body:
Do you understand what you did wrong and promise to never do it again?

Fred

> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:23:15 -0900
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>
> The reason given is this:
>
> Reason "Creation of hoax article, use of sockpuppets on VfD, kmeeps
> uploading slef-made images to go along with hoax article. Wipes talk
> page of warnings. Warned several times.".
> Your IP address is 68.116.108.65. Please include this address in any
> queries you make.
>
> I didn't receive any warnings, just people voting to delete the
> article because they believed it was a hoax.  I know the article
> sounded fantastic, but its based on real research.  In retrospect, I
> should have had everything organized before beginning to post the
> article.
>
> There were two of us working on the article, one on copy and myself on
> the media/images.  What was wrong with me creating a picture for the
> page also?  It was just a digital representation of the man during the
> era.  Obviously, no photographs exist from the 13th century.  The
> other comments are not "sockpuppets" of me, but actual other people
> (most of whom I know) that added their comments on it.  Another part
> was wiping the talk page of warnings?  After I answered a question
> left on my talk page, (which was a question, not a warning), I would
> remove the question so I wouldn't try answering it again.  Does
> wikipedia have a policy about not editing your own talk page?
>
> As for the ban, here is what it says on my talk page:
>
> "I've gone ahead and deleted it. Oh, and consider yourself permanently
> blocked. I laughed, and even had a bit of an edit myself, but at the
> end of the day we don't really want you around. Cya! - Ta bu shi da yu
> 16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
>
> I can understand wikipedia's desire to only have well documented and
> published research.  I didn't have everything organized to go forward
> with this article, but I will have a few more (verifiable)
> publications for the future.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
>
> Stew Pederson
>
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:09:25 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> Creating a bogus article IS a serious offense. I doubt your ban is
>> permanent. Could you quote the message you receive when you try to log in so
>> we can check on what was done and the reason given?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
>>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900
>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>>>
>>> Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
>>> think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
>>> several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
>>> and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
>>> seriously as others.
>>>
>>> A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two
>>> different keeps) both worked on the article.  This is true because
>>> there were TWO of us working on the article.  I'm being permanently
>>> banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments
>>> by friends of mine that are a bit silly?  Isn't that a bit extreme?
>>>
>>> You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
>>> But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.
>>>
>>> Stewart Pederson
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith
>>> <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
>>>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
>>>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
>>>>> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
>>>>> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
>>>>> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
>>>>> Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
>>>>> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
>>>>> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
>>>>> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
>>>>> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
>>>>> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
>>>>> process has completed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
>>>>> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
>>>>> have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
>>>>> you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
>>>>> to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
>>>>> that help the article.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
>>>>> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
>>>>> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stewart Pederson
>>>>
>>>> Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
>>>> article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
>>>> mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
>>>> VfD discussion is at
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
>>>>
>>>> The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
>>>> royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
>>>> the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
>>>> royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
>>>> Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
>>>>
>>>> Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
>>>> contributor responded with a single citation:
>>>>
>>>> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
>>>> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
>>>> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
>>>>
>>>> The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
>>>> associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
>>>> Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
>>>> being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
>>>> twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
>>>> permitting, in Spring 2005."
>>>>
>>>> As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
>>>> currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
>>>> until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
>>>> eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
>>>> all recognizably similar in style.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: AndyL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback revert

body:
I think there's a difference between protecting a page in which one is
involved in an edit war and implementing a tempban when there is a clear
violation of something as basic as the 3RR rule. The former is subjective,
the latter is not and the effectiveness of the latter is diminished if there
is a long lag time between the violation and the implementation of the
tempban.

However, for purposes of transparency and accountability I think it would be
a good idea to create a version of  Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
for 3RR tempbans eg Wikipedia:Reqeusts_for_tempbans

Andy


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Either the implementation of autoblock or the
	documentation is faulty

body:
actionforum at comcast.net (actionforum at comcast.net) [050102 12:42]:

>  "There is an internal autoblock expiry time variable, which is set to 24 hours, meaning that when a username is blocked indefinitely, their IP will be automatically unblocked 24 hours after they last accessed a page."
> This refers just to the "access" of a page, for an indefinite block.  Now was I blocked "indefinitely" rather than "The duration of the block depends on the expiry time that was entered at the time of the block"?

The autoblocker is currently playing up. This means the times on the
blocked IP page are overzealous. At present, admins are occasionally going
through Special:Ipblocklist and unblocking expired blocks by hand.

(Admins, please have a look and do this. Note that *indefinite* blocks are
incorrectly showing as either the time of the block or the time you loaded
the page - don't unblock these!)

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Are you saying you actually thought the information in that article had a
factual basis. What make you think that?

Fred

> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:53:52 -0900
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>
> Yes, I understand that I put an article up that didn't have enough
> evidence to back any of it up.  I for sure won't do that again.  I did
> not, however, use "sockpuppets."
>
> Thanks Fred,
>
> Stew Pederson
>
>
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:51:46 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> Do you understand what you did wrong and promise to never do it again?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
>>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:23:15 -0900
>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>>>
>>> The reason given is this:
>>>
>>> Reason "Creation of hoax article, use of sockpuppets on VfD, kmeeps
>>> uploading slef-made images to go along with hoax article. Wipes talk
>>> page of warnings. Warned several times.".
>>> Your IP address is 68.116.108.65. Please include this address in any
>>> queries you make.
>>>
>>> I didn't receive any warnings, just people voting to delete the
>>> article because they believed it was a hoax.  I know the article
>>> sounded fantastic, but its based on real research.  In retrospect, I
>>> should have had everything organized before beginning to post the
>>> article.
>>>
>>> There were two of us working on the article, one on copy and myself on
>>> the media/images.  What was wrong with me creating a picture for the
>>> page also?  It was just a digital representation of the man during the
>>> era.  Obviously, no photographs exist from the 13th century.  The
>>> other comments are not "sockpuppets" of me, but actual other people
>>> (most of whom I know) that added their comments on it.  Another part
>>> was wiping the talk page of warnings?  After I answered a question
>>> left on my talk page, (which was a question, not a warning), I would
>>> remove the question so I wouldn't try answering it again.  Does
>>> wikipedia have a policy about not editing your own talk page?
>>>
>>> As for the ban, here is what it says on my talk page:
>>>
>>> "I've gone ahead and deleted it. Oh, and consider yourself permanently
>>> blocked. I laughed, and even had a bit of an edit myself, but at the
>>> end of the day we don't really want you around. Cya! - Ta bu shi da yu
>>> 16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
>>>
>>> I can understand wikipedia's desire to only have well documented and
>>> published research.  I didn't have everything organized to go forward
>>> with this article, but I will have a few more (verifiable)
>>> publications for the future.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>>
>>> Stew Pederson
>>>
>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:09:25 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>>> Creating a bogus article IS a serious offense. I doubt your ban is
>>>> permanent. Could you quote the message you receive when you try to log in
>>>> so
>>>> we can check on what was done and the reason given?
>>>>
>>>> Fred
>>>>
>>>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
>>>>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>>>> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900
>>>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
>>>>> think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
>>>>> several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
>>>>> and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
>>>>> seriously as others.
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two
>>>>> different keeps) both worked on the article.  This is true because
>>>>> there were TWO of us working on the article.  I'm being permanently
>>>>> banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments
>>>>> by friends of mine that are a bit silly?  Isn't that a bit extreme?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
>>>>> But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stewart Pederson
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith
>>>>> <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
>>>>>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
>>>>>>> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
>>>>>>> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
>>>>>>> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
>>>>>>> Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
>>>>>>> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
>>>>>>> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
>>>>>>> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
>>>>>>> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
>>>>>>> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
>>>>>>> process has completed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
>>>>>>> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
>>>>>>> have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
>>>>>>> you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
>>>>>>> to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
>>>>>>> that help the article.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
>>>>>>> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
>>>>>>> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stewart Pederson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
>>>>>> article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
>>>>>> mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
>>>>>> VfD discussion is at
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
>>>>>> royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
>>>>>> the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
>>>>>> royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
>>>>>> Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
>>>>>> contributor responded with a single citation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
>>>>>> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
>>>>>> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
>>>>>> associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
>>>>>> Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
>>>>>> being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
>>>>>> twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
>>>>>> permitting, in Spring 2005."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
>>>>>> currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
>>>>>> until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
>>>>>> eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
>>>>>> all recognizably similar in style.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
dead, etc.

