from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/23/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
> articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
>
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> daniwo59 at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:18 PM
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Cc: commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!
>
> Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
> Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and
> the
> story has a moral. I want to tell it.
>
> The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the
> NBA
> professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of
> uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson
> died,
> he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to
> donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.
>
> After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
> treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share
> with  us,
> from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him
> about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released
> it
> under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.
>
> As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone
> decided
> to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As
> for
> now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we
>
> find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to
>
> "fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to
>
> come.
>
> So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
> value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him
> and
> explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the
> contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a
> magnificent image is now free.
>

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
> email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The point is that fair use only applies when no free replacement can
be obtained. Yet rushing to post a fair use without first actually
trying to find some free image, discourages finding out it later


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


list: commons-l

from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Commons-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/23/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
> Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and
> the story has a moral. I want to tell it.
>
> The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the NBA
> professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of
> uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson
> died, he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he
> decided to donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do
> it.
>
> After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
> treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share
> with us, from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak
> with him about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and
> released it under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.
>
> As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone decided
> to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As for
> now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we
> find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to
> "fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to
> come.
>
> So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
> value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him
> and explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the
> contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a
> magnificent image is now free.

I would also like to thank Jkelly's excellent customer service in
dealing with this gentleman fairly and politely when he had second
thoughts initially about contributing (working with him to delete the
unintended contribution until Greg could take the time to fully and
fairly explain to him what he was being asked to agree to) and Cary
Bass (Bastique) for some behind-the-scenes OTRS work to make sure
everyone was on the same page.

Good work, everyone!

Kelly


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] a new free image!


list: wikien-l

from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

body:
On 2/23/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> >on 2/23/07 12:26 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Until we can find a way to deal seriously and severely with the
> >>behaviours that Parker mentioned we cannot hope to build the
> >>collaborative community that most of us profess to support.  Those of us
> >>who have invested serious amounts of time in these projects, and have
> >>thought deeply about its underlying principles despair just as much over
> >>the actions of the petty tyrants as over the actions of the vandals.
> >>
> >>
> >There are ways to solve the problems you present to. Companies and other
> >organizations are recognizing, confronting and dealing with them every day.
> >
> >But, in the context of Wikipedia, this is a tough one. You and I and others
> >in this Community can identify the problems, commiserate, gnash our teeth,
> >and go through countless other fruitless gyrations. But without the power to
> >make change ? nothing can or will. Unless change is recognized as needed -
> >and mandated - by those with the ability to do so ? nothing can happen. We
> >need leadership (with teeth).
> >
> All we get from gnashing our teeth is broken dentures. :-(
>
> Profit-making companies have some tools that we don't have, notably
> control over salary.
>
> Acknowledging leadership is difficult in a community brought together
> because it is such a collection of individuals.  The individuality is
> needed to keep the project innovative.  Acknowledging leadership means
> giving up a little power for the greater good, but that requires trust.
> The world around us gives us cause to not trust any kind of leadership.
>
> Ec

It's not quite that bad - volunteer organizations work like this all the time.

Wikipedia is very young, evolving very fast, and virtual (not people
meeting and working in real life together), all of which make it
harder.

But things do work out.

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


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 2/23/07, Trebor Rowntree <trebor.rowntree at gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. Wikis are not suited for fast debate, and we are not in any rush,
> yet these decisions are still being made in a matter of hours. What is this
> accomplishing other than confusion and irritation?

We're probably making the Wikipedia Review people happy. That's always
nice, to make people happy. Feels like you are making the world
better, when you make people feel happy :)

--Oskar


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 2/23/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily
> desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of
> yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)

Yes Virginia, there is an 800 pound Gorilla and sometimes we need him.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Commons-l] a new free image!

body:
Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and  the
story has a moral. I want to tell it.

The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the  NBA
professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of
uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson  died,
he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to
donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.

After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share with  us,
from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him
about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released it
under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.

As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone  decided
to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As  for
now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we
find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to
"fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to
come.

So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him and
explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the
contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a
magnificent image is now free.

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070223/062af1e6/attachment.htm


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and  the
story has a moral. I want to tell it.

The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the  NBA
professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of
uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson  died,
he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to
donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.

After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share with  us,
from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him
about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released it
under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.

As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone  decided
to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As  for
now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we
find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to
"fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to
come.

So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him and
explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the
contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a
magnificent image is now free.

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Casey Brown

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?

Cbrown1023

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
daniwo59 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:18 PM
To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and
the
story has a moral. I want to tell it.

The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the
NBA
professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of
uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson
died,
he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to
donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.

After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share
with  us,
from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him
about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released
it
under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.

As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone
decided
to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As
for
now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we

find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to

"fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to

come.

So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him
and
explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the
contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a
magnificent image is now free.

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Did I open up this can of (no pun intended) worms?

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipocrite#Dick
AN/I #An_obscene_final_warning

Could this have anything to do with my numerous references to m:don't
be a dick in a previous thread here?


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
In a message dated 2/23/2007 7:21:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cbrown1023 at comcast.net writes:

Is your  point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
articles to  be without an image making someone donate a free  one?

Cbrown1023

More or less. My point is that we don't *need* fair use images, and in this
particular instance, a fair use image would have prevented us from obtaining a
 free one.

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
I like that idea.  However, that may not work for all cases.  It is an
interesting story to mention, but does not have applicability to all
instances of fair use images.  We should also recall that the readers (the
ones we are really writing this for), would like to see an image until
there.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Sanchez
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:27 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

On 2/23/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
> articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
>
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> daniwo59 at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:18 PM
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Cc: commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!
>
> Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
> Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story,
and
> the
> story has a moral. I want to tell it.
>
> The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the
> NBA
> professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of
> uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When
Johnson
> died,
> he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to
> donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.
>
> After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
> treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to
share
> with  us,
> from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him
> about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and
released
> it
> under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.
>
> As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone
> decided
> to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As
> for
> now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until
we
>
> find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone
to
>
> "fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more
to
>
> come.
>
> So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
> value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with
him
> and
> explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the
> contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a
> magnificent image is now free.
>

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
> email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The point is that fair use only applies when no free replacement can
be obtained. Yet rushing to post a fair use without first actually
trying to find some free image, discourages finding out it later

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
I like that idea.  However, that may not work for all cases.  It is an
interesting story to mention, but does not have applicability to all
instances of fair use images.  We should also recall that the readers (the
ones we are really writing this for), would like to see an image until
there.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:26 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

On 2/24/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
> articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
>
> Cbrown1023
>

Close I would suggest replaceing them with this (click the image):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>> The worst offenders we've discovered in recent times are the edit counters
>> -- web based scripts that send requests to the servers often lasting
>> minutes, with unrestricted parallelism. We were very tempted to block them
>> all. We would have blocked them for much less if we weren't afraid having
>> an angry mob of hundreds of Wikipedians obsessed with edit counts,
>> descending on our door.
>
> Amazing: You were very tempted to block them because they were causing
> too much traffic, but it still didn't occur to you to simply add the
> count to the Special:Contributions page, thereby peacefully rendering
> them obsolete?

