body:
> If I can ask, what is the benefit of a non-admin closing a delete
> decision? He can't actually carry out the deletion, so is it just a
> question of saving a bit of housekeeping for the eventual admin?

Most of the deletion discussions that need closing don't result in
deletion, so what reason is there for non-admins not to close those
ones? I don't think anyone is suggesting non-admins should close ones
where the outcome is deletion.

Angela.

--
Angela Beesley
Wikimedia.org || Wikia.com
Aim/MSN/Yahoo/Jabber: Wikiangela
Gmail/Skype: Beesley


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)
>
> No kidding.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn

Ha. Ah-hahaha. HAHAAHAAAHAHAH.

*wipes tear from eye* Okay, everyone pile on Sam's statement now, if you
please.

Ryan


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
Gordon Joly wrote:
> At 09:59 +0200 3/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On 4/2/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
>>>  My assertion remains the menu words do not have to be words in
>>> Simple English.
>>>
>>>  For example "portal" - is that meaning (of that word) in Simple English?
>> I'm not an expert on SE, but just to follow the logic of this
>> conversation, "portal" would appear to be a specialised vocabulary
>> word defined for the purpose of Wikipedia (as far as the SE universe
>> goes). There's no good reason to define "recent" the same way, when
>> it's only going to be used for that single page, "recent changes".
>
> Surely all pages that show that set of navigation elements?
>
>> That said, either "New changes" or "Newest changes" seem quite
>> reasonable to me.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> "New changes" is fine.
>
> So, "portal". Is that in "Simple English"? And is the modern meaning
> in Simple English?
>

Well, the word "portal" wrt. Wikipedia actually refers to a [[Web
portal]] - a very recent (oh wait, they don't know what /that/ means
either) - um, new - concept (do they know what that means?) - idea which
is very hard to make any more simple. Kind of like an axiom in mathematics.

> What seems to be missing, as with much in Wikipedia, is semantic
> content. Links are created all over Wikipedia (Full English) which
> link on word meaning and ignore the context (meaning).
>

You're always welcome to link to Wiktionary articles by prefixing the
link with wikt: - eg. [[wikt:verb]].

> I looked in recent Featured Articles, and could not find a good
> example. Maybe these semantic blips are weeding out under a fuller
> review.
>
> And people who write Simple English pages are creating some very
> strange English. Does this help the reader?
>

Thanks for your suggestion. Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone
can edit...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/1f465cba/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/2/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's no reason why a non-admin cannot close a keep, except that the
>> process wonks have decided that only an admin can do this, for no
>> reason that makes any sense to me.
>
> Really? From memory, strong keeps can explicitly be closed by
> non-admins in the official process. However, all deletes (strong or
> otherwise) cannot.
>

Heh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=WDMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WDMA&diff=26938038&oldid=26910606

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Marudubshinki&page=Matthew+Hartman
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Hartman&diff=26775427&oldid=26443687

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/011cecfb/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] what are the ethics involved?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/31/06, Thommandel at aol.com <Thommandel at aol.com> wrote:
>> Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator,  to edit  both
>> sides of an issue?
>
> An editor should always try and edit "both sides" of an issue. If the
> administrator in question has taken administrative action on the page
> (blocking users, protecting etc), then they should probably avoid
> editing it. Or do I have that the wrong way around?
>

Wrong way around. If an admin finds an edit war in progress, I see no
problem with them blocking or protecting and then editing. However, an
admin blocking or protecting on an article where they are more than
trivially involved can be seen as a conflict of interest, and should be
avoided.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/4faef2c0/attachment.pgp


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] request to Jimbo for out-of-process deletion of image

body:
On 4/3/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> With this article using the other less offensive image
> [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.

That is still a non-free image.  We do have at least two free images
that could be used to illustrate that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
zero 0000 wrote:
> Sorry if someone posted this already, but I didn't see it.
> The current issue of Nature has a reply to Britannica.

It was briefly mentioned in the Signpost... or #wikipedia... or something :)

Aha! [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-03-27/Britannica]]

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

{{TotallyDisputed}}

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/e45dab9f/attachment.pgp


body:
herostratus at comcast.net wrote:
<snip stuff about "that image">

FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a
store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something
fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive
copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/86da0409/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
If people are going to refer to Wikipedia articles on this mailing
list, could they please give the full URL?  Giving a wiki-style link
in an email doesn't help because this mailing list isn't on the wiki.


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 4/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

Brilliant, Tony.  The first is now included (after a slight technical hitch...)

--
Sam


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

> My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have
> seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed

It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't
guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should
be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a
(red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps
even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple,
saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime,
click here" or something?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> necessary.

You probably will get a lot of crap on you over this. But, for what it's
worth :),  you got my support.

Garion


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 03/04/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> herostratus at comcast.net wrote:
>> <snip stuff about "that image">
>>
>> FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a
>> store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something
>> fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive
>> copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.
>
> Might be worth finding the WP:POINT stick...
>
> That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at the
> best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where
> we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and
> replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of
> these changes are reverted on sight...
>

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by
the number of people in the group.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060403/322ad9c6/attachment.pgp


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or
out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the
japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD
be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted
under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused
copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the
public domain that are not used in any article'.

Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a
self-confessed 'process wonk'.

Cynical

Mikkerpikker wrote:
> I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you
> have my support.
>
> On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
>>> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
>>> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
>>> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
>>> necessary.
>>
>> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
>>
>> Ryan
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMXqEg8fvtQYQevcRAvv1AKCM+9ful+o8jzxFkh1NMBqStN/15ACfS6Z+
wsmC4bmlPWaWBiEzi+ONkfA=
=2xcW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mikkerpikker

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you
have my support.

On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> > image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> > controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> > process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> > necessary.
>
>
> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Pictures of hentai magazines are not illegal in every country from which
people contribute to Wikipedia, depictions of child pornography are.

Cynical

Death Phoenix wrote:
> Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
> because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being
> a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but
> some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about
> this matter.
>
> On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or
> out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the
> japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD
> be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted
> under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused
> copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the
> public domain that are not used in any article'.
>
> Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a
> self-confessed 'process wonk'.
>
> Cynical
>
> Mikkerpikker wrote:
>>>> I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you
>>>> have my support.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
>>>>>> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
>>>>>> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
>>>>>> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFEMX1eg8fvtQYQevcRAviqAJiQ7P4XZ8ExxpwlPEyBzM3UdGyWAJ9sGK/K
Cns0X1iybQq8rY3mbDSVqg==
=Xa2U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 4/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/3/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > With this article using the other less offensive image
> > [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.
>
> That is still a non-free image.  We do have at least two free images
> that could be used to illustrate that article:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg
> _______________________________________________

These images were hidden in the talk archive. Didn't saw them at first. Yes,
much better. A free image should always be preferable over a fair use one.

