from_name: geni

body:
On 11/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 11/23/06, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> suggestion: Why don't we push for creating
> >> [[Category:Google maps images]]
> >> as a subcategory of Fair use images
> >> if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's
> >> going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when
> >> appropiated
> >
> >  Joe user doesn't use cats and there are not really enough of the
> > things to be a problem anyway.
> >
>
> Does j. random luser tend to select the right "fair use" tag at upload
> time from the dropdown? We could quite simply add "Google maps/Google
> Earth" in there and have the appropriate template categorise the images
> for us...
>

It isn't really common enough to be worthwhile. If you followed that
line the drop down menu would be even more insanely long than it
already is.

--
geni


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/23/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Would this be public domain?
>

Yes. Crown copyright photos over 50 years old.
--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michiel Sikma

subject: [Foundation-l] Permissions page on wikimediafoundation.org?

body:
Op 24-nov-2006, om 10:59 heeft Andrew Gray het volgende geschreven:

> Can we have a blanket blurb for "I'd like to use a screenshot of the
> site", too? I understand that one's legally flakier due to it
> containing content which is not ours, but a permission to use all the
> bits of it which are ours and a reassuring remark about fair-use for
> display purposes or somesuch...

I'm new to this list and haven't paid attention to the discussion up
till now, but I guess it would be something like this?

"Due to the nature of the licenses used by the projects of the
Wikimedia Foundation, you are legally entitled to create and use
screenshots of the projects. While you are generally only required to
attribute the screenshot to their original copyright holders and keep
it under the same license as ours, we suggest that you refer to the
exact license of the project you are interested in for more
information. It should be noted that the projects may contain fair
use images; refer to the fair use clause of your region's copyright
law to assess whether your use is fair as well."

Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org>
Web designer and programmer


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia ne fonctionne plus en Tunisie

body:
Zut! Plus pays qui n'aime pas le Wikip?dia.

------

Darn! More countries who don't like Wikipedia.

On 11/24/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Alors, la situation est elle confirm?e par d'autres utilisateurs ?
>
> Quelqu'un a t-il demand? sur wikiar-l ? (peut ?tre des tunisiens ?)
>
> ------
>
> Someone reported Wikipedia being blocked in Tunisia.
>
> Is there someone able to second ? Mido ?
>
> Anthere
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 24/11/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain.  Google has not added
> > the necessary creativity to change this.
> >
> > That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
>
> I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I
> said that the imagery is copyrighted.

IANAL, of course, but I believe that the work that Google has done in
stitching together all the various image data sets to produce a
derivative work (Google Earth) based on them would count as creative
and original, so a screenshot of such a stitched area would infringe
their copyright.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Was: Google Earth screenshots

body:
> suggestion: Why don't we push for creating
> [[Category:Google maps images]]
> as a subcategory of Fair use images
> if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's
> going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when
> appropiated

What's the point of having a category for something that will almost
always get deleted? I imagine the Google Earth/Maps articles already
have all the images they need (which isn't enough to warrant a
category), and they will virtually never fall under fair use anywhere
else, so they should be deleted, not categorised.


from_name: Husky

subject: [Foundation-l] Querylogs and accesslogs

body:
You could also try this link if you want general statistics on Wikipedia:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 11/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/24/06, Antonio Gulli <gulli at di.unipi.it> wrote:
> > Is wiki using apache web server or something equivalent server?
> > I was referring to the access.log file
>
> Although we use Apache, we do not store an access.log.
> We also use squid, but have disabled logging in that as well.
>
> At peak we are serving over 20,000 requests per second. At this
> activity level logging would present a non-negligible performance and
> administrative overhead.
>
> Lets pretend for a moment that all access hit apache:
>
> My local mediawiki installation on apache produces log entries of
> 232.13 bytes per hit on average. I would expect that my log entries
> would be shorter than the entries we'd see in production.
>
> Over a day we are receiving about 1,188,345,600 http requests.
>
> This would be 256.9 GiB/day in access logs.
>
> At 7.8 terabytes of log data to simply preserve a month's history,
> keeping full access logs would be both unreasonable and wasteful.
>
> If you have some especially interesting research ideas, and your
> research can be done on smaller amounts of data that we might be
> collecting (such as the wikicharts data) then I would be glad to
> discuss the possibilities.  But it would be best to take that
> discussion off list...
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Querylogs and accesslogs


body:
> It's similar to a honeypot - we put the category there, hoping people
> are honest enough to use the category to make it easy to come along
> later and delete them.

a) The people that would be categorising them would likely be people
that could just delete them (or tag them for deletion) if they knew
they weren't allowed.
b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed,
which will probably just increase their usage.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:
	[17860]	trunk/phase3/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
<snip>
> Brion, the signature attached to that last posting wasn't valid.

It was for me...

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061124/3f885d45/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright Violation Bot

body:
The fact that people continually insert copyvios into articles is very
distressing.

On 11/24/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 23/11/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I can't finish this, would any of you Wikipedians be so kind as to
> > write a script for me to run? Thanks,
>
> Sure. Try this:
> http://downlode.org/Code/Perl/Wikipedia/copyviofinder.txt
>
> It's a little rough and ready, but seems to work. A couple of random
> examples:
>
> [[USS Dale (DD-290)]]
> Search phrase: Dale operated with Destroyer Squadrons, Scouting Fleet,
> on the Atlantic
> Found:
>   http://www.historycentral.com/navy/destroyer/DaleIIIdd290.html
>   http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/dd-290.htm
>   http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/dd290txt.htm
>
> [[Cincinnati Bengals]]
> Search phrase: The Cincinnati Bengals are a professional American
> football team based
> Found:
>   http://www.jazzsportsnews.com/nfl/teams/64.html
>
> http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Cincinn
> ati_Bengals
>   http://www.acheapseat.com/cincinnati_bengals_tickets.html
>   http://www.blinkbits.com/bits/viewforum/cincinnati_bengals_bio?f=2552
>   http://www.frontrowking.com/football/cincinnati_bengals_tickets.html
>   http://www.ticketstogo.com/sport/nfl/Cincinnati-Bengals.html
>   http://www.free-picks.org/nfl/articles/bengals.html
>   http://www.foxboroticketking.com/vscincinnatibengals.html
> [lots more URLs snipped]
>
> Whether the copyvio is an inward or outward bound one in each case is
> sadly beyond the scope of my programming skills, so I leave that to
> you.
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>             http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] Category:User scripts

body:
Florian Straub wrote:
> Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cool Cat wrote:
>
>>> I would really like to be
>>> able to delete images by clicking a link at the [[COM:DEL]] sub page
>>> citing
>>> that [[COM:DEL]] sub page for the reason. Or another tool that will add
>>> {{delh}} ---- {{delf}} properly for me.
>>>
>> As for a "nuke image from COM:DEL page", I'd like to finish quick-delete
>> first.
>
> On de.wp we've got a javascript that helps to delete NowCommons-pictures.
> Maybe it might help you. It was written by Revvar and it's included in
> [[w:de:Benutzer:Flominator/monobook.js]].
>
> This script takes the filename from the template and adds it to the deletion
> reason.
>
> Maybe it helps ....
>

I assure you, I am very good at automating forms; check the move log of
the 15th of October :)

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061124/0f7ce211/attachment.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/23/06, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> suggestion: Why don't we push for creating
>> [[Category:Google maps images]]
>> as a subcategory of Fair use images
>> if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's
>> going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when
>> appropiated
>
>  Joe user doesn't use cats and there are not really enough of the
> things to be a problem anyway.
>

Does j. random luser tend to select the right "fair use" tag at upload
time from the dropdown? We could quite simply add "Google maps/Google
Earth" in there and have the appropriate template categorise the images
for us...

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061124/c6491845/attachment.pgp


body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> Edward Z. Yang wrote:
>>> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Brion, the signature attached to that last posting wasn't valid.
>> It was for me...
>
> Here's the attached message I recieved. Maybe something is mangled?
>

Yep, the email address had been replaced by a gmane message ID.

