from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-22

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 305 of 314 tests (97.13%) FAILED!


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
In message <06a001c67d24$f193d590$6400a8c0 at Tiny>, Peter Mackay
<peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> writes
>> From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org] On
>>Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>>
>> On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay
>><peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a
>> > photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public
>> > domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
>> sin and you
>> > will get away with it.
>>
>> This whole conversation is getting a bit silly.
>
>If so, why keep on participating. Personally, I'm grateful for the
>discussion steering me towards a possible solution.
>
>> But I don't
>> agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image
>> into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily
>> morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo
>> of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not
>> necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually
>> values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the
>> case that violating it is actually wrong.
>
>It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime
>as stealing a million.
>
>Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different
>question.
>
>Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if
>nobody gives a rat's bum.

Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option which states
something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not
reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this
is intended only to be used in the case of private images which have not
been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all
the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Aleksy Schubert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
Here is the summary of the current information in the thread:
1. different private lists are used here and there among
   various groups of wikipedians and that's natural,
2. private (but publicly advertised) fora for sysops are used
   in some Wikipedia communities,
3. there is usually some kind of resistance against such
   sysop communication channels as they can lead to elite or
   hierarchy that impairs the open nature of Wikipedia,
4. the rationale behind such fora is that
   - they gather the users who at the same time
     are rational and contribute most to the project,
   - they protect discussions from being distracted by
     irresponsible users,
5. the fora have open nature as everybody can apply to
   become an admin and sometimes non-admins get the access
   to them.

To be honest, I know the price of openness as I took part in
a few NPOV resolution actions both on the Polish and the
English Wikipedia. I agree that the price for the openness is
really high in terms of time, personal attacks to endure,
repeated arguments etc. That's why I understand the incentive to
create such mailing lists.

I agree also that Wikipedia must evolve into a more elitist system.
Still, I don't understand what are the principles of this evolution and
where the borders of the elite power are. In particular, I don't
understand what the countermeasures for the elitist nature of such
sysop fora are to ensure the open nature of the project. I don't buy the
arguments that
* everybody can become a member of the elite, because this is a false
   statement (even for those born before 1976),
* the elite is wide enough, because no one presented a criterion for
   "wide enough" elites saying nothing about a method to verify that
   the circle of sysops adheres to that in a reasonable extent,
* and the rest of arguments amounts to bold declarations that members of
   the elite don't have this kind of problems.
I don't buy them because both the history of the real world shows that
such structures degenerate with time.

One more remark, I wouldn't dare to start the thread without seeing the
following points on the Jimbo's Statement of principles page:
   2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal,
      there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure
      which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. [...]
   6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
      regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
      Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=53296302

Bests
Alx-pl

--
De toekomst is onzeker en het einde is altijd nabij
- Roadhouse Blues, The Doors


from_name: Sarah

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On 5/21/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead of threatening to bring down the wrath of the Muslim world
> upon us, I think you'd be better off explaining why your apparent
> obsession with Jews and Zionism is compatible with our mission of
> compiling a neutral, accurate encyclopedia.

Apart from the reverting, the 3RR violation, the sockpuppetry, the
copyright violation, the repeated unsourced insertion that a serial
killer was Jewish, and the all-round obsession with Jews, there was
this comment in response to an October 2004 post from banned user
Alberuni (who had similar problems): "well he [Jayjg] seems to be
stalking me to put his zionist POV, saladin, but never mind this is to
be expected of zionists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_Territories&diff=prev&oldid=53820887

This is exactly the kind of comment and attitude we can do without.

Sarah


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
Ronald Chmara wrote:
> Seriously though, 5,50, or even 500 people may create a publicly
> unknown mailing list, IRC channel, whatever, but in the end, they lack
> the ability to effectively have more "control" over wikipedia, as a
> group, than 5,50,or 500 independent people who have *no* participation
> in private mailing lists, or chats, or whatever. In order for a group
> to gain that level of control, they would have to have a consensus of
> the community, in which case, where they discuss things, and how they
> discuss things, is irrelevant.
>
Precisely. You cannot forbid people to form mailing lists and such. I
think that it's necessary that there should sometimes exist some mailing
lists that are private, because of the sensitive data that is being
conveyed. At the Serbian Wikipedia, from time to time, we use e-mails
with CCs to different people for some really private discussions and I
think that's clever, because sometimes, public discussions are not
welcome for some topics. Bottom line - no one can restrict it and god
knows how many private mailing lists there are and we can't do anything
about it. The consensus in the community will determine the outcome no
matter how many people were subscribed to those lists.
Filip


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
 > You're belittling the value of such a project by suggesting it would
 > only be useful for those "unable" to cope with wiki syntax. I have no
 > problems with it, but I suspect I would be faster editing directly
 > with word, being able to select text, press ctrl+b to bold/unbold etc.
 > But god, can we please not turn this discussion into an argument on
 > the value of WYSIWYG in general? There are those who like it, and
 > those who don't. So long as those who like it do not impinge upon
 > those who don't (by forcing it on them, reformatting whole articles
 > etc) and as long as there is someone willing to develop such a thing,
 > there should not be a problem.

While I actually like the idea of your macro script, I'm worried that
any WYSIWYG-style project /would/ impinge on those wouldn't prefer to
use it. From the fun I've had with TinyMCE and FrontPage, it seems that
WYSIWYG editors have a knack for reformatting entire documents. As far
as TinyMCE is concerned, that editor actually reduces its posts down to
a single, incredibly lengthy line of code by removing all linebreaks.

Hasn't Wikipedia seen edit wars where users have converted whole
articles to fit a certain footnote templating scheme? Imagine if that
were done to all but the most basic aspects of an article's source code.
One consequence would be that diffs would quickly become useless as
every line of an article's source is automatically changed in some way.
I'd imagine that a macro like the one you're proposing would be more
suitable for a company's internal MediaWiki installation, where the
underlying page source wouldn't matter so much to people.

I'm not familiar with Word's macro language, but for some inspiration,
you may want to take a look at Parser.php
<http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/Parser.php?view=log>,
which contains the functions that convert wikitext into XHTML.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_uses
Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point,
*****establish context*****, or attribute a point of view or idea may be
used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be
clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change
of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

see also
What is fair use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

    Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it? Did
they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as
with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a
viewer is interested in doing so?

Below is the insertion to illustrate that it conforms to the above,
especially given the about the book section runs into around 300 lines.

"here is a breif extract about the book from the web site site

About the Book
The Zionism of the book's title is Jewish nationalism, the creating and
sustaining force of modern Israel. And this Zionism, political Zionism, is
not to be confused with what could be called the spiritual Zionism of
Judaism. Awareness of the difference between political Zionism and Judaism
is the key to understanding why it is perfectly possible to passionately
anti-Zionist without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic or
anti-Israel inside its pre-1967 borders.

For a summary understanding of the difference click on THE MONSTER OF
ANTI-SEMITISM - HOW TO DESTROY IT.

ZIONISM: THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS was chosen by the author as the title
for the book because, in seven words, it reflects two terrifying truths for
our time.

The first is that more than half a century on from the obscenity of the Nazi
holocaust, anti-Semitism is on the rise again in the nations of the mainly
Gentile world where most of the world's Jews (diaspora Jews) live as
assimilated citizens of those nations.

The second, a great and tragic irony, is that the behaviour of Zionism's
child, Israel, where only a minority of the world's Jews live giving
substance to Jewish nationalism in action, is the prime cause of the
re-awakening of the sleeping giant of anti-Semitism. As all the best Jewish
minds of the pre-holocaust period feared would be the case if Zionism was
allowed to have its way."

This is clearly not copyright infringements. At best you should have
challenged me about it,

secondly, i have not read any evidence of 'personal attacks' that remotely
justifies a ban.

which means your indefinate ban , only only my first ban was against
wikipedia policies, to the letter

p.s as to your reference to abu hamza. That is my email, it has been my
email for over 6 years, and has nothing to do with my wiki nick name.

Imagine what 1. 7 billion muslims would think of the wikipedia policy of
open community if you were banned indefinately for just calling yourself abu
hamza, a name as common as john.

