from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

body:
Hoi,
There are several things on our plate (language sub committee) and what
we seem to have consensus on in our little group is that we want to do
finish a thing before we actively take up another. The mo.wikipedia is
not at the top of our list at the moment. A few things I can say because
they are my current ideas. When people vandalise the mo.wikipedia it is
extremely disrespectful and destructive. My first advise would be to
have anyone banned on any project who vandalises or disrupts the
mo.wikipedia and the use of sock puppets is part of that problem. The
second would be to investigate to what extend it is possible to convert
from script to script. During this time the mo.wikipedia is allowed to
function normally and to get its house in order. Essential is that this
would be an undisturbed period of time ie more vandalism only extends
the time that the mo.wikipedia stays separate. I would favour a merge of
the ro and the mo wikipedia and certainly when it is possible to convert
from and to either script / orthography that would be great. However,
given the political problems involved, the war fought and not won by
either party this can only happen when particularly the ro.community
demonstrates that they will accept NPOV and are tolerant on this hot topic.

As I have indicated before, the Moldovan language entity will be part of
future development of the ISO-639. I have inside information to this
effect from the ISO-639-6 standard that is under development. This means
that it is perfectly reasonable to have a scenario where the
mo.wikipedia stays active and is allowed to prosper. In such a scenario
I will suggest to the WMF board to impose the banning of those people on
all WMF projects who vandalise the mo.wikipedia if this scenario were to
happen.

To conclude; the merging of the mo.wikipedia and the ro.wikipedia is
something that has to be earned. It can be earned by exhibiting the
behaviour that we expect of good Wikimedians, tolerance and NPOV.
Without this it is unreasonable to expect from those who are in favour
of a mo.wikipedia to accept that they /have /to merge. When it is the
/contributors /to the mo.wikipedia who misbehave, it would only make the
arguments stronger for an end to the mo.wikipedia.

Again, what I have expressed here are my personal ideas. I expect
however that it is not far off from where the other languages sub
committee members will be.

Thanks,
     GerardM

TSO1D From Wikpedia schreef:
> Gerard, could you please tell me if the committee's deliberations are made open to the general public for viewing and/or participation? Also, do you know what a prospective date for a decision might be? Thanks, TSO1D.
>
> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:  Hoi,
> For your information, the language sub committee has been asked to come
> up with an advise about the mo.wikipedia.
>
> >From my perspective, the first thing that will be required to come to a
> solution is to first clean up the mo.wikipedia by normalising it. This
> should lead to a situation where it is discussed how we can come to an
> integration where both Romanian in Cyrillic and Latin will have there
> place. Effectively the mo.wikipedia has not been closed and, certainly
> not all wikipedians of the world agreed on this.
>
> Having a standard main page for the mo.wikipedia like any other project
> is a good first step for some normalisation. I do welcome Yann's courage.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> ro.wiki schreef:
>
>> I'll like to report an abuse on mo.wiki. This came from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yann (Yann). As it seems he edited http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page to redirect to http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D3%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8D . I guess he also changed the default entry page (the first page that apairs when entering mo.wikipedia.org in the adress bar) from http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page to http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D3%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8D . This changes should be reverted as the decision taken some while ago was to block this Wikipedia, and as he recognised on this page , there was no discussion to change that in anyway. Moreover it was decided finaly that this Wikipedia should be closed, but Yann chose unilateraly to break the decision taken by Wikipedians all over the world.
>>
>> Regards, Danutz


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Okay, I'll weigh in on this. It took me three hours to look through
everything, but what the hey. I left Wikipedia because none of you would do
jack shit about real abusive administrators and real abusive POV-pushing
groups who twist and stretch policy in order to hurt others, but even I
think this is over the top.

Did MONGO misuse his admin tools? I have to say yes. Did he do so in a way
that was necessarily malicious? I don't necessarily think so. What I think
MONGO screwed up on is in relation to conflict of interest.

I'd be much happier if Arbcom had given MONGO some simple terms - say, a
requirement that he not use his admin powers in relation to any page he has
edited in a certain time frame.

But then again, yesterday I saw a normal user try to report another editor
for trolling (that is to say, making false edit summaries during an edit
conflict) and immediately get piled upon by the other editor's friends, and
now that they have been blocked for more than 3 days and had their talkpage
locked by admins who turned out to be the other editor's friends, because
when the admin friends started in their harassment campaign, the user
flailed about in a fashion very similar to how MONGO did.