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061124/4e6890a0/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 11/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed,
> > which will probably just increase their usage.
>
> I'm going to object to the logic here. You're suggesting that by
> creating a category, people will simultaneously think they're allowed
> (and hence upload more of them), while not putting them in that
> category, because they know they're not allowed? That's too weird,
> even for Pok?mon fans.

Some people will upload them without paying any attention to the
category - as the category won't affect them, we can ignore them when
considering the benefits of making the category. Other people will see
the category and upload more images - that's the main affect the
category will have, so that's what we need to consider.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 24/11/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can we have a blanket blurb for "I'd like to use a screenshot of the
> site", too? I understand that one's legally flakier due to it
> containing content which is not ours, but a permission to use all the
> bits of it which are ours and a reassuring remark about fair-use for
> display purposes or somesuch...

I'd rather leave it as "we give permission for use of our logos; the
text belongs to someone else so we can't give you permission for it,
use it under the author's license or ask them directly; or it's almost
certainly fair use/fair dealing in most sane jurisdictions; check with
your lawyer if you are at all unsure." Something as simply-worded as
possible.

- d.


body:
> I think that the goal of the images should be put into consideration.
> Isn't it better conduct to categorize "satellite photos" as opposed
> to "images from Google Earth"? This would allow people to put free
> images in the category as well. I don't really see the use of
> categorizing images from Google Earth, because they aren't any more
> or less useful than equivalents from other sources.

A "satellite photos" (or "satellite and aerial photos") category would
seem sensible to me.


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] I18N / L10 / Language Wishlist

references:
<ejm49d$dga$1@sea.gmane.org> <ejnbj8$7er$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ejnfkb$igf$1@sea.gmane.org> <ejoj8q$9e9$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ek4713$4bm$1@sea.gmane.org> <ek5vdv$n0o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<7c2a12e20611232236w34f087c9od10a50e58b2736f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<e92136380611241004m24a10b9ay9d1ed53fa072d677@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 11/24/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/11/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone suggested on IRC once that something might break if we use
> > spaces, because the message names also serve as page names and maybe
> > whatever creates the pages will expect underscores.  I usually use
> > hyphens, myself . . . I find them less obtrusive and easier to type
> > than underscores.
>
> That's bollocks, spaces in message names are fine and there's no
> reason we can't use them. We have, I think, a few messages with spaces
> in their names at present as it is.

There aren't, actually.  Only in $dateFormats and $bookstoreList, not
$messages.  Doesn't mean they won't work, though.


from_name: James A. Bowery

subject: [Wikitech-l] Time series data

body:
The closest thing I've come across for historic data would be using
something like WikiDB:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/WikiDB

to create a table where there is a column dedicated to the time stamp of
the data for the row.

Is there any support for such standard representation of historic data?


from_name: Cool Cat

subject: [Commons-l] Category:User scripts

body:
...
  - Cool Cat

On 11/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Florian Straub wrote:
> > Alphax wrote:
> >> Florian Straub wrote:
> >>> Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As for a "nuke image from COM:DEL page", I'd like to finish
> >>>> quick-delete
> >>>> first.
> >>> On de.wp we've got a javascript that helps to delete
> >>> NowCommons-pictures.
> >>> Maybe it might help you. It was written by Revvar and it's included in
> >>> [[w:de:Benutzer:Flominator/monobook.js]].
> >>>
> >>> This script takes the filename from the template and adds it to the
> >>> deletion
> >>> reason.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe it helps ....
> >>>
> >> I assure you, I am very good at automating forms; check the move log of
> >> the 15th of October :)
> >
> > It was no offence, I just wanted to help :)
> >
>
> No worries.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061124/29276b85/attachment.htm


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Getting rid of 'best before'

body:
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any
> sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys
> can come up with.

OK, I don't have time, but I couldn't resist:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/comdel.php

should implement your first suggestion on [[Commons:Power toys]]. It
doesn't perform any editing, but generates buttons that will get you
to the appropriate edit page (with diff so you see what you're about
to change). A public page where anyone can delete Commons images would
have been a bad idea anyway ;-)

IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs fixes.

Magnus


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
To: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
To: Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net>

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.  I won't bore
your excessive detail, however the impression lingers that the case of
Nobs01 and others "acting in concert" was not handled fairly.  I pled
guilty to a breaching experiment that warranted a one month ban.  The
"personal attacks" occurred on my own user page and not in
conversation with others after reams of evidence were
presented and ignored.

You state, "if you had been able to work effectively with others." --
this is precisely the heart of the evidence that was denied.  I can
document through diffs that (a) I acted good faith to resolve disputes
(b) I had no reputation nor ever been accused of personal attacks prior
to the Arbitration case, and was quite forgiving for what was directed
at me.  The "simple example" here shows that in discussion, and in
dispute resolution process, I was focused on upholding Wikipedia
Citation Policies and WP:NOR.  As I declared in my Operning Statement,

"This is primarily a content dispute, which [plalintiff] has made
little or no effort to use proper citations or methods, insisting upon
his priveleged POV as an "expert". "

The Mediation Summary of Dispute reads,

"...no less than invalid research methods, attempting to impeach
primary sources with unqualified secondary sources, or secondary
sources with unqualified secondary sources, or both with original
research to push POV. "

http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html#Summary_by_Nobs01

My "simple example" here shows the fruit of the process.  Sure I got
banned and smeared, but it is Wikipedia's own stated policies I have
asked to be upheld.  And this one simple example (among numerous) is
not a sloppy mistake of an inexperienced editor.  It is deliberate
intellectual dishonesty, abuse of NOR and CITE to use Wikipedia as a
soapbox -- all sanctioned by the ArbCom .

Nobs01

On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> There may have been some earlier discussion I can't see, but you seem to
> be under the impression that material has some bearing on your banning.
> It doesn't though; you were banned for personal attacks. Nothing here
> gives me reason to question that decision. You could have had unfettered
> access to the articles that you wish to edit with this material, if you
> had been able to work effectively with others.
>
> Dominic
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > I have forwarded this, but I think you are digging into excessive
> > detail.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >> From: "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com>
> >> Date: November 17, 2006 7:53:32 PM MST
> >> To: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >> Subject: simple example
> >>
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >> Venona project currently reads,
> >>
> >> "...a number of current authors consider the Venona evidence on Hiss
> >> to be inconclusive."
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project#Alger_Hiss
> >>
> >> and points to this source document
> >>
> >> http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page61.html
> >>
> >> Nowhere in this cited source does it identify "a number of current
> >> authors",  The document in fact states, "Over the past decade,
> >> objections have been raised about possible linguistic anomalies or
> >> discrepancies in VENONA message 1822.  The document revealed today
> >> [from original handwritten Russian cryptanalytic worksheets], however,
> >> closes these debates. "
> >>
> >> This is precisely what I stated in my disallowed evidence,
> >>
> >> "...There have been no sources or citations offered for altering the
> >> language and integrity of primary source documents...numerous attempts
> >> have been made to invent "sources" out of thin air...These
> >> unreferenced "sceptics" are usually referred to as "others",
> >> "sceptics" or "scholars...."
> >>
> >> http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/
> >> Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html
> >> #Summary_by_Nobs01
> >>
> >> The posted remedies essentially amount to a lifetime ban  ("The ban
> >> may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its
> >> expiration) without an opportunity for an Arbitration Hearing.  In
> >> fairness, given the admitted errors, I request a limited reopening and
> >> review of the remedies as they pertain to me.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nobs01
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Arbcom-l mailing list
> > Arbcom-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
> >
> >
>


from_name: Yuval Y

subject: [Commons-l] Category:User scripts

body:
Pay attention - anything you write here, is sent to all the  *[Commons-l] *
subscribers.
If you have something personal to write, please use the email.

