subject: [WikiEN-l] Line length

body:
A few of you are sending messages to this list with malformed lines
that break the RFC 2822 guidelines of avoiding lines longer than 78
characters.  This is particularly noticeable when browsing the list
archives on the Web, where the lines go way out to the right and are
very difficult to read.

Some examples:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067929.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067934.html

More info on line-length standards:
http://mailformat.dan.info/body/linelength.html

Info on configuring particular mail clients:
http://mailformat.dan.info/config/

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


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] odd failures

body:
Two or three times during the past few minutes I've gotten an
apache-style 404 message:

	Not Found

	The requested URL /wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science
	was not found on this server.

	Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while
	trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Sumpin wrong with the squids?


subject: [Wikitech-l] odd failures

body:
> Two or three times during the past few minutes I've gotten an
> apache-style 404 message

I'm getting the same thing.
--Mets501


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] odd failures

body:
On 4/7/07, Mets501 <mets501wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Two or three times during the past few minutes I've gotten an
> > apache-style 404 message
>
> I'm getting the same thing.
> --Mets501

It's fixed.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Slim Virgin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?

body:
On 4/7/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> chengli1 wrote:
> > I would agree 100% on banning linking to this site...
> > an initiative should be made so that nobody links to that site.
>
> Why?

Because it contains actionable libel, because it tries to out editors,
because it publishes photographs without the copyright holders'
permission, because it discusses the sex lives of women editors,
because it calls some of us c**ts and whores.

Sarah


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Version 0.5 CD *finally* released

body:
On 4/7/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [cross-posted to Foundation-l, Wikipedia-l and WikiEN-l]
>
> The release consists of an eclectic selection of 1964 articles, selected
> over a period of one year, which span from Art to Zeus. It draws heavily on
> the English Wikipedia's featured article base, to have it also be a showcase
> of the best of our work. The CD is available at
> http://www.wikipediaondvd.com, and sells for approximately ?12 ($15 USD,
> ?8.50) with part of the sales going directly to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> The CD is also publicly viewable online, and the CD's ISO file is available
> as well.
>
>
> Titoxd.

Why isn't it available via torrent? The site says that it's looking for
stronger servers, which means it obviously doesnt have enough bandwidth to
support everyone downloading off it, so wouldn't a torrent be a good idea?


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
on 4/7/07 5:40 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

> Not so much. Information is power. Power includes the power to kill.
>
> Words and images can result in deaths. See [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
> cartoons controversy]]. So can almost any form of information
>
> If wikipedia continues at it's current level of popularity it is
> likely that something in it will eventually indirectly result in
> deaths (if it hasn't already). At best we can hope that any deaths
> will be the result of truths rather than lies.

Bummer :-(

Marc


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
On 4/7/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >On 4/7/07, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>09/11/06
> >>- One of the Board members asked us to know the results, promishing
> >>s/he won't tell anyone
> >>
> >>09/13/06
> >>- The question of informing other Board members was raised. We all
> >>were in favor of informing the whole Board, except Angela + Foundation
> >>office employees
> >>
> >>09/15/06
> >>- The Board member who originally requested the results wasn't pleased
> >>that we provided the results to all the other Board members (at least
> >>that's what I understood from the email s/he sent) and forwarded them
> >>to Angela
> >>
> >>09/16/06
> >>- The Board member who orig(blablabla) was concerned with Jimmy's
> >>email and wanted to declare the elections illegal, but in the end we
> >>continued them.
> >>
> >>
> >Let's see then.  Not Angela, since she didn't get the results
> >originally and she didn't forward them to herself.  Not Jimmy, since
> >he obviously wasn't mad about his own email.  Ant expressed some anger
> >publically over Jimmy's email, so it's my bet that she's the one who
> >originally asked to know the results.
> >
> >Of course, it could have been Tim Shell or Michael Davis, I suppose.
> >
> I don't see this as useful speculation.  I would take Dariusz's
> narrative as a basis for informing future decisions about how this kind
> of thing should be prevented.  The time for finding fault or blaming is
> long past.
>
Finding out what went wrong is the first step to ensuring that
something doesn't happen again.  Continuing to shroud the details of
what happened in secrecy is what is not useful.

In fact, I'd say lack of open discussion is exactly what allowed this
to happen in the first place.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> And you wonder why people call you a "cunt" and a "whore"...
>
>
I wouldn't want to take away from Sarah's pleasure in punching you in
the face a hundred times, but I'd sure like to help hold you down so she
gets a better shot.

Hopefully list moderators will make sure we never ever have to hear any
of your worthless spew again.

Stan


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead

body:
On 4/7/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin
> deleted it anyway.

Your options include asking me to clarify my reasoning if you couldn't
understand it, or taking the close to deletion review if you disagreed
with it. Proclaiming the death of AfD on the mailing list seems to me
to be a less productive option than either of those two.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Haws [mailto:brian at bhaws.com]
>Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:25 PM
>To: ''English Wikipedia''
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Derksen
>Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:13 PM
>To: English Wikipedia
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?
>
>>This "violation" is highly dependant on the context in which it's made. You
>can't just find one instance where a link to a web site is
>>used as a personal attack and then declare _all_ links to anything on the
>entire site, used _anywhere_ in Wikipedia, to be a personal
>>attack. I could probably get major news sites like The Register banned
>under this interpretation.
>
>>The hard banning of external sites should be sparingly used and only in
>cases where it's absolutely clear that it's appropriate for all
>>concievable situations. We have human editors with human editorial
>judgement for a reason.
>
>The difference is that WR encourages and promotes the investigation and
>publication of personal information regarding Wikipedia editors. For that
>reasoon, if for no other, is why linking should be banned...
>
>Brian

I guess the distinction is that they don't openly advocate publication of false information.

Fred


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Newimages search

body:
On 4/7/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Was that complete enwiki set?

Yes.

> I'd expect that was not loaded box with all free resources, so 400ms
> figure is not that low for the main search. The task isn't the
> lightest either.

[gmaxwell at floodlamp ~]$ uptime
 17:38:31 up 56 days, 23:28, 10 users,  load average: 6.03, 6.01, 6.08

So.. not unloaded.    But yet, would be nicer if it was 30 ms like the
category intersections on this box.  Reality is that trigram indices
are huge, there are are about 100 million entries in the page_title
trigram index I have. ((mean number of characters per title + 2) *
number of titles)

Some of our titles are stupidly long... [[List of things that are far
longer than you expected to be in a wikipedia article title]] ...
resulting in an utterly huge trigram index.  To cut down on this
problem, I've tokenized the titles, and created the trigram index over
the unique words.

It's now quite fast:
wikidb=> explain ANALYZE select word,similarity(word,'evil') as sim
from title_words where word % 'evil' order by sim desc;
                                                              QUERY
PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sort  (cost=1317.06..1318.29 rows=492 width=12) (actual
time=16.131..16.256 rows=75 loops=1)
   Sort Key: (similarity(word, 'evil'::pg_catalog.text))
   ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on title_words  (cost=40.38..1295.07 rows=492
width=12) (actual time=12.038..15.945 rows=75 loops=1)
         Filter: (word % 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on title_words_trgm  (cost=0.00..40.26
rows=492 width=0) (actual time=11.913..11.913 rows=1334 loops=1)
               Index Cond: (word % 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)
 Total runtime: 16.435 ms

wikidb=> select word,similarity(word,'evil') as sim from title_words
where word % 'evil' order by sim desc limit 10;
   word    |   sim
-----------+----------
 evil      |        1
 evil?     |        1
 vs._evil  |    0.625
 evils     | 0.571429
 evil-lyn  | 0.555556
 evilla    |      0.5
 evi       |      0.5
 live-evil |      0.5
 eville    |      0.5
 evilwm    |      0.5
(10 rows)

This can easily be used to create a quite fast article suggestion engine:

wikidb=> explain ANALYZE select word,array((select
'[['||page_title||']]' from article_titles where vector @@
to_tsquery('simple',word) and page_is_redirect=0 order by
length(page_title) limit 5)) as pages,similarity(word,'efficiancy') as
sim from title_words where word % 'efficiancy' order by
dmetaphone(word)=dmetaphone('efficiancy') desc, sim desc;

         QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sort  (cost=4190095.55..4190096.78 rows=492 width=12) (actual
time=47.521..47.540 rows=11 loops=1)
   Sort Key: ((dmetaphone(title_words.word) =
'AFSN'::pg_catalog.text)), (similarity(title_words.word,
'efficiancy'::pg_catalog.text))
   ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on title_words  (cost=40.38..4190073.55
rows=492 width=12) (actual time=42.909..47.477 rows=11 loops=1)
         Filter: (word % 'efficiancy'::pg_catalog.text)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on title_words_trgm  (cost=0.00..40.26
rows=492 width=0) (actual time=42.713..42.713 rows=355 loops=1)
               Index Cond: (word % 'efficiancy'::pg_catalog.text)
         SubPlan
           ->  Limit  (cost=8513.76..8513.77 rows=5 width=21) (actual
time=0.254..0.266 rows=3 loops=11)
                 ->  Sort  (cost=8513.76..8513.79 rows=12 width=21)
(actual time=0.250..0.254 rows=3 loops=11)
                       Sort Key: (length(article_titles.page_title))
                       ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on article_titles
(cost=99.34..8513.54 rows=12 width=21) (actual time=0.168..0.212
rows=7 loops=11)
                             Recheck Cond: (vector @@
to_tsquery('simple'::pg_catalog.text, $0))
                             Filter:
((page_is_redirect)::pg_catalog.text = '0'::pg_catalog.text)
                             ->  Bitmap Index Scan on
article_titles_unstemmedwords_gin  (cost=0.00..99.33 rows=2439
width=0) (actual time=0.158..0.158 rows=15 loops=11)
                                   Index Cond: (vector @@
to_tsquery('simple'::pg_catalog.text, $0))
 Total runtime: 47.632 ms

wikidb=> select word,array((select '[['||page_title||']]' from
article_titles where vector @@ to_tsquery('simple',word) and
page_is_redirect=0 order by length(page_title) limit 5)) as
pages,similarity(word,'efficiancy') as sim from title_words where word
% 'efficiancy' order by dmetaphone(word)=dmetaphone('efficiancy')
desc, sim desc;
      word      |
     pages                                                           |
  sim
----------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------
 efficiency     |
{[[Efficiency]],[[X-efficiency]],[[Eco-efficiency]],[[Fuel_efficiency]],[[Atom_efficiency]]}
                             | 0.571429
 efficient      |
{[[Efficient_Cause]],[[Efficient_breach]],[[Efficient_rationing]],[[Fuel_efficient_driving]],[[Efficient_Market_Canada]]}
|      0.4
 efficeon       | {[[Efficeon]]}
                                                                     |
0.333333
 x-efficiency   | {[[X-efficiency]]}
                                                                     |
     0.5
 eco-efficiency | {[[Eco-efficiency]]}
                                                                     |
0.470588
 efficacy       |
{[[Efficacy]],[[Self-efficacy]],[[Luminous_efficacy]],[[Political_efficacy]],[[Drug_Efficacy_Study_Implementation]]}
     | 0.428571
 effi           | {[[Effi_Briest]]}
                                                                     |
0.333333
 inefficiency   |
{[[Inefficiency]],[[X-inefficiency]],[[Coefficient_of_Inefficiency]]}
                                                   | 0.333333
 self-efficacy  | {[[Self-efficacy]]}
                                                                     |
0.315789
 effie          |
{[[EFFIE]],[[Effie]],[[Effie_Gray]],[[Effie_Crockett]],[[Effie_Bancroft]]}
                                               | 0.307692
 x-inefficiency | {[[X-inefficiency]]}
                                                                     |
     0.3

Testing random misspelled words (using words from redirects from
mispelling titles),  I'm hitting the database with 100 lookups per
second right now and it seems to be holding up just fine. Don't want
to bother with real load testing until my other jobs are done.

Plus it gives useful results where our search gives nothing, for example:

Searching 'Nordkerchen'...

wikidb=> select word,array((select '[['||page_title||']]' from
article_titles where vector @@ to_tsquery('simple',word) and
page_is_redirect=0 order by length(page_title) limit 5)) as
pages,similarity(word,'Nordkerchen') as sim from title_words where
word % 'Nordkerchen' order by
dmetaphone(word)=dmetaphone('Nordkerchen') desc, sim desc;
     word      |                                    pages
                      |   sim
---------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------
 nordkirchen   | {[[Nordkirchen]],[[Transmitter_Nordkirchen]]}
                      |      0.6
 nordkehdingen | {[[Nordkehdingen]]}
                      | 0.368421
 nordkapp      | {[[Nordkapp]],[[Nordkapp_class_OPV]]}
                      |   0.3125
 nordgren      | {[[Niklas_Nordgren]]}
                      |   0.3125
 nordkinn      | {[[Cape_Nordkinn]]}
                      |   0.3125
 nordkisa      | {[[Nordkisa]]}
                      |   0.3125
 kerchen       | {[[Dora_Noem?_Kerchen]]}
                      | 0.428571
 norden        |
{[[Norden]],[[Van_Norden]],[[Norden_C.C.]],[[Norden_F.C.]],[[Carl_Norden]]}
| 0.357143
 nordeen       | {[[William_Nordeen]]}
                      | 0.333333
 northen       |
{[[Rob_Northen_copylock]],[[Great_Northen_and_Southern_Railway]]}
     | 0.333333
 scherchen     | {[[Hermann_Scherchen]]}
                      |   0.3125
 nord          |
{[[Nord]],[[NORD-1]],[[NORD-10]],[[LGV_Nord]],[[Nord_262]]}
     | 0.307692

> Wanna make public search service? :)

Sure, can someone point me to a python (because it's my prefered quick
hack programming language) cgi that impliments an incremental AJAX
search?

I'm web-dumb, but I've pretty much got a good backend done for fast
incremental title suggestions.  I'm currently importing Jeff's
'article title thesaurus' data..

I already have an old copy of internal pagerank for enwikipedia
someplace, and I'd love to get the reletative article hitrates to use
as additional ranking metrics.


from_name: Dave Sigafoos

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
Sorry . but that is funny

DSig
David Tod Sigafoos | SANMAR Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Church
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 17:03
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

On 07/04/07, Edward Z. Yang <edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com> wrote:
> That would be extremely user-unfriendly. "Wikipedia won't let me
> ediiiiiiit articles! Something about bad sintax!!!!!!11oneone"

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SYNTAX INQUISITION!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Slim Virgin wrote:

>On 4/7/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>chengli1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would agree 100% on banning linking to this site...
>>>an initiative should be made so that nobody links to that site.
>>>
>>>
>>Why?
>>
>>
>Because it contains actionable libel, because it tries to out editors,
>because it publishes photographs without the copyright holders'
>permission, because it discusses the sex lives of women editors,
>because it calls some of us c**ts and whores.
>
If the site contains so much actionable libel then the libelled persons
should take action.

I appreciate that you have been on the receiving end for their vitriol,
but if they have such a liking for gutter fights it does not justify our
descending into gutter tactics.

Ec


from_name: Ken Arromdee

body:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Phil Sandifer wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> >> NPOV is a foundation policy. There are no exemptions for issues
> >> that affect Wikipedia directly.
> >
> > Cool.  Mind if I edit WP:IAR to take this into account?
> Don't do this. Part of what IAR is a warranty against is if a policy
> page gets written to stop complying with the useful intent. An
> exemption for NPOV would leave us no defense if a bunch of policy
> wanks decided to do to it what has been done to so many other pages
> (DRV, RFA, RS, NOR...)

Well, I didn't really want to edit IAR for that, my point was more that this
is currently a contradiction in the rules.  NPOV says it may not be superseded
by other policies or consensus, IAR says that it can supersede anything.  I
know it says that the *principles* may not be superseded, not the rule, so
it isn't technically a contradiction, but it's about as close as you can get to
a contradiction without bering one.

And I agree completely about NOR and RS.


from_name: Gary Kirk

body:
If you want to do your bit, donate to the Foundation so they receive
100% of what you give, and browse Wikipedia online - for nothing!
This CD, while good news, is not targeted for Wikipedians with
Internet access - or am I wrong there?

On 07/04/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm... should I pay $15 for less than 2000 articles (out of the 1.7 million
> article Wikipedia), with part of it (what is part?) going to the Foundation?
>
> On 4/7/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > On 4/7/07, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The CD is available at http://www.wikipediaondvd.com, and sells for
> > approximately ?12 ($15 USD, ?8.50) with part of the sales going directly
> to
> > the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why so expensive?  Can't CDs be made for a couple bucks a piece?  How
> > > much goes to the foundation?
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> >
> > I've actually thought of competing for this reason, as I have sources
> > that can produce a DVD-R disc for about $1.50 each (including case) and
> > postage would only be an addional dollar.  Of course that does take some
> > capital resources that I current have tied up in other projects.  But to
> > do something like this for an American distro, it might be something
> > attractive.
> >
> > And of course, I can obtain a copyright license for this material too :)
> >
> > -- Robert Horning
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Pill

body:
Why are shipping costs the same for every country from which you order
the CD?

