body:
[a] I suggest moving this thread to the mediawiki-l mailing list.
[b] It sounds to me like you're after a content management system, not
a wiki engine.

Rob Church

On 07/01/06, edward hage <edward at confirmat.nl> wrote:
> What I want to make is a site for scuba-divers. When they log in they
> get a special Userpage (kind of homepage for every user). On that page
> they have the possiblity to make a new dive-entry. If they click on that
> link they go to a special page where they can fill in a table about
> depth, time in the water, pressure, bla.bla. When they submit that data
> a new page is created with a nice layout (I use a template in mediawiki)
> with all dive-data. Also on the Userpage a new link to that new page is
> automatically created when the dive-entry is submitted. So after a few
> logged dives a complete list is created.
> Because it is a wiki they can make additional pages about dive-locations
> (like travelwiki) and upload underwater-pictures and create pages about
> marine biology etc..
>
> Any pointers are welcome.
>
> After I solve the issue of making the new pages flauwless, I have to add
> the privilege of the user to protect his own pages (so their own
> divedata is not molested by other users). I saw on mediawiki that
> already some patches and extenstions were written for that so that issue
> is next on my agenda.
>
> Also I am very interested to hear why new enrty points can not be made.
>
> Greetings, Edward
>
>
> Rob Church wrote:
>
> >A special page should NEVER define a new entry point, ever. Create it
> >as a proper special page, and use the proper, built-in classes, member
> >functions, and where needed, the globals.
> >
> >Telling us what you're trying to *do* would also be a big step, so we
> >can give pointers.
> >
> >
> >Rob Church
> >
> >On 07/01/06, edward hage <edward at confirmat.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello John, Hendrik,
> >>
> >>I also made a SpecialPage, but I did not post back to the page itself. I
> >>did to a new page where I defined some basic stuff by:
> >>define( 'MEDIAWIKI', true );
> >>require_once( '../includes/Defines.php' );
> >>require_once( '../LocalSettings.php' );
> >>require_once( '../includes/Setup.php' );
> >>
> >>Basically made a new entry-point. I hope this does not cause a
> >>safety-issue ! (I don't know the do's and dont's about this.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fl Celloguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
>On 1/7/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/6/06, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia <zzyzx11 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's something that crossed my mind:
> > >
> > > As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see
>a
> > > number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a
>couple
> > > weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on
>any
> > > userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned
> > > template? Why or why not?
> > >
> > > Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
> > > zzyzx11 at hotmail.com
> > >
> >
> > Check out [[WP:TFD]] right now. Currently,  there is a whole bunch of
> > userbox warriors that are going to stall and keep any userbox that comes
> > their way. In short, the box is going to get kept anyways. An example of
> > this is {{User fair use}}, which Jimbo himself deleted before being
>informed
> > of the TfD debate, which is really irrelevant, considering that we can't
> > disobey the US copyright law that Wikipedia is legally obligated to
>fllow.
> >
> > Looks to me that the userbox editors are disrupting the flow and work of
> > Wikipedia, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Those who
>have
> > five times as many userbox edits as mainspace edits can't be helping
> > Wikipedia all that much.
>
>I hope the admin who decides closes the {{User fair use}} debate
>evaluates the quality of the arguments made in relation to the
>encyclopedia's mission; it'll be deleted then.
>
>SCZenz

Unused userboxes that have been around for a while (i.e. not created in the
immediate past) should definitely be deleted (aside from those that fill a
pattern, such as Babel langauges/levels where no-one speaks it yet). Are
there any arguments for keeping these userboxes? Alternatively, I would also
argue for the deletion of all userboxes only used by one person (and the
userbox has been around for some time): what's the point of having a
template and category for something only one person is going to use? We
could just tell the person to substitute it on his/her userpage instead.

Thoughts on that? Thanks!

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
--- Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> > I think this really needs to be reformed somehow. If that software,
> > which would transliterate between Cyrillic and Latin, appears, what's
> > the reason not to have ONE SINGLE Wikipedia for all of those
> > languages?
>
> If you want to work on such project, try to think a little bit deeper
> what is possible now, what would be possible in two years etc. And,
> start to work on it. The problem with you and Pokrajac is that you are
> full of your ideals in emails and talk pages without any consistent
> work.

An on-the-fly script converter is already working on the Chinese Wikipedia. It does not, I am
told, require more than one version of an article and does not fork articles. What it does is
display whatever script a person wants w/o needing separate articles written in the different
scripts.

So it appears that there is no valid reason to have separate wikis for each country that was
formerly part of Yugoslavia. One Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia will do, IMO.

We are here to build encyclopedias that everybody in the world can read and use. That does NOT
mean that we need to have encyclopedias in every single dialect spoken in the world. In fact,
doing that will only hamper our goals since it needlessly breaks-up communities that could combine
their effort into creating one encyclopedia that respects all the various mutually-understandable
dialects of a single language.

That Serbian, Croation, and Bosnian are separate languages appears to be a politically-convenient
fiction that wants to enforce differences that don't really exist. That can only tend to enforce
component-nation-specific POVs and thus violate NPOV (as would having separate Wikipedais for
Simplified and Traditional Chinese).

It is very sad that the lack of a good policy on language creation and shutdown has resulted in
this situation.

Shut down Serbo-Croatian? No. Shut down Serbian, Croation, and Bosnian and then merge them into
Serbo-Croatian? Yes.

If need be we can reduce to just two wikis until/if a Latin/Cyrillic script converter and be
created.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Dejan Cabrilo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
> Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have POV articles more then English
> Wikipedia (of course, proportional). It is possible that some ov POV
> pages are not marked, but this is only because NO ONE marked them
> (Dejan could do it, but he didn't).

I did do it. And the storm rolled upon me. I was mostly quickly
reverted, or even rolled back. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was
the one to introduce POV and copyvio templates, no? Check out my
contributions on sr.wiki (User:Dcabrilo). When I started doing it, you
proposed that we allow POV articles to stay on the wiki, with a
permanent template of: "This article was written from such and such
POV". I said we should either get rid of them, or rewrite them. You
said you thought they were just too good of essays to delete, and that
you talked to Jimbo Wales while he was in Belgrade about that issue.

And Serbian Wikipedia has more POV than English one, for sure. For
example, just until few hours ago, this thing was stuck on the top of
the Home Page:

http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%9A%D0%B5&oldid=200252

(MARRY CHRISTMAS)

Also, just for example, I noticed that article I labeled as POV (my
mistake, it was not only POV, it was also a copyvio from
http://www.svetosavlje.org/biblioteka/Recnik/A.htm), has been locked
since I put a POV tag on it... May 2004.
(http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/????_?_???).

So, yes, I did try to work on POV, but you and many others had no
problems with POV (recognized as such) being included in the name
space. As long as it had a tag...

Only on May 13th did I label about a dozen articles as POV (mostly
Orthodox Christianity related). [[??????????:??????? ????????????]].
Many of those were beyond repair (they were simply religious essays).

However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
it's only normal to have that kind of bias".

> Latin alphabet is needed only because of Croats. Bosnians know
> Cyrillics; if Slovenians know Serbian/Croatian, they know Cyrillics,
> too. As well as Macedonians use only Cyrillics.

Most Slovenes and Croats are not good with Cyrillic, and not
comfortable enough with it to make edits. Many Bosnians as well. This
is especially true for younger people. Most Macedonians, unlike most
Slovenes, can read and write in both Cyrillic and Latin for that
matter.

> A lot of sites are in Latin only because of a lot of xenophobia toward
> Cyrillics.

Also because that way it's accessible to anyone.

> > Wikipedia is not a cultural project, it's an encyclopedia, aimed at
> > bringing information to people.
>
> You can use a blog for spreading informations, too.

And what do you think Wikipedia is for? Spreading what? Wikipedia is
an attempt at encyclopedia, which is as simple as disseminating NPOV
ecyclopedic information.

Cheers,
Dejan


list: wikitech-l

from_name: edward hage

subject:
[Wikitech-l] create new pages by accessing the database directly
	FAILS

body:
Hello John, Hendrik,

I also made a SpecialPage, but I did not post back to the page itself. I
did to a new page where I defined some basic stuff by:
define( 'MEDIAWIKI', true );
require_once( '../includes/Defines.php' );
require_once( '../LocalSettings.php' );
require_once( '../includes/Setup.php' );

Basically made a new entry-point. I hope this does not cause a
safety-issue ! (I don't know the do's and dont's about this.)

So now I got all the globals and I can define a database connection like:
$db = new Database($wgDBserver, $wgDBuser, $wgDBpassword, $wgDBname);

Now I can make the new entries in the tables page,  text and revision (I
was missing that last table, I found that out and also Rob Church
pointed me to the existence of   rev_id) .... just installed mediawiki
last week.

After making the new page and altering 'Userpage' (making a link to the
new page) I return to Userpage so I can click on my newly made link to
my new page:
header('Location: http://server/wiki/index.php/Userpage');

Basically I have everything working, but I have trouble that I don't see
my link when I return to Userpage. Must have to do with caching in
mediawiki itself. When I empty my cache on firefox it is still not
visible. Only workaround now I have is to 'edit' the page, then the link
is shown.  Tips to resolve this are welcome.

