from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-26

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test Thumbnail image caption with a free URL... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A RFC with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A mailto link with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail- we don't render math in the parsertests by default,
so math is not stripped and turns up as escaped <math> tags.... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test Bug 3090: External links other than http: in image captions... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

Passed 455 of 482 tests (94.4%)... FAILED!


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: the wub

subject: [Commons-l] English Wikipedia needs some help.

body:
On 26/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes. We need one. I think the job just found you ;-D

Well, I guess this means I've failed in my attempt at a wikibreak _again_
Though via the mailing list is a novelty for me :-) I'll try and work
something up over the next few days, but don't let that stop anyone else. I
was thinking [[Wikipedia:Freedom]] as a catchy and suitable title.

the wub
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061226/c77e21db/attachment.htm


list: foundation-l

subject:
[Foundation-l] Fwd: wikipedia: "wikiasaria" the p2p way,
	here: participation of the foundation in the new wiki project
	(cspace and yacy based)

body:
On 25/12/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> All of the reports about this are incorrect or exaggerated.

Except hopefully this one -
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikipedia_founder_Jimmy_Wales_to_start_wiki-based_search_engine
:-)

the wub


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/25/06, the wub <thewub.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I added my "vote"
>
> What we could really use is some kind of prominently linked page with an
> introduction to the whole idea of free content, and _why_ Wikimedia projects
> are free content. Bear in mind that for a vast number of users, Wikipedia
> will be the first free content project they have met. The en.wp article
> [[free content]] is often used for this purpose, but it isn't exactly ideal
> and a page out the main namespace would certainly be better.
> [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] gives a reasonable explanation of the rules, but
> does little to explain why they exist, and why they are a part of our
> mission.
>
> the wub

It goes further than that. Until very recently it was:
Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about
copyright.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 26/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> It goes further than that. Until very recently it was:
> Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about
> copyright.

That's the perfect intro.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Bug 8184] in so many crannies $wgSitename is
	cached

body:
What a clodsburger I am. The problem was had left the old name in
Setup.php, (which I need for two wiki on earlier Debian.)

Maybe some warning could be printed ... OK, never mind. Close the bug
I suppose, if not closed already.

Here was some stuff I wrote just before discovering the cause:

  Yes, changing $wgSitename has instant effect that
  all users can see. The problem is e.g.,
  $ php dumpBackup.php --current|sed -n '/sitename/{;p;q;}'
  still shows the old name!
  (Same with namespace 4 and 5 ($wgMetaNamespace no help.))
  update.php doesn't help.
  Special:Export works fine though.
  deleteBatch.php and moveBatch.php will only operate on the old name.

Now I have cleaned up Setup.php and all is OK. Maybe some
informational messages could be printed...


body:
On 12/26/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 26/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It goes further than that. Until very recently it was:
> > > Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about
> > > copyright.
> >
> >
> > That's the perfect intro.
>
> Concur.
>

Not true any more though since youtube has clamped down a bit and I've
run across suggestions of a myspace cleanup although I don't know a
vast amount about myspace. It remains to be seen what effect these
actions have on the web community though.

--
geni


body:
On 26/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 26/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about
> > > > copyright.

> > > That's the perfect intro.

> > Concur.

> Not true any more though since youtube has clamped down a bit and I've
> run across suggestions of a myspace cleanup although I don't know a
> vast amount about myspace. It remains to be seen what effect these
> actions have on the web community though.

Take out the "one."

(and see how long before someone takes out the "damn")

- d.


from_name: Krishna Pagadala

subject: [Wikitech-l] Trouble mirroring enwiktionary

body:
Hi All,
  I am trying to build a hard drive to send to schools
in India. And I want to mirror enwikitionary.

I use the commands (at the end of the email)

There is something in the sql file that is generated
from wikipedia that makes my local copy of
enwiktionary redirect back to en.wiktionary.org with a
302 code.

Please help with this, I only have a few days before I
send my first beta hard drive out. Note: The other
wikis using the exact same scripts and procedure works
perfectly.

My enwiktionary is at
http://freeknowledge.dyndns.org/enwiktionary/ and if
anybody wants to look at my other mirrors of
wikipedia,  you can find them at
http://freeknowledge.dyndns.org/

wget
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/20061224/enwiktionary-20061224-p
ages-articles.xml.bz2

wget
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/20061224/enwiktionary-20061224-i
magelinks.sql.gz

gunzip enwiktionary-20061224-imagelinks.sql.gz
bunzip2 -k
enwiktionary-20061224-pages-articles.xml.bz2
java -server -jar ../mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.5
enwiktionary-20061224-pages-a rticles.xml >
enwiktionary-20061224-pages-articles.sql 2>
enwiktionary-20061224- pages-articles.err

mysql -u root -p'whatever' enwiktionary <
enwiktionary-20061224-pages-articles.sql

=====================================
Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
"Die Gedanken Sind Frei": Free Software and the Struggle for Free Thought by Eben Moglen
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-keynote.html

.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Foundation-l] To all non latin wikis please start
 blocking	latin wiki accounts

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

>Hm. In Serbian and Macedonian we are using strictly transcriptions,
>not transliterations. So, it should be something like
>English->IPA->Serbian/Macedonian. Howerver, the process is not so
>simple and in some cases we are using combinied transcription and
>transliteration, as well as somtimes historic names.
>
>Slovenian and Latvian are also strictly alphabetic-phonetic and even
>those languages are written in Latin script, people may demand
>transcription, not transliteration.
>
>So, keep in mind that asking for transcriptions in English means
>opening Pandora's box on other projects.
>
Although transliterations may be a flawed process for representing
names.  Such transliterations could be viewed as quick fixes that the
person affected could easily edit into a correct form.

Ec


body:
On 12/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Youtube doesn't ask or allow uploaders to release their work under a
> free license.

Would be problematical since current upload conditions prevent you
uploading free content that you do not hold the copyright on (OK
depends on the licence but GFDL and CC-BY-SA are no go).

--
geni


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Japanese translation of ConfirmEdit.i18n.php

body:
On 25/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Rob Church wrote:
> >
> > Please drop the whole, "I'm not a developer, why the hell should I
> > co-operate with you" attitude.
>
> Your assessment of the situation is highly unfair. There was no such
> attitude in either the original posting or in Gerard's comment (which I
> wholeheartedly agree with). Quite to the contrary, you (developers)
> should drop this "Do everything exactly as /we/ want or we will ignore
> your contribution and pretend it's useless to us" attitude.

You missed the thread on mediawiki-i18n where Gerard expressed similar
sentiments before.

I try to avoid adopting that attitude, actually - where someone posts
a non-patch, or where something isn't done "100% right", I try to work
with what we've been given and often upload a proper patch to
demonstrate, for the next time, what we're looking for.
>
> If you do not have the technical means or competency to copy & paste a
> little piece of text from a posting and submit it to MediaZilla (or
> indeed SVN) yourself, then let someone else do it.

As I explained in the email, I didn't do it because I wasn't sure that
I had things set up right so that all sorts of hell wouldn't happen to
the text in the interim.

> already done it. But stop discouraging non-developers, *ESPECIALLY*
> translators, from contributing.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from contributing. I am trying to
encourage people, where possible, to place things in the "usual
location", since it means their contribution is *less likely* to go
"ignored".

Rob Church


subject: [Foundation-l] Throwing some data onto the flamefest fire

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

> As I mentioned, transliteration doesn't work because some languages
>
>require *transcription* and/or *translation*. For example, even your
>name may be compltetely transliterated in Serbian (?????), it is
>completely irregular and your name *has to be* trancribed (into
>?????).
>
If an individual prefers to use the transliteraed form for his own name
that should be his choice without any "has to be" about it.