Greetings,

    Pill (wiki.pill @ gmail.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070407/a384abfa/attachment.pgp


body:
Why are shipping costs the same for every country from which you order
the CD?

Greetings,

    Pill (wiki.pill @ gmail.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070407/a384abfa/attachment.pgp>


body:
Why are shipping costs the same for every country from which you order
the CD?

Greetings,

    Pill (wiki.pill @ gmail.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070407/a384abfa/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
christophe.henner at wikimedia.fr wrote:

>The CD is really no use for a wikipediholic exept that if you're
>really wikipediholic you should have this cd, just next to the wiki
>bear, th wiki swatch, the wiki shirts...
>
I still have my cherished copy of the German Wikipedia on CD that I won
as a prize in the Great Frankfurt Wikimania Trivia Contest.  I haven't
taken it out of its original shrink-wrap.  My son can inherit it that
way.  Eventually it will be worth a lot of money as an example of early
Wikipedia memorabilia. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:

>on 4/7/07 5:40 PM, geni wrote:
>
>
>>Not so much. Information is power. Power includes the power to kill.
>>
>>Words and images can result in deaths. See [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
>>cartoons controversy]]. So can almost any form of information
>>
>>If wikipedia continues at it's current level of popularity it is
>>likely that something in it will eventually indirectly result in
>>deaths (if it hasn't already). At best we can hope that any deaths
>>will be the result of truths rather than lies.
>>
>>
>Bummer :-(
>
>
As the song says, "Always look on the bright side of life."  A death in
the pursuit of this jihad of truth will earn you the endless
ministrations of 100 perpetual virgins.  ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<0cv3139oir4aorpir9b94r9csn1a0op7ad@4ax.com>	<4616B685.2020007@telus.net>	<b23fe4070704060243n238e8a25v742fa8a3914edfca@mail.gmail.com>	<4616C845.2050909@telus.net>	<gqcc13l3s3he8j659deqgg75oaude0krbh@4ax.com>	<46163C8A.8080902@gmail.com>	<i3mc131bqtkei8cp1ub8465ncu01d7ojd8@4ax.com>	<4616CE89.2040500@gmail.com>	<84pe13h5p5aq5re6umin4r03firl3sqvrt@4ax.com>	<4617EC9B.1040501@gmail.com>	<ka6g13p7a5nkelfv0fgr1l49qv6gcl0lae@4ax.com>	<cc76a3bc4499e.4617bb17@shaw.ca>
	<fm7g13lr4uv31ce127kcrerq1qe2orabvr@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:39:03 -0700, Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>
>>Here's what you wrote in your initial email on this subject (at <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067483.html>):
>>
>>
>>>Original research?  You decide.
>>>Copyright?  I think so, but what do I know?
>>>Fancruft?  Ooooh, tricky :-)
>>>
>>>
>>The smiley on the fancruft question implies that you're being sarcastic, so you don't in fact find it to be a tricky question. I guess that could mean that you think it's obviously _not_ fancruft, but I somehow doubt that. Why even bring it up if that was the case?
>>
>>
>Is it (the article, that is, not the list) fancruft?  Tricky.  As a
>fan of the show I am not well-placed to judge.
>
Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread
where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the
wrong impression.  You've been around long enough to be aware of the
uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis
in a message. :-)

Ec


body:
On 07/04/07, christophe.henner at wikimedia.fr <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Well, I do understand the price is a little high, but it's not really
> aimed to wikipedians, but, for exemple, to schools. The current
> problem is Wikipedia is "live", with this cd, schools can have a free
> encyclopedia for nearly nothing. And for exemple, families who wanna
> have a "stable' version of an encyclopedia (it remains REALLY cheaper
> than Britannica) etc...
>
> The CD is really no use for a wikipediholic exept that if you're
> really wikipediholic you should have this cd, just next to the wiki
> bear, th wiki swatch, the wiki shirts...
[snip]
- that's what I was getting at - offline use, OEPC for example. Not us
addicts ;-)
--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Apr 7, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
>> NPOV is a foundation policy. There are no exemptions for issues
>> that affect Wikipedia directly.
>
> Cool.  Mind if I edit WP:IAR to take this into account?

Don't do this. Part of what IAR is a warranty against is if a policy
page gets written to stop complying with the useful intent. An
exemption for NPOV would leave us no defense if a bunch of policy
wanks decided to do to it what has been done to so many other pages
(DRV, RFA, RS, NOR...)

-Phil


from_name: Bence Damokos

subject: [Wikitech-l] Localisation of the names of special pages

body:
Hi!
Could you tell me, where can the localisation of special pages be done or
how?
For example in dewiki [[Spezial:Zuf%C3%A4llige_Seite]] works the same way as
[[Special:Random]].
I remember, there was a page where one could translate the titles of the
special pages, have those translations been implemented?
Do the special pages in huwik have a localised name?

Thank you for your answers
Regards,
Bence Damokos


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead

body:
On 4/7/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> No, not a disgrace.
>
> 1. Consensus can change. Community standards re inclusion/deletion can
> change as well.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?

body:
It seems to me like some of the people who favor a draconian policy
against linking to "attack sites", regardless of context, are coming
from a similar mindset to that which has produced "Zero Tolerance" rules
all over the place these days, as documented here:

http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html

That mindset dislikes letting the "authorities" have any discretion to
use common sense in administering rules depending on the circumstances;
they'd rather have an absoulute rule, enforced absolutely ([[Judge
Dredd]] style).  You see a lot of that both on Wikipedia and in the
outside world these days; too many people want to simplify a complex
world by being absolutist in their following of rules.

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


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

body:
On Saturday 07 April 2007 17:37, Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 4/7/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > chengli1 wrote:
> > > I would agree 100% on banning linking to this site...
> > > an initiative should be made so that nobody links to that site.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it contains actionable libel, because it tries to out editors,
> because it publishes photographs without the copyright holders'
> permission, because it discusses the sex lives of women editors,
> because it calls some of us c**ts and whores.
>
> Sarah
>

And that has relevance to its potential usefulness as a source in some cases
because...?

Seriously, grow up.

And you wonder why people call you a "cunt" and a "whore"...

--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>


subject: [WikiEN-l] OT: Zero tolerance

body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:

>On 4/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
>
>
>>http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html
>>
>>That mindset dislikes letting the "authorities" have any discretion to
>>use common sense in administering rules depending on the circumstances;
>>they'd rather have an absoulute rule, enforced absolutely ([[Judge
>>Dredd]] style).  You see a lot of that both on Wikipedia and in the
>>outside world these days; too many people want to simplify a complex
>>world by being absolutist in their following of rules.
>>
>>
>On Usenet once I proposed an alternate rational for "zero tolerance"
>in some cases. An example I used was "weapon like" items carried by
>school children. Take this scenario.
>
>1. A white (or black) student is caught with a key chain that's sharp
>enough to possibly be used as a weapon. The principal makes a
>determination that the student didn't know it was not allowed and lets
>him off with a warning.
>
>2. A black (or white) student is caught with a switchblade knife and expelled.
>
>3. The black (or white) student's parents, with the support of Al
>Sharpton (or David Duke), sues the school for racial discrimination
>arguing that the administration gives preferential treatment to white
>(or black) students caught with weapons.
>
>To avoid the possibility of having to spend taxpayer dollars defending
>such a suit, (frivolous or otherwise) the school simply chooses to
>follow a zero tolerance rule to the letter so they can say that
>everybody gets treated equally.
>
This only proves that it's easier to punish everybody than to face the
real problem.  If the school is not acting out of racial discrimination
it should be prepared to resist the suit.

Ec


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
For those who don't get the reference, "tl;dr" means "too long; didn't read"
-- the phrase particularly refers to several-paragraph long rants that,
frankly, no one really reads.

