subject: [Wikipedia-l] Interstate charitable solicitations

body:
Alex R. wrote:

>Of course no foreign  government would recognize any such regulatory
> law outside the US as a matter of course, but they could recognize
>a link between the US and some foreign law, for example there are
>bilateral tax treaties that allows some Canadian, Mexican and
>Israeli citizens/corporations  to take deductions from income for US
>charities
>and vis-a-versa.
>http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf (at page 3, first col.)
>
One important point in these treaties is that the deduction available to
a resident of one of these countries is limited to a proportion of his
United States source income.  Someone with no US source income has no
deduction.

Ec

>
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Delirium wrote:
>
>> What about things like Brion's notebook fund-- is he
>>supposed to register that in all 50 states too?  The whole thing seems a
>>bit ridiculous, which is probably why most people just ignore it.
>>
>Damfino, but I'm not a charity; I expect to pay income tax on it and
>would consider it to be technically 'wages, tips, and other income'.
>
>Yay taxes!
>
You make it sound like you enjoy paying taxes.  Not being a charity does
prevent donors from taking deductions for their donations.  The amounts
that you received were not received as a part of a business venture, nor
would the donors receive any clearly identifiable, direct benefit.
 These amounts are gifts, and as such are excludable from income.

Ec


from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Header donation solicitation is a good idea
	forfundraising drive

body:
On 6 Oct 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Alex-
> > Can it say "donations" or "donation info." rather than Donate (a bit of a
> > command)?
>
> It does say "Donations" now. The other text is "We are trying to make
> Wikipedia faster and more responsive. You can help by making a donation."
> I hope this satisfies your concerns.

>From an international perspective, could "Donations" be put in the
Language.php please, so that it can be translated?

Andre Engels


from_name: Joachim Kerschbaumer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: AW: [WikiFR-l] Plantage

body:
Hi Ant,

I used my german VISA card to donate and it worked without problems. I
use IE and Opera, both work well. Maybe he could install Opera (what I
recommend anyway ;-)

Joachim :-)

Anthere wrote:
> Just a forward of a french mail :-)
> Vincent was willing to make a donation, but could not.
> PayPal apparently requested an American Express (I do
> not think many french/Swiss/Belgian people own an
> american express).


from_name: Richard Grevers

body:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:04:36 -0700, Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> gave
utterance to the following:

> Alex R. wrote:
>> http://www.nasconet.org/public.php?pubsec=4&curdoc=10
>>
>> In section III. B. 1. b. (1) will note that an charities that has
>> an interactive web site for donations is considered to be
>> subject to state charities registrations requirements if they
>> are either targeting individuals in that state or have received
>> donations from that state on a repeated or ongoing basis.
>
> Well, we're certainly likely to meet that test soon enough for many
> states.  As it stands, when Wikimedia Foundation gets donations via
> PayPal I have no idea at all where the people live, because Paypal
> doesn't give any personal information about the person.
>
>> Eventually Wikimedia must register, but is doing so today
>> absolutely necessary? I doubt it, but if Wikimedia starts getting
>> donations from a specific state it should consider filing
>> in that State and eventually filing in all states that have
>> such a requirement (the Uniform Form will make it easier to
>> do, but there are still the filing fees which would be a burden
>> for Wikimedia right now until more people donate.
>
> Yes, we have received just around $1,000 in donations so far.  I
> notice that most (but not all) of those states have exemptions for
> organizations that have raised less than $10,000-$25,000.
>
> Judging from the typical fees of $25-50, registration in all 50 states
> might cost as much as $1250-$2500.  That's a pretty absurd use of
> funds for an organization that might be bringing in $10,000 in a year,
> although I hope we grow beyond that level pretty quickly.
>
> At least with the uniform filing, we can cover those states pretty
> easily in terms of my time, which the above cost estimate of
> $1250-$2500 assumes to be zero, not exactly true.
>
Hmm, since the Wikimedia Foundation is actually supposed to be a global
organisation, it is starting to sound as though it might have been better
to register it somewhere beyond the reach of US beauraucracy. Do all world
charities have to register in all 50 states, or only if their home base is
in one of them?
--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] DB error on Polish Wikipedia

body:
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 11:32, Youandme wrote:
> I see that sever was down(?) for some time and when it is back some people
> on Polish Wikipedia can edit articles and save them but I can't.
> Here's what I see in my browser (DB error in query and last query which failed):
>
> Wyst?pi? b??d sk?adni w zapytaniu do bazy danych. Ostatnie, nieudane zapytanie to:
> "INSERT INTO old
> (old_namespace,old_title,old_text,old_comment,old_user,old_user_text,old_timestamp,ol
> d_minor_edit,inverse_timestamp) VALUES (1, 'Z?oty', 'co oznacza \"AFAIK\" w zdaniu
> \"AFAIK pierwotnie waluta II Rzeczpospolitej mia?a si? nazywa? \"lech\".? :\"As Far
> As I Know\" [[Wikipedysta:Youandme|Youandme]] 20:19, 7 pa? 2003 (CEST)', 'odp.
> \"AFAIK\"', 2, 'Youandme', '20031007181912', 1, '79968992818087')" wywo?ane zosta?o
> przez funkcj? "Article::updateArticle". MySQL zg?osi? b??d "1062: Duplicate entry
> '77587' for key 1".

Well, that's just odd and shouldn't happen. Being an auto-increment key,
it should never duplicate itself.

I'll run a repair on the tables... pl.wiki may be halted for a bit,
sorry.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What if?

references:
<20031006200230.24340.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com>
	<3F81D5F8.9040707@planetunreal.com>
	<shisn1y2pj.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:35:52AM +0200, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> writes:
>
> > if you are particularly proud of some articles you have worked on,
> > save a copy of the wikitext as a text document on your hard drive :)
>
> Exactly.  That's what I do and I put them into my local CVS and some of
> my local articles are more up-to-date then those I submitted to the
> wikipedia.org ;)  The reasons:

Umm, then how do you integrate it with changes of others? Or you simply
"revert" them, since that's *cough* *cough* your article? :-o

<g>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What if?

body:
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 11:10, Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
> There are some holes, such as the list of user IDs, preferences, and
> passwords, which are not kept in the public backups seeing as how the
> passwords are kept in the database in plaintext.  As a practical matter,
> however, this is a minor point.

FWIW, the passwords are not kept plaintext, but are hashed. It's not the
most secure hash in the world, though, and e-mail addresses are stored
in plaintext. (Or they wouldn't be much good would they? ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Div tags -- what is 'policy'?

body:
tarquin wrote:

>> Though on a somewhat tangentially related topic, it would be nice if
>> there were a way to just say "float left" in the wikitext, rather
>> than specifying the div element manually, which raises the barrier to
>> editing for people not HTML-savvy (and makes the wikitext less
>> readable).
>
>
> The problem with that (AFAIK) is that the DIV needs to know how wide
> the picture is -- otherwise the picture caption won't be made to wrap
> & can take up the whole width of the page.
> This is basically a shortcoming in HTML / CSS
>
> So even smart markup would need to include a property indicating the
> width.
> Eg:
> >>300px>>[[Image:foo]]>>caption
>
> for a right-floated box

Couldn't image widths and heights be auto-extracted and stored in a
table somewhere upon upload, and then used for the div tags automatically?

-Mark


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cool Off Ban

body:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:52:49 -0400, user_Jamesday
<user_Jamesday at myrealbox.com> gave utterance to the following:

>>> Regarding temporary bans
>
> As a dictator elsewhere I've found them to be very useful as a way of
> setting limits without the problems a long term ban causes. They are a
> useful reminder that the rules will be enforced, if necessary.
>
> The abuse problem can be handled by:
> o a five times as long ban for anyone who is found by a majority of some
> group to have acted in a partisan way, doubling each time it happens
> within a 30 day period.
> o a six month prohibition on editing the articles over which the first
> ban was inppropriately applied or any articles linking to them at the
> time of the ban.
>
I think the second idea would potentially lead the disgruntled ones to
troll all over forums beyond wikipedia's control spreading FUD about how
we censored them (and probably invoking Godwin's law in the process :-).
Some people with bees in their bonnet about certain things have even gone
to the trouble to set up spambots to make their voice heard widely.
--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyrighted material on Wikipedia

body:
>> How can you be using that argument if you don't believe that the court documents should be private?<<

Looks as though I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. I'll take another try.

I think that the court documents should be public.

I think that, barring objections from the coprygiht holder, the record of changes to remove copyright violations should be public. If the copyright holder objects, hiding them beats a legal fight, even though I think they are not a copyright infringement.

Google was served with a takedown notice and complied with it by removing the identified items from its search results. Presumably it also supplied a copy of the notice to the http://chillingeffects.org web site and it arranged for its search result page to point to the takedown notice, which in turn gave people all of the search results it had been asked to remove.

My assertion was that the Google action was roughly comparable to the Wikipedia leaving history entries visible, but not part of the main work, that it was likely that Google had obtained capable legal advice supporting its practice, and that this suggested that we should avoid over-reaction to takedown notices in the light of their practice.

