subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: New magic variables?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Timwi-
>
>>I completely disagree. Whoever said the MediaWiki namespace was "for
>>running the software"?
>
> The software is called MediaWiki. The namespace is called MediaWiki. But
> it is used for purposes that have nothing to do with the software. That is
> confusing (bad usability!) and should be changed.

Firstly, just because the namespace is called MediaWiki doesn't have any
impact on what it can or can't be used for.

Secondly, even *if* it was not originally intended for this purpose
(which is hard to believe, seeing as the {{msg:}} functionality was
available right from the start), that is no argument to not use it.

Thirdly, bad usability is a legitimate concern, but not an obstacle. It
can be rectified by renaming the namespace, but it certainly does *not*
mean you should immediately stop using it at all until that is done.

> There is really no significant added overhead in making it impossible to
> create new MediaWiki: pages and having a separate Template: namespace.

Yes, there is. Developer time. There actually is no added overhead of
simply keeping it the way it is. It's the same thing either way.

> In my opinion that is much more user-friendly and keeps interface
> translation/adaption and content management separate.

I agree about the user-friendliness if we rename the namespace to
"Template" (or "Templates" or "Includables" or whatever).

> On the other hand, arbitraty inclusion would open some pretty neat
> possibilities. It's very close to Ted Nelson's Xanadu visions. You could
> start thinking about specifiers like {{include:Religion#2-}}, which would
> include all sections except the intro from the religion article. Using
> such mechanisms you could then build different views of an article (long,
> detailed pages or smaller, more specific pages).

I'm not sure I like that; if that was done, then numerous articles would
contain copies of the same text. This, in turn, would mean that I can't
browse Wikipedia's collection of articles on a particular topic without
being presented with repetitions of the same text over and over again.
Conversely, if I just skipped an article for this reason, then I can't
be certain that I haven't skipped anything that isn't repeated elsewhere.

Timwi


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Plautus Satire

subject: [WikiEN-l] point 1: frenetic tone of opposition to Plautus satire

body:
I offer, as evidence that this crusade (my characterization of this campaign to get me banned permanently) is unfair and unwarranted, all of the repeated needling and prodding and poking and jamming of this subject in front of everyone who may or may not take an interest in it. If my "abuse" was as obvious as many claim, this type of redundant, hyperactive rhetoric would be unnecessary, and since it bears no resemblance and only tangental relation to the ongoing mediation processes (of myself and others) it is moot.

Evidence for this is all over wikipedia where I have made my contributions. I do not quote and cite the evidence here because it is copious. Also unquoted and uncited are about half the comments from this email list on this issue regarding banning me (and others, apparently). A cursory glance at the archives demonstrates the frantic nature and high decibel level of this organized, announced campaign to see me banned no matter what my future actions may hold.

Codie Vickers


from_name: Peter Jaros

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes

body:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:04 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Peter Jaros wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 2004, at 7:13 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> I do get a little hot over these deletion issues. :-)
>>
>> I understand.  I'm very much against deletion of recipes (and most
>> valid information), I just think we need to define the right place
>> for them.
>>
>>> The expression that I found most patronizing  was "it might merit
>>> its own section".  I suspect that the subtleties between descriptive
>>> and prescriptive or between imperatiuve and indicative might not be
>>> meningful to the casual reader who wants to find out about a food
>>> and/or how to make it.  The technical detailsof chocolate cakes are
>>> not inherently controversial.  If different ways exist for making
>>> such a cake, the results of which is better can be entirely
>>> subjective.
>>
>> My point was not about controversy or POV, just about
>> appropriateness.  A drink recipe generally describes the drink, while
>> a chocolate cake recipe does not describe chocolate cake.  If a
>> particular cake recipe is famous and generally significant, I would
>> say it warrants its own section or article (regarding its
>> significance, history, etc.).  There the recipe *would* describe the
>> topic (being the topic itself).
>
> I get the impression now that you blindly walked into an old war, only
> to realise that bullets were flying in every direction.  The Battle of
> Recipes was only one episode. :-)

Indeed.  Perhaps I have a new perspective.

> The war is between two competing visions of Wikipedia.  One side, the
> "deletionists", believes in deleting material which they consider to
> be diminishing the reputation and authoritative quality of Wikipedia.
> The other side, the "inclusionists", believes that the purposes of
> Wikipedia are better served by having articles in an ever expanding
> sphere of knowledge defined in the broadest terms, even if it is in
> subjects that others may find trivial.  I am clearly in the latter
> camp.

I suppose I am in my own camp, or perhaps a deletionist sympathizer in
the inclusionist camp.  To stretch the word "sympathizer" a bit.

I am in favor "an ever expanding sphere of knowledge defined in the
broadest terms".  What I am wary of is becoming the Unedited Guide at
h2g2.  This is the body of entries not in the Edited Guide,
encompassing works-in-progress, community pages, and random junk.
Random junk is fine in a system with an Edited distinction, but here
everything is in the main product.

I support the hosting of recipes, but I support the encyclopedic "look
and feel" first and foremost.  If that means removing some recipes,
they ought to be moved to Wikibooks and not blindly deleted, but I
think many recipes have a home in the encyclopedic format.  It make
take a bit of moving, but it shouldn't require *re*moving.

> If a duplicate os a recipe remains o Wikipedia, no harm is done, and
> perhaps when the cookbook in Wikibooks is recognized as a serious
> project people won't mind replacing the chocolate cake recipe in
> Wikipedia with a statement like, "For a chocolate cake recipe see
> [[Wikibooks:Chocolate cake]]", but until then attempts to remove them
> will only cause arguments.

Sounds good to me.  Then this is one of the next steps.

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Print edition

body:
On 02/26/04 18:37, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I've been approached by a major publisher about the possibility of
> working with us to producing and publish a print edition of Wikipedia.
> One goal would be to have something ready for market by October 1st,
> in time for the holiday gift season.  I'm unsure of how early before
> that *we* would need to be ready.
> The question was asked of me, and I ask of the community: can we have
> something like that ready in time?  Or should we shoot for next year?

This sounds 100% more interesting than getting annoyed at the latest
problem user :-D

Call it 'Wikipedia 0.8.' What's a criterion? And how can J. Random User
(e.g. me) help?

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> Anyway, since there are lots of sharp minds ready to pounce on any bugs,
> why don't we start taking an organized look at the database structure?
> Who wants to work on database structure with me -- or, at least, is
> willing to let me sit in and watch?!

Back in August/September last year, I started working on a completely
new Wiki engine for Wikipedia. I never got anywhere, but the database
schema I devised back then is still available (scroll down a bit):

     http://lionking.org/~timwi/t/wikipedia/wikipedia-iv.html

I'm no longer wanting to re-implement the entire software, especially
since so many new features have arrived ({{msg}}, TOCs) and are about to
arrive (categories), but I believe the database schema should
nevertheless be revised.

> I agree with Brion, and I'm sorry I replied to Timwi before reading
> Brion's "I forbid" post.

Although I agree with Brion that someone should probably do some
profiling, I see no harm in discussing improvements that may not turn
out to be *major* improvements. I certainly do NOT agree that anything
that is clearly on-topic and constructive, should be "forbidden" by anybody.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Code at the head branch seems to be broken

body:
Nick Pisarro wrote:

> But even fixing that there are execution errors.

Such as?


from_name: Caroline Ford

subject: [WikiEN-l] Vigilantism or due process (was: Plautus)

body:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

|Oh, please no.
 Agree completely.

> The dangers are more salient than the benefits. We can afford to lose
> any number
> of users to exasperation with vandals and trolls. What we can not
> afford is to
> create (even with the best of intentions) a insular culture of
> obeisance and
> initiatory progression through the ranks. Sysophood is already too
> often withheld
> from unpopular users(/users holding unpopular views). Openness is the
> jewel of
> wikipedia, and it should be protected at nearly any cost.

Also agree. People do vote for political reasons. I can see the start of
political camps forming in Wikipedia which worries me. There is also a
fair amount of obedience to sysops which is wrong as well. I guess these
are the dynamics of groups.

>
> I understand the will to prevent useful users from leaving in
> frustration, but
> we must be more concerned about the whole of wikipedia, than any one,
> or even
> several users. "The law created before me, shall outlast me." As much
> as it pains
> us all, it is _most_ important to lay down rules which can be
> justified without
> reference to current cases, and personages.
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

It's far too open to abuse. There is an element of popularity contest
about it. No-one seems to object to banning unpopular users.

The truth is, I don't trust some sysops not to ban people for political
reasons, or to ban people they've previously been fighting with.
Therefore a definite no.

Caroline / Secretlondon


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mapping complement to Wikipedia?

body:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 6:05 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:

> Has anyone looked into or heard anything about a map-based complement
> to the
> Wikipedia?

Could you please explain what you mean by 'map'?

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


from_name: Gareth Owen

references:
<E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC280217F4F9@sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
	<r5ibrnm53tk.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>
	<1077806236.32294.18.camel@myhome.home>
	<403E59D1.4060609@secretlondon.me.uk>

body:
Caroline Ford <caroline at secretlondon.me.uk> writes:

> It's far too open to abuse. There is an element of popularity contest about
> it. No-one seems to object to banning unpopular users.

The question is *why* are those people unpopular.

