body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> Listcruft is a term on AfD used for the deletion of lists. Generally, it
> is
> used for pointless lists.
>

It is a particularly uncivil term generally used to abbreviate "I never
heard of this stuff, and I can't imagine ever wanting to know it, so anybody
who would is obviously stupid: it should be cleared out of Wikipedia now to
make room for my stuff".

AfD is becoming a cesspit which can only be recovered by draining,
dynamiting and redigging.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Indefinite-block-and-desysopping-by-User%3ADanny-t1476246.html#a4205895
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> How about a RfC in cruft in general?
>

"Removal of Cruft" is a Frequently Proposed Policy, and usually boils down
to "get rid of all this stupid popular culture...Wikipedia should be a
serious encyclopedia talking about serious stuff" by which the proposed
almost always means *their* stuff.

I have a mantra which I feel might be helpful here: you don't visit an
encyclopedia to find out about stuff you already knew, you go to find out
about stuff you DIDN'T already know.

Given that some of the AfD regulars make themselves out to be experts on
just about every subject under the sun, that might be a tall order, but we
should make it our mission to make it possible :-)
--
Phil
Maybe I should add that to the list of motto suggestions, or has that been
deleted as "listcruft"?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cruft-t1543632.html#a4206153
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Pete Bartlett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
>Er. [[WP:OWN]]?  Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the
>work of one or two people at most.  Articles are not.  Articles can,
>and often are, watched.  Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their
>watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.

The vast majority of AfDed articles are very new and have just one author.

>> It is amazing how often AfD debates
>> do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.

>It is not amazing.  Most people do not feel the need to continue to
>respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they
>have contributed them.  This is unsurprising.

>I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed
>(through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue
>discussing their contributions.

That is breathtaking arrogant Jesse. A sizeable proportion of AfDed articles
are written by anonymous contributors. They don't even have watchlists!

Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually
have to keep some of the articles?!

Pcb21


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] two similar messages: Undeletedrevisions
	and	Undeleterevisions

body:
Reinhardt WIEWE @ torg.is wrote:
> I could see:
> MediaWiki:Undeletedrevisions
> $1 revisions restored

This is displayed after an undelete operation, describing what you have just done.

> MediaWiki:Undeleterevisions
> $1 revisions archived

This is displayed with the list of deleted revisions, showing what is stored in
the archive of deleted pages.

> The names are very similar. Should this be one message?

No.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060503/b42a0750/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Joe Anderson wrote:
>>> I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
>> something
>>> cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
>>> though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
>>>
>> I consider "-cruft" to be highly uncivil and IMO it also tends to be a
>> good indicator that whoever's using the term doesn't have a strong
>> argument to support his case for deletion beyond a personal lack of
>> interest in the subject matter. I'm not an AfDer, though, and I suspect
>> this philosophy is one of the reasons _why_ I'm not.
>>
> As said, I did not realise the term could be seen as uncivil, perhaps
> you could assume good faith in not only the new member but in me?
>

Firstly, you found an organisation called "Community Justice", which you
are the chairman of, and claim to be "promoting civility". Then, you go
and nominate an article for deletion (http://tinyurl.com/numt2) with the
declaration that the article is "listcruft". Then, you dismiss the
creator's objection with the terse statement "Only 91 edits. This is
first to this namespace" (http://tinyurl.com/rega7).

I called you a hypocrite because you founded an organisation to promote
civility, and then you use that to defend your behaviour. It's pretty
hard to assume good faith on your part.

--
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: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060503/7b109182/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Watchlist feature requests (was Re:  Cruft)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> * Create a view which shows each article in your watchlist, sorted by
> the most recent change

That's what the watchlist does...

> (unlike the current view which can show each article several times)

If so that's a bug.

> * Allow a way of bookmarking pages without actually "watching" them.
> That is, to record the fact that a particular page was interesting,
> without actually wanting to be informed of every change to that page.

*cough* your browser has this feature *cough* ;)

-- 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/wikien-l/attachments/20060503/9c1a841c/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 3, 2006, at 12:54 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Jesse W wrote:
>> On May 3, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
>>> I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be
>>> mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd
>>> has been started on their article.
>> Er. [[WP:OWN]]?  Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the
>> work of one or two people at most.  Articles are not.  Articles can,
>> and often are, watched.  Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their
>> watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.
>
> More often than not, people who have made major contributions to an
> aritcle will have some knowledge on the subject, and their input will
> be
> helpful.
Sometimes, and in that case, dropping a note on the talk page of
*those* people (whether they *started* the article or not) is a good
and useful thing that a prospective nominator, or interested voter on
AfD should do.  Other times, quite often,  the article will only
*consist* of minor contributions (i.e. a stub) and/or the content of
the article will demonstrate the contributor's lack of knowledge of the
subject.

>>> It is amazing how often AfD debates
>>> do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
>> It is not amazing.  Most people do not feel the need to continue to
>> respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they
>> have contributed them.  This is unsurprising.
>>
>> I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed
>> (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue
>> discussing their contributions.
> How many articles are on your watchlist? Do /you/ check every edit that
> appears on your watchlist?
As of now: 482 items with 78 changes in the last 3 days. Do I check all
the contributions that include an edit summary like "{subs:afd}",
"nomiating for deletion", or something like that?  Yes, and I don't
think that's too much to ask.  If you have so much on your watchlist
that you can't do that - take some things off your watchlist.

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Patrick Aljord

subject: [Wikitech-l] SoC: External Editor helper app

body:
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is what I put in my ini file:
> > [MediaWiki]
> > URL match=en.wikipedia.org
> > Username=patcito
> > Password=<mypassword>
> >
> > isn't that correct?
>
> Yes, that should be working. I just tested it again to make sure that
> nothing has broken recently. Try setting $ignore_login_error=1; in the
> beginning of the file -- does that make the problem go away?
yes it does thanks, I'm gonna try to apply.
I want to do it in Qt/C++. The main functionalities will be the same
as your perl script:
- save
- save & continue
- diff
- preview
- cancel

plus a few other ones:
- support for mac, win and linux though I won't be able to test it on
Mac. Should be ok with Qt4.
- support i18n with .po files
- ability to manage several documents at the same time (with a list of
all the different documents)
- ability to save sessions to remember which documents you were working on
- select session upon start
- that session thing will be turned off by default so it don't get in
your face for people that don't care

what do you think of these? do you have any other ideas before I
submit the application?

Thanks in advance

Pat


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 3, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
>> It is not amazing.  Most people do not feel the need to continue to
>> respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they
>> have contributed them.  This is unsurprising.
>
>> I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed
>> (through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue
>> discussing their contributions.
>
> That is breathtaking arrogant Jesse.
I apologize for coming across as arrogant.  Reading it over, I can see
how it can be read that way, and I'll try to be more humble in my
comments in the future.

>  A sizeable proportion of AfDed articles
> are written by anonymous contributors.
Even though creating articles without logging in has been disallowed
for months now?  How is this possible?  Do the few articles made
through [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] get nominated to AfD so
often?

> Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually
> have to keep some of the articles?!
No, actually, I'm not. Thanks for asking, though. In fact, many
contributors to AfD'd articles *do* get involved in AfD, and many
articles listed at AfD *are* kept, already.  As for my personal views,
I'm quite a strong inclusionist, myself.

Thanks for the discussion, and I look forward to further replies,

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
>Even though creating articles without logging in has been disallowed
>for months now?  How is this possible?  Do the few articles made
>through [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] get nominated to AfD so
>often?

Oops I apologise to you and am just going to have to look stupid.
I am clearly way behind the times. Bit stupid of me to call someone
arrogant when it was me being arrogant to assume I knew it all!

>> Are you frightened that if contributors get involved we might actually
>> have to keep some of the articles?!

>No, actually, I'm not. Thanks for asking, though. In fact, many
>contributors to AfD'd articles *do* get involved in AfD, and many
>articles listed at AfD *are* kept, already.  As for my personal views,
>I'm quite a strong inclusionist, myself.

Sorry that was me flying off the handle when I shouldn't have done,
as a result of the watchlist thing. I aplogise.

Yes contributors do get involved in some AfDs. And for me they tend
to be the most useful AfDs because some content often gets redistributed
that would otherwise been deleted. But you would have thought that they would
get involved in almost all discussions.

Given the existence of automated listing tools, adding a note to
a creator's talk page might not be a heavy burden and can only
be helpful for those who are not heavy watchlist users.

PEte


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.
>

That would be your choice, a right neighbourly way to behave IMHO, and
entirely consistent with your stated intention of promoting civility.

I would be honoured to honour such an honourable request.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cruft-t1543632.html#a4207058
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 3, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
> Given the existence of automated listing tools, adding a note to
> a creator's talk page might not be a heavy burden and can only
> be helpful for those who are not heavy watchlist users.
That gives me an idea - what about a bot, that would go through AfD's,
identify the "major contributors" (somehow) and, unless they had
already commented on the page, drop a short note on their talk page.  I
would have not objections to that. (Except for the minor sadness of
having *even more* bot-created talk page messages, but that's not
really an objection... ;-) ).