Also another issue is that I created a race condition with the following
syntax. Hendrik Brummerman pointed me this out. I suspected that
already, because inbetween performing $sql1 and $sql2 old_id may be
changed by insertions of other people in the table.  Thanks for the tip.

$sql1 = "insert into text (old_text, old_flags) values ($text, \"utf-8\")";

$sql2 = "select max(old_id) from text"; // result = $page_latest

This is a [[Race Condition]]. Please use $dbw->insertId() (in MediaWiki)
or mysql_insert_id for MySQL databases outside of MediaWiki.

Thanks, Edward

John McNeil wrote:

> Edward,
>
> I don't have the answer to your questions about making new pages
> directly in the database, but I accomplished the same thing in a
> SpecialPage I wrote by creating the content and a new Article from
> within the SpecialPage code itself. The SpecialPage defines the form,
> and posts back to itself. That way you are still in context with all
> the globals you need to make new pages easily. My only difficulty
> with this is that the $newArticle->insertNewArticle method ends by
> telling the new Article to display itself, yanking you out of the
> SpecialPage code.
>
> My SpecialPage is derived from BoardVote.php, which used to be
> referenced as an example. You can find it here:
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/BoardVote/
> BoardVote.php?rev=1.3&only_with_tag=MAIN&view=markup
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
CONFIRMAT Mechatronics & product development
Veluwehof 71
5709 KJ Helmond
http://www.confirmat.nl

************************************* Disclaimer ***********************************
De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt, verzoeken wij u de inhoud niet te gebruiken. Wij verzoeken u de zender direct op de hoogte te stellen door het bericht te retourneren en alle copieen van dit bericht inclusief enige aangehechte bestanden te verwijderen.

The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein. Please notify the sender directly by replying this message and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.


from_name: Tidy Cat

subject: [WikiEN-l] Achieving validation on Wikipedia

body:
Hi.  I've been studying the issue of article  validation on Wikipedia for almost two months now (since before the  Seigenthaler incident), and I've written up an in-depth analysis of it  at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TidyCat/Achieving_validation_on_Wikipedia

  I would appreciate any feedback anyone would be willing to offer me.

  -- TidyCat

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it!


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: userbox : insanity ?

body:
> Yes, I fixed it (and some templates which were using ~~~~) quite a long
> time ago, by changing the <nowiki>s to character entity references...

So how would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AAdam1213/autowarn
be fixed? Is there asny way to achieve ~~~~ on a page without nowiki's
other than expliting the mediawiki bug?


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: userbox : insanity ?

body:
On 1/7/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Template:tl is protected anyway, so I don't see the risk as being all
> that large. If other templates also become so widely used that changes
> to them would cause serious problems, protect them too. Such widespread
> templates probably shouldn't be changed very often anyway even if there
> weren't server issues, simply on account of how many places such changes
> would touch.
>
> On the other hand, if it later turns out that a template like this
> _does_ need changing, it'll be a lot harder to fix everything if it's
> been substed everywhere.

Another technical concern is that every time the article is saved the
request is sent to the database to reload the template.  This can
certainly make avoidable load.

I think most shorthand templates should be substituted for another
reason as well as the technical side (although this is a risk even
with the best-intentioned admins).  Most templates are useful because
they are fluid -- changes can be made on one page to affect a hundred
related articles.  That is excellent, and a good use of templates.
However, shorthand templates aren't intended for that.  They are
intended to give a small bit of text quickly.  The writer doesn't
expect their text to change later.

--
Sam


body:
What I want to make is a site for scuba-divers. When they log in they
get a special Userpage (kind of homepage for every user). On that page
they have the possiblity to make a new dive-entry. If they click on that
link they go to a special page where they can fill in a table about
depth, time in the water, pressure, bla.bla. When they submit that data
a new page is created with a nice layout (I use a template in mediawiki)
with all dive-data. Also on the Userpage a new link to that new page is
automatically created when the dive-entry is submitted. So after a few
logged dives a complete list is created.
Because it is a wiki they can make additional pages about dive-locations
(like travelwiki) and upload underwater-pictures and create pages about
marine biology etc..

Any pointers are welcome.

After I solve the issue of making the new pages flauwless, I have to add
the privilege of the user to protect his own pages (so their own
divedata is not molested by other users). I saw on mediawiki that
already some patches and extenstions were written for that so that issue
is next on my agenda.

Also I am very interested to hear why new enrty points can not be made.

Greetings, Edward

Rob Church wrote:

>A special page should NEVER define a new entry point, ever. Create it
>as a proper special page, and use the proper, built-in classes, member
>functions, and where needed, the globals.
>
>Telling us what you're trying to *do* would also be a big step, so we
>can give pointers.
>
>
>Rob Church
>
>On 07/01/06, edward hage <edward at confirmat.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello John, Hendrik,
>>
>>I also made a SpecialPage, but I did not post back to the page itself. I
>>did to a new page where I defined some basic stuff by:
>>define( 'MEDIAWIKI', true );
>>require_once( '../includes/Defines.php' );
>>require_once( '../LocalSettings.php' );
>>require_once( '../includes/Setup.php' );
>>
>>Basically made a new entry-point. I hope this does not cause a
>>safety-issue ! (I don't know the do's and dont's about this.)
>>
>>
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Perhaps if they weren't being stirred up, they might be doing more work in
> articlespace, hmmmm? And if they are doing *some* work in articlespace, it
> doesn't really matter if they are having a party in userspace the rest of
> the time. What's the aim of the game: to build an encyclopaedia or to kick
> newbies?

Actually, their insensitive use of templates and categories puts
unnecessary load on the servers.  That is harmful to Wikipedia.

--
Sam


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [Foundation-l] Bangkok bid

body:
At 08:23 +0700 16/12/05, Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>Can I start pushing the POV that Wikimania 2007 should be in Africa?
>>
>>Ec
>
>Ermmmmm Bangkok is already busy launching a bid for 2007 ;)

Good. We are working for a UK 2007 bid (based on the 2006 proposal).

--
Gordo (aka LoopZilla)
gordon.joly at pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
http://www.loopzilla.org/


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Bangkok bid


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Fine. Let's go through all admin user pages, strip out the templates and
> argue from the moral high ground.

All non-useful ones are removed from mine.  I urge all other admins to
do the same.

--
Sam


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
Rob wrote:

>On 1/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Rob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But how does a new editor know the difference between policy, policy and
>>>>policy? He needs to be set straight on the important things, but I can't
>>>>see any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Policy pages should fufill this function, and if they do not, they should be
>>>
>>>
>>>rewritten.  Sure, questions are necessary to clarify fine points and
>>>applications in particular instances, but users who refuse to read policy
>>>pages after being directed to them and need basic things explained to them
>>>
>>>
>>>over and over again or who wish to argue about fundamental policy points are
>>>
>>>
>>>time-wasting problem users.
>>>
>>>
>>That's still a paternalistic, dictatorial model.  You're closing off the
>>possibility that they may have better ideas.  That's also precisely
>>what's wrong with many educational systems who grind children into an
>>unquestiuning submission to the system.
>>
>>
>How did you know I used to be a teacher? ;)
>
>I'm all for questioning authority as much as the next guy, but is any
>purpose really served by indulging a new editor who wishes to argue about
>something fundamental like the NPOV policy?  It's not going to change, and
>it's time better spent on, say, an encyclopedia.  I usually point people to
>the Village Pump if they want to topple one of the pillars of Wikipedia on
>their first day here.  Were I in the classroom again I would use the
>opportunity for an educational discussion (what we'd call a "teachable
>moment") on whatever the student was objecting to or suggesting.  This isn't
>a classroom, though, it's an encyclopedia.
>
Sure.  Sometimes the lesson that experienced editors have the hardest
time learning is, "Don't feed the trolls."  Some of the most successful
editors that we never hear about are the ones who just go about their
business editing the subjects they love best, without ever arguing with
newbies.  Pleading ignorance and sending them to the Village Pump is a
fine tactic; I'm sure there's enough people hanging around there to
indulge them as much as they want.

Teachable moments will work if you have receptive students.  As a
teacher you should have an instinct based on the way the newbie
expresses himself whether the teachable moment will have any effect.
Some will do well with a little tutoring, the others are best sent off
on some kind of fool's errand.

Ec


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
On 07/01/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> I used to use gmail for this list, and it is superb for list traffic, but
> I'm now using my "basic" email address as a sign of good faith, so I can't
> easily check how your posts look in gmail.

They're coming up as "flat" for me, as well - ie,

first writer
next writer
reply

rather than

> > first writer
> next writer
reply

Not sure what's causing this - and gmail does help reduce the problem
by tinting the text - but it is a bit confusing, and has the potential
for Unfortunate Misunderstandings. (I manually re-indented when I
replied earlier)

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


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was: Proposal
	onuserboxdisagreement)

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
>
> The userspace is *for* building the encyclopedia, and we can
> (and do) edit userpages that are clearly for another purpose.
>  People are allowed quite a bit of leeway at current, but it
> is not a right or a good thing for that leeway to expand.
> Wikipedia is not (primarily) an experiment in evolving online
> communities, and it is certainly not a webhosting service.