Instead of delete, I advocated a notification to the copyright holder telling them about the history and inviting them to let us know whether it was objectionable to them, so they could choose to request that we remove the history if they wish. If they make the request, I suggest that we comply promptly (or expeditiously if they reply with another takedown notice).

As a seperate matter, I argued that if a private Wikipedia contributor wanted their personal information removed, we shouldn't let the GFDL release of the information inhibit us from being socially good and helping them to remove it, even though the GFDL release means we could ignore the request.

Does this clarify my views sufficiently to address your question? If not, please let me know which areas need further larification.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Security vulnerability in SpecialUpload.php

body:
Here's something I noticed when I was mucking around in
SpecialUpload.php today: there's an easily exploitable vulnerability
which allows people to delete any file on the hard drive owned by the
apache user.

All you have to do is submit a hand-edited URL with wpReUpload set to
true and wpSavedFile set to the server path you want deleted.

As a temporary measure, I've commented out the deletion, on the live server.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Louis Kyu Won Ryu

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What if?

body:
Bj?rn Lindqvist wrote:

> Now that WP is once again down (which is bad cause I was in an editing
> mode) I'm getting a little worried about one thing. What if Bomis gets
> infected by an evil virus or there is a major power outage or one of the
> admins fuck up majorly or if the cia confiscates the servers or if there
> is a terrorist attack or if some other really bad thing happen. What
> will happen to my and thousands of other WP editors contributions? Is it
> possible that they someday will be lost due to an incident like one of
> the above? I don't know what I'd do if that ever happened.
>
Have no fear, the [[legion of propellerheads]] have each downloaded
their very own copy of the English Wikipedia, and copies of the
Wikimedia software.  A few confessed propellerheads have gone so far as
to set up private mirrors and run the software.  That is the sort of
thing that propellerheads do, in order to get their propeller spinning.

Like the [[shadow government]] said to be in waiting deep in bunkers
beneath the mountains, shadow Wikipedias sulk quietly in the ether, with
no one to make edits on them.  They have no DNS entries or links to them
to give away their presence.  They wait, and from time to time, their
keepers download the latest database dumps for them.  And the latest
PHP.  How many are there?  Are they connected to the backbone?  Could
they handle the traffic?  We have no way of knowing.

There are some holes, such as the list of user IDs, preferences, and
passwords, which are not kept in the public backups seeing as how the
passwords are kept in the database in plaintext.  As a practical matter,
however, this is a minor point.

Louis


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Walloon Wikipedia

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> There is a walloon wikipedia with 305 articles here:
> http://chanae.walon.org:2323/wiki/
> We do not currently have a Walloon Wikipedia. It
> would be at
> wa.wikipedia.org (I checked .com too).
> Is there anyone who can contact them in their
> language to make
> arrangements for them to migrate over to Wikipedia?

This covers it:
http://chanae.walon.org:2323/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sipeci%C3%A5s:Recentchanges&days=500&limit=1000

Well theres only one guy there (maybe two)-- his name
is Pablo, and has no userpage. I fairly sure he reads
English (duh)-- maybe hes a WP regular-- And its under
GNU FDL... they point to all the language wikis at the
bottom, and seem to be using the Wikipedia name.
~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Donation header (stats)

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> It might also be neat to think of ways to make your stats
> script Wikimedia wide, without confusing the distinction
> between articles, entries, quote pages, and modules (not to mention
> project-specific counts).

I will give it a thought and get back to you, but it may take a while.
I'm working on line plots right now. Also a new release of the
TomeRaider databases is scheduled for this month.

> BTW, could you change each use of "Phase III" to "MediaWiki" and maybe
provide a link to http://mediawiki.org ?

Sure.

Erik Zachte


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Wikiquette

body:
>From "Ray Saintonge":
>> Expensive depends on what's involved.<<

The problem is the use of the law as a bludgeon rather than as a tool to obtain what the law says.

See Robert Novak v. APD List Members (PetsWarehouse Lawsuit) at http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Default.html . The author of that page is a lawyer and party to the legal action. Also someone I'm personally acquainted with, since we both have contracts with the same major media company.

While every act of speech involved in that lawsuit appears to be entirely lawful, it hasn't prevented people from having to pay large sums in settlements and legal fees, simply because the complainant was willing to burn his own money to make others pay for doing something he didn't like.

You can see comparable actions in many copyright cases, particularly those involving the RIAA.

Unfortunately, the question often isn't what the law is but instead trying to work out how to behave so you reduce your chance of an unjust lawsuit to an acceptable level.


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What if?

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

>Now I'm looking for parser which is able to convert wikitexts (my
>local articles) to very simple HTML output.
>
Download UseModWiki and run it locally.


body:
Delirium wrote:

> Though on a somewhat tangentially related topic, it would be nice if
> there were a way to just say "float left" in the wikitext, rather than
> specifying the div element manually, which raises the barrier to
> editing for people not HTML-savvy (and makes the wikitext less readable).

The problem with that (AFAIK) is that the DIV needs to know how wide the
picture is -- otherwise the picture caption won't be made to wrap & can
take up the whole width of the page.
This is basically a shortcoming in HTML / CSS

So even smart markup would need to include a property indicating the width.
Eg:
 >>300px>>[[Image:foo]]>>caption

for a right-floated box


subject: [Wikitech-l] donation page does not work

body:
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 13:37, Walter Vermeir wrote:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising
>
> Works perfect whit Mozilla Firebird but not whit IE 6.0 on the computer
> at work or IE 5.5 at home. Only the left menu is loaded. The right is blank.

I can't reproduce this problem at home with IE 6.0 on Windows XP,
Windows 98, or on Linux (running via Crossover Office).

Minor visual glitch with the color stripes on the left and right edges,
but the page content appears fine.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject
> their
> junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices
> as
> scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.
>
> We need to start cracking down on contributors who do this.
>
> I'm talking about the dozens of places in which environmentalist
> contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim that there is
> a
> CONSENSUS that supports their POV. I'm talking about PhD scientists
> like
> William Connolley who insert statemnts like "Singer is wrong" into
> articles instead of NAMING the scientists who disagree with Singer
> and
> saying WHY they disagree.
>
> I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried patiently explaining
> NPOV.
> Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their POV back into
> the
> articles, even using smear tactics against scientists who report
> findings which disagree with environmentalist POV.
>
> I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias
> into the
> scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself --
> not by
> slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm
> outnumbered and outgunned.
>
> I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If
> that
> doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a
> temporary ban.
>
> Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me
> back.
> Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.
>

Document their activities, and take'em down. If they want to argue
their case, they can go the the arbitration committee.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that
> doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a
> temporary ban.

Don't do any of that, please.  Admins are not authorized to ban logged
in users except in emergency cases.

> Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me back.
> Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.

Sure, I'll back you up, but follow the process.  Make a specific
complaint against a specific person with a specific set of edits to
back it up.

--Jimbo


body:
On my Unix box in Firebird:
http://leuksman.com/misc/fund.png

On my Windows box in IE 6.0:
http://leuksman.com/misc/fund-ie.png

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: cprompt

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Times They are a'Changin'

body:
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 10:53, Gareth Owen wrote:
> "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> > "In the cold war era when both sides were ponting nuclear missiles at the
> > other it was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) :-)"
> >
> > Yes, and didnt it work?
>
> No it didn't work.  There was no nuclear war, but there were plenty of fair
> sizable non-nuclear wars -- the US in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan
> spring to mind -- and the number of civilian casualties (sorry, "collateral
> damage") runs into millions.
Offlist, please.


from_name: Alex T.

body:
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>

> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Delirium wrote:
> >
> >> What about things like Brion's notebook fund-- is he
> >>supposed to register that in all 50 states too?  The whole thing seems a
> >>bit ridiculous, which is probably why most people just ignore it.
> >>
> >Damfino, but I'm not a charity; I expect to pay income tax on it and
> >would consider it to be technically 'wages, tips, and other income'.
> >
> >Yay taxes!
> >
> You make it sound like you enjoy paying taxes.  Not being a charity does
> prevent donors from taking deductions for their donations.

But if they get audited do you think the IRS will allow them to take it
as a donation? Gifts are not generally deductible under US tax law
unless such gifts are made to a charity for a charitable purpose.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf Page 5 col. 2 states that
donations to individuals are not deductible from income.

Generally speaking in US law (I am not talking about other countries
here whose law may be substantially different from US law) the only
donations that one may deduct are to organization that have a tax
exemption by law (the so called $5,000 income per year exemption)
or by determination under the law by the IRS (available to all
not-for-profit
groups, corporations, trusts or associations).

Now maybe given money to Brian for his notebook is really giving
money to Wikimedia for a notebook that Brian can use for Wikimedia
projects. Otherwise it is not a tax deductible donation.

If someone gives you a gift it they may also have to pay a gift tax:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html

> The amounts
> that you received were not received as a part of a business venture, nor
> would the donors receive any clearly identifiable, direct benefit.
>  These amounts are gifts, and as such are excludable from income.

I am not familiar with Brian's personal income situation, but the question
may be a bit more complex than it appears. If Brian is developing software
that is licensed for commercial use (as all of the licenses software and
documentation are), then he might have an expectation for commercial
gain at some point in the future (someone wants a special patch and
Brian is the only person who can do it so then ask Brian to do it for
them in exchange for payment for services rendered, nothing wrong in
that). If his is self employed he may be using the notebook for several
purposes and it may then be considered depreciable property under
tax law and he may be able to amortize it over several years.