But would enough people actually work on it?

Fred

> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>
> --- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>> and we should do something about it.
>
> Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
> a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
> WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
> Wikipeople).
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] A person having issues with copyright

body:
Matt McLauchlin stated for the record:

> Could some people please take a look at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paulokalik.jpg ? The contributor has,
> at the least, a highly eccentric understanding of crown copyright, and
> rebuffs any attempts to persuade him/her thereof.

I have received a letter from HMSO expressing the opinion of HM
Goverment that Crown Copyright is not compatible with the GFDL, and that
Crown Copyright material may not be used in Wikipedia.

Accordingly, it is my opinion (as an mere individual citizen of the US,
not even a subject of HM) that even Canada's fair dealing law does not
allow the use of [[Image:Paulokalik.jpg]] in Wikipedia.

--
  Sean Barrett     | It's twelve feet tall with yellow eyes,
  sean at epoptic.com | and it wants to speak to you, sir.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
>Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
>07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=8975393
>since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.

He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
undocumented original research is still there:

>[Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
>likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
>non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive,
>replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that humans
>have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
>states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes, which
>tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may
>also be of assistance to the communism meme.

Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which Silverback
reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):

>Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
>persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same way
>that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large
>nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
>which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others
>may also be of assistance to the communism meme.

And added:
>The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
>[[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a strong
>likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].

to the beginning and:
>Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
>altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
>collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would have no
>appeal to humans

To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion nevertheless.

AndyL


from_name: Stewart Pederson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx

body:
Why would that be considered an abuse?  That's like saying that having
your family vote for you in a political race is unethical or abusive.

And to Fred, yes I believe the article has factual basis because I've
been involved in the research.  Rice is and has been in Tibet for a
long time.  This was a very very quirky story that has reached an
almost legendary status in Tibet.  I'm going to work in getting
pictures of the Yopu statue and form a separate site about the on
going research.

Stew Pederson

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:41:03 -0800, Christopher Larberg
<christopherlarberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900, Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
> > think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
> > several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
> > and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
> > seriously as others.
>
> To point something out, calling friends and coworkers to blindly vote
> "Keep" on your article could be construed as an abuse of the VfD
> process. Of course, anon votes are rarely counted, so it's not that
> much of a concern.
>
> --Slowking Man
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900, Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
> think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
> several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
> and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
> seriously as others.

To point something out, calling friends and coworkers to blindly vote
"Keep" on your article could be construed as an abuse of the VfD
process. Of course, anon votes are rarely counted, so it's not that
much of a concern.

--Slowking Man


from_name: John Collison

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How to join the cabal

body:
>
> As the leader of the Cabal, I must ask you to all shut up because you
> are ruining it for the rest of us!
>
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
Cabal? What cabal?

John


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Patrol feature

body:
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:08:13 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> A first version of the "patrol" functionality is on-line. However, you
> can mark your own contributions as patrolled. This I think is a smudge
> on the face of this widely requested functionality. Just a simple
> compare against the change it is patrolling for might do the trick..

Another problem I found is that it is impossible to check a page
creation as 'patrolled' after the page has already been edited.

Andre Engels


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>>and we should do something about it.
>>
>>
>Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
>a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
>WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
>Wikipeople).
>
>
This was the gist of the Wikimorial idea.  It's about commemorating the
otherwise "unnotable" people who happened to be at the wong place at the
wrong time, and fell victims to historic events that overwhelmed them.
The recent tsunami may well generate other stories that merit inclusion.

Not all people referenced there need to have died in the events.  The
project could include significant survival stories.  I see it as a
"human interest" kind of project.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Abe,
	I've gone to the "No Orginal Research" talk page and a search reveals
	no reference to Deng

body:
actionforum at comcast.net (actionforum at comcast.net) [050102 13:31]:

> I also tried the archive pages.  Can you be more specific?  Also,
> can you reverse this abusive block?

I looked at the history, removed AndyL's block, then put one on myself
expiring at the same time. The new block is not from an involved admin.

- d.


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

> Matt McLauchlin stated for the record:
>
>> Could some people please take a look at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paulokalik.jpg ? The contributor
>> has, at the least, a highly eccentric understanding of crown
>> copyright, and rebuffs any attempts to persuade him/her thereof.
>
> I have received a letter from HMSO expressing the opinion of HM
> Goverment that Crown Copyright is not compatible with the GFDL, and
> that Crown Copyright material may not be used in Wikipedia.
>
> Accordingly, it is my opinion (as an mere individual citizen of the
> US, not even a subject of HM) that even Canada's fair dealing law does
> not allow the use of [[Image:Paulokalik.jpg]] in Wikipedia.

As a footnote I would add that a letter about Crown Copyright from HMSO
would only interpret that term as it is used within its jurisdiction.
Other Commonwealth countries use the term.  They may even have similar
policies about Crown Copyright, but one cannot presume that HMSO speaks
for them.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

body:
Yes, but what about Google? I think we are destined to follow in their steps.

Wikipedia is currently a unique service and I doubt others will spring
up (well, they already have, but I doubt they'll ever be very big).

When you google something, it means you went to google.com and
searched for it using the Google search engine.

And if we do start to go the way of Kleenex or Xerox, it won't be
Collins' fault. Collins isn't responsible for language change, they
are just trying to document it.