Jesse Weinstein


body:
The JS version of transclusion appears to be:

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

I think it would be a brilliant idea to modularise and bring together all scripts
in a consistent fashion under a WikiProject umbrella, so the editor just has
to include a selection of subpages.

----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May, 2006 10:28:19 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watchlist feature requests (was Re: Cruft)

On 03/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yes, there's
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts on en:
> which has a heap of these sort of things (somewhere). I've crosslinked them.

It would be cool if there was a simple way where a user could click to
include all these functionalities. They're quite modular, and often
don't conflict with each other. So wouldn't it be nice if you could
just click to include some code, rather than copy-pasting. Personally,
I find after about 3-4 functions included, my monobook.js is totally
out of control. Or maybe it's possible to {transclude} subpages to
make it tidier?

Yes, there would be security issues to sort out - presumably you would
be including a specific version of the page, not just "the latest
version".

SoC project?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
>That gives me an idea - what about a bot, that would go through AfD's,
>identify the "major contributors" (somehow) and, unless they had
>already commented on the page, drop a short note on their talk page.  I
>would have not objections to that. (Except for the minor sadness of
>having *even more* bot-created talk page messages, but that's not
>really an objection... ;-) ).

Yes I think something like that could really help.
And if we cut out the garish colours and unnecessary pictures
then it won't even be that annoying from the "talk page spam" point of view.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> And if instead of actually fixing the article directly, the injured
> party simply left a message on the talk page, and possibly at village
> pump or something too? No room for cries of vandal, and probably
> someone would quickly investigate and fix it.
>

You're assuming that someone entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia should, when
alerted to an unsympathetic and possibly damaging article about them, be
able to understand when the mantra "anybody can edit" suddenly becomes
invalid, and furthermore deduce the alternate avenues of change which they
should pursue, all the while leaving a version of their article on display
which might well be somewhat distressing to them?

We should be more careful not to bite newbies, especially when we
have...however inadvertent it might have been, and I'm AGFing here like
crazy...caused them distress before they even arrive here. We do not exactly
improve our general reputation by fostering an atmosphere which potentially
allows people to insert damaging and downright mean disinformation into a
biographical article, lie in wait for the subject should they turn up, and
add insult to injury by castigating their well-meaning if naive efforts to
correct the situation.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22should-not-be-written-by-an-interested-party%22-t1531021.html#a4207810
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Both should be presented with view Moo given complete but not
extensive coverage.

Fred

On May 2, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Cheney Shill wrote:

> Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote: On May 2, 2006, at 10:25
> AM, Cheney Shill (Pro-Lick) wrote:
>
>
>> This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
>>
>
> Sometimes the quality of the sources may differ substantially with
> one source representing scholarly opinion, the other reflecting
> popular culture.
> Fred
>
> I definitely agree.  However, that's not the problem in this
> scenario.  I didn't intend this to be an RfA exam test question.
> From the responses I've gotten so far, I probably should clarify,
> but it also shows the great deal of ambiguity I mentioned regarding
> determining the majority/minority POV.
>
> Restated:
>  *View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
>   *View Bark has 15 sources that support it.
>  Under the assumptions that the sources are all independent of each
> other, all of equal quality, and they have already been discussed
> thoroughly and agreed upon as the sources that should be used to
> write a section of an article, which, if either, is the majority
> view that will be presented to the greatest extent in the section?
> Should either not be presented?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Eccentric views seldom dominate sources in terms of numbers, popular
culture view can. There is definitely play in terms of minority views
we consider crackpot as opposed to authentic.

Fred

On May 2, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:

>
> G'day Fred,
>
>
>> Sometimes the quality of the sources may differ substantially with
>> one source representing scholarly opinion, the other reflecting
>> popular culture.
>>
>
> Or, surprisingly commonly, the other reflects not popular culture but
> the view of an idiot who should be locked up for his own protection.
>
> See: Eurasian Land Bridge, Anti-metrication, Gatekeeper (politics),
> and,
> well, too many to mention, I guess.  I think you could probably
> pick any
> POV, however, absurd, and find that there's a batshit conspiracy
> theorist who holds it.  Further, that conspiracy theorist will either
> edit or inspire another loony to edit Wikipedia to push that POV
> sooner
> or later.  We're too damn big.
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date:
> 2/05/2006
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> On 03/05/06, Gallagher Mark George
> <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>> encyclopaedia article).  Articles that need work and could one day
>> become real gems, however, are put on AfD all the time, and this is a
>> pity.
>
> This should never happen. AfD is totally superfluous when the *topic*
> belongs in WP. Someone should just remove all the crud they don't like
> and turn it into a stub at worst.
>

Absolutely. Unfortunately some people's idea of "removing all the crud they
don't like" involves deleting articles on subjects with which they are not
familiar (since such subjects must therefore be 'non-notable' by
definition).
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cruft-t1543632.html#a4209902
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problem with references when transcluding

body:
> The technical problem you beleive to have is just a hint that you
> are trying to fit a square pig into a round hole :-)

I just had to comment on this - I have never seen a square pig in my
entire life, but if I *DID* find a square pig, I'd defiantly
immediately try to stick it in a round hole i found. Just my 2?...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> On 03/05/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Absolutely. Unfortunately some people's idea of "removing all the crud
>> they
>> don't like" involves deleting articles on subjects with which they are
>> not
>> familiar (since such subjects must therefore be 'non-notable' by
>> definition).
>
> Sorry, I was referring to remove content within the article, not
> deleting the article itself.
>
> But I do agree with your perception of the term "non-notable".
>
Precisely. I was referring to the fact that some people are utterly averse
to certain subjects EVER having an article: they are incapable of
distinguishing parts of such articles which could EVER be kept.

Note the recurring calls at various sub-sections of the Village Pump for
"all those stupid articles on irrelevant fictional subjects" to be removed
en masse...
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cruft-t1543632.html#a4210139
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

body:
--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > We recognize that the inclusion of this content
> is a violation of the
> > > other half the goal of the project. As a result
> it is only permitted
> > > to include fair use in English wikipedia where
> doing so compromises
> > > our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
> >
> > Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid
> compromising their
> > ability to be a source of original texts, you do
> not want to allow
> > them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that
> you are of the
> > opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not
> allow fair use in
> > any form whatsoever, is not a quality
> encyclopedia?
> >
> I think there's a big difference here between (most)
> images and (most)
> text.  As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document
> which cannot
> legally be translated is not a free document.  But
> translation doesn't
> apply to most images.  The same applies, although to
> a lesser extent,
> for short quotes, which is the other place fair use
> is generally used.
>

Here is where I really am not understanding this
policy.  Wikisource does not allow fair use claims,
but if we did allow something under fair use
derivative works would be forbidden.   We would not be
able to allow translations of something under fair use
and fair use *is* about more than images.  So I just
do not see the rational reasoning in this at all.  It
seems to me like fair use is being allowed simply
because people do not want to have to delete "unfree"
material that they have gotten used to having.
Because it would hamstring Wikipedia.   I understand
that but I do not understand why such reasoning cannot
be applied to other projects.

Obviously we want to have as many things be as free as
possible, but it is not always possible which this
policy concedes.   When Wikisource contains giant gaps
in the coverage of certain categories it fails to be
useful in those areas at all.  If the overriding goal
of WMF is to focus on solely on "free content" by this
definition, then Wikisource can focus its enerigies in
other areas and change it's scope a bit.  And let us
see Wikipedia also prove how much can be done with
"free content" alone.  But if being successful is
truly half of our goal, allow Wiksource to work
towards that with an equal amount of the flexibility
that is afforded to Wikipedia.

Birgitte SB

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


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/2/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Remembering previous conversations, you conveniently forget what to do
>> about logos of companies and similar info. For the English language
>> Wikipedia it is "not a problem" because the problem is hidden under
>> their "fair use". It is however really powerful information. People
>> KNOW organisations by their logos and it does make sense to have a way
>> to include these using a license that does allow for inclusion.
>>
>
> While en.wp has initially been extremely liberal in its application of
> "fair use", a few other Wikipedias prohibit it entirely. I think it's
> time that we work towards fair use / fair dealing policies on all
> Wikimedia projects. This is going to be a bit tricky as we have to
> distinguish between the law that applies to the uploader of the work,
> and the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation which is hosting
> the work.
>
> I would appreciate a legal opinion on how to best achieve this - my
> own feeling is that the fair use policies of a project like de.wp or
> nl.wp should explain the legal situation in countries where these
> languages are predominantly spoken, while allowing the freedoms
> granted under U.S. law.
>
> When each project has very limited fair use, pictures like logos or
> screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As I've argued before,
> there are going to be very, very few cases where a company will agree
> to license their logo under something like CC-ND. Imagine such a
> proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like to use your logo,
> could you please license it under Creative Commons No-Derivatives"?
> Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization; seeing no benefit
> in such an arrangement, most of them would flat our reject the idea, I
> think.
>
> The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be dangerous as it could
> prevent us from looking for a better solution. I don't think there's
> any court in this world who would find copyright infringement if we
> add the logo of a company to an encyclopedia article. Our policies
> just need to allow making use of these exemptions to copyright law.
>
> Erik
Hoi,
Well, CC-ND would indeed not be acceptable to companies for their TM
material. They need to protect their trademark and as such CC-ND does
not fit the requirements. This too is for us an old argument. In my
opinion there is a need for a license that acknowledges the TM status of
TM material and allows the use of such material in the kind of content
that we as a Foundation produce.. that is not only but also
encyclopaedic articles.

