *capable* of connecting to the
>     Internet
>     Yes, even today, there are people living outside America, and unable
>     to access the technological marvels y'all are privileged with.  It's
>     even possible their circumstances differ wildly from what you expect.
>     A version of Wikipedia on CD/DVD, for example, could make it a lot
>     easier for certain users to access our content ...
>
> e) We cannot even assume our readers are using a computer
>     Wikipedia articles are printed all the time.  We're probably too big
>     for our articles to be used in a traditional paper encyclopaedia, but
>     there's no reason certain articles couldn't be placed in a book --- a
>     hardcover "Best of Wikipedia" showcasing our featured articles, for
>     example, would be rather nifty.  HTML is quite useful, but we should
>     not write our content such that it can only be enjoyed on a computer.
>

Thank you for taking the time to write that up, I now understand your
position better, and I have another solution =D

If it's so important, just make it a regular article.  It doesn't have a lot
of that Wikipedia: feel and with some minor rewording it could be put into
article space.  I know it would be an ugly duckling, but it would work.

mboverload


from_name: Mei Wu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Microsoft Exchange Server and Mediawiki

body:
Hi all,

I installed Mediawiki in a company intranet behind a proxy server. The
smtp server the company is
using is a Microsoft Exchange Server. My problem is that I don't know
how I can specify this Microsoft Exchange Server to send my mail. I
specified the address of the Exchange server in the php.ini but I got
the error message that the connection failed.

I also tried to use the internal Microsoft smtp server (IIS 5) on the
local machine. But it also did not connect to the destination mail
server.

I would appreciate any help how to configure the smtp server in my case.

Mei


from_name: Ulisse Savi

body:
I would like to use a wikipedia dump in my installation of Mediawiki 1.6.7 here http://encyclopedia.meta99.com/, using the proceduce found here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps

I have used mwdumper, because tutorial ask that importDump is slow.
mwdumper
mwdumper is a standalone program for filtering and converting XML dumps. It can produce output as another XML dump as well as SQL statements for inserting data directly into a database in MediaWiki's 1.4 or 1.5 schema.

I have lauched the command in the server :

[root at myserver maintenance]# java -jar mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.5 enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2 | mysql -u databaseuser -p databasename
Enter password: "i have used my database password"

1,000 pages (19.529/sec), 1,000 revs (19.529/sec)
ERROR 1062 (23000) at line 46: Duplicate entry '1' for key 1
2,000 pages (21.128/sec), 2,000 revs (21.128/sec)
3,000 pages (21.702/sec), 3,000 revs (21.702/sec)
4,000 pages (21.048/sec), 4,000 revs (21.048/sec)
5,000 pages (20.578/sec), 5,000 revs (20.578/sec)
6,000 pages (20.369/sec), 6,000 revs (20.369/sec)
7,000 pages (20.078/sec), 7,000 revs (20.078/sec)
8,000 pages (20.085/sec), 8,000 revs (20.085/sec)
9,000 pages (20.048/sec), 9,000 revs (20.048/sec)
10,000 pages (20.223/sec), 10,000 revs (20.223/sec)
11,000 pages (20.159/sec), 11,000 revs (20.159/sec)
12,000 pages (20.117/sec), 12,000 revs (20.117/sec)
13,000 pages (19.962/sec), 13,000 revs (19.962/sec)
14,000 pages (20.244/sec), 14,000 revs (20.244/sec)
15,000 pages (20.204/sec), 15,000 revs (20.204/sec)
16,000 pages (20.167/sec), 16,000 revs (20.167/sec)
17,000 pages (20.259/sec), 17,000 revs (20.259/sec)
18,000 pages (20.18/sec), 18,000 revs (20.18/sec)
.....
.....
.....

The problem is that it is the first time in my life that i use MediaWiki and i'm not an expert.

1) I continue to have not any page in the site where i have installed wikimedia and in the database i can not see directly any new entry/page in the site. Exist a system to verify that the dump is inserted really in the database = In the site i use with wikimedia i have not any new page here :
http://encyclopedia.meta99.com/
Exist a system to verify if the dump pages are in the database ?
In a message of your list i have found about a similar problem
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:3LLMxLN9gPcJ:mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-November/032747.html+importDump.php&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3
"2) Are you using read-only mode on the wiki? "

I have installed mediawiki using the standard procedure and at the moment i have not did any changing in the configuration/setting. To use the dump i have to make some particular setting/configuration ???