You have opinions which are undoubtedly unpopular with many wikipedians, but
I've not seen calls for your banning because you express those within the
confines of norms of Wikipedia behaviour.

No-one called for RK to be banned, until he started hurling abuse at people,
even though he was in in frequent disagreement with people from the other side
of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

The present set of people are being banned *not* because they have
unpopular opinions, but because they behave in an antisocial manner,
and refuse to cooperate with others.
--
Gareth Owen
I'm very enamoured of the idea of meta-content markup ...
there are a lot of cool possibilities. But we should be reluctant to tamper
much with a system that totally works in an amazing way. -- Jimmy Wales


from_name: Rick

subject:
[WikiEN-l] My case against Curps? Curps admitted harassing me,
	stated it boldly on the requests for mediation page.

body:
Is this person purposely spamming the mailing list?  Ed, can we put him on moderation?  I've tried getting my filter to stop passing his mailings on to me, but for some reason, it isn't working.

RickK

Plautus Satire <plautus at shaw.ca> wrote:
delirium at rufus.d2g.com posted the following to this list:

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Rick wrote:

> So where is the Wikipedia jail? Right now, the accuseds are allowed
> to continue what they were doing, willy-nilly.

To summarize the matters currently under consideration:
* Plautus Satire is currently temp-banned for a week pending a decision
in his case, as Jimbo did so, and there was significant consensus that
this should be done.
***END QUOTE***

My case? The only case I'm involved in that has reached mediation is my
case against Curps. Curps has been harassing me and I have largely been
trying to work around it, but it became to cumbersome so I sought
assistance.

Curps is the defendant, I am the claimant.

Why is the process being ignored here?

Nobody has contacted me regarding anyone else's requests for mediation.

Why is the process being ignored here?

Curps announced his intention in the request I initiated involving his abuse.

The first version was titled "3 Curps v. Plautus satire"

The text follows:

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Curps v. Plautus satire
I would like to request some outside intervention for a situation that has
arisen. The user Curps seems intent on reversioning every edit I make,
without explanation in the summaries or on talk pages. I've made several
changes to entries recently, and all of them seem to have been reverted by
Curps, so either he is watching the same pages I am, or watching my
contributions, and reversioning them without explanation. I would like for
somebody to epxlain to Curps that he needs to discuss reversions,
especially if he is going around unmaking everything one user (me) does. -
Plautus satire 01:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Curps reversions of Plautus satire as shown by page histories:[2][3][4][5]
[6][7]
***END QUOTE***

I am reluctant to disclose the details of my attempts to get mediation with
respect to Curps' abuse, because the other participants have demanded they
remain secret.

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/cf41fd63/attachment.htm


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Where the Power Lies

body:
For a brief period, unless what  are doing is truely egregious. I think we
are moving toward a policy of using temporary restrictions in the case of
the most damaging and disruptive behavior as was applied in the case of
Plautus Satire who is temporarily banned. We could also use temporary
restrictions on number of edits once that is coded.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:05:12 -0800 (PST)
To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Where the Power Lies

So where is the Wikipedia jail?  Right now, the accuseds are allowed to
continue what they were doing, willy-nilly.

RickK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/0ba7dbe1/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Print edition

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> But what makes more sense for us, and for a publisher I think, is for
>
>us to use this to "prove" our quality by going to print, under the
>Wikipedia name.  And for that we probably want to do as much of the
>work as we can.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

We need to check how this affects our not-for-profit status.
I guess that the plan would be for the wikimedia foundation to get some
sort of profit share? In the UK this could count as primary purpose
trading under UK Charity Law (depending on what the objects of the
charity were) - and would be legal. In some cases a trading company
would have to be set up.

I know _nothing_ about US not-for-profit law - I just thought I'd flag
it as a potential issue.

Caroline


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Where the Power Lies

body:
These folks need access in order to defend themselves as a general rule,
only the most disruptive can be temporarily banned without making the
arbitration very unfair indeed.

Fred

> From: Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:13:28 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Where the Power Lies
>
> it's a lot easier for him to add material in his defense to the
> pages where we ask him to add such material if he's not banned.


from_name: Nick Pisarro

body:
Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org> writes:
>> But even fixing that there are execution errors.
>
>Such as?

 A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an
illegal search query (see Searching Lightbox(tm)), or it may indicate a
bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
SELECT pc_data FROM parsercache WHERE pc_pageid = 0 AND pc_prefhash =
'1!1!1!0!1!1!0!1!0!1!' AND pc_expire > NOW()
from within function "". MySQL returned error "1146: Table
'wikidb.parsercache' doesn't exist".

There is no table, "parsercache" in my database, and there is no code yet
in phase3 to make it, however, as "$wgEnableParserCache = false;", in
DefaultSettings, the code should not be trying to access it.

Nick Pisarro


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why so upset, Jumbo?

body:
Mr. Wales, I do not understand why you are so upset. I asked you if you intended to use wikipedia as a revenue stream, and you indicate that you are intending to do just that. Where is the offense, please? That I suggest you want the information in wikipedia to be popular even where it is inaccurate? I'm sorry, I just am trying to make sense of your position here.

Why do you find it insulting that I suggested I was barred from posting to a list that I was told was unmoderated when my posts came back "waiting for moderation"? I'm sorry if I don't understand the process by which these moderations occur, I tried every fix that was explained to me, and in each case I was prevented from freely posting until today.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I've been approached by a major publisher about the possibility of
> working with us to producing and publish a print edition of Wikipedia.

> One goal would be to have something ready for market by October 1st,
> in time for the holiday gift season.  I'm unsure of how early before
> that *we* would need to be ready.

I suppose what we most need for this is a system whereby we can mark
articles (rather: specific article revisions) as "ready for print".

For now, I think we can do something similar (or perhaps even identical)
to "Featured Articles" (formerly "Brilliant Prose"), except of course
making it clear that this is for a print encyclopedia. Ideally, we
should keep a running total of the number of articles and the total
number of bytes in them as we build up this list.

So, someone wanna start [[Wikipedia:Articles selected for print]] as
well as [[Wikipedia:Print candidate articles]] (or [[Wikipedia:Vote for
inclusion in print]] or whatever)?

Timwi


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration progress report #6

body:
So, we have a policy on requests (see below), we're currently looking at
issues of recusal and suchlike. We're currently arbitrating the cases of Wik
and Irismeister, and discussing whether to accept the cases of Heph and
Anthony DiP for arbitration. Plus the normal informal discussion of stuff that
matters.

That's all.

----

The arbitration committee accepts requests for arbitration from anyone;
however, in most cases, the arbitration committee will only hear cases
referred to them by the Mediation Committee or directly from Jimmy Wales.
The arbitration committee will decide whether to accept cases based on its
Jurisdiction, as described previously.

The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it. The
arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed AND four arbitrators
have voted not to hear it. Individual arbitrators will provide a rationale for
their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.

(Rationale: we believe most cases will be self-evident anyway, we don't
believe coming to a consensus over our reasons is a good use of our time)

-Martin


from_name: mapellegrini at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
First, let me say that the idea of a printed version of Wikipedia is *GREAT*

I'd like to make a modest logistical proposal for the print edition. I think
that each article, in addition to having an associated talk page, should have
an associated "Wikipedia 1.0" page - a page containing a print-encyclopedia
worthy summary. This is important, because a printed encyclopedia should
contain no web links, or internal links, but we don't want to remove them from our articles either. Some longer articles need to be shortened for the print version as well. I think this is the most workable way to do it.

--Mark Pellegrini
User: Raul654


subject: [WikiEN-l] disclaimer

body:
While I do not feel it is relevant, since I have been challenged, I intend to post numerous examples and cite them to wikipedia pages where I was treated with hostility and responded with civility, where I was greeted with changes and corrections and responded with gratitude.

I do not think that is an appropriate use of this forum, as the page histories are all clearly still there, but since it seems some of my critics are unwilling to do the required reading to be informed on this issue I feel only if there are strong objections will I refrain from fully making my case here.

Codie Vickers


subject:
[WikiEN-l] My case against Curps? Curps admitted harassing
	me, stated it boldly on the requests for mediation page.

body:
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration

You'll have to glue that URL together.

Fred

> From: Plautus Satire <plautus at shaw.ca>
> Reply-To: plautus at shaw.ca, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:25:09 +0000
> To: wikien-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] My case against Curps? Curps admitted harassing me, stated
> it boldly on the requests for mediation page.
>
>
> My case? The only case I'm involved in that has reached mediation is my
> case against Curps. Curps has been harassing me and I have largely been
> trying to work around it, but it became to cumbersome so I sought
> assistance.


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Coding for Number of Edits a User Can Make

references:
<BC632598.1927%fredbaud@ctelco.net> <93bAulYxpVB@erik_moeller>
	<20040226181757.GS21056@joey.bomis.com>

body:
 "Jimmy Wales" wrote

> I think almost everyone can support these ideas, because they are
> "softer" options than what we have now.

Yes, right way to go I think.  Would create some kind of 'funnel'
procedurally, and create the correct impression that 'unacceptable' means
just that.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> Is the 142 in question really the same as the banned individual.  His
> original posting was dated Feb. 21, 2003, and you made the first
> subsequent edit 4 months later.  My guess is that this was put there
> before the banned user became active.  Apart from that, it's a good
> example for this discussion.

The identification was Axel Boldt's in the VfD discussion, not mine - I
guess Axel was around through all that history, though I wasn't.