You're confusing development with system administration. Development takes
time. Sometimes a situation develops, and a solution is required at the
system administration level, while development is in progress. At the
time, the user_editcount field had been recently introduced, but it
clearly wasn't sufficient to provide the information users were looking
for, as Simetrical notes. Other options for development were apparent, but
the expected development time was too long.

It's always going to be a tough decision, when it comes to limiting,
suspending or denying services. But it would be irresponsible to just let
site-wide performance descend to glacial speeds while development is in
progress.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Howard Cheng

subject: [Commons-l] a new free image!

body:
You know, it's been in my mind for some time that sports reporters could be a good source of photos. Since they get access to sports personalities, we could make personal appeals to them to take pictures (with their own cameras) when they do interviews for Wikipedia purposes. Maybe we can organize an email WikiProject for Wikipedians and Commoners to solicit reporters at their local/regional newspapers?

Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote :

> I would also like to thank Jkelly's excellent customer service in
> dealing with this gentleman fairly and politely when he had second
> thoughts initially about contributing (working with him to delete the
> unintended contribution until Greg could take the time to fully and
> fairly explain to him what he was being asked to agree to) and Cary
> Bass (Bastique) for some behind-the-scenes OTRS work to make sure
> everyone was on the same page.
>
> Good work, everyone!
>
> Kelly
>
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Cheng
http://www.howcheng.com/
Wise-cracking quote goes here.


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:TARCH

body:
On 2/23/07, stvrtg <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Want to know from people if this will work or not.
>
> -Stevertigo

You might want to have a look at the archive of the intelligent design
article - I think this idea has been well implemented there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
I don't spend much time at DRV, what's the policy for DRVs that have
no consensus? This one is looking like a fairly even split. Common
sense would seem (to me) to be that consensus to endorse is required
for speedy deletions, otherwise they get undeleted, and consensus to
undelete is required for AfDs, otherwise they stay deleted. In other
words, this article should probably end up being undeleted. Is that
how it works, or is there precedent for something else?


from_name: Trebor Rowntree

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
In a way, the "easiest" close for this would be overturn and list at AfD.
The issue of content and process have been conflated into a debate which is
not on a single issue. An AfD would allow the focus to be purely on the
issues of the subject (notability, BLP, author request, whatever) and not on
the "correctness" of the deleting admin. But we'll see what the closer
(probably [[User:GRBerry]]) decides.
Trebor


from_name: James Forrester

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom appointments

body:
On 23/02/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee.
> After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I
> decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic's seat (Dominic is retiring),
> and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche.

It goes without saying, but I will anyway: a public welcome to our new
members, and our regrets to see Dominic's stepping down.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | james at jdforrester.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered
	by JPGordon

body:
On 22/02/07, Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok fine, who is the arbcom and I'll email to demand the case.

You could look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]], or, if that's
too much bother, you could just e-mail me directly.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | james at jdforrester.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
> Smart move, if not a little too late.  Too bad it won't go further
> backwards to others who have been just as abusive.  Somehow, wheel
> warring is more important?

Absolutely. Wheel warring is the greatest offence an admin can commit.
Other forms of abuse are bad, but can generally be resolved after a
bit of discussion. A wheel war gets in the way of that discussion and
makes it very difficult to resolve the initial situation- that is why
Jimbo had to step in.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] How did Fuzzy decide to sue Josef Silny?

body:
Gregory Kohs wrote:

>Before it got erased from the record, I thought I asked some relevant
>questions about the Fuzzy Zoeller case:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzzy_Zoeller&diff=110240475&oldid=110237714
>
>What does this list think?  Could Section 230 of the CDA extend
>immunity to Answers.com in this case, or are they vulnerable?  If they
>get sued, they'll probably rue the day they made their deal with
>Wikipedia.
>
I doubt it.  The reason they are going after the law firm is because
they traced the IP number there.  They have noted that the Safe Harbor
provisions apply to Wikipedia, so I would expect that that should also
be the case with the mirrors.  It looks like a pretty dumb-ass case for
Zoeller to pursue, but if he's stupid enough to carry through the
judge's decision will make interesting reading.

Ec


body:
> Ok fine, who is the arbcom and I'll email to demand the case.

You can't demand a case. The ArbCom decide which cases they hear and
which they don't. You can request one, and if the ArbCom think there
is anything to discuss, they will open the case.


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
This is one of the days where I'm *very* glad Jimbo's around. Too much
of this crap slides by...

There's no justification for the re-deletion or the DRV shenanigans.
After it was deleted, the proper actions were obvious: undo the
deletion; if someone other than Yanksox wanted to delete it, take it
to AFD. All redeletions, listings at DRV, and closing the AFD were
simply wrong, not in the "I disagree" way, but in the 1+1=3, driving
on the wrong side of the street, "Yes or no?" "Fish." way. That admins
who should know better were endorsing the action on DRV says something
is very, very wrong.