On 4/7/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> considere translacioun.
>
> You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
> going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
> think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
> do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
>
> Mark
>
> On 07/04/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On 4/6/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The voting period was long, but there was very little time between
> the
> > >> finalization of candidates and the beginning of voting. One
> consequence
> > >> of this was that translators had not completed translation of
> candidate
> > >> statements at the time the voting began.
> > >>
> > >> There should be more time ahead to prepare.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed. Though translators really do their best, it is very difficult
> to
> > > achieve translation of all candidate's statements. Last time the
> statements
> > > were *suggested* not to exceed 1,000 characters [1]. Some rules must
> be
> > > changed.
> > >
> > > I suggest the following extra rules :
> > > * For the pre-(s)election candidates, only a *short presentation* (~50
> > > words) ; easy and fast to translate, even for many candidates. These
> > > statements may be translated only in ? big ? languages, i.e. those of
> the
> > > most developed projects.
> > > * For the final candidates, *no more than 150 words*. These statements
> > > should be translated in as many languages as possible.
> > > * All statements *must* be written in simple words, simple sentences
> without
> > > any idioms.
> > > * All candidates *must* write their statement in all languages they
> speak.
> > > They know what they want to say better than anyone, so it's better to
> have a
> > > rough translation by themselves that will be refined later than a
> > > well-written serious mistranslation.
> > >
> > > To the future candidates: respect the work of translators. Last time,
> some
> > > candidates largely exceeded the characters limit. Their statements
> were
> > > however translated because the translators felt a moral obligation to
> > > translate them. Though, such an attitude from candidates shows a
> disrespect
> > > to our volunteer translators. So, if you long to be a community
> > > representative, first respect the community by following these simple
> rules.
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006/En
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I disagree with these suggestions here as the only solution.  I
> > understand that for translators, it is ideal if you have as little to
> > translate as possible.  Lengthy statements obviously would be a problem
> > to translate for what are arguably volunteer translators, so certainly
> > an effort to keep such position statements concise ought to be
> encouraged.
> >
> > At the same time, there are significant issues with real meat that will
> > be brought up this time around, and I expect that candidates will all
> > want to express opinions on many of these topics.  By limiting the
> > position statement to only 150 words or even 50 words, they might not be
> > able to respond to challenges, or even address what may end up becoming
> > major issues in this campaign.
> >
> > As has been addressed already on this mailing list, issues about fair
> > use, trademark policy, fundraising, and perceived America-centrism may
> > all become issues.  Other issues including chapter relations, project
> > expansions (or limits) and the scope of the various WMF projects may
> > also come up.  And I have just scratched the surface over issues that
> > could be discussed that would be very legitimate points to be debated.
> >
> > I'm not sure how much of this can or ought to be done through the
> > translators, or if perhaps a babel-fish type automated translation might
> > to be substituted for some of this debate.  I know that isn't perfect,
> > but I am trying to suggest some sort of general accommodation be made
> > here.  Certainly a NPOV "voter's guide" could have some of the key
> > points you are suggesting here, with links to other pages that would go
> > into further depth on candidate positions.  And priorities should be
> > made over what parts ought to be translated first.  In this regard you
> > could suggest having a short, medium, and long policy statement that
> > would have decreasing levels of translation, with the highest priority
> > to simply list all of the candidates and explain the voting rules in a
> > given language.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


body:
On 07/04/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> How many people, though, would buy Wiki P. on U-S-B?
>
> On 4/7/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/7/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you want to do your bit, donate to the Foundation so they receive
> > > 100% of what you give, and browse Wikipedia online - for nothing!
> > > This CD, while good news, is not targeted for Wikipedians with
> > > Internet access - or am I wrong there?
> > >
> > I dunno, is there even a way to order the CDs without Internet access?
> >
> > When it comes out on DVD it'll be pretty neat.  Not useful, but I'd
> > probably buy one for a few bucks (not for $15, and I wonder if they'd
> > charge even more than that).  Wikipedia on USB would be even cooler,
> > especially if it automatically updated itself.  The CD is, well, a
> > version 0.5.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Heu yeah you could postage for 2$... and do you pay the develloper of
the offlinereader, the searchengine and others :)

You can do it by yourself? Even copyediting thousands of articles,
selects articles and others?

Well, I do understand the price is a little high, but it's not really
aimed to wikipedians, but, for exemple, to schools. The current
problem is Wikipedia is "live", with this cd, schools can have a free
encyclopedia for nearly nothing. And for exemple, families who wanna
have a "stable' version of an encyclopedia (it remains REALLY cheaper
than Britannica) etc...

The CD is really no use for a wikipediholic exept that if you're
really wikipediholic you should have this cd, just next to the wiki
bear, th wiki swatch, the wiki shirts...

--
schiste


subject: [WikiEN-l] OT: Zero tolerance

body:
On 4/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:

> http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html
>
> That mindset dislikes letting the "authorities" have any discretion to
> use common sense in administering rules depending on the circumstances;
> they'd rather have an absoulute rule, enforced absolutely ([[Judge
> Dredd]] style).  You see a lot of that both on Wikipedia and in the
> outside world these days; too many people want to simplify a complex
> world by being absolutist in their following of rules.

On Usenet once I proposed an alternate rational for "zero tolerance"
in some cases. An example I used was "weapon like" items carried by
school children. Take this scenario.

1. A white (or black) student is caught with a key chain that's sharp
enough to possibly be used as a weapon. The principal makes a
determination that the student didn't know it was not allowed and lets
him off with a warning.

2. A black (or white) student is caught with a switchblade knife and expelled.

3. The black (or white) student's parents, with the support of Al
Sharpton (or David Duke), sues the school for racial discrimination
arguing that the administration gives preferential treatment to white
(or black) students caught with weapons.

To avoid the possibility of having to spend taxpayer dollars defending
such a suit, (frivolous or otherwise) the school simply chooses to
follow a zero tolerance rule to the letter so they can say that
everybody gets treated equally.


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
on 4/7/07 8:51 PM, Yonatan Horan at yonatanh at gmail.com wrote:

> Maybe but we're sliding over to a philosophical discussion... the bottom
> line is that saying something like saving a life is disrupting our goal of
> building an encyclopedia is plain stupid and shows someone might have become
> too immersed in the goal of building an encyclopedia to see that there are
> things that are perhaps even more important than wikipedia.

YES!! I agree with you completely, Yonatan. PEOPLE created Wikipedia; PEOPLE
write Wikipedia; PEOPLE maintain Wikipedia; PEOPLE in some way make up the
substance of every Article in Wikipedia. Without PEOPLE - there would be
nothing but a blank page.

Mark Riddell

--
People are life!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Line length

body:
On 7 Apr 2007 at 23:08, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I notice the Gmail one doesn't actually ahhh solve the problem with
> long quotes (there's no "wrap a quote properly") option.

My observation is that if you stick to replying in plain text mode,
the formatting is proper.  That seems to be true of most webmail
services; you should stay away from any "rich text editor" they
provide if you want messages with standards-compliant formatting.

> I'd say the most feasible solution to the stated problem is wrap in
> the list archives.

Rewrapping messages can cause other problems such as messing up
formatting where the author intended line breaks to stay put where
they are, as with tables, log dumps, poetry, lyrics, ASCII art, and
long URLs they want to keep unbroken.

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


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> I wouldn't want to take away from Sarah's pleasure in punching you in
> the face a hundred times, but I'd sure like to help hold you down so she
> gets a better shot.

Nicely put, but...

That doesn't mean we should enact a _prima facie_ ban on all links
to either Kurt's or Wikipedia Review's website.


from_name: Yonatan Horan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
If we saved one person's life, at least to me, that's worth more than
writing a thousand featured articles. Things like this put things like
"building an encyclopedia" into perspective....

On 4/7/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Moreschi wrote:
> > OK, sure, but when you have community for the sake of community that's
> the
> > sort of stuff you can expect to put up with. Wikipedia has an
> encyclopedic
> > purpose distinct from that: we are not supposed to be collection of
> > self-help services, suicide prevention, and social services all rolled
> > into one.
>
> And for the most part, we're not.  But turns out that *you can't
> escape the community stuff*.  Any time you get a bunch of people
> working together on something, the community aspects are going
> to surface, whether you want them to or not.  You can try to
> mitigate them, but you can't eliminate them, and if you try too
> hard, you'll royally piss people off, to everyone's detriment.
>
> If you haven't read "A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy", do so:
> http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html .
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Linking to Wikipedia Review is obviously relevant in an article on Daniel
Brandt (does it still exist) or Wikipedia criticism. Much more use can't
exist for the article space, but if we're going to discuss Wikipedia review
for example to counter attacks on people, we should be able to link to it.

Anyway, wikipediareview is a very specific case and if we were to ban it, I
don't think we need new policy that could be abused and lead to the bans of
other sites. What constitutes an attack site is subjective depending on who
you ask.