Mark

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:10:56 -0800 (PST), Rich Holton
<rich_holton at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not? Will it suddenly become 'uncool' to be a Wikipedian once the
> > word enters public usage?
> >
>
> It's a question of trade mark protection. Kleenex is a trademark, but
> now people often use it to refer to any facial tissue. Same thing for
> Xerox (Can I make a xerox of that?), and several others I can't think
> of at the moment. If we don't take steps to protect our trademark, then
> we can lose it.
>
> We are not a wikipedia. We are _the Wikipedia_.
>
> I would love for the name Wikipedia to be on everyone's tongue. But
> only as a brand name, _the_ Wikipedia, referring to one specific (set
> of) on-line encyclopedia(s). Not as a generic term for any
> encyclopedia-type on-line resource using wiki software.
>
> If what Collins is doing does not jeopardize our trademark, great! But
> we need to watch to make sure.
>
> -Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:User:Rholton)
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
>dead, etc.
>
>But would enough people actually work on it?
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>>
>>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>>>and we should do something about it.
>>>
>>>
>>Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
>>a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
>>WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
>>Wikipeople).
>>
>>

There are some other events that will certainly qualify as something
that needs memoralizing and can be done in a similar fashion.  From what
I understand, there are entire villages that no longer exist due to the
Tsumai that hit the Indian Ocean, and I think they deserve more than a
mere mention somewhere.  For an event that from some estimates I've
heard will have killed close to a half a million people, it certainly
deserves some sort of treatment beyond a simple wikipedia entry.  I
wonder how many wikipedians are in or close to the affected areas?

Other events of similar nature, such as the loss of the Shuttle
Columbia, Tianamin Square, or the Columbine Massacre come to mind as
other candidates.  Each of these generated quite a bit of news coverage,
and even spawned numerous web pages covering each of these events.  I
for one support such a memorial wiki, especially if it provides a forum
for victims or familes of victims to express what these events meant to
them, as well as how such an event has changed your life.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


list: textbook-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Textbook-l] Re: Textbook-l Digest, Vol 12, Issue 2

body:
> Of course, such a development tool for freezing and
> deploying would have to
> have a means for an instructor (or curriculum
> committee, or district/state
> text authority) to do a mid-semester "refresh" or
> update of a single
> resource  for any module used to fix problems as
> they are encountered. This
> is a bit like the CVS code-branch problem, and so
> solutions to this issue
> exist.
>
> Thanks to anyone who has the time to read this long
> document and to offer
> feedback on how we can get there from where we are
> now. I have a certain
> amount of influence in my field and my University to
> make this approach
> more popular. With some of these problems solved (if
> we can agree on a
> solution), then we can move on to making this
> promising approach a reality
> in a big time way.
>
> Curt Ashendel
> ashendel at purdue.edu

Hello Curt.

Thanks for these thoughts. Reading this long email, I
have been thinking that you should post this on wiki
as well, where people will be able to reflect on this
along time. Would you post it on meta for example ?

I agree with the fact wikibooks does not develop very
well because it is much harder to focus on a goal and
have all participants go toward the same goal.

Ant

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Propose to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia

body:
> I think someone was talking about moving this conversation somewhere
> else? I was vacationing in mainland China and didn't catch where this
> was moved to? Would some kind soul please inform me? Thanks.

There was a discussion about the revival of intlwiki-l, but it lost
steam, so currently the discussion is still going on here.

> Actually, the attitude in Hong Kong has always been that you must be
> daft if you can't speak Cantonese with the perfect Hong Kong accent.
> It's only after 1997 that the various public transportation, etc. have
> Mandarin announcements. The "official" Hong Kong stance is two written
> languages and three spoken languages. Most people ended up writing bad
> English & somewhat sufficient Chinese and speaking perfect Cantonese,
> somewhat okay English, and lousy Mandarin.

Right - what I meant is that this happens in Hong Kong, but never on
the mainland.

> Since I've been going to Guangzhou a lot lately, I've noticed that there
> is a big difference between the attitude about Cantonese in Guangzhou
> vs. Hong Kong. And in Macao, even the Macanese speaks great Cantonese,
> though they all speak Portuguese at home.

I'm curious about linguistic issues in Macao - do they share the
Cantonese popular culture of Hong Kong?

> As to the written system, Hong Kong has always used traditional Chinese
> and I hope that never changes. I can read simplified Chinese but I think
> it's the ugliest thing ever. And it's not like it helped the literacy
> rate or anything, since both Taiwan and Hong Kong have a higher literacy
> rate than mainland China. But I'm little old me and I'm not stupid
> enough to go against the whole Chinese government.

I agree here. Stylistically, even on the mainland all calligraphers
and the like use Traditional, though Simplified does have some
characters which were previously limited mostly to calligraphy (to me,
they don't look very good in print). But unfortunately, when it comes
to things like the UN, "marginal" Chinese regions using Traditional
are trumped by the mainland and on an international level, people seem
to use Simplified (I personally use Traditional for such purposes). If
I recall correctly there was a poet who talked about the beauty of
Chinese characters, comparing some to plants and animals. People have
talked about this being lost if hanzi were ever to be discarded in
favour of another system (pinyin, bopomofo), but I think it's already
diminished by the "simplification" of Chinese characters. (really
meaning reduction of strokes and in some cases merging of homophones)

> Depends entirely on what you think of as recent, as plenty of popular HK
> fiction in the 80s are written in Cantonese. But to the older
> generation, even if they are Cantonese speakers themselves, baihua is
> simply how you write. It's not just prejudice against Cantonese, but
> also prejudice against mass culture/pop culture.

What I meant by "relatively recent" was in the last few decades
instead of the last few centuries.

Best
Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
The objection was that no work was cited which applied the concept of
"altruistic genes" to communism and that therefore the claim was "original
research". I believe you cited Wikipedia's altruism article when a citation
was asked for but that article neither had a citation for the claim nor did
it even make the claim itself and this was pointed out to you. The additions
you made did not add a citation or, in any way, mitigate the "original
research" complaint, it simply compounded the problem. Not only did you keep
90% of the paragraph that was originally removed, you added more
questionable material and didn't even bother taking the matter to Talk for
discussion.

I don't see how your edit can be seen as anything but a reversion just as
the following would be a reversion:
a) someone had written in an article "John Smith is a jerk"
b) that statement was removed and
c) you inserted "John Smith is a jerk, and he really smells"

You didn't do anything to address the complaint. You didn't discuss the
matter in talk. You did not fulfill the request for citations, you simply
reinserted almost all of the original paragraph and then made it longer.
Frankly, that not only looks like a reversion, it's a reversion which adds
insult to injury by making the disputed passage even longer and more
questionable.

You then ignored a warning that you had reverted 3x and that a fourth
occasion would result in a temp ban. You didn't then take the issue to talk,
you just reverted an additional time. And then you come here to claim you've
been hard done by!