Looking for a better solution, well really, we have had some five years
to think of it and we have friendly organisations willing to provide us
with such material but cannot for legal reasons. Oh yes, it is trademark
law not copyright law that is the issue so we still seem to confuse the
issue.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Jesse W wrote:

> On May 3, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:
>
>> Given the existence of automated listing tools, adding a note to
>> a creator's talk page might not be a heavy burden and can only
>> be helpful for those who are not heavy watchlist users.
>
> That gives me an idea - what about a bot, that would go through AfD's,
> identify the "major contributors" (somehow) and, unless they had
> already commented on the page, drop a short note on their talk page.
> I would have not objections to that. (Except for the minor sadness of
> having *even more* bot-created talk page messages, but that's not
> really an objection... ;-) ).

This would be immensely better than imposing another procedural hurdle
on nominators, especially one that's likely counterproductive from the
nominator's perspective. Requiring human volunteers to do work they
don't want to do is not usually a good idea, and in these circumstances
would likely lead to grouchy nominators making _more_ comments about
"cruft", which we all seem to agree is a bad idea. We spend entirely too
much energy trying to fix broken processes by adding more process.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
On 5/2/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 2006, at 3:18 AM, Zoney wrote:
>
> >>> According to his proposal, yes, it does.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, to be realistic you'd have to add in [[Wikipedia:Article
> >>> size]].  An article just about a four-way stop would probably be
> >>> better off merged with another article and redirected, unless it
> >>> was a
> >>> particularly interesting four-way stop.
> >>
> >> So [[Pullman, Washington]] would have detailed prose about each and
> >> every single intersection? That's absurd.
> >>
> > There's little need to deliberately present such absurd options, that
> > obviously aren't being suggested by others.
> >
> > The logical place to merge a sentence or two about an intersection
> > is into
> > the article for that route.
>
> Great. Now every city street has its own article. Imagine:
>
That would be incredible, but somehow I doubt there are that many
dedicated Wikipedians that it's going to happen.

Anyway, I look forward to the day when I can use Wikipedia to find out
about the local coffee shops and Linux User Groups and radio stations
and indie artists.  If that means I have to stop myself from clicking
on a link to [[Harrisburg Street, St. Petersburg]] and reading about
the width of the sidewalks, it's well worth it.

Otherwise, if you can think of some way that Wikipedia can allow
what's interesting to me but not allow what I personally find to be
"cruft", without boring me with the nearly impossible task of going
through every VFD discussion myself, I'd love to hear it.

Anthony


body:
--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> We can be successful while still maintaining our
> focus on providing
> free content.

I can accept this sentiment. We should remove the
exception for non-free content being allowed under
fair use.

Birgitte SB

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


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> I would make a distinction between "gems" and "articles that should not be deleted".  Good
> articles are rarely put on AfD (an exception is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TransLink_%28South_East_Queensland%29_services,
> which I started myself and wholly acknowledge received a *lot* of effort; but which is not an
> encyclopaedia article).

I'd personally disagree, and have so voted.  I feel this is a case
where 'Wiki is not paper' applies: it would never be a paper
encyclopedia article because it could never be up to date.

At worst, it should be transwikied to a more suitable project, but the
fact is, the interest in maintaining it is here, not elsewhere.

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 03/05/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >* different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
> >For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top,
> >rather than at the bottom.
> >
> The Classic skin also has the category tags at the top.  Personally, I
> like it like that.

Oh, I just meant they put them in the code up the top rather than at
the bottom - then, as you say, the skin renders them wherever the hell
it wants to. :)

Steve


body:
On 03/05/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> And then you get people who'll insist that an article MUST remain the
> way it is simply because its subject doesn't want it to.  People who
> just want to send a big "FUCK YOU" to anyone who would dare --- dare!
> --- criticise a Wikipedia article.  Imagine if Seigenthaler had shown up
> and really *did* remove the defamatory sentence from his article, only
> to be reverted and blocked --- "don't edit your own article!  Vandal!"
>
> Moderation in all things.  Ask Jimmy Wales what it's like to have an
> inaccurate bio of yourself on Wikipedia.  Ask Chip Berlet what it's like
> to have most of your bio written by conspiracy nuts.  I've never been
> notable enough for an article and (God willing) never will be, but if I
> were, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with stepping in to defend
> my own bio from vandalism and the rantings of fuckwits.

And if instead of actually fixing the article directly, the injured
party simply left a message on the talk page, and possibly at village
pump or something too? No room for cries of vandal, and probably
someone would quickly investigate and fix it.

Steve


from_name: Reinhardt WIEWE @ torg.is

subject:
[Wikitech-l] two similar messages: Undeletedrevisions and
	Undeleterevisions

body:
Hallo!

I could see:
MediaWiki:Undeletedrevisions
$1 revisions restored
MediaWiki:Undeleterevisions
$1 revisions archived

The names are very similar. Should this be one message?

best regards reinhardt [[user:gangleri]]


body:
On 5/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 3 May 2006, at 12:38, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>
> > That would be incredible, but somehow I doubt there are that many
> > dedicated Wikipedians that it's going to happen.
> >
> > Anyway, I look forward to the day when I can use Wikipedia to find out
> > about the local coffee shops and Linux User Groups and radio stations
> > and indie artists.  If that means I have to stop myself from clicking
> > on a link to [[Harrisburg Street, St. Petersburg]] and reading about
> > the width of the sidewalks, it's well worth it.
>
> The problem I have with all this stuff is the people who dont understand
> that an encyclopaedia is a historic record, and that just try to write
> this stuff about what things are now. Unless people are prepared to
> write from a historical perspective it is a guidebook not an
> encyclopaedia.
>
Well, I intentionally included a list of things which *can* be written
about historically, and not just as a guidebook.  I agree with you
that it's important that the articles we have focus on presenting
timeless depictions.  Sure, some instances of these things will be
short lived, but there are usually natural parent articles to put them
in when that's the case.

> So a history of the Linux User Groups on your street, referenced with
> the
> CVS checkin histories from the street's IP addresses, yes; "There is
> a Linux
> User group in my street" or "this street is mostly inhabited by students
> and my friends and has a coffee shop on the crossroadds" is just
> cruft in
> the most derogatory sense, and should be deleted, or transwikied to a
> guidebook.
>
> Justinc

In the extreme case of "There is a Linux User group in my street",
yes.  But that sentence doesn't even allow one to identify what the
person is talking about, so that's an extreme example.

Better than deleting less extreme examples, in my opinion, would be to
drop a note on the talk page of the person who created the article and
tell them that information added to the encyclopedia needs to be
verifiable and timeless ([[Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date
quickly]] is the best link I could come up with right now, if that's
the best there is then it should probably be improved, though).  Then
sprinkle it with {{fact}}, cut out any dubious statements, and put it
on some list along the lines of ([[Wikipedia:horrible articles which
will be removed if they don't shape up really soon]]) for a couple
weeks and delete it if it doesn't get improved to where it's
verifiable and from a perspective of history (or have a chance of
quickly getting there).

By the way, [[LUG]]s generally aren't attached to streets, they're
usually attached to entire metropolitan areas.  In fact, I suspect a
well-written article on the [[Suncoast Linux Users Group]], for
example, would survive a VFD vote today.

Anthony


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >> According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous
> >> or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular."
> >> Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed
> >> extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something
> >> "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than
> >> calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even
> >> more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully
> >> understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
> >
> > I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just
> > tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles,
> > and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to
> > categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.
>
> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
> deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the
> Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
>
> If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
> jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.

Not everyone thinks of Wikipedia as a "Hacker-type" community. I feel
that it should be relevant to anyone. AfD is no exception to this.
Especially as this is where newbies get their first taste of wikipedia
bureaucracy. We should be especially careful not to bite the newbies
in this or any other encounter they may have.

> >> Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than
> >> vouching for
> >> its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason
> >> saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
> >
> > Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries
> > connotations that a simple act does not.
>
> Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something
> being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
>
> This is the same reasoning behind not using "janitor" or "secretary"
> as job titles. I'd rather not participate in this sort of
> euphemization*.
>
> *A portmanteau of "euphemism" and "euthanization", defined by me as
> "putting meaning to death by means of euphemisms".

