from_name: mark at kruegerbrothers.com

subject: AW: [Wikipedia-l] Toolbar update

body:
Good job!

Even if I don't think that Wikipedia MUST be graphical it can't reject to
become so...and this one step ahead of drop down menus...very fine!

By the way, what I initially intended with proposing to think about a WP
"toolbar" was meant as a BROWSER toolbar to instantly accessing WP (and some
of its features) everytime and directly; and also for the purpose of
enhanced usage (you know, spreading the WP idea...) in the sense of
"(browsing around the www) ...oh, this is interesting, I should read
something about it and - click - write a WP article...". Anyway, if the
outcome is an enhanced MENU I really appreciate this way...

Mark

Erik Moeller wrote:

>Hi,
>
>there's a new version of the toolbar:
>
>http://test.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=edit
>
>

Magnus wrote:

Better! Too bad about the Mozilla bug, >though. But I guess it is save
for newbies now :-)

If we're using more JavaScript, what about a skin based on drop-down
menus? Should be visually much more pleasing than out standard skin.
There's a free menu "toolbox" at
    http://www.webdevtips.com/dropmenu/

Magnus

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Terrorism, certainty,
	and our Neutral Point of View policy

body:
--- Viajero <viajero at quilombo.nl> wrote:
> On 01/20/04  at 10:27 AM, "Poor, Edmund W"
> <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> said:
>
> > Unlike the Bush Administration or the New York
> Times, this
> > revolutionary, ground-breaking, historically
> unique scholarly  project
> > -- Wikipedia -- has no axe to grind, no point of
> view  to defend.
>
> The NYT would no doubt make the same claim -- that
> it has no axe to grind.
>
>
> V.

Exactly what point of view is the NYT pushing, then?

LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Toxins are good for you

body:
"Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
> Sheldon,
>
> Since you are the author of "Toxic Sludge Is Good
> For You", I wonder
> what your considered opinion is of hormesis. Too
> much arsenic will kill
> you, but does that mean the less the better?
> Advocates of the hormesis
> theory say that the optimum amount of arsenic and
> some other stuff is
> significantly greater than zero.
>
> Kind of like, a no-salt diet is bad for you, because
> that leads to
> dehydration or something (I don't know the language
> of science as well
> as you). But too much salt is bad, too.
>
> Or, like, not enough water and you die of thirst,
> but drinking gallons
> and gallons of can kill ya.
>
> Before I start [[Hormesis]], I'd like to hear from
> someone we can trust:
> an expert.
>
> Ed Poor

I'm sure you're aware that hormesis is still largely
unproven.

LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [associates@amazon.com: Amazon.com Associates
 program - your application approved]

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

> Going to [[Special:Booksources]] raw hasn't got around to that because
> we forgot you could do that. :) That's a bug.

If you say it's a bug then that's the probably the truth.  Let's see
what will happen and where our way will cross again.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Delirium

subject: ISBN numbers (was, Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds)

body:
To sidestep the issue of partnering with booksellers for a bit, I have a
more fundamental question: why do we have ISBN links at all?  ISBN
numbers do not identify books; they identify particular printings of
books by particular publishers.  Our job, as an encyclopedia, is to
discuss the books themselves; if the reader wishes to find which
publishers have the book currently in print in his or her country, I
don't see that as our role (there are plenty of places to look that up,
or ask your local bookstore).  Not to mention that with the vast
majority of books we'd be interested in documenting in an encyclopedia,
there are dozens (sometimes hundreds!) of ISBN numbers under which the
book has been published.  Are we going to end every article on books
with a lengthy list of ISBN numbers?  Or are we going to arbitrarily
pick one from our favorite publisher?  I'd propose we instead just leave
them out entirely.

-Mark


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] Two servers (for speed)

body:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:24PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Maybe we need 2 database servers: one for reading and writing articles;
> the other for maintenance functions, occasional testing, updating
> watchlists, lengthy searches, etc.
>
> That way most users would get a quick response most of the time. And
> people doing time-consuming stuff wouldn't slow down the rest of us.

Jimbo's hardware order contains a second DB server (geoffrin being the
first).

	JeLuF


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] the tool bar : disable it in some browsers (or fix

body:
Erik wrote:
>I did listen, and I said more than that. Having a way to quickly and
>intuitively find out the basic layout functions is useful, and I see no
>reason not to give the 5-10% of non-IE users that functionality.

I and others have already given you a reason! The 2) feature is non-intuitive and confusing. I
found it very frustrating to select text and then do the *natural* thing by hitting the big fat
bold B, expecting the text to either become bolded or for markup needed to turn the text bold to
be imputed. This did not happen. My cursor jumped to this odd text field at the top of screen and
with very unhelpful '''Bold text''' there. That was not what I expected, so I repeated the same
thing think I did something wrong.

I am a user and I am telling you that that was not a nice or useful experience. Yet you still in
effect say "nonsense*.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Time to clean out my closet.

body:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a ?crit:
>
> Okay. I an committed. I will  post this.

This was courageous.
I am glad you finally left your silence.

> First off. The whole situation about the mediation
> committee has two/three nasty connotations.
>
> There is an advertisement with a dog that says:
> "Do as we like, or the dog dies!"

Why ?
Anyone is welcome to go on helping resolving conflicts. Ideally, no one
should ever reach these two stages. It is also up to you to make it that
it never happen.
Second, you are also supposed to help build something decent with your
own ideas. I am not aware that the committee did not listen to you,
since you said nothing, but complain when I tried to fix some pages. I
also made comments to your proposal on meta, and you never answered
these comments. Is not that a bit easy of you to write such a comment ?
How do you expect things to go on and to improve if you stay silent but
to criticize ?

> I (personally) think that the mediation committee
> is under a similar threat, and for similar reasons.
>
> The truth is that we should not upholdd the mediation
> committee any longer than it has a practical
> justification.

Agreed. But right now, there is justification. So are you talking about
a fluttery future ?

> The puppy has to catch the rabbit, or off to the
> butchers with it!!

You do not even give time for the puppy to born...

> I personally have no idea why Jimbo qualified me for the
> mediation committee. Maybe perhaps because to do otherwise
> would mean that he would have to explain any and all other
> similar decicions.

I would tend to say because you ask...
Did you ask ?
But if you want not to have anything to do with that, just say you are
not interested. If you want to have something to do with arbitration,
just ask for that.

> I know Angela and Stevertigo from the process of bringing
> up the cleanup process. My own intent was to improve the
> process of wikipedia in a manner that would remain an
> improvement, rather than a shackle on its further
> developement. I hope I can restrain myself into not
> playing any part in its further developement.

?
You made a great job on the meta pages. What changed between december
and january ? Are you just unhappy because the page about monitoring is
not something some of us seem to agree with ? Is that the problem ?

What is the problem ?

> Geoff (llwyrch) I know not at all.

It was the perfect opportunity to get to know him :-)

> Sannse (did I misspell the username?) I know even less,
> except a vague, and I must claim irrelevant
> impression (no justification, please lambast me if it
> is crappy; I will be the last person to require definitive
> determination) that she is a female.

Yes, she is.

> Uncle Ed; I personally do not trust, even though I have seen
> his actions and speech on this forum. To me he is much like
> I see myself; an unsolved equation, maybe negative, maybe
> positive, maybe the very zero point of the equation...

You do not see you in a very positive manner.

If you think other people should be part of it, do you suggested them to
be ?

> Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about contributing
> in the meditiation group, if you were not a member of it!
>
> PLEASE anthere, think long before getting offended by the
> previous sentence! I think you can perform a valuable part
> in forming the limitations of the mediation group, but I
> honestly don't see that you can offer anything positive to
> it's developement as a member of it.

I am currently failing to see how I could not be offended by this
statement, as you provide no justification for such a comment. In any
cases, you might have noticed that my name was not in the current list.
So, feel free to join if this is the main point stopping you.
If the developpement of such a project shall be impaired by my presence,
I will certainly stop participating in it. I think I gave my reasons for
  participating to its development, and those who read them should
understand the limits it will inherently put.
Did you read what I wrote ?
If so, what is the sense in what you write here ?
Honestly, I do not think you can make such statements without more
input. At least to me privately. I think that would be fair.

> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

I am sorry you feel so disinchanted


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] How long do we have to put up with Mr-Natural-Health?

body:
He blanked the content of [[Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Mr-Natural-Health]], and said on my Talk page that he will continue to do so.