Garion


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
If a free image is substituted instead of having the space sit empty,
Sam will have my support. Having at least "an" image on there will
dampen the spirits of those who want to yell and scream bloody murder
over its deletion.

On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> It is reasonable and  I will support you. The image has not been used
> correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image
> should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and
> the image deletion page.
>
> Sydney aka FloNight
>
>
>
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> > image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> > BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
> >
> > This image bad in two main ways:
> >
> > 1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
> > Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
> > censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
> > extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
> > encyclopaedia.
> >
> > 2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
> > generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
> > text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
> > is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
> >
> > It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
> > harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
> > justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
> > Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
> > is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
> > picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
> > outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.
> >
> > The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> > image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> > controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> > process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> > necessary.
> >
> > I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
> > wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
> >
> > --
> > Sam
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sydney Poore
>
> Go Bengals!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I now I'm home I checked the article and noticed a free image was put
in its place.
Forget what I said in that last mail. I should've checked first.

Mgm

On 4/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> If a free image is substituted instead of having the space sit empty,
> Sam will have my support. Having at least "an" image on there will
> dampen the spirits of those who want to yell and scream bloody murder
> over its deletion.
>
> On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > It is reasonable and  I will support you. The image has not been used
> > correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image
> > should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and
> > the image deletion page.
> >
> > Sydney aka FloNight
> >
> >
> >
> > Sam Korn wrote:
> > > I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> > > image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> > > BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
> > >
> > > This image bad in two main ways:
> > >
> > > 1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
> > > Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
> > > censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
> > > extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
> > > encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > 2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
> > > generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
> > > text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
> > > is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
> > > harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
> > > justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
> > > Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
> > > is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
> > > picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
> > > outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.
> > >
> > > The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> > > image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> > > controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> > > process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
> > > wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sam
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sydney Poore
> >
> > Go Bengals!
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Hey... let's go for the record of the most useless list footers
quoted back beneath a top-posted message!!!

On 3 Apr 2006 at 21:35, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:

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

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


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

body:
Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this? I
understand it and accept it, but I find it hard to respond to users
who say, "Silly me, I thought we were building an encyclopedia here"
and think that "educational/non-commercial purposes only" should be
OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
weak. As does "We also building a totally free stock photography
database". It's not hard to feel gypped when we should be serving WM
projects first and foremost (and at the moment I doubt there's much
outside use, but it's hard to tell).

So... anyone have a killer response that will instantly make a user
see why this requirement is necessary?

cheers,
Brianna ([[commons:User:pfctdayelise]])

--
"Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife."


from_name: Rudy Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> If people are going to refer to Wikipedia articles on this mailing
> list, could they please give the full URL?  Giving a wiki-style link
> in an email doesn't help because this mailing list isn't on the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_RLY


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Bravo!  We can have a serious discussion of the photo without it on the
site.

Sam Korn wrote:
> I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
>
> This image bad in two main ways:
>
> 1) It is grossly inappropriate.  It is a poor reflection on
> Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors.  We wave "no
> censorship" around to justify outrageous images.  This image is
> extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an
> encyclopaedia.
>
> 2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious.  IANAL, but it seems
> generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the
> text to justify its inclusion.  That is not present here.  This image
> is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
>
> It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to
> harm Wikipedia.  We should, at this point, ask whether the image
> justifies this.  Can the article be understood without the image?
> Undoubtedly yes.  Can a determined reader find an example if the image
> is deleted?  Undoubtedly yes.  Does the benefit of including this
> picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia,
> outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia?  Undoubtedly no.
>
> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this
> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely
> necessary.
>
> I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish.  I
> wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
On 4/3/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using
> only words of four letters or less.

http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html

I found it linked from this great encyclopaedia site.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there.  The key to my
approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the
line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it.  In this case,
we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing
our open processes.

If people still want to set up some sort of
discussion/advocacy/argument/poll for re-including this image, they are
free to do so.  But we do not have to put up with it in the meantime.

--Jimbo

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:18:10 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>> I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
>>> image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
>>> BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
>> Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)
>
> No kidding.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
I was once going to make the simple feature request that the MediaWiki
software accept [[Article names]] and {{Template names}} in the search
box, and translate them into "Article names" and "Template:Template
names" automatically. But that would be silly.

Anyway, Tony, people like me just use [[ ]] notation because we're
lazy, not because  we use some magic software that makes it work.
Although a greasemonkey script to do it would probably be about 5
lines.

Steve

On 4/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> If people are going to refer to Wikipedia articles on this mailing
> list, could they please give the full URL?  Giving a wiki-style link
> in an email doesn't help because this mailing list isn't on the wiki.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 4/3/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> We need to keep [[Britannia]] in mind where it says, "Early portraits of
> the goddess depict Britannia as a beautiful young woman, wearing the
> helmet of a Centurion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion>, and
> wrapped in a white toga with her right breast exposed."
>
> IIRC Britannica had an arrangement of the trident and shield in its
> logos before it adopted a thistle with which to nourish goats.

I wonder if the next edition of Britannica will have: "Early logos for
Wikipedia depicted a young girl, of approximately seven years of age,
buttocks exposed and seemingly yearning for the erect penis about to
penetrate her".

</bad taste>

Steve


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nathan Spaeth

subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
I suggest you have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikibate
I particularily think you should read the Format subheading, to which I
contributed the following (which I think is similar to your idea):

   - A general idea of what the debate is about would head the page,
   along with necessary background info. At the end of this header, an
   assertion will be made and this is what the debate is about.
      - The Background of the debate need only be a sentance or two
      long, anything longer and the debate header itself will be contested.
   - Two sided debates would be split into two columns.
      - The left column would have the original assertion that starts
      off the debate, along with a few seed assertions on each side.
      - If you had something to add to one side or the other, you
      would click a button to add an assertion(for lack of better
word; this could
      instead be a peice of evidence, past history, an analogy to help
explain the
      argument, etc).
      - If an argument is in responce to another, instead of clicking
      add an assertion, you would click on the argument that it is in
responce to
      and have the options to
         -
            - Support the argument
            - Give a counter argument
         - This new argument would be then lined up with the one it
         is respopnding to so that the debate can be easily viewed and
so each side
         can easily see both sides of every shred of evidence.
      - If you wanted to contest the validity of someone elses
      assertion you would click on contest and add your argument in
repeal to the
      other.
         - This in turn would turn the contested argument into its
         own debate that can have its own sub assertions.
      - Throughout the process (through a method yet unkown to me,
      maybe voting?) every assertion would have a score that decided
how much it
      actually supported one side or the other, if it adequatly countered any
      other assertions, etc.