>From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban
>Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:03:38 -0400
>
>On 5/21/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > well jaygy, i haven't seen anything from you , to justify a ban at all.
> > If i recall you stated i was to be banned indefinately because
> >
> > a) copy right violations.
> > You have still as yet to produce any evidence for this. If you can't
>that
> > means you deliberately lied in order to justify blocking me
>
>or the 3rd time, you copied large sections of text verbatim 3 times
>from the zionism-realenemyofthejews.com into the Alan Hart article.
>Here are the links where you did it:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&oldid=30102511
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid=53345764
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid=53825560
>
>I also listed in previous e-mails your attacks on Talk: pages etc.  Do
>you plan to claim for a 4th time that I have produced no evidence of
>your copyright violations?   Do you plan to yet again claim it was
>your "friends" who were reverting for you from your home and
>workplace?  Do you plan to again claim that the fact that the real Abu
>Hamza claims Harold Shipman is a Jew, and you keep inserting that
>claim into the article on Harold Shipman, has nothing to do with your
>chosen name "Abu Hamza"?
>
>Your continued denials of behavior that has already been documented
>show quite well why your indefinite ban is justified.
>
>Jay.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com> wrote:
> I dunno... I have TinyMCE embedded into my copy of Movable Type, and I
> can tell you it does some /serious/ reformatting every time you load it.
[snip]

I was going to stay quiet on this one, but someone else is objecting...

WYSISYG editing isn't what we want most editors on Wikipedia to have.

We want them to have WYSIWYM (What you see is what you mean).  We
generally do not want editors fussing with appearance too much while
working on content, at least so long as we want people to stay
productive (rather than spending hours futzing with getting the most
attractive customized fonts for every heading) and so long as we want
the look and feel to be even remotely consistent.

Our current system gets us pretty close to this, although the syntax
does present a little learning curve. However, if people are really
put off by the inability to do pretty formatting without a minimal
amount of studying... can we really expect them to grok wiki writing
overall?

So, improved editing systems.. not a bad thing, so long as we stay
clear of turning the interface into a toy.


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett

> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal
> > attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the
> > subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
> >
>
> Is "creator" well defined anywhere? If you have the idea to
> take a photo of yourself against a particular background,
> choose the spot, set the camera settings, frame it, then hand
> it to a passerby saying "can you press this button when I say
> GO", and later download the photo, photoshop it, crop it,
> upload it etc - are you really saying that that passer by is
> the "creator" of the photo?

I don't know. Given the often high-level debate here about finer points of
fair use and terms of free licenses, I was hoping for some definitive
answer. My own smiling user picture was removed some months ago on these
grounds and there was nothing I could do about it.

I can't ask the subject of the photograph, but I suggest that your scenario
above is rather fanciful. The image is tilted, which indicates to me that a
tripod wasn't used, and that it wasn't photoshopped and cropped. In any
case, manipulating a pre-existing image taken by somebody else doesn't give
you copyright over the resulting image, not unless you make some really
major changes which clearly has not occurred in this case.

Nor is having the idea for a particular photograph enough to give you
copyright over an image taken by somebody else. I don't know about "setting
the settings" - you may have some point here - but on examining this image
it doesn't seem to have been taken in any particularly challenging lighting
or other conditions. Depth of field, the "flat" lighting of an overcast day
- it all looks to me like the camera was set on automatic and the autofocus
picked out the subject.

It looks to me unremarkable in every way. There must be a million happy
snaps out there taken in the same location all looking much the same.

> No idea if that's the case here, but I don't think the button
> pusher should necessarily get all the credit, or even *any*
> credit if they've been told exactly what to do.

Point and shoot? That's about all that anyone does with a digital camera
nowadays.

--Peter in Canberra


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/22/06, Plyd <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> wrote:
>> About Wysiwyg, I think that we could limit functionalities in order to
>> encourage people to write "normally" and don't add lots of unusefull
>> stupid tags. But Wysiwyg has its real value for tables&co, because for
>> beginners this is a complete mess. What about an hybrid system ?
>
> Ok, there are obviously two different meanings to WYSIWYG that are being used.
>
> 1) Allowing free formatting, such that any combinations of colours,
> fonts, font sizes etc can be used (not a good idea)

We have this right now, so I can tell you right now that this is orthogonal to
the issue of WYSIWYG (or WYSIWYM).

Fancy colors aren't something we'd want to make _easy_ because they're not
something we generally encourage in clean text. But they'd be _possible_ because
they're possible in our markup.

> 2) Allowing normal Wiki formatting (bold, italics, headings, tables,
> images) to be edited graphically, rather than through Wiki syntax
> (good idea?)

At least potentially this is a good idea.

In practice, public-ready implementation will have to hold off until the markup
is defined well enough that we have reversible transformations and can 'hold
out' fancy stuff like images, templates, extensions, and parser functions
cleanly into WYSIWYM-friendly chunks.

We will likely not have "true" WYSIWYG in the sense of it the editing view being
exactly 100% one and the same as the reading view, because things like embedded
data, plugins, templates etc really require some separation.

I'd like to get a working group together to start making the specification
happen soon:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060522/191c3c85/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

body:
Michelle wrote:
>
> Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>
>> May I ask you what reason you'd have stated for your block?
>> I'd like to state beforehand, that "Image removal" is not part
>> of the Blocking policy, and ignoring content suggestions
>> (resp. orders) from administrators (or block warnings for
>> not to obeying to them) is neither.
>>
>>
>>
> Since you've apparently read the Blocking policy, you did see the part
> about disruption, right?
> I'm fairly certain you're now just going to argue that you weren't being
> disruptive.

Yeah sure. "Disruption" is the loophole for administrators,
who can't find any other policy, which backs their action.
Can you elaborate in which way the two times I've moved
the cartoons behind a link in five days, disrupted the normal
functioning of Wikipedia to warrant a 7 day block?

Btw. WP:BP#Disruption states, that inserting material that
may be defamatory may lead to a block, but so far nobody
has been blocked for inserting the defamatory cartoons.

> And for the record, you were ignoring an overwhelming consensus rarely
> seen on any subject (see the poll on the issue you conveniently forget
> about), not a few suggestions.
>

I wonder, whether you are familiar with the [[Wikipedia:No binding
decisions]] policy. There is no reason why a 3 month old poll,
which gets ignored by about 10 editors/week (if the article is not
protected as it seems to be necessary most of the time), should
be regarded as binding.

"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots.
A consensus of idiots does not override good sense.
Wikipedia is not a democracy." (Jimbo Wales)

I wouldn't use those words btw, but I agree with them "in spirit".

--
Raphael


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] to rob

body:
On May 22, 2006, at 1:20 AM, abu hamza wrote:

> And as to the wrath of 1.7 billion muslims. If wikipedia is to what
> is says
> on the can, be a community and not just an anglo american community
> then it
> needs to address the very real biases, such as using someones email
> name of
> abu hamza as a reason for banning. what do you think rob

It's not using the name "abu hamza". It's your obsession with the
Jews as well as your rigid and biased editing patterns *and* using
the name "abu hamza".

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Sep 11 memorial, systemic bias, lunacy in Wikipedians,
	and other fine topics (was Re:  jaygy and indefinate ban)

body:
Attention Mark Gallagher:

You have been trolled.

You have lost.

Have a nice day.

Attention all others:

Do not feed the trolls.

That is all.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Humus Sapiens wrote:
>
> On 5/20/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote:
>> [?]
>> Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?
> Let's respect everyone's privacy please.
> I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum.
>
Check again what he actually asked.

The question was not "what is your real name?" it was "is that name you are
using actually your real name?" which is not necessarily the same thing.

FYI, and just in case you were wondering, the likely reason for wanting to
know this can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

This is not a name without connotations, and the reasons for choosing it
might make interesting reading.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unblock+request-t1648883.html#a4502537
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Prasad J

body:
On May 22, 2006, at 2:10 AM, Prasad J wrote:

> Ignorant? I suggest you examine the data presented by various
> scientists in support of this theory. Incase you are unable to
> comprehend such scientific arguements, go through through the logical
> arguements put forth at http://www.reopen911.org/.