Best regards,
Yuval

On 11/24/06, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>   - Cool Cat
>
>  On 11/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Florian Straub wrote:
> > > Alphax wrote:
> > >> Florian Straub wrote:
> > >>> Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> As for a "nuke image from COM:DEL page", I'd like to finish
> > >>>> quick-delete
> > >>>> first.
> > >>> On de.wp we've got a javascript that helps to delete
> > >>> NowCommons-pictures.
> > >>> Maybe it might help you. It was written by Revvar and it's included
> > in
> > >>> [[w:de:Benutzer:Flominator/monobook.js]].
> > >>>
> > >>> This script takes the filename from the template and adds it to the
> > >>> deletion
> > >>> reason.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe it helps ....
> > >>>
> > >> I assure you, I am very good at automating forms; check the move log
> > of
> > >> the 15th of October :)
> > >
> > > It was no offence, I just wanted to help :)
> > >
> >
> > No worries.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commons-l mailing list
> > Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061124/befe0913/attachment.htm


from_name: Florian Straub

body:
"Magnus Manske" wrote

> IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs
> fixes.

Maybe it could show the deletion request itself above the input fields?

What about a next button that switches to the next deletetion request from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests?

Awesome tool, as always!

Flo


body:
Op 24-nov-2006, om 14:51 heeft Thomas Dalton het volgende geschreven:

> Some people will upload them without paying any attention to the
> category - as the category won't affect them, we can ignore them when
> considering the benefits of making the category. Other people will see
> the category and upload more images - that's the main affect the
> category will have, so that's what we need to consider.

I think that the goal of the images should be put into consideration.
Isn't it better conduct to categorize "satellite photos" as opposed
to "images from Google Earth"? This would allow people to put free
images in the category as well. I don't really see the use of
categorizing images from Google Earth, because they aren't any more
or less useful than equivalents from other sources.

PS: I'm new to this list, and haven't seen the beginning of this
discussion, so my apologies if this is off-topic or besides the point.

Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org>
Web designer and programmer


body:
I wrote:

> > "Magnus Manske" wrote
>
>> IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs
>> fixes.
>
> Maybe it could show the deletion request itself above the input fields?
>
> What about a next button that switches to the next deletetion request from
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests?

Forget the page, just take Commons:Deletion requests/* and sort them by date
:)

Regards again,

Flo


from_name: Anthere

body:
Alors, la situation est elle confirm?e par d'autres utilisateurs ?

Quelqu'un a t-il demand? sur wikiar-l ? (peut ?tre des tunisiens ?)

------

Someone reported Wikipedia being blocked in Tunisia.

Is there someone able to second ? Mido ?

Anthere


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

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

Added Sean Burke (sburke), WiktionaryZ developer.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFZ4ZAwRnhpk1wk44RAp1fAJ0RLACAqSokczeCw6Ti5DQm8osyeACfStVj
V/HB62FUF175eYlIGRqW65E=
=haeT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Everything old is new again

body:
On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> > [[The Number of the Beast (novel)]], by Heinlein?
>
> If he was reading a book published in 1980 in the fifties, he's wasting
> his time writing for Wikipedia. All his good stuff will be deleted as
> either WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL.

People were still writing good sci-fi after the fifties? Who knew?

Steve


from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
Bence Damokos schrieb:
> That's quite sad :( . What do you wanna do to avoid this problem after
> a new bot is created/old is transferred to new owner? I mean you can't
> fight a 100 wikis, but you can say "take it or leave it". The Delinker
> having bot status on the other hand I think is counter-productive as
> lazy users don't get notified as visibly as they should, that a new
> picture should be found.
>
> Also there was discussion that the Ticker wouldn't have to notify
> anymore of deletions. I oppose this, as it would make it may make it
> harder for admins to restore the image, if it was previously deleted
> from the local wiki. Also withouth the ticker finding the pages where
> the actions of the delinker need be reverted after such a restoration
> would be harder, without the Ticker giving a list of pages where it
> was used until the image file existed.
>
Actually the delinker is running very well. Anyone who wants to use it
(although it still doesnt support galleries) please feel free to send me
an email.

Regards,
Marco


from_name: Tim Starling

references:
<ejm49d$dga$1@sea.gmane.org>	<ejnbj8$7er$1@sea.gmane.org>	<ejnfkb$igf$1@sea.gmane.org>	<ejoj8q$9e9$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ek4713$4bm$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> I did quite a bit of thinking on what you posted here, and some of it
> quite fabulous. I still have a few questions:
>
> - If you had to rename every message in MediaWiki, would you have
> enforced a definite naming convention? Namespaced them?

Sure, I would have a naming convention. We've already more or less
standardised on using prefixes for extension messages. Namespaces for core
messages would probably be useful too. My main bugbear with the current
system is punctuation style: Lee used strings of unbroken lowercase letters,
which I think is hard to read. They're always quoted, so why not have spaces
between words? Or underscores, if that's too progressive.

>> Grammatical transformations for agglutinative languages came a bit earlier.
>> I implemented them for Finnish, when I was told that it was absolutely
>> necessary if we wished to make our language files site-independent, i.e. to
>> remove the Wikipedia references. In Finnish, "about Wikipedia" becomes
>> "Tietoja Wikipediasta" and "you can upload it to Wikipedia" becomes "Voit
>> tallentaa tiedoston Wikipediaan". Suffixes are added depending on how the
>> word is used, plus minor modifications to the base. There is a long list of
>> exceptions, but since we only needed to translate a few words, such as the
>> site name, we didn't need to include it.
>>
>> We now have grammatical transformation functions for 18 languages. Some of
>> these are just dictionaries for Wikimedia site names, but many have proper
>> algorithms.
>
> If they're just dictionaries, I wonder whether or not you couldn't have
> had wfMsg("sitename-$form"), just like the nominative/genitive
> distinction for month names? The current setup makes it difficult to add
> your own name to the dictionaries without editing PHP files (not that, I
> imagine, anyone would care).

If you have an algorithm, then you only have to enter the site name once,
not six times. That's very convenient, so I would encourage people to
implement algorithms rather than dictionaries. Even a comprehensive
dictionary isn't going to be much good for site names which are invented words.

Most conversion functions respect $wgGrammarForms, which is an exception
list for grammatical transforms that can be customised from
LocalSettings.php, just like the site name.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] 1.5M

body:
I've started a little project in my user page called "Stable-Wikipedia"
where I'll be listing good versions of articles.

On 11/24/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I just wondered why wikipedia had stopped dead in its tracks for a
> minute or so - it seems that  some people were *really* desparate to
> write the 1.5M article, so everyone submitted at the same time ;-)
>
> Apparently, by chance, I myself did miss the "turning point" only by a
> few articles. Oh well...
>
> Anyway, congrats everyone! 1.5M articles, just a few days after de
> reached 0.5M, and as commons is about to reach 1M files.
>
> Now, for those stable versions... ;-)
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Bence Damokos

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
hi!
Could you please give me your username on a wiki, so I can contact you
privately on use on huwiki?
Dami

On 11/24/06, Marco Schuster <CDL-Klever at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Bence Damokos schrieb:
> > That's quite sad :( . What do you wanna do to avoid this problem after
> > a new bot is created/old is transferred to new owner? I mean you can't
> > fight a 100 wikis, but you can say "take it or leave it". The Delinker
> > having bot status on the other hand I think is counter-productive as
> > lazy users don't get notified as visibly as they should, that a new
> > picture should be found.
> >
> > Also there was discussion that the Ticker wouldn't have to notify
> > anymore of deletions. I oppose this, as it would make it may make it
> > harder for admins to restore the image, if it was previously deleted
> > from the local wiki. Also withouth the ticker finding the pages where
> > the actions of the delinker need be reverted after such a restoration
> > would be harder, without the Ticker giving a list of pages where it
> > was used until the image file existed.
> >
> Actually the delinker is running very well. Anyone who wants to use it
> (although it still doesnt support galleries) please feel free to send me
> an email.
>
> Regards,
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061124/cb9a08ce/attachment.htm


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Fair use" images of living people

body:
George Herbert wrote:

>Rancom vaguely related topic question - What is the right thing to do about
>some obvious copyvios which I haven't figured out where the copying was from
>yet?  [[Ship construction]] has a bunch of images which claim to have been
>done as original Autocad work for Wikipedia, and yet are clearly scans out
>of ship design textbooks, some of which I recognize, but I haven't figured
>out which books yet.  The same person contributed them all, and some other
>suspicious stuff.
>
There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its
source.  You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that
does not establish the fact.  I don't know what the standards are for
drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be
some aspects that will be constant.  Are these even copyrightable?