Charles


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV facts

body:
> 2. People have continued to say, over the years, that if we dignify
> fringe theories with any better treatment than utter condemnation,
> they'll infect all the mainstream articles. They bring up [[flat earth]]
> or [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] (PEZ) as examples. But we already
> have a policy for these topics which works well and is stable.
>
> Ideas held by a partisan minority are labelled "held by a minority", and
> that minority is identified. Believers in a flat earth, by the way, are
> so few that none has ever graced our hallowed halls. Lots of Arabs,
> though, believe (or frequently hear their government-sponsored media
> say) that the PEZ is authentic. The way we treat PEZ is to say that

Lots of Americans and Europeians though, belive (or frequently hear
their government-sponsored media say) that lots of Arabs belive that
the PEZ is authentic.

> * Western historians dismiss PEZ as a fabrication, although several
> Islamic nations officially support it.

* Islamic historians dismiss the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a
fabrication, although several Western governments officially support
that view.

It's all in the eyes of the beholder

BL


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Working on performance improvements costs developer time, and that is a
> precious resource.

This is assuming that the developers whose time you have to your
disposition are all equally interested in various things. I, for
example, am interested in database optimisation, but not in profiling.
This is why I discuss database optimisation, but not profiling.

> Sure, it's possible to put a lot of effort into something that yields
> very little improvement, but, y'know, why?

Similarly: Why not? - seeing as I'm not going to help with the profiling
either way, I might as well help with the database optimisation.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] response to "content free email" accusation

body:
I expressed in that email a legitimate concern I had on a very personal matter unrelated to my present difficulties here.

I would like to respond to one critic of this email:

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:11:35 -0800
From: Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] About Plautus Satire
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <403E6107.7030600 at rufus.d2g.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>p.s.  Just to make sure I'm clear on what I find insulting about the
>"revenue streams" question, it isn't the notion that I might someday
>make some revenue from wikipedia.  It's my dream, in fact, that this
>could someday be my fulltime job, an honorable job which I would be
>proud to have earned.  It's the notion that I'd debase my ideals for
>the encyclopedia in the process that I find offensive.
>
>
Oddly enough, you've even been one of the more stringent voices against
putting Wikipedia in a position where that might even unintentionally,
as might happen if it were to become financially reliant on large grants
from a particular government or organization (which would then be able
to say "well, you can do what you want, but we don't feel we can
continue to support you if you do [...]").

So really a content-free email, but I think most (all?) of us here
aren't too worried about that possibility.

-Mark
***END QUOTE*

I would just like to say that in my defense, the accusations that have been laid against me recently are in strong contradiction with my recent behaviour.

I have gone out of my way to be courteous, considerate and cooperative in contributing content. hmm Please overlook that alliteration, it was completely coincidental but I see upon brief reflection that it may be interpreted as a glib remark. I am now considering backspacing over this text, but recent experience has taught me that a better course of action would be to explain in minute detail precisely why it should be inoffensive.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you see my point here. I am not trying to be combative, on the contrary, I have tried to end hostilities, and not seek any retaliation for what I perceive as bad behaviours against me.

Codie Vickers

(P.S.: On an irrelevant side note, Mr. Wales is now being taken at face value for reasonable comments he made about me. Should my comments about myself ever after be taken as jokes or dodges because of bad behaviour (like calling people insane assholes in private emails only tangentally related to wikipedia)?


subject: [WikiEN-l] explanation: arbitration escalation

body:
I would also like to point out another thing about which I tried to remind Mr. Wales. I brought up the fact that I initiated the only known (to me) process of mediation that has accorded with wikipedia policy. Since then that request has been hijacked by those who wish to ban me using the paint-by-numbers-ban procedure(1).

Codie Vickers

(1) Paint-by-numbers-ban procedure is a characterization by Plautus satire of the current wikipedia guidelines involving resolution of dispute. Paint-by-numbers-ban procedure is not a term recognized by wikipedia proper.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Mapping complement to Wikipedia?

references:
<c1lu49$nbj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<D3C3E072-68C6-11D8-930E-000A27B3913C@shaysnet.com>
	<c1m9v8$eeq$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 9:27 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:

> Hi Peter -
> I'm thinking of maps as any sort of data that is described with
> correlation
> to some geographic background.
> Could be a totally geo-based map, like terrain information, or
> thematic,
> political, etc. maps.
> Does that help?

Yes, I see.  It would be nice to be able to dynamically generate some
of that out of wiki-edited xml (or other data format) content.

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


subject:
[WikiEN-l] re: Why so upset, Jumbo? (I apologize, Mr. Wales,
 if you take offense to that typo, I did not intend offense.)

body:
I see my fat fingers have struck again, and I made an innocent tpyo. (<- joke typo)

I assure you I did not mean to imply that Mr. Wales is "jumbo". While if he were "jumbo" I am quite certain it would not reflect badly on him as that would be a lifestyle choice that people have to respect. I am quite large myself and the last thing I would do is intentionally try to falsely characterize somebody as "jumbo" while I am trying to resolve a dispute with them.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drowning Man v. Two Swimming Men

body:
If I recall correctly, a certain user named Ed Poor had a campaign spring up to ban him when he was discovering wikipedia. I suspect this is because he is able to easily (if tediously) and effectively and most importantly convincingly construct very compelling arguments while simultaneously being able to deconstruct opposing arguments.

I postulate that because he is able to do this so easily, he was perceived as a threat. A threat to existing knowlege (are we all ignorant or is Ed Poor?), a threat to authority (who do we believe, the newspaper or Ed Poor?), a threat to wikipedia (should wikipedia be a forum for Ed Poor to post facts?).

Did Ed Poor ever make a mistake in his life? I don't know Ed Poor, but I can categorically state "yes". And I will make similar statements about us all if necessary, and then make my case for my belief if warranted.

Codie Vickers

(P.S.: Ed Poor's alleged sense of humor may also have contributed to the prior campaign to expunge him.)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: About Platus Satire

body:
> Here's a hint for trolls of the future -- when writing to me to beg
> for a rehearing, try to avoid insulting me to my face twice in one
> day.
>
> --Jimbo

Can you, or anyone else here, with a straight face say that; if they
were banned, and felt that there was absolutely no reason for the ban,
would be able to stay completely calm as a saint?

BL


subject: [WikiEN-l] hmm...look at the size of the archive

body:
This is just a technical issue, in the abstract, but before anyone else points it out, I'd like to say that the apparent jump in size of the archive (increased traffic in this forum) occured with little or no input from me. All of this noise was /about/ me, not by me or instigated by me or amplified by me. I did everything I could to prevent all this noise.

Where is the real problem?

I know it's tempting to isolate one user and deem them "the problem". If that user is "the problem" then why are there so many of us out here who are now just "that user"?

Codie Vickers


subject:
[WikiEN-l] apologies for long lines,
 please don't assume this means I am a "long line" troll.

body:
I just realized in the archive everyone else linebreaks.
I will start doing this in the future, I got lazy, I
am sorry.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Changing attribution for an edit

body:
Hi,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_attribution_for_an_edit

This list seems to be growing and growing. Is anyone going to process
this at some point? If there aren't enough people who can do this in
their spare time, how about giving access to more people?

Thanks,
Timwi


subject:
[WikiEN-l] after further review,
 explanation in this thread is unwarranted and
 would only add more noise

body:
Due to already-large (nearly twice as large as any previous) archive:

Unless I am compelled to do so and am provided limited immunity while doing
so I do no longer intend to defend my claims here that my recent behaviour
conflicts with the characterizations of that behaviour by others. I feel a
determined look at my record will show I have chosen to and striven always
toward waging peace and engaging in fruitful constructive behaviour in this
forum and on the wikipedia project proper.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
Delirium wrote:

> This is an important point I'd been meaning to bring up: if at all
> possible, it'd be nice if people would avoid doing things like
> non-obvious piped links, where knowledge of the fact that a particular
> word is linked is necessary for the sentence to make sense, as these
> translate very badly to print, and usually would have to be reworded.

Oh whee! Makes me feel that I've done a useful contribution by removing
those links and (in some cases) rewording the sentence. :-)

I call these things "surprise links" because a user clicking on X but
being taken to Y will be surprised at first. Another kind of link is one
whose link text is "this one" or "click here"; I haven't quite found a
derogatory enough name for those ;-)

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #6

body:
Martin Harper wrote:

> The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it.

How large is the AC currently?


from_name: sannse

body:
Timwi asked:

>
> How large is the AC currently?
>

Currently 10 members

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

-- sannse


from_name: Lee Pilich

body:
At 22:50 26/02/2004 +0000, you wrote:

>Martin Harper wrote:
>
>>The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it.
>
>How large is the AC currently?

There were 11, but one ([[User:Uninvited Company]]) left today (see
[[Talk:Arbitration Committee]]). Of the remaining ten, one (The Cunctator)
appears to be virtually inactive, both as editor and arbitrator.

Lee (Camembert)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
On 02/26/04 21:27, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I have here a very old concise encyclopedia.  It's printed with 3
> columns of text.
> World War II takes up 2 full pages of fairly fine print.  Francis
> Scott Key takes up about 1/3 of 1 column, i.e. about 1/9th of a page.
> The Wikipedia entry looks similar to the Francis Scott Key entry.  Our
> World War II entry looks similar, too.