AndyL

on 1/2/05 1:55 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement was
> not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection.
> Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read the
> added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution
> section.  Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to objections.
> My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the
> objection, making the connection clear.   Although it would be flattering, I
> doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his
> ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that
> evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
>
> My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale
> reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research"
> complement as an explanation.
>
> -- Silverback
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>>> Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
>>> 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=89753
>>> 93
>>> since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
>>
>> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
>> undocumented original research is still there:
>>
>>> [Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
>>> non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive,
>>> replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that humans
>>> have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
>>> states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
>>> which
>>> tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may
>>> also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>>
>> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which Silverback
>> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
>>
>>> Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
>>> persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same
>>> way
>>> that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though
>>> large
>>> nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish
>>> genes,
>>> which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in
>>> others
>>> may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>>
>> And added:
>>> The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
>>> [[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a
>>> strong
>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
>>
>> to the beginning and:
>>> Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
>>> altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
>>> collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would have
>>> no
>>> appeal to humans
>>
>> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
>> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
>> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion nevertheless.
>>
>> AndyL
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Matt McLauchlin

body:
Could some people please take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paulokalik.jpg ? The contributor has, at
the least, a highly eccentric understanding of crown copyright, and rebuffs
any attempts to persuade him/her thereof.

Thanks,
Matt (Montrealais)

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 12/28/2004


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dates to wikitext

body:
Hello all,

            I was wondering, I think I heard a while back about making
months, days, and the date format wikitext to be editable per wiki.  Am I
right, or just imagining this?  Also, how do I get a bot for the Anglo-Saxon
wiki?

Thanks,

James


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Translators-l] Error in the Afrikaans interface
	translation

body:
Hello, is there someone to guide Michelle here ?

Anthere

--- Michelle Gallaway <mgallaway at gmail.com> wrote:

> I recently re-set my interface language preference
> on :meta, and I'm
> getting this at the top of each and every page:
>
> "Van Meta ? die gratis ensiklopedie."
>
> Obviously, this is incorrect.  Who do I need to
> contact to go about
> fixing that up?
> _______________________________________________
> Translators-l mailing list
> Translators-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/translators-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Images

body:
Hello,

            Would it be ok (legally) to use boxart images from Microsoft's
website on a wiki-site?

James


from_name: zero 0000

body:
> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>
> And to Fred, yes I believe the article has factual basis because I've
> been involved in the research.  Rice is and has been in Tibet for a
> long time.  This was a very very quirky story that has reached an
> almost legendary status in Tibet.  I'm going to work in getting
> pictures of the Yopu statue and form a separate site about the on
> going research.

1. If what you say is true, then you can resolve the issue very easily
by showing us the journal article which you claim to know of.
You can send it to me privately (in Chinese is fine) if you don't
want to send it publically.  At the moment I am putting my money
on the journal article not existing.

2. The anon 24.243.117.61 who worked on the article wrote in VfD:
"I laughed, but then I thought (deeply) what if it's true man, what if
it's all true, I've never been to Tibet, but what if it's all true,
THAT
is all I'm saying, what if it's all true."  If you or your collaborator
is not sure the story is true, why should we be?

3. Since you were not editing any other article and the veracity of it
was in dispute, I believe that banning you at that time was incorrect,
especially because it prevented you from defending the article in VfD.
If you want back in, see item 1.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dates to wikitext

body:
Regarding the first, I do not know. But the second:

The bot can be downloaded at

http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/ or
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/.

The first is a single download, the second a number of them, but the
second is up-to-date whereas the first one is not. I'll try to upload
a new version on the first, but I'm not giving promises.

Apart from the bot, you will need Python, which can be downloaded at
http://www.python.org/download/

I'm available for any further questions regarding the bot.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:08:21 +0100, James R. Johnson
<modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>             I was wondering, I think I heard a while back about making
> months, days, and the date format wikitext to be editable per wiki.  Am I
> right, or just imagining this?  Also, how do I get a bot for the Anglo-Saxon
> wiki?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Ray Kiddy

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to run as wiktionary?

body:
Ok, maybe this is just a blind spot that I have. I cannot see it.

I downloaded and am running a wiki for myself. I also know, basically,
how to read php.

And I understand that the wiktionary is a kind of Wikimedia project. I
just cannot find how to start something which looks like a
wiktionary....

I guess I expected that there might be a switch in one of the
index.php, like:

     $wgSiteType = "wiki"

or ...

     $wgSiteType = "wiktionary"

The wiktionary front page looks very different than the default
wikipedia-style front page. For example, it has  "Quick Index" of
letters. Are those just constructed by hand, or is there a different
stylesheet, or skin, or config script that one uses to "turn on" the
wiktionary features?

If someone can point me at info with which to get started, I would be
glad to write a series of pages: "Running MediaWiki Configured as a
Wikipedia" (not much would be in this one), "Running MediaWiki
Configured as a Wikiquote", "Running MediaWiki Configured as a
Wiktionary", and so forth and so on.

thanx - ray


from_name: Vegard Aukrust

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Old norse

body:
I want to start a Wikipedia page in old norse (gamalnorska), and I suggest the language code "gno".

Vegard Aukrust


from_name: AndyL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
Reverting and adding is still reverting. If it weren't then that would open
a huge loophole in the 3R rule. You were warned, you ignored the warning
just as you ignored requests to provide citations for the paragraph to show
that it wasn't original research.

I'm not sure what you are referring to below since you provide no context
for the adjectives you cite but I'm certainly not immune to having my
writing edited though I think if you go on a vindictive binge and won't
exactly enhance your credibility.