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040120/4b1e9804/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr Natural Health

body:
13.  He called me a troll on my Talk page.

RickK

Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net> wrote:
Oh, and in case anyone is still wondering whether MNH is still making personal
attacks - He added the following a couple of minutes ago to
[[Talk:Alternative medicine]]. (A couple of disclaimers/notes: I am not at
all involved in the talk page of [[Alternative medicine]] - or indeed the
article, I have given up on that article because of MNH; The user he attacks
is "User:David Gerard")

"Are you dense, or are you just not too bright?"

This bumps up the documented personal attack count to 12.
I shall add a note to that comment referring to [[Wikipedia:No personal
attacks.]]

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040120/50473b2e/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

body:
Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has no interest in participating in the Arbitration process.  OK, now what?  Is he going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040120/4c97e599/attachment.htm


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I do this a lot, but after all I am a book seller. I think it is very
helpful to someone who regularly buys books and helps them find one at a
reasonable cost once they learn how to use the various links offered.
(Although I think Wikipedia has too many choices presented, many of them
poor choices for one reason or another)

And yes, when I get going good I will look up every edition of a book and
make comments on availablily and cost.

Fred

> From: Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:47:07 -0800
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: ISBN numbers (was, Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds)
>
> To sidestep the issue of partnering with booksellers for a bit, I have a
> more fundamental question: why do we have ISBN links at all?  ISBN
> numbers do not identify books; they identify particular printings of
> books by particular publishers.  Our job, as an encyclopedia, is to
> discuss the books themselves; if the reader wishes to find which
> publishers have the book currently in print in his or her country, I
> don't see that as our role (there are plenty of places to look that up,
> or ask your local bookstore).  Not to mention that with the vast
> majority of books we'd be interested in documenting in an encyclopedia,
> there are dozens (sometimes hundreds!) of ISBN numbers under which the
> book has been published.  Are we going to end every article on books
> with a lengthy list of ISBN numbers?  Or are we going to arbitrarily
> pick one from our favorite publisher?  I'd propose we instead just leave
> them out entirely.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] phpsysinfo

body:
Hello,

Could a script like http://phpsysinfo.sourceforge.net/ be set on each server of wikipedia ?
Just to be aware for the geek like me :o)

Shaihulud


from_name: Viajero

body:
On 01/20/04  at 10:27 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> said:

> Unlike the Bush Administration or the New York Times, this
> revolutionary, ground-breaking, historically unique scholarly  project
> -- Wikipedia -- has no axe to grind, no point of view  to defend.

The NYT would no doubt make the same claim -- that it has no axe to grind.

V.


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Toxins are good for you

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>Since you are the author of "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You", I wonder
>what your considered opinion is of hormesis.

[SNIP]

>Before I start [[Hormesis]], I'd like to hear from someone we can trust:
>an expert.

I'm not a medical expert or a scientist, so it wouldn't be right for
me to claim expertise about this topic. I do have some opinions,
however. I've shared my opinions with Ed off-list because I don't
think this topic is likely to be of much interest to the rest of the
members of this list.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


body:
Erik wrote:
>That's not possible. Your browser does not support it. It neither
>supports  changing the selection *nor* retrieving it. So the best
>we can do in these browsers is give the user a kind of help menu
>to get sample text for easy copy and pasting (which is particularly
>useful for stuff like the  signature tildes,

Then put it under a help menu! But the current implementation, even with the
"Click a button to get an example text" is non-intuitive because it mimics
the look of an edit tool bar in a word processor. If something looks familiar
like that, the user is not going to read "Click a button to get an example
text", they are going to just do what comes naturally to them and expect a
result similar to what they get in their word processor (or at least it's
mark-up equivalent). As a matter of fact, I didn't even notice the "Click a
button to get an example text" wording until you pointed it out.

Now that means I'm either stupid, blind, lazy, or it means that I quickly
looked, saw something familiar, and expected it to work in a certain familiar
way. When that did not happen, I repeated but got the same result. I then
became frustrated and annoyed.

Better to have a link to a page that has a side-by-side comparison of wiki
markup and the result. Oh wait! Such a link already exists on every edit
window behind [Editting help]. Why is it necessary to duplicate that with
something that confusingly looks like a real edit bar? The result, as has
been already demonstrated, will be confusion and frustration.

If it were just a clear edit window the newbie would have just wrote whatever
text they thought would improve the article. But no. Instead they are
fighting with a toolbar that does not work the way they expect.

How is having a counter-intuitive feature helping newbies? How is putting an
emphasis on markup going to help improve the content of articles? Putting all
these markup options in front of newbies, especially when a toolbar
confusinginly does not function as a toolbar, gets in the way of *content*
creation. Newbies catch on to wiki syntax very fast. So in the absence of a
functioning toolbar, a clean edit window will work fine.

Much better, IMO, just to let the newbie enter in the unformatted text and
*improve* the article quickly without having to worry about formatting.
Somebody else will come along and add markup if needed and the newbie will
discover our markup very naturally. It is quick and easy - it's wiki.

IMO, the 2) toolbar is just a very poor surrogate for finding out how to add
markup to articles by interacting with formatted wiki text and by watching
other users who know the ropes. But what is worse is that it masquerades as a
real toolbar that looks like it should be usable for adding markup to text
directly - which it does not. If it really is a helpbar and not a toolbar,
then it should be behind a help link.

I'm an end-user using your feature for the first time Erik. I've found some
big usability problems with the 2) toolbar. Yet when I report those problems
you explain how I should use the feature and what I'm doing wrong! The point
of usability testing is *not* to teach users how to use your feature, it is
to get feedback on how to improve your feature so that users can use it
intuitively and without getting frustrated.

If that feature can't be improved for certain users, then instead of force
feeding those users half the feature, it would be, IMO, much better that
those users don't see the feature at all unless they specifically request to
see it. So default on for browser/OS configs that are known to be able to
display the 1) toolbar right, and default off for every other browser/OS
config.

If you have to explain how to use the 2) toolbar, then how does it help
newbies? Wasn't the point to make things easier for them?

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Daniel-
> Yep. The whole point of wiki is to make mark-up fast and easy. Having a
> half-broken edit tool bar

It's not the edit toolbar that is broken, it's the browser. Netscape 7 is
based on an old Mozilla codebase. The problem is that older versions of
Mozilla than the 1.3 codebase do not support the selectionStart/
selectionEnd properties which are necessary to get and change a text
selection.

Unfortunately there's no way for us to test whether the browser supports
selectionStart/selectionEnd, as these are properties of the <textarea>
element, which doesn't even exist at the time we do the checking. So right
now the behavior is like this:

1) For Netscape and IE, change the selection when the user clicks a
button.

2) For all other browsers, show a sample text in an info box, which can be
copy and pasted.

Unfortunately 1) leads to problems in old versions of Netscape. That is an
unsatisfactory situation and I am *not* suggesting to turn on the toolbar
with this problem still in place.

Now there are two ways to deal with the Netscape compatibility problems:

1) Only support selection change in Internet Explorer. This is very easy
to do, but will discriminate against users of Mozilla >=1.3 (including
myself), inasmuch as they don't get the maximum functionality they could
get.

2) Support selection change in Internet Explorer and *new* versions of
Netscape Navigator.

I'm inclined to go with option 2), but some further testing might be
needed until it's ironed out in all browsers. Until then, the toolbar will
*not* be turned on by default.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] On continued personal attacks,threats, etc.

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

>Obviously personal threats cannot be tolerated.  Nor can criminal
>libels. Both should be capital offences.
>
That's an extreme penalty for that.  To be consistent with my general
objection to the death penalty, I would need to oppose that.

>If some litigous person one day
>decides to sue WP for publishing a libel against him/herself, just the
>costs will close us down even if the case is weak.
>
They'll do that where many people would so no libel, and often without
any reasonalble cause whatsoever.  We can do nothing to prevent that.
 Censoring ourselves to conform with libel chill is a siaervice to free
speech.  If something is true and factual we should not be afraid to say
it.  We do still need to be able to know the difference between fact and
opinion.

Ec


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr Natural Health

body:
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 10:54 am, KNOTT, T wrote:
> I'm sorry but I accidentally wiped my old emails. Did we decide to do
> anything about Mr Natural Health ?
>
> Theresa

Unfortunately we decided not to do anything. This is in part due to the fact
that no arbitration procedures have been finalised.