Sometimes if you are in business for yourself (independent contractor)
as many software developers are (even if they have a "day job")
there are more benefits to declare it as income producing. If it is just
a gift then it cannot be depreciated in such a manner. If you are in
business for yourself and have no income then the  IRS will not allow
one to take deductions after a point.

This is really an issue his tax advisor should look at, and perhaps
if Wikimedia wants it can consider this under its umbrella, though
in that case Wikimedia will have a reversionary interest in the notebook
if Brian does not continue to help Wikimedia for the useful life of
the equipment.

There are many "business" sites on the internet that have PayPal
"Donation" buttons on their site. I have inquired with a few of them
and they all state that they are not charitable or not-for-profit and
they are asking for voluntary payments in exchange for their open
content or free software or services. They consider themselves
businesses and declare the donation as income, not as a gift. If someone
provides a service and makes some money it is income.  The money
is not being given to Brian for a purely gratuitious purpose, there is
an expectation that he will use the notebook to work on Wikimedia
projects. It may not be a gift in that analysis. It may be income
as he is providing a service just like these other "businesses" who
are declaring their donations as business income. His business is
providing services to Wikimedia in exchange for a notebook.

Alex756


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
> Looks as though I wasn't expressing myself very
> clearly. I'll take another try.
>
> I think that the court documents should be public.
>
> I think that, barring objections from the coprygiht
> holder, the record of changes to remove copyright
> violations should be public. If the copyright holder
> objects, hiding them beats a legal fight, even
> though I think they are not a copyright
> infringement.
>
> Google was served with a takedown notice and
> complied with it by removing the identified items
> from its search results. Presumably it also supplied
> a copy of the notice to the
> http://chillingeffects.org web site and it arranged
> for its search result page to point to the takedown
> notice, which in turn gave people all of the search
> results it had been asked to remove.
>
> My assertion was that the Google action was roughly
> comparable to the Wikipedia leaving history entries
> visible, but not part of the main work, that it was
> likely that Google had obtained capable legal advice
> supporting its practice, and that this suggested
> that we should avoid over-reaction to takedown
> notices in the light of their practice.
>
> Instead of delete, I advocated a notification to the
> copyright holder telling them about the history and
> inviting them to let us know whether it was
> objectionable to them, so they could choose to
> request that we remove the history if they wish. If
> they make the request, I suggest that we comply
> promptly (or expeditiously if they reply with
> another takedown notice).
>
> As a seperate matter, I argued that if a private
> Wikipedia contributor wanted their personal
> information removed, we shouldn't let the GFDL
> release of the information inhibit us from being
> socially good and helping them to remove it, even
> though the GFDL release means we could ignore the
> request.
>
> Does this clarify my views sufficiently to address
> your question? If not, please let me know which
> areas need further larification.

Google's decision seems to have worked fine in
practice, even if there is the theoretical possibility
that someone could go to chillingeffects.com from the
supplied link and find the websites anyway. So far,
Sharman hasn't fought this link to this legal notice.
I don't see why we should do more than what Google did
to protect copyright holders, especially since Google
probably has a team of lawyers behind it, making sure
it does all of this accurately.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their
>junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as
>scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.
>
>
While I can sympathize with some of this, I don't think it's any sort of
a special case.  Environmentalism versus its critics is an NPOV dispute,
much like Israel/Palestine, pro/anti War on Iraq, pro/anti abortion, and
so on.  We have a ton of NPOV disputes on Wikipedia pretty much
constantly, and I don't think there's a great solution to it other than
to hammer them out on a case by case basis.

That said, users on any subject who are consistently problematic should
be asked to tone things down.  But if we banned all partisans, we'd be
banning a good portion of our userbase (just banning all
Israel/Palestine partisans would probably take out 10-15 of our more
active contributors).

As for "issuing official warnings," how exactly are they official?  I
could issue "official warnings," but they'd still just be me personally
warning people.  As for suspending people, you *certainly* don't have
the authority to do that any more than I have the authority to suspend
you.  At this point I think only Jimbo has the authority to do anything
officially, and soon hopefully we'll have some committees set up to do
so as well.

-Mark


body:
--- cprompt <cprompt at tmbg.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 10:53, Gareth Owen wrote:
> > "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Ray wrote:
> > >
> > > "In the cold war era when both sides were
> ponting nuclear missiles at the
> > > other it was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)
> :-)"
> > >
> > > Yes, and didnt it work?
> >
> > No it didn't work.  There was no nuclear war, but
> there were plenty of fair
> > sizable non-nuclear wars -- the US in Vietnam and
> the Russians in Afghanistan
> > spring to mind -- and the number of civilian
> casualties (sorry, "collateral
> > damage") runs into millions.
> Offlist, please.

That was a completely relevant comment. Someone was
making an anology to MAD, saying that that helped (and
that was their entire argument, pretty much), but that
was a bad anology and therefore a bad argument. I
don't think any case of supposed mutually assured
destruction  could be beneficial.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: donation page does not work

references:
<blv85h$pf5$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1065561901.15901.251.camel@frank.vibber.org>
	<blvcau$lrb$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 14:48, Walter Vermeir wrote:
> Strange. I can only say what i see. It does not work.
> At work; Windows NT IE 6.0
> And at home WinME IE 5.5
>
> Only the menu, not the text. It is blank.

Don't know if it'll help, but give it another try. I changed the left
stripe from a fixed div to a background image, and moved the right
stripe to the end of the markup.

This makes the left stripe appear properly in IE6 on my machines, and
removes the slight extra margin at the top.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] info@wikipedia.de error

body:
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 16:20, Kurt Jansson wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > I don't see an 'info' in our list of aliases. Was there before?
>
> It's been working since summer 2002.

Finally found the old configuration; in the virtual mail domains
settings. Mail to any address at wikipedia.de should be redirected to
the info-de-l list.

Please confirm that it seems to be in order...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Gutza

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What if?

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 07:01, Bj?rn Lindqvist wrote:
>
>
>>Now that WP is once again down (which is bad cause I was in an editing
>>mode) I'm getting a little worried about one thing. What if Bomis gets
>>infected by an evil virus or there is a major power outage or one of the
>>admins fuck up majorly or if the cia confiscates the servers or if there
>>is a terrorist attack or if some other really bad thing happen. What
>>will happen to my and thousands of other WP editors contributions?
>>
>>
>
>http://downloads.wikipedia.org/
>
>
>
Here's what I get at http://downloads.wikipedia.org/:

If you've gotten here, you're either having DNS trouble or you've
followed some sort of invalid link.

Please see wikimedia.org for links to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia
projects.

Note that the address for www.wikipedia.org should be 130.94.122.*199*.
This server is 130.94.122.*197*. If you thought you were coming to
www.wikipedia.org, you're in the wrong place!

Is it my DNS (well, it's not *my* DNS, you get the idea), or is it some
misconfiguration on the server?

Gutza


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Alex T. wrote:

>From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>>Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Delirium wrote:
>>>
>>>>What about things like Brion's notebook fund-- is he
>>>>supposed to register that in all 50 states too?  The whole thing seems a
>>>>bit ridiculous, which is probably why most people just ignore it.
>>>>
>>>Damfino, but I'm not a charity; I expect to pay income tax on it and
>>>would consider it to be technically 'wages, tips, and other income'.
>>>
>>>Yay taxes!
>>>
>>You make it sound like you enjoy paying taxes.  Not being a charity does
>>prevent donors from taking deductions for their donations.
>>
>
>But if they get audited do you think the IRS will allow them to take it
>as a donation? Gifts are not generally deductible under US tax law
>unless such gifts are made to a charity for a charitable purpose.
>
>http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf Page 5 col. 2 states that
>donations to individuals are not deductible from income.
>
>Generally speaking in US law (I am not talking about other countries
>here whose law may be substantially different from US law) the only
>donations that one may deduct are to organization that have a tax
>exemption by law (the so called $5,000 income per year exemption)
>or by determination under the law by the IRS (available to all
>not-for-profit
>groups, corporations, trusts or associations).
>
>Now maybe given money to Brian for his notebook is really giving
>money to Wikimedia for a notebook that Brian can use for Wikimedia
>projects. Otherwise it is not a tax deductible donation.
>
This is a damn long-winded way of agreeing to what I said in one sentence.

>If someone gives you a gift it they may also have to pay a gift tax:
>http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html
>
At the risk of seeming insensitive, that would be the donor's problem.
 Did the gift really exceed $11,000?  If it didn't then gift tax is not
an issue.