-- Jake Nelson
[[en:User:Jake Nelson]]

On 2/23/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily
> > desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of
> > yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
>
> Yes Virginia, there is an 800 pound Gorilla and sometimes we need him.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

references:
<BAY103-F169B87AEEC05F6DDEAD5C5E88A0@phx.gbl>
	<45D99F9C.9070609@gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140702190505o6aff4cfay40d2d6bb1d3d69cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<45D9A1B3.7040402@gmail.com>
	<17sjt21ho25q4tcnvohjb4umln7f4v8nue@4ax.com>
	<45DAC91D.8000400@shaw.ca>
	<3eqlt254hk17e9b2vv8f5losm5jq98qiaa@4ax.com>
	<45DCE1EC.9090406@shaw.ca>

body:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:00 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>I suspected you'd say something like this and I still just don't
>understand how it's supposed to be _less_ subjective or arbitrary. We'd
>go from one arbitrary but consistent and objective criterion to a whole
>collection of different arbitrary criteria selected from a random
>assortment of magazines, websites, etc.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_opera_composers for an
example of this model in action.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Four things to say (No)

body:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:27:10 -0800 (PST), Flame Viper
<flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stop begging for me to be moderated for The Truth

I think you mean The Truth (TM).

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ROUGE

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 2/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely. Wheel warring is the greatest offence an admin can commit.

I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the
goatse in sitenotice for example.

> Other forms of abuse are bad, but can generally be resolved after a
> bit of discussion. A wheel war gets in the way of that discussion and
> makes it very difficult to resolve the initial situation- that is why
> Jimbo had to step in.
>

After the wheel war was over? In case you forget by the time I acted
there had already been an attempt to shut down all discussion.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
I have no intention of jumping into the Brandt problem, but just because
you dislike Jeff's opinions is no reason for making a totally unfounded
accusation of trolling.

Ec

NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:

>And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA
>failed.
>
>On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Ryan wrote:
>>
>>  > You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request,
>>
>>
>>>where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently
>>>it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request
>>>nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
>>>
>>>
>>No.  I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for
>>Brandt.  Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned
>>immediately, but that won't happen.
>>
>>Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
>>


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

references:
<a4a70770702230717o63dfca8eo36de5b49eb171947@mail.gmail.com>
	<45DF082A.1010600@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<a4a70770702230749y3421e998s79279389dc9469ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<45DF0E62.904@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA
failed.

On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
wrote:
>
> Mark Ryan wrote:
>
>   > You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request,
> > where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently
> > it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request
> > nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
>
> No.  I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for
> Brandt.  Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned
> immediately, but that won't happen.
>
> Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
>
> -Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-02-24

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20046).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Administrator Yanksox has deleted Daniel Brandt's article with the
following summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually
worth. Are you people even human?"

Yanksox then proceeded to delete his or her user page with the summary
"My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"

Cool Cat has started a Deletion Review on this, at the following URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_23#Daniel_Brandt

Consensus there appears to be to endorse the deletion.

I thought it would be important to mention this on the mailing list,
considering the number of people who have participated in debates over
the existence of the Daniel Brandt article over the years.

~Mark Ryan


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/24/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
> articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
>
> Cbrown1023
>

Close I would suggest replaceing them with this (click the image):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] A new way of image uploading. Sort of

body:
On 2/24/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One of the common concerns that image owners bring up is the potential for
> commercial re-use of their images.  Would it be proper to make it explicit
> that uploading the image (and placing it under a free license) means that
> they would have to allow that?  In a perfect world, they would read and
> understand the text of the license; of course, it's not a perfect world.
> Regardless that they *should* know, it would probably be good if we did our
> best to avoid the situation where uploaders get mad at us when they find out
> the "hard way" that their images can be used commercially by others.

People with those concerns should be pointed to this essay written by
Eloquence and now hosted at the Definition of Free Cultural Works
site:

http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

Or give them the extremely quick summary: the viral nature of copyleft
licences (the "share-alike" provisions) prevents commercial
exploitation while allowing commercial innovation.

Whether it's appropriate stuff to mention on the upload form, I don't know.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
> I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the
> goatse in sitenotice for example.

That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.

> > Other forms of abuse are bad, but can generally be resolved after a
> > bit of discussion. A wheel war gets in the way of that discussion and
> > makes it very difficult to resolve the initial situation- that is why
> > Jimbo had to step in.
> >
>
> After the wheel war was over? In case you forget by the time I acted
> there had already been an attempt to shut down all discussion.

Yes, shutting down all discussion is exactly the problem I said
happens with wheel wars. Everyone believes they are doing the right
thing and it's the other admin that is wheel warring, but arguments
along those lines pretty much never hold water. If an admin tries to
shut down discussion, the correct action is to elevate the issue to
the next level in the dispute resolution process (AN/I, RFC, ArbCom),
not to unilaterally counter the unilateral action.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body: FWIW deletion has been speedily endorsed.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Considering that history, how could it possibly be considered
>>appropriate to close this article's deletion review after only 2.5
>>hours, when most interested users have not even had notice of the
>>DRV's existence?
>>
>>
>Agreed. This may or may not be a good time to re-evaluate Brandt's
>notability, but trying to push through an obviously out of process
>deletion through aggressive posturing is not my idea of how Wikipedia
>should work. The proposition that this will reduce the time wasted on
>this issue is self-defeating; all this is going to accomplish is set
>into a motion another shitstorm around this issue, and hurt the
>Wikipedia community.
>
What some people don't understand is that slowing down can get you there
faster.  Rushing things is like throwing silver iodide into the outhouse
to start a shitstorm, thereby ensuring that things will take longer.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Trebor Rowntree wrote:
>
>
>>Frankly, two and a half hours for a DRV is bordering on the ridiculous. Very
>>few people have the opportunity to see it and form opinions in this time;
>>hell, a lot of them won't even be awake. This was a vastly out of process
>>speedy deletion, considering the article had survived so many AfDs. But we
>>could perhaps consider it to be in the spirit of IAR.
>>
>>
>I doubt undeleting it again under the same spirit of IAR would go over well.
>
>Myself, I'm about to head out of the house and be without internet
>connectivity for at least eight hours. It's not even a question of
>sleeping. The speediness with which this is all being done is silly
>considering how long the article and its attendant "controversy" has
>been around.
>
Really.  One needs to add an internet connectivity feature to hypodermic
needles.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Mark Ryan wrote:

>On 24/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I really fail to see the problem. Policy accepts that any admin may
>>undo a speedy. Process has not been followed. The deletion is not
>>universaly supported therefor it should be trivial for one of our 11
>>hundread admins to undelete.
>>
>>
>Bumm13 undeleted it because of this, I think, and had it re-deleted
>within a minute because the undeletion was "out of process". I think
>because it's on deletion review, it doesn't matter what the manner of
>its deletion was; if it's on DRV, it seems it has to stay deleted
>until the end of the debate. Well, that's the way it's being pushed
>anyway.
>
Looks like a situation that needs an injection of common sense.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 24/02/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> Every time I think I can't get more disgusted, something else happens.
> It's bad enough we can get the right mix of editors to bully the rest of
> us around, now we're going to cave to Brandt?
>
> Incredibly, insanely lame.