Oh, and in case anyone is still wondering whether MNH is still making personal
attacks - He added the following a couple of minutes ago to
[[Talk:Alternative medicine]]. (A couple of disclaimers/notes: I am not at
all involved in the talk page of [[Alternative medicine]] - or indeed the
article, I have given up on that article because of MNH; The user he attacks
is "User:David Gerard")

"Are you dense, or are you just not too bright?"

This bumps up the documented personal attack count to 12.
I shall add a note to that comment referring to [[Wikipedia:No personal
attacks.]]

Ceterum censeo, Carthaginem esse delendum.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject:
[WikiEN-l] On continued personal attacks,
	etc.(repeat without typo)

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

> Obviously personal threats cannot be tolerated.  Nor can criminal
> libels. Both should be capital offences.

That's an extreme penalty for that.  To be consistent with my general
objection to the death penalty, I would need to oppose that.

> If some litigous person one day
> decides to sue WP for publishing a libel against him/herself, just the
> costs will close us down even if the case is weak.
>
They'll do that where many people would see no libel, and often without
any reasonalble cause whatsoever.  We can do nothing to prevent that.
Censoring ourselves to conform with libel chill is a disservice to free
speech.  If something is true and factual we should not be afraid to say
it.  We do still need to be able to know the difference between fact and
opinion.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] terrorism

body:
Martin wrote:
>By contrast, suppose that Osama bin Laden had not crashed two aircraft
>into the WTC, but was a terrorist. With the exception of people interested in
>Middle East politics, nobody would know who he was. Indeed, prior to
>attacking the WTC, Osama  bin Laden was a terrorist, and wasn't famous
>enough to get onto "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here".

Not sure about the "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here" reference, but OBL
was a widely-known terrorist before 9/11. Remember the embassy bombings in
Kenya and Tanzania and Clinton's response by bombing Al-Queda bases in
Afghanistan with cruise missiles? OBL was mentioned many times in reference
to that attack as the probable mastermind. In fact his name came-up rather
quickly in the news as a possible suspect in the 9/11 attack due to previous
exposure.

>Similarly, Zero is making a similar "what if?" point. Suppose that Osama
>bin Laden was not a terrorist, but had still crashed two aircraft into the
>WTC. Perhaps he wrote some buggy software, or was an incompetent
>air traffic controller, or turned on his mobile phone in the cabin, or was
>a drunk pilot. He'd still be a household name. Kill three thousand people
>in a single day, and you're going to be famous, no matter how you do it.

Disasters resulting from accidents and incompetence do not result in terror
rocking a nation. Intent has a lot to do with that.

'They are targeting us', is massively different from 'what a horrible
accident'. Accidents happen, that is part of life. Most people are perfectly
fine accepting that and continue to get in their autos every day (which BTW
killed 10 times as many people in 2001 than 9/11 did). But when we *know*
that others are out to get us; well that has a tendency to change one's life.

This added dimension to the loss of human life greatly changes the dynamic of
the whole event. It elevates it way beyond terms of just the lives and
property that were lost - a whole nation is attacked in a profound and
personal way. That's terrorism.

>Being regarded as a terrorist doesn't get you a lot of fame. There must be
>hundreds of ex-IRA members wandering about Ireland as we speak, and I
>don't know any of their names.

Yeah, so. Plenty of minor actors in Hollywood too.

>Fame comes from what you DO. How you are regarded also comes
>from what you do. However, fame does not come from how you are
>regarded (well, I guess porn stars are maybe an exception).

What terrorists DO is far more than just kill people and destroy property (see
above).

And just as some actors get better parts and thus become more famous, some
terrorists are able to commit higher profile terrorist acts and thus become
more famous. But the name of their profession can and should be mentioned in
articles about them. Even if it is attributed in cases where there is a
significant dispute about that in the outside world.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism, certainty,

body:
and our Neutral Point of View policy
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:30:58 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200401201630.58342.maveric149 at yahoo.com>
Status: RO
X-Status: Q
X-KMail-EncryptionState:
X-KMail-SignatureState:

Ed wrote:
>Even if I agree with you, it's still nothing more than your
>point of view (POV) and mine. Even if 50% or 80% or 95% of
>Americans (or Westerners in general) maintain this POV, it's
>still a "point of view".

Ed, I know you mean well, but you are way off base here since nobody but
extreme kooks and liars seriously state that the WTC attack was not terrorism
(the other attacks on that day, as I said, are less clear). NPOV does not
mandate that extreme minority views be expressed to the same extent - given
the same exposure - as other views. It just states that, were relevant, those
views can and should be explained and attributed.

Nearly everything is disputed by somebody, but we only attribute POVs and
explain them when those POVs are significant and relevant to what we are
talking about. That is why the Reciprocal System of Theory (a crank theory)
does not get a mention in our main articles on physics. Nor does the
existence of that "theory" make us hedge our statements in the main physics
articles that directly relate to RST's claims. However, mentioning RST in an
article on alternative theories of physics is very relevant to the topic and
should be mentioned. Then, if anything, the alternative theories article
would be the one linked from the main physics article.

So unless there is a serious controversy in the outside world over a fact or a
statement as it relates to the article subject, then we just call a spade a
spade.

>There is no universally agree-upon definition of terrorism, no
>formula into which we can "plug in" some values to distinguish
>what as "really" terrorism and what isn't.

No, but all of ones I know of that have any significance would classify the
WTC attacks as terrorism. Other cases are less clear.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Agon S. Buchholz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Servers! Replication etc

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Geoffrin is now serving as the main database server (with memory down
> to 2 gigs I wasn't able to detect any errors in memtester).

Performance on the de:Wikipedia is currently pretty good, maybe even a
bit better ;)

A lot of thanks to all who have helped!

Greetings, -asb


body:
Erik wrote:
>I'd be more interested in hearing ways to make it more intuitive
>than "turn it off for these browsers".

The 2) toobar is fatally flawed; as I said before it is a word processor-like
toolbar that doesn't do what such a toolbar is expected to do. A static HTML
table outside the wiki text area of an edit window with just the basics:

Bold		''' ''''
Italics 	'' ''
Heading	== ==

Would be far better than the 2) toolbar.

I see no need to confuse newbies of non-mainstream browsers when there is an
already existing link to editing help on every page.

>I suspect that your reaction is more the result of already knowing
>that the selection+click feature works in some browsers, so I'd like
>to see some broader  usability results (i.e. having it on by default
>with the current setup for a couple of weeks) before I draw any
>conclusions.

I got that expectation from the bar itself.

Still plenty more I've already wrote on this here:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-January/013838.html

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Daniel-
> This point is *absolutely* useless and in fact counterproductive

Nonsense. It gives the user a quick overview of all major layout
functions.

> If a browser cannot do 1), then it should not be served 2).

I strongly disagree.

> Newbies have been
> learning wiki markup just fine by examples already in articles

Which is not possible when following a link to a non-existent page.
Besides, the point is not to make things possible which were impossible
before, the point is to make them *easier*.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] terrorism

body:
zero wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> On the other hand the fact that a great many people regard
>> OBL to be a terrorist is one of the big reasons why he is
>> famous.
>
>No, most of his fame is due to his organizing a couple of
>planes to fly into the WTC.  Some is due to his other attacks.

I'd just like to show the broader implications of Zero's point here, because I
recognise the similarity to another argument put on the ill-fated "list of
heterosexuals" page.

There, Oliver P discussed Errol Flynn, who had been listed as an example of a
famous heterosexual. Oliver pointed out that Errol was actually famous for his
promiscuity, not his heterosexuality. He did this by pointing out that if Errol had been
a promiscuous bisexual or a promiscuous homosexual, he would still have been
famous.

Similarly, Zero is making a similar "what if?" point. Suppose that Osama bin Laden
was not a terrorist, but had still crashed two aircraft into the WTC. Perhaps he wrote
some buggy software, or was an incompetent air traffic controller, or turned on his
mobile phone in the cabin, or was a drunk pilot. He'd still be a household name. Kill
three thousand people in a single day, and you're going to be famous, no matter how
you do it.

By contrast, suppose that Osama bin Laden had not crashed two aircraft into the
WTC, but was a terrorist. With the exception of people interested in Middle East
politics, nobody would know who he was. Indeed, prior to attacking the WTC, Osama
bin Laden was a terrorist, and wasn't famous enough to get onto "I'm a celebrity, get
me out of here".