AndyL

on 1/2/05 4:56 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> Perhaps you were doing original research,  seeing if you could abusively
> impose your novel interpretation of reverts upon someone, unsupported and not
> rigorously defensible by the policy documentation.  You succeeded.  I've got
> another 30 minutes or so to serve.  I've noticed that you use terms like
> "rapid", "influential" and "massive" in your writing, it is difficult to tell
> whether these are POV or original research.  It will be interesting to see.
> Perhaps you want to abuse your priviledge again.
>
> -- Silverback
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> The objection was that no work was cited which applied the concept of
>> "altruistic genes" to communism and that therefore the claim was "original
>> research". I believe you cited Wikipedia's altruism article when a citation
>> was asked for but that article neither had a citation for the claim nor did
>> it even make the claim itself and this was pointed out to you. The additions
>> you made did not add a citation or, in any way, mitigate the "original
>> research" complaint, it simply compounded the problem. Not only did you keep
>> 90% of the paragraph that was originally removed, you added more
>> questionable material and didn't even bother taking the matter to Talk for
>> discussion.
>>
>> I don't see how your edit can be seen as anything but a reversion just as
>> the following would be a reversion:
>> a) someone had written in an article "John Smith is a jerk"
>> b) that statement was removed and
>> c) you inserted "John Smith is a jerk, and he really smells"
>>
>> You didn't do anything to address the complaint. You didn't discuss the
>> matter in talk. You did not fulfill the request for citations, you simply
>> reinserted almost all of the original paragraph and then made it longer.
>> Frankly, that not only looks like a reversion, it's a reversion which adds
>> insult to injury by making the disputed passage even longer and more
>> questionable.
>>
>> You then ignored a warning that you had reverted 3x and that a fourth
>> occasion would result in a temp ban. You didn't then take the issue to talk,
>> you just reverted an additional time. And then you come here to claim you've
>> been hard done by!
>>
>> AndyL
>>
>> on 1/2/05 1:55 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement
>>> was
>>> not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection.
>>> Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read
>>> the
>>> added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution
>>> section. Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to
>>> objections.
>>> My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the
>>> objection, making the connection clear. Although it would be flattering, I
>>> doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his
>>> ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that
>>> evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
>>>
>>> My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale
>>> reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research"
>>> complement as an explanation.
>>>
>>> -- Silverback
>>>
>>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>>
>>>>> Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
>>>>> 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=897
>>>>> 53
>>>>> 93
>>>>> since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
>>>>
>>>> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
>>>> undocumented original research is still there:
>>>>
>>>>> [Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
>>>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
>>>>> non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
>>>>> persuasive,
>>>>> replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that
>>>>> humans
>>>>> have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
>>>>> states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
>>>>> which
>>>>> tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others
>>>>> may
>>>>> also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>>>>
>>>> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which
>>>> Silverback
>>>> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
>>>>
>>>>> Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain
>>>>> their
>>>>> persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same
>>>>> way
>>>>> that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though
>>>>> large
>>>>> nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish
>>>>> genes,
>>>>> which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in
>>>>> others
>>>>> may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>>>>
>>>> And added:
>>>>> The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
>>>>> [[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a
>>>>> strong
>>>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
>>>>
>>>> to the beginning and:
>>>>> Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
>>>>> altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
>>>>> collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would
>>>>> have
>>>>> no
>>>>> appeal to humans
>>>>
>>>> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
>>>> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
>>>> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion
>>>> nevertheless.
>>>>
>>>> AndyL
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
on 1/2/05 5:46 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> Well you still haven't removed the block even though it should have expired 20
> minutes ago.  Once again abusing your priviledge and shirking responsibility.
>
> -- Silverback

Not quite.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block records the
following:

*    22:11, 2 Jan 2005 AndyL unblocked User:#13822 (block was for 24hrs)

I believe the time is about 20 minutes before your mention of the block not
expiring on email and more than half an hour before your claim above. Care
to apologise?

AndyL


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dates to wikitext

body:
I actually went to the system messages, and the month/day names are
editable.  About the bot, I was hoping to do a bot to make basic articles
about cities in England and America (??os burg is in Englalande, asf.), then
edit the articles after it finishes.  I thought I read somewhere about
someone doing that for other wikis.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:05 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Dates to wikitext

Regarding the first, I do not know. But the second:

The bot can be downloaded at

http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/ or
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/.

The first is a single download, the second a number of them, but the
second is up-to-date whereas the first one is not. I'll try to upload
a new version on the first, but I'm not giving promises.

Apart from the bot, you will need Python, which can be downloaded at
http://www.python.org/download/

I'm available for any further questions regarding the bot.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:08:21 +0100, James R. Johnson
<modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>             I was wondering, I think I heard a while back about making
> months, days, and the date format wikitext to be editable per wiki.  Am I
> right, or just imagining this?  Also, how do I get a bot for the
Anglo-Saxon
> wiki?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Silverback autoblock needs to be manually removed,
	it should have expired 6 minutes ago

body:
on 1/2/05 5:59 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>> -------------- Original message --------------
>> Unblocked. I'm sure you'll play nicely with the other kids now, won't you?
>> - d.
>
> You know, allowing injustice and abuse to stand is not good policy.  We should
> expand the number of admins, until we get some with gumption.   As Barry
> Goldwater once stated: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And
> moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

And yet he voted against the Civil Rights Act. Go figure?

AndyL


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
Well, If I see a 3RR violation on a page I'm editing I'll post it on WP:AN
instead of acting on it myself.

AndyL

on 1/2/05 6:08 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> The date on your email was 22:55, my watch shows 23:02 GMT and syncs with NIST
> via radio.   If you are saying that you unblocked, at 22:11, then I do
> apologize.  However, it didn't work, probably because David had taken over the
> block and interfered somehow.  The autoblock is not working properly, if that
> gets fixed so it does its work more automatically, perhaps something good will
> come out of this.   I will try to avoid getting trapped in the future by your
> pseudo-gotchas, it may be difficult with your expansive, flexible definition
> of  reverts.
>
> -- Silverback
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>>
>> on 1/2/05 5:46 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> Well you still haven't removed the block even though it should have expired
>>> 20
>>> minutes ago. Once again abusing your priviledge and shirking responsibility.
>>>
>>> -- Silverback
>>
>> Not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block records the
>> following:
>>
>> * 22:11, 2 Jan 2005 AndyL unblocked User:#13822 (block was for 24hrs)
>>
>> I believe the time is about 20 minutes before your mention of the block not
>> expiring on email and more than half an hour before your claim above. Care
>> to apologise?
>>
>> AndyL
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Dori

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to run as wiktionary?

body:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:15:05 -0800, Ray Kiddy <ray at ganymede.org> wrote:
> And I understand that the wiktionary is a kind of Wikimedia project. I
> just cannot find how to start something which looks like a
> wiktionary....
>
> I guess I expected that there might be a switch in one of the
> index.php, like:
>
>      $wgSiteType = "wiki"
>
> or ...
>
>      $wgSiteType = "wiktionary"

Nope, it runs on the same software, and it's just people's work that
makes it look different.

--
[[en:User:Dori]]


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Silverback and the 3RR

body:
> 1) Silverback, you were clearly warned that a fourth revert would result in
> a tempban
> 2) the question was about your inclusion of a paragraph of original
> research. Readding that paragraph after it has been removed is a reversion.
> It doesn't matter if that's the only thing you do in your edit or if you do
> other things as well, it's still a reversion. If it wasn't then that would
> create a huge loopholw in revert wars, one could get around the 3R rule
> simply by reverting whatever text is in question and editing something else
> in the article at the same time. Indeed the paragraph was readded 4x within
> a 24 hour period without any alterations, additions, or subtractions to it.
> The fact that you simultaneously changed *other* parts of the article
> doesn't mitigate the fact that you reverted on four occasions.
> 3) In retrospect I should have either asked another admin to implement the
> tempban or, failing that, put in a request on the admin discussion page. I
> don't implement bans very often so I'm not as familiar with protocol as I am
> with the protect page protocol and only recently learned that there was such
> a thing as an admin discussion page. The only time I've used it to request a
> tempban was in the case of an editor against whom I have an ArbComm
> complaint so I thought it would be better to ask someone else to administer
> the ban.
> 4) in any case, regardless of who administered the tempban, the fact is you
> broke the 3RR after you were warned not to.
>
> Regards,
> AndyL

Looking at the edit history
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&action=history)
of communism I see:

Dec 30, 10:34, Silverback, adding stuff about genes
Dec 31, 05:51, 172, reverting
Dec 31, 06:15, Silverback, reverting
Dec 31, 06:36, 172, reverting
Dec 31, 06:45, Silverback expanding and reinserting the gene stuff
Dec 31, 06:48, 172, reverting
Dec 31, 07:22, Silverback, reverting
Dec 31, 15:06, AndyL, reverting

Jan 1, 20:30, Silverback reverting AND changing the paragraph
Jan 1, 20:34, AndyL, reverting stuff about genes
Jan 1, 21:38, Silverback, reverting AndyL's revert
Jan 1, 21:56, AndyL, reverting stuff about genes
Jan 1, 22:12, Silverback, reverting AndyL's revert
Jan 1, 22:21, AndyL, reverting stuff about genes
Jan 1, 22:29, Silverback, reverting AndyL's revert

Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=8975393
since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit. If that is the
case, then there was no reason for Silverback to be banned. Especially
not by the admin with whom he was having an edit war with.