You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request,
where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently
it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request
nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.

~Mark Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 2/24/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.

seconds is too slow. Anonnotice then or somewhere a bit more obscure.

> Yes, shutting down all discussion is exactly the problem I said
> happens with wheel wars.

nyet that was done before the wheel war.

>Everyone believes they are doing the right
> thing and it's the other admin that is wheel warring, but arguments
> along those lines pretty much never hold water. If an admin tries to
> shut down discussion, the correct action is to elevate the issue to
> the next level in the dispute resolution process (AN/I, RFC, ArbCom),
> not to unilaterally counter the unilateral action.
>
What would AN/I have done? RFC? no I really can't see that helping.
ArbCom? I doubt they would be interested in a case purely around
article deletetion.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
I agree that the speedy endorsement was wrong. Anyway, for formality, AFD'd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_%2812th_nomination%29

On 24/02/07, gjzilla at gmail.com <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't want to sound like Peter Parkers, but this closing of the DRV was,
> frankly, wrong. It was closed about 2.5 hours after the review was opened.
> Yes, yes I know about WP:SNOW, but WP:PROCESS matters too. There were a
> few
> valid keep votes near the end.
>
> Anyway, FYI, here's the cached link:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4AhDCB0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt+Daniel+Brandt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
>
>
> On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW deletion has been speedily endorsed.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Four things to say

body:
Okay, moderation now, please.

On 24/02/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> For one, ther was no reason to ban Parker Peters. I liked him; he was
> intelligent.
>
> For two, Yanksox, gone? I believe I may be somewhat responsible for
> pointing out that he was responsible for the overreaction to my
> irresponsibility (you should be able to understand that).
>
> For three, as for the suggestion about a program to mentor new users, I
> started just that several months ago.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User
>
> For Four, I have the diffs and a supporting argument. Bring that bitch to
> ArbCom, tell them to stick it in their pipe and smoke it.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
If only both sides could see that it's just no longer worth chasing the
matter either way - in the end we'll still get the same result - one side
fuming and the other side working to ensure the decision remains, and we'll
end up with even more of a split ex-community.

On 24/02/07, Trebor Rowntree <trebor.rowntree at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/23/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Myself, I'm about to head out of the house and be without internet
> > connectivity for at least eight hours. It's not even a question of
> > sleeping. The speediness with which this is all being done is silly
> > considering how long the article and its attendant "controversy" has
> > been around.
>
>
> Indeed. Wikis are not suited for fast debate, and we are not in any rush,
> yet these decisions are still being made in a matter of hours. What is
> this
> accomplishing other than confusion and irritation?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
This is ridiculous.

Daniel Brandt article gets deleted at 9.53pm my time. Gets noticed and
put on Deletion Review at 10.54pm. The link to the Deletion Review
gets posted in #wikipedia-en-admins at 11.12pm.

Then, considering the controversial nature of this article, I draw
attention to it on this mailing list at 12.17am.

At 1.21am, the first mention of this deletion review goes on AN/I.

At 1.26am, after 2 and a half hours of debate, it gets closed as a
"snowball" endorse, and attempts to "unclose" it are met with reverts.

Below is the history of the numerous AfD debates for this article,
which I feel is relevant here (when considering whether to apply a
snowball clause):

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the prior
discussions before re-nominating:
Speedy keep, AFD 07 November 2005.
Keep, AFD 13 November 2005.
Snowball keep, AFD 05 April 2006.
Speedy keep, AFD 12 April 2006.
Speedy Keep, AFD 13 April 2006.
Speedy keep, AFD 5 June 2006.
Speedy keep, AFD 10 June 2006.
Snowball keep, AFD 19 June 2006.
Speedy keep, AFD 13 July 2006.
Speedy keep, AFD 12 August 2006.
Keep, AFD 28 December 2006.

Considering that history, how could it possibly be considered
appropriate to close this article's deletion review after only 2.5
hours, when most interested users have not even had notice of the
DRV's existence?

~Mark Ryan


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Commons-l] a new free image!

body:
GREAT job Danny and Greg :-)

Hmmm... could you ask for a cc licence rather than GFDL in the future ?
I had a good teacher, who explained to me that an image under GFDL...
was errr...

Well, let's say dual licensing is perhaps best :-)

ant

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis
> Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story,
> and the story has a moral. I want to tell it.
>
> The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the
> NBA professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands
> of uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When
> Johnson died, he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture,
> so he decided to donate one that he took. He called the office to ask
> how to do it.
>
> After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential
> treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to
> share with us, from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell
> to speak with him about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected
> an image and released it under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will
> be more to come.
>
> As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone
> decided to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at
> that. As for now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse
> images until we find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image
> encouraged someone to "fix the problem" and provide a free one. There
> will likely be many more to come.
>
> So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the
> value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with
> him and explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank
> all the contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because
> of that, a magnificent image is now free.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at *AOL.com*
> <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 24/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> I really fail to see the problem. Policy accepts that any admin may
> undo a speedy. Process has not been followed. The deletion is not
> universaly supported therefor it should be trivial for one of our 11
> hundread admins to undelete.

Bumm13 undeleted it because of this, I think, and had it re-deleted
within a minute because the undeletion was "out of process". I think
because it's on deletion review, it doesn't matter what the manner of
its deletion was; if it's on DRV, it seems it has to stay deleted
until the end of the debate. Well, that's the way it's being pushed
anyway.

~Mark Ryan


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom appointments

body:
On 2/23/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Congratulations, Mackensen and EssJay, and thanks to Dominic.

I echo this statement and add that these two are excellent appointments.

--Oskar


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom appointments

body:
I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee.
After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I
decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic's seat (Dominic is retiring),
and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters

body:
On 2/23/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list.
> Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership,
> it has been revoked.
>
> Regards,
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])

Thank you!!!