I think the community role is important, and surely it is up to the
community as to how the userspace evolves. Granted, the production of an
encyclopaedia is the focus, but WP is run by consensus as few other internet
communities are, and in many ways it is not a matter of dictating how things
will happen so much as hanging on for the ride and watching what happens!

By and large userland seems to be a relatively tranquil nation, and I make
no doubt that even the current user template row will find its own happy
compromise soon enough. My appreciation of the WP community is that it is
one that values freedom and "leeway" very highly, but co-operation in the
shared goal is valued higher still.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] 2 Questions: "Image-Batch-Upload" and "Refresh wiki
	data"

body:
phpShell (http://mgeisler.net/php-shell) works for me, on smaller
wikis with crap hosting, at least. :-D

Rob Church

On 07/01/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Jan wrote:
> > Hello Brion,
> >
> > thanks for the tipps.
> >
> >> refreshLinks.php
> >
> > I tried to call maintenance/refreshLinks.php, but I always get "Error
> > 403". i tried to give 777 to all files in maintenance/*, but without
> > success.
> > Do I need access to server-commandline?
>
> Yes.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
On 1/7/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Damn good idea!
>
> I'll point out, though, that some of the most prolific users of
> userboxes are admins.

More's the pity.

Just to note, I have nothing against sensitive use of userboxes (i.e.
"humourous" userboxes should not be transcluded or categorised).  The
Babel templates are in fact a very useful innovation that I entirely
support.

--
Sam


from_name: Servien Ilaino

subject: [Wikitech-l] Useless "developers"

body:
Sorry to say, but these developers are kind of useless, aren't developers
supposed to "develop"... I haven't seen a new wiki for ages, no reactions
from developers or whatever at all!

Why does it say "an open encyclopedia in every language" this is supposed to
be "an open encyclopedia in every language which is currently created,
because developers don't want to setup any new ones, and requests are
pilling!!"

Desde,
Servien

Original:

Please start the new year with a new wikipedia, we are all so sick of
waiting for the creation of these wikipedia's... there hasn't been a
single "recent new wiki". The last must have been about 3 months back
or so...

There are ones with official ISO codes. Don't disappoint us in this
new year. We'd all like to get the wiki's started and going! So mark
this as URGENT in your diary.

Details can be found
on:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

Official ISO code:2.1.1 Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (22 support; 3
oppose [thereof 2
anon votes])2.1.2 Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])2.1.3
West Flemish (15 support, 1 object)2.1.4 Ligurian (16 support thereof
5 native speakers, 3 oppose)

Non-official2.2.1 Samogitian (?emait??ka) (11)2.2.2 Banyumasan
(8)2.2.3 Ripuarian (19 support [thereof 3 anonymus votes]; 2
oppose)2.2.4 Pennsylvania German (17 support; 1 oppose)

Regards,
Servien Ilaino


subject: [Wikitech-l] Useless "developers"

body:
On 1/7/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> A much better policy needs to be created that takes this into account.

Preferably a much better and *retroactive* policy.

--
Sam


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
Dejan Cabrilo wrote:

>However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
>it's only normal to have that kind of bias".
>
>
I certainly hope that's not a consensus opinion, because that's flatly
unacceptable for any language's Wikipedia.  That all Wikipedia articles
must be written from a neutral point of view (which implies not from the
point of view of any nationality, ethnicity, or culture) is one of the
few absolutely non-negotiable Wikipedia policies.

-Mark


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Useless "developers"

body:
Hi!!!!

> Sorry to say, but these developers are kind of useless, aren't
> developers
> supposed to "develop"... I haven't seen a new wiki for ages, no
> reactions
> from developers or whatever at all!

For 'business' development contact foundation list or board or whatever.

For IT development progress:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-cvs/2006-January/
thread.html
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-cvs/2005-December/
thread.html
https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Server_admin_log

And, I'm absolutely happy when developers are lazy and have some
rest. :-)

Cheers,
Domas


from_name: candy

subject: [Wikitech-l] mwdumper problems

body:
Hi all,

I tried to import the entire english wikipedia dump(some 15 gigs) in to
mediawiki1.4.
The entire process took 2 days and then, it seems nothing happened !
I got an error like the following in between somewhere.

ERROR 1062 (23000) at line 28: Duplicate entry '1' for key 1

But the import was not aborted. So I let it continue.

I used the follwoing command for the import :

java -Xmx512m -server -jar mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4
pages_full.xml.bz2 | mysql -u root -p wikidb

where wikidb is the database name.

I think people had similar problems as is evident here

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Data_dumps

But then what went wrong. Or what needs to be done to make it work ?

Candy


from_name: Jan

body:
Hello Brion,

thanks for the tipps.

> refreshLinks.php

I tried to call maintenance/refreshLinks.php, but I always get "Error 403". i
tried to give 777 to all files in maintenance/*, but without success.
Do I need access to server-commandline?

I have access by ftp and MyphpAdmin/ODBC.

Reagards,
Jan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Dejan Cabrilo wrote:
>
>> However, community than agreed that "We are a Serbian Wikipedia, so
>> it's only normal to have that kind of bias".
>
> I certainly hope that's not a consensus opinion, because that's flatly
> unacceptable for any language's Wikipedia.  That all Wikipedia
> articles must be written from a neutral point of view (which implies
> not from the point of view of any nationality, ethnicity, or culture)
> is one of the few absolutely non-negotiable Wikipedia policies.

The theory is fine, but unless we can read the language(s) we have no
way of knowing whether NPOV is in fact being followed.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I won't vote because I am not part of that community, but the recent
>>changes does show that the project is active.  Assuming that the vote
>>succeeds there would still be enough active and involved people to pass
>>the criteria for starting a new wiki.  Under those circumstances
>>wouldn't it be much easier to argue that a dissolution vote is invalid
>>if it would leave enough people behind to start a new wiki in that same
>>language.
>>
>>
>
>Having an active community is NOT the most important reason to have a separate wiki. FAR more important, given our goal to having encyclopedias that everybody on the planet can read, is to make sure we consider how closely the proposed wiki's language is to other languages we already have wikis for.
>
>It is my understanding that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible dialects of Serbo-Croatian and that the bigest difference is the use of scripts between and/or among them (which MediaWiki can deal with on the same wiki without forking articles).
>
>In fact, our article on this confirms my suspicion:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_in_standard_Serbian%2C_Croatian_and_Bosnian
>
>So a far, far better question is this: Why do we have separate Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias instead of just one  Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia?
>
>Splitting things up purely for purely political reasons is a grave, let me repeat, GRAVE, violation of NPOV and does not serve our goal to provide an encyclopedia that the peoples of the Former Yugoslavia can use and understand.
>
>We need to create a clear policy on the creation and shutdown of Wikipedias and apply that retroactively to fix this and other similarly horrid mistakes.
>
If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no
problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all
these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in
front of us.  It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them
suffer from a lack of interest and activity.  Nobody would benefit by
trying to undo the past.

There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis
was a grave violation of NPOV, but adopting retroactive policies for
anything is never good without an overwhelmingly strong reason.  There
is no such overwhelming reason.  So unluss one of those communities
collapses form a total lack of interest, or there is a merger agreement
by any two or more of these communities we will probably have to live
with the fact of four communities for the forseeable future.  My crystal
ball cannot see farther than that.

Ec


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Foundation-l] sh.Wikipedia.org

body:
Just wanted to inform everyone that I was bold and took action with
the current going-ons on the sh.Wikipedia.

There's currently an on-going vote to close this project -
http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pijaca-??????#Closing_this_Wikipedia

To read some more discussion, please check
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#sh.wikipedia.org

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


subject: [Foundation-l] sh.Wikipedia.org


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thread breakage

body:
Sam Spade wrote:
> I totally agree with the need for this. It's not about replacing human
> judgment, it's about giving tools to improve human judgment. For any
> proposal to work though, I think we need a way of indicating that an
> edit was "bad" in some sense.  In eBay parlance, it would be like
> negative feedback. But at least with that, you could start to count the
> number of good/bad edits for a user. It would be incredibly handy to
> know that a given user was +11,000 (56% good) (in other words, a very
> active but controversial user - probably a pain in the arse), as
> compared to +300 (99% good) - new, but doing a great job.
>
> Any system can be gamed - you just have to make it not worth anyone's
> time.  Google pagerank can be gamed, but it takes a lot of effort and is
> very difficult to do cheaply.
>
> Steve
>
> I also very much like this proposal. If nothing else it would clarify
> me for who I am, and give certain people alot less room to insult and
> stigmatise others based on tarbaby terms like "troll".
>
> Sam Spade
>

Damnit, can you PLEASE stop replying to MY messages, including what
SOMEONE ELSE wrote, and not quoting it properly?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060108/a2e6d9db/attachment.pgp


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia logo policy

body:
I have also a question/problem;

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines#Logo_usage

"The logo should not be turned around or distorted"

That is what I am doing here;
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/announce-l

It gives a (poor) 3D effect. Like the Wikimedia family-logo is a carpet
and the Wikizine name is hovering above it. That is a good visual
representation what Wikizine trys to be; about the Wikimedia projects
but not a Wikimedia project.