Parker

On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally
> > reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions,  for incivility, which is an
> > /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or
> > probation?
> >
> > Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me.
>
> I do think it's reasonable and expected to hold admins to a higher
> civility standard. This used to be consensus, has that changed? I hope
> not...
>
> But in any case, the arbcom found that MONGO did abuse his admin
> functions:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#MONGO_misuses_his_admin_tools
>
> I'm completely ignorant to the case other than what I've read on the
> page, but it would seem to me that some of the support emails here are
> operating in an even greater information vacuum.
>
> After reviewing the material there, I really do believe we're doing
> MONGO a favor although it might be too late in any case...  There have
> been many "Sole defenders of the  Wiki" who completely burned out when
> they realized that the community, in fact, would not let them get away
> with anything, such as RickK.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: commons-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Commons-l] Cookie based blocking and bug #3233. A quick hack
	implimented on commons.

body:
On 12/11/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If this could be changed to create permanent (or timed) uploading-only
> blocks, Commons would start using this straight away, I feel certain.

I've added support for an upload only block.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.js&curid=22338&diff=3760793&oldid=3760442

If you test it out, you might have to shift-reload to get the new-site
wide js file before this works for you.  The changes to your personal
monobook.js take effect quickly, but the site wide seems to be more
aggressively cached.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
On 12/12/06, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
> > Also, it really needs an option to write a filename in. Flickr
> > filenames are frequently meaningless. In the same vein, it appears to
> > silently overwrite existing images of that name (see
> > http://wikidiy.com/mediawiki-1.8.2/index.php/Image:Punk.jpg ). This is
> > very, very bad. :)
>
>
> A good idea - but it interferes with the one-click ease of the tool. Do you
> have any ideas of ways to add this feature and still have it really easy to
> use?

Well, instead of having "(import this)" below each image, there could
be a blank text field and a  submit button "Upload". with a tip
somewhere "Write in a filename for Commons".

 Probably a 5x4 (height x width) instead of 4x5 display would be better.

or since you can only import one image at a time anyway, you could
give each image a radio button to select it, then at the bottom/top
have the write-in field for the filename and the 'upload/import'
button and any other notices you want to give.

cheers,
Brianna


from_name: Michael Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
	friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
Greetings,

Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93627974&oldid=93625725

Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the source
very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's biography
by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93628886&oldid=93628310
Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk page, no
such discussion existed.

Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an
admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his
Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying
friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've
jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.

Runedchozo


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> Jeff did run for admin (I nominated him).  It was derailed by people
> who disliked his inclusionism. I didn't see that as relevant, myself,
> since an inclusionist is, if anything, less likely to be a problem as
> an admin than a deletionist.  But what do I know?

And this isn't about that anyway.  I don't plan to run again in the future
because I know I have no shot, largely because of the falsehoods put forth
by certain parties because of that one association from a year ago.  My
only reason for bringing myself up is to demonstrate something simple -
the large amount good you do isn't going to make a lick of difference if
people perceive the very small amount of bad a certain way, fair or not.

-Jeff


from_name: Brian Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
>> I don't think he's lost broad community support at all, if you look at
his
>> talk page and the talk pages on the ArbCom case, I think you'll see just
>> the
>> opposite.

>And why, pray tell, would anyone who supports the decision dare go to his
>userpage and tell him, especially given his record of threatening blocks?
>Furthermore, why would any otherwise sane individual go and rub salt in
>the wound if he's that disturbed by the result of the RfAr by gloating
>about it?  I'd like to think that most of the people who feel this is the
>proper outcome aren't interested in dancing around about it.

They may not show up on his userpage, but would certainly weigh in at the
ArbCom case, as happened
in many other cases...in this instance there's just not much talk in support
of this outcome.

>> And when re-applying for RFA, you don't need to have lost broad
>> support, just a small group (15% or so) of committed opposers will be
>> enough
>> to block it. Other high profile admins have gotten much longer leashes
>> than
>> this...

>I think the evidence of lost support may, in fact, come from the results
>of the aborted arbcom election vote.  Whether he acted correctly or ended
>up with the correct result (both of those are separate things) 99%, 75%,
>whatever of the time, I'm not sure that the trust of the general community
>exists anymore because of that percentage of being wrong.