Consider, however, articles like [[John Kerry]] or [[Howard Dean]]
(or similar issues of current history). They have incredible amounts
of detail - of high quality - because they're updated almost live.
But they wouldn't be so relevant for a concise print encyclopedia.

Suggested step: pick your editors to manage the 'print' branch and
let them have their way. As in, the power to say "No."

- d.


body:
Camembert wrote:

>
> There were 11, but one ([[User:Uninvited Company]]) left today (see
> [[Talk:Arbitration Committee]]). Of the remaining ten, one (The Cunctator)
> appears to be virtually inactive, both as editor and arbitrator.
>

Is the arbitration committee going to make up their numbers by finding a
replacement for Uninvited Company?

If so, can I suggest (in an annoyingly PC way) that the new member is a
woman.  As far as I know there are no women on the arbitration committee and
I see no harm in balancing this a little.

Regards

sannse


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 9:26 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Delirium wrote:
>
>> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>> I think we need to split out versions somewhere else, because we're
>> looking for concise articles, not full encyclopedia articles.  Simply
>> marking [[World War II]] as "ready for print" doesn't do anything
>> towards getting us a good one-to-two-paragraph summary of World War
>> II.
>
> Agreed.  Simply marking an article as "ready for print" would
> effectively freeze it from further editing.  The living Wikipedia
> article needs to be continually editable so that the version that is
> on the 2nd printed edition can show further improvements.

Looking towards the future, would it be feasible to define a markup for
exporting print versions of articles?  I'm thinking "Hide this
section", "Replace this with that", and similar.  The export system
would also remove external links and possibly do other automate-able
tasks.  Then we can maintain a single edit history, freeze good
versions of articles, and be able to incorporate good changes into the
frozen copy.

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2004, at 13:52, Timwi wrote:
>
>>> Sure, it's possible to put a lot of effort into something that yields
>>> very little improvement, but, y'know, why?
>>
>> Similarly: Why not? - seeing as I'm not going to help with the
>> profiling either way, I might as well help with the database
>> optimisation.
>
> If you can add something to
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Database_Schema_Changes
> please do.

Hm. Looks okay for short-to-middle term. I suppose this suggestion is
based on the thought of having to convert the current database easily.
It doesn't account for several things we really really want to do in the
middle-to-long term, such as combining all language Wikipedias in a
single Wiki, so that people don't have to register hundreds of
usernames, or more flexible handling of user properties and article
properties.

The database schema I propsed last year:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_new_database_schema
takes these into account, but is (obviously) a little dated by now. For
example, it does not know about the MediaWiki namespace and how it now
handles translatable site text.

Timwi


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] update Webalizer stats

body:
I notice the webalizer stats for february does not exist. Now whit the
press notice it would be nice if the work.

--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia DOT be


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes

body:
Peter Jaros wrote:

>> The war is between two competing visions of Wikipedia.  One side, the
>> "deletionists", believes in deleting material which they consider to
>> be diminishing the reputation and authoritative quality of
>> Wikipedia.  The other side, the "inclusionists", believes that the
>> purposes of Wikipedia are better served by having articles in an ever
>> expanding sphere of knowledge defined in the broadest terms, even if
>> it is in subjects that others may find trivial.  I am clearly in the
>> latter camp.
>
>
> I suppose I am in my own camp, or perhaps a deletionist sympathizer in
> the inclusionist camp.  To stretch the word "sympathizer" a bit.
>
> I am in favor "an ever expanding sphere of knowledge defined in the
> broadest terms".  What I am wary of is becoming the Unedited Guide at
> h2g2.  This is the body of entries not in the Edited Guide,
> encompassing works-in-progress, community pages, and random junk.
> Random junk is fine in a system with an Edited distinction, but here
> everything is in the main product.

One of the difficulties is that not everyone has the same definition of
"random junk".  I can understand your apprehensions, but the way that
things are removed is just as important as what is removed.  If things
are removed in the "wrong" way many otherwise valuable contributors can
see this as a disrespect of their efforts.

> I support the hosting of recipes, but I support the encyclopedic "look
> and feel" first and foremost.  If that means removing some recipes,
> they ought to be moved to Wikibooks and not blindly deleted, but I
> think many recipes have a home in the encyclopedic format.  It make
> take a bit of moving, but it shouldn't require *re*moving.
>
>> If a duplicate of a recipe remains o Wikipedia, no harm is done, and
>> perhaps when the cookbook in Wikibooks is recognized as a serious
>> project people won't mind replacing the chocolate cake recipe in
>> Wikipedia with a statement like, "For a chocolate cake recipe see
>> [[Wikibooks:Chocolate cake]]", but until then attempts to remove them
>> will only cause arguments.
>
>
> Sounds good to me.  Then this is one of the next steps.

Yes that would be making the Wikibooks cookbook a respected project
where contributors will see that as a site of choice when they want to
add a recipe.

Ec

>


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: update Webalizer stats

body:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:32:00 +0100, Walter Vermeir wrote:

> I notice the webalizer stats for february does not exist. Now whit the
> press notice it would be nice if the work.

We are missing some old logs that might still be on the old machines.
Webalizer can't process logs out of order, so we'd have to re-run all logs
again. I'm currently running the stats of the last 24 hours, they are
available at http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/ or /one of the
other domains/.

I've modified the Squid source to enable Apache logging, so now we have
full Apache logs including referrer and UA. I also wrote a python script
that splits the logs into separate log files by domain. A c program to
merge the various squid logs and sort them by date is also in place, now
just the old Apache logs need to turn up.

--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Ivo Köthnig

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2004 21:49 schrieb Jimmy Wales:
> Timwi wrote:
> > Although I agree with Brion that someone should probably do some
> > profiling, I see no harm in discussing improvements that may not turn
> > out to be *major* improvements. I certainly do NOT agree that anything
> > that is clearly on-topic and constructive, should be "forbidden" by
> > anybody.
>
> I agree with you, even though I also agreed with Brion.  He was just
> joking, and so was I.
>
> His point was that some discussions of optimizations really are
> premature until we spend some time working out just where bottlenecks
> actually are.

I think the bottleneck is using a database mangement system (here mysql). So
my question is: What is the advantage of using it? As I understand the toppic
dbms is usefull for very structured redundant data.

But we have no stuctured data (just articles which point to  some others) and
no redundance in that sence.

All the nice tables we use could be implemented dircetly and handled much much
faster by a pice of mediawiki-software (if not written in php) by using the
right datastructures.

For me it always looks as we use the database just to use the database. So
again: where is the advantage?

--Ivo K?thnig


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: update Webalizer stats

body:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:13:37 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2004, at 15:11, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
>> We are missing some old logs that might still be on the old machines.
>
> For the record, it really doesn't matter that much. If we're missing
> chunks we're missing chunks; the stats are mainly for fun -- we like to
> see how insanely many people are clicking on our project, and it's more
> important to have continuing data than a spot of old data.

I don't have an overview on where the logs are- i have access to the logs
after 5 Feb, should we just discard anything before that?

I can run the stats on the Feb logs, but we won't be able to
integrate the older ones. If the old logs accessible it
would be nice to include them straight away.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2004 17:17 schrieb Poor, Edmund W:
> I agree with Brion, and I'm sorry I replied to Timwi before reading
> Brion's "I forbid" post.
>
> I've done profiling on Visual Basic 4.0 & 5.0, MS SQL Server 6.5, and
> Java; and let me tell you I'm frequently amazed at the kinds of things
> that cause slow spots. "But that can't be true!" is the usual response
> of my colleagues. Then, you show them the profiling data, and they're
> like, "Well, I'll be durned. Who would have known?"
>
> Anyone know how to profile MySQL code?

You should keep in mind that profiling does not always show you the code which
is slow or should be improved! Often bad code occures on diffrent places.

For example one function, routine, methode or what ever calls another very
often. The profiler will show you the often called function. But the best way
is not to improve the called function. The best way is to optimize the
calling function that way, that it does not need to call the otherone so
often.

Thus you always have to understand your code, even if you profile it. And if
you really undersand your code you seldom need to profile it to know were to
improve it.

--Ivo K?thnig


from_name: Allan Crossman

body:
Plautus writes:

> This is just a technical issue, in the abstract, but before anyone
> else points it out, I'd like to say that the apparent jump in size
> of the archive (increased traffic in this forum) occured with
> little or no input from me.

There is no jump in the size of the archive. When the current month
is compressed in gzip format, it will only come to about 350K or so,
I think. It might actually be slightly smaller than last month's.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>  > My guess is that the slowest part of it is checking whether a page
>  > exists, and if it does, checking its size (if the user has set the
>  > preference that shows stubs in a different colour), because both of
>  > this requires a database query.
>
> What, even with the linkscc cache and the memcached link cache? If you
> say so.

I apologise if my comment was in any way offensive to you, but please do
take note of the fact that (a) I said it was a guess; (b) I did mention
somewhere else that I have no real idea to what extent memcached is
already being used; (c) I have not attacked you, or even addressed you
at all.

With that said, please may I humbly ask what "the linkscc cache"
actually caches? What exactly is stored in each memcache key here?