2) Why this error, after launching the script ?
[root at myserver maintenance]# java -jar mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.5 enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2 | mysql -u databaseuser -p databasename
Enter password: "i have used my database password"

1,000 pages (19.529/sec), 1,000 revs (19.529/sec)
ERROR 1062 (23000) at line 46: Duplicate entry '1' for key 1
Have you an idea ?

3) When mwdumper.jar has finished the work what i have to do, to use the dump in my system ? I have not found instructions about that in the wikimedia site. When msdumper has finished i need to make some particular setting/configuration in my installation of mediawiki to use the pages in my site/system ?


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Quistnix wrote:
>
> To link to e.g.
> http://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Comune_d%27%27a_pruvincia_%27e_Avellino
>   from another Wikipedia is a problem since the double quotes inside an
> interwiki link are interpreted the same way as in text. Can this be
> helped?
>
This problem has been discussed before.

Some example solutions are shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Boswell/Sandbox/Double_apostrophe

The first solution, proposed elsewhere on this thread, is by far the
simplest; unfortunately it is subject to disruption by well-intentioned bots
and users who convert the numeric entity to the appropriate character.

My personal favourite is the "Unicode double-apostrophe" which could easily
be added to [[nap:MediaWiki:Edittools]] and requires no more than an
appropriate font specification to make it properly visible, which could
possibly be arranged for the entire wiki?

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Double-quotes-in-interwiki-links-don%27t-work-tf1880127.html#a5151748
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Guettarda

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The categories Animals by country and Flora by
	country

body:
I find the idea of deleting these categories bizarre.  While they are
unweildy and need a little refinement, they are very useful categories.  Our
species pages have precious little information as is.  The range of the
species is useful information, and it so happens that this information is
most readily available in terms of political boundaries.  The assertion that
you will have species in 100-200 categories just isn't true - to begin with,
are there 200 sovereign states in the world, and if so, the species that are
found in all of them are things like rats, cockroaches and houseflies.  It
might make sense to limit the use of these categories on such cosmopolitan
human commensals.  But other than that, these are useful categories.

With regards to Justin's concern about the size of the categories, that's
easy enough to solve by breaking them into subcats as they get bigger -
already you have "Avifauna of Foo" - breaking things down into Class or
Family is quite feasable.

As for saying that it isn't "useful" to categorise species by country -
thanks for calling my professional interests "useless"

Ian

On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> > Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
> > boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
> > of classification. Delete them.
>
> It's not at all pointless. "Australian native mammals" is a perfectly
> natural, meaningful, valuable, navigable category.
>
> Animals are not "Australian" or "English" or "French". But they can be
> "native to Australia", "native to England" etc.
>
> Political boundaries may not matter to animals, but they matter to us,
> and there's no inherent reason not to use them to categorise animals.
> Whether it's actually practical due to the sheer number of entries is
> another question...
>
> 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
>


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

body:
"William Allen Simpson" wrote
> ..
> And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.

AWB can be used in bot mode. But then, the user must be logged in and registered
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots
under the section "Bots" (a fully protected page).

And AWB cannot do page moves.

--Adrian

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


body:
Thank you very much.

query SQL:
TRUNCATE `page` ;

TRUNCATE `revision` ;

TRUNCATE `text` ;

Is it sufficient ? Or i have to delete the entire 3 tables ?
I need to launch other queries ?
------------
I will restart the procedure, after the deletion of the 3 tables you meant.
At the moment this is the structure in the database :
:
archive
categorylinks
externallinks
hitcounter
image
imagelinks
interwiki
ipblocks
job
logging
math
objectcache
oldimage
page   (DELETED)
pagelinks
querycache
recentchanges
revision   (DELETED)
searchindex
site_stats
templatelinks
text   (DELETED)
trackbacks
transcache
user
user_groups
user_newtalk
validate
watchlist

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Problems using mwdumper.jar

Ulisse Savi wrote:
> 1,000 pages (19.529/sec), 1,000 revs (19.529/sec)
> ERROR 1062 (23000) at line 46: Duplicate entry '1' for key 1

You need to import into an empty database, or it will fail like this.