I like it. Can I have permission to keep this so please?

Greetings,
Walter
--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
Here is my comment (also on sh village pump):

;Neutral
#My opinion is between closing and neutral. As I think that I am
closer to neutral, I am writing here my opinnion.
--[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#*This Wikipedia is used for expression of one political faction from
former Yugoslavia. I would like that this Wikipedia makes more
connection between people from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Serbia and Montenegro, but it is clear that it did only in the way
that people from Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia are together in demand
to close this Wikipedia. Also, I am not so optimistic that it would do
this better. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#*But, some people are working here and I can't say "destroy their
work". --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#**But, those people would be more helpful on three other
Neo-Shtokavian based Wikipedias (sr, hr and bs). People who are not
extremists are very welcome on those three Wikipedias.
--[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#***But, I am not sure would they want to come there after closing
this Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)
#*Also, it should be noted that Pokrajac would be desysoped on Serbian
Wikipedia for blocking users who made a joke (not Milica, but
Elephantus, Jovan etc.) Behaviour like this is unacceptable on
Wikipedia. And this incident started the process of closing this
Wikipedia. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 01:07, 8 January 2006 (CET)

On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <dcabrilo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Datrio just started a poll on closing Serbo-Croatian wiki, unblocked a
> vandal who blanked dozens of articles, and made up rules that people
> who've been targeting Serbo-Croatian wiki can vote, pretty much
> disregarding all the people involved in the project.
>
> Datrio, may I ask you why??? I really, truly, don't understand. We get
> a vandal, few trolls to support the vandal, and your response is to
> close the wiki!?
>
> This poll is here:
> http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pijaca-%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B0#Closing_this_Wikipedia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Rob Church schrieb:
> phpShell (http://mgeisler.net/php-shell) works for me, on smaller
> wikis with crap hosting, at least. :-D

Hi Rob,

thank your very, very much *g*

phpShell works great ... only 5 minutes installation, no problems, and
successfully refreshed the wiki :-)

Refreshing my ~ 30.000 pages (pages, not articles) has taken a few minutes, but
now all categories are assigned correctly.

Regards,
Jan


from_name: elephantus

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
I have followed the progress (or rather the lack of
it) on the Serbo-Croatian wikipedia since its
unlocking and I have to say that almost all of the
"contributions" there were actually verbatim
copies of articles from Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
Wikipedias done by 1-2 users. The articles were then
left untouched, in many cases with empty picture links and
original unopened red links for categories,
while their originals on the other three
wikis were changed, improved, re-categorized etc.
The wiki has about 2400 articles today with almost no
original articles longer than about a sentence.

Also, the other three Wikipedias which cover this same linguistic
territory (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) have grown
significantly in the past six months and now have a combined
total of about 35,000 articles with many active contributors
writing about topics as diverse as genetics, jumbo jets,
Native American peoples, short-lived Roman emperors etc.

Wikipedia users who want to contribute in any of the three
languages turn to either Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian wikipedias
by default. The Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia hasn't really added
any new active users since August or so. Many of the people
who support it admit openly that they do so for
ideological reasons but, as many Wikipedians know,
encyclopedias are built by those who love encyclopedias and
knowledge, not those who love ideologies.

To sum it up, I think that Wikipedia in Serbo-Croatian
should be re-locked and then removed after an appropriate
period, simply to remove interference with other projects
when doing a Google search or similar.

Elephantus

from Croatian Wikipedia

--
XXLadsl ponuda do 15.01.2006.- ve?e brzine, iste cijene. Samo kod
IskonInterneta uz XXLadsl surfajte 60 dana neograni?eno za samo 1kunu!


from_name: Jay Converse

subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
On 1/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Rob wrote:
>
> Some of the most successful
> editors that we never hear about are the ones who just go about their
> business editing the subjects they love best, without ever arguing with
> newbies.
>

One could argue that, with some exceptions, the best editors ARE the ones
that we never hear about.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Useless "developers"

body:
Servien,

When new Wikipedias have been created in the past, it wasn't because
we called the developers names or resorted to other such childish
tactics.

It is because we were patient, treated them with respect, asked kindly
and in a personal way, and didn't pout if they didn't give us what we
asked for _right away_.

If I had acted like you are right now in advocating for their
creation, I'm betting we wouldn't have the Udmurt, Venet, Lombard,
etc. Wikipedias.

So take my advice and take it down a notch. Take a chill pill. You're
not going to die if these Wikipedias aren't created immediately. You
have to be patient. The developers are your friends.

They are on a busy schedule, and remember that it is a volunteer job
and they aren't paid except by donations (with one exception). The
developers have to worry about "real" jobs, school, family, and every
other concern of normal human beings because after all, they _are_
normal human beings (a developer can correct me if I'm wrong there).

So give them a break. If you do, the Wikipedias will be created
eventually. If you don't, it will never be created.

Mark

On 08/01/06, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure they are usefull for developing software. But most people who've
> requested a wiki are kind of getting tired of waiting all the time. First
> they have to go through a long boring process which can take up to even half
> a year before they are approved when it's approved they wait about another
> half a year... by that time most people who initially wanted to work on the
> project decided not to anymore.
>
> If someone would have told us the whole blikketyblek is frozen, we would
> have had some kind of understanding. ISO codes aren't enoug: these wikis
> have been approved this means there have been serious discussions.
>
> I really hope a new wiki will be created this year though. (if possible)
>
> Serv
>
>
>
>
> 2006/1/8, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com>:
> >
> > On 1/7/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > A much better policy needs to be created that takes this into account.
> >
> > Preferably a much better and *retroactive* policy.
> >
> > --
> > Sam
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Dejan Cabrilo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
> The theory is fine, but unless we can read the language(s) we have no
> way of knowing whether NPOV is in fact being followed.

Of course, we could go article for article, but some "interesting"
stuff that is apparently acceptable on one of those "national"
Wikipedias is:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/?????_?????????_??_?????? (Gospel of
Matthew, full edition)
[[????? ????????? ?? ?????]] (Gospel of Mark, also full edition)

Not that big of a deal, but still, everybody thinks that it's OK to
post the Holy Bible on Wikipedia.

This is a proposed policy, which resulted after I labeled a bunch of
articles as POV:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/??????????:?????_????????
or, Wikipedia:Points of View

Basically, it's a proposal to allow people to write from certain POVs,
which would be labeled so. Here are the rules (my translation from
that page):
1. At least one editor wants to write about it.
2. At least five editors support legitimacy of that POV.
3. At least one of those five is an admin.
4. At least five articles in user namespace describing that POV.
5. That the POV does not promote racial, religious or other hate and
doesn't call for violence. This is solemly a concern of such things as
fascism or nazism.
6. That the POV has local (i.e. is connected to Serbia somehow) or
global importance.
7. That the POV is described in a proper place on Serbian Wikipedia.

Like I said, this was a proposed policy, from May 2005 (the last time
I was active on Serbian Wikipedia, it was in part a response to the
fact that I overnight labeled a bunch of articles as POV, because I
found them to be essays on Orthodox Christianity, but obviously,
others realized the POV in supporting this policy). Still, it got 5
votes for, and 3 against. I think it describes the inherit POV of such
national projects.

The following users supported the policy:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/????????:?????
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/????????:?????_??????????
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/????????:Bonzo
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/????????:Djordjes
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/????????:Dzordzm

All of them are admins/bureaucrats, so people of trust there think
that NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about.

Three people voted against, users Zocky (not an admin, not active), me
(not an admin, not active) and Aleksandar (doesn't seem to be an
admin, I don't know if he is active).

That policy never made it thru, but for example, if you visit
[[??????????:?????????]], which is Category:Saints, you will notice in
almost each and every article among those the following line at the
bottom:
"?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?????? ???????
???????? ????????????. ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ???????" - meaning "Big
chunk of this text was taken from Ohrid's Prologue of St. Ruler (not
sure about translation of his title) Nikolaj Velimirovic. It is not
affected by copyright."

Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Velimirovic was a part of
Serbian Orthodox Church and writer of big part of its doctrine (or at
least, what some say should be). So, it's much worse than copying
stuff from some outdated encyclopedia, it's actually copying stuff
from the source which is as POV as possible. And that seems acceptable
on Serbian Wiki. Most of the articles are totally POV, as you can
imagine coming from a church source.

The reason I am writing this is to show that national wikipedias are
inheritly biased - they can be very good on covering stuff like
nature, science, etc. but when it comes to more touchy topics, it will
be hard to get editors from different perspectives.