Well, the standard there is much higher, there are editors with significant
numbers of opposers that are otherwise
highly regarded in the ArbCom Elections.
If in fact there is a silent majority that agrees with this decision there's
no sign of it (though it may be there),
I think they could do us a favor by making them selves known. As it stands
now I see this action as contrary to the good
of Wikipedia both as it effects a single editor and what it says about the
support you'll get under sustained pressure
from what are generally recognised as commited trouble makers.

Brian

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 12/11/2006
4:32 PM


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> Jeff did run for admin (I nominated him).  It was derailed by people
> who disliked his inclusionism. I didn't see that as relevant, myself,
> since an inclusionist is, if anything, less likely to be a problem as
> an admin than a deletionist.  But what do I know?

Actually I opposed Jeff on the basis of his opinion regarding BLP and his
support for people who were using Wikipedia for harrassment... (hmm, this
seems oddly familiar)


subject: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But these are essentially already reviewed! That's why it appears so
> > useful to me.
>
> They aren't reviewed however. It takes the flickr page for granted...
> better than nothing but still.

What do you mean it takes it for granted? You mean it assumes the
flickr page is correct? Well... that is all we humans do as well...

> Also this doesn't address flicker users who have accidentally selected
> a free licenses without conscious intent. Such cases are not a release
> under a free license.

I guess people who manually upload Flickr images are not
double-checking the photographer's intent, so I don't know why an
automated process should.

> Also this fails to take the opportunity to invite free content
> friendly flickr uploaders to come participate in our community
> directly.

As above...it is hard to imagine why a flickr user would stop using
flickr and start using Commons, though. We offer basically no benefits
for them over Flickr, superior species classification is about the
only thing I can think of. Without even using Commons, their images
are already being used in Wikipedia, so why would they switch? ;)

Having said that, it would be cool to extend an invitation, but I
don't think that necessarily has a lot to do with an extension like
this. As you said it's more of a review process.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


body:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit
> summaries:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93627974&oldid=93625725
>
> Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the source
> very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's biography
> by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93628886&oldid=93628310
> Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk page,
> no
> such discussion existed.
>
> Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an
> admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his
> Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
> lying
> friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
> they've
> jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
>
> Runedchozo
> _

Actually, your edit summaries amount to violation of NPA, which is
blockable.


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Guettarda wrote:

> Actually I opposed Jeff on the basis of his opinion regarding BLP and his
> support for people who were using Wikipedia for harrassment... (hmm, this
> seems oddly familiar)

For context, I supported having an article about the DailyKos blogger
Armando, and supported including information about him that was published
in two major magazines.  Two people decided to twist that into something
separate, which isn't shocking.

Case in point - something people disagree with gets twisted into an
entirely separate perception.  On this issue, Guettarda misrepresented me
from the start and continues to do so, and the myth persists.  Even if I
was wrong - and later consensus on the page decided that long term
relevance didn't exist and I dropped it - this is what defines me for him.
 I have to deal with that, and that's fine.

-Jeff


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Agreement between local chapters and Foundation

body:
On 12/12/06, florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
> The resolution concerning the agreement between local chapters and WMF
> may be found here:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation
>
> More interesting is the agreement itself:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation
>
> The agreement proper was essentially drafted by the local chapters
> coordinator, Delphine M?nard, the UK chapter, Alison Wheeler and our GC,
> Brad Patrick.
>
> That's a good step !

Yes, it looks very sensible. Nice work!

Only thing I can think of is that chapters would probably like to sell
things such as DVDs. Does this document need something about
fundraising or does that just belong in bylaws?
"providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public
free of charge" -- is selling content in opposition to this goal? or
is it OK as long as the material is still available free of charge
elsewhere.

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:12 AM, geni wrote:

> On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>> I think that is the most important thing any of us can do here,
>> insist on verifiable information from reliable sources.
>>
>
> Have you had many dealings with the 9/11 CTers?
>
> --
> geni

No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no
reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.

Fred


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Citation templates s__k

body:
On 12/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It should be easy enough to add a "name" parameter and design the
> template so if the name parameter exists, it uses it, if it doesn't,
> it uses the first and last parameters (otherwise it ignores them).
> It's a pretty simple #if statement, it doesn't break existing use of
> the template and makes the template easier to use in non-standard
> cases.