Before you start, try clearing the tables that mwdumper works in:

DELETE FROM page;
DELETE FROM revision;
DELETE FROM text;

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but that's not what I wrote in the paragraph above, "Just
> reject them."  I'd include the same restrictions for administrators.

Why? We trust admins.

> There are too many administrators that may be well-meaning, but skim
> without understanding instructions, or don't bother to fix double
> redirects, or are quite simply technically incompetent.

Sack 'em.

> I'd thought queuing edits would be OK, with no restrictions for
> administrators.  Don't have any idea how hard to implement here.  In
> my long ago database days, it was a feature that was implementable in
> foxbase, so I'm sure that the fancier tools of today would be easy.

It just sounds like a lot of work for not much gain. There is
absolutely no problem whatsoever with people making fast edits
*except* on the rare cases of vandalism. Much better to *detect* the
fast edits, alert an admin, then block them if they're a vandal. In
any case 1 per 20 seconds is very slow...there are plenty of times
I've edited faster than that, and waiting for the edits to be queued
would get very tedious very quickly. And for what benefit?

> > It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you
> > open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost
> > simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions.
> > Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.
> >
> It might be possible, but it's not desirable in a shared environment.

???

> And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.

I didn't realise that, thanks.

Steve


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Essjay <essjaywiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, we should allow unrestricted editing if you're logged out, but not
>> if you're logged in? What's the point of restricting it for logged in
>> users if you'll inconvenience legit editors, who may then leave, and
>> vandals will just go right on vandalizing while logged out.
>>
>
> Ok, maybe we should start this discussion again, I'm getting lost. Is
> this about page moves or normal edits? For starters, I specifically
> think we should aim *not* to "inconvenience legit editors". For anons,
> if there is no way to tell the difference between 100 anons sharing
> the same IP (like a proxy) making one edit each per minute, and 1 anon
> making 100 edits in a minute, then I don't think we should apply any
> restrictions at all.
>
> In any case, I don't really see any major benefit in these proposed
> restrictions on editing too fast...what problem is trying to be solved
> here? Restrictions on page moves could be useful, to combat the rare
> annoying vandal...but still.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
I think I have to agree with all of the above; it seems this delved off
as a sub-thread of the original, discussing edit throttles rather than
pagemoves. I certainly have to agree with questioning the benefit of any
change at all; we're doing pretty well without any restrictions, and if
a wiki is having a problem with pagemove vandalism, it shouldn't be that
hard for a list full of techies (Disclaimer: I'm not one.)  to come up
with a pagemove-vandal-blocking-bot just like the one running on en.wiki.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 6/30/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see that you can ever stop people attempting to contest their
> blocks on the wikipedia itself (to whatever extent it's technically
> possible). Nor is it reasonable to force people to "out themselves" on
> email, to whatever extent writing a public email is outing yourself...

I think it's the best option. It sucks that they have to write an email, but
it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest
their block if they are, well, blocked.

Ryan


from_name: Jacky PB

subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
Hello,

I would like to apologize to all of you for my
interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
more than 6 months old.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html

My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
than the one I followed.

Yours,
:en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Now, where the hell does meta information about individual or groups
> of effectively unrelated articles go? Bizarrely, the category
> namespace seems like the closest one! What else is there?

It should go into those individual or groups of articles, IMO. Possibly
a template, that's part of the encyclopedia content and is often used
for material that is common to a large group of articles.

> I don't see how this helps. Putting <ref>s into an infobox is
> dangerous, as there's no guarantee the including page will actually
> have a <references> section...

I'm not suggesting an infobox. In the case of these Rambot articles, I'm
proposing that the links to the [[Geographic references]] page be
replaced (probably by a bot) with the references themselves, wrapped in
<ref> tags. A part of this operation would of course be to ensure that
there's a <references/> tag in the article to display them. I suppose
you could make the individual cites into templates since they'll be so
widely used, so that for example the bot would go around inserting the
text <ref>{{cite 2002 US census}}</ref> or whatever.