 I also suggest checking out OpenCyc (http://www.opencyc.org). It is a
knowledge based AI with all kinds of assertions about real world things.
This might be usable as a backend when forming arguments. You could make
assertions to the AI when adding to the debate, the AI could then use them
to check the validity of other assertions made in the current or even other
debates. I definately thinking rating system should be added so that
specific arguments can carry more weight over others.

/Nathan Spaeth

--
If you have a penny and I have a penny, and we exchange pennies, we both
have one penny but if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange
ideas, then, we will both have two ideas.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:18:10 +0100, you wrote:

>I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
>image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
>BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).

Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)

Me, I'm at RFAr today, because I said that non-trivial verifiable
information would be welcome in an article, and you can't get more
inflammatory than that, can you?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Child porn features images of people who are unquestionably underage in
sexual situations. The montage picture (haven't seen it, being from
Scotland I have the same legal problems with viewing these as Sam Korn)
of a rack of hentai magazines would more than likely not do that, and
would therefore be legal (or, at least, [remembering I'm not a lawyer]
less illegal than the 'teddy bear' image)

Cynical

Death Phoenix wrote:
> Yes, but if I were to look at a hentai picture, I wouldn't be able to tell
> the difference between it and a lolicon picture. I don't want to go up to a
> police officer with either picture and see if I get arrested to find out
> which is which.
>
> On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> Pictures of hentai magazines are not illegal in every country from which
> people contribute to Wikipedia, depictions of child pornography are.
>
> Cynical
>
> Death Phoenix wrote:
>>>> Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal
>>>> because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
> Being
>>>> a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
> but
>>>> some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated)
> about
>>>> this matter.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>>> Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or
>>>> out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the
>>>> japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD
>>>> be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted
>>>> under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused
>>>> copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the
>>>> public domain that are not used in any article'.
>>>>
>>>> Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a
>>>> self-confessed 'process wonk'.
>>>>
>>>> Cynical
>>>>
>>>> Mikkerpikker wrote:
>>>>>>> I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and
> you
>>>>>>> have my support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing
> this
>>>>>>>>> image.  The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of
>>>>>>>>> controversy.  I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and
>>>>>>>>> process lightly.  Here, however, it is absolutely right and
> absolutely
>>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMZUhg8fvtQYQevcRAqvDAKCUyFg7Ne363pvqgxlc6iGuDLffiQCffFga
1Nbofc39gs9dw7wTaq901Wg=
=QcH0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Michael Snow

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Criminal copyright infringement (was request to Jimbo
 for out-of-process deletion of image)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Do we? I dont actually know of anything else that is a criminal offence
>>in a major country which has general laws protecting free speech,
>>where Jimbo is likely to visit and wouldnt like to be arrested on
>>entry. And where we have an article about the law in question.
>>Maybe we should use the picture to illustrate this?
>>
>>
>Sorry, you're correct, I meant we have plenty of examples of copyright
>violation. Which is not, as you point out, a criminal offence.
>
>
Actually, as the occasional outraged victim is more than happy to remind
us, copyright infringement can be considered criminal under certain
circumstances, at least in the US. For example, willful infringement for
commercial advantage, private financial gain, or of works with a total
retail value of more than $1,000 over any 180-day period. See 17 U.S.C.
?506. The safe harbors for online service providers and the requirement
of willfulness make it difficult to apply to the Wikimedia Foundation,
but I can imagine situations in which it could theoretically apply to
the person uploading the material.

The section also provides, among other things, for fines for fraudulent
removal of copyright notices. This might be worth pointing out to those
users we find modifying images they've clearly copied from other
websites to remove such notices.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> The deleted image has been added as an external link.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=46804578&oldid=46796391
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=46804578&oldid=46796391>
>
> Sydney aka FloNight
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
> > Yes. Some folks are beginning to remove the magazine photo altogether
> > because it's not "informative."
> >
> > To me, a picture is better than no picture. Makes the article more
> > aesthetic.
> >
> >
> > k
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Surely we have an article that describes the difference...

Mgm


body:
> > OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
> > weak.
>
> Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:

I know that, but that hardly changes the core goal of WP from being to
build an online encyclopedia. EN.wp is hugely successful without doing
that. I doubt it is in most editors' minds as the point of the
exercise. They just want to improve a fish article with a drawing of
that fish (etc).  Ensuring maximum reuse rights for everyone else is
not at the top of their priority list.

Brianna

--
"Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife."


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [WikiEN-l] Use of English

body:
At 11:00 -0800 3/4/06, Mark Wagner wrote:
>On 4/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>>  On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>  > On 4/3/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have
>>  >> seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
>>  >
>>  > It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't
>>  > guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should
>>  > be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a
>>  > (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps
>>  > even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple,
>>  > saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime,
>>  > click here" or something?
>>
>>  Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to
>>  describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would
>>  shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy
>>  that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
>
>Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using
>only words of four letters or less.
>

That easy!

:-)

a)
c is the same all over

b)
time x y z all same over all ways

******

In big words:

(a) constancy of the speed of light

(b) principle of equivalence for inertial frames.

YMMV,

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 3 Apr 2006 at 21:43, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Bravo!  We can have a serious discussion of the photo without it on the
> site.

"Shoot first, ask questions later", huh?

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


body:
> NC and ND are clearly incompatible with GNU/FDL. CC-BY-SA on the other
> hand is incompatible on a technical level only. That is, the rules
> specify that one cannot cross-license, but the spirit of both licenses
> is equal. Allowing CC-BY-SA is only a small step from requiring
> everything to be GNU/FDL. Allowing NC or ND is a much larger step, and
> we could not reasonably consider an article as a whole to be GFDL if
> there are such images in it.

Well, true (although GFDL has that annoying requirement to
print/include the license alongside the product, which is why I
despise it for images), but I guess that raises the more central
question of: what is the big deal about WP being GFDL? My
understanding is that GFDL was chosen as the time partly beause it was
the most well-known copyleft license suitable for text. If we had that
time again, would we still choose GFDL? How about CC-BY-SA? How about
CC-BY-NC? What is the killer argument that Wikipedia should be allowed
to be reused in a commercial setting? (I obviously don't consider the
DVD argument to be a killer argument.)

Brianna


list: foundation-l

from_name: Kernigh

subject: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

body:
Elisabeth Bauer <elian at ...> writes:

> When we started Wikimedia Deutschland, we decided to use meta-wiki to
> host the wiki pages related to the verein instead of hosting them on the
> german wikipedia. The effect: nothings happens there. ...

That might not be the right cause. For example, I use English-language pages on
meta.wikimedia.org mostly for interproject situations. If I want to know about
IRC channels or new project proposals, I use Meta. However, I still mostly
ignore the Foundation pages, and I would continue to mostly ignore them even if
they were at en.wikibooks.org instead of Meta.
-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-04-04

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!

Passed 298 of 301 tests (99%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:18:10 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.  It was an
> >image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with
> >BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
>
> Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)

No kidding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn


from_name: Juanma Barranquero

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion

body:
On 4/3/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> Yes, but I had some trouble getting it set up so it's not running yet.