(resent) Ec


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
>
> >Rancom vaguely related topic question - What is the right thing to do
> about
> >some obvious copyvios which I haven't figured out where the copying was
> from
> >yet?  [[Ship construction]] has a bunch of images which claim to have
> been
> >done as original Autocad work for Wikipedia, and yet are clearly scans
> out
> >of ship design textbooks, some of which I recognize, but I haven't
> figured
> >out which books yet.  The same person contributed them all, and some
> other
> >suspicious stuff.
> >
> There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its
> source.  You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that
> does not establish the fact.  I don't know what the standards are for
> drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be
> some aspects that will be constant.  Are these even copyrightable?
>
> (resent) Ec

Well, we know for a fact that the credit (Autocad-self) is wrong, since you
can see the book's spine in the scans in several of the images, and the page
number in some as well.

These drawings, as engineering drawings, are as copyrightable as any other
technical document or drawing... completely, in the US.

In terms of the information within them, that's generally not copyrightable
or patentable or trademarkable - it might be a trade secret, but not after
being put in a published book.

If he *had* gone and redrawn them in Autocad or something, it would be
fine.  I've redrawn a number of illustrations in other technical articles to
do that.  But these particular images clearly are scans, and not redrawn.

It's remotely possible that they're scanned with permission, but they aren't
listed properly.  Given that you can clearly and obviously see the book in
the scans, and the claimed source clearly isn't, I was assuming that the
obvious conclusion was reasonably and necessarily that they're copyvios.

If WP policy is that I have to produce what they're violating for anyone to
take action, that's fine, but anyone who looks at them should be able to
tell that the claimed origin isn't, and that they came out of a bound book
via a scanner.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually looks at
the images could think they were autocad drawings.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

>>From: Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
>>
>>There may be no artistic input, but some will claim that they
>>deserve protection for all the work they did tracking down the
>>old map and making the scan.  To be lily-white, it can be argued
>>that you're supposed to track down an original copy of the old
>>map yourself, and make your own scan.
>>
>>
>In "Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc." the
>Supreme Court of the United States said:
>
>...
>
>"Copyright rewards originality, not effort. As this Court noted more
>than a century ago, 'great praise may be due to the plaintiffs for
>their industry and enterprise in publishing this paper, yet the law
>does not contemplate their being rewarded in this way.'"
>
This is fine for a US based Wikipedian, and even though I live outside
the US I would have no compunction about relying on it, but some of our
colleagues are somewhat more reticent to be bold.

(re-sent) Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

body:
geni wrote:

>On 11/17/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Big media companies do this all the time.  For example, if you go
>>to a bookstore and buy a recent printing of Alice's Adventures in
>>Wonderland, I think you'll find that the publisher has claimed
>>copyright on *their copy* of Tenniel's illustrations and/or
>>Carroll's text.  (Dover, at least, is a happy exception.)
>>
>>
>Under UK law they could claim copyright on the typesetting for 20
>years. I don't know what the law in the US is about this though.
>
That's not a problem, because we aren't really interested in their
typeface, or any other format related effort on their part.  When you
scan and OCR a text the resulting typeface is quite generic.

>In the museums will not back you up if you take it to court. The last
>thing they want is a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp type case
>taken taken to a higher level which would remove any remaining grey
>area.
>
This is strategically sound on the part of the museums.  They are well
aware of the confusion that abides in copyright law, and that's just
where they like things to be.  It is also strategically sound for movie
studios not to give specific permissions to use publicity stills, or
record producers to allow the use of album covers.  Certain uses will be
on a wink and nod basis.  That way they can reserve the initiative when
someone really displeases them.

>>The upshot is that if copies are copyrightable, it can be
>>effectively impossible to obtain your own free copy of a public
>>domain work, if the original is inaccessible.
>>
>>
>that would depend on the ethical system you are opperating under.
>
Ethics and law are not synonymous.

>>I am not a copyright lawyer and I don't know if the practices
>>I've described are defensible from a copyright law point of view.
>>(*I'm* certainly not defending them.)  But I get the impression
>>that they do happen all the time.  In other words, the claim that
>>someone "deserves protection for all the work they did (or the
>>fees they paid) tracking down the old map and making the scan"
>>is apparently accepted in practice.
>>
>>
>Not really. What is accepted is that you are free to try and claim
>copyright on PD material.
>
Of course.  You can put a copyright notice on your new edition of Alice
in Wonderland, and if you wrote a new introduction to the work that
introduction will be copyright protected.  A copyright statement really
means copyright to the extent that it is copyrightable.  A claim of
non-copyrightability is a much stronger defence than fair use to a
charge of infringement.  A person who produces a work of mixed copyright
and non-copyrightable material is not going to lead you by the hand
paragraph by paragraph to tell you which is which.  As a user you have
to figure that out for yourself.

(re-sent) Ec


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

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

Puppy stated for the record:

> Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for
> bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make
> overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus
> far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda.
>
> When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of
> emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of
> them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question
> of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here.
> Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now,
> if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic
> group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone
> speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized
> Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet
> Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?

Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling.  Guettarda began
attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile
remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation."  So, please explain:
Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
from responding a virtue?  If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an
angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable?

Demonize enough people vigorously enough, and some of them will, oddly,
decide that since they have been cast in it, they might as well enjoy
the role.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFZ5ko/SVOiq2uhHMRAjFDAJ0XW5ZSiINunjtkmkZzOGpJ4xd3LgCeINyX
OGIlwan5vSytwAOc8adN3pU=
=WKmE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

body:
geni wrote:

>On 11/17/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I have an actual situation as follows.  Someone
>>has taken an old map (long out of copyright),
>>scanned it onto their computer, and now claims
>>to hold copyright on the scan.
>>
>>It seems to me this is a bluff.  A computer scan
>>should not be any different from a photocopy.
>>There is no artistic input to the result, and in this
>>case the scanner even advertises that the computer
>>file is a precise reproduction of the original.
>>
>>
>It depends what country you are in and what country they are in.
>Unless you are in the US or Switzerland the answer is that while it
>probably is bluff it could be an expensive one to call. If they are
>not in those two counties they are not refuring to you.
>
Assuming good faith on the part of the scanner, it is probably ignorance
instead of a bluff.  I doubt that he has taken the time to read this
mailing list to glean our accumulated wiki-wisdom about copyright.

(re-sent) Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

body:
Steve Summit wrote:

>Zero wrote:
>
>
>>There is no artistic input to the result, and in this
>>case the scanner even advertises that the computer
>>file is a precise reproduction of the original.
>>
>>
>There may be no artistic input, but some will claim that they
>deserve protection for all the work they did tracking down the
>old map and making the scan.  To be lily-white, it can be argued
>that you're supposed to track down an original copy of the old
>map yourself, and make your own scan.
>
Protecting that effort was no doubt a motivation behind the 15-year
database protection that has been adopted in the EU even for works that
are long out of copyright.  Fortunately, AFAIK, this has not been
adopted (yet) outside the EU.

Lily-white strategy is often losing strategy because you choose to put
yourself at a disadvantage before you start.