Being regarded as a terrorist doesn't get you a lot of fame. There must be hundreds
of ex-IRA members wandering about Ireland as we speak, and I don't know any of
their names. Fame comes from what you DO. How you are regarded also comes
from what you do. However, fame does not come from how you are regarded (well, I
guess porn stars are maybe an exception).

All of this discussion is of course completely irrelevant to the vital debate of whether
or not Osama bin Laden is in fact a porn star.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Maveric said,
>
>>Slamming civilian commercial jets into civilian office
>>buildings killing thousands and destroying a national icon
>>is terrorism no matter how you parse it! I for one was
>>depressed for a month after I saw the towers fall on live
>>television even though I live on the opposite coast and do
>>not directly know a single person killed that day. That's
>>terrorism.
>>
>Even if I agree with you, it's still nothing more than your
>point of view (POV) and mine. Even if 50% or 80% or 95% of
>Americans (or Westerners in general) maintain this POV, it's
>still a "point of view".
>
A lot of this comes down to the nature of a point of view.  I can
sympathize with someone's month-long depression over these events, but I
can hardly take that as evidence that someone responsible for events on
the opposite coast is a terrorist.  The real issue is the distinction
between fact and opinion.  That it should come up over the application
of the word "terrorist" is secondary; it could have come up in relation
to many other contentious term.  These terms can have either a positive
or negative import.

Critical thinking is one of the most important elements in the good
education of a child.  (As strongly as I may believe that, it is still
an opinion.)  It is important to learn how to read, but that skill is
wasted if the child is unable to interpret what he has read and make it
meaningful.  Critical thinking is also important in evaluating TV toy
commercials where the only factual statement contained is often, "Each
sold separately."  Critical thinking allows a child to think
independently even when majority opinion is overwhelming; it gives the
child the skill to recognize those dangerous situations when he must
say, "No!"

The first lesson in critical thinking is to know the difference between
a fact and an opinion.  Knowing and understanding that distinction is
essential to maintaining intellectual rigour; it is important to the
scientific method, it is important to the development of an objective
and neutral encylopedia such as we claim to be developing.  It is most
important in the context of evaluating those ideas which we hold most
strongly.

It is not always easy to distinguish between fact and opinion, and a lot
of the agreed facts themselves depend on arbitrary assumptions.  Having
an undisputed definition of something helps.  That definition tends to
be lacking in many "-isms" and the "-ists" who practise them.  If there
is serious opposition to our claim that something is factual, then we
would do well to stop treating it as factual.  In this regard we can
certainly do better than resort to weasel words purporting truth by
innuendo.

>There is no universally agree-upon definition of terrorism, no
>formula into which we can "plug in" some values to distinguish
>what as "really" terrorism and what isn't.
>
That's a big part of the problem.

>Even formulas which mention "innocent people" fail, because of
>a hot dispute over who is "innocent". Are anonymous Israeli
>civilians riding a bus or sitting in a caf"innocent", from
>the perspective of the group which sends a 'human bomb' on a
>'mission' to blow them up? You and I may think so, but I
>gather that the Arab nationalist groups which the US labels
>"terrorist" regard these civilians as somehow complicit in the
>"crimes" of their regime.
>
Even "innocent" can be a loaded opinion word used with the intent of
evoking an emotional response.  Some will only regard the civilians in
the occupied lands as complicit, while accepting that those within the
internationally recognized borders have a right to be there.

>Anyway, the solution is to back away from anything that smacks
>of official Wikipedia endorsement, when there is a hot
>controversy. Just figure out as accurately as we can, which
>groups of people (like "Americans" or "Westerners") espouse a
>particular POV, and say that they espouse it.
>
But simply saying "Americans" is inappropriate when American public
opinion is divided.

>The great thing about Wikipedia is that it does NOT have any
>particular slant on current events or history. We can get into
>all the in's and out's of public opinion. A conservative news
>outlet or radio commentator or historian can get away with
>cherishing a bias. He can easily twist things to support his
>POV; easiest way is to quote a lot of people who agree with
>you and omit mention of (or say nasty discrediting things
>about) anyone who disagrees. Liberals can (and do) join in the
>fun, too!
>
Indeed!

>Unlike the Bush Administration or the New York Times, this
>revolutionary, ground-breaking, historically unique scholarly
>project -- Wikipedia -- has no axe to grind, no point of view
>to defend. So we can delve into the issues and report
>accurately about all the major and minor variations of thought
>on any subject, no matter how controversial.
>
We do have a point of view to defend, the neutral point of view.  Alas,
some of us don't defend it very well.

>This is so wonderful, that maybe some of us are still reeling
>from the shock of such freedom and haven't figured out how
>to handle it. I'm still trying to get a grip on it, myself.
>
This is perhaps more true than even you may believe.  Freedom is pretty
shocking stuff.  If freedom is taught with hierarchical techniques, in
the course of which we are told that we are free and that such and such
are the characteristics of freedom that we must show on an examination
paper, are we really free?  People who are apparently free can have a
tough time with the responsibility part of it.  Sometimes I read and
hear things that leave me terribly pessimistic.

Ec

>


body:
Daniel-
> I am a user, you are a developer. When a bunch of users say something is not
> useful, it would make sense for the developer to *listen* and not just say
> "nonsense".

I did listen, and I said more than that. Having a way to quickly and
intuitively find out the basic layout functions is useful, and I see no
reason not to give the 5-10% of non-IE users that functionality.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

body:
No matter, first mediation must be attempted anyway.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:12:59 -0800 (PST)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has no
interest in participating in the Arbitration process.  OK, now what?  Is he
going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people
names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?

RickK

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/mail_footer_email/evt=2
1482/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/bf27f05f/attachment.htm


body:
Sounds like you might request mediation to get the ball rolling. (Not sure
whether they are ready for that yet though)

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:58:34 -0800 (PST)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] How long do we have to put up with Mr-Natural-Health?

He blanked the content of [[Wikipedia:Conflicts between
users/Mr-Natural-Health]], and said on my Talk page that he will continue to
do so.

RickK

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/mail_footer_email/evt=2
1482/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/d0bc393d/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

body:
The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get on the
stick. You can keep the pressure on...

Fred

> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>
> What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out quickly?


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

body:
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:20, Anthere wrote:

    Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a ?crit:
    >
    > Okay. I an committed. I will  post this.

    This was courageous.
    I am glad you finally left your silence.

Thank you. I subtly dislike e-mail bc of its lack of immediacy; a
BulletinBoard would be much better.

    > The puppy has to catch the rabbit, or off to the
    > butchers with it!!

    You do not even give time for the puppy to born...

I think you misunderstand me. What I wrote was quite confusing,
looking at it in hindsight. Allow me to clarify...

What I meant was that the whole mediation idea is very much on
a trial basis, and can be revoked by Jimbo if it does not pan
out. The fact that I _do_ think it will work, does not
remove the damoclean sword hanging over the institution.

And the conclusion I want to draw from that, is that we have to
make every effort to assure that it does not fail, but is such
a wonderful success that it need not, and indeed can not be
revoked. Every institution that fails its charter is a millstone
around the neck of further attempts at founding such at a later
time.

    You made a great job on the meta pages. What changed between december
    and january ? Are you just unhappy because the page about monitoring is
    not something some of us seem to agree with ? Is that the problem ?

    What is the problem ?

There is no problem. The silent observer bit was mostly to lend
an enchanced perception of legitimacy to the process, and though
extremely useful IMO, is _not_ at all crucial. Such a crucial thing
though would be who does the mediation and how they are selected to
do it, on which see below.

My latest bout of inactivity was brought on by a juxtaposition
of the server problems, and some personal matters which I will
not speak on publicly. The major part were the serverproblems,
which manifest themself in a much exacerbated form because of the
hardware configuration at my end (basically I have a too small box
to surf efficiently).

    > Uncle Ed; I personally do not trust, even though I have seen
    > his actions and speech on this forum. To me he is much like
    > I see myself; an unsolved equation, maybe negative, maybe
    > positive, maybe the very zero point of the equation...

    You do not see you in a very positive manner.