[[WP:CITET]] doesn't mention this, but most of the citation templates
obey the "author" parameter, which is what I use whenever there are
multiple authors or if it's an edited collection, because you can put
whatever text you like in there and the template won't try to
rearrange it.

There is also the "editor" parameter on some of the templates, which
surprisingly doesn't add "(ed)" or anything, it just spits out what it
is given.

Basically, if you want to put some free text for the author, use the
author parameter, which you can format however you want:

| author = H. G. Wells
| author = Wells, H. G.
| author = [[H. G. Wells|Wells, H. G.]]

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> We need to stop regarding adminship as a pure reward and its removal
> as some terrible punishment. We should thank MONGO for his efforts,
> and look forward to the day when he can again be claimed as an example
> for the community.

Entirely the reasoning behind my support for this.  Do I think MONGO
is a bad person?  No.  Do I think that the stress and harassment he's
been subjected to excuses his behaviour?  Absolutely.

Do I think it likely that that stress and harassment will push him to
make further errors with his admin tools?  I do.  It is for that
reason that I am supporting his de-adminship.  If he returns with a
clear head and a tolerable level of stress, I will enthusiastically
support his re-adminship in the future.

Arguments that we've given people a pass in similar circumstances
before ignores the fact that, many times, that pass has returned to
bite us.  Arbcom is not held to precedent for exactly that reason.

-Matt


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Cookie based blocking and bug #3233. A quick
 hack implimented on commons.

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>A better solution is to embed the MAC address of the workstation into
>>the cookie itself, so you can track someone no matter what account
>>or IP they use.
>>
>>
>
>It should be obvious that you can't obtain the MAC address using any
>documented Java or JavaScript interface, that would be a privacy issue.
>
I think you can, but yes, this is an intrusion of peoples privacy.

Jeff

>I
>once suggested a browser plugin, "click yes at the security dialog box to
>allow editing from AOL", but for some reason the response from those
>present was not positive... You might expect some anti-spyware advocates
>to get annoyed, since in essence that's what it would be. Then there's the
>issue of trusting data from the client: if you want to add anti-debugger
>and anti-disassembly measures then it becomes a significant development
>task, and no such measure is perfect anyway.
>
>-- Tim Starling
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
Steve Summit schreef:
> Google aside, this stuff needs cleaning up.  For example, it's
> not at all uncommon to have a {{coor title d}} saying one thing
> at the top of the page, and another {{coor dms}} in-line in the
> article text, with slightly (or significantly) different
> coordinates.

Note that it is not always a bug to have more than one set of
coordinates in an article. See for example [[Carnac stones]] or [[List
of cities, towns and villages in Utrecht]].

Perhaps there should be a "noindex" parameter, which would enable Google
and others to exclude these from their databases?

By the way, if you are impressed with the new Google Earth layer, you
may also want to take a look at Stefan Kuehn's GE data files at
http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index.htm .

Eugene


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
> I have complained, but, so far to no avail. All I get in response is a
> reminder of the "limitations of Wikipedia's server".

Wikipedia's servers aren't that limited. I doubt there is any need to
reduce our use of categories for the sake of the servers - the
developers will tell us if there is.


body:
Ha ha, very funny.

Care to elaborate, or are you just blowing smoke?

I know you're blowing smoke. He was caught red-handed lying, but you're
probably one of his friends helping him POV push.

On 12/12/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Yesterday, I reported Itaqallah for blatantly falsifying his edit
> > summaries:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93627974&oldid=93625725
>
> >
> > Summary was "rv unsourced OR" despite the fact that I included the
> source
> > very directly: See Also: [[Conquest of Mecca]] Source: Prophet's
> biography
> > by Ibn Hisham, p 802ff; Al-Waqidi, p319ff; Ibn Sa'ad, p96ff
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93628886&oldid=93628310
>
> > Edit summary claims it has been "extensively discussed" on the talk
> page,
> > no
> > such discussion existed.
> >
> > Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got
> an
> > admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his
> > Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
> > lying
> > friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
> > they've
> > jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
> >
> > Runedchozo
> > _
>
>
> Actually, your edit summaries amount to violation of NPA, which is
> blockable.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: theProject

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

body:
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> > > What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template
> > > {{fair use wanted}}.
> >
> > Sounds brilliant.  Jimmy, any chance you could talk this issue up in any
> > press you do or the foundation release, or would this draw attention to
> > our fair use images and lead to possible legal problems?
>
> I didn't comment on it before but I'm pretty sure we've already tried
> a replace this fair use image notice.. and I think we found that it
> was ineffective while simply removing the images was more effective.
> I'm sure someone else can chime in with more data.
>
> As far as PR goes... The fair use issue is mostly "sausage making"
> which is intersting to us but not interesting or even confusing to
> outsiders.  I think it would be better to instead say "We need
> photographers and other people with the skills required to make
> quality illustrations."
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

If I understood Jimmy correctly, this is the kind of template that would in
*after* the fair use image was removed, trying to get a replacement, not a
template that goes under a fair use image saying we need a replacement.