If the meaning of the word cruft is simply used by people on AfD,
whether nominators or others, because they lack respect for newbies,
then it possibly has become a euphemism for something entirely
different. And the new meaning would not be either civil, or nice. I
am not advocating that AfD's stop, just that nominators particularly,
and others, clearly state in plain english what the reason is, and
what the person could do instead, as was said before.

Peter Ansell


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Upload by default to Commons?

body:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:

>
>The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the
>assumption of bad faith.  See, for example,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the
>discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the
>issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as
>possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
>
Speaking of assuming bad faith... :-)

There are not many who upload in bad faith, and those who do tend
to weed themselves out by getting blocked. The usual case is
ignorance; while one doesn't need to know much to add a legit
sentence, valid uploads require more knowledge, including a basic
familiarity with the legalities. Even after simplifying the
legalese down via templates, and providing lots of links and advice
on the upload pages, we still get hundreds of bad uploads per day,
many of which will require admin cycles to clean up. It doesn't
help that many uploaders think they know about image copyrights
already, so there is a lot of unlearning for them to do.

One advantage to commons is that the rules are enforced rather
more stringently; while the admins from en: agonize over whether
the newbie copviolators are being sufficiently praised for investing
a whole 20 seconds copying from a random website, admins from de:
come along and blam blam blam, the problem images are gone. :-)

Stan


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 3, 2006, at 1:33 AM, charles matthews wrote:

>> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
>> deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the
>> Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
>
>> If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
>> jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
>
> No they don't.  You're describing rude, myopic communities with
> little real
> interest in outreach.  Not a global voluntary organisation.

Only rude, myopic communities have their own jargon? Are you saying
that (for instance) the hacker community, academics, and
professionals all belong to "rude, myopic communities"? Are you
saying that baseball fans are a "rude, myopic community" because they
use terms unfamiliar to newbies like "strikeout", "walk", and
"infield fly rule"?

The purpose of jargon is to make communication easier within a group.
Everyone here knows what "cruft" is. In AfD contexts, it's extraneous
content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We're all
willing to explain that to newbies. And anyone who's offended by the
word "cruft" needs to grow a thicker skin, because once we start
making up euphemisms for it, we'll end up with even more impenetrable
jargon than we have now.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] 18 months ... wiki maps

body:
On 25/04/06, S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail <sms at sabre23t.com> wrote:
> With the spread of consumer GPS devices, from Garmin/Magellan and others, "free
> map" is getting more practical. A wiki method of creating the maps would split
> "trackers" who uploads the tracks of roads and other features, and  "mappers"
> who trace over the tracks and storing/compiling in useable formats format.

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_%28web_application_hybrid%29#Mapping_mashups

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
"Philip Welch"  wrote

> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
> deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the
> Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.

> If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
> jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.

No they don't.  You're describing rude, myopic communities with little real
interest in outreach.  Not a global voluntary organisation.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
>>> In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our
>>> valued
>>> contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that
>>> their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.
>>
>> Reductio ad absurdum time:
>>
>> "In my opinion, nominating content contributed by our valued
>> contributors is incivil. It sends the clear message that their
>> contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless."
>
> Nothing absurd about it, deleting someone's contributions DOES send
> the signal that that particular contribution is considered
> valueless by the deleting authority (speedying admin or
> supermajority of AfD folks).

You missed two important points there:

1. "and, by extension, themselves"
2. Kelly's' implied conclusion is that we shouldn't call things
"cruft". By her reasoning, we should never delete anything either.

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


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 1:07 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:

>> Listcruft is a term on AfD used for the deletion of lists.
>> Generally, it
>> is
>> used for pointless lists.
>
> It is a particularly uncivil term generally used to abbreviate "I
> never
> heard of this stuff, and I can't imagine ever wanting to know it,
> so anybody
> who would is obviously stupid: it should be cleared out of
> Wikipedia now to
> make room for my stuff".
>
> AfD is becoming a cesspit which can only be recovered by draining,
> dynamiting and redigging.

Careful, Phil, you're being uncivil towards everyone who uses AfD and
towards Joe in particular here.

Not that it's unprecedented for people on this list to be civility
hypocrites.

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


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> RfA too please. Everytime I read either the talk page or the project
> page I sigh with sadness...
>
> <examples snipped>
>
> sigh...grr...sigh...
>
> Why can't people just raise their concerns directly with the
> candidates, rather than using these petty concerns as a cudgel to
> bludgeon them over the head with when they're at their most vulnerable
> - asking for acceptance from the community?

Trial by fire. If someone can't take the "abuse" of a standard RfA,
they can't take the ongoing abuse that admins take all the time from
vandals, trolls, and other trouble-makers.

Personally, I went through RfA just like a lot of people here. You
don't see me whining about how I was bludgeoned over the head. RfA is
supposed to be a tough process to get through.

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


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> That would be incredible, but somehow I doubt there are that many
> dedicated Wikipedians that it's going to happen.
>
> Anyway, I look forward to the day when I can use Wikipedia to find out
> about the local coffee shops and Linux User Groups and radio stations
> and indie artists.  If that means I have to stop myself from clicking
> on a link to [[Harrisburg Street, St. Petersburg]] and reading about
> the width of the sidewalks, it's well worth it.
>
> Otherwise, if you can think of some way that Wikipedia can allow
> what's interesting to me but not allow what I personally find to be
> "cruft", without boring me with the nearly impossible task of going
> through every VFD discussion myself, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, it would be not too bad to put together city guides and
such, either within Wikipedia or within a separate project. But there
is so much more content of such wider interest waiting to be
developed that we shouldn't divide our efforts.

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


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 4:48 AM, Justin Cormack wrote:

> The problem I have with all this stuff is the people who dont
> understand
> that an encyclopaedia is a historic record, and that just try to write
> this stuff about what things are now. Unless people are prepared to
> write from a historical perspective it is a guidebook not an
> encyclopaedia.

In this case, the coffee shop used to be a Hi-Co, and the bar was
only built in the last couple of months.

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


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Gallagher Mark George wrote:

>>> Not that it's unprecedented for people on this list to be civility
>>> hypocrites.
>>
>> Eep, let's chill, everyone, please?
>
> I think he was making a joke (referring to Joe's problem of being
> accused of "hypocrisy").  If so, it was ... reasonably ... droll.
> I guess.  Definitely unnecessary, regardless of the verdict.
>
> If he was not joking, it was of course an unconscionable insult and
> I shall stand ready to defend Phil B's honour in a duel at dawn.
> Smelly socks at twenty paces, Phil W!  Are you ready?

I'm not allowed to call people out for being uncivil while at the
same time complaining about other people's incivility? "Hypocrite"
was too strong a word perhaps. I should have said, "It amuses me how
the least civil people on this list are the ones complaining about
the incivility of others." Because now instead of being a hypocrite,
you're entertainment. And that's better.

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


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Gallagher Mark George wrote:

> And my personal favourite ...
> "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TOY!"

I actually tried to get "Wikipedia is not your plaything" added to
[[WP:NOT]], but I wasn't able to get consensus for it.

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
geni wrote:
> On 5/3/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd have to say G-man is an abberation. There is no well-defined or
>> accepted reference system for citing games as references, as opposed
>> to articles sourced from books and movies (take a look at
>> [[Palpatine]]). How would you even do it?
>>
>
> You don't. That would be original reseach.
No, that would be citing a _primary_ source, which is entirely within
the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Indeed, in many cases the game
itself would probably be a lot easier to get ahold of for verification
than old issues of game magazines that might discuss it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'm not clear on what you mean by citing a game? And the motivations
> of doing so. Using "The blue monster appears on levels 7, 23 and 37,
> and bonus level Z3 if you finish the first 50 levels without taking
> hit" as a citation is unmanageable.
>
Howso? You just managed it right there, slap <ref> tags around it
instead of quotation marks and you're good to go. :)


from_name: Pete Bartlett

body:
>I actually tried to get "Wikipedia is not your plaything" added to
>[[WP:NOT]], but I wasn't able to get consensus for it.

I hate how we don't have [[WP:IS]] *
and how anything on [[WP:NOT]] is somehow seen to be
bestowed from above with so few people saying [[WP:WHY NOT]]

Pcb

*Well we do, but it doesn't redirect to where you might think.


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>> Actually, it would be not too bad to put together city guides and
>> such, either within Wikipedia or within a separate project. But there
>> is so much more content of such wider interest waiting to be
>> developed that we shouldn't divide our efforts.
>
> The same could be said of *any* category of articles.  Why write about
> presidents, or hurricanes, or rock stars, or fortune 500 companies,
> when there is so much else to do?  I'd personally rather read about
> coffee shops and indie artists than fortune 500 companies and rock
> stars anyway.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that [[Zoe's Cafe, Pullman,
Washington]] will be of interest to fewer readers than [[Hurricane
Katrina]].