OH MY GOD. Prasad, we've put up with your shit for long enough. This
list is about Wikipedia. This list is not about denouncing America or
arguing about whether the World Trade Center was destroyed by planted
explosives. Everybody who isn't from the United States hates America.
We get it. Now please kindly shut up about it or unsubscribe from the
list.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Prasad J wrote:
>
> You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts
> the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be?
>
Same as with all the other nitwit celebrity impersonators: if she cannot
show extravagant proof that she is indeed the famous person whom she claims
to be, she will be blocked indefinitely for choosing an inappropriate
user-name.

What did you expect? A rubber biscuit?
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unblock+request-t1648883.html#a4502629
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
"Bj?rn Lindqvist" wrote:
>
>> >> There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't
>> >> welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia
>> >> towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic
>> >> ideology is no different.
>> > As always, Wikipedia is not concerned with the political views of its
>> > contributors.
>> As always, Wikipedia is concerned with contributors editing Wikipedia
>> to further a political agenda.
> No.
>
WTF? Would you care to review your above reply in the light of WP:NPOV and
consider rewording it?
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unblock+request-t1648883.html#a4502702
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On 5/22/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Apart from the reverting, the 3RR violation, the sockpuppetry, the
> copyright violation, the repeated unsourced insertion that a serial
> killer was Jewish, and the all-round obsession with Jews, there was
> this comment in response to an October 2004 post from banned user
> Alberuni (who had similar problems): "well he [Jayjg] seems to be
> stalking me to put his zionist POV, saladin, but never mind this is to
> be expected of zionists."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_Territories&diff=prev&oldid=53820887
>
> This is exactly the kind of comment and attitude we can do without.

Don't think I don't entirely agree, but I was trying to get through to
him that wikilaywering and threats of a mass uprising won't help his
case.  His case, such as it is, depends upon him convincing us that
he's not here to use Wikipedia to fight Jews.  I don't think he's
convinced anyone of that yet, but he's not going to do it by arguing
about fair use.


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I suggest you change
> your username to "America_Rules" and then ask for an unblock !

Or Lynndie England.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Gallagher

> G'day Pete,
>
> > I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal
> > attacks, and I came across a photograph on a user page where the
> > subject of the photograph states that he is the creator.
> >
> > I refer to
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> > clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other
> > support such as a wall.
>
> Okay, you have a point, but given your history I find it hard
> to believe
> you found these particular images during harmless "research".

Research is what I was doing, Mark. I'm not asleep until October. Like you,
I keep an eye on what people are saying about me and this
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AXtra&diff=53458305&ol
did=52631183] came up during a search on my name. I also noticed reference
on the same page to the same person being blocked for making personal
attacks. And swiftly unblocked. Working out what was going on was research,
and I think you can understand why I'd take an interest.

As you know, the thrust of my ArbCom case was that this particular user was
singling me out for abuse. I got a month in the cooler and he got a slap on
the wrist - an admonition from the ArbCom to be more civil in future. Yet
he's still making savage personal attacks against other editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elections_in_Cuba&diff=prev&o
ldid=51652019 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aidan_Work&diff=prev&old
id=31166859 are subjects for recent discussion on WP:ANI. He's always done
it and given that he ignores ArbCom rulings, he always will.

Do you understand how outrageous this is? Do you understand why I have
limited respect for the internal "justice system"? I'll take my hat off to
this user for a lot of the edit work he does, but his behaviour is dead
against wikipolicy. He is a revert warrior, he pursues vendettas, he abuses
other editors, and when he gets in a jam, he whistles up some friendly
admins. No wonder people talk about cliques and cabals.

My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken by someone else
as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many photographs on
user pages. How I got to this particular is really immaterial, and I
mentioned research in case someone like you wondered why I chose this user
as an example.

--Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro

> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > I refer to
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> > clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other
> > support such as a wall.
> >
> Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and
> so it's a work for hire.

We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP. In any case, the license
used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is the creator, and to
my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the subject, then
the subject is NOT the creator of the image.

> Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.

There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is that I can't.

--Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Prasad J

> I agree with Anthony, maybe the person who actually
> photographed the concerned user  was in a technical sense
> "working" for the latter.

Maybe. We don't know. Can anybody steer me to a good reference on this
point?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the
> default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still
> there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a
> nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this
> particular page, you can't edit it at this moment.
>
For the avoidance of doubt, this would be in the form of boilerplate text at
the top of the usual "display source" mode, right, so the wikitext would be
visible like normal?

Makes good sense to me, so long as we provide adequate explanation of why
they can't edit this page at this time, and give them some way of
determining when the limitation will lift for them.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proposal%3A+limited+extension+of+semi-protection+policy-t1653424.html#a4503222
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] to rob

body:
On 5/22/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> obsession with zionism? no more so that slimline or humus sapien.
> am i interested in the zionist page having a NPOV. Absolutely, which is why
> i inserted a section on the three talmuds, as per wikipedia NPOV, wherebye a
> NPOV is not just presenting a majority view, but includes minority views in
> proportion. After all the middle east is the major conflict region at the
> moment, and the least we can do is to have the most popular site describing
> zionism reflect a NPOV.
>
> And as to the wrath of 1.7 billion muslims. If wikipedia is to what is says
> on the can, be a community and not just an anglo american community then it
> needs to address the very real biases, such as using someones email name of
> abu hamza as a reason for banning. what do you think rob
>
Please stop dissembling. You were not blocked because of your e-mail
name, but for multiple policy violations and general poor editing.

Sarah


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Sep 11 memorial, systemic bias, lunacy in Wikipedians,
	and other fine topics (was Re: jaygy and indefinate ban)

body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignorant? I suggest you examine the data presented by various
> scientists in support of this theory. Incase you are unable to
> comprehend such scientific arguements, go through through the logical
> arguements put forth at http://www.reopen911.org/.

You've stumbled upon a common-sense systemic bias, not an American one.

Sarah


body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> common-sense systemic bias
>
> Common sense shows that the U.S would have major geo-politcal motives
> for orchecstrating the 9/11 attacks. You will agree that the
> occuaption of the oil-rich country of Iraq,the extension of U.S
> military presence in Afghanistan [which provides America with a
> certain amount of significance in the Indian Subcontinent (a highly
> important area in terms of political significance)] will be enough
> motive for the U.S to fake the "terrorist attacks" on 9/11.

No, by common sense, I meant the ability to decide which sources are
worth paying attention to, and which should be ignored.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nor is having the idea for a particular photograph enough
> to give you
> > copyright over an image taken by somebody else. I don't know about
> > "setting the settings" - you may have some point here - but on
> > examining this image it doesn't seem to have been taken in any
> > particularly challenging lighting
> > or other conditions. Depth of field, the "flat" lighting of
> an overcast
> > day
> > - it all looks to me like the camera was set on automatic and the
> > autofocus
> > picked out the subject.
> >
> > It looks to me unremarkable in every way. There must be a million
> > happy snaps out there taken in the same location all
> looking much the
> > same.
>
> If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole
> question of copyright totally moot?

Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license status of
photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs themselves are good
or bad, exciting or boring.

> Can you claim copyright
> over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in
> a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night?

????

> Such a bad photo as that one hardly seems to fulfil any
> criteria for creativity - the person aimed in roughly the
> right direction and pressed a button.

I wouldn't call it a bad photograph. It's slightly tilted, but that's easily
fixed. There's no sparkle to it, but that's more the fault of the lighting
than anything else. From the subject's point of view it is pretty good. It
shows him in front of a famous landmark and is admirably suited to the
user's page, showing what he is doing.

My problem lies with the fact that he has called himself the creator of the
photograph and released it into the public domain when to my mind copyright
belongs to the photographer rather than the subject.
>
> Point and shoot? That's about all that anyone does with a
> digital camera
> > nowadays.
>
> Most people - but not all.

Sure. But there is no evidence in this photograph that the subject "set the
settings", as you surmised earlier. It looks like a straight "point and
shoot" image to me.