>(On the other hand, if the computer file truly is a precise
>reproduction of the original, you can convince yourself that
>using it is fine, since the alleged copyright holder can't prove
>you're using their scan.)
>
And if the scanner claims that his is a precise reproduction when it has
been altered for the purpose of protecting copyrights then the scan
could very well be in breach of the author's moral rights.

>This situation gets particularly interesting in the case of
>famous art.  Most museums disallow cameras; casual visitors
>are not allowed to photograph or otherwise make copies of
>the artwork within, even though it's long out of copyright.
>If you're a publisher and you want to make a copy for an art
>book you're printing, you have to pay the museum a -- sometimes
>hefty -- licensing fee.  Having paid this fee, you're not going
>to let people freeload on you, so you're going to slap your own
>copyright on your art book.  And the museum will back you up on
>this: they make money on those licensing fees; in fact part of
>their licensed-copy agreement is often (I think) a requirement
>that the licensed copies disallow reproduction.
>
If you go into a museum and take surreptitious photos of long out of
copyright paintings you do so at your own risk.  You may have a breach
of contract in your personal relation with the museum, but that is not a
copyright issue even when you put your pictures on the net.  They can
kick you out if they catch you, but they may not have the right to seize
your camera or its contents.

I rather liked the practice in the National Museum in Budapest.
Admission is free, but you need to pay a flat fee if you want to take
pictures, a higher fee if you are using a movie camera.  What you do
with the pictures afterwards is your business.

(re-sent) Ec


from_name: Michiel Sikma

body:
Alors, c'est confirm? ?

----

So, it's confirmed?

Op 24-nov-2006, om 17:13 heeft James Hare het volgende geschreven:

> Zut! Plus pays qui n'aime pas le Wikip?dia.

Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org>
Web designer and programmer


subject: [WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>geni stated for the record:
>
>
>>On 11/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are not "free to try and claim" so much as "it is very rare that
>>>people ever get taken to court for false copyright claims over PD
>>>material, even though it is illegal."
>>>
>>>
>>How is it illegal?
>>
>>
>Fraud.
>
506(c) of the U.S. Copyright Law:

> (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent
> intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the
> same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with
> fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public
> distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person
> knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

This is quite low for a maximum fine, and the burden of proving
fraudulent intent and knowledge that the claim is false may be enough
to make this section unusable.

(re-sent) Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] copyright on scanned copy?

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>I don't think that's a very tough case, in the
>end -- does cropping a public domain image suddenly give you the right
>to claim that no one else is allowed to crop the same public domain
>image in the same way?
>
Copyright, unlike patents, does not protect ideas.  If two people
independently arrive with the same result they may both be entitled to a
copyright when they have both been creative.  These kind of issues most
commonly arise in cases of copyright infringement of a melody in music.
Except for very short material this kind of independent duplication is
virtually impossible.  It is a possibility in dictionaries where the
merger principle also applies.

(re-sent) Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia saves the day! Maybe.

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Well, what do you know. Bringing the Israeli-Arab real-world issue to
>Wikipedia might actually solve everything!!
>
>  http://www.jewcy.com/feature/wiki_wars
>
>Amongst the partisan POV-pushers who either don't understand NPOV or
>don't care, we do have a core of sane regulars of either POV who
>nevertheless see themselves as being there to write an encyclopedia.
>The article might not flow wonderfully or make featured status any
>time soon, but it will at least inform with the view from 20,000 feet.
>
>So - how do we encourage such cores of sane regulars in similar
>conflicts? What do they need to know to be able to help NPOV and
>article quality without turning into an insular group?
>
I doubt that the approach would work for the stated disputes on either
the ar-wp or he-wp.

I don't think that these skills can be actively sought.  It often needs
to be done incognito; otherwise, as aften happens when you try to break
up a fight you get pummeled by both combatants.

(re-sent) Ec


body:
On 11/24/06, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> Forget the page, just take Commons:Deletion requests/* and sort them by date
> :)

Well, I made a compromise - give a date range (default: last 10 days)
and it generates a list of images-to-be-deleted. With deletion
discussion preview, keep/delete/ignore choices and reason text for
each action. Will generate a (huge) list of links/edit buttons.

Happy hunting ;-)

Magnus


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Puppy wrote:

> When I first started contributing to this thread I received a
> number of
> emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet
> none of
> them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any
> question
> of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here.
> Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now,
> if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority
> ethnic
> group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone
> speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized
> Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious
> needling", yet
> Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?

This is the mailing list, not Wikipedia. But yes, your reasonable
concern was responded to poorly by several people.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Community sanctions"

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 18/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:29 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot
>>>
>>>
>>And yet we trust it to edit the world's biggest encyclopaedia...
>>
>>
>Not in any way a contradiction. The wisdom of crowds happens when it
>happens. The Community has shown it can write an encyclopedia. The
>Community has shown it's really bad at dealing with many of the
>indirect processes involved. Just as with people, ability in one area
>does not confer ability in another, and I'm surprised you seem to
>think it does.
>
I find some value in the concept of the wisdom of crowds, but the crowd
here is the Wikimedia community as a whole, and not some self-appointed
committee of the self-righteous that thinks it's a crowd because of the
noise it makes.

Sam's first words in addressing this issue were "I've just come
across".  This was on Nov. 17, but the actual page was started Sept.
20.  That's almost two months.  It was probably a stroke of luck that
Sam found it at all, and one wonders what other occult rules have snuck
through waiting to strike at the unwary.

It is next to impossible for active encyclopedia writers to grasp the
implications of such proposals.  At first glance it would seem that
rules like the one proposed would deal only with the people who have
consistently bad behaviour to start with.  In the short run that could
be very true.  What concerns me as that the next generation of
literalists will take this in directions that were so simplistically
ignored by those impatient to have their own pet inconveniences addressed.

Is it any wonder that we need to get our rule-making processes under
control?

(re-sent) Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Community sanctions"

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>On 11/17/06, Sydney Poore aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Previously, it has been discussed on both AN/I and AN and other places. And
>>more importantly they were being done and logged at the community probation
>>page. I waited until we had 3 done before I changed the name as suggested
>>and began moving it toward policy. If you think it needs more discussion,
>>fine, but can we do it on the talk page of the policy as well as here. Many
>>editors and admins do not follow this discussion list.
>>
>>
>I prefer to start debates here, so it's possible to get an
>over-arching opinion, rather than a closely defined one that is always
>the result of talking on a talk page.  Most of the editors whose
>opinions I think are most valuable contribute to this list regularly;
>this is not to put down those who don't contribute to the list, merely
>to say that, generally and by no means exclusively, the best editors
>do use this list.
>
One positive thing in common about those regularly active on this
mailing list is their ability to look at the project in broadest terms
without having their vision tunnelled into a pursuit like vandal
fighting.  At one time mailing list participation was a prerequisite for
becoming an admin.

(re-sent) Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

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

Jim Schuler stated for the record:
> Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
> from responding a virtue?
>
> Oh, I see... some of us think that crying uncle in the adult world works
> just as well as it did in kindergarten.  How quaint.

Oh, my, you're so worldly-wise. I'm just in awe of your wry cynicism.

But since you ask: yes, as a matter of fact, some of think that assuming
good faith is a Good Thing.  Many of we quaint types also think that
kicking a man when he's down isn't noble.  But then those are virtues of
a gentleman, which is a Bad Thing.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFZ6NW/SVOiq2uhHMRAg3vAKDMOKRUeL4hpgT9WwJxnv+bS+28pgCg5frV
plPWDnURzlal3dxeptA/ddQ=
=9ntg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Puppy wrote:

> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude
> doesn't bleed through, because it does.

Actually, some active mailing list participants have only minimal
connection with Wikipedia and their posts are often not read.