Cool, thanks.

> Done.

Much nicer. Thanks again.

--
                    /L/e/k/t/u


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
> Do we need to reprotect this article?

Quite possibly. [[Lolicon]] has been the subject of multiple edit wars
for at least 5 months. It won't go away.


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:57:08 +0000, you wrote:
>>We do have [[Category:Notable_Wikipedians]].
> Yes, I was going through that the other day.  Some of these "notable
> Wikipedians" registered, created their own autobiography articles,
> added themselves to the category, and haven't been seen since...
>
By no means all, though: some have been marvellously modest.

That category needs to be renamed, but to what? It's basically a combination
of "Wikipedians who are so notable they get an article" and "people who have
an article who joined Wikipedia, if ever so temporarily".

I wonder whether "don't bite the newbies" needs to be amplified when it
comes to this kind of person: it's bad enough when we're rude to someone who
doesn't have sufficient clout to make a stink elsewhere. Deliberately
pissing-off someone who could bring us much good publicity is simply asking
for trouble, and Assuming Bad Faith simply because they're editing their own
article should be stomped on hard.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Analysis-of-Request-for-Adminship-t1374113.html#a3741659
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Kernigh wrote:
> Elisabeth Bauer <elian at ...> writes:
>
>
>> When we started Wikimedia Deutschland, we decided to use meta-wiki to
>> host the wiki pages related to the verein instead of hosting them on the
>> german wikipedia. The effect: nothings happens there. ...
>>
>
> That might not be the right cause. For example, I use English-language pages on
> meta.wikimedia.org mostly for interproject situations. If I want to know about
> IRC channels or new project proposals, I use Meta. However, I still mostly
> ignore the Foundation pages, and I would continue to mostly ignore them even if
> they were at en.wikibooks.org instead of Meta.
> -- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]
Hoi,
The Dutch chapter went another way; we have a http://nl.wikimedia.org
since we started working on a chapter. This worked well in that it gave
focus. Then again focus is a double edged sword. As to ignoring Meta, it
is still the only and the best place to find what lives in the Wikimedia
community. With an expressed expectation that you would ignore its
content even when it is right in front of you, you lose the validity of
an argument that nobody tried to inform you.... You can lead a horse to
water, you cannot make it drink.

Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test snapshot for MediaWiki 1.6.0

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

Before I release a formal 1.6.0, I'd like if a few people would quickly test
installation of the current snapshot.

Generally 1.6 is working quite nice on our own servers, but the installation and
updater code might not be as well exercised. I've done a few basic smoke tests
on my own, but a few more under different conditions might be wise before we
make a fuss about The Big Release.

Download:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/snapshots/mediawiki-snapshot-20060404.tar.gz
MD5 checksum: 352de479b8eada133de1247badd3677a

Release notes (not finalized):
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

As a reminder, we're planning to start on a quarterly snapshot release schedule;
about every three months we'll take what's currently running, branch it off and
release it. Security updates will continue to be made on those release branches
for some time, but feature development and non-essential bugfixes generally will
go on the mainline and be available in the next quarterly release.

So 1.7 is tentatively scheduled for July; 1.8 for October, 1.9 (?) for January, etc.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMlsmwRnhpk1wk44RAsmaAJ9YkPBKxZQfanEk3rN3kqdqSKWFiwCfU5sl
zzm1AbpiUNZ5UCFDO3ioNfM=
=6aXX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Douglas Jones

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLOCKED FROM EDITING

body:
To The Administrators of WIKIPEDIA,

  I have been blocked from editing pages. Why, I do not know. I offer my website as an external link for the wikipedia IQ page. I have no spam at my website and offer a comprehensive database that is full of free information.

  Here is my IP Address: 70.173.162.237.
This is one of the editors that blocked me: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
  This is where I am blocked from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq
  This is my link: * [http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/<B>Kids IQ Test Center</B>]

  I cite your website numerously in my WebPages. I am not spamming wikipedia and I do not understand why I am being hassled. I offer a unique website that offers information that is simply not found on other so-called IQ websites.

  Actually, I have scrolled through numerous so-called IQ websites that are featured in the External Links and the majorities have spam linking directly to the sorriest piss poor excuse for an IQ from the www.tickle.com website.

  If anything, I feel that I am being hassled because I actually have a website that is NOT TRYING TO PAWN SOME CRAPPY TICKLE TEST down a visitor?s throat.

  I ask that you lift the ban on my site and allow me to continue to offer FREE INFORMATION regarding IQ, personality and other psychological tests on the internet.

  Look past the front page of my website. Look at all the information that is free and that provides a service.

  Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

  Regards,

  etexzan

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


from_name: Sherool

subject: [WikiEN-l] Year articles - en: versus de:

body:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:20:46 +0100, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/23/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on
>> >> IRC. Compare:
>> >>
>> >>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>> >>    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>> >>
>> >> Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history
>> >> articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
>> >
>> > Clever approach (usually seen in published yearbooks), but the
>> > by-country breakdown at the core of it won't really work for years
>> > where major (for some suitably vague definition of major) things
>> > happen, like 1942.
>>
>> You can add a separate section, like "World War II", for those
>> occurrences.
>
> You can; but that section, if it were anything other than a list,
> would be redundant with the corresponding section in [[World War II]].

I would think just a couple of sentences followed by {{main|World War II}}
or simmilar would be sufficient in such cases.

--
[[User:Sherool]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Footers (WAS: Re: Deleting the Lolicon picture)

body:
On 4 Apr 2006 at 11:01, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:

> True - but could I add that if everyone put their message ABOVE the
> quoted text, rather than below, then this issue would be moot anyway
> (since we wouldn't need to go through the endless footers in order to
> get to the message)

Digest-mode readers (such as myself) still have to scroll through all
of that excrement in order to get to the next message.

It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.

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


from_name: Adi & Nadav Perez

body:
If I understand correctly, every mirror that uses ads (like
http://pedia.walla.co.il for he) is commercial usage, so NC/ND is not
practical even now...
Nadav
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Benbennick" <dbenbenn at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

> On 4/3/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone have a really succint, persuasive argument for this?
>
> I usually point out that Ask.com is ''already'' using Wikipedia and
> Commons content for commercial purposes.  For example, the top of
> http://www.ask.com/web?q=Petersen+graph shows an image from the
> Commons.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


from_name: Govardhanen Gopal

subject: [Wikitech-l] Making non ugly URL's breaks my wiki

body:
Hello Everybody,

I have tried in vain searching around but haven't found a solution for
my problem.  Hence my post here.