>>The amounts
>>that you received were not received as a part of a business venture, nor
>>would the donors receive any clearly identifiable, direct benefit.
>> These amounts are gifts, and as such are excludable from income.
>>
>
>I am not familiar with Brian's personal income situation, but the question
>may be a bit more complex than it appears. If Brian is developing software
>that is licensed for commercial use (as all of the licenses software and
>documentation are), then he might have an expectation for commercial
>gain at some point in the future (someone wants a special patch and
>Brian is the only person who can do it so then ask Brian to do it for
>them in exchange for payment for services rendered, nothing wrong in
>that). If his is self employed he may be using the notebook for several
>purposes and it may then be considered depreciable property under
>tax law and he may be able to amortize it over several years.
>
>Sometimes if you are in business for yourself (independent contractor)
>as many software developers are (even if they have a "day job")
>there are more benefits to declare it as income producing. If it is just
>a gift then it cannot be depreciated in such a manner. If you are in
>business for yourself and have no income then the  IRS will not allow
>one to take deductions after a point.
>
>This is really an issue his tax advisor should look at, and perhaps
>if Wikimedia wants it can consider this under its umbrella, though
>in that case Wikimedia will have a reversionary interest in the notebook
>if Brian does not continue to help Wikimedia for the useful life of
>the equipment.
>
>There are many "business" sites on the internet that have PayPal
>"Donation" buttons on their site. I have inquired with a few of them
>and they all state that they are not charitable or not-for-profit and
>they are asking for voluntary payments in exchange for their open
>content or free software or services. They consider themselves
>businesses and declare the donation as income, not as a gift. If someone
>provides a service and makes some money it is income.  The money
>is not being given to Brian for a purely gratuitious purpose, there is
>an expectation that he will use the notebook to work on Wikimedia
>projects. It may not be a gift in that analysis. It may be income
>as he is providing a service just like these other "businesses" who
>are declaring their donations as business income. His business is
>providing services to Wikimedia in exchange for a notebook.
>
Brion should be happy that Alex is not his tax advisor!

The first rule should be "In cases of legitimate doubt, give yourself
the benefit."

The gift tax reference above includes the sentence, "Any transfer to an
individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration
(measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return," to
determine what is meant by a gift.  Granted the nature of the IRS beast
is such that it will change these definitions to suit their current
requirements, but this is a good starting point.  After all, both gift
and income taxes are part of the same Internal Revenue Code.

The cash gift and the computer are two different issues.  Although it
would discreditable behaviour for Brion to use the money for anything
other than the stated purpose it would not be illegal.  If after buying
the computer he chose to stop providing the assistance that he has been
giving, the only real effect might be a very severe case of bad
wiki-karma.  The donors would be left witing it off as a bad experience.
 Fortunately, in our atmosphere of trust, we don't need to give serious
consideration to these worst-case scenarios.  The lack of legal
obligation is an important element in determining whether something was
a gift.

What I previously wrote was with reference to the taxability of the
payments.  Being keenly aware of the complications relating to property
that is partly for business and partly not, I made a conscious decision
not to mention depreciation.  Nevertheless the determining factor for
the applicability of depreciation in these circumstances should not be
the source of these specific funds.

Exploring the possibility of reversionary interests just gets us even
further from keeping it simple.  My impression is that there was more
than one donor.  Are you suggesting that every one of them should have a
reversionary interest? Gimme a break!

The preferred approach for dealing with this payment on a tax return is
to say nothing.  If you are one of the 3% or so that is chosen for
audit, you have a legitimate case for saying that it was a gift.  Tax
fraud would only apply if there was no such legitimate position.  The
ugly fact is that most tax problems arise when people provide gratuitous
information that they legally could have kept quiet about.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

body:
Ed Poor wrote-
> I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the
> scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by
> slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm
> outnumbered and outgunned.

Welcome to the club, Ed.  Let's call it the club of people frustrated
with ''inclusivity bias''.  You're in good company here, so put up your
feet and have the barmaid bring you a glass of good [[Scotch]].

You have hit upon the number one reason why good, evenhanded
contributors leave the Wiki, and why many of those who stay become
frustrated and limit their edits to mechanical changes and work on a few
pet subject areas.  It is also the reason why most credentialled people
have left the project.

''Inclusivity bias'' is my term for the pattern of putting the [[burden
of proof]] on editors making content changes in broad areas.  The
trouble is that the Wikipedia culture is deletion-adverse and
reversion-adverse.  Wikipedia culture is to include things until they
are proven unmeritous.  If you cut paragraphs, revert bad edits to an
article, or try to have an article deleted--unless you have proof, you
get NO support from the community.

And you need that community support, because you are up against people
with strong feelings, who want to paint subjects a certain way.  You
mention environmentalism, but that's just one of the many areas where
this is a problem.  The Isreal/Palestine issues, articles on different
religions, articles on cults, politics, and world trade all have the
same problem.

I think the culture has to change.  I don't know how to do it.  I've
tried, and it is *excruciatingly* hard to walk into an article that has
bias, that clearly has a problem with facts and with neutrality, and
accomplish anything good.  The usual outcome is outpouring of anger,
edit wars, and hard feelings all around, and the well-meaning editor
just ends up making enemies.  What *should* happen, is that the
community should rise up and *support* people who are trying to help out
in these situations.

What kind of support?  Well, people should be rushing to your side to
reinstate your edits when some POV writer keeps reverting you.  Other
people should be coming to the discussion, and not just adding and
refactoring ad nauseum, but actually trying to push the process towards
a decision.  What we need more of are editors who are willing to
approach a controversial topic that they don't feel strongly about, and
staying there with tenacity, requiring sources for questionable edits,
flat-out reverting inappropriate garbage, and doing their own
cross-checking.

This is all going to get worse as Wikipedia becomes more important in
the real world.  When its #90 at alexa.com, you can bet that somebody
from Monsanto and somebody from Greenpeace will both be here trying to
steer the articles around on GM food.

Louis


body:
> Welcome to the club, Ed.  Let's call it the club of
> people frustrated
> with ''inclusivity bias''.  You're in good company
> here, so put up your
> feet and have the barmaid bring you a glass of good
> [[Scotch]].

I think this type of thing was one of the reasons for
the I-E fork. They use the sympathetic point of view,
unless they're wrong, in which case they say the right
point of view.
>
> You have hit upon the number one reason why good,
> evenhanded
> contributors leave the Wiki, and why many of those
> who stay become
> frustrated and limit their edits to mechanical
> changes and work on a few
> pet subject areas.  It is also the reason why most
> credentialled people
> have left the project.
>
No, people leave the project because of people like
RK, who claim they're doing something equivalent to
inclucivity bias, saying that the other people are
wrong and they're using the only reasonable point of
view; the other people are
neo-nazis/environmentalists.

> ''Inclusivity bias'' is my term for the pattern of
> putting the [[burden
> of proof]] on editors making content changes in
> broad areas.  The
> trouble is that the Wikipedia culture is
> deletion-adverse and
> reversion-adverse.  Wikipedia culture is to include
> things until they
> are proven unmeritous.  If you cut paragraphs,
> revert bad edits to an
> article, or try to have an article deleted--unless
> you have proof, you
> get NO support from the community.

So what's wrong with that? Don't you have some kind of
reason to delete content? If you don't think (and
prove, if someone asks) that the content is
inaccurate, why should you delete it?
>
> And you need that community support, because you are
> up against people
> with strong feelings, who want to paint subjects a
> certain way.  You
> mention environmentalism, but that's just one of the
> many areas where
> this is a problem.  The Israel/Palestine issues,
> articles on different
> religions, articles on cults, politics, and world
> trade all have the
> same problem.

You're just going against NPOV. You just think that
everything should be "right". Well, who's to say who's
right? You? Someone from the other side? The concept
of NPOV is to show all sides and let the reader
decide.
>
> I think the culture has to change.  I don't know how
> to do it.  I've
> tried, and it is *excruciatingly* hard to walk into
> an article that has
> bias, that clearly has a problem with facts and with
> neutrality, and
> accomplish anything good.  The usual outcome is
> outpouring of anger,
> edit wars, and hard feelings all around, and the
> well-meaning editor
> just ends up making enemies.  What *should* happen,
> is that the
> community should rise up and *support* people who
> are trying to help out
> in these situations.

What's your definition of neutrality? Is including
other points of view that are "wrong" not neutral?
>
> What kind of support?  Well, people should be
> rushing to your side to
> reinstate your edits when some POV writer keeps
> reverting you.  Other
> people should be coming to the discussion, and not
> just adding and
> refactoring ad nauseum, but actually trying to push
> the process towards
> a decision.  What we need more of are editors who
> are willing to
> approach a controversial topic that they don't feel
> strongly about, and
> staying there with tenacity, requiring sources for
> questionable edits,
> flat-out reverting inappropriate garbage, and doing
> their own
> cross-checking.

Is the POV writer deleting other people's points of
view or in any way making his POV the only one there?
Is he asserting that he's right while leaving other
POVs there (although asserting that they're wrong)? If
it's one of the first two, then you have a case, but
since Wikipedia is a wiki, it's easy to change (but if
you get into an edit war, you can report it to the
list). If it's the third one, then it's very easy to
fix; just make minor changes in the language (eg. some
say that..., proponents claim..., etc.).
>
>
 This is all going to get worse as Wikipedia becomes
> more important in
> the real world.  When its #90 at alexa.com, you can
> bet that somebody
> from Monsanto and somebody from Greenpeace will both
> be here trying to
> steer the articles around on GM food.
>
> Louis

The article on GM food should reflect both points of
view. If the Greenpeace and Monsanto people read the
Wikipedia policies, they can have their opinions and
not be trolls. If they are trolls, and reason is found
that they are trolls (instead of assuming that all
edits should be reverted until proven otherwise), and
an edit war starts, then the involved parties can
write to the list for discussion of banning, or they
can use the planned arbitration pannel. But banning
when you're in an edit war with someone for including
their POVs is  going too far.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their
junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as
scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.