--Oskar


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
on 2/23/07 9:14 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:

> All we get from gnashing our teeth is broken dentures. :-(

I relate. :-? (My emoticon for smiling sans dentures)

Marc


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Jeff Raymond says...

>Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned
>immediately, but that won't happen.

NSLE says...

> And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA
> failed.

Jimbo does...

Exactly what Jeff Raymond suggested.

Gee wow, Jimbo agrees with the "troll". Perhaps we should now moderate
Jimbo for "troll support" or something. Expressing an opinion you do
not agree with is not trolling.

On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your RFA
> failed.
>
> On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Ryan wrote:
> >
> >   > You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request,
> > > where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently
> > > it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request
> > > nowadays, under WP:BLP or something.
> >
> > No.  I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for
> > Brandt.  Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned
> > immediately, but that won't happen.
> >
> > Wikipedia's completely lost its way.
> >
> > -Jeff
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Mohamed Magdy

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
<snip>
Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to get
rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't stop
someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image with
low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with the
free image, provided that you place a message on free use images saying
'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the other
end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add their
images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]] article!)...


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


body:
on 2/23/07 9:14 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:

> Acknowledging leadership is difficult in a community brought together
> because it is such a collection of individuals.  The individuality is
> needed to keep the project innovative.  Acknowledging leadership means
> giving up a little power for the greater good, but that requires trust.
> The world around us gives us cause to not trust any kind of leadership.

Ray,

Talk is no substitute for action, but in a rational society it must exist as
a prelude to it.

I came to Wikipedia for the information it provided ? I stayed because of
the people behind it. When you first open it, it?s like taking a book off
the shelf; if you look behind the pages you can see a whole life force in
action. This life force consists of people ? and these people have pride,
intelligence and monumental egos (for the most part, healthy ones ? but egos
nonetheless). In post after post I read of these egos colliding. This, in
itself, is certainly not the problem if, ultimately, some good comes from
it. The problem becomes one, when these collisions result in nothing but
name-calling and impasse.

But, as I have said before, there must be a common acknowledgement (yes,
consensus) that such problems exist.

I believe there is an acknowledgment of leadership within WP. And, from what
I?ve gathered from various posts, that leadership does have the majority of
the Community?s trust. We need that someone with this trust (and, yes,
clout) to say, ?OK gang, there?s trouble in paradise and we need to deal
with it before it starts to resemble that other place.?

I am not suggesting anyone dropped a ball here ? simply that it is time to
acknowledge it and to pick it up.

Yes, it is very hard to build a case in support of the need for leadership,
living in the world that we do. As a people we have come up with some real
losers! These leaders [insert your own example] have proven more destructive
to their people than any enemy could ever have been. But every once in a
while a [insert your own example] comes along and proves the great exception
to that rule.

Marc Riddell


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:59:42PM +0000, geni wrote:
> OK there is still some fiddling to be done but You can see the first
> example of something I hope will become widespread here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
>
> be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly
> a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
>
> As I said it isn't quite finished and suggestions are welcome.

I'm really happy that someone started working on improving the image
upload.

The logo is nice and easy to understand. But after clicking it, I arrive
at a page that has 4 lines of text in 4 different sizes. The average
user will read the biggest text first, and that's a text ending in
"click here". The next thing I get after "clicking here" is a "Not logged
in" message - without a returnto link taking me back to the image
upload.

Ok, back to the page I got after clicking the image. The line with the
smalles font has a notice telling me to register an account.


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Hoi,
When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair use,
you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when there is
no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to get
> rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't stop
> someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
> added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image with
> low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with the
> free image, provided that you place a message on free use images saying
> 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the other
> end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add their
> images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]] article!)...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Gunter

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Using Semantic Wiki (update of pages using a specific
	template)

body:
Hello,

we are evaluating the use of the Semantic Wiki Extension.

While it has great abilities, there is one big disadvantage. We are
using templates with the relevant attribute definition.

If you update the template, e.g. add a new attribute, all the articles
based on that template need to be opened and saved again.

I was wondering if it would be possible to

a) Either write an extension, where I input the name of the template and
this is done automatically (which function would I need to call with php
to update an article?)

b) Have it done automaticalley. I noticed, when you change the category
of the template, after some processing  time all pages using that
template are updated and in the new category.

tx,
Gunter


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters

body:
George Herbert wrote:

>On 2/23/07, John Lee wrote:
>
>
>>The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list.
>>Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership,
>>it has been revoked.
>>
>>
>This is sort of sad; gadflys and contrary opinions help strengthen
>projects, and on his good days, he was on the "probably making me
>think enough that it's positive overall" side of things.
>
>But I see why, from the bad days.
>
>We need a better class of gadfly.
>
This seems like a fair evaluation of the situation.  An effective gadfly
gets under a person's or a group's skin, and gives one the urge to
swat.  This cost the life of the world's most celebrated gadfly.  A
quality gadfly still needs to be an irritant, but also needs the agility
to avoid the swatting hand.

Courage cannot become foolhardiness, and agility cannot become
evasiveness.  That's a rare combination of qualities.  Parker's agility
is lacking, but it is unduly harsh to say that he was making no positive
contributions.  I am not so insecure in my views that I can tolerate no
criticism.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Four things to say (No)

body:
William Pietri wrote:

>Flame Viper wrote:
>
>
>>You're not helping, at all. Stop begging for me to be moderated for The Truth, wake up, and smell the corrodite. Unless you can't handle the truth?
>>
>>
>Hi. This post is inflammatory and content-free. If your goal is to be
>heard on points you think are important to Wikipedia's success, posts
>like this are harming your cause. To the extent people agree with you,
>you are harming their causes, too.
>
>If your goal is to create drama, then I would be much obliged if you did
>it on one of the many parts of the internet where drama is welcome, or
>even the goal.
>
Thank you for that assessment.  I read the "Four things", and they had
both good ideas and the provocations quoted above.  What people like
Flame Viper seem to ignore is that a single viperine injection can
obscure a long list of positive suggestions.  Wounded animals focus
their attention on the source of pain.
If these people are really arguing for a more liberalized governance of
Wikipedia they should not work so hard at giving ammunition to their
opponents.