Ec


body:
On 25/12/06, Dan Jacobson <jidanni at jidanni.org> wrote:
> Now I have cleaned up Setup.php and all is OK. Maybe some
> informational messages could be printed...

I really don't see any point in adding a bunch of messages for
detecting edge cases that should never occur - we should be able to
code everything to run under the reasonable expectation that the core
code has not been changed.

If it has, good for the user - if their change works for them, well,
it's their business when it comes to awkward upgrades. However, it's
not something we've broken, and so I don't see it as something we
should ever need to concern ourselves with.

Rob Church


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 12/22/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Nit-pick number two: how do you tell by looking at the music whether
>>it is in C Major or A Minor? That is, can you always unequivocally
>>tell the key of a piece of music by glancing at it, or is judgement
>>sometimes involved?
>>
>>
>To a musical expert, it's usually pretty clear, but there are
>exceptions. And don't forget atonal music which is usually written
>without a specific key signature (ie, superficially like C major and I
>minor). And some music actually does have a "key" but was originally
>published with no key, using accidentals instead. You would be wrong
>to describe such a piece as being in C major...
>
I think the question had more to do with verifying a claim that a
particular musical work is in C major.  It would seem a waste of time if
every time the description of a piece of music included its key there
would need to be a source to establish that as true.

If someone claims that a piece of music is in C major I have to accept
that without the need to go through a mini-course on music theory.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] FYI : Yet Another Wikipedia Reader

body:
On 25/12/06, Manuel Schneider <manuel.schneider at wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> Currently there are some developers working on a port of tntnet to Windows
> (using the poco classes to make it platform independent). As soon as the
> ready will be ready I will enhance it with a little dock application which
> will make it usable on a desktop system (as a HTTP daemon tntnet is now just
> a plain console-based application).

I am personally interested in seeing if the three different versions
reconcile over time, and include similar features and approaches to
different issues. At the end of all this, it would be awesome if we
had a single, platform-independent reader for a format we could
generate as part of the dump process - it would go a very long way, I
feel, to encouraging other projects to get up off their wotsits and
publish something.

Rob Church


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 25/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/12/06, peter green <plugwash at p10link.net> wrote:
>
> > > "This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the
> > > I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23
> > > December 2006 (UTC)"
>
> > what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it already, its quite within his power to do so.
>
>
> Because he increases his power by not using it ;-)
>
>
> - d.

He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: peter green

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Oldak Quill
> Sent: 26 December 2006 02:58
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] English Wikipedia needs some help.
>
>
> On 25/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 25/12/06, peter green <plugwash at p10link.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > "This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the
> > > > I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23
> > > > December 2006 (UTC)"
> >
> > > what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it
> already, its quite within his power to do so.
> >
> >
> > Because he increases his power by not using it ;-)
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.
that makes sense, he wanted to see if the community would make the right descision on thier own but when they couldn't reach a descision he used his god king authority to stand up for the values of the project.


references:
<e692861c0612250427u393d350dx202708da27efbefc@mail.gmail.com>
	<HCEBJHBGLNDEFMFPMHPNGEBDDKAA.plugwash@p10link.net>
	<fbad4e140612250748m656aec9ai5a2e485fa53cf631@mail.gmail.com>
	<54f6f2050612251857r1937334ch2f72b631ea9c394c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/26/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.
>

And suggesting  more stuff at Wikipedia talk:fair use  (now 566
kilobytes long). Pitty we were getting some people who are not normaly
invovled in the debate.
--
geni


from_name: M Roget

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO desysopping

body:
Is there any reason why the ArbComm decision to desysop MONGO has not been
implemented yet?

Michel


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Bug 8383] red links vs. navigation panel

body:
b> Links in the sidebar are not checked for redlinkiness, no. Is there
b> any reason they should be?

Just as much reason as any link.

Why make them a special case? of brokenness too.

If they are red then we won't click on them like a boob.

If they are red then we will remember to do something about them,
(edit or remove (with "-")) especially as every user sees them on
every page!


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Bug 8381] Don't remove whitespace before
	[[Category:...]]

body:
b> I think this is so that you don't have ugly whitespace at the end of an article,

Ah ha, assuming that is where people always stick categories. Well, it
would have to be a very smart(?) template that can stick a category at
the end of a page at the same time as a link in the middle of a page.


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories

body:
I came across an Article in Wikipedia that needed categorization. The
Article is a biography of a person in a field I am unfamiliar with.

Question: where do I go to get a list of all the Categories in Wikipedia?

Marc Riddell


subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories

body:
Thank you. However, the problem in this case is, the Article I want to
categorize is of a mining engineer. When I went to the Category:Engineers, I
got a list of Articles of persons in Wikipedia who are categorized as such.
When I clicked on the subcategories, all I got was the word 'loading' and
nothing more - so I am back where I started.

Marc

> From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:25:37 +0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories
>
> [[Special:Categories]]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories
>
> On 26/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I came across an Article in Wikipedia that needed categorization. The
>> Article is a biography of a person in a field I am unfamiliar with.
>>
>> Question: where do I go to get a list of all the Categories in Wikipedia?
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Christopher Thieme

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
Howdy y'all--

After the success of this month's New York City meetup, with like 25
folks who showed up out of the almost 50 who expressed interest, I've taken
the liberty to set up something several users have brought up
and discussed in some way, shape or form and started the Wikipedia Club of
New York.  We intend to get together at least once a month and see and
experience all that New York City and her metropolitan area has to offer
(especially the booze)

...and if we can't find it in New York...be compelled to take a trip out to
Jersey.

Come join the fun at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Club_of_New_York

Feel free to contact me via e-mail here at cdthieme at gmail.com to get updates
on what we're planning.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
User:ExplorerCDT


from_name: David Strauss

body:
I disagree. If that were the case, real names would not be helpful for
distinguishing people because they are non-unique, but we use real names
every day for distinguishing people. Barring the database side, the
policy for a wiki isn't made for determinism; it's made for
probabilistic outcome. It's unlikely -- except under intention of
deception -- that transliterations would collide in a particularly area
(article, talk page, wikiproject, etc.). It's not like the database will
use the transliterations for identification.

Moreover, we could always append a number to colliding transliterations
to made actual collisions impossible.

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> When transliterations are used, there is no reason why these would be
> unique. Thereby it is a scheme that does not help for this purpose. Another
> reason is that people can create that is the same as the transliterations..
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. In Serbian and Macedonian we are using strictly transcriptions,
>>> not transliterations. So, it should be something like
>>> English->IPA->Serbian/Macedonian. Howerver, the process is not so
>>> simple and in some cases we are using combinied transcription and
>>> transliteration, as well as somtimes historic names.
>>>
>>> Slovenian and Latvian are also strictly alphabetic-phonetic and even
>>> those languages are written in Latin script, people may demand
>>> transcription, not transliteration.
>>>
>>> So, keep in mind that asking for transcriptions in English means
>>> opening Pandora's box on other projects.
>>>
>> Although transliterations may be a flawed process for representing
>> names.  Such transliterations could be viewed as quick fixes that the
>> person affected could easily edit into a correct form.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/6034b1e5/attachment.pgp


body:
I disagree. If that were the case, real names would not be helpful for
distinguishing people because they are non-unique, but we use real names
every day for distinguishing people. Barring the database side, the
policy for a wiki isn't made for determinism; it's made for
probabilistic outcome. It's unlikely -- except under intention of
deception -- that transliterations would collide in a particularly area
(article, talk page, wikiproject, etc.). It's not like the database will
use the transliterations for identification.

Moreover, we could always append a number to colliding transliterations
to made actual collisions impossible.