I don't think these are errors that can or should slip. Every admin
should now that they can NOT use their administrative powers in
disputes in which they themselves are involved in. "I didn't know" is
not a valid excuse for someone whos job is to know.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
I had a similar experience recently, where an editor and I disagreed
about some material. We both made a number of edits (additions,
deletions, supplying references). When I made my edits, I restored
some of the word flow and sentences I preferred, and deleted sentences
without references; when the other editor made his edits, he did the
same. The article mutated toward a version we could both live with,
and the editing stopped.

About an hour later, without warning, we both found ourselves blocked
for violating 3RR. It was my first offense, and I believe it was the
other editor's first offense too. After the block was in place, each
time we even looked at a page, the block was automatically extended,
which made it appear to other admins that we were acting in bad faith,
trying to made edits while blocked.

Reviewing the edit history, I can see why the admin thought they were
complex reverts, but I can also see why the other editor and I thought
we were editing, not reverting.

I feel that this business of what counts as a "complex revert" needs
to be more carefully defined. I also feel that a warning should always
be placed on the editor's Talk page before a block; and the block
should only be instituted if the editor ignores the warning.

If admins assume that editors who appear to have violated 3RR intended
to do so, and block them without warning, then those admins are not
assuming good faith, which is supposed to be one of Wikipedia's most
important policies. The "mens rea" of the editors has to count for
something, or else the good-faith policy may as well be  scrapped.

Slim

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:13:38 +0100, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
They achieve this compromise by gradually mutating
> the disputed text until both sides are happy with the result. You
> could see it as a negotiation in which both parties take turn placing
> proposals and counterproposals.
>
> Whether Silverback changed his proposal or not is not clear.
> Silverback thought he changed it, you thought he didn't. I think he
> did change it and that is was not a plain revert. The number of words
> in the paragraph increased from 84 to 132 which is an extra 57%.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Question: logged-in tag?

body:
On Jan 2, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Robert Jones wrote:
> I wonder if you could help. Is there a tag tat will display the text
> contained within only if the user is logged in?

No.

> If not, can anyone suggest a way to do this.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Write_your_own_MediaWiki_extension

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050102/2c60e27d/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
on 1/2/05 6:43 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>> Well, If I see a 3RR violation on a page I'm editing I'll post it on WP:AN
>> instead of acting on it myself.
>>
>> AndyL
>
> Thanx, I will assume good faith.
>
> BTW, Barry Goldwater also co-sponsored (along with Sen. Mark Hatfield) in
> 1968, the bill to end the draft.  He was a conservative of the classical
> liberal vein (at least at that time).  On civil rights, he probably feared
> that the bill might result in discriminatory quotas.  Two wrongs don't make a
> right.

Mmm... I think he was trying to woo Southern conservative (Dixiecrat) voters
away from the Democrats, actually. I do generally like Goldwater (though I
don't agree with most of his views), definitely more principled than Nixon
and Reagan (both of whom he despised btw). The Civil Rights Act (I think I
got the name wrong, Voting Rights Act?) had nothing about quotas, it just
guaranteed Blacks the right to vote in states where measures such as the
poll tax (which only Blacks had to pay) and intimidation were used to stop
them from voting. Something anyone who truly believed in the "defense of
liberty" should have had no trouble supporting.

Andy

>
> -- Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement was not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection.  Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read the added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution section.  Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to objections.  My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the objection, making the connection clear.   Although it would be flattering, I doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.

My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research" complement as an explanation.

                                   -- Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> >Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
> >07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=8975393
> >since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
>
> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
> undocumented original research is still there:
>
> >[Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
> >likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
> >non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive,
> >replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that humans
> >have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
> >states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes, which
> >tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may
> >also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>
> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which Silverback
> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
>
> >Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
> >persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same way
> >that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large
> >nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
> >which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others
> >may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>
> And added:
> >The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
> >[[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a strong
> >likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
>
> to the beginning and:
> >Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
> >altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
> >collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would have no
> >appeal to humans
>
> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion nevertheless.
>
> AndyL
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: David Wendt

subject:
[Wikitech-l] proposal to have new option to suppress duplicate
	mails fromn wikibugs-l

body:
Thomas Gries wrote:

> I would like to suggest to the owner/developer of the wikibugs-l
> mailinglist (Brion ?)
>
> to implement a new and more general email preference option to
> suppress duplicate mails to be sent, e.g. when one has a relation to a
> certain bug and is also member of the wikibugs-l mailinglist. (In this
> case, one currently receives two mails).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
This would require some reprogramming and hacking on Bugzilla, which
isnt easy.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
See [[A Canticle for Leibowitz]]

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:10:10 +0100
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Proposal for Wiki Project
>
>
>
> Magos?nyi ?rp?d a ?crit:
>> A levelezo?m azt hiszi, hogy Robert Scott Horning a k?vetkezo?eket ?rta:
>>
>>> Clay tablets could provide that sort of stability, especially if you
>>> make them ceramic instead, and don't suffer from being super valuable
>>> like gold for other things.  The #1 problem is that they are more prone
>>> to environmental damage and you can't put the detail in so finely as you
>>> could with gold (i.e. archiving large quantities of information are
>>> pretty much out).
>>
>>
>> I would think that technology of ceramics is advanced enough now that
>> enironmental damage is less concern than with gold.
>> I would also venture to say that creating such ceramics tables needs
>> much more physical world resources than creating wikipages.
>> However is seems possible that companies doing ceramics technology
>> would venture to offer some unnoticeable fraction of their production
>> resources for the wast marketing possibilities of being the one
>> to archive Wikipedia forever.
>>
>> It would be useful to estimate the quantity of information needed
>> to make live easier after a catastrophy. If it is low enough (I guess
>> it is), we might consider to conserve this set as tables readily useable
>> for print. This way it could reach a much wider population than if
>> it would be written in microfilm size.
>
> I like this idea of preserving basic information in case of a catastrophe.
> Actually, someone thought about the content on the french wikipedia, but
> for now, not much work have been given on it.
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ASavoirfaire
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Proposal for Wiki Project


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
on 1/2/05 8:13 PM, BJ?rn Lindqvist at bjourne at gmail.com wrote:
> Whether Silverback changed his proposal or not is not clear.
> Silverback thought he changed it, you thought he didn't. I think he
> did change it and that is was not a plain revert. The number of words
> in the paragraph increased from 84 to 132 which is an extra 57%.