Ec


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Commons-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/24/07, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> GREAT job Danny and Greg :-)
>
> Hmmm... could you ask for a cc licence rather than GFDL in the future ?
> I had a good teacher, who explained to me that an image under GFDL...
> was errr...
>

I think they purposely released in under the GFDL. Those kind of
photographers would generally be very hesitant to really release an
image free, because they earn money with it. And with the GFDL it is
purposely rather impractical to use the image in a printed commercial
manner. See the GFDL as a free nc license.

Bryan


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first place.  This
was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with malicious
intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source.  This evidence has
been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.

To prove good faith, I remained silent for 1 year.  The matter did not
resolve itself, and I was rebanned.  So I began openly reciting the story.

In the next few months I will begin an unblock request on my main account,
and let's all hopefully put this entire unfortunate & embarrassing episode
for everyone involved behind us once and forever.

Nobs01


from_name: Glen S

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 2/24/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And you should be moderated for trolling. Seriously. Not surprised your
> RFA
> failed.
>
> What an incredibly ironic statement for you to make Chacor.

Though I am certainly far from an inclusionist myself I agree with BDJ here.
I believe Brandt's notability is certainly in question, I'm growing sick of
renegade sysops making crazy decisions - then attempting to steamroller them
through citing IAR, SNOW and the like. The deletion should be overturned,
and let's do this properly (via AfD), please


from_name: teun spaans

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Gerard,

may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free content?
Fair use is not free.

And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few of the
old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use one.

regards,
teun spaans

On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair use,
> you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when there
> is
> no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to get
> > rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't stop
> > someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
> > added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image with
> > low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with the
> > free image, provided that you place a message on free use images saying
> > 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the other
> > end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add their
> > images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]] article!)...
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Teun.
May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to deal with
all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair use"
material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material is used
with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason to cripple
such material. This was suggested in the previous post.

You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND the other
day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I wrote. It is
good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a Exemption
Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to discuss how
this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Gerard,
>
> may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free content?
> Fair use is not free.
>
> And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few of
> the
> old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use one.
>
> regards,
> teun spaans
>
>
>
> On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair
> use,
> > you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when there
> > is
> > no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to get
> > > rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't
> stop
> > > someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
> > > added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image with
> > > low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with
> the
> > > free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
> saying
> > > 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the other
> > > end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add
> their
> > > images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]] article!)...
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/24/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
> > articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
> >
> > Cbrown1023
> >
>
>
> Close I would suggest replaceing them with this (click the image):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
> --
> geni
>

That's an good idea. I was also going to suggest, where
people/projects want to use *some* fair use images, might it be an
idea to somehow identify fair use images as such *within the article*
- by, say, putting a coloured border around it and having a text that
says "This image is not free - help us find one", and linking to a
template or other page as is done in this case?

Dunno..

Cormac


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


body:
on 2/23/07 7:02 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:

> I've raised the idea of mentorship before, but the results have been no
> response, and not outright rejection.  I don't know whether on a
> practical basis it would work at all.  Assigning the right mentor to the
> right newbie is not an easy task, because there can be so many different
> incompatibilities.  Some people do just fine quietly figuring things out
> for themselves, others, like you, are really helped by a little
> technical guidance, still others may have absolutely no problem with the
> technology but need a more personal intervention of someone who can help
> to calm them down or run interference with single-minded admins.
>
> I don't know if the idea would work, but I need to maintain an open mind.

Ray,

On reflection, I really wasn't thinking about the early "getting settled"
issues so much as the new person who gets into some serious editing
conflicts.

You are right, matching up new persons with compatible veterans would be a
challenge. But I would like to hope that, within the Community, there are
enough fair-minded, patient ones with the interactive skills to do the job.

Something to think about?

Marc


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/24/07, Jens Frank <jf at mormo.org> wrote:

> From a usability POV, a user who is not logged in should be asked to
> register an account,

I don't think there is any way to do that without a software change.

> then go to a page asking him whether the photo he's
> going to upload was shot by himself or found on the net, and then he
> should be sent to the appropriate upload page.

The closest I could get to that is controlling what happens once you
click the upload link when you are not logged in. However that would
require admin powers which I don't have at this point so it will have
to wait.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Delirium wrote:

>Rich Holton wrote:
>
>
>>However, it must have been pretty predictable that a speedy delete would
>>cause controversy, and accusations of abuse of admin powers. If we do
>>have such a practice of removing marginally notable characters at their
>>request, shouldn't we codify that somehow, so as to avoid (or at least
>>reduce) the controversy?
>>
>>
>The problem is that we have nowhere near consensus for such a policy.  A
>large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose
>it.  Different specific cases have gone different ways, mostly depending
>on who showed up to the debate that day.
>
That absence of consensus alone contraindicates any kind of speedy
action.  When who shows up in a "speedy" situation that hour (not just
that day) makes a difference there is just too much room for abuse.
What happens with Brandt or any other person that wants an article about
himself removed is only one little corner of the problem.  A truly
collaborative environment has no place for debates that depend on some
kind of win/lose paradigm.  Speedy deletes should never be a weapon for
winning a POV war.  Unless something is _immediately_ dangerous it can
afford the time for due process.  Immediate gratification is not important.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/24/07, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's an good idea. I was also going to suggest, where
> people/projects want to use *some* fair use images, might it be an
> idea to somehow identify fair use images as such *within the article*
> - by, say, putting a coloured border around it and having a text that
> says "This image is not free - help us find one", and linking to a
> template or other page as is done in this case?
>
> Dunno..
>
> Cormac
>

This has been suggested but has never really got anywhere. You
couldn't quite patch it into the fromowner system because step 4 in
the upload instructions wouldn't work. You could set up a parallel
system. The Devs might not be too happy though.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Well, there is such a reason, namely that it would motivate people to make a
better free image. And the argument that the new image is not as good as the
fair use one wont count then either. So there is a reason

Whether you find that a good reason is a second.