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> When transliterations are used, there is no reason why these would be
> unique. Thereby it is a scheme that does not help for this purpose. Another
> reason is that people can create that is the same as the transliterations..
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. In Serbian and Macedonian we are using strictly transcriptions,
>>> not transliterations. So, it should be something like
>>> English->IPA->Serbian/Macedonian. Howerver, the process is not so
>>> simple and in some cases we are using combinied transcription and
>>> transliteration, as well as somtimes historic names.
>>>
>>> Slovenian and Latvian are also strictly alphabetic-phonetic and even
>>> those languages are written in Latin script, people may demand
>>> transcription, not transliteration.
>>>
>>> So, keep in mind that asking for transcriptions in English means
>>> opening Pandora's box on other projects.
>>>
>> Although transliterations may be a flawed process for representing
>> names.  Such transliterations could be viewed as quick fixes that the
>> person affected could easily edit into a correct form.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061226/6034b1e5/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
I disagree. If that were the case, real names would not be helpful for
distinguishing people because they are non-unique, but we use real names
every day for distinguishing people. Barring the database side, the
policy for a wiki isn't made for determinism; it's made for
probabilistic outcome. It's unlikely -- except under intention of
deception -- that transliterations would collide in a particularly area
(article, talk page, wikiproject, etc.). It's not like the database will
use the transliterations for identification.

Moreover, we could always append a number to colliding transliterations
to made actual collisions impossible.

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> When transliterations are used, there is no reason why these would be
> unique. Thereby it is a scheme that does not help for this purpose. Another
> reason is that people can create that is the same as the transliterations..
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. In Serbian and Macedonian we are using strictly transcriptions,
>>> not transliterations. So, it should be something like
>>> English->IPA->Serbian/Macedonian. Howerver, the process is not so
>>> simple and in some cases we are using combinied transcription and
>>> transliteration, as well as somtimes historic names.
>>>
>>> Slovenian and Latvian are also strictly alphabetic-phonetic and even
>>> those languages are written in Latin script, people may demand
>>> transcription, not transliteration.
>>>
>>> So, keep in mind that asking for transcriptions in English means
>>> opening Pandora's box on other projects.
>>>
>> Although transliterations may be a flawed process for representing
>> names.  Such transliterations could be viewed as quick fixes that the
>> person affected could easily edit into a correct form.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/6034b1e5/attachment.pgp>


body:
I disagree. If that were the case, real names would not be helpful for
distinguishing people because they are non-unique, but we use real names
every day for distinguishing people. Barring the database side, the
policy for a wiki isn't made for determinism; it's made for
probabilistic outcome. It's unlikely -- except under intention of
deception -- that transliterations would collide in a particularly area
(article, talk page, wikiproject, etc.). It's not like the database will
use the transliterations for identification.

Moreover, we could always append a number to colliding transliterations
to made actual collisions impossible.

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> When transliterations are used, there is no reason why these would be
> unique. Thereby it is a scheme that does not help for this purpose. Another
> reason is that people can create that is the same as the transliterations..
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. In Serbian and Macedonian we are using strictly transcriptions,
>>> not transliterations. So, it should be something like
>>> English->IPA->Serbian/Macedonian. Howerver, the process is not so
>>> simple and in some cases we are using combinied transcription and
>>> transliteration, as well as somtimes historic names.
>>>
>>> Slovenian and Latvian are also strictly alphabetic-phonetic and even
>>> those languages are written in Latin script, people may demand
>>> transcription, not transliteration.
>>>
>>> So, keep in mind that asking for transcriptions in English means
>>> opening Pandora's box on other projects.
>>>
>> Although transliterations may be a flawed process for representing
>> names.  Such transliterations could be viewed as quick fixes that the
>> person affected could easily edit into a correct form.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061226/6034b1e5/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
The question that I put to Rob on the mediawiki-i18n was in reaction to a
large amount of new messages he posted that needed translation. My question
to him was if these messages would become available on the BetaWiki as well.
BetaWiki is a wiki operated by Nikerabbit where people can and do work on
the translation of messages. Its saving grace is that it does not require
anything from a translator but going there, find the messages that are not
translated and translate them.

Translators are not interested in learning all kinds of procedures that may
be normal to developers. They want to translate. The BetaWiki has
functionality to take these translations and merge them with the main
stream. I have asked both Brion and Nikerabbit if this functionality can be
merged with the MediaWiki software. And they agreed to look into this and
some work has already been done I understand.

>From my perspective, the most obvious place to have this functionality would
be in the "incubator". It serves two purposes; a translation of a message
gives instant gratification to the people working on demonstrating that a
new project is feasible, and it brings this functionality into the WMF.

The point here as much as anything is that there are two communities both
with separate requirements and with some 250 languages nominally supported
in MediaWiki, it becomes increasingly difficult to support this. With the
BetaWiki functionality we have bespoke functionality to ease this process.
This makes everyone a winner.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 12/26/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/12/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > Rob Church wrote:
> > >
> > > Please drop the whole, "I'm not a developer, why the hell should I
> > > co-operate with you" attitude.
> >
> > Your assessment of the situation is highly unfair. There was no such
> > attitude in either the original posting or in Gerard's comment (which I
> > wholeheartedly agree with). Quite to the contrary, you (developers)
> > should drop this "Do everything exactly as /we/ want or we will ignore
> > your contribution and pretend it's useless to us" attitude.
>
> You missed the thread on mediawiki-i18n where Gerard expressed similar
> sentiments before.
>
> I try to avoid adopting that attitude, actually - where someone posts
> a non-patch, or where something isn't done "100% right", I try to work
> with what we've been given and often upload a proper patch to
> demonstrate, for the next time, what we're looking for.
> >
> > If you do not have the technical means or competency to copy & paste a
> > little piece of text from a posting and submit it to MediaZilla (or
> > indeed SVN) yourself, then let someone else do it.
>
> As I explained in the email, I didn't do it because I wasn't sure that
> I had things set up right so that all sorts of hell wouldn't happen to
> the text in the interim.
>
> > already done it. But stop discouraging non-developers, *ESPECIALLY*
> > translators, from contributing.
>
> I'm not trying to discourage anyone from contributing. I am trying to
> encourage people, where possible, to place things in the "usual
> location", since it means their contribution is *less likely* to go
> "ignored".
>
>
> Rob Church
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

body:
On 12/25/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> DaB has written a version in Java, and I have started one in
> C++/wxWidgets. I put mine into SVN, "yawr" (Yet Another Wikipedia
> Reader). Article browsing with images works quite well already, and
> I'm working on (fulltext!) search, some special pages, and a zillion
> other things.

The Polish Wikipedia also has a reader/browser, which makes and index
during instalation and then uses a HTML dump in the browser to show
out the contents.

Myself, I'm working on a XUL interface which could directly search XML
or SQL files. So yeah, looks like we have a lot of readers going on.

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz Siedlecki


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-23

body:
On 12/23/06, brion at pobox.com <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>    8 previously passing test(s) now FAILING! :(
>       * Thumbnail image caption with a free URL
>       * BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail
>       * BUG 1887: A RFC with a thumbnail
>       * BUG 1887: A mailto link with a thumbnail
>       * BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail- we don't render math in the parsertests by default,
> so math is not stripped and turns up as escaped <math> tags.
>       * Image caption containing another image
>       * Bug 3090: External links other than http: in image captions
>       * Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail

So whose fault is this?  Hasn't been fixed yet.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO desysopping

body:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:19:32 -0500, "M Roget" <mroget at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Is there any reason why the ArbComm decision to desysop MONGO has not been
>implemented yet?

I believe it has, certainly the logs posted at the admin noticeboard
showed it had.