Mgm

On 4/7/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> >
> > Recently, [[User:DennyColt]] has created an essay article,
> > [[WP:BADSITES]], that advocates banning all links to sites that are
> > considered to be "attack sites". <snip>
>
>
> Whatever microscopic benefit  can be (argued by some) to be gained by
> linking to a hate site like Wikipedia Review is immediately outweighed by
> the harm that place and similar pages create. They openly hunt for
> peoples'
> identaties. They have active Jayjg and slimvirgin hunting threads, and for
> others.
>
> Do you support that? How about harassment of others like mongo, and
> katefan,
> and phaedriel, and so on...?
>
> I have asked multiple people, can you think of a single GOOD reason to
> link
> to that site in particular, and got not one good answer, only strawmen
> arguments about censorship and mccarthyism.
>
> If you support inclusion of links to WR, shall we link to hivemind as
> well,
> and the encyclopedia dramatica wiki?
>
> --
> - Denny
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

body:
I'd just like to say congratulations to everyone involved in getting this
out (which is basically everyone :) )! That's a fantastic achievement. I
look forward to more of these milestones.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 4/7/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we saved one person's life, at least to me, that's worth more than
> writing a thousand featured articles. Things like this put things like
> "building an encyclopedia" into perspective....
>

Not so much. Information is power. Power includes the power to kill.

Words and images can result in deaths. See [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons controversy]]. So can almost any form of information

If wikipedia continues at it's current level of popularity it is
likely that something in it will eventually indirectly result in
deaths (if it hasn't already). At best we can hope that any deaths
will be the result of truths rather than lies.

--
geni


from_name: Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> As the song says, "Always look on the bright side of life."  A death in
> the pursuit of this jihad of truth will earn you the endless
> ministrations of 100 perpetual virgins.  ;-)
>
> Ec
>
Huh?


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
It's mathematically complex but very well-explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_manipulation_of_instant-runoff_voting

On 07/04/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/04/07, Christopher Hagar <cmhagar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Instant run-off voting is a bad idea and fails some basic requirements for a
> > good voting system. For example, you can have situations where: if you rank
> > a candidate _higher_ on your ballot, he will actually do _worse_ in the
> > election than if you had ranked him lower.
>
> Could you give an example of a situation where that would occur?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Line length

body:
On 07/04/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:

> Info on configuring particular mail clients:
> http://mailformat.dan.info/config/

I notice the Gmail one doesn't actually ahhh solve the problem with
long quotes (there's no "wrap a quote properly") option.

I'd say the most feasible solution to the stated problem is wrap in
the list archives.

- d.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:19 -0500, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I believe you wanted to get rid of this content, because you saw it as
>"cruft", did not value it, and were looking for any excuse.

And you are wrong.  That would apply if I AfD'd the article, but what
I said was that the list is, in my view, copyvio, we can give some
examples from each category but we should not repeat in its entirety a
list which is the creative work of someone else.

I don't think it degrades Wikipedia at all not to have the entire
list.  Clearly the show doesn't think it's that important, it's not
even on the website.

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


body:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:22:03 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan at tobias.name> wrote:

>Recently, [[User:DennyColt]] has created an essay article,
>[[WP:BADSITES]], that advocates banning all links to sites that are
>considered to be "attack sites".

No idea why.  We already have an ArbCom decision on that, plus the
application of Clue.  It's all we need.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:39:03 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>Here's what you wrote in your initial email on this subject (at <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/067483.html>):
>
>>Original research?  You decide.
>>Copyright?  I think so, but what do I know?
>>Fancruft?  Ooooh, tricky :-)
>
>The smiley on the fancruft question implies that you're being sarcastic, so you don't in fact find it to be a tricky question. I guess that could mean that you think it's obviously _not_ fancruft, but I somehow doubt that. Why even bring it up if that was the case?

Is it (the article, that is, not the list) fancruft?  Tricky.  As a
fan of the show I am not well-placed to judge.

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


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-04-08

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r21099).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  17 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 4/7/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I appreciate that you have been on the receiving end for their vitriol,
> but if they have such a liking for gutter fights it does not justify our
> descending into gutter tactics.

Banning links equates to gutter tactics?

Preferably, we'd not have to ban links to them because everyone would
ignore them and not bother posting links to their site.

-Matt


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:

> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>>on 4/7/07 5:40 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not so much. Information is power. Power includes the power to
   kill.
>>>
>>>Words and images can result in deaths. See [[Jyllands-Posten
   Muhammad
>>>cartoons controversy]]. So can almost any form of information
>>>
>>>If wikipedia continues at it's current level of popularity it
   is
>>>likely that something in it will eventually indirectly result
   in
>>>deaths (if it hasn't already). At best we can hope that any
   deaths
>>>will be the result of truths rather than lies.
>>>
>>>
>>Bummer :-(
>>
>>
> As the song says, "Always look on the bright side of life."  A
death in
> the pursuit of this jihad of truth will earn you the endless
> ministrations of 100 perpetual virgins.  ;-)
>
> Ec

No, no, that's a mistaken, heretical, and POV translation! What
the Prophet Jimbo saith in his fifth sura was that death in the
pursuit of truth guaranteed the martyr the endless ministrations
of 100 perpetual "reference librarians", not "virgins". It is an
easy mistake, but nevertheless crucial.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


from_name: Johan Elisson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Persistent addition of untrue "facts"

body:
And if you wish to get input from other Wikipedians interrested in
[[football (soccer)]], posting a message to the talk page of
[[WP:FOOTBALL]] usually helps a lot.

/Elisson

James Farrar wrote:
> Ladies and gents,
>
> I've not come across this in the past, so am unaware how best to deal
> with it, so any thoughts, comments and/or advice is gratefully
> appreciated!
>
> There's a bit of an edit war developing in [[Stockport County F.C.]]
> as one or more individuals (anon, natch!) have made several attempts
> to introduce a "fact" that s/he/they believe to be true (and they
> actually have a reference for - albeit merely an assertion that is not
> backed up) - namely that the said football club's recent 7-2 home
> defeat was the first time the club had conceded seven goals in a home
> game.
>
> I know this to be untrue because I have a counter-example.
>
> I have now expanded the "Club Records" section to include the
> counter-example, and added a hopefully appropriate reference and
> commented on the talk page, but what should I do if the false
> statement is added again? I'm conscious of the existence of
> [[WP:3RR]]...
>
> J.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Christopher Hagar

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion#Example has a good
example of this particular problem. You can find an egregious example of
another kind of failure at http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html#nasty

People like instant runoff voting because it is an election method that
seems like it has the advantages natural to ranked ballots that is easy to
explain and understand, but it is almost the worst method. Note that these
are not problems with ranked ballots in general, but with the method used to
analyze the ballot.

On 4/7/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/04/07, Christopher Hagar <cmhagar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Instant run-off voting is a bad idea and fails some basic requirements
> for a
> > good voting system. For example, you can have situations where: if you
> rank
> > a candidate _higher_ on your ballot, he will actually do _worse_ in the
> > election than if you had ranked him lower.
>
> Could you give an example of a situation where that would occur?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
> If wikipedia continues at it's current level of popularity it is
> likely that something in it will eventually indirectly result in
> deaths (if it hasn't already). At best we can hope that any deaths
> will be the result of truths rather than lies.

True, but certainly not unique of Wikipedia. Pretty much anything can
be misused (either accidentally, or intentionally). How many people do
you think have been run over by ambulances? I'd guess quite a few.


list: commons-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Commons-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions

body:
I'm (re)sending this to lots of lists -- people, we need more
submissions! Please be bold in sending us your papers -- we'd love to
see you in Taiwan this year. :-)

Please forward to other relevant lists as well! See
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation/distribution
for the ones we've already covered.

Erik

- - - -

Wikimania is an annual global event devoted to Wikipedia and the other
Wikimedia Foundation projects. It is a community event, which is also
open to the public and to researchers. This year's conference will be
held from August 3-5, 2007 in Taipei, Taiwan at Chien Tan Overseas
Youth Activity Center. For more information, please visit the
Wikimania site:

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/

Send your submissions through:

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission

We are accepting submissions for posters, presentations, workshops,
and discussion groups. We are also accepting nominations for speakers
and speaker panels, and suggestions for other activities. Please note
the details below and be bold in your submissions!

== Important dates ==

    * 1 March ? 30 April: Submission
    * 1 May ? 31 May: Feedback and notification of acceptance
    * 3 ? 5 Aug 2007 : Wikimania

== Conference Themes ==

Submissions should address one or more of the following themes:

    * Wikimedia Communities ? Interesting projects and particularities
within the communities (we explicitly invite you to present your local
Wikimedia project's community!); policy creation within individual
projects; conflict resolution and community dynamics; reputation and
identity; multilingualism, languages and cultures; social studies.

    * Free Content ? Open access to information; ways to gather and
distribute free knowledge, usage of the Wikimedia projects in
education, journalism, research; ways to improve content quality and
usability; copyright laws and other legal areas that interfere with
Wikimedia projects.