We need to start cracking down on contributors who do this.

I'm talking about the dozens of places in which environmentalist
contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim that there is a
CONSENSUS that supports their POV. I'm talking about PhD scientists like
William Connolley who insert statemnts like "Singer is wrong" into
articles instead of NAMING the scientists who disagree with Singer and
saying WHY they disagree.

I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried patiently explaining NPOV.
Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their POV back into the
articles, even using smear tactics against scientists who report
findings which disagree with environmentalist POV.

I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the
scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by
slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm
outnumbered and outgunned.

I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that
doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a
temporary ban.

Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me back.
Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.

Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed))


body:
Alex R. wrote:

>From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
>
>> Make a specific
>>complaint against a specific person with a specific set of edits to
>>back it up.
>>
>This is the essence of what any mediation or arbitration complaint
>should be.
>
Well, let's not try to read too much into that.  Mediation and
arbitration should apply to the bad behaviour of some contributors.  It
should never be used to support one POV over another.  Ed was not
specific about the articles where the problem was happening, and the
search function is temporarily ( :-) ) not very helpful, so I have not
looked at whatever edits were being questioned.  Manipulation of the
process in support of an anti-environmental stand would subvert
everything we are trying to do.

Ec


from_name: Rick

body:
I VOCIFEROUSLY object to Ed Poor's taking these POV matters into his own hands.  Banning people is a last resort, not something to do because he disagrees with their edits.  If he tries to ban them, I will immediately unban them unless he can prove that they deserve to be banned.  Do we really want to start a banning war?

RickK

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their
junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as
scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.

We need to start cracking down on contributors who do this.

I'm talking about the dozens of places in which environmentalist
contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim that there is a
CONSENSUS that supports their POV. I'm talking about PhD scientists like
William Connolley who insert statemnts like "Singer is wrong" into
articles instead of NAMING the scientists who disagree with Singer and
saying WHY they disagree.

I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried patiently explaining NPOV.
Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their POV back into the
articles, even using smear tactics against scientists who report
findings which disagree with environmentalist POV.

I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the
scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by
slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm
outnumbered and outgunned.

I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that
doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a
temporary ban.

Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me back.
Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.

Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed))

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031007/6f3c0449/attachment.htm


body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I'm getting awfully tired of watching
> environmentalists inject their
> junk science POV into articles. They palm off their
> own prejudices as
> scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain
> patient any longer.
>
Junk science? Global warming is a mainstream view. You
can disagree with the science, but you can't call it
junk.

> We need to start cracking down on contributors who
> do this.
>
> I'm talking about the dozens of places in which
> environmentalist
> contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim
> that there is a
> CONSENSUS that supports their POV.

There *is* an almost complete majority, but perhaps
not a consensus. Your diffs make it seem like it's
split evenly between people who acknoledge and don't
acknoledge global warming.

> I'm talking about
> PhD scientists like
> William Connolley who insert statemnts like "Singer
> is wrong" into
> articles instead of NAMING the scientists who
> disagree with Singer and
> saying WHY they disagree.

Well, he's just a poor author.
>
> I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried
> patiently explaining NPOV.
> Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their
> POV back into the
> articles, even using smear tactics against
> scientists who report
> findings which disagree with environmentalist POV.
>
Sounds like you're in an edit war. Maybe you should
lay off the article for a while while non-involved
parties fix the article.

I really see no POV in other people's revisions in the
article, but your revisions seem to be somewhat
against acknowledging global warming.

> I can't stop three dozen other contributors from
> injecting bias into the
> scientific articles relating to the environment. Not
> by myself -- not by
> slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and
> explaining it. I'm
> outnumbered and outgunned.

Did you ever think for just a moment that you could be
wrong?
>
> I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV
> violators. If that
> doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them --
> give them a
> temporary ban.

For that?  You're out of your mind!
>
> Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy
> to see me back.
> Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.
>
> Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed)

What's with you and banning people you disagree with?
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Alex R.

body:
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>

> > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf   (at page 3, first col.)
> >
> One important point in these treaties is that the deduction available to
> a resident of one of these countries is limited to a proportion of his
> United States source income.  Someone with no US source income has no
> deduction.
>
> Ec

All the more reasons to start Wikipedia donor charities throughout the
world.
(unless someone wants to give money to Wikimedia just for the sake
of donating to something worthwhile that is).

Alex756


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their
>junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as
>scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.
>
>We need to start cracking down on contributors who do this.
>
>I'm talking about the dozens of places in which environmentalist
>contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim that there is a
>CONSENSUS that supports their POV. I'm talking about PhD scientists like
>William Connolley who insert statements like "Singer is wrong" into
>articles instead of NAMING the scientists who disagree with Singer and
>saying WHY they disagree.

It is ironic, to say the least, that Ed Poor equates a scientist like
William Connolley (whose actual research field is climate science)
with "environmentalists" engaged in "junk science," even though Ed
himself is not a scientist. I think anyone who carefully reads the
history of the global warming article will see that Connolley has
brought a wealth of detailed knowledge to the topic, while Ed on the
other hand has thrown in simplistic generalizations and numerous
factual errors that others have had to correct. If anyone doubts that
this is the case and wants me to prove it, I can list some of those
errors here. To give just one example, Ed falsely claimed (on the
global warming talk page) that the National Association of Science
predicted a looming ice age in 1975. I corrected him, and to his
credit he backed off of his error. One again, however, it illustrates
his pattern of factual sloppiness mixed with disdain for leading
scientific voices and organizations. (The NAS is the most prestigious
scientific body in the U.S. and arguably the world).

As for the complaint that William Connolley inserted the statement
"Singer is wrong," I haven't seen that particular statement. It
doesn't appear in the current version of the global warming article.
If Connolley did insert it previously, someone else has already
removed it, which would suggest that if there was indeed a problem,
it self-corrected in the usual wiki way.

>I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried patiently explaining NPOV.
>Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their POV back into the
>articles, even using smear tactics against scientists who report
>findings which disagree with environmentalist POV.

I've followed enough of Ed's involvement in the global warming
article to conclude that:

(1) He hasn't been very "cordial" or "affable." He attacked me
personally over the global warming article, for example, at a time
when I hadn't even made any contributions to it. In fact, his
habitual use of abusive language like "junk science" is itself a
"smear tactic."

(2) Ed has tried, repeatedly and aggressively, to inject his own
point of view into the global warming article. Accusing others of
doing this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

(3) In a number of cases, Ed has inserted claims that are clearly
false and misleading, such as his statement awhile back that
"Environmentalists and atmospheric scientists are at odds over the
global warming hypothesis." This statement (which has since been
removed in the usual self-correcting wiki way) deceptively suggested
that the debate over global warming is between "environmentalists"
vs. "scientists," when in fact the debate is between "proponents of
the global warming hypothesis" (a group that includes most
environmentalists and most atmospheric scientists) vs. "global
warming skeptics" (a group that includes mostly non-scientists such
as Ed himself).

>I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the
>scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by
>slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm
>outnumbered and outgunned.

Ed seems to think that his lone voice is somehow entitled to outweigh
the voice of "three dozen other contributors." On what basis? It
certainly isn't on the basis of Ed's possessing superior credentials
regarding the topic under discussion. Credential-wise, William
Connolley has Ed beat all to hell. I'd like him to explain what he
thinks makes him so damn special that he is entitled to "outgun" the
overwhelming majority of contributors to that article.

>I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that
>doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a
>temporary ban.
>
>Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me back.
>Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.

I call on Jimbo to make sure that Ed doesn't abuse his powers to
inject his own minority point of view into an article about which he
clearly feels very passionate while lacking sufficient knowledge or
perspective to serve as any kind of arbiter of what constitutes
fairness and balance.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


from_name: Dante Alighieri

body:
At 05:25 PM 10/7/2003, you wrote:
>I VOCIFEROUSLY object to Ed Poor's taking these POV matters into his own
>hands.  Banning people is a last resort, not something to do because he
>disagrees with their edits.  If he tries to ban them, I will immediately
>unban them unless he can prove that they deserve to be banned.  Do we
>really want to start a banning war?

Oh for goodness sake...

Everyone calm down, Ed's just venting, he hasn't gone insane... right Ed?

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Please change the embarrassing donations message

body:
JT is exactly right. The message is annoyingly
pedantic-- and it should be indented and in italics,
too - it looks like a first sentence in an article.