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


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom Results

body:
==================================================
To Tranche Gamma:
Flcelloguy
Kirill Lokshin
Paul August
UninvitedCompany
Jpgordon

To Tranche Beta
FloNight (Mindspillage's seat, from which she recently retired)
Binguyen (Filiocht's seat, as he is on indefinite leave)

----

Both Mindspillage and Filiocht are eligible to (re)-claim what would
then be expansion seat in Tranche Beta at anytime of their choosing
until 2008-12-31, when their original seats would have expired.
==============================================

My sincere thanks for the vote of confidence by the community and Jimbo.

Got my work cut out for me... reading to get up to speed on the open cases. :-)

Everyone have a great day!

Take care,
Sydney aka FloNight aka Poore5


subject:
[Foundation-l] To all non latin wikis please start blocking
	latin wiki accounts

body:
Hoi,
When transliterations are used, there is no reason why these would be
unique. Thereby it is a scheme that does not help for this purpose. Another
reason is that people can create that is the same as the transliterations..

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> >Hm. In Serbian and Macedonian we are using strictly transcriptions,
> >not transliterations. So, it should be something like
> >English->IPA->Serbian/Macedonian. Howerver, the process is not so
> >simple and in some cases we are using combinied transcription and
> >transliteration, as well as somtimes historic names.
> >
> >Slovenian and Latvian are also strictly alphabetic-phonetic and even
> >those languages are written in Latin script, people may demand
> >transcription, not transliteration.
> >
> >So, keep in mind that asking for transcriptions in English means
> >opening Pandora's box on other projects.
> >
> Although transliterations may be a flawed process for representing
> names.  Such transliterations could be viewed as quick fixes that the
> person affected could easily edit into a correct form.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO desysopping

body:
Christmas?

On 12/26/06, M Roget <mroget at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is there any reason why the ArbComm decision to desysop MONGO has not been
> implemented yet?
>
> Michel
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
Congrats all!

On 26/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> To Tranche Gamma:
> Flcelloguy
> Kirill Lokshin
> Paul August
> UninvitedCompany
> Jpgordon
>
> To Tranche Beta
> FloNight (Mindspillage's seat, from which she recently retired)
> Binguyen (Filiocht's seat, as he is on indefinite leave)
>
> ----
>
> Both Mindspillage and Filiocht are eligible to (re)-claim what would
> then be expansion seat in Tranche Beta at anytime of their choosing
> until 2008-12-31, when their original seats would have expired.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Hoi,
At issue is that some insist on a solution where transliteration is forced
upon others or the same is true with reducing people to numbers, you just
have to be reduced to a number because of convenience sake. There is another
solution that is rejected by some because "it can be gamed", this is without
any knowledge of how it will be implemented.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned, transliteration doesn't work because some languages
> >
> >require *transcription* and/or *translation*. For example, even your
> >name may be compltetely transliterated in Serbian (?????), it is
> >completely irregular and your name *has to be* trancribed (into
> >?????).
> >
> If an individual prefers to use the transliteraed form for his own name
> that should be his choice without any "has to be" about it.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] when uploading pictures to commons ....

body:
On 26/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> >Ignoring firefox bugs with SVGs for a moment (which really aren't
> >related to image size so much)... is there *actually* an issue with
> >low end systems *crashing* when they view large images?
> >In order to test these complaints, I opened a 6000x7000 jpeg image on
> >an old win95 box with 64 megs of ram without crashing.. although it
> >was slow.

> There are times when being slow is as good as crashing.  If after a full
> minute of my old computer trying to download that image it remains
> completely unresponsive it's quacking like a crash.  Things might have
> improved if I had waited another minute, but I don't know that.

I gotta say "don't do that then." The SVG is rendered on the media
description page, you don't *have* to click through.

- d.


from_name: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
On 12/26/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/25/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There will need to be a discussion about how to handle cases that are
> > pending as of the time the new arbs take office.
>
> I would imagine we'll handle it like last time: where arbitrators no
> longer in office have voted on a case, they count as extra arbitrators
> for those cases only, and majority is adjusted appropriately.
>
> New arbitrators will be counted as recused for all currently open
> cases unless they declare themselves un-recused for an individual
> case; this saves them from having to read up on all open cases
> immediately.
>
> -Matt

That makes total sense, of course, and it would probably be contrary to the
Wiki-way to formalize things any more than that, especially if it worked out
okay last year.  On the other hand, it appears that there will be at least
ten cases in the evidence stage but not yet being voted on as of January
1st.  I am concerned there will be an awful lot of "is this case ready to
close, who's voting in this case, should we wait for more votes?" type of
issues with so many new members and so many new cases.  On top of that, with
Fred Bauder having indicated that he plans to cut back on his writing and
Dmcdevit less active for the next couple of weeks per his userpage, it looks
like in at least some of the new cases the new members may have to get
involved in doing the initial analysis and drafting.  It's entirely up to
the (new and old) arbitrators and probably is already being discussed on the
ArbCom mailing list, but a slightly more pro-active approach to planning now
how all these cases are going to get written and decided might pay dividends
in the form of hitting the ground running for the new year and avoiding
having a backlog pile up.  Just some thoughts for what they are worth.

Again, congratulations to all the new arbitrators.

"Newyorkbrad"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
Per my talkpage, I took a look at the page and am looking forward to this
with enthusiasm.  Thanks for taking the lead on this.  (I just scolded you
on an unrelated page but that's Wiki-life.)

"Newyorkbrad"

On 12/26/06, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Howdy y'all--
>
> After the success of this month's New York City meetup, with like 25
> folks who showed up out of the almost 50 who expressed interest, I've
> taken
> the liberty to set up something several users have brought up
> and discussed in some way, shape or form and started the Wikipedia Club of
> New York.  We intend to get together at least once a month and see and
> experience all that New York City and her metropolitan area has to offer
> (especially the booze)
>
> ...and if we can't find it in New York...be compelled to take a trip out
> to
> Jersey.
>
> Come join the fun at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Club_of_New_York
>
> Feel free to contact me via e-mail here at cdthieme at gmail.com to get
> updates
> on what we're planning.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme
> User:ExplorerCDT
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
It appears that I inadvertently just sent a message intended for one person
to the whole mailing list.  I don't know if it makes things better to send
two useless messages rather than just one but I wanted to apologize for
this.

"Newyorkbrad"

On 12/26/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Per my talkpage, I took a look at the page and am looking forward to this
> with enthusiasm.  Thanks for taking the lead on this.  (I just scolded you
> on an unrelated page but that's Wiki-life.)
>
> "Newyorkbrad"
>
>
>  On 12/26/06, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Howdy y'all--
> >
> > After the success of this month's New York City meetup, with like 25
> > folks who showed up out of the almost 50 who expressed interest, I've
> > taken
> > the liberty to set up something several users have brought up
> > and discussed in some way, shape or form and started the Wikipedia Club
> > of
> > New York.  We intend to get together at least once a month and see and
> > experience all that New York City and her metropolitan area has to offer
> > (especially the booze)
> >
> > ...and if we can't find it in New York...be compelled to take a trip out
> > to
> > Jersey.
> >
> > Come join the fun at:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Club_of_New_York
> >
> > Feel free to contact me via e-mail here at cdthieme at gmail.com to get
> > updates
> > on what we're planning.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher D. Thieme
> > User:ExplorerCDT
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
I will be in New York on the 26th of January and the 1st and 2nd of
February.  (i.e. two Fridays in a row).

Maybe the timing will be right for me to join the festivities...


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:

>James D. Forrester wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I personally have grave concerns at the concept of spreading the
>>ground too thinly, and parcelling out cases a priori. I'm a strong
>>believer in our current system (which is not much of a surprise, given
>>how and by whom its form was shaped :-)), where Arbitrators are moved to
>>write a case up, rather than handed it and told to get on with the case.
>>This is why we don't sit en banc (and won't, until I'm/we're convinced
>>that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits).
>>
>>
>For those playing especial, close attention, yes, I missed the word
>"not" from there - that is, this should have read "we don't *not* sit en
>banc".
>
>
Oh, I just figured that maybe "en banc" meant something different in the
British system. Why that might have been the case I'm not sure, but
since the term is actually French, who knows. (Yes, the law is equal
parts medieval French and Latin.)