    * Technical infrastructure ? Issues related to MediaWiki
development and extensions; Wikimedia hardware layout; new ideas for
development (including usable case studies from other wikis or similar
projects).

Your topic must be related to Wikimedia projects and its communities
or to the creation of free content in general.

== Types of Submissions ==

We are seeking submissions for

* presentations (10?30 minute talks with optional short or full papers)
* posters (printed presentations or visual displays that can stand on their own)
* workshops (30?120 minute session with more involvement of the audience)
* panels (group of 2-5 speakers to discuss on a specific subject)
* Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) (45-60 minute informal meetup of group
discussion on a particular topic)
* artistic artifacts (plays, competitions, comedy, visualizations, or
other representations of some aspect of the projects)

== Guidelines ==

Wikimania is organized by volunteers, so please help us to minimize
wasted effort by following these guidelines carefully before
submitting and be sure not to forget anything that is mentioned here.
All submissions must explicitly include the following:

* an English title
* a short English abstract of 50 to 100 words. The abstracts should be
provided as plain text, and not as file attachments. This abstract
will be used as public description of your submission in the
conference program
* a detailed description (or full paper) of at least one page (300
words or more). This description will not be published unless you want
it, but used for reviewing your submission. Give an overview of the
areas to be covered or taught. State clearly the relevance to the
Wikimedia projects and whether submission concerns a specific wiki
project. You may use any language, but we strongly suggest English or
Chinese. Full descriptions may include a link to a full paper or
slides in HTML or PDF, if available.
* full name, email address, and a short bio of 1?3 sentences for each
author. You may also add wiki usernames and nicknames.
* the type of submission (presentation, poster, workshop, panel, BoF, artistic)
* the language(s) you are going to talk in (or the language of your poster)

Please tell us with your submission whether you will attend to
Wikimania (a) surely, (b) probably, (c) only if your submission is
accepted, or (d) only if we provide travel and/or accommodation.

Additionally, please specify:

* the target audience you are going to reach and what previous
knowledge is needed
* special requirements (such as equipment for a workshop or panel) if needed
* images or sketches of the poster or artistic artifact if available
* for panel submissions short biographies of each suggested panelist
* whether the presentation is intended to be a specific length.
* BoF proposals should describe the significance of and community
interest in the topic, and name the proposed discussion leader(s).

For poster sessions there are additional guidelines:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Poster_session

Please note that all submissions must be dual licensed under the GNU
Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative
Commons Attribution License.

== Submissions ==

Once you are sure you have included all of the required information,
please send your submission by the respective deadline through our
submission system:

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission

Please do not send submissions by email. If you need help for
translating your work please visit our translation help page.
Questions, but not submissions, may be directed to cfp at wikimedia.org.

== Hacking Days ==

Before the main conference there will also be informal Hacking days
for MediaWiki developers who are familiar with the software, If you
are interested in joining it, please visit:

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Planning/Hacking_Days_Extra_2007

== See also ==

* About the venue: http://www.cyh.org.tw/
* Brainstorming page for program ideas:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_Ideas
* Editable list of attendees: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees
* WikiSym 2007 (October 21-23, 2007, Montreal), an alternative wiki
conference: http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
Maybe but we're sliding over to a philosophical discussion... the bottom
line is that saying something like saving a life is disrupting our goal of
building an encyclopedia is plain stupid and shows someone might have become
too immersed in the goal of building an encyclopedia to see that there are
things that are perhaps even more important than wikipedia.

On 4/7/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we saved one person's life, at least to me, that's worth more than
> > writing a thousand featured articles. Things like this put things like
> > "building an encyclopedia" into perspective....
> >
>
> Not so much. Information is power. Power includes the power to kill.
>
> Words and images can result in deaths. See [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
> cartoons controversy]]. So can almost any form of information
>
> If wikipedia continues at it's current level of popularity it is
> likely that something in it will eventually indirectly result in
> deaths (if it hasn't already). At best we can hope that any deaths
> will be the result of truths rather than lies.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Principle of Wikienl Induction

body:
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead
>
> It's official: AFD is dead.

It's official: I hereby declare the Principle of Wikienl Induction.

The Principle of Wikienl Induction states that the observation of a
single perceived imperfection in the outcome of a process proves that
the process is flawed, inherently flawed, broken, irretrievably
broken, dead, dead and stinking with the fetid odor of putrescent
decomposition wafting to the outermost reaches of the Kuiper belt.

And should immediately be replaced with a process involving no
community input, or, preferably no human decision-making at all, but
a flawless automatic bot working from a precisely specified intensely-
bright-line algorithmic definition.

This general principle is proved by the recent posting "AFD is dead."


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
First, I would like all to remind I was/am an involved person, so my
words would not be biased even unconsciously.

Sorry, I don't agree with Anthony. I rather agree with Ray, the time
of proper investigation were long past.

There are several people who got the information in question.
- Board members at that time except Angele
- All Election Officials
- Two Office Staff, Danny Wool and Brad Partick.

Already two of the above left the project - I mean Brad and Ryan
Jordan aka Essjay. Essjay was inactive but got the mail. Brad got the
mail, while he didn't commented.

Since not every involved people are here, speculation somehow needs to
fill the empty place. "Who leaked" speculation might not be helpful in
my opinion too.

Rather we need to check the procedure?

On 4/8/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 4/7/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> >
> > >On 4/7/07, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>09/11/06
> > >>- One of the Board members asked us to know the results, promishing
> > >>s/he won't tell anyone
> > >>
> > >>09/13/06
> > >>- The question of informing other Board members was raised. We all
> > >>were in favor of informing the whole Board, except Angela + Foundation
> > >>office employees
> > >>
> > >>09/15/06
> > >>- The Board member who originally requested the results wasn't pleased
> > >>that we provided the results to all the other Board members (at least
> > >>that's what I understood from the email s/he sent) and forwarded them
> > >>to Angela
> > >>
> > >>09/16/06
> > >>- The Board member who orig(blablabla) was concerned with Jimmy's
> > >>email and wanted to declare the elections illegal, but in the end we
> > >>continued them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Let's see then.  Not Angela, since she didn't get the results
> > >originally and she didn't forward them to herself.  Not Jimmy, since
> > >he obviously wasn't mad about his own email.  Ant expressed some anger
> > >publically over Jimmy's email, so it's my bet that she's the one who
> > >originally asked to know the results.
> > >
> > >Of course, it could have been Tim Shell or Michael Davis, I suppose.
> > >
> > I don't see this as useful speculation.  I would take Dariusz's
> > narrative as a basis for informing future decisions about how this kind
> > of thing should be prevented.  The time for finding fault or blaming is
> > long past.
> >
> Finding out what went wrong is the first step to ensuring that
> something doesn't happen again.  Continuing to shroud the details of
> what happened in secrecy is what is not useful.
>
> In fact, I'd say lack of open discussion is exactly what allowed this
> to happen in the first place.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *


from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> considere translacioun.
>
> You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
> going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
> think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
> do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
>
> Mark
>
Unlike elections for admin or other actions on projects involving
personalities, very few Wikimedia users are going to know any of the
individuals who are running for a position on the board.  I know in the
last election I felt a little overwhelmed at trying to even find out
what the key issues that were of concern, and it was even harder to see
who might have philosophies that were similar to what I thought should
be happening as well.  In a very short statement of just 50 words, I
don't see how you can address even a single issue, much less multiple
issues.

Long is relative as well.  It just doesn't seem like there should be
some arbitrary limits if candidates are are actually covering issues.  I
agree that any such statement ought to be concise, and in the interest
of helping translators be as brief as possible.

And as your reply has indicated, it should be free of obscure acronyms
that are not defined.or understood by a large audience.

-- Robert


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 4/7/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> considere translacioun.
>
> You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
> going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
> think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
> do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
>
That's why you should write in a way that starts out general and then
gets more specific.  Short attention spanners can read the first
paragraph; most people can read the first two or three; and then those
with too much time on their hands can read everything.  Or even a
single person might read one paragraph for one candidate (and get
turned off by it) and several paragraphs for another candidate (who
eventually gets eir vote).

One size fits all doesn't seem at all appropriate here.  Translators
obviously have to draw the line at how much their willing to
translate, and a simple rule (we'll only translate the *first* 150
words) seems fair to all.  But telling people to just shut up
altogether after such a short statement doesn't make any sense.  IMO.

This response is 145 words long.  Or so.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 08/04/07, Christopher Hagar <cmhagar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Instant run-off voting is a bad idea and fails some basic requirements for a
> good voting system. For example, you can have situations where: if you rank
> a candidate _higher_ on your ballot, he will actually do _worse_ in the
> election than if you had ranked him lower.