Fred


from_name: Rob Church

references:
<ejm49d$dga$1@sea.gmane.org> <ejnbj8$7er$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ejnfkb$igf$1@sea.gmane.org> <ejoj8q$9e9$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ek4713$4bm$1@sea.gmane.org> <ek5vdv$n0o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<7c2a12e20611232236w34f087c9od10a50e58b2736f7@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 24/11/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone suggested on IRC once that something might break if we use
> spaces, because the message names also serve as page names and maybe
> whatever creates the pages will expect underscores.  I usually use
> hyphens, myself . . . I find them less obtrusive and easier to type
> than underscores.

That's bollocks, spaces in message names are fine and there's no
reason we can't use them. We have, I think, a few messages with spaces
in their names at present as it is.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1.5M

body:
I'll be sure to work with them. This'll just be the large list of all the
nice article revisions.

On 11/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've started a little project in my user page called "Stable-Wikipedia"
> > where I'll be listing good versions of articles.
>
> Sure you don't want to contribute to one of the several existing
> projects that all have the same goal instead?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] (semi-OT) What to do with old but not old
	enough	encyclopedias?

body:
James Hare wrote:

>You know what old encyclopedias could be good for? History. Not like history
>changes while encyclopedias get upgraded (well, there can be some
>discoveries but for the most part it's constant). However, encyclopedias and
>other tertiary sources are not valid for formal research...
>
One can't have that as an absolute rule.  It depends on what one is
researching, and to what depth.  Century old encyclopedic works may be
the only easily available source for biographies of now obscure people.
The ninth and eleventh editions of the EB included signed articles by a
lot of famous prople like Alexander Graham Bell.  Are we to dismiss
their writing just because it happened to be in an encyclopedia?

(re-sent) Ec


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright Violation Bot

body:
On 23/11/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I can't finish this, would any of you Wikipedians be so kind as to
> write a script for me to run? Thanks,

Sure. Try this:
http://downlode.org/Code/Perl/Wikipedia/copyviofinder.txt

It's a little rough and ready, but seems to work. A couple of random examples:

[[USS Dale (DD-290)]]
Search phrase: Dale operated with Destroyer Squadrons, Scouting Fleet,
on the Atlantic
Found:
  http://www.historycentral.com/navy/destroyer/DaleIIIdd290.html
  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/dd-290.htm
  http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/dd290txt.htm

[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
Search phrase: The Cincinnati Bengals are a professional American
football team based
Found:
  http://www.jazzsportsnews.com/nfl/teams/64.html
  http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Cincinn
ati_Bengals
  http://www.acheapseat.com/cincinnati_bengals_tickets.html
  http://www.blinkbits.com/bits/viewforum/cincinnati_bengals_bio?f=2552
  http://www.frontrowking.com/football/cincinnati_bengals_tickets.html
  http://www.ticketstogo.com/sport/nfl/Cincinnati-Bengals.html
  http://www.free-picks.org/nfl/articles/bengals.html
  http://www.foxboroticketking.com/vscincinnatibengals.html
[lots more URLs snipped]

Whether the copyvio is an inward or outward bound one in each case is
sadly beyond the scope of my programming skills, so I leave that to
you.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] [OT] Everything old is new again

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

>To my mind, Heinlein's last good book was "Stranger in a Strange
>Land." Even then his writing was starting to get flaky at the edges.
>As I recall, that's the book in which his ?berman wise philosopher
>character, Jubalation T. Cornpone or whatever his name is, makes a
>big point of _dictating_ everything.
>
Jubilation T. Cornpone is an incompetent Confederate general sung about
in the 1956 musical [[Li'l Abner (musical)]]. :-)

Ec


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/24/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > > > Note that some of the images claim "PD".
> > >
> > > In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to
> > > imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is
> > > copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and
> > > appears in the screenshots.
> > >
> > Just because something claims to be copyrighted doesn't mean it is.
> >
> > Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain.  Google has not added
> > the necessary creativity to change this.
> >
> > That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
>
> I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I
> said that the imagery is copyrighted.
>
And I'm saying that not all of it is.

> If you look near the bottom of the screen you'll see the names of the
> copyright holder(s), the imaging companies that Google has sourced the
> satellite imagery from, DigitalGlobe for example.
>
Yes, and if you tilt the image slightly certain copyright claims will
come up (I think DigitalGlobe is one) simply because a sliver of the
horizon (one pixel wide type stuff) is derived from that image.
Again, just because there is a claim of copyright doesn't mean it's
true.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

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

Jim Schuler stated for the record:
> The assumption of good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary proved
> to be the bane of Neville Chamberlain, no?

Um.  Sure.  Whatever you say.  Per Godwin's Law, this ... um ...
exchange is over.  I will not respond; take your free shot.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFZ6xV/SVOiq2uhHMRAt9xAJ4la5/v8G1fCDWswFklLcT3zhijxACg0rpC
u1c4uv0NaerlTifTCaa498w=
=/boU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Bagamoya at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
In a message dated 11/24/2006 6:37:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wikilegal at inbox.org writes:

mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I want to unsubscribe


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/24/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> On 24/11/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/24/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain.  Google has not added
> > > the necessary creativity to change this.
> > >
> > > That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
> >
> > I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I
> > said that the imagery is copyrighted.
>
> IANAL, of course, but I believe that the work that Google has done in
> stitching together all the various image data sets to produce a
> derivative work (Google Earth) based on them would count as creative
> and original, so a screenshot of such a stitched area would infringe
> their copyright.
>
In 99% of cases, I doubt it the work done by Google would be enough to
obtain copyright protection.  Most of the time it isn't even something
done by hand, it's something done by computer.

Anthony


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] 1.5M

body:
It was nice to wake up and see that message on my home page.

On 11/24/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I just wondered why wikipedia had stopped dead in its tracks for a
> minute or so - it seems that  some people were *really* desparate to
> write the 1.5M article, so everyone submitted at the same time ;-)
>
> Apparently, by chance, I myself did miss the "turning point" only by a
> few articles. Oh well...
>
> Anyway, congrats everyone! 1.5M articles, just a few days after de
> reached 0.5M, and as commons is about to reach 1M files.
>
> Now, for those stable versions... ;-)
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Who knows when we shall meet again (if ever)?
But time keeps flowin' like a river, to the sea...


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 11/24/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for
> bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make
> overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus
> far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda.

Personally, I found that Mindspillage and Guettarda said any point I
was about to make as well or better than I would have done.

That said, the sheer level of nastiness that some display towards
female admins - particularly those not afraid of controversy - is
enough to put people off, I'm sure.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling.  Guettarda began
> attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile
> remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation."  So, please explain:
> Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
> from responding a virtue?  If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an
> angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable?

>From my point of view, Alphax jumped into the conversation to say
several pretty insulting and stupid things, then as soon as anyone
took issue with that, left the conversation without apology.  Not sure
that should save him from criticism.

-Matt


body:
On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its
> source.  You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that
> does not establish the fact.  I don't know what the standards are for
> drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be
> some aspects that will be constant.  Are these even copyrightable?

The very fact that someone is claiming scans from a book were
self-produced CAD drawings says they should be deleted.  No matter
what, the claim of self-authorship is bogus.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Some of the worst ignorant bias toward Wikipedians that I've seen
isn't even on the wiki.

On 11/24/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
>
> > As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion
> > that
> > "we should be on the lookout
> > for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we
> > can
> > to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket
> > attacks on women.
>
> It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of
> Wikipedia Review.
>
> Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] Category:User scripts

body:
Florian Straub wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>> Florian Straub wrote:
>>> Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for a "nuke image from COM:DEL page", I'd like to finish
>>>> quick-delete
>>>> first.
>>> On de.wp we've got a javascript that helps to delete
>>> NowCommons-pictures.
>>> Maybe it might help you. It was written by Revvar and it's included in
>>> [[w:de:Benutzer:Flominator/monobook.js]].
>>>
>>> This script takes the filename from the template and adds it to the
>>> deletion
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Maybe it helps ....
>>>
>> I assure you, I am very good at automating forms; check the move log of
>> the 15th of October :)
>
> It was no offence, I just wanted to help :)
>

No worries.