Pretty much all articles should have a references section anyway, so
this would be a very positive step IMO.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060703/dc6911ef/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jon Awbrey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On 7/2/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> > Puppy do what puppies do, to wit, [expletive deleted],
> > but while we're collecting testymoanials on my doorstep,
> > flaming or otherwise, here is what one of my co-editors
> > said about me with respect to the issue of originality
<snip>s & <snail>s
>
> Ok, enough's enough. This conversation is going nowhere, and since
> you're not banned from Wikipedia, would you mind carrying out this
> character defence there rather than here?
>
> Any point to this thread seems to have disappeared a long time ago.
> With the possible and limited exception of banned users, we are not
> here to discuss the merits of individual editors, who in any case have
> apparently decided they no longer want anything to do with us.
>
> Would it be ok with everyone if I declared this exit interview over?
>
> Steve

Steve,

I said right up front that I have no need and no intention
of defending my individual character as an editor or a scholar
in this effort to provide the WP community with my observations
over the past six months.  But a modicum of incidental chit-chat
aside from any greater purpose does not seem to be out of bounds
with what I observe on a day-to-day basis on this List.

It is clear that some folks are desperately seeking any sort of excuse
they can cook up not to listen to the kinds of responsible feedback that
I am hardly alone in providing.  This is understandable in human terms --
bad news, even if accurate, especially when accurate, is never welcome --
but it will not serve either the WP effort, nor any future effort of
its kind, to ignore the lessons of actual experience.

The bear-baiting and messenger-killing tactics --
that some people will resort to in order to keep
from having to consider any kind of critical analyis --
are quite familiar as a rule:  A defender of the faith
spews a flaming mass of pure invective into the forum,
and the mildest response on the part of the invectee
is then condemned as being off-topic.  Very typical,
but hardly to the greater purpose.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


body:
On 7/3/06, Essjay <essjaywiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, we should allow unrestricted editing if you're logged out, but not
> if you're logged in? What's the point of restricting it for logged in
> users if you'll inconvenience legit editors, who may then leave, and
> vandals will just go right on vandalizing while logged out.

Ok, maybe we should start this discussion again, I'm getting lost. Is
this about page moves or normal edits? For starters, I specifically
think we should aim *not* to "inconvenience legit editors". For anons,
if there is no way to tell the difference between 100 anons sharing
the same IP (like a proxy) making one edit each per minute, and 1 anon
making 100 edits in a minute, then I don't think we should apply any
restrictions at all.

In any case, I don't really see any major benefit in these proposed
restrictions on editing too fast...what problem is trying to be solved
here? Restrictions on page moves could be useful, to combat the rare
annoying vandal...but still.

Steve


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR policy proposal: No "Gotcha" rule

body:
On 6/30/06, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 3RR is supposed to be an "electric fence" of some sort. Instead, though, all
> it does is make edit warring into a game of chicken. One side of a dispute
> dredges up sockpuppets/meatpuppets, the other does the same, and they play
> the "gotcha" game with their patron admins on either side standing by to
> drop a block on the opposing side at moment's notice.

3RR is a godsend.  It is clear, specific, unambiguous, and easily
enforceable. Whatever its flaws, it's preferable to what we had
before: unlimited reverts unless an admin wandered by and felt like
jumping into the snake pit.

> It's the same thing with our page protection policies. A bunch of edit
> warriors start reverting each other and then demanding the page be locked to
> their preferred version. Demand that it be locked, and get one of their
> friendly patron admins (and thanks to the broken RFA procedure these days,
> we've got a fuck-ton of those too) to make sure the lock is on "their"
> version.

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


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
Jon Awbrey wrote
> JA: The pattern of conduct that was exhibited over the space
>     of a few days by this small group "new users" was a type
>     of slash and burn and section blanking that I personally
>     consider to be nothing short of rank vandalism, whether
>     anybody else had the boldness to call it that or not.