I try to be brutally honest with myself. BTW, let me emphasize that
I _don't_ mistrust my or Ed's ability to a good job as a mediator in
the cases for which we are suited but, merely, whether we can do so
always, and in every case. A big problem with the mediation process,
as it stands is that although those users who know the personalities
of the mediators, can choose their mediator accordingly, those who
do not (e.g. newcomers), are essentially buying a pig in a poke.

(This was a problem BTW, that the proposed silent observer institution
would have partially addresssed.)

The ideal situation would be such that we have a group of mediators
with which it would be possible to just draw lots for the mediation
assignment, and always come up with a winner. This means that the
question of who we have on the mediation committee is not totally
irrelevant.

    > Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about contributing
    > in the meditiation group, if you were not a member of it!
    >
    > PLEASE anthere, think long before getting offended by the
    > previous sentence! I think you can perform a valuable part
    > in forming the limitations of the mediation group, but I
    > honestly don't see that you can offer anything positive to
    > it's developement as a member of it.

    I am currently failing to see how I could not be offended by this
    statement, as you provide no justification for such a comment. In any
    cases, you might have noticed that my name was not in the current list.
    So, feel free to join if this is the main point stopping you.
    If the developpement of such a project shall be impaired by my presence,
    I will certainly stop participating in it. I think I gave my reasons for
      participating to its development, and those who read them should
    understand the limits it will inherently put.

Okay. In clarification, In _most_emphatically_ endorse your input
into the development of the mediation process, without which the
institution would be at an even more half-finished state than it is
currently. What I meant was just to express plainly that you should
not actually be chosen as an actual mediator in any disputes. The
justification for this is purely your command of english, and no
other factor.

Part of the problem here lies in the unfinished and unclear mandate
of the mediation & arbitration committees. Are they to be purely actors
in the process of wikipedia editing, or are they eventually to
develop organically into political bodies of their own right?

The matter of arbitrators being selected by a vote yearly, would
suggest that morphing into a political actor is not totally
untenable.

If the mediation committee changes into a political body whose function
is not solely to effect acts of mediation, your presence on it would be
most valuable, but I personally doubt whether it would be useful for it
to thus transform itself.

    Did you read what I wrote ?
    If so, what is the sense in what you write here ?
    Honestly, I do not think you can make such statements without more
    input. At least to me privately. I think that would be fair.

I hope the above clarifies my position slightly.

    > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

    I am sorry you feel so disinchanted

I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I am disenchanted.
This is not the case at all. Although the mediation & arbitration
process and institutions have had bit of a handbrake start, I am
sure the motor will start revving on all cylinders eventually.

With the greatest of respect; as always,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/03907948/attachment.htm


body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link,
> will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the
> status quo.

They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase
their income - one way or the other.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


body:
Daniel-

> The 2) feature is non-intuitive and confusing. I found it very
> frustrating to select text and then do the *natural* thing by hitting
> the big fat bold B, expecting the text to either become bolded or for
> markup needed to turn the text bold

That's not possible. Your browser does not support it. It neither supports
changing the selection *nor* retrieving it. So the best we can do in these
browsers is give the user a kind of help menu to get sample text for easy
copy and pasting (which is particularly useful for stuff like the
signature tildes, which some users cannot type). The inputbox says clearly
"Click a button to get an example text". If you can think of a better text
to put in there, let me know.

However, the cursor should not shift to the input field above the
textarea. It should stay inside the textarea. Please make sure your cache
is empty before testing.

Regards,

Erik


body:
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:20, Anthere wrote:

    Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a ??crit:
    >     > Okay. I an committed. I will  post this.

    This was courageous.
    I am glad you finally left your silence.

>Thank you. I subtly dislike e-mail bc of its lack of
>immediacy; a
>BulletinBoard would be much better.

Hi Jussi.

I entirely agree with you. Btw, Angela has started
looking for a bb to be set up yesterday night (well
today early morning :-)).

I doubly agree with you, as I had a lot of pain
accessing Wikipedia myself. I could not at all during
24 hours.
That made me double difficult, to connect to the web
site, to be able to sent you, and the five, then four,
then three, then two others mediators who did not
provided an email adress, a wikimail.
I also took time to write to Dante, to suggest him to
offer an email adress.

I just wanted to get things rolling.

It is not funny to have to go to a user page each time
you wish him to follow what is happening, especially
when the server is so slow.

For that reason, and your yesterday email actually, I
stopped doing so. I stopped forwarding emails. You may
ask to the other mediators to forward you the
discussions if you feel like it.

So, yes, I understand you.

<snip>
>And the conclusion I want to draw from that, is that
>we have to
>make every effort to assure that it does not fail,
but >is such
>a wonderful success that it need not, and indeed can
>not be
>revoked. Every institution that fails its charter is
a >millstone
>around the neck of further attempts at founding such
>at a later
>time.

I entirely agree with you Jussi.

>>What is the problem ?

>There is no problem. The silent observer bit was
>mostly to lend
>an enchanced perception of legitimacy to the process,
>and though
>extremely useful IMO, is _not_ at all crucial.

The silent observer is not burried :-) Ed expressed
his interest for such a process, mentionning he was
thriving on feedback.
I mentionned how teaching the experience would be.
However, I still believe that the system might help
legitimacy as well, if we are two or three people
together, to reinforce one another, to help, to
collaborate, to keep the mediator on the right tracks.

But a silent one, who would report to the big chief
Jimbo, as if were were under constant supervision like
kids ? No thank you. I do not believe in this kind of
operation.

<snip>

>My latest bout of inactivity was brought on by a
>juxtaposition
>of the server problems, and some personal matters
>which I will
>not speak on publicly.

I am glad it was not a silence on purpose :-)

>Ed
>(This was a problem BTW, that the proposed silent
>observer institution
>would have partially addresssed.)

The silent observer is not burried as I said above :-)
Ed in particular was interested in it. Nothing is ever
lost :-)

>The ideal situation would be such that we have a
group >of mediators
>with which it would be possible to just draw lots for
>the mediation
>assignment, and always come up with a winner. This
>means that the
>question of who we have on the mediation committee is
>not totally
>irrelevant.

True. Which is why I think my suggestion to only be
involved with cases that implicated non native english
people, was not entirely irrelevant, as I had the
feeling I could understand how far in conflict a
misunderstanding could lead.

Since you ask that I should not do that, I wonder who
will in case there is need to take care of a conflict,
if there is one, with someone hardly speaking a word
of english, but speaking french, or someone like
HeKeIsDa a few weeks ago on meta.

Are you claiming that you would be more relevant in
this case than I ?

    > Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about
contributing
    > in the meditiation group, if you were not a
member of it!
    >     > PLEASE anthere, think long before getting
offended by the
    > previous sentence! I think you can perform a
valuable part
    > in forming the limitations of the mediation
group, but I
    > honestly don't see that you can offer anything
positive to
    > it's developement as a member of it.

    I am currently failing to see how I could not be
offended by this
    statement, as you provide no justification for
such a comment. In
any
    cases, you might have noticed that my name was not
in the current
list.
    So, feel free to join if this is the main point
stopping you.
    If the developpement of such a project shall be
impaired by my
presence,
    I will certainly stop participating in it. I think
I gave my
reasons for
      participating to its development, and those who
read them should
    understand the limits it will inherently put.

Okay. In clarification, In _most_emphatically_ endorse
your input
into the development of the mediation process, without
which the
institution would be at an even more half-finished
state than it is
currently. What I meant was just to express plainly
that you should
not actually be chosen as an actual mediator in any
disputes. The
justification for this is purely your command of
english, and no
other factor.

Part of the problem here lies in the unfinished and
unclear mandate
of the mediation & arbitration committees. Are they to
be purely actors
in the process of wikipedia editing, or are they
eventually to
develop organically into political bodies of their own
right?

The matter of arbitrators being selected by a vote
yearly, would
suggest that morphing into a political actor is not
totally
untenable.

If the mediation committee changes into a political
body whose function
is not solely to effect acts of mediation, your
presence on it would be
most valuable, but I personally doubt whether it would
be useful for it
to thus transform itself.

I thank you for that statement. But do you really
think I am not aware of that, of the fact my poor
english puts obvious limitations to what I can do ? Do
you really think other mediators do not know that
also? And that editors noticed nothing ? Seriously ?
:)

I do deeply think that editors and mediators should
have their say in who should be part of the committee.
However, I do not think that just a person has a veto
power (but Jimbo, or perhaps the chair leader though
that is controversial). And none of the last
discussions on the topic suggested so. Consequently, I
do not consider you thinking I must not be part of it
is enough to automatically exclude me. However, since
you raised the topic, and question the wiseness of my
participation, I suppose the discussion should be
public.