Lodewijk

2007/2/24, GerardM <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com>:
>
> Teun.
> May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to deal
> with
> all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair use"
> material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material is
> used
> with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason to
> cripple
> such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
>
> You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND the
> other
> day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I wrote. It is
> good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a
> Exemption
> Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to discuss how
> this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans op gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Gerard,
> >
> > may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
> content?
> > Fair use is not free.
> >
> > And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few of
> > the
> > old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use
> one.
> >
> > regards,
> > teun spaans
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair
> > use,
> > > you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when
> there
> > > is
> > > no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > > On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k op gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to
> get
> > > > rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't
> > stop
> > > > someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
> > > > added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image
> with
> > > > low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with
> > the
> > > > free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
> > saying
> > > > 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the
> other
> > > > end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add
> > their
> > > > images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
> article!)...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Well, there is such a reason, namely that it would motivate people to make a
better free image. And the argument that the new image is not as good as the
fair use one wont count then either. So there is a reason

Whether you find that a good reason is a second.

Lodewijk

2007/2/24, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> Teun.
> May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to deal
> with
> all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair use"
> material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material is
> used
> with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason to
> cripple
> such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
>
> You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND the
> other
> day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I wrote. It is
> good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a
> Exemption
> Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to discuss how
> this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Gerard,
> >
> > may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
> content?
> > Fair use is not free.
> >
> > And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few of
> > the
> > old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use
> one.
> >
> > regards,
> > teun spaans
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair
> > use,
> > > you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when
> there
> > > is
> > > no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > > On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to
> get
> > > > rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't
> > stop
> > > > someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
> > > > added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image
> with
> > > > low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with
> > the
> > > > free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
> > saying
> > > > 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the
> other
> > > > end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add
> > their
> > > > images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
> article!)...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
on 2/23/07 9:32 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:

> Wikipedia is very young, evolving very fast, and virtual (not people
> meeting and working in real life together), all of which make it
> harder.
>
> But things do work out.

George,

And I honestly believe they will eventually work out here.

And the medium (which is also relatively young) is a challenge to productive
group interaction. But an exciting one!

Marc

--
To fly - you must first suspend your belief in gravity.


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Hoi,
You may suggest it as a reason. It is however not mentioned at all in the
draft policy. Personally I am of the opinion that it is insulting to the
photographer to have the quality of his/her image willfully reduced for
dogmatic reasons.

Retaining an image with the argument that the quality of a Free image is
less than the quality of a Fair use image is not permitted under the EDP.
When there is a replacement, there is no longer a rationale for this image
to be retained. Consequently the Fair use image should be replaced. In the
mean time we should provide the best service possible.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 2/24/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, there is such a reason, namely that it would motivate people to make
> a
> better free image. And the argument that the new image is not as good as
> the
> fair use one wont count then either. So there is a reason
>
> Whether you find that a good reason is a second.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/24, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Teun.
> > May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to deal
> > with
> > all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair use"
> > material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material is
> > used
> > with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason to
> > cripple
> > such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
> >
> > You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND the
> > other
> > day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I wrote. It
> is
> > good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a
> > Exemption
> > Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to discuss
> how
> > this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
> > content?
> > > Fair use is not free.
> > >
> > > And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few
> of
> > > the
> > > old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use
> > one.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > teun spaans
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair
> > > use,
> > > > you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to
> > get
> > > > > rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't
> > > stop
> > > > > someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't
> be
> > > > > added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image
> > with
> > > > > low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it
> with
> > > the
> > > > > free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
> > > saying
> > > > > 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the
> > other
> > > > > end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add
> > > their
> > > > > images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
> > article!)...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the
>>goatse in sitenotice for example.
>>
>>
>That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
>
It would be exceptional for an admin to post such a picture, unless he
is trying to document his own hara-kiri.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 2/23/2007 7:21:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
>
>Is your  point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
>articles to  be without an image making someone donate a free  one?
>
>Cbrown1023
>
>More or less. My point is that we don't *need* fair use images, and in this
>particular instance, a fair use image would have prevented us from obtaining a
> free one.
>
So let's try a controlled experiment.  Remove all non-free and fair use
images of current NBA players, and measure the rate at which free
pictures are added.  If the experiment fails there should be no
technical difficulty in restoring the fair use images.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:

>George Herbert wrote:
>
>
>>FYI: Jimbo is not happy:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war
>>
>>Yanksox desysopped by Jimbo fiat, Geni and Freakofnurture temporarily
>>desysopped pending referral to Arbcom (case not filed publically as of
>>yet, I assume email/IRC is happening or will soon...)
>>
>>
>Smart move, if not a little too late.  Too bad it won't go further
>backwards to others who have been just as abusive.  Somehow, wheel
>warring is more important?
>
I can't complain about this, but when cleaning the stables it still has
to be done one stall at a time.

In the little ironies department, wasn't Yanksox one of the admins that
Parker Peters was gunning for? ;-)

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/24/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/07, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's an good idea. I was also going to suggest, where
> > people/projects want to use *some* fair use images, might it be an
> > idea to somehow identify fair use images as such *within the article*
> > - by, say, putting a coloured border around it and having a text that
> > says "This image is not free - help us find one", and linking to a
> > template or other page as is done in this case?
> >
> > Dunno..
> >
> > Cormac
> >
>
> This has been suggested but has never really got anywhere. You
> couldn't quite patch it into the fromowner system because step 4 in
> the upload instructions wouldn't work. You could set up a parallel
> system. The Devs might not be too happy though.
>

Right - I was actually thinking of something that would be activated
(for want of a better word) when including the image within an
article. Couldn't it be a simple template that would include the image
as well as the colours/texts around the image that indicate "fair use
- not free"? True, this would mean it is up to the person including
the image to see whether the image is free or fair use - but it could
easily become standard practice.

Cormac


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:TARCH

body:
stvrtg wrote:

>On 2/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The main problem with any form of archiving is that it's the busiest
>
>
>>pages that need it, and the busiest pages tend to be controversial. So
>>picking how to archive them is not so much a technical matter as
>>politics. Date-based archiving is generally tolerable to most.
>>
>>
>This doesnt replace date based Ordered archives.  Im hoping that redundancy
>and plenty of cross linking between Topical archives (TA) and OA will keep
>people from disagreeing too much with the subjectivity that will go into
>forming readable TA.
>
Refactoring was encouraged when Wikipedia was much smaller.  I remember
trying it on a few pages, and it was a time consuming job.  No wonder it
fell into disfavour.  Is there a Google-like way in which every click to
or from a particular section of a talk page, and the recency of its
edits could be used as a measure of its importance.  The topical archive
could then be ordered automatically according to those measures, with
the most important ones at the top.  When an talk page exceeds a
predetermined number of kilobytes the program would put the less
important excess on archive page(s).