I am attempting to use the url found below to make my wiki(located on
an intranet) a)look pretty b)make sphyder my indexing tool work
better.  I use the method outlined in section 1.1

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Make_non-ugly_URLs

I am running on solaris 2.8, apache 2.0.55 and php 4.4.0 & mysql
5.0.15.  I have a stock install of mediawiki(1.5.7). I have no major
changes to the mediawiki instance that I am able to recall.

I made the changes to LocalSettings.php and http.conf and restarted
the web server.  This is where I run into these weird problems.  I
further emptied the cache in all my browsers(Opera, Firefox & IE), and
further truncated the objectcache table.

1. The skin changes.  I prefer the monobook default skin, but after
the change outlined above I get the really simple skin version of the
wiki.  No amount of changing user preferences seem to help.
2. The user settings totally go out of wack.  I am unable to either
login if I am not logged in, nor am I able to log out if I am logged
out into the wiki.

I have tried in vain to diagnose the issues, but to no avail.  Any
help is GREATLY appreciated.

Further is there any where I can take a peek at LocalSettings.php and
httpd.conf for a similar setup from any of the popular mediawiki based
web sites(or even wikipedia.org or mediawiki.org) and see the
differences vis a vis my site.

Gov


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject:
[WikiEN-l] External links to image boards with images of a
	child engaged in sexually explicit acts.

body:
On 4/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > I wasn't surprised that the images were there. I was disgusted that an
> > editor added the links. There is a difference I think. :-)
> >
> > Recently, another editor emailed me to ask me to check out 5 external
> > links on an article. He was at work and couldn't safely pull them up.
> > Some of the images there were horrible. I don't think merely looking at
> > this type of material causes some one to fall into moral decay.
> > Personally it saddens me to see images of young children being sexually
> > exploited. These images are being promoted on these sites. Very
> > different than showing them for educational purposes.
> >
> Children involved in sexually explicit acts is illegal in all the ways
> that come to mind. Most picture gallery links are non-encyclopedic
> spam. I don't see why we would need new policies to cover this.

The link in question is to a lolicon (ie. cartoon porn) site.  It's
legal in the US and Japan, and probably a number of other parts of the
world.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Jan Vanoverpelt

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatically put text on a non existing page?

body:
Thank you all for the help: it works now!

I have replaced [[:{{{Link}}}|   ]] by
[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload}}}&action=edit}}]

Kind regards,
JAN

2006/4/3, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com>:
>
> If you work on MediaWiki 1.5, please replace "{{fullurl:" with
> "{{SERVER}}{{localurl:".
>
>
> Jan Vanoverpelt wrote:
>
> >2006/4/3, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>:
> >
> >
> >>>Try replacing the "[[:{{{Link}}}|   ]]" in your template
> >>>with:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>[{{fullurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload|}}}&action=edit}}
> >>>   ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks, I tried this but unfortunately without satisfying result: what I
> get
> >then is a link like
> >"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FULLURL:new-page-to-be-made
> "
> >without any preload function. The image itself seems also overwritten by
> >some huge symbols "[[T".
> >
> >Any other ideas?
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikitech-l mailing list
> >Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> I wasn't surprised that the images were there. I was disgusted that an
> editor added the links. There is a difference I think. :-)
>
> Recently, another editor emailed me to ask me to check out 5 external
> links on an article. He was at work and couldn't safely pull them up.
> Some of the images there were horrible. I don't think merely looking at
> this type of material causes some one to fall into moral decay.
> Personally it saddens me to see images of young children being sexually
> exploited. These images are being promoted on these sites. Very
> different than showing them for educational purposes.
>
> Sydney aka FloNight
>
Children involved in sexually explicit acts is illegal in all the ways
that come to mind. Most picture gallery links are non-encyclopedic
spam. I don't see why we would need new policies to cover this.

Mgm


body:
On 4/4/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The external link of the Lolicon article labeled Renchan Lolicon
> Community contains hundreds of lolicon images of children engaged in sex
> acts.
>
> Sydney
>
At least those appear to be legal in Japan and they at least
illustrate the article. That's slightly less of a problem than
photographs, though not very much less.

Mgm


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Brianna Laugher:
>>> OK. Saying "Well, we might want to sell a DVD one day" sounds a bit
>>> weak.
>> Why's that? The Germans are already doing it:
>
> I know that, but that hardly changes the core goal of WP from being to
> build an online encyclopedia. EN.wp is hugely successful without doing
> that. I doubt it is in most editors' minds as the point of the
> exercise. They just want to improve a fish article with a drawing of
> that fish (etc).  Ensuring maximum reuse rights for everyone else is
> not at the top of their priority list.

But it is at the top of the Wikimedia Foundation's priority list:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

en.wp is "hugely successful" in countries with broadly available, cheap,
fast Internet access. When I was in South Africa, a DVD and regular DVD
updates of the English WP was the main thing people there asked for to
use Wikipedia content in schools. Partnerships with commercial entities
are one good way to make that happen.

The licensing framework of Wikipedia and its sister projects is chosen
in such a way to maximize distribution and derivative works. However, I
do agree that a Wikimedia FAQ or position paper on these issues,
including examples and anecdotes, might be a good way to educate editors
about the goals of the Foundation.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/4/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Now that we're on this topic...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missionary_Sex_Position.png
>
> Doesn't the teddy bear in that picture look a bit odd and out of
> place? :) (I'm not suggesting deletion, just maybe getting the bear
> out of the picture.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAME#Pictures

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Robert Rapplean

subject: [Wikitech-l] A design for a debate tool

body:
Thank you, Nathan.  This is very much what I'm trying to accomplish, and
incorporates a lot of the elements that have gone into my design.  It
appears to mimic the actual process that my tool is designed to implement.
I particularly like that it takes advantage of the wiki's cross linking
ability to allow the users to dig deeper into a more complex issue.  As an
overall tool, though, it is still locked into a wiki model, which results in
certain inherent limitations.  Your comment here illustrates this pretty
well.

On 4/3/06, Nathan Spaeth <loplin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>       - Throughout the process (through a method yet unkown to me, maybe
> voting?) every assertion would have a score that decided how much it
> actually supported one side or the other, if it adequatly countered any
> other assertions, etc.

For each assertion to be voted on, this would require that some metadata be
maintained about that assertion.  How many votes, direction of votes, who
has already voted and in what direction so that they might change their vote
later, that kind of thing.  Wikis are largely self moderated, so this
metadata would need to be tracked and stored by each of the participants or
by a central authority.

By stepping out of the wiki model we can embody each of the assertions as
its own data object.  Assertion, creator, votes, links, the whole nine
yards, stored as a living object in the database.  This solves the metadata
problem and allows you to automate the entire process. My design correlates
to Wikibates the same way that dynamic pages correlate to static ones.

I also suggest checking out OpenCyc (http://www.opencyc.org). It is a
> knowledge based AI with all kinds of assertions about real world things.
> This might be usable as a backend when forming arguments. You could make
> assertions to the AI when adding to the debate, the AI could then use them
> to check the validity of other assertions made in the current or even
> other
> debates. I definately thinking rating system should be added so that
> specific arguments can carry more weight over others.