There are probably some fascinating and unique coffee shops that we
can have articles on, but the one down the street from me probably
isn't one of them.

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


body:
On 03/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> How many articles are on your watchlist? Do /you/ check every edit that
> appears on your watchlist?

Until there are better facilities for managing watchlists, I don't
think anyone can do that. I have close to 1000 articles on mine, and
others have 5 or 10 times as many. I tend to find that using "my
contributions" works better, checking any article for which my edit is
not the latest.

If anyone did feel like building some watchlist management tools, here
are some requests:
* Create a view which shows each article in your watchlist, sorted by
the most recent change (unlike the current view which can show each
article several times)
* Add checkboxes to the previously described view, allowing you to
rapidly unselect large numbers of pages from the watch list
* Add an option to remove all pages which you have not edited in the
last X days, or for which none of the last Y edits have been made for
you.
* Allow a way of bookmarking pages without actually "watching" them.
That is, to record the fact that a particular page was interesting,
without actually wanting to be informed of every change to that page.
*On a watchlist view, provide a link to compare the current version of
the page with the last version that you edited.

Even a way to bulk delete *all* items from my watchlist would be
better than nothing. So frequently I want to watch an article for a
couple of days, but that's it. I end up with hundreds of articles I
don't really have much interest in, but there's no way to prune them
except by the very tedious process of unwatching them one at a time.

Steve


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because people don't know about the sciences but everyone knows a bit
> about polular culture. I doubt many people who haven't studied
> chemistry know what a [[Biaxial nematic]] is. However everyone knows
> what a website or a band is. A lot of people will know a bit about
> fictional characters. The other thing is verifiability. Science is
> practicaly defined by pulication but even fairly well writen pop
> culture articles such as [[G-Man (Half-Life)]] have zero citations.
>
> --
> geni

I'd have to say G-man is an abberation. There is no well-defined or
accepted reference system for citing games as references, as opposed
to articles sourced from books and movies (take a look at
[[Palpatine]]). How would you even do it? If a game is broken down
into well-defined levels or segments, it is possible, but it is still
difficult, and suppose it's a more free-form game than a rigid RPG or
adventure game?  Or what if it's a multiple path RPG like the Knights
of the Old Republic were? To cite the dark side ending, I suppose one
would start having references akin to to
*''Knights of the Old Republic'', Unknown Planet, during the
transition to the Star Forge, protagonist male and majority evil.

~maru


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Frankly, the number of dodgy images uploaded by irresponsible, selfish or just downright stupid people every day is enough to make one break down and gibber in terror.  The last thing we want to do is inflict our problems on Commons ...
>

Agreed.  I'm about *this* far from accidentally modifying OrphanBot to
remove every image uploaded by someone with fewer than a hundred
edits.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 5/3/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like this idea. I don't think there would be very many bad uploads,
> since only free licensed-images would go onto Commons, and if you are
> clueless, then you'll either not provide any sort of license or just
> pick a random one, and it's not like Commons isn't trigger happy, so
> even with an epidemic....

I don't think they could handle it.  Even if all the "fair use"
images, all the "no license tag" images, and all the "I don't know"
images are uploaded to En, that still leaves Commons with a flood of
800 images a day, 200+ of which will have bogus license information -
a 50% increase in workload.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 03/05/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> AfD is becoming a cesspit which can only be recovered by draining,
> dynamiting and redigging.

RfA too please. Everytime I read either the talk page or the project
page I sigh with sadness...

Oppose. Doesn't meet my admin standards. Also, I'm biased against
disruptively formatted signatures. Also, some concerns about civility.
Also, the number of comments on people's oppose votes seems to be
bordering on harassment of opposition voters.

Oppose. As Mackensen points out, MoP doesn't have a lot of main
article contributions. The work you do is important for Wikipedia as a
community, but I'm not convinced you need admin tools. I would also
recommend that you use edit summaries more often.

Oppose. I can't possibly support a user who averages 10+ edits per
page, no matter how good those edits are. Furthermore, this list gives
me a heart attack. 5,615 article-space edits per Interiot's tool looks
good on the surface, but 4,273 of them (76.1%) are to his ten favorite
articles,

Oppose: too hung up on user boxes. See his user page.

Militantly Oppose - JoshuaZ seems to be a bright guy and very
level-headed - I'm sure he'll be a great admin here. But with all
sincerity, I cannot do anything but oppose someone who has lowered
themselves to the reprehensible depths of posting "Questions" on
WP:RfA pages. The Q/A grandstanding has nothing to do with anything.

Weak Oppose. Three odd months is too soon to become an admin, in my
view at least six are required. I am also concerned that this user
sometimes fails to understand that proper sourcing actually requires a
footnote or other direct reference

Oppose (for now) - no valid email address on file, thus no way to
contact privately, which is essential for admins.
[this one is especially unfathomable - opposing adminship on the
grounds that they haven't yet validated their email address?]

sigh...grr...sigh...

Why can't people just raise their concerns directly with the
candidates, rather than using these petty concerns as a cudgel to
bludgeon them over the head with when they're at their most vulnerable
- asking for acceptance from the community?

Steve


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Or perhaps I'm missing something - is there any reason I should ever
> want to upload something to EN, other than fair use?

Any number of practical considerations, especially when we're dealing
with newer users:

1. Most en: contributors don't have a Commons account; until single
login is actually implemented, having to sign up for a new account
will just be an annoyance.
1.a. Even if users _do_ sign up to Commons, they are unlikely to check
their talk pages there on a regular basis, which would make contacting
them far more difficult.
2. Images uploaded to Commons with what turns out to be an unsuitable
license are likely to be deleted out of hand, with no notification to
the user; such images on en: can be retagged as fair use if needed.
3. Conversely, Commons does not (at present) have the infrastructure
in place to deal with the flood of new uploads we see on en:, making
it more likely that non-free images will slip through the cracks.

Having a more streamlined process for migrating free images to Commons
would be better, in my opinion; but even that might not be possible
with the increasingly stringent demands being placed on image tagging.

Kirill Lokshin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Watchlist feature requests (was Re: Cruft)

body:
On 03/05/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > * Create a view which shows each article in your watchlist, sorted by
> > the most recent change
>
> That's what the watchlist does...
>
> > (unlike the current view which can show each article several times)

Err, right, what was I thinking of - how about some more options for
sorting then, particularly by *my* last recent change. In other words,
how relevant the item on the watchlist is, rather than simply which
has been touched last.

> If so that's a bug.

No, it's my confusion.

>
> > * Allow a way of bookmarking pages without actually "watching" them.
> > That is, to record the fact that a particular page was interesting,
> > without actually wanting to be informed of every change to that page.
>
> *cough* your browser has this feature *cough* ;)

Well, I don't take my browser with me everywhere :) If it was
integrated into mediawiki, it could do interesting things like say how
many people had updated the page since you last touched it, what
changes there are, let you categorise your bookmarked pages somehow..

Steve


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

body:
Some of your requests are available through edition of your monobook.js.
Contributors from fr wikipedia have created javascripts to manage watchlist
easilly: for example, you can remove all articles from your watchlist, or
only subpages from AfD... you can also hide bots in your watchlist. You can
find this there :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Monobook/Fonctions_avanc%C3%A9es

g.

On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How many articles are on your watchlist? Do /you/ check every edit that
> > appears on your watchlist?
>
> Until there are better facilities for managing watchlists, I don't
> think anyone can do that. I have close to 1000 articles on mine, and
> others have 5 or 10 times as many. I tend to find that using "my
> contributions" works better, checking any article for which my edit is
> not the latest.
>
> If anyone did feel like building some watchlist management tools, here
> are some requests:
> * Create a view which shows each article in your watchlist, sorted by
> the most recent change (unlike the current view which can show each
> article several times)
> * Add checkboxes to the previously described view, allowing you to
> rapidly unselect large numbers of pages from the watch list
> * Add an option to remove all pages which you have not edited in the
> last X days, or for which none of the last Y edits have been made for
> you.
> * Allow a way of bookmarking pages without actually "watching" them.
> That is, to record the fact that a particular page was interesting,
> without actually wanting to be informed of every change to that page.
> *On a watchlist view, provide a link to compare the current version of
> the page with the last version that you edited.
>
> Even a way to bulk delete *all* items from my watchlist would be
> better than nothing. So frequently I want to watch an article for a
> couple of days, but that's it. I end up with hundreds of articles I
> don't really have much interest in, but there's no way to prune them
> except by the very tedious process of unwatching them one at a time.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Guillom
"Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom


subject: [Wikitech-l] Invalid titles in the database

body:
Hallo!

There are some invalid titles in the database:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers
user 'user:'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&offset=9820
user ':ex::'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/User:9zzzz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/User_talk:9zzzz

best regards reinhardt [[user:gangleri]]


body:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images
> once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can
> you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?

Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century
paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)

The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the
assumption of bad faith.  See, for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the
discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the
issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as
possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.

Kirill


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> At first glance, that article has a lot of OR in it. It would be a
> great article if at least we could point to bulletin boards, forums,
> wikis, or whatever proving that people (other than Wikipedians) have
> spent time analysing this character and trying to determine who he is
> or what he does. Then the article could be more on the social
> phenomenon. There are occasional fleeting references to "the half life
> community" or "fans of the game", but surprisingly, no links can be
> given to substantiate that these debates have actually taken place.
>
> In a word: this article is a perfect example of where blogs and forums
> *should* be cited, if only as primary sources.
>
> Citing the game itself is probably the wrong direction to be going here.
>
> Steve

Why can't we cite games though? I'm sensing a distinct dislike of
citing anything not easily represented in textual form. Obscure books
and monographs impossible for anyone to get ahold of? Sure. A
multi-million copy selling game whose cutscenes and game events are
not easily cited? No way.

~maru


body:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > sprinkle it with {{fact}}, cut out any dubious statements, and put it
> > on some list along the lines of ([[Wikipedia:horrible articles which
> > will be removed if they don't shape up really soon]]) for a couple
> > weeks and delete it if it doesn't get improved to where it's
> > verifiable and from a perspective of history (or have a chance of
> > quickly getting there).
>
> Why do we delete "horrible" articles if they don't shape up "really
> soon"? What's soon? Why don't we want horrible articles hanging around
> for 2 years? Are "horrible" articles better or worse than stubs on the
> same topics?
>
By a horrible article I mean one with no verifiable content
whatsoever.  Depending whether or not the person creating the article
seems to be acting in good faith I'd say it should stay around between
no time at all and two weeks or so.

And IMO yes, an article which is not verifiable is worse than nothing
at all.  It should be corrected as soon as possible, and keeping it
around in the main namespace for very long is not acceptable (still
IMO, of course).

> > By the way, [[LUG]]s generally aren't attached to streets, they're
> > usually attached to entire metropolitan areas.  In fact, I suspect a
> > well-written article on the [[Suncoast Linux Users Group]], for
> > example, would survive a VFD vote today.
>
> I'm sad to hear that well-writtenness is a criteria in AfDs. If it's
> not well-written someone should just fix it.
>
> Steve

I agree with that point to some extent (at some point you've gotta
just stop feeding the trolls though).  In any case, how well written
an article is *does* tend to affect the outcome of votes on deletion.

Anthony


body:
On 03/05/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some of your requests are available through edition of your monobook.js.
> Contributors from fr wikipedia have created javascripts to manage watchlist
> easilly: for example, you can remove all articles from your watchlist, or
> only subpages from AfD... you can also hide bots in your watchlist. You can
> find this there :
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Monobook/Fonctions_avanc%C3%A9es
>
> g.

Thanks, works well (just had to modify it a bit to work on en)! So it
seems my request of checkboxes to rapidly remove large numbers of
watched articles already existed, but I never noticed it.

For the curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit

The monobook changes above improve the functionality somewhat though.

Out of curiosity, what's the process for getting a change incorporated
into the standard monobook.js?

Steve


body:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone?
> >
> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cleanup_by_month
> >
> > 15000 articles.
> >
> > Looks like anyone who might be that someone has enough work on their
> > hands already.
>
> Yep. But the vast majority of those articles are good enough that
> they're better than a conspicuous hole where they used to be. I don't
> object to us aiming for higher standards, but I do object to us nuking
> anything that's trying to get there - if slowly.
>
> Steve

For my part I think there's a bare minimum of effort which the authors
of an article need to perform before they can expect someone else to
fix things.  Verifiability - pointing to a source where someone can
find out more information, is a big part of that bare minimum of
effort.

Of course not everyone knows about verifiability, so you should
generally give them a chance to correct their own mistake first unless
it's plainly obvious they are simply abusing the system.

Anthony


body:
I think you just need a sysop to change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js... after getting approval
from the community :)

On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/05/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some of your requests are available through edition of your monobook.js.
> > Contributors from fr wikipedia have created javascripts to manage
> watchlist
> > easilly: for example, you can remove all articles from your watchlist,
> or
> > only subpages from AfD... you can also hide bots in your watchlist. You
> can
> > find this there :
> >
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Monobook/Fonctions_avanc%C3%A9es
> >
> > g.
>
> Thanks, works well (just had to modify it a bit to work on en)! So it
> seems my request of checkboxes to rapidly remove large numbers of
> watched articles already existed, but I never noticed it.
>
> For the curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit
>
> The monobook changes above improve the functionality somewhat though.
>
> Out of curiosity, what's the process for getting a change incorporated
> into the standard monobook.js?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Guillom
"Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom


body:
the correct link is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js.>(without
that *%&$ dot)

On 5/3/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you just need a sysop to change
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js... after getting
> approval from the community :)
>
> On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 03/05/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some of your requests are available through edition of your
> > monobook.js.
> > > Contributors from fr wikipedia have created javascripts to manage
> > watchlist
> > > easilly: for example, you can remove all articles from your watchlist,
> > or
> > > only subpages from AfD... you can also hide bots in your watchlist.
> > You can
> > > find this there :
> > >
> > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Monobook/Fonctions_avanc%C3%A9es
> > >
> > > g.
> >
> > Thanks, works well (just had to modify it a bit to work on en)! So it
> > seems my request of checkboxes to rapidly remove large numbers of
> > watched articles already existed, but I never noticed it.
> >
> > For the curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit
> >
> > The monobook changes above improve the functionality somewhat though.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, what's the process for getting a change incorporated
> > into the standard monobook.js?
> >
> > Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Guillom
> "Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom
>

--
Guillom
"Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 03/05/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> As of now: 482 items with 78 changes in the last 3 days. Do I check all
> the contributions that include an edit summary like "{subs:afd}",
> "nomiating for deletion", or something like that?  Yes, and I don't
> think that's too much to ask.  If you have so much on your watchlist
> that you can't do that - take some things off your watchlist.

IMHO, that's a lot more to ask of a lot more people than, for example,
the simple courtesy of dropping a single message on the single talk
page of the single user who created the page which you're nominating
for deletion.

But this isn't my argument.

Steve


body:
On 5/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images
> > > once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can
> > > you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
> >
> > Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century
> > paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)
> >
>
> If the copy of the painting was made within the uk it is quite posible
> it is under copyright. Or at least the copyright status would be
> rather complex.

Curious.  I was under the impression that Bridgeman v Corel drew no
distinction based on where the copy was made (if the copy is accurate,
how could you tell?), and that _any_ (two-dimensional, slavish, etc.)
reproduction of a PD artwork was considered PD under US law.

Kirill


body:
On May 3, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> Trial by fire. If someone can't take the "abuse" of a standard RfA,
>> they can't take the ongoing abuse that admins take all the time from
>> vandals, trolls, and other trouble-makers.
>>
>> Personally, I went through RfA just like a lot of people here. You
>> don't see me whining about how I was bludgeoned over the head. RfA is
>> supposed to be a tough process to get through.
>
> Oh, I'm not objecting to it being rough. I'm objecting to someone
> actually being opposed for RfA for petty reasons

That seems fair, but RfA is a community based process, not a policy
based process. With a community based process, you have to allow
people to use criteria you disagree with in exchange for allowing
consensus. With a policy based process, criteria might be more
rational, but you might lose consensus.

I'm not saying the problem is insoluble, but there's always going to
be people using criteria you don't like to vote on RfA.

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


body:
On 03/05/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yes, there's
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts on en:
> which has a heap of these sort of things (somewhere). I've crosslinked them.

It would be cool if there was a simple way where a user could click to
include all these functionalities. They're quite modular, and often
don't conflict with each other. So wouldn't it be nice if you could
just click to include some code, rather than copy-pasting. Personally,
I find after about 3-4 functions included, my monobook.js is totally
out of control. Or maybe it's possible to {transclude} subpages to
make it tidier?

Yes, there would be security issues to sort out - presumably you would
be including a specific version of the page, not just "the latest
version".

SoC project?

Steve


from_name: Rotem Liss

body:
As far as I understand, the first one says that a user has restored $1
revisions, and the second one says that $1 revisions are archived and
deleted.

Reinhardt WIEWE @ torg.is wrote:

>Hallo!
>
>I could see:
>MediaWiki:Undeletedrevisions
>$1 revisions restored
>MediaWiki:Undeleterevisions
>$1 revisions archived
>
>The names are very similar. Should this be one message?
>
>best regards reinhardt [[user:gangleri]]
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Should interlanguage links be listed at
	special:Mostlinked ?

body:
Hallo!

http://is.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=special:Mostlinked&limit=500&offset=500
shows equivalents of
http://is.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=special:Whatlinkshere&target=lld%3Av%C3%ABndres
http://is.wiktionary.org/wiki/special:Whatlinkshere/crh:cuma
http://is.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=special:Whatlinkshere&target=krc:%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC_%D0%BA%D1%8E%D0%BD
http://is.wiktionary.org/wiki/special:Whatlinkshere/kaa:juma
http://is.wiktionary.org/wiki/special:Whatlinkshere/hsb:pjatk
http://is.wiktionary.org/wiki/special:Whatlinkshere/hsb:pjatk

and
http://yi.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=special:Mostlinked&limit=500&offset=0
shows them as well because of interlanguage links in the MediaWiki namespace.