Pete


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Blocked user Thewolfstar creating "legitimate"
	sockpuppets?

body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was conversing to the indefinitely blocked user Thewolfstar (which I
> believe is her username) and she claims that Bishnonen in this message
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dot_Bitch#Indefinite_username_block
> is urging her to create sockpuppets to evade the block. I'm very
> doubtful of Maggie's (which is apparently Thewolfstar's name) claim
> and, since Maggie is a somewhat notorious troll, would suggest that an
> Administrator look into it. Amggie wused to troll the mailing-list
> under the e-mail ID thewolfstar at gmail.com and contact at earthhope.net
> but was apparently blocked. She was also indefeintely blocked from
> Wikipedia after the Community agreed that she was trolling and pushing
> her point-of-view.

There's nothing to look into. Bishonen was advising her to keep her
head down and become a useful editor, as you can see yourself from the
thread.

Sarah


from_name: Eugene Zelenko

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Classical Belarusian in Wikipedia

body:
Hi!

> > Why do you think that your opinion is only neutral one? There are
> ...
> Because it wasn't even disputed -- disputed as in "advancing arguments
> and proving the point". Assertion (e.g., that my opinion "isn't
> neutral") isn't really discussion.
>
> Same matter with other points I've made.
> ...
> > Sorry, but I think discussion was in good faith. May be result are not
> > are same as you wanted, but it's how compromise could be reached. We
> > are still open for discussion.
>
> My proposals didn't mean to get me "what I wanted". My proposals were
> meant to achieve some sort of consensus -- meaning *acceptable* for
> all concerned -- in Be: WP community.
>
> Once again -- I wouldn't *like* the rules amended in my way, but they
> would be *acceptable*.

I think one person could not speak for all community. You have valid
points, but why do you dismiss the same right for other people?

Rules should be acceptable for all contributors, this is reason, why
all opinion should be accepted, not only yours.

> And yes, I do not believe in "good faith" of your fraction any more.
> (Just look at what your pal Kiryl writes here or what your pals wrote
> in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with
> demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)

As far as I remember, Kiryl and you had a conflict in the past. This
explains a lot.

> Sorry everybody, I just couldn't let this fly.

I think good idea to discuss this first on be:, not behind the backs
of be: contributors.

With best regards,
Eugene.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken
> by someone
> > else as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many
> > photographs on user pages. How I got to this particular is really
> > immaterial, and I mentioned research in case someone like
> you wondered
> > why I chose this user as an example.
>
>
> With respect, it's really not important, and was probably a
> tag slapped on in haste, knowing that no one is going to
> dispute the copyright of that image,

I dispute it, and I raise the point for other user photographs on WP. Here
are a few I've pulled in from all over the place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Early_photgraph_of_CambridgeBayWeather.jp
g A professional studio portrait purporting to be released into Public
Domain by the subject claiming to be the creator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Musical_linguist.jpeg is shown as GFDL,
albeit with a bit of honesty: "was taken by my niece, with my camera".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedian_Admrboltz.jpg GFDL
CC-BY-SA-All
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alkivar-002-TWEAKED.jpg PD (with
permission from a website).

> and that no one is ever
> going to attempt to reuse it for anything. Our system isn't
> really geared to handle these types of images - what tag
> would *you* have put on it? All I can think of is getting the
> creator (yes, that random passerby) to write an email
> certifying that they release it under GFDL, and we could
> *still* dispute whether it was actually them or not.

I'd put a fair use tag on it.

But I note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimmy_Wales.jpg is
uploaded by the photographer and released into the PD.

> We don't really have a way of dealing with images whose
> copyright value is so low as to actually be negligible.
> Copyright is not like other laws - if it's inconceivable that
> anyone could actually sue us over it, or even complain about
> it, there is not, afaik, any problem with us violating it.

So why not put fair use on it? Sure, it's a copyvio, but not one that is
going to concern too many courts, given its nature.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Just good advice. Except for a few users with fixed ips any banned
user who creates a new account and edits in a responsible way is
essentially "under our radar" and undetectable. But of course, as the
reason for indefinite banning is persistent bad behavior, this course
of action is unavailable simply for the purpose of indefinitely
continuing the behavior which got the user banned in the first place.
Thewolfstar, aka Dot_Bitch for that reason seems quite unable to
avail herself of this loophole.

Fred

On May 22, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Prasad J wrote:

> I was conversing to the indefinitely blocked user Thewolfstar (which I
> believe is her username) and she claims that Bishnonen in this message
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> User_talk:Dot_Bitch#Indefinite_username_block
> is urging her to create sockpuppets to evade the block. I'm very
> doubtful of Maggie's (which is apparently Thewolfstar's name) claim
> and, since Maggie is a somewhat notorious troll, would suggest that an
> Administrator look into it. Amggie wused to troll the mailing-list
> under the e-mail ID thewolfstar at gmail.com and contact at earthhope.net
> but was apparently blocked. She was also indefeintely blocked from
> Wikipedia after the Community agreed that she was trolling and pushing
> her point-of-view.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Steve,

> On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I am liking this idea.  Essentially the idea here it to move the
>>notification from the page where you read to the page where you have
>>attempted to edit but can't.  In this way, when someone tries to edit,
>>they get a friendly explanation of how to join the community.  But if
>>they are just trying to read, they don't have to see a notice that is
>>probably fairly useless and bewildering to them.
>
> It's even more confusing now that I see there's a phrase about "or to stop
> banned editors from editing". Is this such a common situation that it's
> worth mentioning? People there to read about GWB really don't need to know
> about the effect that a few recidivist prats occasionally have on our
> community...

Indeed.  There's a suggestion W3C made about ... oooh ... nine years
ago: "don't mention the mechanics".  In practical terms, it means two
things:

   a) Your readers don't care how things work, just that they work.
      Don't give someone an explanation of how HTTP works when all they
      want to do is follow a link to look at Pok?mon screenshots.

   b) Don't assume that your readers will follow certain procedures to
      read your website.  Don't say "click this anchor reference" when
      you could just as easily say "follow this link".  If you assumed
      all your readers were Lynx users, and wrote "make this the active
      link, then press the right arrow on your keyboard", you'd confuse
      the heck out of anyone using Internet Explorer.

I think we need to be conscious of something like that on Wikipedia.
For example, in those damned {{test}} templates, people keep
re-inserting the words "or reverted" in the bog-standard "your test
worked, and has been removed".  Why do editors making tests care about
the Wikipedia keyword "revert"?  The template exists to reassure testers
that their changes did no lasting damage, and to invite them to kindly
stop making them, please.

Likewise, why should a person trying to read about Lyndon LaRouche[0]
need to know that that scurrilous bastard Adam Carr used his influence
with the Cabal to get the LaRouchites banned from editing LaRouche
articles[1]?

Our love for making new rules for each other to follow displays itself
in peculiar ways.  Not only do we fill our Wikipedia lives with
unnecessary procedure, but we then go on to *boast* about it to
completely uninterested editors.  "Look," we seem to be saying, "on
George W. Bush we have a mechanism to keep banned users from editing!
Isn't that great?  Click this anchor reference to read about the
policies we followed when we banned his arse!  How would you like to
stop studying for your high school essay and start reading about ArbCom?
  If you want, you can click this other anchor reference.  Whee!"

There's a region between "being transparent" and "confusing the heck out
of our readers because we're so fond of little pastel boxes", and it's a
region we really need to be inhabiting.

[0] I've really got to stop using this fellow in all my examples.
     Fortunately, nobody actually reads what I write, so probably
     nobody's noticed the pattern yet.

[1] Hi, Peter!  You're in good company!

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
> Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 6:00 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs
>
>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> > > DiPierro
> >
> > > On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > I refer to
> > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> > > > clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod
> or other
> > > > support such as a wall.
> > > >
> > > Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so
> > > it's a work for hire.
> >
> > We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.
>
> No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.

See below.

> > In any case, the license
> > used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is
> the creator,
> > and to my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the
> > subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
> >
> I'd say the template should be changed, then.  I was going to
> say it should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but
> if it's public domain then the person no longer is a
> copyright holder.  If you've got a suggestion how to better
> phrase the template so that it encompasses the situation of a
> work made for hire, let us know.