As long as this idea depends heavily on manpower input I can't see it
going very far.

Ec


from_name: William Pietri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
I hesitate to bring up something that's apparently pretty contentious,
but let me ask one small question.

Rob Smith wrote:
> The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first place.  This
> was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with malicious
> intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source.  This evidence has
> been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.
>

Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?

Thanks,

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How to not display title of one page,
 like Main Page

body:
Liang Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>    I don't want to display the title of the page on main page, like
> wikipedia's main page, how can I do that?

You can edit [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]] and add a rule like:

   BODY.page-Main_Page H1.firstHeading {
     display: none;
   }

This should hide the main page title on the (default) Monobook skin.
For other skins, you'll need to add similar rules to their corresponding
style sheets.

Of course, if your main page is named something other than "Main Page",
you'll have to change the "page-Main_Page" part to match the correct
title.  You can look in the page source to see what the actual class
name is.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters

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

David Gerard stated for the record:
> Parker's LiveJournal should be just the thing, then:
> http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/

Hey, I've got a lieutenant-at-arms! Why doesn't anyone ever tell me
these things?

Lieutenant Steel359! Get out there and ... um ... keep doing what you're
doing!

By the way, does anyone have any idea what Peter means when he says "he
[I, the Epopt] chose to block notification of this article's creation
from Wikipedia's mailing list"?  Am I getting credit for something a
list admin did?  (If so, I owe that admin a beer.)

- --
 Sean Barrett     | radiant cool, crazy nightmare,
 sean at epoptic.com | zen, new jersey, nowhere!
                  | how now, brown bureaucrats?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF4MNG/SVOiq2uhHMRApzyAJ9+tbr0xWzTKpK09P+hdQvgtfJqZACg6qaI
RzQaYnm32HrBbiqIHVQ4anw=
=Gznw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: T P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
WP:BEANS

Adam

On 2/24/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >
> >>> I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the
> >>> goatse in sitenotice for example.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That would be reverted in seconds. Very little harm done.
> >>
> > It would be exceptional for an admin to post such a picture, unless he
> > is trying to document his own hara-kiri.
>
> For which there are far better and more destructive options. (My
> personal favorite choice is history merging vandalism. Which, to
> date, nobody has done, and which, to date, I remain surprised that
> nobody has done.)
>
> -Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt

body:
On 2/24/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> I hesitate to bring up something that's apparently pretty contentious,
> but let me ask one small question.
>
> Rob Smith wrote:
> > The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first
> place.  This
> > was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with
> malicious
> > intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source.  This evidence has
> > been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.
> >
>
> Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William

Yes. The article was created primarily so nested criticism in another
article could be removed, using a source citation to allege Mr. Brandt was
associated with, or somehow aligned with an entirely unreputable
organization.  In fact, that claim remains in the PIR article, although I
have  thoroughly documented the source of the claim is ( a ) self
publishing, ( b ) violates WP:ATT Questionable and self published source.

 a ) the slanders in PIR wiki entry are cited to a self published source,
Chip Berlet, *Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-
Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected*,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates, December 16, 1991.

( b ) the genesis of *Right Woos Left* was Chip Berlet, *Right-wing
Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left*, The
*Guardian<http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html>
*(NY), September 11, 1991 <http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/hulet.html>, p.
3.

( c ) the *Guardian* is the subject of Chap. 9, p.
125<http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58647856>of
*Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism
in America<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis%2C_Communists%2C_Klansmen%2C_and_Others_on_the_Fringe>
*, John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books (Buffalo, New York), 1992,
ISBN 0-87975-680-2.

Brandt's bio was created *prior *to BLP, and a different standard was used
to determine notability.  BLP was created largely out of the
Siegnethaler/Berlet/Brandt/Marsden controversies.  Mr. Brandt was never
afforded the opportunity for fair input into his article, not knowing the
reason *why* it was created.  All he knew was he work up one morning and had
been smeared.


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Status of Current MediaWiki Tools and Other Issues
 which affect the Foundation

body:
This is posted here for the foundation to consider rather than on
Wikitech as these issues affect the credibility of the Foundation.
Posts on these issues to Wikitech get ignored and/or are not responded
to at all.  I am writing this in response to requests to GFDL enable the
wikigadugi.org sites.  I am unable to complete the process at present
because of severe problems with MediaWiki and the Foundations dumps.   I
have an extensive set of tools for mirroring wikipedia and they work
very well, provided I spend a lot of needless time cleaning up after the
MediaWiki developers.

1.  The current Mediawiki releases have had breakage with importDump.php
since 1.7.  I have been unable to make any progress in getting
complete runs of the Foundation XML dumps to post without modification
to MediaWiki and/or writing programs to clean up NULL titles
and other problems with the dumps.  Bottom line is that the mediaWiki
software DOES NOT WORK with standard XML dumps provided by the
foundation AT ALL through its sites, despite the Foundation's clear
messages this is in fact the case.   This harms the reputation and
credibility of the Foundation.    It needs to be addressed and fixed.

2.  mwdumper does not import the dumps.  It processes the files and
NOTHING shows up in the database.  If these tools do not work, the Meta
pages discussing them should say so and the programs should be removed
and/or other alternatives suggested or a disclaimer should be placed
there that states this.  As it stands, the information is misleading and
results in a lot of folks wasting a lot of time trying to make tools
work which clearly do not.  I have found dozens of blog entries and bug
reports on these issues and the developers ignore them.

3.  The Foundation needs to ask Brion Vibber and the developers to
cease  posting dumps which are incompatible with MediaWiki releases and
which the developers KNOW do not work and force compliance of these
processes and mediaWiki compatibility.

In other words, I do not think its too much to ask that the XML dumps
posted by the Foundation work with the released MediaWiki versions.  It
needs to be mandated and complinace required.    At present, you almost
need a degree in advanced computer science to be able to fix this
stuff.  I have spent several weekends debugging Brion's PHP code and
writing programs to correct these issues just so I can run import on the
latest dumps.    It would be much nicer if this stuff just worked.

Posts and emails to Wikitech are typically ignored on a lot of these
issues.  They need to be elevated and corrected.

Jeff


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Fwd: [Foundation-l] Status of Current MediaWiki Tools
 and Other Issues which affect the Foundation]