> Nick Pisarro wrote:
>  > The current parser, which performs dozens of passes, probably degrades
>  > by the square of the file size.
>
> Really? All the regular expressions I've seen should be possible in O(N)
> time. There's no PHP loops which loop through every character, just
> through certain kinds of entities such as every link. I would have
> thought that 14 passes at O(N) still produces O(N). Oh well, I'm not a
> computer scientist, what would I know.

Our current parser is most probably O(n), but with a high constant
factor. The time complexity of an algorithm is rarely useful as a
measurement of its efficiency, especially on data of approximately
constant size.

> See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_compression

Isn't history compression going to be detrimental to CPU usage rather
than beneficial? I am still finding it hard to understand why so many
people here feel that history compression is necessary.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>> So, someone wanna start [[Wikipedia:Articles selected for print]] as
>> well as [[Wikipedia:Print candidate articles]] (or [[Wikipedia:Vote
>> for inclusion in print]] or whatever)?
>
> I think it needs to be more systematic than that.

Please do elaborate! I want to hear your thoughts.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
Imran Ghory wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Timwi wrote:
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>>Timwi wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, someone wanna start [[Wikipedia:Articles selected for print]] as
>>>>well as [[Wikipedia:Print candidate articles]] (or [[Wikipedia:Vote
>>>>for inclusion in print]] or whatever)?
>>>>
>>>I think it needs to be more systematic than that.
>>>
>>Please do elaborate! I want to hear your thoughts.
>>
>Perhaps we should build up a list of topic we should have methodologically
>(going through categories like coutries, sciences, arts,etc.) and then
>import those articles in.
>
That would be a good place to start.  Looking at the top level topics
referenced from the Main Page would be good, and including general
articles about what each of these subjects is would be important.  Those
articles should be level in quality.  The big risk for 1.0 is to bite
off more than we can chew.  If 1.0 is seen as reliable but small, then
people will look forward to the expanded 2.0

We also need to do some serious fact checking.  I just looked at the
page for the year 1237.  We show 11 items.  The book "The Timetables of
History" has only 3 items.  Two of them we didn't have.  We had an error
in the one that we did include.  (The Mongols invaded Russia in 1237,
but not as The Golden Horde since it did not come into existence until
1242)  People will judge the work on the reliability of these obscure
details.  When it is published we should be prepared for a flood of
claims saying that this or that is in error.

We need to consider the way that the work is organized.  Since Wikipedia
is not paper we have not had to deal with most of the exigencies of a
paper encyclopedia.  A seemingly simple issue, such as should all
articles be in alphabetical order, can become a significant one.  We
have well over 2,000 year pages that are worth including, but not
alphabetically.

Ec


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Drowning Man v. Two Swimming Men

body:
Ed dear,

Do you wish that I be the neutral mailing moderator for a few days ?

antie

Plautus Satire a ?crit:
> If I recall correctly, a certain user named Ed Poor had a campaign ...


body:
> As far as I know there are no women on the arbitration committee and
> I see no harm in balancing this a little.
>
> Regards
>
> sannse

Dunno.
Remember the fate of Geoffrin, our only lady server


from_name: Plautus Satire

subject: [WikiEN-l] CC of email sent to Mr. Wales and MyRedDice

body:
I have accepted Tuf-Kat as a moderator and Tuf-Kat informed me that Curps would not participate in moderation over his vigilante actions unless 1. Raul654 was also involved and unless 2. the moderation was kept secret.

I do not accept Curps' conditions, so to follow the guidelines it should go to arbitration, with Curps as the defendant for his admitted vigilante action, and me as the claimant or injured party.

How this got turned into a ban for me is truly mysterious. If you look at the request I initiated, the section contains many statements from me, all of which state quite clearly that I intended to seek mediation with Curps for his vigilante action, and he admitted he did it.

The case seems open and shut to me. All of my statements in that section (my request for mediation) and the compendium I added to remind everyone which quoted the relevant statements I made confirm what I say is true.

Why is the process being ignored here? I am the claimant or injured party? Why am I the one being punished?

Codie Vickers


from_name: Imran Ghory

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Print edition

body:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Timwi wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Timwi wrote:
> >
> >> So, someone wanna start [[Wikipedia:Articles selected for print]] as
> >> well as [[Wikipedia:Print candidate articles]] (or [[Wikipedia:Vote
> >> for inclusion in print]] or whatever)?
> >
> > I think it needs to be more systematic than that.
>
> Please do elaborate! I want to hear your thoughts.

Perhaps we should build up a list of topic we should have methodologically
(going through categories like coutries, sciences, arts,etc.) and then
import those articles in.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


subject: [Wikitech-l] Blocks of IPs

body:
Here's an interesting bug (or feature?) in the block code:

If an IP address is blocked with expiry X, and the corresponding user
is blocked with expiry Y, and the user logs on, his IP will be
anonymously-blocked for 24 hours, but the date X on the original IP
block will also be set to 24 hours in the future, *even if this is a
reduction.*

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


subject: [WikiEN-l] All sensible people v. Plautus satire exhibit 2

body:
Is it just me, or are these people scrambling very hard to find "the goods" on me? I submit if it's this difficult, it's not worth pursuing, time would be better spent finding a compromise.

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Plautus, your constant manipulations of talk pages is not going to work. I will check every edit you make and revert them when I see moving other people's comments around. You've been asked not to do this and it's been pointed out many times that it's a violation of accepted practice. So cut it out. --SheikYerBooty 06:13, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's not a violation of accepted practice to organize a thread so it's coherent instead of one long incoherent ramble. - Plautus satire 06:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe check out the Big Bang talk page.. Plautus hasnt touched it in a while, and another user has completely moved things around, almost even more incoherent. I swear that some paragraphs of mine have been removed.. odd too, since I try to write with grace, clarity, and references. I dont know what Plautus has been up to, but its obvious he is not the only one who edits talk pages. -Ionized 23:38, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
Correction, my paragraphs where not erased, just moved. Im trying to piece togethor the original order again. -Ionized 00:08, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
***END TRANSCRIPT***

This little exchange reminds me of a recent blunder, where I accused silsor of deleting pages to cover a setup of me. I quickly learned this was an erroneous belief and I immediately retracted it and tried to lessen the effect of that nonsense.

Should we all be punished similarly for the same acts? Perhaps these two are good candidates for a ban...I doubt it, but "try it, it might work" seems to be the attitude of some.

Codie Vickers


subject:
[WikiEN-l] All sensible people v. Plautus satire: exhibit 3 (If you
 are perfect, please identify yourself.)

body:
I cite here an example where I committed a minor breach of faith, I mocked another user. If I remember correctly, this was in response to a comment I made, I asked in an edition summary if SheikYerBooty was a human being or a poorly-designed AI. I admit this was glib, but I only meant if he were a cleverly-designed AI I wouldn't suspect he was an AI.

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Please refrain from mocking other users. Review Wikiquette when you can. Thanks! Kingturtle 06:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good advice, Kingturtle. All I can say is it's all meant in fun, I mean no disrespect. - Plautus satire 06:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough :) Kingturtle 06:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
***END QUOTE***

As you can see here, I realized I may have inadvertantly offended somebody, perhaps SheikYerBooty's talk page would have been the place for me to discuss it with him but he didn't comment on my edition summary so I didn't think it had offended him.

Codie Vickers


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Privacy of mediation is optional,
 not a requirement for mediation. I brought the mediation request,
 I want it open.

body:
I initiated this process, why am I being treated like the defendant when I am the claimant?

Why is the process being ignored here?

There is no requirement of secrecy in mediation. I do not wish it and do not intend to abide by secrecy. Curps has refused this condition, thus he refuses mediation, thus my case against him should go to arbitration.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] ding-danged format

body:
In my haste I forgot to linebreak my last few posts,

Are the long lines objectionable to anyone? I haven't seen any complaint, but
I will try to rememeber to add linebreaks so that my posts are more readable
in the archives.

Thanks for your patience, I haven't used an email list in about twenty-five
years, and then I was using a dinosaur and playing on BITNET relay chat.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: CC of email sent to Mr. Wales and MyRedDice

body:
Plautus Satire a ?crit:
> I have accepted Tuf-Kat as a moderator and Tuf-Kat informed me that Curps would not participate
>in moderation over his vigilante actions unless 1. Raul654 was also involved
 >and unless 2. the moderation was kept secret.

Note that the second condition is not Curps' one, but ours as a committee.
Note as well, that it is not moderation, but mediation
So to speak, if you wish to scream, throw insults, libel, legal threats,
  or sexists jokes, it is ok you do so...if you think that can help you
to feel better :-)

We are not here to "moderate" your behavior, but to help you communicate
with Curps and co.

This is why we request that the processus be kept private. It is more
pleasant to those not involved, it allows you to express yourself a bit
hotly if it is unavoidable, it allows us to rephrase your comment, so
that the discussion is not impaired by mildly unnice and unfocused
comment, it allows better forgive and forget afterwards.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:53:07 +0000, Timwi wrote:

> Isn't history compression going to be detrimental to CPU usage rather than
> beneficial? I am still finding it hard to understand why so many people
> here feel that history compression is necessary.

The DB is i/o bound currently. And the history size will grow, grow, grow.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Code at the head branch seems to be broken

body:
Yes, a check for $wgEnableParserCache got lost in some recent
refactoring. It wasn't noticed immediately since some of us have that
table in our test databases. Thanks for the bug report, it might have
taken a few more days to find and fix the problem without it.