What I actually saw, when you were editing such articles as [[mathematical relation]], was the need (for the encylopedia's sake) to do something apt with some prolix and over-written contributions. Not without value, but a long way from our house style. So, I'm not surprised at the sequel.

Charles

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


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo

body:
WMF is willing to negotiate favorable terms for a logo agreement for use on
toolserver. =)

On 7/3/06, Marco Schuster <CDL-Klever at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hello folks!
>
> BrokenArrow and I have designed three logo proposals for the Toolserver,
> which should be included in this mail.
> My question is: Can the operators of the Toolserver (and the people who
> have accounts on it) use this logos as they are trademarked by the
> Foundation or not?
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
> PS: This mail is CC to foundation-l and toolserver-l.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 3 Jul 2006, at 11:13, Bogdan Giusca wrote:

> I'm not sure how useful is the classification by country for plants
> and animals using categories.
>
> 1) There are many plants and animals which can be found in most
> countries in Eurasia and Africa, for example. That would mean
> a hundred or two of categories.
>
> 2) In an average country, there are somewhere between 3-10,000 species
> of plants. Some tropical countries (like Brazil) have more than
> 25,000 known species of plants and 5,000 species of animals. I can't
> see how such an immense category can be useful or maintainable.
>
> An alternative would be the usage of lists, but those would also
> potentially be very large.

Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
of classification. Delete them.

Justinc


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're not. It's just that rather than have the links for the sources
> > on each and every page, we link to a single central page with the
> > details of the sources. ("census daya is sourced from X, place names
> > are taken from these two databases, etc.")
> >
> > It's a kludge, and it's not how we'd do it now, but the fact is it's there.
>
> I don't think that's too bad, but it shouldn't be in the main
> namespace, as it's not really encyclopaedic information in itself -
> it's meta information, like a template. I guess we don't have a good
> way of dealing with these, but imho project namespace would be
> preferable.
>
The current database download designed for mirrors contains "Articles,
templates, image descriptions, and primary meta-pages."  How is a
meta-page designated a "primary meta-page"?  Would that be an
appropriate description of this page?

Anthony


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

subject: [WikiEN-l] The categories Animals by country and Flora by country

body:
I'm not sure how useful is the classification by country for plants
and animals using categories.

1) There are many plants and animals which can be found in most
countries in Eurasia and Africa, for example. That would mean
a hundred or two of categories.

2) In an average country, there are somewhere between 3-10,000 species
of plants. Some tropical countries (like Brazil) have more than
25,000 known species of plants and 5,000 species of animals. I can't
see how such an immense category can be useful or maintainable.

An alternative would be the usage of lists, but those would also
potentially be very large.

Any suggestions?


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
> boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
> of classification. Delete them.
>
> Justinc

Perhaps but there is no shortage of books on say the fauna of the British Isles.

--
geni


body:
On 3 Jul 2006, at 13:16, geni wrote:

> On 7/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
>> boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
>> of classification. Delete them.
>>
>> Justinc
>
>
> Perhaps but there is no shortage of books on say the fauna of the
> British Isles.

Yes, but thats just a way of making a smaller book. Usually for
portability
reasons. And the British Isles, being islands, are a more sensible
geographic
unit for animals (although not birds; my birdbook is Western Europe).

There appear to be lists of "Birds of Belgium" but not books that I
can find.

Justinc


from_name: William Allen Simpson

subject:
[Wikitech-l] trust of administrators (was: page move vandalism
 restrictions not working)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, but that's not what I wrote in the paragraph above, "Just
>> reject them."  I'd include the same restrictions for administrators.
>
> Why? We trust admins.
>
At least on en:, administrators are primarily chosen based on activity
and popularity (and often flamboyance), rather than technical competence
or "trust".

The selection mechanism has been proposed for revision numerous times,
with extensive polling, but it is as it is.

It would probably be better to return to the original Wales dictum,
"This should be no big deal".

Then, we would only know that administrators aren't new, and have some
acculturation, but not "trust" in a security sense.

>> There are too many administrators that may be well-meaning, but skim
>> without understanding instructions, or don't bother to fix double
>> redirects, or are quite simply technically incompetent.
>
> Sack 'em.
>
There is not much of a viable mechanism for doing it.