I'll have to look deeper into OpenCyc.  A quick glance suggests that it
could be a very powerful back end resource, and may even provide a good data
model to work with.

Thanks again,

Robert


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Footers (WAS: Re:  Deleting the Lolicon picture)

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

Because any modification of the message post-sending would royally screw
any digital signing of the message (which me, Alphax, and a couple of
other people use on this list) which relies on a hash computed at the
time of sending by the user's encryption program

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've seen 7 in a row on a private mailing list I administer...
>
> I've never really understood why mailing list softaware
> can't/won't/don't strip them out automatically. It's not as if the
> regexp to do is complicated.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMkBtg8fvtQYQevcRAgbnAKCD9YtchTn+iahPRjpGVBlBg6soZwCfUzah
/WI8R8cTv/XmVpK1G0Nj9ks=
=SDK3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nature replies to Britannica

body:
G'day Ray,

> Rudy Koot wrote:
>>zero 0000 wrote:
>>>Sorry if someone posted this already, but I didn't see it.
>>>The current issue of Nature has a reply to Britannica.
>>>It is subscription-only so giving a link won't help.
>>>There is an editorial and a slightly longer reply that
>>>does not need subscription (see link near the end
>>>of the editorial).
>>
>>I think it's about time to start [[Nature-Britannica dispute]].
>
> There are times when the most eloquent response is silence.

Bang on.  They're digging their own grave so enthusiastically that it
would be just wrong to try to help ...

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 3/04/2006


body:
G'day Tony,

> On 4/3/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>With this article using the other less offensive image
>>[[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.
>
> That is still a non-free image.  We do have at least two free images
> that could be used to illustrate that article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

I don't get it.  What justification did the, ahem, good-faith editors
use to argue that we needed fair-use close-ups of kiddie porn instead of
the photograph (also, admittedly, of kiddie porn ... but more
appropriate and tasteful, if that word can be applied here).

My second question is: how on Earth did this shit ever get to be *legal*
in Japan?  Some people are *really* sick.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 3/04/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
G'day Katefan0,

> That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will.  The most vehement cries have
> been of censorship, and deleting a "more offensive" image for a "less
> offensive" image is not going to make the hounds bay any softer.

I haven't checked (I saw the Lolicon article once and it quite cured my
curiosity), but I'd bet that the set of people complaining about
"censorship" includes more than just rock spiders.

It's kinda sweet that there's people out there so concerned about basic
American freedoms (on an international project, but never mind) that
they'll stand up and fight for the right of sickos to look at kiddie
porn.  Actually, "sweet" probably isn't the word I'm looking for ...

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 3/04/2006


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

True - but could I add that if everyone put their message ABOVE the
quoted text, rather than below, then this issue would be moot anyway
(since we wouldn't need to go through the endless footers in order to
get to the message)

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Because any modification of the message post-sending would royally screw
>> any digital signing of the message (which me, Alphax, and a couple of
>> other people use on this list) which relies on a hash computed at the
>> time of sending by the user's encryption program
>
> Heh, in this case, there is no problem - anyone likely to use PGP to
> sign their messages is extremely unlikely to forget to trim their
> message footers. And the worst case scenario is that you do forget to
> trim a message footer, it gets done for you, and someone's mail reader
> says "this PGP message does not compute" and checks with you.
>
> So, a small number of messages from a small number of users would
> cause a small problem.
>
> Steve the quantifier
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMkQJg8fvtQYQevcRAhNVAJ4jWDtxIGiVdbvtPg4qiK+QjcyTJgCfb51R
2d44pDzXk+ifJk5mB+T8WTo=
=g7Rc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Undetected Vandalism from a single IP

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

She was doing her job - investigating whether Wikipedia's
counter-vandalism procedures were robust enough. Clearly in several of
her tests they were not. This is no different from reporters from 'The
Sun' (a gutter tabloid here in the UK) into Sandhurst Military Academy
to prove how crap security is.

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
>> After 4 days, she removed her vandalism that was uncorrected until
>> then. The article reads "Not corrected within a week" or something
>> like that.
>
> Pity that people who do this sort of things can't actually help the
> project, or point out existing vandalism or something, rather than
> simply violating [[WP:POINT]]. I can understand where they're coming
> from, but it's like pissing in front of a police station to see if you
> get away with it. Even if you do, it still reeks of piss.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMkU9g8fvtQYQevcRAi+aAKCZeTULitMjF0VRw2NFaekchHZfQwCeJxGX
b8n8GFU9PAd6csilyePZvPU=
=PlAI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 4/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen 7 in a row on a private mailing list I administer...

I've never really understood why mailing list softaware
can't/won't/don't strip them out automatically. It's not as if the
regexp to do is complicated.

Steve


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Now that we're on this topic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missionary_Sex_Position.png

Doesn't the teddy bear in that picture look a bit odd and out of
place? :) (I'm not suggesting deletion, just maybe getting the bear
out of the picture.)

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


from_name: Gordon Joly

body:
At 11:50 +0200 4/4/06, Mathias Schindler wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Elaine Wang is a senior at Lamar High School in Arlington, Texas. She
>recently wrote an article for the "Sun Herald" about her experiences
>with vandalism in Wikipedia.
>
>This is her edit history:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.91.32.213
>
>http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/living/14257422.htm
>
>After 4 days, she removed her vandalism that was uncorrected until
>then. The article reads "Not corrected within a week" or something
>like that.
>
>
>Hoever, it is strange to see that nobody who corrected a single error
>from her seemed to have checked her other articles. -- ~~~~

She ends the article with:

"My advice for anyone using it? Check the facts with other Web sites,
and always double-check the Wikipedia article itself for updates over
time. You never know when a goofball like me might be posting."

Sound advice!

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


body:
2006/4/4, Jan Vanoverpelt <jan.vanoverpelt at gmail.com>:
>Thank you all for the help: it works now!

...BUT 1 practical problem is still there:
Scenario:
1) The user clicks on an image, which refers to a non-existing page.
2) The user is linked to the non-existing page's edit-box in which the
preloaded text is written.
3) The user adds some additional text and saves the page.
4) The user leaves the pages, surfs around on the wiki and goes back to the
image through which he previously created the new page.  This is the point
where the practical problem jumps in: the user clicks on the image, BUT he
is AGAIN taken directly to the edit-box INSTEAD OF being taken to the actual
page (which exists now, so he does not have to be linked directly to the
edit-box of the page).

I think this problem is due to the fact that i have created some kind of
"hard link" behind the image, so that the user is always forced to go
directly to the edit-box with the preloaded text in it. Is there a way to
fix this, so that the user (after he/she visited the non-existing page for
the first time, added something and saved it) is directly taken to the
actual page the second time (like is done in case of "normal" links) ??