I am pretty much presented with a choice: should I use Serbian,
Bosnian or Croatian wiki? I am not either a Serb, a Bosnian, or a
Croat, and I communicate on daily basis with people from Serbia,
Bosnia and Croatia, using my native language (whatever it is). I work
together with Serbs, Croats and Bosnians on many en.wikipedia
articles. And I chose to only edit, when I do edit in non-english
wikipedias, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Why would I go for anything
else? If I am writing about World War 2, I will write a much better
article if it's together with editors from all of those countries,
than only one of them.

So, if we can't have only one Wikipedia for all of us, than at least
let the ones among us who are capable of working with everyone, work
as we know best.

Dejan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
On 1/8/06, Dejan Cabrilo <dcabrilo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, many people don't turn to Bosnian, Croatian, or Serbian
> Wikipedias, because they can't identify with any of those. They are
> all covering the same linguistic (or at least similar) region, but
> simply because they all exist, a bit of bias is assumed by many
> editors.

Huh, "many"...

> People like me don't identify their nationality nor the language with
> either Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia (I happen to be a citizen of one of
> those, but that doesn't make much difference). So, if we decide that
> we need three projects for something that everybody could understand,
> anyway, why don't leave a fourth one as well?

This is true, but this way is just forcing separation.

> Some people don't want Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to exist, because they
> are very anti-Yugoslavian. Others don't want Serbian, Croatian and
> Bosnian to exist as separate editions because they are anti-cultural
> balkanization, and think that all of those regions share enough in
> language written to be able to cooperate without big problems.

Term "anti-cultural balkanization" is culture-fascistic.

> Just for example, as Serbian Wikipedia was coming into existence, many
> of the articles had very strong Serbian Orthodox POV. This is getting
> much better now, and I applaud the hard work of few who are trying to
> fight that inherited POV. But still, it is enough for one person to
> run across an article on Serbian Wikipedia which is still that biased,
> see that it's in cyrillic (most Serbian websites use latin, because
> it's accessible to Croatian and Bosnian, as well as Slovenian audience
> that way, and using strictly cyrillic is a weak sign of nationalism -
> when people deliberately decide they don't want to be accessible to
> neighbours).

Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have POV articles more then English
Wikipedia (of course, proportional). It is possible that some ov POV
pages are not marked, but this is only because NO ONE marked them
(Dejan could do it, but he didn't).

Latin alphabet is needed only because of Croats. Bosnians know
Cyrillics; if Slovenians know Serbian/Croatian, they know Cyrillics,
too. As well as Macedonians use only Cyrillics.

A lot of sites are in Latin only because of a lot of xenophobia toward
Cyrillics.

> So, we can either have 4 Wikipedias, and upcoming Montenegrin should
> be ready. OR, we can make an overarching Wikipedia for all of those
> languages, or like Milosh proposed, a neo-Shtokavian centric one
> (which is fine really).

In present way, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is just fourth faction. Also,
you can't build anything on personal fiction. Partial and/or full
merging between Neo-Shtokavian Wikipedias are possible only if people
are working on Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedia. It is not
possible if people who want that are working on separate factional
project.

> Also, regarding the numbers of Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian
> Wikipedias: They also often use each others contents, and many of
> those pages are really just date templates.

Serbian Wikipedia has more then 10.000 normal articles; Croatian has
at least 6.000-8.000 normal articles.

> I think this really needs to be reformed somehow. If that software,
> which would transliterate between Cyrillic and Latin, appears, what's
> the reason not to have ONE SINGLE Wikipedia for all of those
> languages?

If you want to work on such project, try to think a little bit deeper
what is possible now, what would be possible in two years etc. And,
start to work on it. The problem with you and Pokrajac is that you are
full of your ideals in emails and talk pages without any consistent
work.

We would be in much better situation now if both of you gave 10% of
your efforts from mails/talks like this instead of reopening
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.

> Wikipedia is not a cultural project, it's an encyclopedia, aimed at
> bringing information to people.

You can use a blog for spreading informations, too.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 1/7/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is an unclear sentence on the guidelines page. It seems to imply
> that no derivative will be accepted. While indeed, the reality is that
> some derivative exist, but should be approved prior to their use. And
> certainly prior to their upload on commons, since these are cp logos.

I changed it to:
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published
without prior approval from the Foundation."

Cheers,

Delphine
--
~notafish


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion request and complaint

body:
On 1/7/06, M. Anderson <symphonia at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> User: Aubbit
> IP address is 68.225.182.79
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't know how I should go about requesting a
> deletion of a specific entry - I tried the FAQ but it
> confused me even more. I have a bit of a problem.
>
> I have been accused by admins of 'vandalizing' and
> 'blanking' a specific Wikientry: Bill Freeman.
>
> I am doing neither. I am a personal friend of Mr.
> Freeman, and I find the article extremely offensive,
> as do his other friends. The person writing this
> article (who reverts it back every time I edit it) is
> obviously biased, and is revealing very untrue and
> unneccisary information about Mr. Freeman and his
> wife.
>
> I merely am trying to edit out the offensive bits,
> which keep reappearing the next day. I have read the
> policy on 'neutral point of view' and such, and I
> believe the user writing the article on Mr. Freeman
> has violated that ten times over. Yet I am being
> blocked and accused of vandalizing and blanking,
> simply because I am trying to protect a friend who
> does not deserve an article like that.
>
> If possible, I would like this article deleted for
> good, because it does more harm than good. If anyone
> could help me with this, or work something out, please
> let me know.
> Thank you,
> Aubbit
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I just went and looked over the article and I do not see any flagrant
Neutral Point of View violations.  What the article does is present
controversy regarding the subject of the article, and there are links at the
bottom, which you keep removing, that corroborate and expand on that.

I think you misunderstand what the neutral point of view is.  It is not
there to simply present the most basic of facts.  What it is there for is to
prevent outright accusing Freeman of anything.  All that this article does
is present the charges and events surrounding Bill Freeman.  Admittedly,
there's no real providing for Freeman's own defense, but until someone (for
instance, yourself) provides a source for his rebuttals, there's no real way
of reporting on what they are.

The reason you are being accused of vandalism is because you are simply
removing the content without any discussion as to WHY you are doing it.
This apparently being the first time that you've discussed your reasons for
it, let me tell you that if you had indicated on the article's discussion
page, reachable by clicking on the discuss tab at the top of it, what your
reasons for removing basically the entire article were, I'm sure someone
would've looked into it.  As it stands, what you were doing appeared to be
just simple vandalism, something people like myself and the editors who were
putting the content back in have to deal with in droves every day.  Without
you presenting a reason for your edits, we have no choice but to assume you
were doing it just to screw around.

I encourage you to talk to other editors about this -- this would be an okay
place, but the best would be, again, on the article's discussion page.
Provide for defense of Freeman, or heck, prove that the three links provided
are a load of crap.  You need to let others know what your reasons are,
though.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman

body:
On 1/7/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi to all!
>
> I'd just like to let you know that I have proposed the structure of a
> Wikipedia Ombudsman, that would deal with any complaints leading from
> admin
> action and ArbCom cases. I think in recent times there has been a
> significant growth in the number of users who have either left the project
> or felt very badly treated due to administrator actions and ArbCom
> rulings.
> I'm not trying to blame either the administrator function - I'm an admin
> myself - or the ArbCom; however, I think an Ombudsman is necessary to deal
> in an effective and fair way with all of the complaints. To compound this,
> I
> think the transparency and accountability of some admin and ArbCom actions
> is quite unacceptable, IMO. The Ombudsman structure would seek to redress
> this in a neutral and fair way, to ensure more decentralisation and
> stability for the community (remember: alienation breeds conflict).
>
> So, please take a read of the Ombudsman proposal, at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsman
>
> Please make any comments on the talk page and feel free to add any main
> points to the project page.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ronline
> 2006. Hea energia aasta.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I like this idea, but this sounds more to me like a PR spindoctor for the
ArbCom than anything else.  I don't know if we need more officials right
now, we're already pretty sticky in the beauracracy.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thread breakage

body:
Alphax (I double checked) wrote:
> Damnit, can you PLEASE stop replying to MY messages,
> including what SOMEONE ELSE wrote, and not quoting it properly?

If that's directed at me...well, guilty as charged. On mailing lists
like this I tend to reply to an idea, rather than to a person. I'm not
really looking for the person who wrote the original message to reply.
If it's important to you that I don't misattribute your ideas, let me
know and I'll try harder.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of Power

body:
On 1/8/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Mason Patrick E SSgt 28 MUNS/MXWKB" wrote
>
> >User Talrias is abusing his power as an administrator and I would like
> to formally request that he be reprimanded for this and also request
> that my editing privileges be reinstated. Thank you.
>
> There is no User:Mason Patrick E SSgt 28 MUNS/MXWKB on the English
> Wikipedia.  Perhaps you'd like to explain who you are, and what this
> concerns.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

For the record, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xerocs has a similar
formation of rank stuff (I'm a complete military idiot) on it.  Xerocs I
believe is complaining about a 24-hour block (which has since lapsed) that
Talrias put on him.  First off, he made an RfA request the day after signing
up.  Secondly, he went to Ral315's userpage and stuck in "This user supports
User:Xerocs for admin in 2006" at the top.  This caused Talrias to give him
the 24-hour block.