Heck, there's a recent en: administrator that lied during evaluation
(saying s/he was no longer involved in userbox wars), and within hours of
getting the flag began deleting userboxen (sometimes with provocative
edit summaries), even where the specific userbox had survived TfD and CfD
evaluation by the community.

In one specific case of edit warring with fellow administrators, s/he
expanded the User Christian userbox to be a page long, because they kept
restoring it after s/he deleted it.

If such an egregious case cannot be removed, then there's really not much
hope for merely the careless and incompetent.


body:
Essjay wrote:
> I think I have to agree with all of the above; it seems this delved off
> as a sub-thread of the original, discussing edit throttles rather than
> pagemoves. I certainly have to agree with questioning the benefit of any
> change at all; we're doing pretty well without any restrictions, and if
> a wiki is having a problem with pagemove vandalism, it shouldn't be that
> hard for a list full of techies (Disclaimer: I'm not one.)  to come up
> with a pagemove-vandal-blocking-bot just like the one running on en.wiki.
>
Which doesn't work well during rapid moves.  Again, the proposal is to
throttle pages moves to one per minute.  Not hard, the move is already
logged per user, and gives time to respond in the cases of abuse.


from_name: Liviu Andronic

body:
I agree that simple ignoring of this project would make it disappear in a
one-two year time.

What the you do not get is that there is one simple solution: move mo to
mo-cyr. And everyone gets happy.

Is this so difficult?

On 7/2/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> You do not get it.
>
> It is an annoyance. One of the points made is that the Moldovan
> wikipedia is just trolling. Consider what makes a troll thrive;
> attention. The more attention that you give it, ANY attention the more
> it will get entrenched. There is this saying: "I do not care what they
> say about me as long as they write my name correctly", all this
> attention makes the mo.wikipedia "relevant". If it is not relevant,
> refrain from giving it attention and at some time it will just
> evaporate. If it does not, it cannot be considered trolling and you are
> plain wrong.
>
> The best thing for you to do: shut up. Ignore this project. Everybody
> will be happier and maybe you will be proven to be right.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > I would have to object to the position taken by people who can make a
> > difference.
> >
> > IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me. I do not
> > want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all this
> junk.
> >
> > I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an issue. I
>
> > agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an unimportant
> > Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire community. If
> this
> > issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all possible
>
> > Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and Moldovan
> > Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a problem.
> >
> > Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty war that
> I
> > personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for those
> who
> > can make a difference to just ignore?
> >
> > Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create
> confusion
> > and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free
> encyclopedia
> > of the highest possible quality"?
> >
> > Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to take and
>
> > implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and
> impossible
> > arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and all over
> > the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests to do is
> use
> > common sense to decide on this issue.
> >
> > It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by stewards
> and
> > bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.
> >
> > But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance to
> adopt. I
> > still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop
> deliberately
> > ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not cease
> > re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an entire
> > country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million persons)
> are
> > incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me - if no
> one
> > else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a two-three
> months
> > time.
> >
> > If you managed to read till this point, thank you.
> >
> > Liviu
> >
> > On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jacky PB wrote:
> >>
> >>> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
> >>>
> >> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved would
> mean
> >> wasting
> >> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something unimportant.
> The
> >> safest
> >> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same as we do
> >> with
> >> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
> >>
> >> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Liviu


subject: [Wikitech-l] centralized tasks

body:
Speaking of bots, over the past few days and in recent months, bots that
the community had come to rely upon have stopped working, and we don't
have the source available to fix them.

In the most recent case, the en: crypticbot was stopped and banned by a
misguided administrator.  It was overturned, but the damage was done.

Unfortunately, it was the one was responsible for daily sub-pages at
Templates for Deletion and others, and running the Village Pump and
others.  Cryptic cannot restore operation until returning to work on
Wednesday.

It seems to be too fragile for depending on individual users, and
would benefit by toolserver or central access to the database to
avoid overhead.  (Hopefully, ensuring technical competence.)