Could you give an example of a situation where that would occur?


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Pilotguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
On 4/7/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/04/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly
> > say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or
> > another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the
> > community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not
> > the fault of the bureaucrat.
>
> Didn't Danny resign his adminship to go through the process of RfA again?
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
He sure did.

--
Pilotguy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
--
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor,
and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site
operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.


from_name: Raimond Spekking

body:
>Hi!
>Could you tell me, where can the localisation of special pages be done or
>how?
>For example in dewiki [[Spezial:Zuf%C3%A4llige_Seite]] works the same way as
>[[Special:Random]].
>I remember, there was a page where one could translate the titles of the
>special pages, have those translations been implemented?
>Do the special pages in huwik have a localised name?

Have a look at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special_page_names#hu If
you can confirm, that these translations are fine, a developer with
SVN access can insert them into the Hungarian language file
MessagesHu.php. If there are errors please correct them. Thanks in
advance.

Raymond.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 07/04/07, Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>
>>I have a very hard time swallowing many of the support votes concerning
>>trust and qualifications when he's shown time and time again that he's
>>been overly abusive with the tools.
>>
>>
>{{fact}}
>
I suppose we could accept a letter from his physician as proof that he
is having difficulty swallowing. ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
Pilotguy wrote:

>On 4/7/07, Oldak Quill wrote:
>
>
>>On 07/04/07, Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly
>>>say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or
>>>another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the
>>>community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not
>>>the fault of the bureaucrat.
>>>
>>>
>>Didn't Danny resign his adminship to go through the process of RfA again?
>>
>>
>He sure did.
>
In the words of Samuel Beckett it's "aggressive masochism".

Ec


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

references:
<ev5n0e$6df$1@sea.gmane.org>	<e692861c0704061004y2f57ffc0wf988ba270195c658@mail.gmail.com>	<7c2a12e20704061126i13131ad4n550e1ae6afc55865@mail.gmail.com>	<200704062032.34387@bloodgate.com>	<ev6d5d$com$1@sea.gmane.org>	<ev6mib$pjj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<evagsb$co0$1@sea.gmane.org>

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

Platonides wrote:
> You could still save it. Take it as an information of "something is
> wrong", just like Firefox console error or not passing the w3c
> validation, not just checking if it renders on quirks mode. Some
> templates are *hard* to check for unmatched {{ }} or tags. This would
> give you a hint about it.
> You can keep it hidden by default if you prefer, but as i originally
> said, having it would be helpful.

Perhaps. But it kind of defeats the purpose, as the ones who know enough
to actually run the code against a validator would also be the ones
least likely to produce non-standards compliant code (I'm not talking
about unmatched braces: just silly things like divs inside of font tags).

And of course, we must do all we can to stop the growth of overly
complex templates.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGGRIOqTO+fYacSNoRAqPrAJ9uXwVloVRmArD9MCRkU/x9j56HnACghv/w
50LVu5D64+0n8qjEYrpfqTw=
=RPui
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Commons-l] The disastrous popularity of Commons

body:
On 08/04/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just what came into my head in ten minutes. There is tons of
> interesting stuff that could be done. Please do some if intend to come
> to Wikimania :]

I don't, sadly :-) but it's also interesting for Commons press releases.

Here's a somewhat-related question: I have ideas for press releases to
drag the general public to Commons at a *fantastic* rate. But do we
want that?

+ more good stuff under free licenses
+ awareness as a separate project
- 10% copyvio rate as is; need more copyright paranoid admins ready to
just go through crap allll the tiiiime
- search still sucks
- Commons is not Flickr - will people try to use it as their personal gallery?
- what to do when people who don't quite get it realise what they've
done (e.g. released pictures of selves or kids under a free content
licence) and want to change their mind?
- stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.

More pluses and minuses please.

I still think Wikipedia got way too popular way too quickly and I
would be much happier if it were a Top 100 site rather than a Top 10
site. It would also be cheaper in bandwidth.

- d.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead

body:
On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> IMHO The admin who closes a renomination should look for people who
> voted in the first afd who changed their vote from "keep" to "delete"
> in determining if consensus really has changed. Lacking that, the
> article should stay unless the article is substantially different from
> what it was when the article was first nominated. Even that case there
> is always the option of reverting it back to its pre-first-nomination
> state.

Looking at the same people is a good idea. I also like to consider
whether different arguments have been raised in different debates.

In this case, the first debate [1] followed a DRV which overturned a
speedy deletion [2]. The debate largely confined itself to the
question of whether the speedy deletion could be justified, and asked
whether the article was an attack page and whether the subject was
notable.

The second debate [3], which also followed a DRV [4], also raised
issues of notability but additionally focused on questions of
reliability of sources, the BLP policy and questions of NPOV.

It seems to me that looking at whether the debate is conducted on a
different basis is a good indicator of changing consensus, just like
whether the same people are expressing different views.

--
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=57117026&oldid=57116376
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer_%282nd_nomination%29
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA reform

body:
Sam Blacketer wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:50:29 +0100, "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>RfA should be reduced to a determination of whether the user is
>>trustworthy or not. Their ability to make intelligent decisions should
>>come into it somewhere.
>>
>>
>That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to
>be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made
>in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance,
>instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were
>asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be
>indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the
>heading over the top of the !votes.
>
It should be enough for a small number of existing admins (perhaps as
many as 10) to say that they have reviewed the person's history, and
find no evidence that he has acted in a way that would be harmful to the
project.  A reasonable and objective level of minimum participation
could be warranted, but that should be specified ahead of time so that
the individual can know where the goalposts are.

A willingness, need or desire to use the entire range of admin tools or
any specific tool should not matter.  The important thing is not whether
he would use them; it is whether he would abuse them.

Meaningful opposition should be based on fact.  Mistrusting a person
because you experienced a psychic vision telling you to do so is not
particularly strong evidence.  Opposing someone because you do not
"feel" that he needs the tools, or that you do not know him, or he has a
different opinion from yours on matters of profound interest to you are
entirely subjective.  Opposition should point to specific examples that
show where the person has acted in an untrustworthy manner.

Unfortunately, the existing RfA system has developed its own inertia
that makes it very difficult to stop without the courageous acts of a
few key individuals.

Ec


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Platonides wrote:
>> Simply an alert of "Note that you have syntax errors" (without automatic
>> machine "fixing") would be helpful.
>
> That would be extremely user-unfriendly. "Wikipedia won't let me
> ediiiiiiit articles! Something about bad sintax!!!!!!11oneone"

You could still save it. Take it as an information of "something is
wrong", just like Firefox console error or not passing the w3c
validation, not just checking if it renders on quirks mode. Some
templates are *hard* to check for unmatched {{ }} or tags. This would
give you a hint about it.
You can keep it hidden by default if you prefer, but as i originally
said, having it would be helpful.


subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
On 07/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

> I have a very hard time swallowing many of the support votes concerning
> trust and qualifications when he's shown time and time again that he's
> been overly abusive with the tools.

{{fact}}

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 08/04/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> As the song says, "Always look on the bright side of life."  A death in
> the pursuit of this jihad of truth will earn you the endless
> ministrations of 100 perpetual virgins.  ;-)

I thought all the middle-aged Star Trek fans were over at Memory Alpha.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Line length

body:
On 08/04/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2007 at 23:08, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I notice the Gmail one doesn't actually ahhh solve the problem with
> > long quotes (there's no "wrap a quote properly") option.

> My observation is that if you stick to replying in plain text mode,
> the formatting is proper.  That seems to be true of most webmail
> services; you should stay away from any "rich text editor" they
> provide if you want messages with standards-compliant formatting.

Nope, in plain text it fails to wrap quoted lines.

- d.


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Anyone want some paying work? (crossposted to
	Mediawiki-l)

body:
My organization (the Center for Media and Democracy) occasionally has
need of people with MediaWiki expertise to help with projects related
to our wiki (www.sourcewatch.org). These projects might include
writing or modifying MediaWiki extensions, advising our webmaster
about server/performance issues, helping make modifications to the
skin, etc. We don't currently have a project in the works, but I'm
trying to compile a list of qualified and interested programmers so
that we have some names on file when we need to hire a consultant. If
anyone here thinks you might be interested, please shoot me an email
at: sheldon at prwatch.org.

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
On 4/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> + more good stuff under free licenses
Absolutely.