~S~
"Do or do not there is no try" --YoYoMa

--- James Duffy <jtdire at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"We are trying to make
> > > Wikipedia faster and more responsive. You can
> help by making a
> >donation."
> > > I hope this satisfies your concerns.
> >
> Please please reword the donation line on the pages.
> It is disastrous in
> terms of PR. We know we have a problem on wiki right
> now, but the current
> wording highlights the flaws in a way that is never
> done in PR. Rule number
> 1: NEVER EVER EVER draw attention to your failings.
>
> At present what it is implies is ''wiki has a
> problem. Wiki isn't working
> right. We need money to fix it. If we don't get it,
> it isn't going to work
> right.
>
> It implies
> 1. That wiki is flawed;
> 2. We are /trying/ to fix it, but trying doesn't
> mean we will succeed.
> 3. That wiki is in so much difficulty it has to beg
> for money to make itself
> usable.
>
> PR people would hang themselves in shame if they
> were responsible for
> sending out such a message.
>
> The message should be spun positively, not
> negatively. What it should say
> is,
>
> Wiki's phenomenal growth requires constant upgrading
> of technology to give
> you the best service possible. Giving that service
> requires funding. You now
> can donate money to help your wikipedia remain the
> fastest growing
> encyclop???dia on the internet. For more
information,
> see [[Wikipedia
> donations]].
>
> That wording, trimmed down and tightened as
> necessary, sends a different
> message to our current message.
>
> 1. Wiki is a phenomenal success;
> 2. We need funds to continue that success;
> 3. You can help /your/ wiki stay ahead of the rest.
>
> It is positive, not negative, motivational not
> begging. It tells people
> 'join in our success', not 'we are trying to fix our
> problems but badly need
> money'.
>
> Please change the current cringe-enducing message.
>
> JT
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2
> months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>

>  Make a specific
> complaint against a specific person with a specific set of edits to
> back it up.

This is the essence of what any mediation or arbitration complaint
should be.

Alex756


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeezis needs a name change

body:
Jesus is Lord! needs a name change-- the WP:NOU policy
was designed for User:THROBBING MONSTER.. and really
should be renamed as something like no controversial
usernames, or no inflammatory usernames.

The use of Jesus in a name is designed to be
inflammatory.

~S~
BTW: Is beat up on Ed day over yet?  Take it easy
folks...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:

>You have hit upon the number one reason why good, evenhanded
>contributors leave the Wiki, and why many of those who stay become
>frustrated and limit their edits to mechanical changes and work on a few
>pet subject areas.  It is also the reason why most credentialled people
>have left the project.

Actually, the problem here is that Ed, who is NOT credentialed in the
field of climate science, seems to be preparing to use his powers as
sysop to forcibly exclude individuals including William Connolley,
who IS credentialed in the field.

Ed's problem is that he is outnumbered by other contributors to the
global warming article who disagree with him, and he seems to think
that majority rule is a bad system for resolving disagreements.
However, minority rule by Ed would be even a WORSE system.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


from_name: Matthew J. Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeezis needs a name change

body:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Stevertigo wrote:

> Jesus is Lord! needs a name change-- the WP:NOU policy
> was designed for User:THROBBING MONSTER.. and really
> should be renamed as something like no controversial
> usernames, or no inflammatory usernames.
>
> The use of Jesus in a name is designed to be
> inflammatory.

I'd agree.  Though at least the inflammatory username gives one a warning
as to (some of) the user's edits.

I get a suspicion this is someone already known coming back with another
name; they seem way too familiar with Wikipedia to be as new a user as
this username is.

-Morven


body:
>> I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their junk science POV into articles. <<

How about setting up a central tracking page for these issues so anyone with an interest can add the page to their watch list? That should get a fair selection of those with an interest in science to look at any issues. That fair range in turn may persuade the environmentalists that it may be a consensus of environmentalists rather than a broad scientific consensus.


from_name: Vincent Ramos

subject: [Wikipedia-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
	En r?ponse ? une question de Looxix (Wikip?dia ne veut plus
fonctionner?; j'essaie de passer par la ML)?:

>? propos, pourrais-tu me rendre un service? La phrase
> qui apparait dans la [[Special:Watchlist|liste de suivi]] n'est
> pas tr?s correcte je crois. Pourrais-tu m'en sugg?rer une meilleure?

	La phrase est?:

	''X'' pages suivies, sans compter les pages de discussion; ''Y''
pages en total modifi?es depuis la limite; v?rification des
modifications r?centes des pages suivies... afficher et modifier la
liste compl?te.

	Je dirais?:

	Si l'on exclut les pages de discussion, vous avez demand? le suivi
de ''X'' pages, dont ''Y'' ont ?t? modifi?es depuis la limite fix?e.
Vous?pouvez?[http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Watchlist&magic=yes
afficher et ?diter la liste compl?te des pages suivies.]

	Je ne comprends pas bien cette histoire de ??limite??. Je voulais
acc?der ? l'historique de <LanguageFr.php> pour lire la version
anglaise, mais plus rien ne passe.

	Vincent


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 05:09 PM 10/7/03 -0400, Ed Poor wrote:
>I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their
>junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as
>scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.

I'm awfully tired of watching you inject your junk science POV into
articles, and palming it off as scientific fact.

*Most* scientists working in the field agree that global warming
is a fact: the disagreements are about causes, and about how much
warming is likely in the next century and what effect that is going to
have on human and other life on Earth.

>I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that
>doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a
>temporary ban.

What gives you more right than anyone else to issue "official warnings"?

I haven't been following this list closely in the last few days--I'd rather
work
on an encyclopedia--so someone please let me know if there is *any*
reason/rule in the current structure of the Wikipedia by which Ed can make
such threats *on a subject he has been actively editing on*, and if so,
whether that same rule would allow some other sysop to ban Ed instead.

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

body:
SHeldon,

>> To give just one example, Ed falsely claimed (on the
global warming talk page) that the National Association of Science predicted a looming ice age in 1975. I corrected him, and to his credit he backed off of his error. <<

Few of us are perfect. Getting corrected and accepting a correction is a good sign, not a bad one.

Do you think that Mars is experiencing global warming? If so, why?

For some interesting views on global warming, others may wish to visit http://www.iainmurray.org/MT/archives/000345.html , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3152424.stm and http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=40617 for coverage of the World Climate Conference. One of the most newsworthy reports so far has been  a statement from the head of the Russian Academy of Science that the only people who would be affected by the abandonment of Kyoto "would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming".

Addressing consensus, http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/noscicons.html suggests that it wasn't there in 1991. http://www.geocities.com/abcolombo/sep00/092200f.htm looks interesting.

It appears reasonable to suggest that there is not a consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

Personally, I believe that there is global warming. Knowing why is a much harder problem.


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What if?

body:
Peter Gervai <grin at tolna.net> writes:

> Umm, then how do you integrate it with changes of others? Or you simply
> "revert" them, since that's *cough* *cough* your article? :-o

I use Emacs/ediff for interactive merging :-) Thus far none of my German
co-editors complained and I'm sure nothing got lost.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
JT wrote:
>Wiki's phenomenal growth requires constant upgrading
>of technology to give you the best service possible. Giving
>that service requires funding. You now can donate money to
>help your wikipedia remain the fastest growing encyclop?dia
>on the internet. For more information, see [[Wikipedia donations]].

For God's sake James, that is WAY too long and your use of "Wiki" is like a
bad piece of bad chalk on the blackboard. It is either Wikipedia or
Wikimedia. There are more than one wiki if you haven't noticed yet.

--mav


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Header donation : translation

body:
Looxix wrote:
>Is it possible to also make the "http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising"
>language specific? Because a poor guy on the french wikipedia have
>translated the text in french.

Give me a direct link to the text along with the closest translation of the
word "fundraising" and I'll put something together. The PayPal interface,
however, cannot be translated. :-(

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed's POV != NPOV

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
<A whole bunch of stuff>

All that Erik speaks is true.

Still, this has no effect on my high esteem for Ed and
the {{soothing}} feeling he brings to Wiki. Usually.

Ed's mini-blowup here is way out of character and as
such is more pronounced-- a pleasant reminder to all
that he, too is human, and needs to vent like the rest
of us.  Such humanity when displayed, brings me no
shortage of joy...

And to Ed -- as a good friend once told me: "If ya
cain't laugh et y'sef, who da fuck kin you laugh at?"

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Please change the embarrassing donations message

body:
SV wrote:
>"Help [[Wikipedia]] keep up with our [[community]]'s [[growth]]
>by making a [donation].

No - the /only/ link should be the Wikimedia donation page. Alex is also
probably going to say that that sounds too much like a solicitation.

Something like:

 Learn how you can help us speed up {project name} [here].

Would be better.

--mav


from_name: Sascha Noyes

body:
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 05:59 pm, Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
> You have hit upon the number one reason why good, evenhanded
> contributors leave the Wiki, and why many of those who stay become
> frustrated and limit their edits to mechanical changes and work on a few
> pet subject areas.  It is also the reason why most credentialled people
> have left the project.

Can you give supportive evidence of your claim that "most credentialled people
have left the project"? The only 'credentialled' person I have personally met
on wikipedia is Michael Hardy, and he is editing as I speak.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
(aka: snoyes)


body:
--- Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding the donations header: does JT have a
> specific proposal which
> will fit on one line?

Something like this...

"Help [[Wikipedia]] keep up with our [[community]]'s
[[growth]] by
making a [donation].

Maybe JT has something better.
~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
>"Help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth
>by making a donation."