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the Arbitration Committee. To the newly
chosen especially, but also to the already sitting, who hopefully will
absorb some renewed vigor from their colleagues. Be thankful that a
knowledge of English is generally sufficient, and try not to lapse to
much into Wiki-ish like IAR, CSD, and the like.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is it true...

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> geni wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "James Hare" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).
>>>
>>> So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?
>>
>> It might count as fair use under certain conditions. A painting of
>> Patrick Stewart would probably be a safer bet although there would be
>> other issues with things such as in the US at least the Right of
>> Publicity.
>
> I believe Major League Baseball already lost that case to the
> rotisserie leagues.

I believe that case had to do with organized baseball claiming to own
statistics, as a byproduct of owning the rights to the games as they are
played. I wouldn't expect it to be particularly applicable to this
situation. The right of publicity is a rather different concept,
associated with the use of a person's image or likeness.

--Michael Snow


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
On 12/26/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/12/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, my best wishes to the Arbitration Committee. To the newly
> > chosen especially, but also to the already sitting, who hopefully will
> > absorb some renewed vigor from their colleagues. Be thankful that a
> > knowledge of English is generally sufficient, and try not to lapse to
> > much into Wiki-ish like IAR, CSD, and the like.
>
>
> Note that the term "industrial quantities of fatally corrosive
> blithering stupid" is a technical jargon term on arbcom-l.
>
> ;-p
>

Is it jargon?  It's really only jargon if it's not clear to outsiders what
it means, just from looking at it...

Congratulations and condolences to the new Arbcom members.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Not to mention it could easily get gamed -- imagine if there's five people
interested in some band from Deluth no one cares about, except those five
people that manage to get the article saved (at least from speedy deletion).
System gamed.

We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even
assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If
the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look
good. Assume good faith across the board.

On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is
> > grossly overused by many people, including me.  Most editors simply
> > use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is
> > probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it
> > seems somewhat dishonest.  Would it not be better, therefore, either
> > to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion
> > for people to use instead?  I would suggest that a possibly way of
> > determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator
> > is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing
> > (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the
> > article, it can be speedied.  The only real disadvantage I see in this
> > is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
> >
> > What do people think?
>
> I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an
> obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your
> idea would be more complicated for no good reason.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 193

body:
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<b8ceeef70612222344k3e5ba806ub0285a333ca38ca5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 12/22/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > Nit-picks/genuine questions (my musical literacy is almost nil):
> what
> > is "the" key of a piece of music which modulates into many
> different
> > keys and has different key signatures marked within the score? Is
> it
> > a general rule or custom or convention that the first key signature
> > which appears in the score is "the" key signature?
>
> I think convention is that the first key signature is "the" one. But
> for certain styles, it's certainly possible to have an introduction
> in
> a different key...it would be very simplistic to imply that any lay
> person could successfully determine the key of any piece by following
> rules listed in Wikipedia.
>
> > Nit-pick number two: how do you tell by looking at the music
> whether
> > it is in C Major or A Minor? That is, can you always unequivocally
> > tell the key of a piece of music by glancing at it, or is judgement
> > sometimes involved?
>
> To a musical expert, it's usually pretty clear, but there are
> exceptions. And don't forget atonal music which is usually written
> without a specific key signature (ie, superficially like C major and
> I
> minor). And some music actually does have a "key" but was originally
> published with no key, using accidentals instead. You would be wrong
> to describe such a piece as being in C major...
>
> So, this was a bad example, but that's probably all.

No, these observations mean that it was a GOOD example.  There are
always issues like this that arise in practical situations.  In this
example,
if the key is obvious (that is, anyone who understands music notation
would agree on what the key is), then we can write "the key is E-flat".
If the key is not clear for some reason, then deciding the key becomes
original research and we need to go looking for a published source
that says what the key is.  The boundary between the two cases is
not precise, but that's life.  Anyway it is "safe" in the sense that if
one editor writes "the key is E-flat" when it isn't completely obvious,
someone else will come along and slap a "citation needed" on it
(preferrably with a note on the talk page).

Zero.

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


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
James Hare wrote:

>
> We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even
> assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If
> the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look
> good. Assume good faith across the board.

I've long-advocated just turning CSD A7 into a prod.  Prod's obviously
working on the ones that are speedy candidates but get prodded instead...

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...

On 12/26/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:
>
> >
> > We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even
> > assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite
> assertion. If
> > the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us
> look
> > good. Assume good faith across the board.
>
> I've long-advocated just turning CSD A7 into a prod.  Prod's obviously
> working on the ones that are speedy candidates but get prodded instead...
>
> -Jeff
>
> --
> Name: Jeff Raymond
> E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
> WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
> IM: badlydrawnjeff
> Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
>         Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
>         - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

Krishna Pagadala wrote:
> Hi All,
>   I am trying to build a hard drive to send to schools
> in India. And I want to mirror enwikitionary.
>
> I use the commands (at the end of the email)
>
> There is something in the sql file that is generated
> from wikipedia that makes my local copy of
> enwiktionary redirect back to en.wiktionary.org with a
> 302 code.

1) The main page is defined as 'Wiktionary:Main Page'
2) You do not have a 'Wiktionary' namespace defined locally
3) You have interwiki redirects enabled
4) You have a 'Wiktionary' interwiki set, pointing at en.wiktionary.org

As a result:
1) Going straight in sends you to [[Wiktionary:Main Page]]
2) that's not a local page
3) it's a remote page on en.wiktionary.org
4) your wiki is configured to send you over there via a redirect

References:
http://freeknowledge.dyndns.org/enwiktionary/index.php/MediaWiki:Mainpage

An XML export which includes the namespace list, showing 'entionary' in
the project namespace slot (namespace 4):
http://freeknowledge.dyndns.org/enwiktionary/index.php/Special:Export/foo

For best compatibility, change the local project namespace or all links
into it will fail. For a quick fix, edit [[MediaWiki:Mainpage]] to point
to the localized form of the title.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFkcQ1wRnhpk1wk44RAtmtAKDIp2QIFY4VFUF08sYrRP1ENm5dKQCdF/KQ
1JT0Z5yheKOGc18/z8g4JmU=
=Q5AS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
James Hare wrote:
> You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...

It would end a LOT of Wikidrama.  It would force more eyes onto things,
and end up making it less bureaucratic by not wasting time on obviously
deletable stuff on DRV.

I still also kind of wish that PROD was set up to keep the author from
removing it, which would make such a shift (I'd love to see G11 under
PROD too, but A7 makes more logical sense), but I'm looking at
WP:PRODSUM right now, and it looks like 7 of the first 10 non-mast PRODs
could, theoretically, be deleted under A7.  Yet they sat for 5 days
without a problem.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Gurch wrote:

> Though I probably go beyond the boundaries of CSD A7 in cases where,
> really, I think it merits it, I do try to take the criterion literally
> as far as possible, and PROD things that contain an assertion of
> notability even if it isn't an acceptable one.
>

Please, stop.  No, seriously, stop.  If you're speedying articles that
don't meet the criteria, stop.

> Having the article sit there doing nothing for five days isn't too bad.
> Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to
> make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to
> when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really worth
> it.

Discussion isn't bad.  Take a look at PRODSUM in any regard: items that
could be speedied are not having their prods removed, and if it becomes
an issue, we can try and change prod a bit.