So, to defend my point, here is what I have said from
the very beginning (that is, to Jimbo privately in
october, in a mail I sent to the list in december, and
in the past days committee discussions). I hope this
is the last time. I'll do it very short.
We need mediation on the french wikipedia. And imho
the english wikipedia needs a new
mediation/arbitration process.
I am interested in mediation itself. I want to learn
more about it. On the french wikipedia, I only learn
by trial and errors. Here, I can learn by watching
people practicing it, and discussing it with them. I
can also perhaps give ideas and make other people
benefit of what I know myself. I want to help set the
process itself.
When it is done, I want to make mediation a true
activity on fr:, not what it is considered right now :
troll feeding.
I am perfectly aware of my limitations, which is why I
mentionned I could help in conflicts involving
non-native people, in particular french. I hope you
will agree that if french speaking people are
involved, my being french might help clearing
misunderstandings. I suppose I could also help a bit
for conflicts based on contents in topics I know well.
And that is probably all about it.

What is the big deal ?

Mediators whom people think can't help, just won't be
picked up, neither chosen by disputants, nor suggested
by other mediators. And at any time, a disputant may
refuse a mediator who is suggested to him.

So where is the problem ? I do not speak well enough
=> My help is not requested => I am not messing things
=> you should not feel like I will damage the whole
process

Here is a thought I propose to you.
2 days ago, someone reminded me of this

"I want to be part of the solution, not part of the
problem"

Let's focus on this Cimon please. We are all
different, and we will ever stay different. We are not
good in everything. But we all are good in at least
one thing. Each of us brings a different piece to the
puzzle. I know I am great at bugging people :-) (ask
Erik in doubt).
More seriously, what about considering mediation not
*just* as a distinguishable unit, one mediator, two
disputants, but rather as a more holistic process,
where each individual has a different input ? You
mention that you do not know one, do not trust
another, can't figure what a third is doing here,
plainly state that the existence of a forth might be
preventing you to join etc...

But have you considered that it is the whole that
might be the best ? That these are our different
personnalities which will perhaps make a difference ?
That is not seeing us as separated mediators, but just
as people who want things to work better ? And who
want to do that together ?

    > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

    I am sorry you feel so disinchanted

>>I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I
>>am disenchanted.
>This is not the case at all. Although the mediation &
>arbitration
>process and institutions have had bit of a handbrake
>start, I am
>sure the motor will start revving on all cylinders
>eventually.

To your opinion, who tried to get it started precisely
?

>With the greatest of respect; as always,

>Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

Let's meet in front of our groupleader then Cimon :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [associates@amazon.com: Amazon.com Associates
	program - your application approved]

references:
<200401192115.57674.maveric149@yahoo.com>
	<shr7xv40sp.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>
	<20040120212107.GC19125@joey.bomis.com>
	<shfze93okn.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
>
> > Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link,
> > will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the
> > status quo.
>
> They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase
> their income - one way or the other.

That's right.  The offer the associates program in order to induce
people to link to them.  They would prefer, of course, that people
link to them for free.  For a site is going to link to them for free,
they are surely worse of if that site links to them for money instead.

We certainly are bringing Amazon no *additional* benefit by linking to
them with an associates code.

It seems to me that for Amazon haters, the following ranking makes the
most sense...

1.  Don't link to them at all.  BEST

2.  Link to them, but make them pay.  2nd BEST

3.  Link to them for free.  WORST by FAR

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Less than a ban

body:
This is one thing the arbitration committee could do, likewise banning can
be for a day, a week, a month, a year, life.

Fred

> From: Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:50:11 +0100
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>
> I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH):
> As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a
> "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per day.
> That way, he can
> * either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
> * or use them more wisely,
> * or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
>
> As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some
> figures.
>
> Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or going
> anon will result in immediate banning.
>
> Magnus
> (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get on the
>> stick. You can keep the pressure on...
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>>>
>>> What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out quickly?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

body:
When a quacking duck flys into view, one knows.

Fred

> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:12:57 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Warning shot - will it work ?
>
> How will we know when a limited edit user has gone anon ? Even if we
> suspect that IP such and such is user so and so we couldn't prove it was
> them. IPs  identify the machine not the user.
>
> Theresa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske at web.de]
> Sent: 21 January 2004 13:50
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>
> I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH):
> As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a
> "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per day.
>
> That way, he can
> * either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
> * or use them more wisely,
> * or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
>
> As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some
> figures.
>
> Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or going
>
> anon will result in immediate banning.
>
> Magnus
> (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get on
> the
>> stick. You can keep the pressure on...
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>>>
>>> What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out
> quickly?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [associates@amazon.com: Amazon.com
	Associatesprogram - your application approved]

body:
b schewek wrote:
> There has not been one reason given so far why WP should link to
> booksellers in the first place.

Well, that's a conversation that we've had more than once, see.

It's clearly useful to many readers.  It's not evil to buy books.
It's not even evil to sell books.

Let's say we have an article about Stephen King (we do).  And an
article about one of his books (we do).  Why should we not link to a
page that lets people know how they can do more research by actually
obtaining the book?  The user might want to buy it, or borrow it from
a library, or read reviews of it, etc.

I've seen arguments that I respect (though I'm ultimately unconvinced)
as to why we should not link to Amazon in particular.  But I've seen
no argument to suggest that linking to booksellers _generally_ is a
bad thing.  Why should it be?

I suppose some might argue that any form of voluntary exchange, money
for books, is immoral.  But, I'd like to see it.

> WP does not link to Art/Music/Video/Computer/Coin/Stamp/...
> sellers as well? Maybe the whole "link to seller" idea should be
> reviewed.

I see no problem with such links, so long as they meet the kind of
helpfulness criteria that we use for books.  One nice thing about
books is that the ISBN does exist as a universal identifier that makes
this technically feasible... I don't think such numbers exist for
things link Coins, Stamps, etc.  (For music and video, perhaps they
do?)

Just for the record, after nearly 24 hours with the link on the book
sources page, sales and revenue to us are $0.00.  It's a bit early to
tell, but I think it's fairly clear that this (linking for money) is
going to be a complete nonissue anyway.

--Jimbo


body:
Daniel-

> But the current implementation, even with the
> "Click a button to get an example text" is non-intuitive

I'd be more interested in hearing ways to make it more intuitive than
"turn it off for these browsers". I suspect that your reaction is more the
result of already knowing that the selection+click feature works in some
browsers, so I'd like to see some broader usability results (i.e. having
it on by default with the current setup for a couple of weeks) before I
draw any conclusions.

If it turns out that users don't find this way of learning the syntax
helpful, then we have to either develop a better way, or turn it off for
the ~5% of users who can't use the full fledged toolbar. Note, however,
that with the current script, as soon as your browser starts supporting
the necessary JavaScript, you will automatically get the selection+click
feature.

If we implement a "don't show toolbar based on browser" feature, this is
not possible, we then have to manually distinguish browser versions and
keep up to date on the level of support in each browser -- high
maintenance. I'd much prefer it if you would lobby e.g. the Konqueror
folks to implement startSelection+endSelection, see
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71451

It's really a pretty important feature for a browser to have.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

body:
So, when is the so-called Mediation process going to start, and why hasn't it already?

RickK

sannse <sannse at delphiforums.com> wrote:
RickK wrote:

> Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has no
interest in participating in the Arbitration process. OK, now what? Is he
going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people
names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?

It's still the *mediation* process at this point. We are still attempting
to persuade him to try mediation - if that fails then I guess we will have
to pass this over to the arbitration committee.

This is where my pessimism starts rising.

Regards

sannse

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/d2b1d4ed/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

body:
That doesn't seem to be an option any longer.  No, instead, we're going to have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when they get around to it, propose banning.

RickK

"Mills, Billy" <billy.mills at thomson.com> wrote:

KNOTT, T wrote:

>What's to stop them
>posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?

Maybe an immediate ban if they do so?

Billy

-----Original Message-----
From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2004 14:35
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

Wes yes I know we'll recognise them fairly quickly. But I suspect that
most users under this sort of ban will flout it very quickly. I suspect
that we be spending much of our time catching them out. Also 10 edits a
day is plenty enough to be rude about people. What's to stop them
posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?