Is it made for hire? That's a guess.

As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough
that it needs clarifying.

> > > Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
> >
> > There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
> that I can't.
> >
> I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But
> maybe you're banned from that too.  Anyway, is the second
> reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to
> make trouble?

No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were
saying about AGF?

The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's
page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where
they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks
like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is
setting a good example.

Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
...
> >
> > > If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the
> whole question
> > > of copyright totally moot?
> >
> > Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license
> status of
> > photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs
> themselves are
> > good or bad, exciting or boring.
>
> I think it does matter what the chances of the copyright
> violatee making a complaint are. I could be wrong on this.
> But if we are to focus our efforts anywhere, surely they
> should be areas where there actually is a potential complainant.

I take your point, but why should we encourage or condone bad license
attributions?

> > Can you claim copyright
> > > over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in a
> > > cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night?
> >
> > ????
>
> Well, apparently you can copyright pointing a device that
> takes a photo and pressing a button - with no further
> creative input.  As you pointed out, it's not necessarily a
> creative process.

Please don't be crass. Possibly the photographer went to immense trouble to
take a photograph. It doesn't matter, anyway. We can't just claim copyright
over photographs because we think that the photographer didn't have much
creative input.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
>
> The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.

In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?

> In a situation
> like this, I think we can, for once, assume good faith in
> terms of copyright -- that the person who is providing the
> picture of themselves has the ability to make some claims as
> to its copyrightable status. I see no reason to doubt it in
> this instance, or in most instances where users are using
> pictures of themselves.

I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the subject, the
question of copyright becomes non-trivial.

My reading is that people are uploading pictures of themselves onto their
user pages, knowing quite well that they are non-controversial, but that
they don't have a suitable template to choose from.

I think that claim to be the creator of the work not because they know that
they hold copyright, but because they can't find a better template. I
suggest that most people uploading images of themselves would have doubt
about the status.

Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro

>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
> >
> I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  You seem to care,
> but yet you don't want to ask the only person who knows.

Well, aren't you the one who raised the "made for hire" point originally? If
you don't care, then why bother?

> > As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation
> is common
> > enough that it needs clarifying.
> >
> I agree that it'd be useful to clarify it, but I can't think
> of a better phrasing.

I'm hoping that those on the list who actually know about this stuff can
give an opinion.

> > > > > Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
> > > that I can't.
> > > >
> > > I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But maybe
> > > you're banned from that too.  Anyway, is the second
> reason that you
> > > don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
> >
> > No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is
> it you were
> > saying about AGF?
> >
> He's an admin, you're a banned user.

Well, that's not true. You should check your facts.

> Seriously, though, if you "wonder
> about how people [handle] uploading photographs where they
> are the subject but not the creator", just ask.  I'd say they
> should be handled like any other photo.

Well, I agree. My point is that claiming to be the creator of a photograph
you didn't take is a bit rich when you are assigning a free license to it.
Claiming fair use seems to be a better way of going about it. We use fair
use images non-controversially to illustrate biographical articles, why not
do the same thing for user pages, which are similar in nature?

Pete, wondering if common sense might apply here


body:
Hi!

> >or what your pals wrote
> > > in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with
> > > demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)
>
> Definitly I am not pleased with any kind of demise or something like
> that. My only point is that belarusian community should be united.
> Period.

Absolutely agree with this idea,
Eugene


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.
> > In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?
>
> Nope! Just the legal aspect is enough, thanks. That's enough,
> without worrying about ethics. Let the person uploading the
> photo worry about the ethics.
>
> > I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the
> > subject, the question of copyright becomes non-trivial.
>
> Sorry, it's pretty trivial in this case. If the picture in
> question was being used to make big bucks somewhere, or was
> at least the work of a professional, sure, it might be worth
> worrying about. But for casual shots, it is not only
> unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases
> about the copyright status, but the risk of legal
> intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case
> like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner
> who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very
> low priority.

You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it,
but I think you misunderstand my point.

I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is
the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with *zero*
risk of being sued?

Jimbo seems to have gone about it by obeying the rules. Perhaps we should
emulate his example?

Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Arwel Parry
>
> I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling
> copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright
> holder is inherently indeterminable.
>
> For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary
> school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it
> reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under
> GFDL, or PD
> or whatever, as:
> - I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
> children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
> - my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
> shilling or two),
> - it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of
> the portrait
> survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
> - the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
> - I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use
> of the photo
> (except on grounds of artistic taste!)
>
> Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in
> Wikipedia under
> any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the
> theoretical
> copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of
> tracing effort?

In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to
which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally
indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with it.
But fair use to illustrate a user page seems reasonable to me.

Pete, stealing the moral high ground


subject: [WikiEN-l] to rob

body:
obsession with zionism? no more so that slimline or humus sapien.
am i interested in the zionist page having a NPOV. Absolutely, which is why
i inserted a section on the three talmuds, as per wikipedia NPOV, wherebye a
NPOV is not just presenting a majority view, but includes minority views in
proportion. After all the middle east is the major conflict region at the
moment, and the least we can do is to have the most popular site describing
zionism reflect a NPOV.

And as to the wrath of 1.7 billion muslims. If wikipedia is to what is says
on the can, be a community and not just an anglo american community then it
needs to address the very real biases, such as using someones email name of
abu hamza as a reason for banning. what do you think rob

>From: Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:00:23 -0400
>
>On 5/21/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is clearly not copyright infringements. At best you should have
> > challenged me about it,
>
>To sidestep the copyright/fair use issue for a second, this material
>is inappropriate for the article regardless.  Large excerpts from
>promotional material or press releases are generally considered
>inappropriate for Wikipedia articles.
>
> > Imagine what 1. 7 billion muslims would think of the wikipedia policy of
> > open community if you were banned indefinately for just calling yourself
>abu
> > hamza, a name as common as john.
>
>Instead of threatening to bring down the wrath of the Muslim world
>upon us, I think you'd be better off explaining why your apparent
>obsession with Jews and Zionism is compatible with our mission of
>compiling a neutral, accurate encyclopedia.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a
> > photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public
> > domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
> sin and you
> > will get away with it.
>
> This whole conversation is getting a bit silly.

If so, why keep on participating. Personally, I'm grateful for the
discussion steering me towards a possible solution.

> But I don't
> agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image
> into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily
> morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo
> of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not
> necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually
> values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the
> case that violating it is actually wrong.

It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime
as stealing a million.

Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different
question.

Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if
nobody gives a rat's bum.

Which is pretty much how I feel about this end of the conversation.

Peter


from_name: Rosa, Michael

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Restricted-access list (RE:  Secret admin list)

body:
>One more remark, I wouldn't dare to start the thread without
>seeing the following points on the Jimbo's Statement of
>principles page:
>   2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal,
>      there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure
>      which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. [...]
>   6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
>      regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
>      Wikipedia.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales/Stat
ement_of_principles&oldid=53296302
>
>Bests
>Alx-pl

Really, a point of order - there was never any "secret" list, it was not
created in secret, it was not meant to be a secret.  As already stated
by Tomasz earlier in the thread it was created as a "restricted-access"
list but not a secret one.  If you wish to discuss merits or drawbacks
of such a list please do so but do not use loaded and inflammatory
language by making it into something it was never intended to be.

Michal (roo72 on pl Wiki)


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand - @Jimbo

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>Please read my earlier answer to Jimbo Sannse and there you will see
>that I did admit to saying those things, but that I never did it. Also
>if things go wrong in the foundation and no-one reacts at first were do
>you go then? Please answer that? I didn't have the three years that
>discussions usually take. I feel it is a shamefull thing that people do
>not take comments seriously untill they make the ultimate threat.
>Basically someone is ignored and not being heard untill he says the
>ultimate thing. It is extremely bad that this happened and everyone
>ignored things and let this happen. It is actually still happening
>because RonaldB is still ignoring all questions!
>
The point here is that a threat to use one's greater powers (such as
stewardship) can be every bit as disruptive as actually using them...
perhaps even more so because of the air of uncertainty that it creates.
Kids can react negatively when a parent says, "You have to do this
because I said so."