Alternatively, of the 84 words in the disputed paragraph, 82 (or 97%)
appeared without any change whatsoever in the new paragraph

Indeed, the only change in the original paragraph was to the first sentence
which went from
>[Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]]

to

>The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
>[[evolution|natural selection]] is that

97% retention of the original disputed paragraph with the addition of a new
sentence at the end which has the same problems as the original (no
citation, original research) looks like a revert to me and I think to most
people.

AndyL


from_name: pinco

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A minor problem

body:
Hi,

from time to time I edit some Swahili pages which I subscribed, but it
happens that I want to contribute to the Italian and Esperanto pages, too.

I would like to know how can I use my Swahili user's data in the Italian
and Esperanto pages? Should I subscribe each of them?

Thanks a lot,
Nino

--
http://www.vessella.it (italiano, esperanto, kiswahili, english)
http://www.changamano.org (Iniziative di solidariet? per la Tanzania)
http://www.lernado.it (Articoli di quotidiani della Tanzania, Corso di lingua swahili, Corso di lingua esperanto, Vocabolario esperanto-italiano, Jifunze lugha ya Kiesperanto, Kamusi ya Kiesperanto)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
Perhaps you were doing original research,  seeing if you could abusively impose your novel interpretation of reverts upon someone, unsupported and not rigorously defensible by the policy documentation.  You succeeded.  I've got another 30 minutes or so to serve.  I've noticed that you use terms like "rapid", "influential" and "massive" in your writing, it is difficult to tell whether these are POV or original research.  It will be interesting to see.  Perhaps you want to abuse your priviledge again.

                                                 -- Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> The objection was that no work was cited which applied the concept of
> "altruistic genes" to communism and that therefore the claim was "original
> research". I believe you cited Wikipedia's altruism article when a citation
> was asked for but that article neither had a citation for the claim nor did
> it even make the claim itself and this was pointed out to you. The additions
> you made did not add a citation or, in any way, mitigate the "original
> research" complaint, it simply compounded the problem. Not only did you keep
> 90% of the paragraph that was originally removed, you added more
> questionable material and didn't even bother taking the matter to Talk for
> discussion.
>
> I don't see how your edit can be seen as anything but a reversion just as
> the following would be a reversion:
> a) someone had written in an article "John Smith is a jerk"
> b) that statement was removed and
> c) you inserted "John Smith is a jerk, and he really smells"
>
> You didn't do anything to address the complaint. You didn't discuss the
> matter in talk. You did not fulfill the request for citations, you simply
> reinserted almost all of the original paragraph and then made it longer.
> Frankly, that not only looks like a reversion, it's a reversion which adds
> insult to injury by making the disputed passage even longer and more
> questionable.
>
> You then ignored a warning that you had reverted 3x and that a fourth
> occasion would result in a temp ban. You didn't then take the issue to talk,
> you just reverted an additional time. And then you come here to claim you've
> been hard done by!
>
> AndyL
>
> on 1/2/05 1:55 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement was
> > not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection.
> > Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read the
> > added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution
> > section. Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to objections.
> > My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the
> > objection, making the connection clear. Although it would be flattering, I
> > doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his
> > ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that
> > evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
> >
> > My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale
> > reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research"
> > complement as an explanation.
> >
> > -- Silverback
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >>> Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
> >>> 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=89753
> >>> 93
> >>> since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
> >>
> >> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
> >> undocumented original research is still there:
> >>
> >>> [Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
> >>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
> >>> non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive,
> >>> replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that humans
> >>> have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
> >>> states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
> >>> which
> >>> tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may
> >>> also be of assistance to the communism meme.
> >>
> >> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which Silverback
> >> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
> >>
> >>> Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
> >>> persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same
> >>> way
> >>> that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though
> >>> large
> >>> nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish
> >>> genes,
> >>> which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in
> >>> others
> >>> may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
> >>
> >> And added:
> >>> The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
> >>> [[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a
> >>> strong
> >>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
> >>
> >> to the beginning and:
> >>> Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
> >>> altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
> >>> collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would have
> >>> no
> >>> appeal to humans
> >>
> >> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
> >> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
> >> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion nevertheless.
> >>
> >> AndyL
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A minor problem

body:
At the moment you have to subscribe to each wiki separately, yes.
There are plans to change that, but I do not dare to say how long it
will take until it happens.

Andre Engels

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:29:19 +0100, pinco <pinco at kiesperanto.org> wrote:

> from time to time I edit some Swahili pages which I subscribed, but it
> happens that I want to contribute to the Italian and Esperanto pages, too.
>
> I would like to know how can I use my Swahili user's data in the Italian
> and Esperanto pages? Should I subscribe each of them?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Nino


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
on 1/2/05 10:13 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net
wrote:

> ** snip **
>> After the block was in place, each
>> time we even looked at a page, the block was automatically extended,
>> which made it appear to other admins that we were acting in bad faith,
>> trying to made edits while blocked.
>
> An edit attempt after one has been blocked should not be considered acting in
> bad faith, because often that is the only way one finds out that one has been
> blocked.

That seems to be a bug in the system, particularly (I suspectd) if one has a
dynamic ip. Everytime you log in one seems to get an autmated ban which (in
the case of a ban that was supposed to be 24 hours) expired 24 hours from
the attempted login rather than from when the ban was originally
implemented.

I received no notice on my talk page for instance.  Someone may not
> attempt an edit for hours, so the current automation (which has been admitted
> to be erroneous) would add those hours to the 24 hour period.   Attempting and
> edit might also be a legitimate way to check if the block is over.
>
> Unfortunately, the current system blocks the usual wiki ways to communicate on
> talk pages, and does not automatically unblock you, that requires an error
> prone and burdensome manual vigilance on the part of the administrators.  The
> good news is that they are aware of this and asking for a solution.
>
> -- Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Someone with the admin priviledge, should remove the Silverback autoblock, the 24 hours expired 7 minutes ago.
                -- thanx,
                           Silverback


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Sites will be unavailable for about 30 minutes between
	04:00 and 08:00 UTC while we switch master database server

body:
All Wikimedia sites will be unavailable for about 30 minutes between 04:00 and 08:00 UTC while we switch master database server.