I don't want to put too much of a downer on the idea. It might make some
people shape up. It's certainly nice to give some sort of warning to
give them a chance.

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud at ctelco.net]
Sent: 21 January 2004 14:27
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

When a quacking duck flys into view, one knows.

Fred

> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:12:57 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Warning shot - will it work ?
>
> How will we know when a limited edit user has gone anon ? Even if we
> suspect that IP such and such is user so and so we couldn't prove it
was
> them. IPs  identify the machine not the user.
>
> Theresa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske at web.de]
> Sent: 21 January 2004 13:50
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>
> I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH):
> As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a
> "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per
day.
>
> That way, he can
> * either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
> * or use them more wisely,
> * or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
>
> As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some
> figures.
>
> Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or
going
>
> anon will result in immediate banning.
>
> Magnus
> (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get
on
> the
>> stick. You can keep the pressure on...
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>>>
>>> What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out
> quickly?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

DISCLAIMER: This message has been scanned by Norton Antivirus (using the latest definitions) for all known Viruses.
The information in this message is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/47092d2c/attachment.htm


body:
Daniel-
> The 2) toobar is fatally flawed; as I said before it is a word
> processor-like toolbar that doesn't do what such a toolbar is expected to
> do.

All I see is a row of buttons and a line under it that says "Click a
button to see an example for this formatting" - that seems fairly obvious
to me. Let's judge this feature based on more feedback than just yours. I
think your arguments smack of techno-elitism, "I learned wiki markup the
hard way, so everyone else has to as well!" I would have loved to have
even such a simple help toolbar when I started using Wikipedia. Yes, wiki
markup is simple, but it's good to have learning aids.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Magnus Manske

references:
<200401192115.57674.maveric149@yahoo.com>	<shr7xv40sp.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>	<20040120212107.GC19125@joey.bomis.com>
	<shfze93okn.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

>Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link,
>>will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the
>>status quo.
>>
>>
>
>They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase
>their income - one way or the other.
>
>
>
It does - on average, because many "associates" will make exclusive or
prominent links to Amazon. We don't.

Magnus


body:
Delirium wrote:

> To sidestep the issue of partnering with booksellers for a bit, I have
> a more fundamental question: why do we have ISBN links at all?  ISBN
> numbers do not identify books; they identify particular printings of
> books by particular publishers.  Our job, as an encyclopedia, is to
> discuss the books themselves; if the reader wishes to find which
> publishers have the book currently in print in his or her country, I
> don't see that as our role (there are plenty of places to look that
> up, or ask your local bookstore).  Not to mention that with the vast
> majority of books we'd be interested in documenting in an
> encyclopedia, there are dozens (sometimes hundreds!) of ISBN numbers
> under which the book has been published.  Are we going to end every
> article on books with a lengthy list of ISBN numbers?  Or are we going
> to arbitrarily pick one from our favorite publisher?  I'd propose we
> instead just leave them out entirely.

We had this discussion a long (long, long) time ago, and AFAIR we came
up with this
* There's no (useful) standard to identify an "abstract" book (in
contrast to the "concrete" print)
* Giving *one* print of a book is better than none
* Some (many?) online book sellers list other prints of that book
* Many books (e.g, novels) come as hardcover and paperback, so just link
to the (cheaper) paperback

Someone ought to dig through the mailing list archives in case I
forgot/altered some of the above, though :-)

Magnus


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit quota as alternative to banning (was: MNH, again)

body:
I like Magnus's idea about a one-week period of 10 edits per day.
It's less drastic than a complete ban, and it can serve as a sort
of probationary period. The contributor could decide to "prove
himself" and conform to our Courtesy and Neutrality policies during
that period, hoping to get the quota lifted.

A little discipline won't hurt the project, but tolerating just a
bit too much discourtesy will hurt it. Not everyone has the iron
determination to plow through the muddy battle fields of edit wars
and personal attacks.

(Maybe all those years of being teased for my last name "Poor Ed!"
or my religion "You brainwashed zombie!" have strengthened my
resolve, but even I thrive better in a congenial environment.)

Ed Poor, aka Unsolved Equation

P.S. I'm thinking of changing my ~~~ signature...


from_name: Chavez, Dawn N A1C 712ASOS

subject: [WikiEN-l] maverick

body:
This is A1C Chavez from Ft. Hood, i have a quick question for you.
do you know the shelf life of a Maverick?

thanks
A1C Chavez


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Server update - good news!

body:
> The database is up and running on Geoffrin and all wikis are back
> online.

Thank you all for the good work!

Uli


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

body:
You grossly exaggerate. We'll catch em at dawn, mediate em in the morning,
arbitrate em in the afternoon, hang em and be home in time for supper.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:28:56 -0800 (PST)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

That doesn't seem to be an option any longer.  No, instead, we're going to
have a months-long runup to a mediation process, a months-long mediation
process, a months-long runup to an arbitration process, a months-long
arbitration process, and then maybe, just maybe, somebody will, someday when
they get around to it, propose banning.

RickK

"Mills, Billy" <billy.mills at thomson.com> wrote:
KNOTT, T wrote:

>What's to stop them
>posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?

Maybe an immediate ban if they do so?

Billy

-----Original Message-----
From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2004 14:35
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

Wes yes I know we'll recognise them fairly quickly. But I suspect that
most users under this sort of ban will flout it very quickly. I suspect
that we be spending much of our time catching them out. Also 10 edits a
day is plenty enough to be rude about people. What's to stop them
posting huge long rants where they insult a number of users at once?

I don't want to put too much of a downer on the idea. It might make some
people shape up. It's certainly nice to give some sort of warning to
give them a chance.

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud at ctelco.net]
Sent: 21 January 2004 14:27
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Quacks Like a Duck

When a quacking duck flys into view, one knows.

Fred

> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:12:57 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Warning shot - will it work ?
>
> How will we know when a limited edit user has gone anon ? Even if we
> suspect that IP such and such is user so and so we couldn't prove it
was
> them. IPs  identify the machine not the user.
>
> Theresa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske at web.de]
> Sent: 21 January 2004 13:50
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>
> I just had this idea (not necessarily related to MNH):
> As a "warning shot" from one of out countless committees, a
> "problematic" user could be limited to a fixed number of edits per
day.
>
> That way, he can
> * either waste these edits on stuff that gets reverted anyway,
> * or use them more wisely,
> * or leave if he doesn't think he can limit himself to "decent" edits
>
> As example, I'd say 10 edits per day, for one week. Just to have some
> figures. >
> Circumventing these measures by creating an alternate user name or
going
>
> anon will result in immediate banning.
>
> Magnus
> (who thinks a little discipline won't harm the project;-)
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The members of the mediation and arbitration committees need to get
on
> the
>> stick. You can keep the pressure on...
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "KNOTT, T" <TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:49:50 -0000
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again
>>>
>>> What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out
> quickly?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

DISCLAIMER: This message has been scanned by Norton Antivirus (using the
latest definitions) for all known Viruses.
The information in this message is confidential and is intended solely for
the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this
email from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/mail_footer_email/evt=2
1482/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/a97c5085/attachment.htm


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

body:
Rick K wrote:
>OK, now what?? Is he going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?

Is would seem so. For the time being at least.

Note though that most of his edits or now to talk pages rather than article pages, this is because his constant vandalism has got his favourite pages protected. So no real harm is being done to Wikipedia's content. OTOH a great deal of harm is being done to Wikipedia's community. What will newbies think if they come across him? If we allow him to continue to insult us, delete our work, insert POV rants all over the place, and refuse to work with anyone (and I do mean anyone!)  then we are condoning his behaviour.

Let's face facts. Anyone who has had any dealings with Mr NH knows that we are going to have to ban him sooner or later. I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but he has shown no willingness to cooperate. What do we need to do to get the arbitration process sorted out quickly?

In the meantime, I have decided to try and stay away from his rants on talk pages. If he starts editing articles again I will intervene to keep them as NPOV as I can make them, but let him say what he likes on talk pages. I have better things to do with my time than to pander to his attention seeking.

Theresa
?


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unsolved Equation (was: Uncle Ed (was: Request for a
	ban))

body:
I'm not going to kill anyone -- neither literally nor
figuratively, neither physically nor spiritually. That's why I
got out of the army: I finally realized that I didn't want to
eliminate my nation's enemies by taking their lives; rather I
wanted to eliminate their enmity by improving their lives (as
with education, etc.).