>The foundation could learn a thing or two from this. One of them being
>that complaints should be taken more seriously at an earlier stage,
>especially if they have been uttered by an active member and not just by
>him. Ignoring complaints and sticking your head in the sand only leads
>to escalation, problems do not get solved by being ignored, people get
>extremely pissed especially with the ignoring of a time-sensitive
>subject. Although many people have told me that ignoring is the right
>way to solve a problem (or should I say "challenge" for the political
>correct ones out there) in the foundation, basically all people adhering
>to that school of thought are damaging the situation and are damaging
>the foundation. Because a next time it won't just blow over and fade
>away like it has now.
>
Welcome to the real world!  My own experience is that I know I've
espressed a good idea by how much it's ignored.  I need to apologize
profusely to all those others who have had good ideas which I have
ignored.  I still have many of those ideas from two and three years ago
in my in box, and try to maintain the vain hope that someday I will
answer them.  Good ideas require quiet reflection before a valid
response orconstructive criticism can be sent back, and if I may lament
on this myself we are ever more acclimatized as a society to
instantaneous response and gratification.  It leads to an insidious
proliferation of rules designed to provide quick fixes for all our
problems, because the number of them that we feel compelled to solve
seems overwhelming.

Ignoring a problem out of a mistaken devotion to political correctsness
does _not_ solve any problems; it makes one a part of the problem.

Maybe we should have a SlowWiki ... even though that may be an oxymoron.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFC needs your help!

body:
Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,

This is a desperate plea for help!

The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked.
They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious
submission are left
with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally
"Wikipedia:Articles for creation"
and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who
isn't reading the
instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in
time, and this way
a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're almost
never touched.

I want to ask vandalhunters to keep their eyes open for blankings and revert
them on the spot
so they're going unnoticed any longer. And I hope RC patrollers can be
pursuaded to fulfill
some requests when they come across them.

We need your help!

Sincerely,

Mgm (in name of the overworked Meegs)


from_name: Jerry Sweeton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request

body:
Greetings Mark,

Hope you had a good weekend.  I really would like to have my old page
page.  I had a lot of stuff on there (userboxes) and the thought of
starting fresh it not desirable.

I have a feeling that due to the great distance between us that there
will be a time lag between the time undelete and the time I get around
to editing it.  I feel that might result in a flare-up of the flame war.

If it's possible, could you email me the code, I will modify it and
submit it to you for review before posting.

Thanks for you help!

--
-----
Jerry G. Sweeton Jr.
News/Talk 1380 WNRI
Traffic Director

Voice:  401-769-6925
Fax:	401-762-0442

j.sweeton at wnri.com

www.wnri.com

...-.-

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Jerry,
>
>
>> Thank you for taking the time to look at the situation.
>>
>> Is there anyway to restore my userpage long enough to remove offending
>> remarks?
>>
>
> I'd advise you simply start from scratch.  However, if you'd *really*
> much rather have your userpage back, let me know and I'll undelete it
> ... on the proviso that anything inappropriate is removed.  And please
> remember that my view of what's "inappropriate" will differ markedly
> from yours.
>
>
> Cheers,


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Arwel Parry
> >
> >In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a
> >photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public
> >domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
> sin and you
> >will get away with it. But fair use to illustrate a user page seems
> >reasonable to me.
>
> But the problem with that is that we have no remotely
> appropriate fair
> use entry in the licensing field on the upload page! I wonder
> how long
> an image tagged "Found the image somewhere" would survive...!

That is precisely the point. Uploading an image of yourself to a user page
isn't a big deal if it was taken in circumstances under your control, say by
a friend or family member using your camera. You don't specifically hold the
copyright, but it's unlikely anybody is going to complain.

The situation is common enough that we *should* have a template, or at least
a policy somewhere. Otherwise we have what happens now, which is that users
claim a copyright they do not possess.

Peter


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

body:
On 21/05/06, Eugene Zelenko <eugene.zelenko at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Why do you think that your opinion is only neutral one? There are
...
Because it wasn't even disputed -- disputed as in "advancing arguments
and proving the point". Assertion (e.g., that my opinion "isn't
neutral") isn't really discussion.

Same matter with other points I've made.
...
> Sorry, but I think discussion was in good faith. May be result are not
> are same as you wanted, but it's how compromise could be reached. We
> are still open for discussion.

My proposals didn't mean to get me "what I wanted". My proposals were
meant to achieve some sort of consensus -- meaning *acceptable* for
all concerned -- in Be: WP community.

Once again -- I wouldn't *like* the rules amended in my way, but they
would be *acceptable*.

And yes, I do not believe in "good faith" of your fraction any more.
(Just look at what your pal Kiryl writes here or what your pals wrote
in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with
demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)

Sorry everybody, I just couldn't let this fly.

-regards


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFC needs your help!

body:
I'll add this article to my watchlist in CDVF. Thanks.

Ryan

On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
>
> This is a desperate plea for help!
>
> The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked.
> They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious
> submission are left
> with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally
> "Wikipedia:Articles for creation"
> and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who
> isn't reading the
> instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in
> time, and this way
> a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're
> almost
> never touched.
>
>
> I want to ask vandalhunters to keep their eyes open for blankings and
> revert
> them on the spot
> so they're going unnoticed any longer. And I hope RC patrollers can be
> pursuaded to fulfill
> some requests when they come across them.
>
> We need your help!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mgm (in name of the overworked Meegs)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Thai project status

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>After talking today I realized that the info talked about is very
>sensitive, but I need to talk with some people very soon. Is it possible
>to create a temporary closed readership list to discuss some things? On
>which the readership would be: The board, 1 or 2 of our lawyers,
>Delphine, Oscar, 2 members of the special projects committee (the 2
>considered to be the wisest, most culturally open people?) and last but
>not least Danny.
>
>Like I said the issues that came up are very sensitive. Basically
>everything they proposed is doable I think and could be discussed in a
>very open way. It is just one issue that needs to be talked about
>pivately before we can go on the path to the rest of the ideas.
>
This sounds like you are trying to promote a new cabal. :-)

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Thai project status


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes ofcourse you are. That's why a certain group of users is going
> around calling anyone who supports the WTC controlled-demolition
> theory a "nutjob" isn't it?

Ignorant has more letters in it.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> We want them to have WYSIWYM (What you see is what you mean).  We
> generally do not want editors fussing with appearance too much while
> working on content, at least so long as we want people to stay
> productive (rather than spending hours futzing with getting the most
> attractive customized fonts for every heading) and so long as we want
> the look and feel to be even remotely consistent.

I don't think anyone has proposed allowing customised fonts for each
heading. By WYSIWYG, I simple mean "You see bold when you want bold -
you don't see ''' ". What distinction are getting at with "WYSIWYM"?

> Our current system gets us pretty close to this, although the syntax
> does present a little learning curve. However, if people are really
> put off by the inability to do pretty formatting without a minimal
> amount of studying... can we really expect them to grok wiki writing
> overall?

You're belittling the value of such a project by suggesting it would
only be useful for those "unable" to cope with wiki syntax. I have no
problems with it, but I suspect I would be faster editing directly
with word, being able to select text, press ctrl+b to bold/unbold etc.
But god, can we please not turn this discussion into an argument on
the value of WYSIWYG in general? There are those who like it, and
those who don't. So long as those who like it do not impinge upon
those who don't (by forcing it on them, reformatting whole articles
etc) and as long as there is someone willing to develop such a thing,
there should not be a problem.

> So, improved editing systems.. not a bad thing, so long as we stay
> clear of turning the interface into a toy.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I might have a go at hacking up a MS Word macro conversion script. It
could be cute at any rate.

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Prasad J" wrote

> Do you think you could muster up some people who can combat
> our systemic bias problem but also wouldn't go flying off the deep end
> and start confusing neutrality with Zionism?  Because that would be very
> welcome.