Thanks!

JAN

2006/4/4, Jan Vanoverpelt <jan.vanoverpelt at gmail.com>:
>
> Thank you all for the help: it works now!
>
> I have replaced [[:{{{Link}}}|   ]] by
> [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload}}}&action=edit}}]
>
> Kind regards,
> JAN
>
>
> 2006/4/3, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com>:
>
> > If you work on MediaWiki 1.5, please replace "{{fullurl:" with
> > "{{SERVER}}{{localurl:".
> >
> >
> > Jan Vanoverpelt wrote:
> >
> > >2006/4/3, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net >:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Try replacing the "[[:{{{Link}}}|   ]]" in your
> > template
> > >>>with:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>[{{fullurl:{{{Link}}}|preload={{{Preload|}}}&action=edit}}
> > >>>   ]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Thanks, I tried this but unfortunately without satisfying result: what
> > I get
> > >then is a link like
> > >"
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FULLURL:new-page-to-be-made
> > "
> > >without any preload function. The image itself seems also overwritten
> > by
> > >some huge symbols "[[T".
> > >
> > >Any other ideas?
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Wikitech-l mailing list
> > >Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

body:
At 01:19 +0200 31/3/06, Anthere wrote:

[...]

>
>
>Let me copy here LinuxBeak proposal so that you understand better...
>
>
>
>
>Alex writes
>
>
>Well, besides from being a clean canvas that we can work from, it would
>boast some things that Meta currently does not:
>
>A.) It would be heavily based upon most of the policies from en.wikipedia.
>Some things can change, but it will be a site designed with the purpose of
>being an extention of en.wikipedia instead of an entirely separate project.
>Meta2 will exist for Wikipedia instead of being a standalone project.
>
>B.) Seeing that it is being built from the ground up, it will be several
>exponential degrees easier to keep things organized in a clear and concise
>manner. Read: categorization.
>
>C.) It would be much cleaner and accessible by regular Wikipedians. Meta as
>it stands right now frightens many people on en. I know... I've talked to
>them.
>
>D.) Old material three years from now would be in a category called
>"archive" or something akin.
>
>E.) It would have the potential expandability that Meta boasts, except in a
>more defined and controlable setting.
>
>
>--Alex
>
>
>
>>  Meta is evidently not a cross-project work wiki or service wiki for
>>  other projects, but a separate community unto itself, somewhat like
>>  Commons. (Recall en:'s problems with vandalism of images stored on
>>  Commons, and how we eventually had to resort to storing featured
>>  images directly on en: owing to the recalcitrance of Commons admins
>>  who insisted they were an independent project, never mind Commons was
>>  *invented* as a service wiki.) I'm not entirely sure what the point
>>  is, but I'm sure someone will follow up with what makes a wiki where
>>  the community do their actual work in IRC and mailing lists into a
>>  work wiki whose use is clear to those not in the inner circle.
>>
>>
>>  - d.
>
>I am glad :-)
>You admitted there was a meta community ;-)
>Note : a *meta* community, not a *wiki* community ;-)
>Thanks David
>
>ant
>
>_______________________________________________

Indeed. Not a wiki at all, perhaps.

Are there any groupware experts out there?

In the meantime, here are some handy references to the extant body of
knowledge:

1)

http://www.usabilityfirst.com/groupware/

2) TOWER "Theatre of Work Enabling Relationships" , which uses BSCW.
I worked for the TOWER project for three months in 2002 at Bartlett
Research (UCL)

http://www.fit.fraunhofer.de/projects/tower

http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/

"What is BSCW?

BSCW (Basic Support for Cooperative Work) enables collaboration over
the Web. BSCW is a 'shared workspace' system which supports document
upload, event notification, group management and much more. "

3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupware

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


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
Hi,

Elaine Wang is a senior at Lamar High School in Arlington, Texas. She
recently wrote an article for the "Sun Herald" about her experiences
with vandalism in Wikipedia.

This is her edit history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.91.32.213

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/living/14257422.htm

After 4 days, she removed her vandalism that was uncorrected until
then. The article reads "Not corrected within a week" or something
like that.

Hoever, it is strange to see that nobody who corrected a single error
from her seemed to have checked her other articles. -- ~~~~


body:
On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Because any modification of the message post-sending would royally screw
> any digital signing of the message (which me, Alphax, and a couple of
> other people use on this list) which relies on a hash computed at the
> time of sending by the user's encryption program

Heh, in this case, there is no problem - anyone likely to use PGP to
sign their messages is extremely unlikely to forget to trim their
message footers. And the worst case scenario is that you do forget to
trim a message footer, it gets done for you, and someone's mail reader
says "this PGP message does not compute" and checks with you.

So, a small number of messages from a small number of users would
cause a small problem.

Steve the quantifier


body:
On 4/4/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> After 4 days, she removed her vandalism that was uncorrected until
> then. The article reads "Not corrected within a week" or something
> like that.

Pity that people who do this sort of things can't actually help the
project, or point out existing vandalism or something, rather than
simply violating [[WP:POINT]]. I can understand where they're coming
from, but it's like pissing in front of a police station to see if you
get away with it. Even if you do, it still reeks of piss.

Steve


body:
On 4/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > After 4 days, she removed her vandalism that was uncorrected until
> > then. The article reads "Not corrected within a week" or something
> > like that.
>
> Pity that people who do this sort of things can't actually help the
> project, or point out existing vandalism or something, rather than
> simply violating [[WP:POINT]]. I can understand where they're coming
> from, but it's like pissing in front of a police station to see if you
> get away with it. Even if you do, it still reeks of piss.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

And it's the obscure articles where vandalism survives. At least the
author encourages people to doublecheck with other sources. Too bad,
he/she doesn't say that should be the norm with ANY source.

Mgm


body:
On 4/4/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder whether "don't bite the newbies" needs to be amplified when it
> comes to this kind of person: it's bad enough when we're rude to someone who
> doesn't have sufficient clout to make a stink elsewhere. Deliberately
> pissing-off someone who could bring us much good publicity is simply asking
> for trouble, and Assuming Bad Faith simply because they're editing their own
> article should be stomped on hard.

I agree, but I think the policy should be quite firm: Don't edit your
own articles, add the material/corrections to the talk page instead.
We don't have to accuse anyone of vanity, having an agenda etc. Sort
of like the "For your safety, this store has surveillance cameras". Of
course we trust *you* not to add false information to your own page,
but you wouldn't want us to allow *other* people to modify their
pages, would you?

I also think it makes the encyclopaedia look better if we have that
kind of editing standard. "I tried to spin my article, but some
editors stepped in and said they welcomed my contributions, but
preferred to do the editing for me." As opposed to "Yeah, I took out
that crap about a stupid promise I made 10 years ago and no one
stopped me."