--
theProject


subject: [WikiEN-l] Citation templates s__k

body:
> Although, just for clarity's sake (surely not everyone one the list is a
> template nut), we could only use a given parameter once. If you have
> multiple authors, they'd all need to be listed in the same line (author =
> George, Bill, Adam).

There is a coauthor parameter, by the looks of it. I would imagine the
primary author (or just the first alphabetically if there isn't a
clear primary) should go under author and the others all under
coauthor.


body:
Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you
can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the
lying.

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith"
> <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an
> >admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his
> >Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
> lying
> >friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
> they've
> >jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
>
> Ah, so they *have* dealt with this.  Good.
>
> Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin
> abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted.  Next time try posting
> something much less strident.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith"
> <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an
> >admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his
> >Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his
> lying
> >friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and
> they've
> >jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.
>
> Ah, so they *have* dealt with this.  Good.
>
> Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin
> abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted.  Next time try posting
> something much less strident.
>
> Guy (JzG)

Guy,

I think you are out of line with this. I've reviewed the complaint, and the
edit summaries this complainant refers to are indeed both completely false.

As for "dealing with" a situation where someone complains about behavior
that is so blatant it is well beyond the bounds of AGF, by banning the
complainant for five days? Especially when the one who's doing the banning
just "happens" to be a member of the same "Muslim Guild" as the one being
complained about? I see not only a conflict of interest, but some serious
problems with all those who've piled on attacking this editor.

Your attitude is the same dismissive bullshit that caused me to leave
Wikipedia, and had me pretty much ignoring even this mailing list for a
couple months until I've come back just to check in with Jimbo, who has
steadfastly been Not Bothering to investigate the specific instances he
previously promised to investigate. :(

Parker


body:
Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are
always right at all costs" NSLE.

Power-mad much?

Parker

On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
>
> On 13/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
> you
> > can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing
> > the
> > lying.


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:14 AM, geni wrote:

> On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no
>> reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>
> There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than
> popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.

Even in popular publishing there is some peer review.

Fred


body:
Ok, perhaps that was a bit harsh.

Let me rephrase:

YOU, NSLE, have a bad habit of always assuming that admins are right, and a
further bad habit of accusing anyone with whom you have the slightest
disagreement of "trolling."

There.

Parker

On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins
> are always right at all costs" NSLE.
>
> Power-mad much?
>
> Parker
>
> On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
> >
> > On 13/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
> > you
> > > can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one
> > doing
> > > the
> > > lying.
>
>
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

body:
ISO 639 does not define standard languages. Language standardisation
is a very complex issue. ISO 639 only defines codes for languages and
dialects, and gives definitions for them.

You seem to have the view that any language must be standardised
before it can be used; this is not the case, most of the languages in
the world do not have a standard form. We grow up speaking a language,
if there is a standard form it only matters for school and work
usually. Most literate people of the world write very similarly to how
they talk, and a great number of them read and write in languages with
no officially-defined standard.