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061124/0b3c867c/attachment.pgp


from_name: Larry Pieniazek

subject: [Commons-l] Helper Script

body:
Sorry if this is a dup...

>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:14:25 +0100
>From: "Florian Straub" <flominator at gmx.net>
>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Category:User scripts

>Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Cool Cat wrote:

>>> I would really like to be
>>> able to delete images by clicking a link at the [[COM:DEL]] sub page
>>> citing that [[COM:DEL]] sub page for the reason. Or another tool
>>> that will add {{delh}} ---- {{delf}} properly for me.
>>>

>> As for a "nuke image from COM:DEL page", I'd like to finish
>> quick-delete first.

>On de.wp we've got a javascript that helps to delete NowCommons-pictures.
>Maybe it might help you. It was written by Revvar and it's included in
>[[w:de:Benutzer:Flominator/monobook.js]].

>This script takes the filename from the template and adds it to the
deletion
>reason.

>Maybe it helps ....

>Best regards,

>Flo
------------------------------
Anyone on en:wp get this to work there yet? I tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar/dellinkNowCommons.js
(and called from my monobook) but I am not seeing anything extra like a
delete link when I view an image in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia
_Commons
(these all have NowCommons templates in them)

If you got this to work, please let me know, I want to crib from you.
Thanks!

Larry Pieniazek
Work mail:   lpieniaz at us.ibm.com
Client mail: N/A
Hobby mail:  lar at miltontrainworks.com
Cell: (616)299-6375


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> As I said earlier, women obviously are doing something else which
> they find more worthwhile. We should continue to have a welcoming
> attitude, which I maintain we have as is shown by our enthusiasm in
> advancing women to leadership positions. We should be on the lookout
> for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we
> can to mitigate its effects.
<snip>
>
> Fred
>
>
Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for
bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make
overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus
far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda.

When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of
emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of
them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question
of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here.
Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now,
if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic
group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone
speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized
Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet
Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Puppy wrote:
>
>
>> When I first started contributing to this thread I received a
>> number of
>> emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet
>> none of
>> them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any
>> question
>> of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here.
>> Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now,
>> if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority
>> ethnic
>> group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone
>> speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized
>> Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious
>> needling", yet
>> Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
>>
>
> This is the mailing list, not Wikipedia. But yes, your reasonable
> concern was responded to poorly by several people.
>
> Fred
>
> __
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude
doesn't bleed through, because it does.

One puppy's opinion


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:

> As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion
> that
> "we should be on the lookout
> for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we
> can
> to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket
> attacks on women.

It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of
Wikipedia Review.

Fred


body:
George Herbert wrote:

>On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>George Herbert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rancom vaguely related topic question - What is the right thing to do about
>>>
>>>
>>>some obvious copyvios which I haven't figured out where the copying was from
>>>
>>>
>>>yet?  [[Ship construction]] has a bunch of images which claim to have been
>>>
>>>
>>>done as original Autocad work for Wikipedia, and yet are clearly scans out
>>>
>>>
>>>of ship design textbooks, some of which I recognize, but I haven't figured
>>>
>>>
>>>out which books yet.  The same person contributed them all, and some other
>>>
>>>
>>>suspicious stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its
>>source.  You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that
>>does not establish the fact.  I don't know what the standards are for
>>drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be
>>some aspects that will be constant.  Are these even copyrightable?
>>
>>(re-sent) Ec
>>
>>
>Well, we know for a fact that the credit (Autocad-self) is wrong, since you
>can see the book's spine in the scans in several of the images, and the page
>number in some as well.
>
That certainly works against him.  Even if it's a valid picture it's
sloppy editing and use of Autocad to leave artifacts like the book's spine.

>These drawings, as engineering drawings, are as copyrightable as any other
>technical document or drawing... completely, in the US.
>
I was thinking in terms of age.  Perhaps that's because I recently
acquired a copy of Basil Lubbock's 1914 book "The China Clippers" which
includes some interesting drawings of the construction of these ships.

>In terms of the information within them, that's generally not copyrightable
>or patentable or trademarkable - it might be a trade secret, but not after
>being put in a published book.
>
Are there no generic drawings for this kind of thing?  I don't even want
to touch the trade secrets issue, which we really can't address unless
we have inside knowledge.

>If he *had* gone and redrawn them in Autocad or something, it would be
>fine.  I've redrawn a number of illustrations in other technical articles to
>do that.  But these particular images clearly are scans, and not redrawn.
>
So it would seem, with no bonus credits for being truthful.

>It's remotely possible that they're scanned with permission, but they aren't
>listed properly.  Given that you can clearly and obviously see the book in
>the scans, and the claimed source clearly isn't, I was assuming that the
>obvious conclusion was reasonably and necessarily that they're copyvios.
>
I think it's a reasonable but not necessary conclusion.  A reasonable
suspicion can certainly strenghthen the need for him to justify his
claim.  Giving him a week to respond should be enough.  All but his
first two edits to anything were done within a period of one hour two
months ago, so he's unlikely to respond to questions.  Once you have
provided someone a generous opportunity to respond to a genuine concern,
I see nothing wrong with getting rid of this material.

>If WP policy is that I have to produce what they're violating for anyone to
>take action, that's fine, but anyone who looks at them should be able to
>tell that the claimed origin isn't, and that they came out of a bound book
>via a scanner.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually looks at
>the images could think they were autocad drawings.
>
I feel more concerned about people who jump to conclusions on this sort
of thing.  I think that identifying the source should be needed for
immediate deletion.  For most other situations that lack urgency, having
the patience to wait for answers doesn't really hurt anything.  ... and
it keeps the temperature of events down.

Ec


from_name: Jim Schuler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
from responding a virtue?

Oh, I see... some of us think that crying uncle in the adult world works
just as well as it did in kindergarten.  How quaint.

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:

> So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok.
> Call
> them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As
> long
> as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for
> "bad
> behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of
> months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for
> months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are
> women/ is,
> to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David
> Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and
> useless to harmful."

None of that is acceptable.

Fred


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
What stupid bickering.

On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jim Schuler stated for the record:
> > Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
> > from responding a virtue?
> >
> > Oh, I see... some of us think that crying uncle in the adult world works
> > just as well as it did in kindergarten.  How quaint.
>
> Oh, my, you're so worldly-wise. I'm just in awe of your wry cynicism.
>
> But since you ask: yes, as a matter of fact, some of think that assuming
> good faith is a Good Thing.  Many of we quaint types also think that
> kicking a man when he's down isn't noble.  But then those are virtues of
> a gentleman, which is a Bad Thing.
>
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
> sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFZ6NW/SVOiq2uhHMRAg3vAKDMOKRUeL4hpgT9WwJxnv+bS+28pgCg5frV
> plPWDnURzlal3dxeptA/ddQ=
> =9ntg
> -----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
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Yup

On 11/24/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What stupid bickering.
>
> On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Jim Schuler stated for the record:
> > > Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is
> refraining
> > > from responding a virtue?
> > >
> > > Oh, I see... some of us think that crying uncle in the adult world
> works
> > > just as well as it did in kindergarten.  How quaint.
> >
> > Oh, my, you're so worldly-wise. I'm just in awe of your wry cynicism.
> >
> > But since you ask: yes, as a matter of fact, some of think that assuming
> > good faith is a Good Thing.  Many of we quaint types also think that
> > kicking a man when he's down isn't noble.  But then those are virtues of
> > a gentleman, which is a Bad Thing.
> >
> >
> > - --
> > Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
> > sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFFZ6NW/SVOiq2uhHMRAg3vAKDMOKRUeL4hpgT9WwJxnv+bS+28pgCg5frV
> > plPWDnURzlal3dxeptA/ddQ=
> > =9ntg
> > -----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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
The assumption of good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary proved
to be the bane of Neville Chamberlain, no?