I agree.  We need much, much more work on systemic bias on the English
Wikipedia.  We are effectively the flagship Wikipedia, and it would be also
good to be the one most on top of the systemic bias issue.  And we have to
be careful to keep it non-politicised.  Systemic bias is a blot on the claim
to be 'encyclopedic', to give a genuine panorama.  It improves the 'pedia
for everyone, to bear down on it.

Charles


body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> It states that it *was* part of wikipedia.

Yes, a chapter in the early history.  In fact a 'historic debate': is
everyone who died in 9/11 automatically notable?  WP was young in 2001.

Charles


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not really.  For some reason fair use deletion are pretty
> > controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them
> > if we relied on straw polls.  So we have a speedy for them because,
> > basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to
> > pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make
> > a reasonable decision.
>
> I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise
> straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different
> decisions to what you expect.

I do everything I can to keep image copyright-related questions away
from anything resembling an open poll, because such polls frequently
generate a result that contravenes copyright law, Wikipedia site
policy, or both.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Article surveys re-surveyed

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 5/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Get rid of the culture of fear where an editor avoids being bold to
>>avoid arguments.
>>
>>
>Yes. The trouble is, edit wars have an effect far wider than just the
>article where they take place. Peopel hear about them, and expect to run
>into them everywhere. The fact is, in the various random topics I've edited,
>I've only ever hit two edit wars. Occasionally people revert changes, but
>usually in good faith - the changes were simply incorrect.
>
OK, sometimes it is a bit like judging the English by the behaviour of
its soccer fans.  It makes you shy about being near any of them.

>On the other hand, I very, very frequently break up unstructured articles
>into sections, wikify, or rearrange sections into some kind of order - the
>very basic sort of editing that anyone can do, but that people seem afraid
>to? It's actually really trivial to read an article paragraph by paragraph
>and add a ==section heading== before each one summarising what it's about,
>and it's so helpful. Once that's done you can actually begin to see the
>article as whole and see what's missing, rather than just seeing that
>there's lots of text, and maybe it has enough text?
>
Some editors don't like to do work that's "really trivial"; it's
inconsistent with their self-image. ;-)

I agree with the importance of what you say.  It still involves building
a culture that values the need to wash dishes once in a while.  It's
tough doing that when heretofore they took it for granted that mom would
always do that.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these
> images are non-controversial and the problem is finding the best way for
> uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.

Seems to me the best solution is to tag it as {{GFDL}} or {{PD}} or
whatever, and add a note of "Taken at my request".

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> I might have a go at hacking up a MS Word macro conversion script. It
> could be cute at any rate.

Actually this isn't a bad start:
http://www.homeopathy.at/programming/word2wiki.bas

It has the slightly curious behaviour of embedding wiki tags within
the word document, so you end up with both Word (WYSIWYG) and Wiki
formatting simultaneously. However, copying and pasting back to the
wiki should be fine.

There are some other solutions too:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Word_macros

However, the other half (wiki->word) is still missing. Any ideas?

Steve


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
>
> On 5/21/06, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option
> which states
> > something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not
> > reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that
> > this is intended only to be used in the case of private
> images which
> > have not been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a
> > sinkhole for all the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from
> > elsewhere).
>
> I think that's a bad idea. People will start labeling
> everything that they can't find the author on as "technically
> copyrighted".

Can anyone explain why fair use would not apply? The uploader doesn't hold
the copyright, but the use of an image of themselves to illustrate what is
essentially a WP-maintained profile isn't going to be controversial.

> When a user labels something as their own creation and that
> they have licensed it under X-and-Y license, and we have no
> real reason to really suspect otherwise (and no, I don't
> think "but they didn't necessarily take the picture of
> themself" is enough to really suspect otherwise)

I can't see how you can come to this conclusion. If they didn't take the
photograph themselves they don't own the copyright. Not without some
additional assignment of rights, and making the assumption that this has
somehow happened by assuming good faith on the part of the uploader is going
too far.

I suggest that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, no such explicit
assignment of rights has occurred, but the uploader is quite confident that
the photographer is not going to make any fuss.

> then I
> think the risk is legally theirs. I'm also reasonably sure it
> falls under the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, as I
> understand them.

Could you please explain them?

I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along
those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is
non-controversial and used with permission.

Peter


from_name: Ryan Dabler

subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
On 5/22/06, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Friends,
> There are some people proposing a policy for administrator's term of
> service
> in Chinese Wikipedia. In the proposing policy, when the term of service is
> over, administrators shall get their administrative power through a
> re-election. I want to know that is there any Wikimedia project with this
> kind of policy? In my own opinion, this is quite weird. I want to know
> what
> will other language editions do when facing this kind of proposal. Thanks.
> THD

This sounds like Meta's policy for administrators.  At the end of each
year-long term, an administrator is up for election and he must win a
majority of the votes to keep his sysop powers for another year.  On the
English Wikisource, a similar policy was just enacted, where a vote of
confidence is held at the end of each adminstrator's term of service and the
community must give support to have the admin keep his rights.  Having terms
of service isn't a common policy, but it is not unheard of on the Wikimedia
projects.

Z


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignorant? I suggest you examine the data presented by various
> scientists in support of this theory. Incase you are unable to
> comprehend such scientific arguements, go through through the logical
> arguements put forth at http://www.reopen911.org/.

Please you don't seriouly think I haven't been keeping a vauge eye on
the conspirocy theorists that belive this one (the "moon landings were
faked bunch" have become two easy to debunk and the kennedy
asasination mob appear to be fadeing away). I see they make the olkd
the twoers fell in free fall claim. Of course the problem with this
one is that if you look at deberies around the towers that is in free
fall it falls faster than the towers.

Still since argument by link seems popular at the moment:

http://www.911myths.com/

--
geni


from_name: Plyd

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com> wrote:
> Well, I would be more in favor of having a built-in code highlighter
> instead of a WYSIWYG editor. I think it'd improve readability,
> especially with the new endnote syntax threatening to take over some
> articles. I was going to propose doing something like this for the
> Summer of Code, but I just couldn't think of an elegant way to implement
> it. Using TinyMCE for code would require converting HTML-encoded
> HTML/wikitext into HTML/wikitext, and a feature using Flash or Java
> probably wouldn't be that popular with users.

I wasn't telling we should directly take TinyMCE. This was just an
example of what could be done.

About Wysiwyg, I think that we could limit functionalities in order to
encourage people to write "normally" and don't add lots of unusefull
stupid tags. But Wysiwyg has its real value for tables&co, because for
beginners this is a complete mess. What about an hybrid system ?

Plyd


body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> common-sense systemic bias
>
> Common sense shows that the U.S would have major geo-politcal motives
> for orchecstrating the 9/11 attacks. You will agree that the
> occuaption of the oil-rich country of Iraq,the extension of U.S
> military presence in Afghanistan [which provides America with a
> certain amount of significance in the Indian Subcontinent (a highly
> important area in terms of political significance)] will be enough
> motive for the U.S to fake the "terrorist attacks" on 9/11.
>

Not really. If the US wanted a solid motive for invading Iraq it would
be fairly trivial to plant some WMD for the inspectors to find. Or
allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone.
Fair trivial and produces a much stronger case than the unrelated 9/11

If the US wanted a military presence in the Indian sub continent they
could of, Oh to chose a random country, paid Tajikistan to put a base
there. Could have been sold as supporting about the only democracy
amongst all those former bits of the USSR. Or they could have gone to
Nepal to sort out the Maoist lot.

--
geni


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Plyd <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> wrote:
> About Wysiwyg, I think that we could limit functionalities in order to
> encourage people to write "normally" and don't add lots of unusefull
> stupid tags. But Wysiwyg has its real value for tables&co, because for
> beginners this is a complete mess. What about an hybrid system ?

Ok, there are obviously two different meanings to WYSIWYG that are being used.

1) Allowing free formatting, such that any combinations of colours,
fonts, font sizes etc can be used (not a good idea)
2) Allowing normal Wiki formatting (bold, italics, headings, tables,
images) to be edited graphically, rather than through Wiki syntax
(good idea?)

Steve


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [WikiEN-l] Historical debates

body:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 06:43, Molu wrote:
> What do you think?