> On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator
> shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and
> may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason
> alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.

I'd like to see a good faith effort by admins to not speedy articles
with prod on them in the cases of notability, but I may be asking a lot.
  That's one of the most frustating things I see when doing a PRODSUM
checkup, redlinks because people couldn't bother to wait.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
So after much mucking about...

Is there any agreement for there being a manner in which to demonstrate to
the community's consensus satisfaction that a claimed source has been added
fraudulently and either does not really exist or does not really say what
the citation claims it does?

What I seem to have been seeing here is that there's an unreasonable
tendency to assume that a citation is legitimate.  I would prefer if there
were a healthy degree of skepticism associated with citations - any citation
that does not contain enough information for a reasonable researcher to
locate the original source, or at least verify the existence of the original
source, should be challengable in a reasonable manner.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

references:
<54a44a8b0612261240j63edda43h4b12bc0859c2234@mail.gmail.com>
	<a4359dff0612261245y2b57c88dj5ef5b0c8fb2f8c52@mail.gmail.com>
	<45919EC4.8020106@btinternet.com>
	<4591A0F9.9020301@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<4591A540.8010607@btinternet.com>
	<4591AEE2.4040009@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
On 12/26/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with that.  As it stands, I think we're deleting too much
> worthwhile stuff.  That's a sea change that would need to be initiated
> far beyond the scope of A7, and is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

I personally agree as well.  In most cases, if something is
sufficiently sourced, I don't feel it should be deleted.  Most crap
articles that shouldn't stick around won't be sourced.

I notice that many users, including long-established ones, stick
speedy tags on articles which are very questionable speedies.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Gurch wrote:

> Fair enough, since you asked so nicely. I should emphasize, though, that
> many other people will bend the rules of speedy deletions a lot further
> than I have done.

I'm currently in a bit of a brouhaha with one of them in particular.

> You may want to have a word with them; they don't all
> read this list. Not to mention the people that clear out PRODs, as the
> size of their task would increase significantly.

That's fine.  I'd much rather the people doing speedies work on prods
anyway. d;-)

 > Readers, too, should
 > prepare for a small but not insignificant decline in the average
 > quality  of our articles.

I don't agree with that.  As it stands, I think we're deleting too much
worthwhile stuff.  That's a sea change that would need to be initiated
far beyond the scope of A7, and is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [Foundation-l] Contributors vs Authors

body:
On 12/26/06, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On en.wikibooks we are having some problems instituting an ownership
> policy
> (a local equivalent of [[WP:OWN]]). Some of the common arguments we are
> receiving are:
> 1. There is a qualitative distinction between "authors" and
> "contributors".
> Not all contributors can be listed as authors of a particular book
> (especially if the book is printed and distributed).
> 2. The history pages represent a "log", and do not constitute legal
> attribution
> 3. "Contributors" do not have the legal rights that "authors" do.
> None of us at en.wikibooks are lawyers, and frankly we don't know how to
> address these objections, or where to find the correct answers. Also,
> because books are distributed projects (spread across multiple pages), it
> is
> not uncommon on wikibooks for a book to have a list of authors somewhere.
> Are such lists appropriate?
>
> Any help in these questions would be much appreciated. --Andrew Whitworth
>

Can you let us know where the discussions are taking place?  I am not a
usual wikibooks participant, and didn't see any obvious subsection titles in
your "Staff Lounge".

Thanks.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Contributors vs Authors


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Gurch wrote:
> On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator
> shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and
> may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason
> alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.
>
I wonder how often the speedy happens _immediately_ after the prod is
added. In other words, two users are looking at the article. One adds
prod, the other decides for speedy delete. The delete ends up happening
after the prod is added, but without the knowledge of the deleting admin.

Just wondering...

-Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> I just tried that with the Category: Activists. There is no subcategory name
> only this B *
>              [+]
>
> Curious, I copied the above 'B * [+]' to my clipboard directly from
> Wikipedia, and when I pasted it here it included this: 'Bisexual rights
> activistsloading' This does not appear when I click on it in the
> encyclopedia.
>
> What could that mean?
>
> Marc

Hmmm.... Do you have custom css for Wikipedia? If not, what browser are
you using? Do you have javascript enabled?

-Rich


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam <ttolnam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world is
> > > not Christian.
> >
> >
> > As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total
> > population equals a close minority or a close majority.
> >
> > However, this is not important.  I used unverified figures sure to be
> > controversial, and probably incorrect.  Despite this, Christianity IS the
> > largest religion.
>
> It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion
> followers, it's still a minority religion.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

A minority, yes, but it also has the plurality, if I've got my terms right.

--Ryan


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
Hello out there!

This is an issue I have been confronted with for months now. Each time I
have asked about it , what answers I have gotten thus far have been mostly
avoidances.

Here is the problem: Since the implementation of the new format, I have lost
all access to subcategories. When I go to a Main Category and click on its
subcategories, all I get is the word 'loading' and nothing more!

Help!!

Frustrated & desperate!!!!

Marc Riddell


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom Results

body:
On 12/26/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> ==================================================
> To Tranche Gamma:
> Flcelloguy
> Kirill Lokshin
> Paul August
> UninvitedCompany
> Jpgordon
>
> To Tranche Beta
> FloNight (Mindspillage's seat, from which she recently retired)
> Binguyen (Filiocht's seat, as he is on indefinite leave)
>
> ----
>
> Both Mindspillage and Filiocht are eligible to (re)-claim what would
> then be expansion seat in Tranche Beta at anytime of their choosing
> until 2008-12-31, when their original seats would have expired.
> ==============================================
>
> My sincere thanks for the vote of confidence by the community and Jimbo.
>
> Got my work cut out for me... reading to get up to speed on the open cases. :-)
>
> Everyone have a great day!
>
> Take care,
> Sydney aka FloNight aka Poore5

My sincerest congratulations! :)

--Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
On 12/26/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > From: Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:00:28 -0600
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
> >
> > Marc Riddell wrote:
> >> I just tried that with the Category: Activists. There is no subcategory name
> >> only this B *
> >> [+]
> >>
> >> Curious, I copied the above 'B * [+]' to my clipboard directly from
> >> Wikipedia, and when I pasted it here it included this: 'Bisexual rights
> >> activistsloading' This does not appear when I click on it in the
> >> encyclopedia.
> >>
> >> What could that mean?
> >>
> >> Marc
> >
> > Hmmm.... Do you have custom css for Wikipedia? If not, what browser are
> > you using? Do you have javascript enabled?
> >
> > -Rich
>
> Rich,
>
> I'm emailing my computer person with your questions now. I'll get back to
> you as soon as he responds with the answers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc

As Matthew suggested, the subcategories should still be accessible if
you click their names rather than the [+].  I don't often use the
inline category tree myself, and don't mind loading a few more pages.

--Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
> From: Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:09:26 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> Hello out there!
>>
>> This is an issue I have been confronted with for months now. Each time I
>> have asked about it , what answers I have gotten thus far have been mostly
>> avoidances.
>>
>> Here is the problem: Since the implementation of the new format, I have lost
>> all access to subcategories. When I go to a Main Category and click on its
>> subcategories, all I get is the word 'loading' and nothing more!
>>
>> Help!!
>>
>> Frustrated & desperate!!!!
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>
>
> Have you tried clicking on the subcategory name instead of the "+"
> button? That ought to just take you to the subcategory page, rather than
> loading the subcategories inline.
>
> -Gurch
I just tried that with the Category: Activists. There is no subcategory name
only this B *
             [+]

Curious, I copied the above 'B * [+]' to my clipboard directly from
Wikipedia, and when I pasted it here it included this: 'Bisexual rights
activistsloading' This does not appear when I click on it in the
encyclopedia.

What could that mean?