On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jim Schuler stated for the record:
> > Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
> > from responding a virtue?
> >
> > Oh, I see... some of us think that crying uncle in the adult world works
> > just as well as it did in kindergarten.  How quaint.
>
> Oh, my, you're so worldly-wise. I'm just in awe of your wry cynicism.
>
> But since you ask: yes, as a matter of fact, some of think that assuming
> good faith is a Good Thing.  Many of we quaint types also think that
> kicking a man when he's down isn't noble.  But then those are virtues of
> a gentleman, which is a Bad Thing.
>
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
> sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFZ6NW/SVOiq2uhHMRAg3vAKDMOKRUeL4hpgT9WwJxnv+bS+28pgCg5frV
> plPWDnURzlal3dxeptA/ddQ=
> =9ntg
> -----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
>

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
>>
>>> So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok.
>>> Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's
>>> ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is
>>> your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a
>>> thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of
>>> men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking
>>> women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting.
>>> Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out,
>>> "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
>>
>> None of that is acceptable.
>>
>
> So what should we do about it?

Do better personally and not tolerate such behavior from others.
However, we cannot, by taking thought on it, cause more women to
edit. We can only encourage and support.

Fred


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] 1.5M

body:
I just wondered why wikipedia had stopped dead in its tracks for a
minute or so - it seems that  some people were *really* desparate to
write the 1.5M article, so everyone submitted at the same time ;-)

Apparently, by chance, I myself did miss the "turning point" only by a
few articles. Oh well...

Anyway, congrats everyone! 1.5M articles, just a few days after de
reached 0.5M, and as commons is about to reach 1M files.

Now, for those stable versions... ;-)

Magnus


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/24/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > > Note that some of the images claim "PD".
> >
> > In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to
> > imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is
> > copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and
> > appears in the screenshots.
> >
> Just because something claims to be copyrighted doesn't mean it is.
>
> Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain.  Google has not added
> the necessary creativity to change this.
>
> That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.

I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I
said that the imagery is copyrighted.

If you look near the bottom of the screen you'll see the names of the
copyright holder(s), the imaging companies that Google has sourced the
satellite imagery from, DigitalGlobe for example.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Puppy wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt
>> misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
>>
>>
>
> Trolling rarely rates a comment. I'm sorry that you took me seriously.
>
As I had asked for confirmation of your post, I feel rather strongly
that at that point it was incumbent upon you to clarify matters if they
were not as they appeared. As you chose rather to confirm that you were
indeed insulting me (and indeed all females who post to the en mailing
list), I took you at your word, and I do not see that is any poor
reflection on any but you. In short: your defense of your uncivil and
bigoted posts is now "Oh, I was just trolling"? Not seeing how this
casts your posts in any better light, but so be it.

As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion that
"we should be on the lookout
for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can
to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket
attacks on women.

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
> On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
>> Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling.  Guettarda began
>> attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile
>> remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation."  So, please explain:
>> Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining
>> from responding a virtue?  If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an
>> angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable?
>>
>
> >From my point of view, Alphax jumped into the conversation to say
> several pretty insulting and stupid things, then as soon as anyone
> took issue with that, left the conversation without apology.  Not sure
> that should save him from criticism.
>
> -Matt
>
>
Second that.
-kc-


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 11/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> There is nothing obvious about a copyvio when you can't identify its
> source.  You may have very strong suspicions about the matter, but that
> does not establish the fact.  I don't know what the standards are for
> drawings in ship construction, but I'm sure that there are bound to be
> some aspects that will be constant.  Are these even copyrightable?

I can not agree with your position.

We are only able to discover the source of so many violations because
the people who have submitted them have put so little work into
finding the material themselves. This does not imply that all or even
most of our violating images can be identified this way.

If we want our contributors behave with responsibility we need to
treat them like people who have responsibility and allow them to
execute professional judgement.

When people put in effort to clean up violations they do it because
they care about making an improvement. No one is paying them to spend
their time making sure our Free Encyclopedia is actually free. So they
actually care if something they know to be bad is kept... their work
is not just hours on a timeclock.

Our users know that uploaders make mistakes, they know that some are
confused, they know that some lie... so if you ask them to take an
unsupported  and unbelievable claim at face value you are demeaning
them, disrespecting them, and worst of all: discouraging them.

Of course, it is equally critical that we respect the involved
uploader. But part of that respect is treating the uploader like an
adult. If we behave rationally and fairly, they should understand.  At
least we can completely undo our deletion if we later find it to be
mistaken... which is a lot better than most situations in life.

When there is an obviously problem, such as an which has an obvious
halftone pattern yet the uploader comment claims that the 'made the
image himself',  it's possible that the uploaders claim is correct,
that there is some complicated explanation which didn't fit into the
edit summary....   But it is unlikely.

So we ask the uploader, .. to the extent we can... and we delete the
image in due course because our experience and careful consideration
allow us to reach a conclusion, free of unreasonable biases, that it
is most likely the case that the image is not acceptable.

The material, if it's worth while, will be recreated in time...
perhaps sooner if we'd quit obsessing about the 1.5 millionth article
and focus on quality... perhaps sooner if we could delete all the
copyright violations.... to make room for real contributors who want
to sit down with the community and produce the new and free works that
we need, completely with the right justification that would ensure the
material stays free.

Requirements mean nothing if we cant enforce them... and a commitment
to free content is worth nothing if it is all words and show without
substance.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
>
>
>> As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion
>> that
>> "we should be on the lookout
>> for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we
>> can
>> to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket
>> attacks on women.
>>
>
> It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of
> Wikipedia Review.
>
> Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call
them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long
as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad
behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of
months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for
months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is,
to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David
Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and
useless to harmful."

-kc-


from_name: Mohamed Ibrahim

body:
I've heard nothing about this in fact,
However, I can't see a reason for this blockage.
nothing that happened lately that could trigger such an action
I've left a message in the village pump and hope someone will confirm this
or hopefully deny it
also, there are 2 Tunisian wikipedians that I know of in Arabic wikipedia,
both didn't edit from yesterday morning
I hope this's just a coincidence, I've sent one of them an e-mail to ask
about this.

I hope that this is just a rumor and get a confirmation on this.

--
Mido

On 11/24/06, Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org> wrote:
>
> Alors, c'est confirm? ?
>
> ----
>
> So, it's confirmed?
>
> Op 24-nov-2006, om 17:13 heeft James Hare het volgende geschreven:
>
> > Zut! Plus pays qui n'aime pas le Wikip?dia.
>
> Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org>
> Web designer and programmer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
> In 99% of cases, I doubt it the work done by Google would be enough to
> obtain copyright protection.  Most of the time it isn't even something
> done by hand, it's something done by computer.

I think Google have done enough for it to count as a derived work.
It's not just a compilation of images, they are put together in a very
careful and precise way. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if
something is done by hand or by computer - it's still copyrightable.


body:
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's the point of having a category for something that will almost
> always get deleted? I imagine the Google Earth/Maps articles already
> have all the images they need (which isn't enough to warrant a
> category), and they will virtually never fall under fair use anywhere
> else, so they should be deleted, not categorised.

It's similar to a honeypot - we put the category there, hoping people
are honest enough to use the category to make it easy to come along
later and delete them.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [17917] trunk/phase3

body:
On 24/11/06, werdna at svn.wikimedia.org <werdna at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Patch by Leon Weber that adds a hook 'UploadForm:initial' before the upload form is generated, and two member variable for text injection into the form, which can be filled by the hooks.

*sniff* Hooks?

>     trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
>     trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialUpload.php

Ahem.

*pokes Werdna with docs/hooks.txt*

Rob Church


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-11-25

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Passed 449 of 469 tests (95.74%)... FAILED!