Still sounds like a solicitation.

But, if you must, then;

  Learn how you can help support {project name}'s phenomenal growth by making
a [donation].

But that is much too long!

So, IMO:

  Learn how you can help us speed up {project name} [here].

Would be better.

--mav


body:
--- Andrew Lih <alih at hku.hk> wrote:

"Help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth by making
a donation."

Very nice.

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Youandme

body:
I see that sever was down(?) for some time and when it is back some people
on Polish Wikipedia can edit articles and save them but I can't.
Here's what I see in my browser (DB error in query and last query which failed):

Wyst?pi? b??d sk?adni w zapytaniu do bazy danych. Ostatnie, nieudane zapytanie to:
"INSERT INTO old
(old_namespace,old_title,old_text,old_comment,old_user,old_user_text,old_timestamp,ol
d_minor_edit,inverse_timestamp) VALUES (1, 'Z?oty', 'co oznacza \"AFAIK\" w zdaniu
\"AFAIK pierwotnie waluta II Rzeczpospolitej mia?a si? nazywa? \"lech\".? :\"As Far
As I Know\" [[Wikipedysta:Youandme|Youandme]] 20:19, 7 pa? 2003 (CEST)', 'odp.
\"AFAIK\"', 2, 'Youandme', '20031007181912', 1, '79968992818087')" wywo?ane zosta?o
przez funkcj? "Article::updateArticle". MySQL zg?osi? b??d "1062: Duplicate entry
'77587' for key 1".

So... what's up, if I may ask?
Youandme


body:
--- "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>

> >  Learn how you can help us speed up {project name}
> [here].
> >
> > Would be better.
>
> That sounds good to me.

No -- "learn" is a passive word-- almost sneaky in
this context-- better to be straightforward.  "Donate
money"

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Give me a direct link to the text along with the
> closest translation of the
> word "fundraising" and I'll put something together.
> The PayPal interface,
> however, cannot be translated. :-(

Shouldnt matter-- people seem to have a good handle on
getting around English, anyway.  Still all blurbs
should be in their native languages...

So.. we need a place to translate them...
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation blurb

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
SV wrote:
>No -- "learn" is a passive word-- almost sneaky in
>this context-- better to be straightforward.  "Donate
>money"

What part of 'we cannot solicit donations' don't you understand?

--mav


body:
>Isn't this what it's *supposed* to be, a solicitation?! :)

No - we are providing them a link to a page where they can learn about
donating. We /cannot/ legally solicit donations to anybody outside of
Florida! Haven't you'all been paying attention?

There is a big legal difference between "send us money" and "here is some
information on how you help us out financially".

--mav


body:
Alex wrote:

>OK how about:
>   Learn how to donate money [here] to help this project grow.

Yes - I like that. But replace "this project" with {project name}.

This
   Learn how you can help us speed up {project name} [here].

still may be better since it directly addresses something that may be annoying
the reader (the slowness of the server). My version may therefore be more
lucrative while avoiding potential put-off words like "donate" and "money".

-- mav


from_name: Anthere

body:
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:09:14 -0400
From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Anti-scientific bias has me
hopping mad!

>I'm getting awfully tired of watching
>environmentalists inject their junk science POV into
>articles. They palm off their own prejudices as
>scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain
>patient any longer.

<snip despaired comments>

>I'm outnumbered and outgunned.

>I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV
>violators. If that
>doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them --
>give them a
>temporary ban.

>Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy
>to see me back.
>Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.

You should not do that. Which are the articles
involved. I would be glad to help if I can.

I am not sure I can, because in the past week, the
little time I could give Wikipedia, it was either down
(this week end, and yesterday morning) or the database
was locked (this morning). I feel like considering
just giving up :-(

But, seriously, if there are some articles you think I
can help, just tell me.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
Fuzheado wrote:
>Something along the lines of:
>"Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth."

Sold. Best wording so far (just need to add a [here] at the end).

-- mav


from_name: tarquin

body:
Delirium wrote:

> tarquin wrote:
>
>> The problem with that (AFAIK) is that the DIV needs to know how wide
>> the picture is -- otherwise the picture caption won't be made to wrap
>> & can take up the whole width of the page.
>> This is basically a shortcoming in HTML / CSS
>>
>> So even smart markup would need to include a property indicating the
>> width.
>> Eg:
>> >>300px>>[[Image:foo]]>>caption
>>
>> for a right-floated box
>
>
> Couldn't image widths and heights be auto-extracted and stored in a
> table somewhere upon upload, and then used for the div tags
> automatically?

Yes they could.
I had thought of it, but given the speed of our server, I'd rather not
suggest an extra database lookup.

There is then the question of what to do if there are severla images in
the DIV, but it would presumably pick the widest one.

http://www.planetunreal.com/titanium


from_name: Joachim Kerschbaumer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brion's notebook

body:
Brion wrote:

> Thanks to some very generous folks, I think I just broke it actually!

Great, congratulations! :-)

> In case anyone's curious, I'm planning to get a 12" Apple PowerBook G4.

_also want to have_... ;-)

But remember: With your new notebook you will now have more time for your
friends and family! Don't take it with you on your holidays or vacations, it
is for your travel to work! Don't put yourself under the stress of "They
gave me money, now I have to work more". I think most donors gave it as a
reward for what you are already doing. If you increase your Wikipedia-Work
even more, I think in longterms we will lose our Brion as we know him.
So, keep on Hacking, but also keep on living!

Have fun with your BowerBook (envious look ;-)
Fantasy :-)


body:
--- Andrew Lih <alih at hku.hk> wrote:
> Mav wrote:
> > No - we are providing them a link to a page where
> they can learn about

Spank me and call me Shirley, but if my eyes havent
been messing with me the last three days,  "We are
trying to make Wikipedia faster and more responsive.
You can help by making a donation." is a solicitation.
 I was simply trying to reword it.

That said: "Find out how you can help support
Wikipedia's phenomenal growth" is a winner. Why not
just link [[support]] to donations?

~S~
You didnt vote for S... did you?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:59:13 -0500
From: Louis Kyu Won Ryu <lazolla at hotmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anti-scientific bias has me
hopping mad!

This is all going to get worse as Wikipedia becomes
more important in
the real world.  When its #90 at alexa.com, you can
bet that somebody
from Monsanto and somebody from Greenpeace will both
be here trying to
steer the articles around on GM food.

Louis

I agree with you Louis.
Btw, do you think
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
is okay ?
Perhaps does it need to be completed

And
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_war_over_genetically_modified_food
needs update as well.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
From: Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anti-scientific bias has
me hopping mad!
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <200310072020.09813.sascha at pantropy.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"

>Can you give supportive evidence of your claim that
>"most credentialled
>people
>have left the project"? The only 'credentialled'
>person I have
>personally met
>on wikipedia is Michael Hardy, and he is editing as I
>speak.

>Best,
>Sascha Noyes
>(aka: snoyes)

Most, I would not say, but I think sweet Jules was in
this case. She left the project in tiredness in front
of pov.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Jimmy O'Regan

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brion's notebook

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Holly crap! You are almost at a $1000 already. Is the
>bar updated by hand by you, or does it update
>automatically? A similar bar on the Wikimedia
>fundraising page would be nice (even if it has to be
>updated by hand - I volunteer but I'll need access to
>the account total info).
>
>
Woohoo. The Wikimedia telethon!


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

subject: [Wikipedia-l] LanguageFr.php (email = version rapide du wiki?)

body:
Vincent Ramos wrote:
>
> 	En r?ponse ? une question de Looxix (Wikip?dia ne veut plus
> fonctionner ; j'essaie de passer par la ML) :
>
>
>>? propos, pourrais-tu me rendre un service? La phrase
>>qui apparait dans la [[Special:Watchlist|liste de suivi]] n'est
>>pas tr?s correcte je crois. Pourrais-tu m'en sugg?rer une meilleure?
>
>
> 	La phrase est :
>
> 	''X'' pages suivies, sans compter les pages de discussion; ''Y''
> pages en total modifi?es depuis la limite; v?rification des
> modifications r?centes des pages suivies... afficher et modifier la
> liste compl?te.
>
> 	Je dirais :
>
> 	Si l'on exclut les pages de discussion, vous avez demand? le suivi
> de ''X'' pages, dont ''Y'' ont ?t? modifi?es depuis la limite fix?e.
> Vous pouvez [http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Watchlist&magic=yes
> afficher et ?diter la liste compl?te des pages suivies.]
>
> 	Je ne comprends pas bien cette histoire de ? limite ?. Je voulais
> acc?der ? l'historique de <LanguageFr.php> pour lire la version
> anglaise, mais plus rien ne passe.
>
> 	Vincent

Le probl?me est que le texte ne sera jammais correct en fran?ais.
Voici les diff?rentes versions possibles en anglais:
* (''n1'' pages watched not counting talk pages; ''n2'' total pages edited since cutoff; checking recent edits for watched pages... [[Special:Watchlist&magic=yes|show and edit complete list]].)''
* (''n1'' pages watched not counting talk pages; ''n2'' total pages edited since cutoff; checking watched pages for recent edits... [[Special:Watchlist&magic=yes|show and edit complete list]].)''
* (''n1'' pages watched not counting talk pages; all total pages edited since cutoff; checking recent edits for watched pages... [[Special:Watchlist&magic=yes|show and edit complete list]].)''
* (''n1'' pages watched not counting talk pages; all total pages edited since cutoff; checking watched pages for recent edits... [[Special:Watchlist&magic=yes|show and edit complete list]].)''