Marc

> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
> pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
>
> Jay.

And it goes above and beyond just WP.  Citations of claims,
inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously.  That's how I
interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.

--Ryan


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > I think the question had more to do with verifying a claim that a
> > particular musical work is in C major.  It would seem a waste of time if
> > every time the description of a piece of music included its key there
> > would need to be a source to establish that as true.
> >
> > If someone claims that a piece of music is in C major I have to accept
> > that without the need to go through a mini-course on music theory.
>
> Which "someone" do you mean - a Wikipedian? The hard-line view of OR
> which has dominated most of this discussion seems to indicate that a
> source is needed for *everything*. IMHO, totally unworkable, and not
> even desirable.

No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.

Jay.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] When deletionism crosses a line

body:
> 1) A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
> of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for
> speedy deletion.

Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion
of notability. Assuming the article said he was a bishop, I think that
is an assertion of notability. Deciding whether or not it's a good
enough assertion is a job for AfD.


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/25/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There will need to be a discussion about how to handle cases that
> > > are pending as of the time the new arbs take office.
> >
> > I would imagine we'll handle it like last time: where arbitrators no
> > longer in office have voted on a case, they count as extra arbitrators
> > for those cases only, and majority is adjusted appropriately.
> >
> > New arbitrators will be counted as recused for all currently open
> > cases unless they declare themselves un-recused for an individual
> > case; this saves them from having to read up on all open cases
> > immediately.
>
> That makes total sense, of course, and it would probably be contrary
> to the Wiki-way to formalize things any more than that, especially if
> it worked out okay last year.

Not just last year; this is as we decided to do it even when we had our
very first non-bootstrap addition, when Mark and James (Raul654 and
Jwrosenzweig) joined in July '04.

> On the other hand, it appears that there will be at least ten cases in
> the evidence stage but not yet being voted on as of January 1st.  I am
> concerned there will be an awful lot of "is this case ready to close,
> who's voting in this case, should we wait for more votes?" type of
> issues with so many new members and so many new cases.

Well, don't worry about that; it used to be my job to nag people about
such things, and having written much of our operating procedures I'm as
ever happy enough to state things definitively if any clarification is
needed. It's rarely that much of a problem, though - the Clerks are
absolutely marvellous (I remember when I did pretty much all the work
they've now taken off our hands, only less well, less quickly, and much
less happily :-)).

> On top of that, with Fred Bauder having indicated that he plans to cut
> back on his writing and Dmcdevit less active for the next couple of
> weeks per his userpage, it looks like in at least some of the new cases
> the new members may have to get involved in doing the initial analysis
> and drafting.

Well, being thrown in at the deep end is good for 'em. ;-)

Seriously, I share your concerns about potential issues with workload
being too much, though I hope (perhaps in vain) that the community will
take a more pro-active approach themselves as to management of such
situations so as to obviate the need for the Committee; that /was/
sort-of the idea, after all. Maybe this year I will be pleasantly surprised.

> It's entirely up to the (new and old) arbitrators and probably is
> already being discussed on the ArbCom mailing list,

Yes, and yes. :-)

> but a slightly more pro-active approach to planning now how all these
> cases are going to get written and decided might pay dividends in the
> form of hitting the ground running for the new year and avoiding
> having a backlog pile up.

Well, I personally have grave concerns at the concept of spreading the
ground too thinly, and parcelling out cases a priori. I'm a strong
believer in our current system (which is not much of a surprise, given
how and by whom its form was shaped :-)), where Arbitrators are moved to
write a case up, rather than handed it and told to get on with the case.
This is why we don't sit en banc (and won't, until I'm/we're convinced
that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits).

Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
[with cc: directly to AC list]

On 26/12/06, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:

> Seriously, I share your concerns about potential issues with workload
> being too much,

The most important thing is to avoid burnout. The typical pattern is
1-3 months' enthusiasm then a tapering-off.

Suggestion: set aside X hours a week for AC duties. Do those hours,
but don't run too far *over* them either.

>though I hope (perhaps in vain) that the community will
> take a more pro-active approach themselves as to management of such
> situations so as to obviate the need for the Committee; that /was/
> sort-of the idea, after all. Maybe this year I will be pleasantly surprised.

It's getting there. A lot of the cases of editors who are (how to put
this nicely) *obviously grossly incompatible* with Wikipedia now get
blocked by community approbation - that is, no-one would want to
unblock this person. Which, if you think about it, is actually a far
stronger mark of disapproval than an ArbCom ban.

- d.


body:
On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 1) A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
> > of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for
> > speedy deletion.

> Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion
> of notability. Assuming the article said he was a bishop, I think that
> is an assertion of notability. Deciding whether or not it's a good
> enough assertion is a job for AfD.

Unfortunately, there's no rule that will prevent really stupid
deletion nominations. And speedy is for obvious rubbish.

AFDs are at least slower than speedy. I have *occasionally*
speedy-kept an AFDed article when it's obvious to the knowledgeable on
the subject that the nomination was ignorant at best, though even then
I'll typically say "unless anyone substantially objects by tomorrow
I'll speedy-keep this" just to be sure (since the article certainly
wouldn't be deleted by the next day otherwise). A sort of "bend all
rules within reason to check they're still flexible enough to be
sensible" approach. No-one's gotten drastically upset with it yet.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom results... :-)

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:

> Well, I personally have grave concerns at the concept of spreading the
> ground too thinly, and parcelling out cases a priori. I'm a strong
> believer in our current system (which is not much of a surprise, given
> how and by whom its form was shaped :-)), where Arbitrators are moved to
> write a case up, rather than handed it and told to get on with the case.
> This is why we don't sit en banc (and won't, until I'm/we're convinced
> that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits).

For those playing especial, close attention, yes, I missed the word
"not" from there - that is, this should have read "we don't *not* sit en
banc".

Thank you, Brad, for showing me that at least one person reads my boring
prose. :-)

Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories

body:
> From: Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:00:28 -0600
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Acces to Sub-categories
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> I just tried that with the Category: Activists. There is no subcategory name
>> only this B *
>> [+]
>>
>> Curious, I copied the above 'B * [+]' to my clipboard directly from
>> Wikipedia, and when I pasted it here it included this: 'Bisexual rights
>> activistsloading' This does not appear when I click on it in the
>> encyclopedia.
>>
>> What could that mean?
>>
>> Marc
>
> Hmmm.... Do you have custom css for Wikipedia? If not, what browser are
> you using? Do you have javascript enabled?
>
> -Rich

Rich,

I'm emailing my computer person with your questions now. I'll get back to
you as soon as he responds with the answers.

Thanks,

Marc
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: David Mestel

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is
grossly overused by many people, including me.  Most editors simply
use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is
probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it
seems somewhat dishonest.  Would it not be better, therefore, either
to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion
for people to use instead?  I would suggest that a possibly way of
determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator
is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing
(>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the
article, it can be speedied.  The only real disadvantage I see in this
is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.

What do people think?

--
David


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is
> grossly overused by many people, including me.  Most editors simply
> use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is
> probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it
> seems somewhat dishonest.  Would it not be better, therefore, either
> to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion
> for people to use instead?  I would suggest that a possibly way of
> determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator
> is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing
> (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the
> article, it can be speedied.  The only real disadvantage I see in this
> is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
>
> What do people think?

I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an
obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your
idea would be more complicated for no good reason.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Rich Holton wrote:

> I wonder how often the speedy happens _immediately_ after the prod is
> added. In other words, two users are looking at the article. One adds
> prod, the other decides for speedy delete. The delete ends up happening
> after the prod is added, but without the knowledge of the deleting admin.
>

Well, PRODSUM doesn't update immediately, and that's when I notice.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
*stomp*, *stomp*, *stomp*

I see what you mean, but my idea does have the advantage that it,
unlike a PROD, doesn't take 5 days, and doesn't necessarily allow the
creator to waste everybody's time with an AfD.  Just to clarify, my
proposal is to delete first, undelete to userspace and get suppord
from good-standing editors later.