// E23

Nick Pisarro nickp-at-aperture.com |wikipedia| wrote:

>
> A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an
>illegal search query (see Searching Lightbox(tm)), or it may indicate a
>bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
>SELECT pc_data FROM parsercache WHERE pc_pageid = 0 AND pc_prefhash =
>'1!1!1!0!1!1!0!1!0!1!' AND pc_expire > NOW()
>from within function "". MySQL returned error "1146: Table
>'wikidb.parsercache' doesn't exist".
>
>There is no table, "parsercache" in my database, and there is no code yet
>in phase3 to make it, however, as "$wgEnableParserCache = false;", in
>DefaultSettings, the code should not be trying to access it.
>
>Nick Pisarro
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] My case against Curps? Curps admitted harassing me,
 stated it boldly on the requests for mediation page.

body:
delirium at rufus.d2g.com posted the following to this list:

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Rick wrote:

> So where is the Wikipedia jail?  Right now, the accuseds are allowed
> to continue what they were doing, willy-nilly.

To summarize the matters currently under consideration:
* Plautus Satire is currently temp-banned for a week pending a decision
in his case, as Jimbo did so, and there was significant consensus that
this should be done.
***END QUOTE***

My case? The only case I'm involved in that has reached mediation is my
case against Curps. Curps has been harassing me and I have largely been
trying to work around it, but it became to cumbersome so I sought
assistance.

Curps is the defendant, I am the claimant.

Why is the process being ignored here?

Nobody has contacted me regarding anyone else's requests for mediation.

Why is the process being ignored here?

Curps announced his intention in the request I initiated involving his abuse.

The first version was titled "3 Curps v. Plautus satire"

The text follows:

***BEGIN QUOTE***
Curps v. Plautus satire
I would like to request some outside intervention for a situation that has
arisen. The user Curps seems intent on reversioning every edit I make,
without explanation in the summaries or on talk pages. I've made several
changes to entries recently, and all of them seem to have been reverted by
Curps, so either he is watching the same pages I am, or watching my
contributions, and reversioning them without explanation. I would like for
somebody to epxlain to Curps that he needs to discuss reversions,
especially if he is going around unmaking everything one user (me) does. -
Plautus satire 01:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Curps reversions of Plautus satire as shown by page histories:[2][3][4][5]
[6][7]
***END QUOTE***

I am reluctant to disclose the details of my attempts to get mediation with
respect to Curps' abuse, because the other participants have demanded they
remain secret.

Codie Vickers


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Sounds like you're nominating yourself, welcome aboard if thats what you
want.

Fred

> From: "sannse" <sannse at delphiforums.com>
> Reply-To: sannse <sannse at delphiforums.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:07:30 -0000
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Feminist agenda (was  Arbitration progress report #6)
>
> At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration
> committee.  Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an
> availability for arbitration.  Jimbo went with our preference and that's
> fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration
> committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if
> possible.  If UC is firm on leaving the committee this seems a good
> opportunity.  Any woman out there want a job?  No pay, lots of hassle, but
> the potential for an occasional warm fuzzy feeling inside.
>
> --sannse


subject:
[WikiEN-l] All sensible people v. Plautus satire: Exhibit 4 (extant
 contributions
 - plus link to original request for mediation re: Crups' admitted abuse)

body:
The following entries in wikipedia are there because I put them there, and
they remain largely intact. The talk page histories of many of these pages
show my collaborative efforts in bringing them up to snuff from my original
small entries.

Aquaponics
Dark compact
Garden cress
Laser broom
Laser star hypothesis
Watercress

This list may not be comprehensive.

Codie Vickers

(P.S.: In case I forgot to post the link to the page history for my original request for mediation in the matter of Curps' admitted abuse, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&oldid=2463891#Curps_v._Plautus_satire )


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: New magic variables?

body:
Nick-

> Marking an article as includable is a thought, but how would you do that?
> You could restrict your inclusion to a special "Templates" name space, but
> that would not be as powerful. I don't think that would be necessary,
> unless there are caching considerations.

I think it would be useful to have

        $wgIncludeFromNamespaces

content from all namespaces in that array could be transccluded using
{{incl:}}.

        $wgCacheFromNamespaces

content from all namespaces in this array would be kept in memcached.

{{repl:}} should work with all namespaces, I see no reason for it not to.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copy of email reply to RickK

body: You accuse me of spamming the email list? You posted to the list and left 43 lines of footer and 119 other lines of extraneous quoted text therein. Look at the mote in thine own eye.


from_name: Nick Pisarro

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: New magic variables?

body:
Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org> writes:
>> Marking an article as includable is a thought, but how would you do
>that?
>> You could restrict your inclusion to a special "Templates" name space,
>but
>> that would not be as powerful. I don't think that would be necessary,
>> unless there are caching considerations.
>
>I think it would be useful to have
>
>        $wgIncludeFromNamespaces
>
>content from all namespaces in that array could be transccluded using
>{{incl:}}.
>
>        $wgCacheFromNamespaces
>
>content from all namespaces in this array would be kept in memcached.
>
>{{repl:}} should work with all namespaces, I see no reason for it not to.

These suggestions would allow the greatest range of flexibility. This
might be the key to resolving most of the objections to this idea.

I'll put together a design document of {incl...} idea on meta.wikipedia
and include some of this discussion.

Nick Pisarro


subject: [WikiEN-l] relevant passages in tornado

body:
The following is a partial, selective audit trail of a recent conflict that was thrust on me by other users. I post links only to my own changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2461869&oldid=2461788
(added association of tornadoes with plasma glow discharge in atmosphere)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2463705&oldid=2461869
(inserted accompanying electromagnetic phenemona associated with tornadoes)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2520718&oldid=2520712
inserted observed radio emissions from tornadoes and associated (implied) electrical discharges)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2520792&oldid=2520767
((until a better explanation than "no." arises) reinserted observed radio emissions and implied plasma discharges (tornado lightning) and cited)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2520888&oldid=2520873
(added similarity of tornado lightning to fluorescent bulbs, cited reference for tornado lighting (also other plasma effects of tornadoes not inserted into entry; point discharge, plasmoids, etcetera))
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2521031&oldid=2520950
added plasmoids and point discharges to known phenomena associated with tornadoes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2521131&oldid=2521093
(rewording of second paragraph, addition of various observed plasma and electromagnetic phenomena associated with tornadoes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2521624&oldid=2521184
(reworded opening of second paragraph, citation supporting observed plasma and electromagnetic phenomena associated with tornadoes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2525630&oldid=2521754
(additional citation, reference to other well-known plasma effects observed in association with tornadoes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2525911&oldid=2525770
(added nocturnal tornadoes and citation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2526048&oldid=2526032
(added reference to rRetired U.S. Army captain Roy S. Hall's family encounter with interior of tornado, cited)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2526240&oldid=2526048
(reworded passage about multiple funnels)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2526256&oldid=2526240
(addition of fowl killed and plucked by tornadoes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2526302&oldid=2526256
(clarification of wind plucking falsification)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2526596&oldid=2526588
(addition of observed cellular structure inside tornadoes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2527043&oldid=2526596
(-have)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tornado&diff=2539152&oldid=2538871
(reinsertion of electromagnetic phenomena as a result of the plasma arcing going on inside tornado, despite Curps insistence that tornadoes are not ass. with these)

I now cite below the first change I made (that started this "war) before I was banned for continuing to advocate on the talk pages for my last edition.

***BEGIN QUOTE***
A '''tornado''' is a violent [[windstorm]] characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. The word "tornado" comes from the [[Spanish language|Spanish]] verb "tornar", meaning "to turn." Tornadoes accompany (and obscure) plasma glow discharges in the atmosphere similar to the discharge in a fluorescent light bulb. Nocturnal tornadoes offer opportunity to observe this glow discharge[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf105/sf105p11.htm].

It is spawned by a [[supercell]] [[thunderstorm]] (or sometimes as a result of a [[hurricane]]) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly.
***END QUOTE***

Now I cite the extant entry.

***BEGIN QUOTE***
A '''tornado''' is a violent [[windstorm]] characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. The word "tornado" comes from the [[Spanish language|Spanish]] verb ''tornar'', meaning "to turn."

It is spawned by a [[supercell]] [[thunderstorm]] (or sometimes as a result of a [[hurricane]]) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. Tornados are sometimes associated with [[lightning]]. Many tornadoes are the tail end of a [[mesocyclone]] and they have a characteristic "hook echo" signature on a radar screen.
***END QUOTE***

Note that this current entry says that tornadoes are spawned by thunder (lightning) storms, and also says they are only "sometimes" "associated with" lightning. Is this accurate?

I think everyone can judge which of these entries is more factual and complete.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] terrible formatting

body:
I apologize for the terrible formatting of my last post, but as you can see I posted the entirety of my changes, anyone can view them and judge for themselves who is being fair and who is being unfair. I tried to add summaries that would give relevant context to the changes I made in every case. And I took a lot of abuse during this process.

Codie Vickers


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Open source journalism was not in wikipedia before
 Plautus satire put it there? Is this a conspiracy theory or what?

body:
These entries were also initiated by Plautus satire, and remain largely
unmolested by troubled people such as Curps.

Open source journalism
Phytochemicals

What's this? An entry for open source journalism did not exist before Plautus
satire entered it? Why has it remained? Plautus satire cites Slashdot and an
obscure periodical only, yet this entry remains unchallenged.