What needs to be done to have a centralized system for running such
hourly and daily tasks?


from_name: mdd4696 at gmail.com

body:
> "William Allen Simpson" wrote
> > ..
> > And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.
>
> AWB can be used in bot mode. But then, the user must be logged in and registered
> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots
> under the section "Bots" (a fully protected page).
>
> And AWB cannot do page moves.
>
> --Adrian

The source code is available to anyone with a little technical savvy...

~Mdd4696


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> We're not. It's just that rather than have the links for the sources
> on each and every page, we link to a single central page with the
> details of the sources. ("census daya is sourced from X, place names
> are taken from these two databases, etc.")
>
> It's a kludge, and it's not how we'd do it now, but the fact is it's there.

I don't think that's too bad, but it shouldn't be in the main
namespace, as it's not really encyclopaedic information in itself -
it's meta information, like a template. I guess we don't have a good
way of dealing with these, but imho project namespace would be
preferable.

Steve


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Harassment on wikipedia

body:
Ronald,

I laughed so much because of point 1) that I would probably have voted for
you even if at point 2) you had sent me to Outer Space on a bycicle, telling
me that I should find a Klingon version of the Essenian texts or never ever
return to earth LOLOLOLOL Keep it going, My *Lord* :))

B?rto


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/3/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> I'm the opposite, I think the second principle is very important.
> Anything that's not in the article namespace, template namespace or
> image namespace is stuff that's not really a part of the encyclopedia
> itself - it's just temporary scaffolding and support equipment we're
> using while writing it. When Wikipedia gets mirrored or otherwise
> distributed all that non-encyclopedia stuff should be pared away. If
> there are links to it then those links will automatically become broken.

Ok, so we have:
Article namespace - encyclopaedic articles about encyclopaedic topics.
"List of X" is about as far as we stretch.
Template namespace - text that gets included into encyclopaedic
articles. Plus, random cruft like userboxes.
Image namespace - images that get included into encyclaedic articles
(plus other cruft)
Category namespace (you forgot this one) - meta information about
groups of related articles

Now, where the hell does meta information about individual or groups
of effectively unrelated articles go? Bizarrely, the category
namespace seems like the closest one! What else is there?

> Far better to switch over to the <ref></ref><references/> system, IMO.
> The main problem here is that there are tens of thousands of articles to
> convert. I don't suppose there are any bothandlers who'd be willing to
> look into doing automated conversion? Rambot articles are probably still
> fairly standardized in format. I've noticed that the old Rambot
> reference links use section numbers that no longer match anything in the
> reference "article", that could perhaps be repaired in the process.

I don't see how this helps. Putting <ref>s into an infobox is
dangerous, as there's no guarantee the including page will actually
have a <references> section...

Steve


body:
On 7/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
> boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
> of classification. Delete them.

It's not at all pointless. "Australian native mammals" is a perfectly
natural, meaningful, valuable, navigable category.

Animals are not "Australian" or "English" or "French". But they can be
"native to Australia", "native to England" etc.

Political boundaries may not matter to animals, but they matter to us,
and there's no inherent reason not to use them to categorise animals.
Whether it's actually practical due to the sheer number of entries is
another question...

Steve


body:
Monday, July 3, 2006, 2:07:18 PM, Justin wrote:
>> I'm not sure how useful is the classification by country for plants
>> and animals using categories.
<snip>
JC> Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
JC> boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
JC> of classification. Delete them.

I nominated them for deletion. Here's the link to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_3#July_3


from_name: Kent Sandvik

subject: [Wikitech-l] Need suggestions for AJAX interface, language markup

body:
Hi, I need a system for people reading wikimedia marked up language
sentences so that the translated word or sentence in another wikimedia
page will show up in another frame or window. If possible this should
happen each time the mouse hovers over the link (like a popup), but
clicking on the link is also OK.

This does not need to be across all browsers, even if this is
supported by Firefox/Safari it would be good enough.

Any suggestions or ideas? Thx, Kent


body:
Monday, July 3, 2006, 3:16:09 PM, you wrote:

g> On 7/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> Its pointless trying to classify animals based on the political
>> boundaries they happen to inhabit. It shows a deep misunderstanding
>> of classification. Delete them.

g> Perhaps but there is no shortage of books on say the fauna of the British Isles.