N.B. le ''n2'' n'est pas un sous-ensemble de ''n1'' (n1 = nbr de pages suivies par cet utilisateur, n2 = nbr de pages modifi?es par l'ensemble des utilisateurs),
      donc le ''dont ''Y'' ne va pas.

Le probl?me vient du ''all'' ("toutes"), qui de plus est utilis? ? d'autres endroit (d'ailleurs le ''all totalpages edited...'' sonne aussi bizarre en anglais, non?)
Il faudra, ? terme, remplacer le tout par une fonction qui g?n?rera le texte appropri? et
de toute fa?on le texte qui suit ce message n'est pas encore internationalis?.

Pour l'instant, je pense simplement mettre quelque chose comme:
''Vous suivez ''n1'' pages, sans compter les pages de discussion ([afficher et modifier la liste compl?te]).''

-- Looxix


subject: [Wikipedia-l] donations

body:
I confirm that two french people tried in various ways
to  donate and met impossibility. Yann donated through
paypal system with a french card last june.

It was also mentionned that each country had a
different set up. A swiss editor said it worked for
him. That does not necessarily mean it is working for
french people. The browsers are ok.

Hence the conclusion is either that paypal worked with
french banks last june but does not anymore, or that
the setting up of this specific payment has got a
problem.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
--- Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most, I would not say, but I think sweet Jules was
> in this case. She left the project in tiredness in
front of pov.

In otherwords, she caught the
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_standards_kick
disease.
By the way, Julie has been "lurking", according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
Fuzheado wrote:
>My view as well.  Shouldn't this mean we should rip
>down the current text immediately or risk legal problems?
>Why is it still up there if it's so blatantly improper?

IANAL, but the current text is in the gray area since it does not explicitly
ask for a donation. So it is not "blatantly improper" in that sense. It /is/
a bit long and sounds a tad like a plea for help, however.

  Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth [here].

or even SV's version (which, IMO, is not as clear but does sound nicer):

   Find out how you can help [support] Wikipedia's phenomenal growth.

are both much better.

Either way, the message should not be on the printable version of pages.

-- mav


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising

Works perfect whit Mozilla Firebird but not whit IE 6.0 on the computer
at work or IE 5.5 at home. Only the left menu is loaded. The right is blank.

Walter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeezis needs a name change

body:
SV wrote:
>Jesus is Lord! needs a name change-- the WP:NOU
>policy was designed for User:THROBBING MONSTER..
>and really should be renamed as something like no
>controversial usernames, or no inflammatory usernames.
>
>The use of Jesus in a name is designed to be
>inflammatory.

I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or
political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christinans and
atheists.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeezis needs a name change

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree. User names are not supposed to express any
> sort of religious or
> political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to
> non-Christinans and
> atheists.

But this means renaming WP:NOU to WP:NIU -- Ill get a
start on the policy rewrite, and then go to bed. Yawn.

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Alex R.

body:
From: "James Duffy" <jtdire at hotmail.com>
> It implies
> 1. That wiki is flawed;
> 2. We are /trying/ to fix it, but trying doesn't mean we will succeed.
> 3. That wiki is in so much difficulty it has to beg for money to make
itself
> usable.
>
> PR people would hang themselves in shame if they were responsible for
> sending out such a message.

Having worked with many charitable orgs and been on the boards of
many I have to say that I agree with JT _completely_.

> The message should be spun positively, not negatively. What it should say
> is,
>
> Wiki's phenomenal growth requires constant upgrading of technology to give
> you the best service possible. Giving that service requires funding. You
now
> can donate money to help your wikipedia remain the fastest growing
> encyclop?dia on the internet. For more information, see [[Wikipedia
> donations]].
>
> That wording, trimmed down and tightened as necessary, sends a different
> message to our current message.
>
This is the kind of message to give, it also responds to my request not
to make the message a bare faced solicitation.

> 1. Wiki is a phenomenal success;
TRUE.
> 2. We need funds to continue that success;
TRUE.
> 3. You can help /your/ wiki stay ahead of the rest.
YES, HELP SOMETHING SUCCESSFUL.

> It is positive, not negative, motivational not begging. It tells people
> 'join in our success', not 'we are trying to fix our problems but badly
need
> money'.

Giving money to people who are failing is never the goal of philanthropists,
helping people succeed at good works and a great cause, now that
is a reason to give, if they see you failing, they tell you to fix your
problems and come back next funding round.

> Please change the current cringe-enducing message.

Here. Here.

Alex756


from_name: Jake Nelson

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> JT wrote:
> >Wiki's phenomenal growth requires constant upgrading
> >of technology to give you the best service possible. Giving
> >that service requires funding. You now can donate money to
> >help your wikipedia remain the fastest growing encyclop?dia
> >on the internet. For more information, see [[Wikipedia donations]].
>
> For God's sake James, that is WAY too long and your use of "Wiki" is like
a
> bad piece of bad chalk on the blackboard. It is either Wikipedia or
> Wikimedia. There are more than one wiki if you haven't noticed yet.

I agree -entirely-.

> Learn how you can help us speed up {project name} [here].

That's not bad, better than the others... and doesn't cross that
solicitation line... there's some optimized version on the tip of my brain,
but since I can't seem to dislodge it, I'd say go with this.

-- Jake


body:
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Something like:
>
>  Learn how you can help us speed up {project name} [here].
>
> Would be better.

That sounds good to me.

Alex756


from_name: James Duffy

body:
> >"We are trying to make
> > Wikipedia faster and more responsive. You can help by making a
>donation."
> > I hope this satisfies your concerns.
>
Please please reword the donation line on the pages. It is disastrous in
terms of PR. We know we have a problem on wiki right now, but the current
wording highlights the flaws in a way that is never done in PR. Rule number
1: NEVER EVER EVER draw attention to your failings.

At present what it is implies is ''wiki has a problem. Wiki isn't working
right. We need money to fix it. If we don't get it, it isn't going to work
right.

It implies
1. That wiki is flawed;
2. We are /trying/ to fix it, but trying doesn't mean we will succeed.
3. That wiki is in so much difficulty it has to beg for money to make itself
usable.

PR people would hang themselves in shame if they were responsible for
sending out such a message.

The message should be spun positively, not negatively. What it should say
is,

Wiki's phenomenal growth requires constant upgrading of technology to give
you the best service possible. Giving that service requires funding. You now
can donate money to help your wikipedia remain the fastest growing
encyclop?dia on the internet. For more information, see [[Wikipedia
donations]].

That wording, trimmed down and tightened as necessary, sends a different
message to our current message.

1. Wiki is a phenomenal success;
2. We need funds to continue that success;
3. You can help /your/ wiki stay ahead of the rest.

It is positive, not negative, motivational not begging. It tells people
'join in our success', not 'we are trying to fix our problems but badly need
money'.

Please change the current cringe-enducing message.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On my Unix box in Firebird:
> http://leuksman.com/misc/fund.png
>
> On my Windows box in IE 6.0:
> http://leuksman.com/misc/fund-ie.png
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Strange. I can only say what i see. It does not work.
At work; Windows NT IE 6.0
And at home WinME IE 5.5

Only the menu, not the text. It is blank.

Walter


from_name: Andrew

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeezis needs a name change

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>SV wrote:
>>Jesus is Lord! needs a name change-- the WP:NOU
>>policy was designed for User:THROBBING MONSTER..
>>and really should be renamed as something like no
>>controversial usernames, or no inflammatory usernames.
>>
>>The use of Jesus in a name is designed to be
>>inflammatory.

>I agree. User names are not supposed to express any sort of religious or
>political message. "Jesus is Lord!" is offensive to non-Christinans and
>atheists.

>-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

I'm not particularly offended.. but I dunno. ehh.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031008/27393803/attachment.htm


body:
From: "Stevertigo" <utilitymuffinresearch2 at yahoo.com>

> No -- "learn" is a passive word-- almost sneaky in
> this context-- better to be straightforward.  "Donate
> money"
>
> ~S~

OK how about:  Learn how to donate money [here] to help this project grow.

Alex756


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikitech-l] info@wikipedia.de error

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Kurt Jansson wrote:
>
>>Please, could someone reactivate info at wikipedia.de? It should redirect
>>to info-de-l at wikipedia.org. This is the error I got:
>
> Someone should have said they were using wikipedia.de in mailing
> addresses...
>
> info-de-l at wikipedia.de and company should work now.

It's info at wikipedia.de. It should redirect to info-de-l at wikipedia.org.

atm I still get this error:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

   info at wikipedia.de
     SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<info at wikipedia.de>:
     host wikipedia.de [130.94.122.197]: 550 <info at wikipedia.de>:
     User unknown in local recipient table

> I don't see an 'info' in our list of aliases. Was there before?

It's been working since summer 2002.

Kurt