Who will be the first to step up and call open source journalism one of
Plautus satire's "conspiracy theories"?

Codie Vickers


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes

body:
There's nothing wrong with having a recipe for filet mignon in the
[[filet mignon]] article, or for [[scramble eggs]], etc.

"How to" articles can be neutral and informative.

It's only if we can't manage recipes due to edit wars that we would have
to resort to WikiBooks. Suppose Anthere wants to use lots of butter in
all her recipes, but Daniel (mav) prefers vegetable oil. To prevent a
fight, we could link to Anthere's Guide to French Cuisine and Daniel's
Healthfood Cookbook at Wikibooks.

I oppose deleting material from the Wikipedia, just because it fits an
identifiable category. The only "fork" I've seen so far that makes sense
to me is the dictionaries. There's a clear distinction between "defining
a word" and "writing about a subject". But there's nothing wrong with
describing the process of stirring eggs so the yolk breaks and mixes the
white -- unless you're a segregationist! ;-)

Ed Poor


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is this due process or proof ot troll mafia hypothesis?
	Time will tell.

body:
Troll mafia is the idea that trolls may evolve a system of cooperation for more effective trolling. Through division of labor, these metatrolls are able to efficiently engage in harassment of other users while giving the appearance of due process. Troll mafia are thought to exploit the [[delphi technique of consenus building]], whereby they begin with a foregone conclusion, then politely ridicule any other suggestions until somebody proposes the solution they desire.

By the way, there is also no entry for delphi technique of consenus building entry in wikipedia. No delphi technique and no open source journalism. hmm Why is that?

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sincere thanks.

body:
Look at all the busy little beavers watching this "case", who are now merrily improving wikipedia by expanding and glorifying my contributions. I want to thank all concerned for showing such faith in my tedious contributions that you wish to add to them and make them even better. It speaks volumes of the confidence in me which you display so openly.

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] The devil's advocate does not make deals with the devil.

body:
I think I've demonstrated quite clearly to all that I wish to continue and am capable of and more than willing to engage in improving wikipedia for the betterment of us all. Yes, we are all volunteers, and what we are volunteering is our effort to make this a great project for one man who is now paying us for that work by allowing us to stay here.

Codie Vickers


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Feminist agenda (was  Arbitration progress report #6)

body:
sannse wrote:
> At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration
> committee.  Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an
> availability for arbitration.  Jimbo went with our preference and that's
> fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration
> committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if
> possible.

I agree with all of this.  I just went with each volunteer's
preference, and that's the way it ended up.  I didn't even notice,
which probably proves that I'm very enlightened or very backwards.
:-)

But I do think that a sense of balance is important, balance of a
number of different kinds, and that this is worthwhile to do if we
can.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] How did I do it? Volume.

body:
How was I able to do this? I think it was accidental.

I can't explain the process I use to pick what I am going to contribute, I
just do it. I start researching and when I think I have something down I put
it in. Then I move on.

So in all this moving around with people hawking these specific threads they
felt like "protecting" for a while, I managed to encounter the ones already
crying for my blood. The crying has now stopped.

Hopefully we can all act like adults here and admit that everyone can get
angry and use profanity in a private email when they sense unreasonable
treatment.

Hopefully we can all act like adults here and admit sometimes we jump to
unwarranted conclusions.

Hopefully we can all act like adults here and admit our mistakes, and work
together for mutual benefit.

Now that the ground is somewhat broken, is it time to bury hatchets?

Codie Vickers


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> Does this mean that we will NOT get full text search back soon? That
> would be a shame. If it is indeed the case that with another DB
> server we will still have locking problems with searches, we might
> want another architecture, with a dedicated search (plus several
> other functions, such as special pages and SQL queries, perhaps even
> Whatlinkshere) machine, which gets its database updated only once
> per second/minute/hour/whatever rather than in real time.

I'm very interested in this, too.

If for whatever reason it seems mysql's built-in fulltext search is
not going to work for us, we could pretty easily come up with some
kind of alternative, I think.  We could parse the database daily and
generate a very fast btree dbm file, for example.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sorry for rambling

body:
I know these are a lot of submissions in a row, but hopefully nobody feels
I'm wasting all our time. As long as everyone is giving their hare-brained
ideas about fixing The Problem, here's my equally-retarded nonsensical
flailing:

Advocate Position
=================
The advocate position stands in opposition to the tyranny of sysops. The
advocates' job is to prevent runaway abuse of sysop authority.

Likely advocate powers might include:

o Unilateral Unban (to mirror sysop unilateral temporary ban)
o Page Unprotect (to be a subset of sysop page prot/unprot)
o Audit Functions (these aren't anywhere that I can see them except the
clunky page histories. luckily I had the sense to comment my code so my
exhibits in my defense here were easy to pick out. plus I haven't been
rabidly vandalizing as some would suggest.)

Procedure for nomination or designation of advocates:

yadda yadda yadda, it's all pretty useless after this point because another person has to be involved and then all bets are off, good luck.

Codie Vickers.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Curps solution to a nonexistent problem. Is it time for
	mediation yet?

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_plasma_hypothesis

This is Curps' "solution" to the "problem" of his vague notions about tornadoes. Move all references to electricity associated with tornadoes to another entry for NPOV. Huh?

Here is the audit trail for this dangling participle left in wikipedia like a
whithered seedling stomped under a jackboot:

(cur) (last)  . . 02:25, 26 Feb 2004 . . Curps (add intro sentence, wording similar to "laser star hypothesis" intro)
(cur) (last)  . . 01:15, 26 Feb 2004 . . Curps (material moved here from Tornado page, as per discussion with user Lir)

Huh? Add intro sentence, wording similar to laser star hypothesis? What's
this? Oh, right, the laser star hypothesis which was introduced to
eliminate all mention of quasars observed to be lasing to observe NPOV.

Huh?

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Word of advice to troll mafia.

body:
Curps is a lousy footsoldier.

Can I please get unbanned now Mr. Wales?

Codie Vickers


subject: [WikiEN-l] I think you and I are on the same side.

body:
I truly do understand your strong emotions on this issue.

I am under no illusions that you intend to turn wikipedia into a substantial
revenue stream. Nobody is asking you for any of it so far as I can tell. We
just want to be a part of it. In order to do that you have to duplicate
yourself. Who amongst the crowd calling down your thunder and lightning is
most like you?

Codie Vickers


subject:
[WikiEN-l] What is said during mediation sessions is private,
 and won't be disclosed without agreement of all parties.

body:
What is said during mediation sessions is private, and won't be disclosed without agreement of all parties.

If you don't like this, then change it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=edit&section=4

This is straight out of wikipedia policy on mediation. I hate to be blunt,
but who will argue this with me? I think you may now all stand down.

This is patently ridiculous, people.

Codie Vickers


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Talk pages as NNTP articles

body:
Probably nothing new, but I'd like to propose turn talk pages into NNTP
groups resp. articles and at expiring time (or earlier) archive them as
HTML pages.

Talk pages are often to bewildered and it take much to much time
maintaining those pages - just shorten one of the pages and the other
day it is crowded with similar statements again.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=edit&section=4

body:
I initiated the mediation.

Curps refuses to let the proceedings be open, thus, Curps is refusing
mediation.

Curps is abusing me, he admitted it, I have now superfluosly and redundantly
proven it.

Why is the process being ignored?

Codie Vickers


body:
I think we have enough material from him. Please let through any message
from him of contrition, admissions that he erred in his behavior or of plans
to seek psychiatric or other theraputic help.

Fred

From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:00:43 -0500
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick's request to "moderate" Plautus

Yes, I can put Plautus on moderation. But I have no authority to do so. When
I took this job, it was quite firmly stated that my only task is to
"administer".

If a consensus develops that P. is flooding the list, and enough people
insist, I can turn on the moderation flag for any user.

Ed Poor
Mailing List Administrator
Wikien-l

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040227/47f08201/attachment.htm


from_name: uninvited at nerstrand.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for dealing with reincarnations

body:
=== PART ONE ===

==== Definitions ====

Rookie : A logged in user who has fewer than 10 editing days.  An "editing day" is a calendar day when the user makes one or more edits.

Frequently Edited Article : An article in the main encyclopedia namespace that has been edited more than 5 times in the last 48 hours.

==== Policy ====

On the English Wikipedia, neither Rookies nor IP users are permitted to edit Frequently Edited Articles.

=== PART TWO ===

To aid in enforcement of hard bans, Wikipedians may list any user on [[Wikipedia:Petitions for users of concern]], thus starting a petition.  Criteria for listing a user are: controversial edits and a belief that the user may have been banned previously.  These are subjective criteria and Wikipedians are to use their best judgment.  When there are eight or more Wikipedians in support of the petition (regardless of how many may be opposed), the user must demonstrate their real-world identity to the Wikipedia Bureaucracy within 10 days; if they do not do so, their editing privileges are suspended until they do.

The Wikipedia Bureaucracy will validate identities using sensible but effective methods, such as requiring a $1 donation via paypal or personal check, or returning a form sent to the user's postal address.  The identity check will be used to determine whether the user is previously banned, and will be used to enforce a future ban if one should become necessary.  Otherwise, it will remain confidential.

To discourage misuse, we may want to exempt Wikipedians who have been editing for, say, more than six months from the process.