I'm assuming the issue has already been resolved, as he has proceeded to
continue editing.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox fads

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

> And in case it begs the question, my recipe for success in a
> volunteer setting involves lots of affirmation, community
> building, and rewards (however small). As a psychology
> student w who places a great deal of emphasis on behaviour
> modification, I see a morbid unbalance of rewards to
> punishments on this project. Too much ARBCOM, not enough
> "editor of the week". In sum, DO NOT arbitrarily take away
> that which makes people happy. Don't be reactionary, be
> adaptive. Less complaints, blocks and deletions, more praise,
> mentorship and barnstars.

Hear hear! I get the feeling that some would turn WP into a police state,
sending off undesirables to Gulag 13, and enforcing arbitrary rules down to
the last full stop and naming convention. I've seen new editors abused most
shamefully for getting things like capitalisation in headings wrong.

And then these people wonder why there's grumbling in the ranks.

Peter (Skyring)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was:
	Proposalonuserboxdisagreement)

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

> On 1/7/06, 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 SCZenz
> > >
> > > The userspace is *for* building the encyclopedia, and we can (and
> > > do) edit userpages that are clearly for another purpose.
> > >  People are allowed quite a bit of leeway at current, but
> it is not
> > > a right or a good thing for that leeway to expand.
> > > Wikipedia is not (primarily) an experiment in evolving online
> > > communities, and it is certainly not a webhosting service.
> >
> > I think the community role is important, and surely it is up to the
> > community as to how the userspace evolves. Granted, the
> production of
> > an encyclopaedia is the focus, but WP is run by consensus
> as few other
> > internet communities are, and in many ways it is not a matter of
> > dictating how things will happen so much as hanging on for
> the ride and watching what happens!
> >
> > By and large userland seems to be a relatively tranquil
> nation, and I
> > make no doubt that even the current user template row will find its
> > own happy compromise soon enough. My appreciation of the WP
> community
> > is that it is one that values freedom and "leeway" very highly, but
> > co-operation in the shared goal is valued higher still.
>
> Um, I am indeed opposed to ticking positive contributors off,
> and so I don't like mass deletions of harmless userboxes.
> Making people happy is good, because it helps the project.
>
> But Wikipedia is only run by consensus to a certain point.
> Users cannot decide, by consensus, to devote any page
> anywhere on Wikipedia to *anything* that hurts the encyclopedia.

We've had this discussion before, when neo-Nazis threatened to mobilise and
take WP over. Of course it came to nothing, but Jimbo indicated that if it
came to gaming consensus by stacking the numbers, then the rules would be
changed to defeat the "putsch".

But I doubt it would get that far. As I say, the community values
co-operation in the shared goal higher than any other activity and internal
threats seem to be dealt with adequately. Not quickly, but effectively.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

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

> Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone.
> Arguing over something we are willing to change, from a new
> viewpoint? Can certainly be helpful.

But how does a new editor know the difference between policy, policy and
policy? He needs to be set straight on the important things, but I can't see
any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.

Sure, whoever does the setting straight is going to be taking time out from
other things, but if we don't educate new editors, then how can we progress?
I would rather see new users educated cheerfully, respectfully and
intelligently, rather than told what's what in a curt, dictatorial fashion
by someone who sees it as an imposition on his valuable time.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Angela

body:
> Just one question: what is the position regarding derivatives of the
> project logos? Does this policy apply to them too?

Yes, the idea is to extend the policy to cover all the logos. That
might not have been done just yet, but there's no reason I know of
that the same wording wouldn't apply.

Angela


body:
On 1/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does the Board want projects to engage in some kind of cleanup
> operation?  If so, should the images be speedily deleted?  Or should
> we wait for another announcement?

I'd suggest waiting. There's no need to be too hasty to irreversibly
delete images. Let's work out the policy on derivatives first.

Angela


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Request for approval for a wiki for standards

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>> I want to add that there is a huge need for open and free (as in
>> speech as well as beer) standards.  Even modestly priced standards
>> from groups like ANSI or ISO can cost more than $200 a piece, and
>> I've seen some fairly general standards documents costing more than
>> $100,000 each with some incredibly draconian non-disclosure
>> agreements.  Even supposedly public standards like the National
>> Electrical Code that governs how buildings are wired with electricity
>> can cost a couple thousand dollars... and that is a matter of law
>> that you have to live by.
>
>
> To what extent do these standards have the force of law, particularly
> in the United States.  When the United States ratifies a treaty it
> means that it has effectively made that treaty a part of the law of
> the United States.  Since US laws are excluded from copyright we
> should be free to include the standards that have been so adopted into
> Wikisource.
>
> Ec

Treaties are one thing, but I'm also talking civil code that is passed
by legislative bodies, including the U.S. Congress.  The National
Electrical Code in particular has been adopted almost completely by
several state legislatures in the USA and all construction that takes
place in those states, by law, must conform to that standard as a
result.  What is interesting about this particular set of codes is that
the body who wrote the standard is still claiming copyright status over
the text of the code, dispite the fact that they have lobbied for and
won formal legislative approval for the code by governmental bodies.
 The actual copyright status is unclear at the moment and subject to
legal wrangling, and is going through the court system right now where
some people are suing precisely because it is felt that actual laws that
we live under should be made available in the public domain.  Because of
the murky legal status at the moment, I would recommend that the
Wikimedia Foundation and sister projects stay away from standards like
this at the moment.  Still, I'm giving this as an example of a standard
that should be free, and had it been available in a copyleft license
instead of a propritary license by a bunch of people trying to make some
quick money, the whole legal mess could have been avoided.

The justification for charging anything for standards at all usually
breaks down into the following arguments:

1) The physical media that the standards are printed on isn't cheap,
including web servers to host the content.
2) Standards development costs money to develop, including dealing with
staff members who have to help organize and maintain the standards
documents for long after the development has been completed, and
organizing conferences that get the standards committee members together.
3) Some industries want to put a higher bar up for people trying to
implement the standards, and if you can put up $100,000 for a standard
document, you are likely to have some serious additional money to get a
business going that would use the standard.

Of these arguments, I really only support the first one, and that is an
issue that the Wikimedia Foundation deals with all of the time anyway.
 This proposal is to have the organization of the standards take place
in virtual space, so there is no need to put up a standing committee in
4-star hotels, car rentals, plane tickets, and all of the rest of the
expenses that happen with trying to get a group of people physically
brought together.  That by itself will substantially reduce the costs of
standards development.  If a group still wants to physically get
together at a place like Wikimania, they can but it must be done at
their own expense and is independent of the development of the standard
itself.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Visual identity guidelines (Anthere)

body:
Nicholas Moreau wrote:
> Good to see Wikimedia going for a visual identity guide.

Ya :-)
Delphine (and Arne if I remember, others ?) did a good job.

> Could I suggest the official Pantone colours for the logo, even though we
> likely never intend to do Pantone printing? It would be handy to have, as
> most corporate identity packages specify them.
>
> The "coated" colours would be:
> Red: PANTONE 215
> Green: PANTONE 347
> Blue: PANTONE 660
> Grey: PANTONE Cool Gray 11
>
> I can also figure out the uncoated paper colours, if wanted.
>
> May I suggest also creating styleguides for the other logos, also available
> strictly on the Foundation website?

Yup. Good idea.

Finally, this page is a good collection
> of other brand guidelines (http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/guidelines/).
>
> Nick Moreau/Zanimum

I downloaded two examples. Sounds good to me. Who can start ? :-)

ant


body:
Delphine M?nard wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There is an unclear sentence on the guidelines page. It seems to imply
>>that no derivative will be accepted. While indeed, the reality is that
>>some derivative exist, but should be approved prior to their use. And
>>certainly prior to their upload on commons, since these are cp logos.
>
>
> I changed it to:
> "Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published
> without prior approval from the Foundation."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish

Perfect to me Delphine :-)

ant


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If the situation had been my call at the beginning I would have had no
> problem saying that we should have only a single Wikipedia to cover all
> these, but it wasn't my call, and we need to cope with the reality in
> front of us.  It is a fact that we have four projects, and none of them
> suffer from a lack of interest and activity.  Nobody would benefit by
> trying to undo the past.
>
> There is ample support for the notion that setting up the separate wikis
> was a grave violation of NPOV,

There's no support for that whatsoever, actually.

These wikis were all in existence in the 2001-2002 era, apparently part of the
first batch of bulk-created wikis made from a list of ISO 639 standard language
codes:
* http://sh.wikipedia.com/ (Serbo-Croatian)
* http://sr.wikipedia.com/ (Serbian)
* http://hr.wikipedia.com/ (Croatian)

I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list
and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present.
Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.

Later, bs.wikipedia.org was added by request, on the basis that
1) our policy was to create wikis for any language with an ISO 639 language
code, on the assumption that an international standards body had a better handle
on what's out there than us
2) it wasn't very fair or neutral to have Serbian and Croatian but *not* a
Bosnian wiki.