> + awareness as a separate project
It would be good, but the reality is that Commons is merely seen as a
support project than a project on its own. If I for example want to
ask somebody's permission to license a file under a free license, I
will say "Wikimedia Commons, the project that provides media to
various Wikimedia projects, inclusive Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia." Why? Simply because this convinces people more easily
that need to license their work freely; they are more likely to accept
that there works may be used commecially and derivative if this is
necessary to get a great exposure at wikipedia, than "just for
storage" on Wikimedia Commons.

> - 10% copyvio rate as is; need more copyright paranoid admins ready to
> just go through crap allll the tiiiime
Sure, we need that. Gmaxwell has some graphs on how fast we delete
images. Moreover, since we have elected 3 new checkusers, we have
found several users who use sockpuppets to evade bans. We do however
indeed more admins to delete the crap.
Recently, odder has started a project to target all untagged images.
It is somewhere near the bottom of [[Commons:Village pump]]

> - search still sucks
We have Mayflower, but it needs to be improved of course.

> - Commons is not Flickr - will people try to use it as their personal gallery?
Interesting question how far we want to extend our hosting services:
I've had a chat with a political youth organisation, who wants to
distribute podcasts over Commons, because they do not have the funding
to do it themselves. The question is of course whether we want this:
It is great to help the freedom of expression, but we are not a free
media host. See also somewhere near the bottom of [[Commons:Village
pump]].

Recently there have been a few deletion requests of users that use
Commons as their personal photo album. The outcome was almost always
'''delete'''. Those kind of images are also sometimes speedied if it
is clear that they have no value for Commons.

> - what to do when people who don't quite get it realise what they've
> done (e.g. released pictures of selves or kids under a free content
> licence) and want to change their mind?
We recently got some of those cases. On one hand we [[don't want to be
a dick]], on the other hand it is very hard whether users really were
not aware that GFDL means commercial use. We are having a case, where
a user cited these reason; it turned out to be that he had a conflict
on his local wiki and wanted to leave all projects and have all his
images deleted. What to do in such cases?

> - stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.
>
> More pluses and minuses please.
>
> I still think Wikipedia got way too popular way too quickly and I
> would be much happier if it were a Top 100 site rather than a Top 10
> site. It would also be cheaper in bandwidth.
I don't know whether bandwith is the real problem. I think that
computing power is more of a problem (am I correct?). Better ask the
Wikimedia Devs.
I don't think that technical problems are the problems with the growth
of Wiki[mp]edia. It is more likely that we simple can't handle the
enourmous amount of (good willing) newcomers.

Bryan


subject: [Commons-l] [Wikisource-l] Wikimania 2007 - Call for Submissions

body:
On 4/8/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> * Commons Picture of the Year - an overview of this event.
>
> * Commons and Flickr - how they interact with each other, how they
> compare, goals/content - Flickrreview etc.
>
I can probably make a poster/help in preparation of presentations and
stuff, but Wikimania itself is for me on the other side of the world,
so I'm almost certainly not going.

Bryan


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> On 4/8/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> Not so notable is the rough dividing line between public figures and
>> those who
>> are not. George W. Bush is a public figure as as most of those who
>> regularly
>> appear in the media. Those whose doings are not ordinarily covered by
>> the
>> media are not public figures, although something interesting may have
>> happened to them and there has been spot coverage.
>
> This is all very vague ("the media") and would IMHO lead to a loss of
> useful biographies of scientists, authors, inventors, and other
> individuals who are not celebrities, but whose work is continuous and
> relevant.

I agree with Erik, and I'd be particularly concerned that such a policy
would make the subject's wishes basically the sole criterion needed for
deletion in many cases. I would prefer to have a system that takes their
preference into account, but is not dictated by it. To some extent our
culture is already moving in that direction. Perhaps not fast enough,
and the issue is complicated because mentioning that such a request was
made brings a lot of knee-jerk resistance that has nothing to do with
the merits of whether we should have an article or not.

This is why I am okay with allowing a group like the team of OTRS
volunteers to occasionally delete things without publicly announcing all
of the considerations involved. They are willing to respond privately to
questions about individual cases, but we also need to respect their
judgment (as we would any other conscientious, good-faith contributor)
and realize that not every issue is suited for public debate.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 4/8/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> > considere translacioun.
> >
> > You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
> > going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
> > think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
> > do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
> >
> That's why you should write in a way that starts out general and then
> gets more specific.  Short attention spanners can read the first
> paragraph; most people can read the first two or three; and then those
> with too much time on their hands can read everything.  Or even a
> single person might read one paragraph for one candidate (and get
> turned off by it) and several paragraphs for another candidate (who
> eventually gets eir vote).
>
> One size fits all doesn't seem at all appropriate here.  Translators
> obviously have to draw the line at how much their willing to
> translate, and a simple rule (we'll only translate the *first* 150
> words) seems fair to all.  But telling people to just shut up
> altogether after such a short statement doesn't make any sense.  IMO.

This is precisely why the subpage proposal is better: it avoids both
displaying untranslated pieces of statements and discouraging voters from
reading them.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
imagined." Henry David Thoreau


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
on 4/8/07 3:04 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:

> It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have
> the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies. This
> suggestion has come up in the context of Daniel Brandt, who has long
> complained, but please address the general question.
>
> I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few
> tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the
> encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but
> would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom
> accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being
> notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its
> content, there is some risk just from having it.

How is notability determined in the encyclopedia?

Marc Riddell


from_name: Bence Damokos

body:
Hi!
Thanks  for your answer.
I did the original translation and now I had it checked for spelling errors
and typos. Now its alright so I would like to ask the developers to insert
them into the Hungarian language file.
Thanks again,
Bence

On 4/8/07, Raimond Spekking <raimond.spekking at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi!
> >Could you tell me, where can the localisation of special pages be done or
> >how?
> >For example in dewiki [[Spezial:Zuf%C3%A4llige_Seite]] works the same way
> as
> >[[Special:Random]].
> >I remember, there was a page where one could translate the titles of the
> >special pages, have those translations been implemented?
> >Do the special pages in huwik have a localised name?
>
> Have a look at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special_page_names#hu If
> you can confirm, that these translations are fine, a developer with
> SVN access can insert them into the Hungarian language file
> MessagesHu.php. If there are errors please correct them. Thanks in
> advance.
>
> Raymond.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] If anybody is remotely interested...

body:
on 4/8/07 12:50 PM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:

> (Probably to be a father in a week or two. Eek ...)

Best of health to mother and child.

(Dad, you're on your own :-) )

Marc Riddell

--
------- Smile - touch a life! -------


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?

body:
Denny Colt wrote:
> Whatever microscopic benefit  can be (argued by some) to be gained by
> linking to a hate site like Wikipedia Review is immediately outweighed by
> the harm that place and similar pages create. They openly hunt for peoples'
> identaties. They have active Jayjg and slimvirgin hunting threads, and for
> others.
>
> Do you support that? How about harassment of others like mongo, and katefan,
> and phaedriel, and so on...?
>
> I have asked multiple people, can you think of a single GOOD reason to link
> to that site in particular, and got not one good answer, only strawmen
> arguments about censorship and mccarthyism.
>

This is a strangely self-centered argument, that seems likely to have
only come up because it's about Wikipedia specifically, and we love
constructing special cases when stuff has to do with us.  We link to
lots and lots of attack sites on Wikipedia, most of them much more
offensive and potentially dangerous than Wikipedia Review.  We even have
an entire article on [[en:Stormfront (website)]], which obviously links
to the site in question.  The criterion for external links isn't that we
*agree* with the link, but that it has some encyclopedic relevance to
the article it's in.  Wikipedia Review most likely does not have
relevance to any article except maybe [[en:Daniel Brandt]]; whether it
should be linked there or not is a content decision based on its
notability.  But a blanket ban on links to "attack sites" is silly, even
if we could define what that meant.

-Mark


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies

body:
On 4/8/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not so notable is the rough dividing line between public figures and those who are not. George W. Bush is a public figure as as most of those who regularly appear in the media. Those whose doings are not ordinarily covered by the media are not public figures, although something interesting may have happened to them and there has been spot coverage.
>
> In your own words, that's a "rough" definition. We need a precise and
> objective one, otherwise this proposal will just result in more
> arguments.

Well, what we're really trying to define here isn't "not so notable"
per se, but rather "sufficiently notable that we'd rather go down
fighting than delete the article if the subject insists on it".  It's
trivial to come up with a precise definition if we're willing to
ignore some of the more borderline cases.  We could, for example, say
that anyone that's the subject of a substantial published biography
(e.g. people with books or large articles about *them*, rather than
people that appear incidentally in reporting on other topics) are so
notable that we'll fight for our ability to have biographies of them.

Kirill