To James: OK, so imagine the system gets gamed.  There's an AfD.  Not
a huge problem.  In any case, AfD is probably the right result if five
experienced editors support keeping.

On 26/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to mention it could easily get gamed -- imagine if there's five people
> interested in some band from Deluth no one cares about, except those five
> people that manage to get the article saved (at least from speedy deletion).
> System gamed.
>
> We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even
> assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If
> the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look
> good. Assume good faith across the board.
>
> On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is
> > > grossly overused by many people, including me.  Most editors simply
> > > use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is
> > > probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it
> > > seems somewhat dishonest.  Would it not be better, therefore, either
> > > to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion
> > > for people to use instead?  I would suggest that a possibly way of
> > > determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator
> > > is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing
> > > (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the
> > > article, it can be speedied.  The only real disadvantage I see in this
> > > is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
> > >
> > > What do people think?
> >
> > I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an
> > obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your
> > idea would be more complicated for no good reason.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
David


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 26/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> So whose fault is this?  Hasn't been fixed yet.

It would be damn useful if the parser test output included the SVN
revision number it was running against...

Rob Church


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories

body:
[[Special:Categories]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories

On 26/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I came across an Article in Wikipedia that needed categorization. The
> Article is a biography of a person in a field I am unfamiliar with.
>
> Question: where do I go to get a list of all the Categories in Wikipedia?
>
> Marc Riddell
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 26/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So whose fault is this?  Hasn't been fixed yet.
>
> It would be damn useful if the parser test output included the SVN
> revision number it was running against...

...added that in r18597.

Rob Church


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Foundation-l] Contributors vs Authors

body:
On en.wikibooks we are having some problems instituting an ownership policy
(a local equivalent of [[WP:OWN]]). Some of the common arguments we are
receiving are:
1. There is a qualitative distinction between "authors" and "contributors".
Not all contributors can be listed as authors of a particular book
(especially if the book is printed and distributed).
2. The history pages represent a "log", and do not constitute legal
attribution
3. "Contributors" do not have the legal rights that "authors" do.
None of us at en.wikibooks are lawyers, and frankly we don't know how to
address these objections, or where to find the correct answers. Also,
because books are distributed projects (spread across multiple pages), it is
not uncommon on wikibooks for a book to have a list of authors somewhere.
Are such lists appropriate?

Any help in these questions would be much appreciated. --Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701


subject: [Foundation-l] Contributors vs Authors


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> Just to clarify, my
> proposal is to delete first, undelete to userspace and get suppord
> from good-standing editors later.

Thanks for the clarification, I had misunderstood that (I thought it
odd that you hadn't specified a time to wait for the support, now it
makes sense). In that case, I strongly oppose - a "delete first, ask
questions later" approach sounds like it's asking for trouble to me.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO desysopping

body:
On 12/26/06, M Roget <mroget at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason why the ArbComm decision to desysop MONGO has not been
> implemented yet?

It was done on 17 December:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMONGO%40enwiki

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:48:48 -0500, "James Hare"
<messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

>You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...

Visit CAT:CSD some time and see how many of the A7 articles you think
we'd be best leaving around for a week before deleting.  Feel free to
change the A7s to PRODs for those articles.  Don't forget to watchlist
for removal of the PROD notice.

There is no rule saying that only admins can visit that category.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Looking at that category now, I see a number nominated under CSD A7
which do assert notability:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafe_tequila asserts notability
(although incorrectly) through mention of awards won.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Creek_Sports_Camp "have made
Canyon Creek among the top campsites on the West Coast"
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cezar_kurti "is a well known translator"
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Visual_Arts_Center "DVAC is an
important part of the Dayton culture community"

All deserve to be deleted speedily.  All assert notability.

David

On 26/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:48:48 -0500, "James Hare"
> <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...
>
> Visit CAT:CSD some time and see how many of the A7 articles you think
> we'd be best leaving around for a week before deleting.  Feel free to
> change the A7s to PRODs for those articles.  Don't forget to watchlist
> for removal of the PROD notice.
>
> There is no rule saying that only admins can visit that category.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
David


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
But that's pretty much what we've already got, since, as I've shown,
most people use CSD A7 to mean "blatantly non-notable".  I just want
to bring it out into the open.

David

On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just to clarify, my
> > proposal is to delete first, undelete to userspace and get suppord
> > from good-standing editors later.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, I had misunderstood that (I thought it
> odd that you hadn't specified a time to wait for the support, now it
> makes sense). In that case, I strongly oppose - a "delete first, ask
> questions later" approach sounds like it's asking for trouble to me.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
David


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> All deserve to be deleted speedily.  All assert notability.

I've just gone through and removed the speedy tags. If you think they
should be deleted, feel free to PROD them.

If you think they deserve to the deleted speedily, what do you suggest
the requirement becomes? There needs to be a firm rule, anything
subjective and it won't work, as non-admins can't review deletion
decisions.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> But that's pretty much what we've already got, since, as I've shown,
> most people use CSD A7 to mean "blatantly non-notable".  I just want
> to bring it out into the open.

People adding speedy tags do, but do the admins going through CSD read
it that way? I don't know how often A7 tags are removed, as far as I
know, there isn't an easy way to tell. I would hope admins know better
than to delete an article under A7 that asserts notability.


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

> I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an
> obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your
> idea would be more complicated for no good reason.

Though I probably go beyond the boundaries of CSD A7 in cases where,
really, I think it merits it, I do try to take the criterion literally
as far as possible, and PROD things that contain an assertion of
notability even if it isn't an acceptable one.

Having the article sit there doing nothing for five days isn't too bad.
Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to
make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to
when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really worth
it. On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator
shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and
may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason
alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.

-Gurch


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
>If you think they deserve to the deleted speedily, what do you suggest
>the requirement becomes? There needs to be a firm rule, anything
>subjective and it won't work, as non-admins can't review deletion
>decisions.

Tricky...

This is a bit radical, but maybe deleting admins in these cases could
copy the content onto the article talk pages, and tag them so that
they can be deleted by a bot a couple days later.  This would allow
everyone to review the decisions, but I'm not sure how much extra
hassle this would create for deleting admins...

David

On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But that's pretty much what we've already got, since, as I've shown,
> > most people use CSD A7 to mean "blatantly non-notable".  I just want
> > to bring it out into the open.
>
> People adding speedy tags do, but do the admins going through CSD read
> it that way? I don't know how often A7 tags are removed, as far as I
> know, there isn't an easy way to tell. I would hope admins know better
> than to delete an article under A7 that asserts notability.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
David


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
> Having the article sit there doing nothing for five days isn't too bad.

Exactly.

> Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to
> make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to
> when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really worth
> it.

Yeah, that is annoying... maybe PRODs should have to go through an
extra step to be removed: One person adds a PROD tag, another changes
it to a DISPUTED-PROD tag, another can then remove the tag, after
which it has to go through AfD to be deleted. Admins can delete
DISPUTED-PRODs after the usual 5 days (or maybe 2 days after the
dispute is added if it is disputed in the last 2 days of the 5 day
period). Basically, this means 2 people have to agree in order for a
PROD to be removed (yes, this can be got around with sockpuppets, but
there isn't much we can do about that that we don't do already).

> On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator
> shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and
> may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason
> alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.

All admins should follow the same set of rules - there shouldn't be a
lottery involved in CSD, an article should be either deleted or kept
regardless of who is patrolling CSD at the time.