Is this a *one time* issue or a bug?

best regards reinhardt [[user:gangleri]]


body:
On 5/3/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We can be successful while still maintaining our
> > focus on providing
> > free content.
> I can accept this sentiment. We should remove the
> exception for non-free content being allowed under
> fair use.
>
> Birgitte SB

Sure, but at the same time we should acknowledge that an encyclopedia
article that is legal to copy, distribute, improve, and translate, for
any purpose (including commercial ones), in the vast majority of the
world, is "free enough", even if the pictures can't be cut out and put
in your car commercial.  IOW, some fair use can be allowed while the
work remains free.

Anthony


body:
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:

> The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the
> assumption of bad faith.  See, for example,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the
> discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the
> issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as
> possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.

When it comes to image uploads and tagging, I don't assume bad faith.
I assume cheerfully aggressive cluelessness.  I wish the problems were
caused by people acting in bad faith -- it'd be easier to deal with,
then.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 5/3/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> One advantage to commons is that the rules are enforced rather
> more stringently; while the admins from en: agonize over whether
> the newbie copviolators are being sufficiently praised for investing
> a whole 20 seconds copying from a random website, admins from de:
> come along and blam blam blam, the problem images are gone. :-)

de: doesn't allow fair use images, right?  That makes it much easier,
since there's no motivation to try and salvage a borderline image ;-)

Kirill Lokshin


body:
On 03/05/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The JS version of transclusion appears to be:
>
> document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
>              + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'
>              + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
>
> I think it would be a brilliant idea to modularise and bring together all scripts
> in a consistent fashion under a WikiProject umbrella, so the editor just has
> to include a selection of subpages.

Can such a thing be achieved through javascript? I'm imagining
something like this:

1. User makes a single modification to their monobook.js to include
the module tool.
2. The module tool provides an interface such that they can select the
modules that interest them
3. Modules currently selected are saved somewhere like user:Stevage/modules
4. When the user confirms, the tool retrieves the originals and writes
them to something like user:Stevage/modulecode
5. Either the user, or the tool automatically adds a line which
includes everything in user:Stevage/modulecode as you described above.

Feasible? Comments?

Steve


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Monobook.js mystery

body:
Hi!

Working on interface translation I stepped into a mystery: my monobook.js
seems to get disrupted by translation. I get a javascript ") missing" error
which seems totally out of place, especially since I still get it when I put
the default text back in place. Is there anything I am missing? I obviously
deleted all the cached files a number of times, and triple checked for \'
signs to be in place. Brackets are in pairs as they should be... Can't seem
to see any PHP reason why I should get this problem.

B?rto

My translation is:

/* tooltips and access keys */
ta = new Object();
ta['pt-userpage'] = new Array('.','Mia p?gina Utent.');
ta['pt-anonuserpage'] = new Array('.','La p?gina Utent p?r l\'adr?ssa IP
dont chiel a scriv coma an?nim.');
ta['pt-mytalk'] = new Array('n','Mia p?gina ?d discussion e ciaciarade.');
ta['pt-anontalk'] = new Array('n','P?gina ?d discussion e ciaciarade p?r
l\'adr?ssa IP dont chiel a scriv coma an?nim.');
ta['pt-preferences'] = new Array('','Coma che i veuj mia wikipedia.');
ta['pt-watchlist'] = new Array('l','Lista dle p?gine che chiel as ten sot
euj.');
ta['pt-mycontris'] = new Array('y','S?n i l\'hai falo mi! ');
ta['pt-login'] = new Array('o','Un a l\'? nen oblig? a rintr? ant al
sistema, ma se a lo fa a l\'? mej.');
ta['pt-anonlogin'] = new Array('o','Un a l\'? nen oblig? a rintr? ant al
sistema, ma se a lo fa a l\'? mej.');
ta['pt-logout'] = new Array('o','Seurte da \'nt ?l sistema.');
ta['ca-talk'] = new Array('t','Discussion ansima a sta p?gina ?d contn?.');
ta['ca-edit'] = new Array('e','A peul modifich? sta p?gina-s?. P?r pias?,
che as fasa mostr? na preuva anans che salv? .');
ta['ca-addsection'] = new Array('+','Gionteje un coment a sta
discussion-s?.');
ta['ca-viewsource'] = new Array('e','Sta p?gina-s? a l\'? proteta, ma as
peul ?s-ciairene la sorgiss.');
ta['ca-history'] = new Array('h','Veje version dla p?gina.');
ta['ca-protect'] = new Array('=','P?r protege sta p?gina-s?.');
ta['ca-delete'] = new Array('d','Scancel? sta p?gina-s?');
ta['ca-undelete'] = new Array('d','Pij? andr? le mod?fiche faite a sta
p?gina-s?, anans che a la fussa scancel?.');
ta['ca-move'] = new Array('m','Tramud? sta p?gina, visad? cangeje t?tol.');
ta['ca-watch'] = new Array('w','Giont? sta p?gina-s? a la lista dle r?be che
as ten-o sot euj.');
ta['ca-unwatch'] = new Array('w','Gav? via sta p?gina da \'nt la lista dle
r?be che as ten sot euj.');
ta['search'] = new Array('f','S?rch? \'d r?ba p?r la wiki.');
ta['p-logo'] = new Array('','P?gina prinsipal.');
ta['n-mainpage'] = new Array('z','Visit? la p?gina prinsipal.');
ta['n-portal'] = new Array('','R?sguard al proget, l?n che a peul f?, andoa
trov? c?sa.');
ta['n-currentevents'] = new Array('','Informassion ansima a l?n che a-i
riva.');
ta['n-recentchanges'] = new Array('r','Lista dj\'?ltime mod?fiche ant la
wiki.');
ta['n-randompage'] = new Array('x','Cari? na p?gina basta che a sia.');
ta['n-help'] = new Array('','?l p?st p?r cap?.');
ta['n-sitesupport'] = new Array('','Dene na man.');
ta['t-whatlinkshere'] = new Array('j','Lista ?d tute le p?gine dla wiki che
a l'han n\'anliura che a men-a ambeless?.');
ta['t-recentchangeslinked'] = new Array('k','?ltime mod?fiche ant le p?gine
andoa as peul andesse da sta p?gina-s?.');
ta['feed-rss'] = new Array('','RSS feed p?r sta p?gina-s?.');
ta['feed-atom'] = new Array('','Atom feed p?r sta p?gina-s?.');
ta['t-contributions'] = new Array('','Vard? la lista dle contribussion d?
st\'Utent-s?.');
ta['t-emailuser'] = new Array('','Mandeje un messagi ?d p?sta a
st\'Utent-s?');
ta['t-upload'] = new Array('u','Cari? archivi ?d figure ? son.');
ta['t-specialpages'] = new Array('q','Lista ?d tute le p?gine speciaj.');
ta['ca-nstab-main'] = new Array('c','Vard? la p?gina ?d contn?.');
ta['ca-nstab-user'] = new Array('c','Vard? la p?gina Utent.');
ta['ca-nstab-media'] = new Array('c','Vard? la p?gina dl\'archivi.');
ta['ca-nstab-special'] = new Array(' ','Costa a l\'? na p?gina special, as
peul pa modifichesse.');
ta['ca-nstab-wp'] = new Array('a','Vard? la p?gina proteta.');
ta['ca-nstab-image'] = new Array('c','Vard? la p?gina dl\'archivi.');
ta['ca-nstab-mediawiki'] = new Array('c','Vard? ?l messagi ?d sistema.');
ta['ca-nstab-template'] = new Array('c','Vard? l? stamp.');
ta['ca-nstab-help'] = new Array('c','Vard? la p?gina d\'agiut.');
ta['ca-nstab-category'] = new Array('c','Vard? la p?gina dla categor?a.');


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Sam,

> Some people use 'cruft' (me, for example) in the original sense - it's
> the word for that dust and fluff you pull out from under furniture. It
> is, outside of Wikipedia, most commonly applied to badly written and
> messy programming. Back in Wiki context, the term (when used in this
> sense, at least) makes no assertion of notability, but rather suggests
> that the article is in need of a major rewrite and/or cleanup.

In computing terms, "cruft" is often used as a synonym for Phillip K
Dick's "kipple" --- the little errors that build up in Windows over
time.  Entropy in action.  Likewise "cruft" can refer to the
encyclopaedia holding more crap than not as people's enthusiasm
overwhelms their common sense.  Sadly, what is and is not crap is
subject to hot debate.