---
UninvitedCompany


body:
True, but (laughing out loud), they didn't sign on for a practicum.

Fred

> From: Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: 27 Feb 2004 15:10:27 +0000
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rick's request to "moderate" Plautus
>
> Those people who don't want to read his emails and don't know how to configure
> their software so they don't have to can use this as a valuable learning
> opportunity.


from_name: Jeff Meyer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Mapping complement to Wikipedia?

body:
Erik -
This is awesome - definitely a needed component in the puzzle & looks like
kindred spirits.

As for SVG, an app that rendered its display using SVG would be cool, but a
single SVG file still limits the user to the scope of the output map. No
opportunity to pan across the world to see what's going on at the same time,
no opportunity to add additional info for comparisons, no opportunity to
zoom in for more detail.

Thanks again - that project looks fantastic.

Thanks,
Jeff

"Erik Zachte" <e.p.zachte at chello.nl> wrote in
message news:NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNGEMPCHAA.e.p.zachte at chello.nl...
> Oops, sent my reply to Wikitech first, I hope the discussion does not fork
> :)
>
> There is a Historical Event Markup and Linking Project
>
> http://heml.mta.ca/heml-cocoon/
>
> They try to address issues mentioned here.
> There is demo of an animated map there as well.
>
> They choose SVG as the medium which seems a good choice.
> I know there are (were ?) problems with SVG viewing on Mozilla,
> but that will be fixed, I'm sure.
>
> Erik Zachte


subject: [WikiEN-l] Expect a Miracle

body:
In The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins sees an opportunity to Kill Gollum,
wretched slave to the One Ring, in the goblin caves. Yet something stays
his sword, and he does not.

"A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's
heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of
betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering."

Bilbo's emotion of pity and the act of mercy that flows from it is
destined to profoundly affect the outcome of the War of the Ring in JRR
Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

Years later Frodo and Gandalf are discussing Bilbo's compassionate act.
Frodo says what a pity Bilbo didn't stab Gollum when he had the chance.
Gandalf replies:

"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike
without need. and he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took
so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began
his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."

http://www.jrrtolkienepics.com/Gollum.html

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:23 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Expect a Miracle

(Fred sent a blank message)


from_name: Constans, Camille (C.C.)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiki-images?

body:
I like this idea, but it doesnt exist yet elsewhere ? It's true that a wiki system would be nice.

But if a picture has nothing to do, how will you choose to keep or delete it ? Will we use the same system as wikipedia for pages deletion ?

Shaihulud

--
Camille Constans
Apprenti ing?nieur production maintenance
Ma?tre d'apprentissage : Jean Lhomme
Zone C, t?l : +33 556 95 44 81

-----Message d'origine-----
De : engelsAG at t-online.de [mailto:engelsAG at t-online.de]
Envoy? : vendredi 27 f?vrier 2004 13:47
? : wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Objet : [Wikipedia-l] Wiki-images?

On [[en:Wikipedia:Public domain image resources]], there is a nice list of sources, but it is not
easily searchable. It is not clear which if any of these sources could provide me with an image of
(fill in something). Because of this, we will find people either search long for images, not do it at
all, or fail to find them. It's made even worse by sources such as http://www.radiobras.gov.br/
that someone added recently - the site has some very useful content, but searching the site is a
nightmare.

I would propose to start a place where we can keep descriptions of images and image searches,
a search on which could then be used to get free or copyleft images for a certain subject. A nice
start in this direction is made by the GIMP image archive, but:
* It only contains a few sources, and does not have the possibility to add others
* The original image descriptions are not included or linked to, so people when giving descriptions
  cannot use these, which means that for example portraits are worth much less because one does
  not know who is being portrayed.

Could it be made a wikiproject to make such information available? My idea would be a wiki
(we're wikipedia aren't we?) where one could either upload the photographs and add its
description and copyright status, or use a 'normal page' to link to the place where the image
are, and again add a description. Adding keywords would also be a good idea. If a number of
people would work on this for some time, we would thus get a nice, searchable collection of
public domain and copyleft images.

Andre Engels

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040227/e31bbbdd/attachment.htm


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick's request to "moderate" Plautus

body:
I KNOW how to do it, but for some reason, Yahoo isn't cooperating.

RickK

Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Those people who don't want to read his emails and don't know how to configure
their software so they don't have to can use this as a valuable learning
opportunity.
--
Gareth Owen

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040227/1ae9baae/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus rebanned, banned from wikien-l

body:
I've rebanned Plautus satire from Wikipedia, and intend that he should
remain so.  It's not a matter for mediation anymore, it's a matter for
arbitration.  Additionally, in light of his behavior last night in
sending so many pointless messages to the mailing list, I've banned
him from the mailing list.

As to his numerous inquiries about blah blah blah blah blah blah, my
only response is that I don't really care.

Here's a forum for him to post about his case.  Knock yourself out,
Plautus.
http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=2

----

Here's where I am this morning: excited, thrilled, on top of the
world.  Wikipedia is growing fast, we're getting more and more
attention for what we're doing, we're maturing as a community, and we
have a lot of exciting things going on.  Print Wikipedia!  Money in
the bank for more servers to deal with our growing popularity!
Continued strong traffic growth!  An amazing group of contributors who
are doing amazing things every day.

I spent half the day yesterday, and nearly half the day (so far) today
dealing with Plautus satire.  That's ridiculous.  I was interviewed by
The Economist yesterday.  I talked to people at Yahoo about using our
content.  I talked to people at a major publisher about publishing our
content.  I talked to a columnist from the Boston Herald.  And the
other half of my day, I dealt with Plautus.

I'm done.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Privacy of mediation is optional,
 not a requirement for mediation.
 I brought the mediation request,   I want it open.

body:
Plautus Satire a ?crit:
> I initiated this process, why am I being treated like the defendant when I am the claimant?

I do not think a mediation process should be seen as a procedure where
there is a claimant and a defendent
To my humble opinion, nothing is ever white and black. Anyone does
little mistakes sometimes, that does not mean they should undergo a
trial and be punished. That is ok to make little mistakes, especially
when we apology and try to make up for them afterwards.
In mediation, we do just wish that people try to understand the other
point of view better, and sometimes, when they understand better, they
recognise the right of the other to think differently. And sometimes,
they can reach an agreement, at least to forgive the other the mistake.
There is no defended, and no claimant. Either both are "guilty" at the
same time (since they are "guilty" at least in the other person eyes),
or they are just people disagreeing on how to do things.
You are perhaps not a bad person :-) Just a person who things
differently of many of us here ;-)

> Why is the process being ignored here?
>
> There is no requirement of secrecy in mediation.

Yes, in our mediation, there is.

I do not wish it and do not intend to abide by secrecy.

Curps has refused this condition, thus he refuses mediation,

thus my case against him should go to arbitration.

It is up to you to refuse mediation. But *you* are the one refusing it,
if you refuse secrecy. Not Curps. Good luck :-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Ivo K?thnig wrote:

> I think the bottleneck is using a database mangement system (here mysql). So
> my question is: What is the advantage of using it?
> [...]
> For me it always looks as we use the database just to use the database. So
> again: where is the advantage?

1) easy backup
2) easy construction of queries (SQL)
3) flexibility with construction of *new* queries that we haven't
    thought of before
4) don't (well, shouldn't) need to update hundreds of data structures
    upon every edit
5) databases are designed to do this sort of thing (esp. indexing)

There are probably *loads* more.

Timwi


from_name: limholt at excite.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Print edition

body:
General Remark: A very positive goal.

Suggestions:

Create one or two Wiki namespace pages to summarize, and use their talk pages for discussion. The mail list is fine, but makes it reallly difficult to follow or comment, since I don't know what has already been  covered in messages I haven't read yet. If I get one or two seonds for this idea, I'll go ahead and create two pages, one to summarize logistics or mechanics and one to summarize content and formnat discusion.

Versioning or Article summaries:

Mark Pellegrini suggested a separate page space similar to a talk page. I think I sympathize with his goals, but would amend it. Why not make the '''Concise Wikipeddia''' or '''Concise English''' a language Wiki. We've already got the Simple English example. If we always use the 'other language link' when we move an artcle, you can see at a glance what is over there. This also generates some other thoughts, such as:
 - We could always have a talk page section that lists last date synched with or copied from the main Wiki.
 - Article links still work, sort of, provided that the linked article has been moved, or they show that it hasn't yet.

Issues to Resolve:

Since Wiki isn't paper, but Concise will be, our convention of ussing normal form names will probably need to change. Any Encyclopedia I've seen lists JFK under Kennedy, John F. not John F. Kennedy. We might expect this change.

Article Links:

Most encyclopedias tell use q.v. or something similar to tell you there iss an article. I've seen bold print, or a typeface shift used the same way. So, comments about adjusting piped  links work, but require some thought. For example, individual names (if last, first is used as article title) could still use a pipe in the online version.

Since I just caught up on all my mail, I've ijcluded some things reated to different parts of the discussion thread. I' apolgize for that, but must warn you that I don't feel guilty.

Regards to all,

Lou Imholt (LouI at Wiki)

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Courtesy, or the lack thereof - re: Plautus

body:
Once again, I find insight into a Wikipedia problem by viewing today's
comic strips:

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert200407320022
7.gif

Ed Poor