Yes, But I'm not arguing to delete the lists, like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_vascular_plants_of_Britain_and_Ireland


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Need suggestions for AJAX interface,
	language markup

body:
On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a suggestion: broaden your scope slightly and make it so that
> when you pass the mouse over any linked word, it retrieves the first
> paragraph of that article and displays it somewhere. Then, the
> question of where to find that paragraph is just an option. In other
> words, imagine you're on the French wikipedia and you see the
> unfamiliar word "ch?teau".

Yes, that would be nice, but in phase 2, just now I don't have any
good ideas how to get a hovering link back to the same wikipedia
system, if that was working, we could extend the technique forward. I
would even think this would be useful for non-language links, as well.

--Kent


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Viral swarming teenage vanity spam

body:
This is over the top just for sheer lack of substance,
and the fact that it passed an AFD with some help from
a apparently clueness newbie contingent, unencumbered
by any corrective measures for fostering founding
philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8_%282nd_nomination%29

In the absence of any formal editorial prunership, I'd
like to announce that the newly-formed
Wikipedia:Editorial_Qabal is now hiring.

Motto: "NPOV, what a novel concept".

Stevertigo
convicted NPOV pusher

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


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> It sucks that they have to write an email, but
> it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest
> their block if they are, well, blocked.

Am I missing something vital?  Why does it "suck" that they have to
write an email?  The technology is well enough established, it's
hardly rocket science.


from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo

body:
Hello folks!

BrokenArrow and I have designed three logo proposals for the Toolserver,
which should be included in this mail.
My question is: Can the operators of the Toolserver (and the people who
have accounts on it) use this logos as they are trademarked by the
Foundation or not?

Regards,
Marco

PS: This mail is CC to foundation-l and toolserver-l.


subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Harassment on wikipedia

body:
But it was the Ancient Soviets who *forced* the Ancient Hebrews to
replace the Ancient Klingon Alphabet with the Ancient Hebrew Alphabet!

Mark

On 03/07/06, Ronald Chmara <ron at opus1.com> wrote:
> After weeks and weeks of debate on this topic, and complaints to
> parties to "do something", I have decided to "do something".
>
> ... Drastic.
>
> 1. I declare that I am the new wikipedia overlord, super-administrator,
> and god-king. If, oh, the "community" or that "jimbo" guy wishes to
> appeal anything to me, it must be accompanied by a sufficient grovel.
> Oh, and animal/vegetable/mineral sacrifice of some kind might help,
> along with 20 questions about why they should be listened to.
>
> 2. I declare that since wikipedia is primarily a textual medium, and
> not a spoken medium, I hereby declare that what defines a wikipedia
> "language" will be documentation of textual expression, of a spkoken
> language, in a specific character set, by 1000 people or more, at any
> given point in time. Thus, the myriad of chinese languages, which use
> multiple character sets, will be available with those characters.
> Likewise, since romanian languages have been historically documented as
> using cyrillic character sets by more than 1000 people, they will also
> be available.
>
> 3. I declare that in conjunction with the above, patent nonsense and
> straw-men, like using a klingon character set for writing articles in
> ancient hebrew, is straight out, as there is no verifiability that 1000
> ancient hebrews wrote in klingon character sets.
>
> 4. I also declare that wikipedia has no stake in debates as trivial and
> annoying as "you put jelly in my peanut butter!" or "you put peanut
> butter in my jelly!" or "you put cyrillic in my romanian!". Wikipedia
> is not the appropriate place to express whether or not a certain
> condiment *should* have been used, or that a certain character set
> *should* have been used. If a character set has been widely used, we
> should make such a language and character set combination available.
>
> 5. If people are offended that their language, and how it has been
> written, over time, are offended, that they build time machines to fix
> the problem. Wikipedia does not censor the past, wikipedia documents
> the past. If folks are offended that their language was written in
> another character set, I suggest that those who are offended travel to
> the past to ensure that such a thing never happened.
>
> 6. I hope that you, my faithful subjects, will abide by my decrees, or
> I will put jelly in your peanut butter.
>
> Signed by your new overlord, super-administrator, and god-king:
> -Ronabop, New God-king of wikipedia
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.