Steve


body:
On the subject of groupware, and the efficacy of Mediawiki, I found this.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction

****
What else can MediaWiki do?

While MediaWiki is not designed to do these things, it can be used as...

...Content Management System (CMS) software

...Forum or Bulletin Board System (BBS) software

...Groupware, Messaging, or Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) software

...a Workflow Management System (WfMS).

See m:Wiki Uses for further description and discussion of these items.

****

I also recall Brion saying that Mediawiki was not adequate for the
requirements of Commons, but I am sure he will be able to speak for
himself and correct me if I am wrong.

Also, if Mediawiki can do everything, why do we need a Mailman mailing list?

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


from_name: Juanma Barranquero

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subversion

body:
On 4/4/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> Got it working now:
>
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/

This:

 http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/?view=rev

is what I wanted. *Many* thanks!

--
                    /L/e/k/t/u


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Subcategories (was: Re: Footers (WAS: Re: Deleting
	the Lolicon picture))

body:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> I have an immature little fantasy that "tagging" would be better than
> "categorising" our articles. Would it work better in this case?
> Brownstone could be +"building material" and +mineral and why not even
> +architecture.
>
> We could perhaps define parent tags, that worked like templates. Say,
> tagging an article +"German beer"  would automatically (and
> transparently, that is, visibly) add the tags +German and +beer.
>
> Of course, this would require a major change to MediaWiki and massive
> amounts of work to correctly implement, so I'm more than happy to be
> convinced that "categories" work better than "tags".

I say we all boycott categories until tagging is implemented.

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


body:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:57 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> Also, if Mediawiki can do everything, why do we need a Mailman
>> mailing list?
>
> Because all wikis are crap for in depth discussion of topical issues.

However, they don't lend themselves to top-posting vs. bottom-posting
arguments!

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


body:
> My second question is: how on Earth did this shit ever get to be
> *legal*
> in Japan?  Some people are *really* sick.

Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates
anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't
because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually
assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is
financially supporting such assaults).

Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.

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


body:
At 13:57 +0200 4/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 4/4/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
>>  Also, if Mediawiki can do everything, why do we need a Mailman mailing list?
>
>Because all wikis are crap for in depth discussion of topical issues.
>
>Steve

Indeed. And I also recall my experiences of creating a bid for
Wikimania 2006 using Wikiedmia MetaWiki.

Gordo

--
gordon.joly at pobox.com


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 04/04/06, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com> wrote:
> One request - please fix
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5409 for that release,
> because it's an annoying bug, and it now has an updated, simple patch.

I'm on that at this precise moment, although looking at a cleaner
implementation (time to hack out some of the crap in that file).

Rob Church


body:
On 4/4/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
> Also, if Mediawiki can do everything, why do we need a Mailman mailing list?

Because all wikis are crap for in depth discussion of topical issues.

Steve


from_name: Markus Krötzsch

body:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 13:40, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Before I release a formal 1.6.0, I'd like if a few people would quickly
> test installation of the current snapshot.
>
> Generally 1.6 is working quite nice on our own servers, but the
> installation and updater code might not be as well exercised. I've done a
> few basic smoke tests on my own, but a few more under different conditions
> might be wise before we make a fuss about The Big Release.
>
> Download:
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/snapshots/mediawiki-snapshot-20060404.tar.gz
> MD5 checksum: 352de479b8eada133de1247badd3677a
>
> Release notes (not finalized):
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

I tried to upgrade an existing 1.5.5 and got:

Adding ss_images field to table site_stats...Query "UPDATE site_stats SET
ss_images=@images
" failed with error code "Table 'mywikiname.site_stats' doesn't exist
(localhost)".

On a second run of the config script, the error did not reoccur. Everything
seems to work fine now.

Cheers,

Markus

>
>
> As a reminder, we're planning to start on a quarterly snapshot release
> schedule; about every three months we'll take what's currently running,
> branch it off and release it. Security updates will continue to be made on
> those release branches for some time, but feature development and
> non-essential bugfixes generally will go on the mainline and be available
> in the next quarterly release.
>
> So 1.7 is tentatively scheduled for July; 1.8 for October, 1.9 (?) for
> January, etc.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
Markus Kr?tzsch
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
mak at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de        phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/     fax +49 (0)721 693  717
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060404/fae4d578/attachment.pgp>


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

True, had all the discussion on the lolicon image taken place on the
article's talkpage (as some of the RFC endorsers have demanded) it would
have been a mass of indentation, links to irrelevant policies etc. etc.
whereas on the mailing list people can give a more extended, more
rational explanation of their argument.

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
>> Also, if Mediawiki can do everything, why do we need a Mailman mailing list?
>
> Because all wikis are crap for in depth discussion of topical issues.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMnK1g8fvtQYQevcRApNBAJ9Gmd03vM2fEYbMWUjCPLClOiN58gCfc/ym
hagVkMfpDXnySUlfLN+378g=
=a440
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there.  The key to my
> approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the
> line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it.  In this case,
> we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing
> our open processes.

I'm sorry, who's a pedophile?  Would you like to make any specific
allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept
as a pedophile?  That is a very strong allegation.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEMrnAvCEYTv+mBWcRAuV7AKCK05AbFQVOAp17n09iGkKR00lVbACcC8ew
hjziHxhaaEU2xBXm0SQMEXk=
=uARf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Perhaps it would be better if there was NO footer at all (rather
than stripping out multiple occurences of the footer post-sending). This
would solve the display problems you mentioned without screwing PGP
signing. Surely the fact that [WikiEN-l] is in the subject line tells
someone that the email is from the mailing list, without the need for
the footer.

Cynical

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2006 at 11:01, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> True - but could I add that if everyone put their message ABOVE the
>> quoted text, rather than below, then this issue would be moot anyway
>> (since we wouldn't need to go through the endless footers in order to
>> get to the message)
>
> Digest-mode readers (such as myself) still have to scroll through all
> of that excrement in order to get to the next message.
>
> It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
> on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
> above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
> Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEMnWmg8fvtQYQevcRApRUAJ0Somp22iuaqABnihNx/0A3aqV5CwCdEoTE
BcmSerEcEk5zgPkgiRWMdys=
=tzhu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image
interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware
that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old
girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our
readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own
experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about
13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We
need to be aware and responsible.

Fred

On Apr 4, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there.  The key to my
>> approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should
>> draw the
>> line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it.  In this
>> case,
>> we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground,
>> abusing
>> our open processes.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, who's a pedophile?  Would you like to make any specific
> allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept
> as a pedophile?  That is a very strong allegation.
>
>
> - --
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
>
> ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEMrnAvCEYTv+mBWcRAuV7AKCK05AbFQVOAp17n09iGkKR00lVbACcC8ew
> hjziHxhaaEU2xBXm0SQMEXk=
> =uARf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>