Why the switch? Even with compression, the disk space free for logs and temporary files on the current master, Ariel, is now down to 15GB. About 100GB will become available after compression but that can't be made free while Ariel is master. So, we're switching back to Suda, the master we used for the first half of 2004. That now has larger disks and about 120GB of free space. Meanwhile, MediaWiki 1.4 has been released and that shifts much of the database load from the master to the slaves, so the master now sees about 650 relatively easy queries per second instead of 3,000 queries, many of which are problematic. Suda has been shown to be fine up to 1,400 of those mixed problematic queries and should do better still on the remaining master-only queries. So: no need to accept the risk of running out of space on Ariel and we'll get plenty of free space back on it later. Ultimately Ariel is destined to become a slave on the en+ja part of a split set of master/slave servers, each set handling half of the site load. Estimated time for that split is about April 2005, adjusted based on load and growth rates.

Updates on when the switch starts and completes will, as usual, be at Wikipedia Status on OpenFacts:

http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status


from_name: Kiss All

subject: [Wikitech-l] Do we have the analog of MS word template in mediawiki?

body:
I looked around in Help of meta.wikipedia and could not find the
template I wanted.

It seems to me the current "template" in mediawiki is something like
macro definition in C programming language, not the "template" in MS
office word.  Like template for resume, letter,etc.

Do we have the analog of MS word template in mediawiki?

--
Be good....


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
Well you still haven't removed the block even though it should have expired 20 minutes ago.  Once again abusing your priviledge and shirking responsibility.

                          -- Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> Reverting and adding is still reverting. If it weren't then that would open
> a huge loophole in the 3R rule. You were warned, you ignored the warning
> just as you ignored requests to provide citations for the paragraph to show
> that it wasn't original research.
>
> I'm not sure what you are referring to below since you provide no context
> for the adjectives you cite but I'm certainly not immune to having my
> writing edited though I think if you go on a vindictive binge and won't
> exactly enhance your credibility.
>
> AndyL
>
>
> on 1/2/05 4:56 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you were doing original research, seeing if you could abusively
> > impose your novel interpretation of reverts upon someone, unsupported and not
> > rigorously defensible by the policy documentation. You succeeded. I've got
> > another 30 minutes or so to serve. I've noticed that you use terms like
> > "rapid", "influential" and "massive" in your writing, it is difficult to tell
> > whether these are POV or original research. It will be interesting to see.
> > Perhaps you want to abuse your priviledge again.
> >
> > -- Silverback
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >> The objection was that no work was cited which applied the concept of
> >> "altruistic genes" to communism and that therefore the claim was "original
> >> research". I believe you cited Wikipedia's altruism article when a citation
> >> was asked for but that article neither had a citation for the claim nor did
> >> it even make the claim itself and this was pointed out to you. The additions
> >> you made did not add a citation or, in any way, mitigate the "original
> >> research" complaint, it simply compounded the problem. Not only did you keep
> >> 90% of the paragraph that was originally removed, you added more
> >> questionable material and didn't even bother taking the matter to Talk for
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> I don't see how your edit can be seen as anything but a reversion just as
> >> the following would be a reversion:
> >> a) someone had written in an article "John Smith is a jerk"
> >> b) that statement was removed and
> >> c) you inserted "John Smith is a jerk, and he really smells"
> >>
> >> You didn't do anything to address the complaint. You didn't discuss the
> >> matter in talk. You did not fulfill the request for citations, you simply
> >> reinserted almost all of the original paragraph and then made it longer.
> >> Frankly, that not only looks like a reversion, it's a reversion which adds
> >> insult to injury by making the disputed passage even longer and more
> >> questionable.
> >>
> >> You then ignored a warning that you had reverted 3x and that a fourth
> >> occasion would result in a temp ban. You didn't then take the issue to talk,
> >> you just reverted an additional time. And then you come here to claim you've
> >> been hard done by!
> >>
> >> AndyL
> >>
> >> on 1/2/05 1:55 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement
> >>> was
> >>> not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection.
> >>> Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read
> >>> the
> >>> added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution
> >>> section. Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to
> >>> objections.
> >>> My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the
> >>> objection, making the connection clear. Although it would be flattering, I
> >>> doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his
> >>> ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that
> >>> evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
> >>>
> >>> My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale
> >>> reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research"
> >>> complement as an explanation.
> >>>
> >>> -- Silverback
> >>>
> >>> -------------- Original message --------------
> >>>
> >>>>> Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
> >>>>> 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=897
> >>>>> 53
> >>>>> 93
> >>>>> since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
> >>>> undocumented original research is still there:
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
> >>>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
> >>>>> non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
> >>>>> persuasive,
> >>>>> replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that
> >>>>> humans
> >>>>> have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
> >>>>> states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
> >>>>> which
> >>>>> tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others
> >>>>> may
> >>>>> also be of assistance to the communism meme.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which
> >>>> Silverback
> >>>> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain
> >>>>> their
> >>>>> persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same
> >>>>> way
> >>>>> that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though
> >>>>> large
> >>>>> nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish
> >>>>> genes,
> >>>>> which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in
> >>>>> others
> >>>>> may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
> >>>>
> >>>> And added:
> >>>>> The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
> >>>>> [[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a
> >>>>> strong
> >>>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
> >>>>
> >>>> to the beginning and:
> >>>>> Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
> >>>>> altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
> >>>>> collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> no
> >>>>> appeal to humans
> >>>>
> >>>> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
> >>>> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
> >>>> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion
> >>>> nevertheless.
> >>>>
> >>>> AndyL
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
[Wikitech-l] How to include a portion of a wiki page in another
	wiki page?

body:
For example, we usually have a globle reference page composed of
individual references from REFERENCES sections of several individual
pages.

Could we write the globle reference page using something like

#include page1#REFERENCES
#include page2#REFERENCES
#include page3#REFERENCES
?

I checked metawiki's help. The current template may serve us somehow,
but too indirect.

It seems "INCLUDE" is not used in metawiki now. Maybe we can add it as
a special directive for this purpose.

--
Be good....


body:
> -------------- Original message --------------
> Unblocked. I'm sure you'll play nicely with the other kids now, won't you?
> - d.

You know, allowing injustice and abuse to stand is not good policy.  We should expand the number of admins, until we get some with gumption.   As Barry Goldwater once stated: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

                                       -- thanx,
                                               Silverback


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

body:
The date on your email was 22:55, my watch shows 23:02 GMT and syncs with NIST via radio.   If you are saying that you unblocked, at 22:11, then I do apologize.  However, it didn't work, probably because David had taken over the block and interfered somehow.  The autoblock is not working properly, if that gets fixed so it does its work more automatically, perhaps something good will come out of this.   I will try to avoid getting trapped in the future by your pseudo-gotchas, it may be difficult with your expansive, flexible definition of  reverts.

                                                  -- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------

>
> on 1/2/05 5:46 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Well you still haven't removed the block even though it should have expired 20
> > minutes ago. Once again abusing your priviledge and shirking responsibility.
> >
> > -- Silverback
>
> Not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block records the
> following:
>
> * 22:11, 2 Jan 2005 AndyL unblocked User:#13822 (block was for 24hrs)
>
> I believe the time is about 20 minutes before your mention of the block not
> expiring on email and more than half an hour before your claim above. Care
> to apologise?
>
> AndyL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l