At some point the Serbo-Croatian one was shut down and articles copied to the
others, on the basis that:
1) ISO 639 had rescinded the 'sh' code several years ago (in fact prior to the
creation of that wiki, so an out of date list must have been used), so that wiki
in fact was inconsistent with our language creation policy and probably would
not have been created if anyone were looking at it explicitly
2) a number of people were strongly requesting that

Later, at some point, someone reopened the Serbo-Croatian one, I'm not sure why.

-- 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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060108/8fca614d/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2006 07:08
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
>
> On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > But how does a new editor know the difference between
> policy, policy
> > and policy? He needs to be set straight on the important
> things, but I
> > can't see any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.
>
>
> [[RTFM]]

Yeah. And you know what happens if you say RTFM to a bunch of people who
know what it means? They give a snort of laughter.

> Policy pages should fufill this function, and if they do not,
> they should be rewritten.  Sure, questions are necessary to
> clarify fine points and applications in particular instances,
> but users who refuse to read policy pages after being
> directed to them and need basic things explained to them over
> and over again or who wish to argue about fundamental policy
> points are time-wasting problem users.

People have different learning styles. Maybe some go straight to the policy
pages, read them, understand them and need no further instruction, but I
feel that these people are in the minority. The rest of us plunge in, press
things to see what happens, ask questions and so on. Often someone will pop
up on a new user's talk page and there is an instant link to someone who's
been around. That's all good.

I'll agree that there are problem users who either do not or will not
understand or follow policy, but I think you are being disingenuous if you
are trying to say that most new editors fall into this category, or that
editors with multiple userboxes automatically fall into this category.

So far as I can see, the only problem with policy as regards userboxes has
been people putting fair-use images on templates. This is a fairly subtle
point - if an image is used in the article space than why not use it
elsewhere in WP? - but I think most would understand if it was explained in
a friendly and reasonable manner, and this message seems to be getting
through.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Spade
>
> The meta issue here is mentorship vrs. newbie biting, and I
> fear too much of the latter and far too little of the former
> are occuring.

Sam, I agree with you on this point, but may I just say that your responses
are coming up in my Outlook mail reader in such a fashion that the message
to which you are replying is presented as if it were original text, and that
this is confusing. I don't know how gmail presents your posts; presumably it
isn't a problem for you to distinguish between quoted and original text.

I used to use gmail for this list, and it is superb for list traffic, but
I'm now using my "basic" email address as a sign of good faith, so I can't
easily check how your posts look in gmail.

Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

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

> Check out [[WP:TFD]] right now. Currently,  there is a whole
> bunch of userbox warriors that are going to stall and keep
> any userbox that comes their way. In short, the box is going
> to get kept anyways. An example of this is {{User fair use}},
> which Jimbo himself deleted before being informed of the TfD
> debate, which is really irrelevant, considering that we can't
> disobey the US copyright law that Wikipedia is legally
> obligated to fllow.

Yeah, well that's one that's gotta go.

> Looks to me that the userbox editors are disrupting the flow
> and work of Wikipedia, but I'd be interested to hear what
> others think. Those who have five times as many userbox edits
> as mainspace edits can't be helping Wikipedia all that much.

Perhaps if they weren't being stirred up, they might be doing more work in
articlespace, hmmmm? And if they are doing *some* work in articlespace, it
doesn't really matter if they are having a party in userspace the rest of
the time. What's the aim of the game: to build an encyclopaedia or to kick
newbies?

Peter (Skyring)


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> From you argument, I understand that because something is not to your
> liking, we should not be interested. We should not be interested even
> thought it is the very people who are asking for this wiki, who are
> the ones that are involved into the standards process ?? Yes, there
> are some people who think it makes sense to ask for payment to get a
> copy of a standards document. There are also some people who take the
> complete opposite position. If anything, I would think from your
> arguments that you would support the people who are arguing for more
> open access to standards.
>
> Why you mention Wikimania is beyond me .. then again thinking of
> Wikimania as a conference where standards are set has some appeal :)
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM

I am trying to support open and free standards.  I'm sorry if language
issues got in the way of that.

Re: Wikimania... having a break-out group that can discuss standards
setting and this project is a really good idea.  I was just trying to
use Wikimania as an example of a conference that can be used for the
setting of standards, as have other conferences that I've attended in
the past for other purposes.  I was also trying to show how sometimes
the cost of the conference is sometimes put into the price of the
standard that results from the conference, and that is something the
Wikistandards proposal is not going to do, at least directly.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2006 09:04
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes
>
> On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps if they weren't being stirred up, they might be doing more
> > work in articlespace, hmmmm? And if they are doing *some* work in
> > articlespace, it doesn't really matter if they are having a
> party in
> > userspace the rest of the time. What's the aim of the game:
> to build
> > an encyclopaedia or to kick newbies?
>
> Actually, their insensitive use of templates and categories
> puts unnecessary load on the servers.  That is harmful to Wikipedia.

Fine. Let's go through all admin user pages, strip out the templates and
argue from the moral high ground.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of Power

body:
"Mason Patrick E SSgt 28 MUNS/MXWKB" wrote

>User Talrias is abusing his power as an administrator and I would like
to formally request that he be reprimanded for this and also request
that my editing privileges be reinstated. Thank you.

There is no User:Mason Patrick E SSgt 28 MUNS/MXWKB on the English
Wikipedia.  Perhaps you'd like to explain who you are, and what this
concerns.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman

body:
"Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)" wrote

>I'd just like to let you know that I have proposed the structure of a
Wikipedia Ombudsman, that would deal with any complaints leading from admin
action and ArbCom cases.

Might be the way to go.  Obvious issues - how to stop this being an
appellate court by another name (the legalism of the English Wikipedia is
becoming quite frantic); workload; and finding anyone suitable willing to
act.

Charles


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of Power

body:
On 1/8/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > Ryan Delaney wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe he needs an indef block. Obviously a troll.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What! An obvious troll is an admin??? OH NOES!!!!!!!ELEVENTYONE
>
> Well, someone did think I was Marsden recently. Or that Marsden was me.
> Uh, that we were the same person. :)

Really?  I didn't see that.

Jay.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Useless "developers"

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Servien Ilaino wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to say, but these developers are kind of useless, aren't developers
>>> supposed to "develop"... I haven't seen a new wiki for ages, no reactions
>>> from developers or whatever at all!
>>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation board has refused to endorse the proposed policy for
>> new language additions, so things are pretty much frozen until someone clarifies
>> who has authority to do what and when.
>>
>
> Also, simply having an ISO code is not enough justification to have a separate wiki. Our goal is
> to create encyclopedias in every language for the purpose of enabling reading and understanding.
>
I take it you refer to the ISO-639 codes. Glibly assuming that it is
"understood" what a language is is giving the lively discussions that we
have had not really helpful. It is also painfully clear that what IS a
language is often denied on political grounds. When you re-read the
discussions about Andalusian you have a good example for this. The
difference between Castillian and Andalusian is not really different
from what are accepted languages associated with Spain. Then again this
is a linguistic not a political reality.
> Many ISO codes are for mutually intelligible dialects that should not have separate wikis. Even
> having different scripts between dialects is not always a reason to have separate wikis since we
> have the ability to convert scripts on the fly.
>
"We have the technology" means little if you do not have the content to
do just this. We are able to do this at present is for a language where
the written language is divorced from the spoken language. When you say;
mutually intelligible you have to appreciate that many people who live
in the Netherlands can with some difficulty and a lot of good will
understand what Germans say. From that perspective we do not need a
German Wikipedia as the Dutch Wikipedia would be adequate ??
> A much better policy needs to be created that takes this into account.
>
As the facts as you put them are disputed themselves, how do you want to
build a policy on that. What is your point in being restrictive when it
comes to languages that are not important to you but where people have a
passion for their language ??
> BTW, the developers are most useful and greatly appreciated. Without them we would have no
> software and the servers would bog down and become useless. Developing != creating.
>
> -- mav
>
>
Thanks,
   GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

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

> On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'll agree that there are problem users who either do not
> or will not
> > understand or follow policy, but I think you are being
> disingenuous if
> > you are trying to say that most new editors fall into this
> category,
> > or that editors with multiple userboxes automatically fall
> into this category.
>
> I was not trying to say any such thing.

Good. So you agree that most users with multiple userboxes will follow
policy, as will most new users. So it's hardly a major problem. We don't
need to kick newbies, nor do we need to harass those with multiple
userboxes. We only need to sort out those editors who don't follow policy,
and that's a task that has been around since there were policies to follow,
and presumably will continue so long as WP endures.