There would be some redundancies with:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever


body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest you observe the URL more closely-
> http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam. It states that it ispart
> of wikipedia.org. Even otherwise this Wiki is affliliated with the
> Wikimedia Foundation-of which Wikipedia is a part- so it is our job to
> give a fuck about it.
>

It states that it *was* part of wikipedia. It still seems to have a tenuous
link, but that link looks to be under review. There's a better place to
voice your opinion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>On May 20, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Prasad J wrote:
>
>
>>You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts
>>the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be?
>>
>>
>Exactly the same.
>
>Just like if someone came here calling himself "David Duke".
>
That depends on when it happens.  Lynddie England will likely never rise
above the status of a footnote to the Abu Ghraib incident.  In a few
years people's response to her name will most likely be "Who?"

David Duke is a local celebrity in Louisiana who may not be much
remembered elsewhere, and his name may be as common as Abu Hamza's is in
the Middle East.  My instincts want to associate him with "The Dukes of
Hazzard."

Ec


body:
On 5/22/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I agree.  We need much, much more work on systemic bias on the English
> Wikipedia.  We are effectively the flagship Wikipedia, and it would be
> also
> good to be the one most on top of the systemic bias issue.  And we have to
> be careful to keep it non-politicised.  Systemic bias is a blot on the
> claim
> to be 'encyclopedic', to give a genuine panorama.  It improves the 'pedia
> for everyone, to bear down on it.

{{globalize/USA}} is often a good start.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
>
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything
> > along those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is
> > non-controversial and used with permission.
> >
> > Peter
>
> [[Image:Leeinvelo1.JPG]], which is also on Jimbo's user page,
> was apparently uploaded by the same person who claims to have
> released it into the public domain.

Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that these
images are non-controversial and the problem is finding the best way for
uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.

--Peter in Canberra


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I would be more in favor of having a built-in code highlighter
> instead of a WYSIWYG editor.

I sometimes edit using a wikitext mode in emacs.. it is fantastic and
removes a number of annoyances, such as when a stray tick causes a
huge chunk of an article stuck in bold.

That would very much be a worthwhile feature.


from_name: MAURICE FRANK

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 21:51:14 +0200
From: "Steve Bennett"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

>
> NO! The right to remain anonymous on Wikipedia is SACRED. Don't mess
> with it unless you want someone to reveal who "alphasigmax at gmail.com"
> is. If you want to inquire about someones real identity, then email
> that person DIRECTLY.

 This should interest you:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asperger_syndrome&diff=21282302&oldid=21132475

 Here, my "sacred" right to remain anonymous was ignored as blatantly as any has ever been in Wiki's history. No wrong was ever found in the party who did it, and I was the one who ended up abused by Wiki instead - by admins blatantly swanking that there are no rights - at the end of the affair this exposure of identity began.

 After looking at this case you have no other logical option than to withdraw your support from Wiki, on grounds that you have had faith that a sacred principle exists and it doesn't.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>On May 20, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>I just look through [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] and find no mention of a
>>connection with the 9/11 incident.
>>
>>
>"Hamza has publicly expressed support for al-Qaeda [and] Osama bin
>Laden."
>
>Again, I'm not claiming he was connected to 9/11, only that he
>supports that kind of violence. Consider:
>
>"John Doe has publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge [and]
>Pol Pot."
>
>If anyone came on this listserv publicly identifying with such a John
>Doe, I'd want to run him out for the same reason.
>
To me the issue is not whether he supports these causes, but how he does
so.  NPOV allows a place for supporters of al-Qaeda to make their pitch
about whatever may be good about it.  Rather than run them out it would
be to our broad advantage if these individuals learned to express these
views in a more constructive manner.

For someone like our Abu Hamza (who at first appearance seems to have
indeed engaged in unacceptable editing) it would help if we had mentors
available who are sympathetic but rationale in dealing with such points
of view.  Perhaps they could pull aside and counsel these wilder newbies
in techniques for constructively presenting their opinions.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:

>I'm sorry Prasad, I never said I identify with SPC. England: In fact, I
>condemn her actions as strongly as possible. I do think it is shameful for
>users to refer to US soldiers with disrespect: I also feel it's shameful for
>people to refer to ANY soldiers with disrespect. I believe the Bushido code,
>the Way of the Warrior is alive and well amongst soldiers.
>
I would not be inclined to view any trained killer with undeserved
respect.

Ec


body:
On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> India already has bases there-the sudden entry of the U.S would offend
> the former , and I'm pretty sure a former Soviet-block country like
> Tajikistan, or any other country in proximity to the Subcontinent,
> would not really allow U.S military presence on it's soil.
>

You mean like say [[Uzbekistan]]

> That would make it appear as if America was supporting the King-who
> has always been viewed as somewhat of a dictator.
>

When has that worried the US in the past?

>  These would not have evoked as strong a reaction in the U.S as the
> killing of 3000 Americans ON American soil would.

So they can get around that by campianing and the like.

> As for WMDs- it is
> not really all that easy to "plant" them without the act being
> noticed.
>

Heh you don't know much about analytical chemistry do you. Plently of
fairly trivial ways to do it. You could probably just spray
Methylphosphonyl difluoride onto a pipe that the Weapons inspctors
wanted to cheack or the like. A lot less complex than trying to plant
explosives in the twin towers.

>
> The Iraqis are not foolhardy enough to actively provoke the U.S by
> shooting down one of the latter's planes.

They did. They also tried to do so repeatedly.

> Also,  by analysing the
> plane's flight-path it would be obvious that the pilot did not make
> any effort to dodge the missile. Also the lack of flares (used to
> avoid heat-seeking missiles) or chaffs would be noticed. Thus, it
> would be obvious that the American pilot was not making any effort to
> evade the attack-a very unusual occurence indeed. More importantly I
> doubt whether the U.S. airforce has a kamikaze squadron.
>

So? Cut a few wirers and the pilot would never see the thing comming.
There would be various other methods. Send a B-52 over for example.

--
geni


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
 Imagine what 1. 7 billion muslims would think of the wikipedia policy of
 open community if you were banned indefinately for just calling yourself abu
hamza, a name as common as john.

There are very few Muslim Wikipedians as compared to Christian ones.
And I doubt whether anyone in a position of power (i.e an Arbitrator
or Foundation Trustee) is Muslim, or for that matter even on the
Indo-Aryan race. This is not to accuse Wikipedia of racism- it is
merely caused by systemic bias. Also I doubt whether the Muslims of
the world need any further proof of Islamophobia. I suggest you change
your username to "America_Rules" and then ask for an unblock !


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/22/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Fancy colors aren't something we'd want to make _easy_ because they're not
> something we generally encourage in clean text. But they'd be _possible_ because
> they're possible in our markup.

Agree, and agree with not making them part of any WYSIWYG package,
precisely to avoid making them more accessible than necessary.

> In practice, public-ready implementation will have to hold off until the markup
> is defined well enough that we have reversible transformations and can 'hold
> out' fancy stuff like images, templates, extensions, and parser functions
> cleanly into WYSIWYM-friendly chunks.

Can you elaborate on what WYSIWYM means in this context? What's the
distinction? Our [[WYSIWYM]] article is not helpful.

Also, why the dependency on a well-defined markup? To avoid
implementing a moving target?

> We will likely not have "true" WYSIWYG in the sense of it the editing view being
> exactly 100% one and the same as the reading view, because things like embedded
> data, plugins, templates etc really require some separation.

That's fine. At some stage, fine tuning will always require hand
tweaking. But just basic editing, refactoring, reformatting etc would
be great. Even something that displays {{templates}} and
[[Category:Links]] like that would be fine, IMHO.

There'd be a slight question over how to display <nowiki> code, I
suppose. True WYSIWYG would display <nowiki>[[link]]</nowiki> as
simply: [[link]], but that would be conflict with my suggestion above,
and would be ambiguous for the reverse transformation
(<nowiki>[[</nowiki>link]] would be mapped onto the same).

I guess you already know about all these issues :)

> I'd like to get a working group together to start making the specification
> happen soon:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec

What's required before that starts? Can people just start hacking on
it, wiki style?

Steve