I don't believe in "tit for tat" retaliation, so one person
saying something nasty doesn't give another the right to "get
back at them" by also saying something nasty. WikiLove, which
traces its heritage back to the Bible, suggests rather that "A
soft answer turns away wrath".

(Recently I made the mistake of 'jokingly' insulting JTD, but to
my dismay he took me seriously and I ended up by offending him. I
really regret this.)

It will be better if Robert (RK) makes the effort to restrain
himself from slapping people with the N-word; and it will also be
better if others make the effort to avoid antagonizing Robert
with personal remarks.

I know it's hard to stick to the subject matter; so many times I
think to myself, "What's wrong with these @#$% people? Can't they
understand something so simple as A? How can they be so stupid as
to persistently confuse B with C?" *sigh* If you only knew how
many posts and/or edits I delete instead of sending...

Ed Poor, aka Unsolved Equation


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Toxins are good for you

body:
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:

> Too much arsenic will kill you, but does that mean the less the better?

Too much of anything is bad for you.  Thats what "too much" means.
--
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Well, them flying ducks just say fuck off when you try that.

Fred

From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:07:19 -0500
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Kill the puppy (was: Quacks Like a Duck)

Fred Bauder wrote:

> You grossly exaggerate. We'll catch em at dawn, mediate
> em in the morning, arbitrate em in the afternoon, hang em
> and be home in time for supper.

That makes mediation seem like a mere formality. Don't you think
we should actually try to mediate? You know, find common ground
as a basis for a harmonious relationship?

Ed Poor, aka Unsolved Equation

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/fd813114/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] English names

body:
Yes, but to a stamp collecter it will always be Danzig.

Fred

> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:26:36 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] English names
>
> Ed Poor wrote
>
>> Gdansk doesn't "have an English name". It has an
> official Polish name, and it has also had a German
> name.
>
> Can't agree with that.  It was always called Dantzig in the past.  From the
> Lech Walesa/Solidarity period onwards it was called Gdansk very prominently.
> That's what we call it now.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] MNH, again

body:
RickK wrote:

> Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has no
interest in participating in the Arbitration process.  OK, now what?  Is he
going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people
names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?

It's still the *mediation* process at this point.  We are still attempting
to persuade him to try mediation - if that fails then I guess we will have
to pass this over to the arbitration committee.

This is where my pessimism starts rising.

Regards

sannse


from_name: Greg Chernoff

subject: [WikiEN-l] Interested in exchanging links with  wikipedia.org

body:
Hello,

I am interested in exchanging links with your website wikipedia.org. My site offers a large variety of baseball bats and other baseball equiptment.

My sites information is as follows:

Title: USA Baseball Bats & Supply
Url: http://store.usa-baseballbats.com

or here is the html for the link to my site:

USA Baseball Bats & Supply

Upon response to this email I will place a link to wikipedia.org on http://store.thepromotionspot.com

This site is a new site and already has a 8PR and receives allot of traffic through search engines.

I look foward to working with you!
Jessica Hartman

P.S. If you do not wish to recieve link exchange requests please reply with remove in the subject


subject: [WikiEN-l] English names

body:
Wik raised an interesting point in an edit summary re: [[Gdansk]]:

> there never has been any English name for this city,
> so the local name is used, which since 1945 is Gdansk

On one level, I think he's right, but I think he's
drawing the wrong conclusion. Bear with me here...

Does Michael Jackson have a Russian name? I don't think
so; he's an American pop artist. He's not "Mikhail
Jakovitch" or any such thing. Even if some Russians
decided to translate his name into their language, that
wouldn't mean it was his real name.

Gdansk doesn't "have an English name". It has an
official Polish name, and it has also had a German
name.

On the other hand, English speakers and map-makers and
geography teachers have /applied/ English names to
countless places. We used to call the capital of
mainland China "Pekin" or "Peking", but around 10 or 20
years ago there was a big re-shuffle and we adopted a
closer transliteration: "Beijing".

The capital of the USSR (and still capital of Russia)
is Moskva (or Moscow, I forget which). We're an
English-language encyclopedia, we have to call places
/something/. Moscow doesn't have an English name per
se; it's a Russian city with a Russian name. But
English-speaking people have been referring to it with
the /English word/ 'Moscow'.

Now, whether its Oder River or Odra River, Gdansk or
Danzig, we English speakers /give/ English names to
everything. We have to, if we are to speak of them at
all.

This doesn't mean we are changing its name or endorsing
some version of its name. One of the first thing any
English speaker does when learning a foreign language
is to find out the native names for the countries which
speak that language. No one in Japan calls it "Japan";
it's Nihon or Nippon, without any hint of a "J" sound.
French call it "Japon", but that doesn't mean Japan has
a French name. It just means that French speakers use
the word /Japon/ to refer to it. Its real name is not
disturbed or altered by what foreigners call it.

I hope this provides a basis for ending the year-long
battle over Gdansk and Odra/Oder.

Ed Poor, aka Unsolved Equation


subject: [WikiEN-l] Duck Court

body:
Well, we could have a summary procedure for egregious cases, couldn't call
it Kangaroo Court, maybe Duck Court. It could be evoked by Ed Poor and a few
others of his status, say also Daniel Mayers. They could then briefly
consider the matter and ban the offender until the matter could be
considered by the mediation and arbitration committees. Kind of like a
preliminary injunction. Grounds would be the likelyhood of permanent damage
to the project resulting from serious offenses combined with a general
refusal to listen.

Fred

> From: "Graham Burnett" <grahamburnett at blueyonder.co.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:14:01 -0000
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Enough is enough
>
>
>
>>> Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has
> no
>> interest in participating in the Arbitration process. OK, now what? Is he
>> going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people
>> names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?
>>
>> It's still the *mediation* process at this point. We are still attempting
>> to persuade him to try mediation - if that fails then I guess we will have
>> to pass this over to the arbitration committee.
>>
>> This is where my pessimism starts rising.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> sannse
>
> Why is everybody tip-toeing around this arsehole? Surely enough is enough.
> Sod 'mediation', if somebody was behaving like this in my local pub they'd
> have been shown the door long ago.
>
> Graham (Quercus robur)
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kill the puppy (was: Quacks Like a Duck)

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> You grossly exaggerate. We'll catch em at dawn, mediate
> em in the morning, arbitrate em in the afternoon, hang em
> and be home in time for supper.

That makes mediation seem like a mere formality. Don't you think
we should actually try to mediate? You know, find common ground
as a basis for a harmonious relationship?

Ed Poor, aka Unsolved Equation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040121/a8dafa55/attachment.htm


from_name: Peter Gervai

body:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:08:39AM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> >Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> >>Doing exactly what we're doing now, but including an associates link,
> >>will reduce their income, not increase it, at least relative to the
> >>status quo.
> >
> >They wouldn't offer the "associates programm" if it would increase
> >their income - one way or the other.
> >
> It does - on average, because many "associates" will make exclusive or
> prominent links to Amazon. We don't.

I believe the most important thing is to note: Karl does not want to be
convnced. Let's honour his beliefs and stop convincing him.

Then, it is obvious why anyone wants to have paid referrers: while you lose
some percent of the sales, you gain new customers, which is more income.

Moreover it is obvious (at least for me) that if someone links to a seller
and does not get paid then the above stands: the seller get new customers
which is more income, but it does not have to pay anything for it, so the
income is even larger.

Apart from not liking amazon (and I don't like 'em) it is better to get
parts of their income from them than not. We should link as much as
ISBN-capable sellers as possible since people would like to have those
books, and that's what the sellers are for. And since we don't like the
sellers at all we should get as much of their bloody money as possible. ;->

HHOK

grin


from_name: Alex T.

subject: [WikiEN-l] English names

body:
And to a member of the Solidarity movement it will always
be Gdansk.

From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] English names

> Yes, but to a stamp collecter it will always be Danzig.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:26:36 -0000
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] English names
> >
> > Ed Poor wrote
> >
> >> Gdansk doesn't "have an English name". It has an
> > official Polish name, and it has also had a German
> > name.
> >
> > Can't agree with that.  It was always called Dantzig in the past.  From
the
> > Lech Walesa/Solidarity period onwards it was called Gdansk very
prominently.
> > That's what we call it now.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l