Peter, creature of logic


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userbox fads

body:
On 1/7/06, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:

[On taking away userboxes to see what happens]

>
> This is not only completely illogical, it underscores how out of touch
> admins can get. Intentionally taking away a source of joy from large
> numbers of users in a bid to see if they'll leave, or if they'll just
> accept your hegemony over them... thats pretty much the opposite of my
> recipe for success in a volunteer setting.
>

Well, you should understand that I'm only talking here about userboxes
that are potentially harmful to the project.  Boxes that are used to
attack people or groups (anti-Jewish and anti-Scientologist boxes have
appeared, and of course anything

There's also a problem where newer users see this as a freedom of
expression issue and wrongly believe that they have some kind of
US-constitution style protection over what they say on their user
pages.

I don't think it's overdramatizing to say that these people are in
general treating Wikipedia as some kind of hosting or social site.  If
that is what they're here for, they're not volunteers but freeloaders.

One way to find out is to take away their freebies and see how many
leave.  Another would be to look at the people who have voted in the
userbox controversy and see if significant numbers are in fact
contributing anything to the encyclopedia.  Many of them aren't, but
we don't have any quantification there.  If dealing with the issues
arising from userboxes strains our administration, we should let these
people go.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> I have no doubt that whoever ran those bulk setups didn't read the whole list
> and wasn't aware that that particular combination of languages was present.
> Ascribing motives or claiming "a grave violation of NPOV" is simply absurd.

I don't think anybody here is blaming the developer who created the wikis or allowed them to be
created. The violation is much more esoteric than that; that we have separate wikis for political
instead of real linguistic reasons. That, not the act of creating if the developer did not know,
is the violation.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 7 Jan 2006 at 20:39, "M. Anderson" <symphonia at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have been accused by admins of 'vandalizing' and
> 'blanking' a specific Wikientry: Bill Freeman.

Looking at the edits of that article, it does seem like you were
doing what is considered vandalism; you blanked out all but a single
line of the article, leaving nothing that establishes the notability
of the article's subject at all, and failed to give any explanation.

> I am doing neither. I am a personal friend of Mr.
> Freeman, and I find the article extremely offensive,
> as do his other friends. The person writing this
> article (who reverts it back every time I edit it) is
> obviously biased, and is revealing very untrue and
> unneccisary information about Mr. Freeman and his
> wife.

The information there appears to be properly sourced, as required by
Wikipedia policy; if you have sources for differing viewpoints you
should provide them.

> I merely am trying to edit out the offensive bits,

...which seems to even include such things as his birth year, city,
and the fact that he operates a ministry.

> If possible, I would like this article deleted for
> good, because it does more harm than good. If anyone
> could help me with this, or work something out, please
> let me know.

There is a procedure to suggest deletion, and if the consensus of the
community is that an article be deleted it will be.  In this case,
the notability of the subject seems fairly marginal, so the article
might end up deleted if it went that route.  On the other hand, the
more fervently an article subject (or his/her friends and supporters)
agitates with strident demands that the article be deleted or that
facts be suppressed from it, the more likely it is that the Wikipedia
community will dig in and refuse to delete it out of dislike of
censorship and being pushed around.  There are a number of such cases
so far, and some have turned into ugly flame wars.

Calmly and reasonably presenting exactly which alleged facts in the
article you disagree with, and why (with sources to back you up) will
be a useful strategy to getting your views respected.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> >So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy.
> >Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him,
> >whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four
> opinions. And
> >he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.
> >
> Just because he wants to debate these things does not mean
> that any of us needs to feel obliged to engage in that
> debate.  It should be made clear to him that silence doesn
> not imply consent.  He may not really be a troll, but the
> "Don't feed the trolls" principle can also work with other ideas.

It therefore follows that nobody *has* to tear themselves away from editing
articles in order to debate those promoting multiple frivolous or POV
userboxes, so the following argument of JayJG's is spurious:
  "When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
   something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the
   time and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing
   to the goal of the project."

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Serbo-Croatian wikipedia

body:
--- Filip Maljkovic <dungodung at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Elephantus here and I think that this project represents
> nothing but a carbon copy of some articles from three distinct
> wikipedias. Pokrajac, one of the admins at SH constantly claims that
> Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are same languages, which is completely
> insane. The languages have started diverging a long time ago and since
> the 1990s, they have become more distant. It is true that the speakers
> of those 3 languages are mutually intelligible, but that doesn't mean
> that they speak the same language.

What kind of doublespeak is that? The purpose of language is to confer meaning. If the three
dialects are mutually intelligible and we have a means to deal with differences in script, then
there is in fact just one language as far as we are concerned. In other words, if articles in one
can be copied to the others and only require minor changes in writing (if at all; esp in cases of
use of the same script), then there is only one language and thus only a need for one wiki.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Jay Converse wrote:

> On 1/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Rob wrote:
> >
> > Some of the most successful
> > editors that we never hear about are the ones who just go about their
> > business editing the subjects they love best, without ever arguing with
> > newbies.
> >
>
> One could argue that, with some exceptions, the best editors ARE the ones
> that we never hear about.
>
That was a point Jimbo himself made about 3 years ago in this list.

There was a point last summer where I seriously considered unsubscribing
from this list. Not so much because I felt myself ignored or out-argued,
but because participating in this list was a considerable expense of
time that did not directly benefit either Wikipedia or myself. In the
end I decided to stay on the list for 2 reasons:

1. Somewhere between 5-10% of the emails contain something I wouldn't
have learned about if I didn't read the list; &
2. Reading what is written here helps me to understand the person behind
the Wikiepdia account.

But if someone thinks that posting here alone will improve Wikipedia
in some way, I suggest that person subsubscribe & just work on articles.

Geoff


from_name: Servien Ilaino

subject: [Wikitech-l] Useless "developers"

body:
I'm sure they are usefull for developing software. But most people who've
requested a wiki are kind of getting tired of waiting all the time. First
they have to go through a long boring process which can take up to even half
a year before they are approved when it's approved they wait about another
half a year... by that time most people who initially wanted to work on the
project decided not to anymore.

If someone would have told us the whole blikketyblek is frozen, we would
have had some kind of understanding. ISO codes aren't enoug: these wikis
have been approved this means there have been serious discussions.

I really hope a new wiki will be created this year though. (if possible)

Serv

2006/1/8, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com>:
>
> On 1/7/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > A much better policy needs to be created that takes this into account.
>
> Preferably a much better and *retroactive* policy.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
>
> I'm all for questioning authority as much as the next guy,
> but is any purpose really served by indulging a new editor
> who wishes to argue about something fundamental like the NPOV
> policy?  It's not going to change, and it's time better spent
> on, say, an encyclopedia.  I usually point people to the
> Village Pump if they want to topple one of the pillars of
> Wikipedia on their first day here.  Were I in the classroom
> again I would use the opportunity for an educational
> discussion (what we'd call a "teachable
> moment") on whatever the student was objecting to or
> suggesting.  This isn't a classroom, though, it's an encyclopedia.

Heaven forfend that we should link education with the sacred encyclopaedia!

If a new editor doesn't understand NPOV, then why not explain it to them?

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: W. Guy Finley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Userbox fads

body:
On 1/8/06 9:02 AM, "wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org"
<wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org> wrote:

> From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:14:34 +1030
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox fads
>
> Here's my solution to the userbox problem.
>
> Any "userbox" (aka. babel-like template) which does not
>
> - Inform the reader about the languages (human) that one can understand
> and edit in
>
> - Inform the reader about the languages (computer) that one is
> proficient in to some degree and can use those skills constructively
> towards editing
>
> - Inform the reader about what browser/operating system they use so that
> they can be consulted wrt. technical issues with the wiki
>
> - Inform the reader about what musical instruments they play so that
> Free music can be recorded for articles
>
> - Inform the reader about what WikiProjects they are part of so that
> other editors can consult them about articles related to that wikiproject
>
> should be deleted. WikiProject Userboxes should ensure that userboxes
> remain as things which are useful to other editors, in the task of
> building an encyclopedia. Such silly things as "This user is a dickbrain
> with no respect for consensus, policy, copyright issues, or the task of
> writing an encyclopedia" should be deleted, and the user banned for
> wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.

I could live with and support this.

--Guy (User:Wgfinley)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

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

>
> On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > If a new editor doesn't understand NPOV, then why not
> explain it to them?
>
> Please don't try to twist this into the idea that I am
> against explaining things to new editors.  Explaining the
> rules is one thing, a protracted argument about their
> validity is another.

Fine. I was just picking up on your statement: "I usually point people to
the Village Pump if they want to topple one of the pillars of Wikipedia on
their first day here."

Just how often does this occur, anyway?

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
On 1/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>   Not to be dumb, but if people substitute rather than transclude
> templates such as userboxes, how do you know whether anyone's using them
> or not? They would need unique text that you could search for.

Place a commented link in the template, so it shows up in the
template's "whatlinkshere".

--
Sam


from_name: Nathaniel Sheetz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Did I miss the great Digital Universe debate?

body:
Personally, I'm looking forward to the arbcom elections; the discussion
around here will hopefully get more interesting.

Spangineer

On 1/8/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I mean [[Digital Universe]], which will be WP in Technicolor without
> errors
> or trolls, or something?  I realise userboxes must be more significant ...
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Nathaniel C. Sheetz
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ncs124