Describing someone's good-faith contributions as "cruft" can be quite
offensive, and the mere fact that people see it as having value makes
the "cruft" moniker likely to be improperly applied.  Then again, there
are some contributions that simply cannot be defended.  There used to be
an "... in popular culture" section in our article on DEFCON that said
something like "In /Buffy the Vampire Slayer/, Faith says 'we're at
DEFCON 2!', or words to that effect" ...

> So 'listcruft' implies a poorly-written list, probably in need of a
> loving Wikipedian to take it in and foster it back to full health.
> However, some 'cruft' is beyond redemption, and the best remedy for
> that is a brand new stub to take its place.
>
> Can you tell I don't regularly take part in AfDs?

-cruft is coming to mean "I don't want this here", and has therefore
changed in meaning from insulting the person who wrote an
up-for-deletion article into the new, and more disturbing, form of
insulting the person who uses it, and the intelligence of the person who
reads it.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 2/05/2006


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

body:
My anger would be palpable. Due to my natural charisma, of course,
everybody would join me, and we would soundly... 'trounce' you. (-;

On May 3, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 03/05/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> I just had to comment on this - I have never seen a square pig in my
>> entire life, but if I *DID* find a square pig, I'd defiantly
>> immediately try to stick it in a round hole i found. Just my 2?...
>
> You'd be trying to "defy" me, or Adrian? :)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
>
>
> Great. Now every city street has its own article. Imagine:
>
> ---
>
>  From [[Merman Drive, Pullman, Washington]]:
>
> The drive goes past several apartment complexes, a coffee shop, and a
> bar. The vast majority of the street's population consists of
> [[Washington State University]] students.
>
> Merman Drive intersects [[Terre View Drive, Pullman, Washington]] at
> a [[four-way stop]]. This stop is at the same intersection as Zoe's
> Cafe, the aforementioned coffee shop.
>
> ---
>
> Shoot me now.
>
>
I think you forgot to link [[Zoe's Cafe]].

-- Neil


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] English Wikipedia Version 1.0 logo copyrighted
	to foundation

body:
Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
> As part of the planned release of the English Wikipedia's "Version 1.0"
> release, one editor had created a logo for the project based on the
> Wikipedia globe, which would constitute a derivative work. I recently found
> out that the logo, found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WP1_0_Icon.png, was "released" under the
> GFDL. As this is not possible due to the Foundation's policy, after
> consulting with Anthere, I changed the copyright of the image to point to
> the Foundation, as done in the Wikipedia logo page.
>
>
>
> I'd like to know if this is enough to transfer ownership of the image to the
> Foundation, or if there is something left to be done. We might need another
> derivative logo for a planned test release, dubbed "Wikipedia 0.5" for now,
> so I would also like to know if doing so would be possible, if it became
> necessary for the responsible editorial team to do so.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Titoxd.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Titoxd

I let the legal and communication issues aside.
I would be interested to know what/who is planned to take care of the
technical side of it.

Ant


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 5/3/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I actually tried to get "Wikipedia is not your plaything" added to
> >[[WP:NOT]], but I wasn't able to get consensus for it.
>
> I hate how we don't have [[WP:IS]] *
> and how anything on [[WP:NOT]] is somehow seen to be
> bestowed from above with so few people saying [[WP:WHY NOT]]
>
> Pcb
>
> *Well we do, but it doesn't redirect to where you might think.

Thanks for the link - I have been half looking for something like that for
the longest while...


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Monobook.js mystery

body:
Hi again,

as always, one more obvious medecine solved the problem: some strings were
too long. It's okay now.

B?rto


subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards MW 2.0

body:
We're working on a complete re-write of MW in Perl. Well not exactly
a port, but we like lots of mediawiki features, and will be really
looking at it for tips, we just like perl more and need a few things
customized to work with our goal instead of the messed up wikimedia
one; including a lot more support for integration between wikis on a
network.

On May 3, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:26:06PM -0400, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> I was curious what the current plans are for MW 2.0.  Will it just be
>> announced sometime during the quarterly release schedule?  Will it
>> be a
>> considerable rewrite?
>>
>> If the later, I have an interesting idea for SoC.  How about somebody
>> rewrite the MW 1.6 core.  Details of the rewrite would include
>>
>> *Changing everything to PHP 5 (better OO support in core)
>
> If you're going to rewrite it -- why not rewrite it in another
> language?
>
> --
> Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> "A script is what you give the actors.  A program
> is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
G'day Fred,

> Sometimes the quality of the sources may differ substantially with
> one source representing scholarly opinion, the other reflecting
> popular culture.

Or, surprisingly commonly, the other reflects not popular culture but
the view of an idiot who should be locked up for his own protection.

See: Eurasian Land Bridge, Anti-metrication, Gatekeeper (politics), and,
well, too many to mention, I guess.  I think you could probably pick any
POV, however, absurd, and find that there's a batshit conspiracy
theorist who holds it.  Further, that conspiracy theorist will either
edit or inspire another loony to edit Wikipedia to push that POV sooner
or later.  We're too damn big.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 2/05/2006


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 3 May 2006, at 12:38, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
> That would be incredible, but somehow I doubt there are that many
> dedicated Wikipedians that it's going to happen.
>
> Anyway, I look forward to the day when I can use Wikipedia to find out
> about the local coffee shops and Linux User Groups and radio stations
> and indie artists.  If that means I have to stop myself from clicking
> on a link to [[Harrisburg Street, St. Petersburg]] and reading about
> the width of the sidewalks, it's well worth it.

The problem I have with all this stuff is the people who dont understand
that an encyclopaedia is a historic record, and that just try to write
this stuff about what things are now. Unless people are prepared to
write from a historical perspective it is a guidebook not an
encyclopaedia.

So a history of the Linux User Groups on your street, referenced with
the
CVS checkin histories from the street's IP addresses, yes; "There is
a Linux
User group in my street" or "this street is mostly inhabited by students
and my friends and has a coffee shop on the crossroadds" is just
cruft in
the most derogatory sense, and should be deleted, or transwikied to a
guidebook.

Justinc


body:
On 5/3/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
....
> Now for the relevant bit. It's been discussed before, a little, and I
> touched upon it in a recent discussion sparked off from the newbie's
> questions...but it could be feasible for us to replace our
> Special:Upload pages with something a bit more intelligent. Making use
> of the licencing dropdowns, we could, I think, redirect free images to
> Commons in a seamless fashion (after checking existence and providing
> a courteous note to the user, of course).
>
> This has advantages and disadvantages. The user's upload experience is
> simple, and the image can be used as before without trouble. On the
> other hand, deliberate or accidental mis-selection of the licence
> [cw]ould result in an influx of non-free materials arriving on the
> Commons.
>
> Nevertheless, I think the idea has potential, and it's something I
> might be interested in helping to hack together in the future. I'll
> throw it out here and see what people think. And since I'm at it, I'll
> cross-post to mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, too.
>
> Rob Church

I like this idea. I don't think there would be very many bad uploads,
since only free licensed-images would go onto Commons, and if you are
clueless, then you'll either not provide any sort of license or just
pick a random one, and it's not like Commons isn't trigger happy, so
even with an epidemic....

This would provide some nice symmetry. It's already seamless one way
(using Commons pics on en) so why not be seamless the other way? We
can perhaps make some headway on moving over all Free images and media
over to Commons (leaving fair use and such on en) if we did this.

~maru


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > By a horrible article I mean one with no verifiable content
> > whatsoever.  Depending whether or not the person creating the article
> > seems to be acting in good faith I'd say it should stay around between
> > no time at all and two weeks or so.
>
> Ah, so you mean an article with no claim to notability, or a suspected
> hoax? Both candidates for speedy deletion :) If all the content is
> unverifiable, it could always be trimmed down without going through
> AfD at all.
>
Well, a suspected hoax would be on the "no time at all" end of the
scale.  A non-verifiable article submitted by a regular contributor
would be on the "two weeks or so" end.  A non-verifiable article
submitted by a relative newbie might be somewhere in between.

As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no
idea what that phrase means.

And as for trimming down an article without going through AfD at all,
that's only possible if there's *some* verifiable content (along with
enough information to tell us how to verify it).

> > And IMO yes, an article which is not verifiable is worse than nothing
> > at all.  It should be corrected as soon as possible, and keeping it
> > around in the main namespace for very long is not acceptable (still
> > IMO, of course).
>
> How about stubbing it and moving the content to the talk page, gently
> redirecting the newbie there? I'm just speculating a bit here...
>
Stubbing only works if there's something there you can verify in the
first place.  Stubbing an article without verifying that your stub is
accurate first is a very bad idea IMO, because it gives false
credibility to the possibly inaccurate statement.

> > I agree with that point to some extent (at some point you've gotta
> > just stop feeding the trolls though).  In any case, how well written
> > an article is *does* tend to affect the outcome of votes on deletion.
>
> Pity.
>
> Steve