Mark

On 12/12/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> For the record: You did not answer my questions
> concerning the ISO standard you commented upon as a
> solution to the MO-RO problem.
>
> > The WMF has been great in allowing people to use
> > their own language.
> > When the language is mutually understandable, like
> > for American and
> > British English (and all the other variations) we
> > have a history of
> > keeping things together.
>
> Do you imply that MO and RO are not mutually
> understandable?
>
> > The
> > politics around the
> > Moldovan project make that people do not accept that
> > some need Cyrillic
> > content. The arguments used are political and have
> > nothing to do with
> > linguistics.
>
> More than 6 months ago, I said that I will drop my
> case as soon as *one* native moldovan supports a
> cyrillic mo.wiki. As of today, I still have to see one
> on wikipedia.
>
> So, in a sense, we do agree: As soon as Cyrillic
> content is needed, it should be provided. The
> difference between you and me is that I seem to note
> that there's currently no need for such content.
>
> > In my personal opinion, the
> > quality of both the
> > mo.wikipedia and the ro.wikipedia cannot be
> > considered good when it is
> > impossible to integrate and to serve the needs that
> > are expressed by the
> > existence of both projects.
>
> I'm sorry, but I do not understand your point.
> You are talking of integration. But what better
> integration do you seek, when the rogue editors that
> created mo.wikipedia resorted to simply copying
> articles from ro.wikipedia and claiming they are in a
> different language?
> You also talk of needs. The needs expressed by
> ro.wikipedia are clearly materialized in the 40000+
> articles it generated. But whose needs are represented
> in mo.wikipedia? Where is the community?
>
> Dpotop
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Have a burning question?
> Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

body:
Jacky PB schreef:
>> As I have indicated before, the Moldovan language
>> entity will be part of
>> future development of the ISO-639. I have inside
>> information to this
>> effect from the ISO-639-6 standard that is under
>> development.
>>
>
> Can you tell us more on these developments? Are there
> publicly-available documents?
>
At this moment it is not publicly available. I do not know much more
then the fact that Moldovan is in there.
> I'm interested in one main point: is Moldovan going to
> be Latin-scripted, or Cyrillic-scripted?
> This is important, because the choices are:
> 1. Moldovan is the latin-scripted language of the
> Republic of Moldova, in which case there is no
> regulatory board. Or, more precisely, there is one
> (the Academy of Moldova), but it says "standard
> Moldovan = standard Romanian".
> 2. Moldovan is the cyrillic-scripted language of
> Transnistria, an entity recognized by nobody. BTW, who
> regulates this language in Transnistria?
> 3. Moldovan is copied from old standards, maybe
> without any assumption as to what it is, leaving it as
> an object of contention and a relic of the cold war.
>
There is imho no such thing as a language being "owned" by a country
certainly not when it is crosses borders. There is no NEED for a country
to be recognised to have a difference in language/dialect/language
entity exist and to be recognised. The notion that something is a "relic
of the cold war" is a political assertion and is completely irrelevant
from a linguistic point of view. When people speak/use a
language/dialect/linguistic entity, they do. That is all there is to it.

The name Moldovan for the language is something that has its historic
roots. By having a war and not winning it, by decreeing that the
Cyrillic script is not to be used, you do not change the association of
the name with the total populace speaking the language. Where the
Moldovan government says that Moldovan equals Romanian, I expect that
the Moldovan and the Romanian government work together when it comes to
this, now shared need, to agree on how to manage the language from an
official pov.

The fact that a country does not own a language is demonstrated
admirably by the Mapuche people who are suing the Chilean government and
Microsoft because they disagree with the notion that the Chilean
government can impose an orthography. Mupundungun is spoken in both
Chile and Argentina.

Your question of "who regulates this language in Transnistria" assumes
that a language needs regulation. This is not necessary at all, many
languages are recognised some are more like a language continuum.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> Things that are _not_ to be found in libraries are published in peer-
> reviewed journals, not encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not a peer-
> reviewed journal. And journals have their own requirements, which in
> fact are more stringent than those for an encyclopedia, one being
> reproducibility of results. That's the "new-knowledge" equivalent of
> what we call "verifiability" and it is _much_ harder to do.

I don't follow you... my Uni library contains hundreds (probably
thousands) of peer-reviewed journals...

> Which is why writing an encyclopedia article takes on the order of
> weeks while writing a research paper takes on the order of years.

A encyclopaedia article is quicker to write because the only thing you
have to do is write it. A research paper requires you to do the
research first. Actually writing the paper doesn't take very long.

> Things that are _not_ to be found in libraries are also published in
> popular magazines, books by any publisher that thinks they can make
> money by selling them, self-published, published on the web, etc.
> Whether these are to be called "knowledge" depends on which
> definition of "knowledge" you use. In the Britannica's slogan, "The
> sum of human knowledge," they likely meant AHD4's meaning number 4,
> "4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge." It is, after
> all, an encyclo-PAEDIA.

Plenty of libraries keep archives of magazines. Any publisher can have
books in libraries, whether you like their books or not (which seems
to be the only distinction you're making between books that should be
in a library and books that should not - all publishers are in it to
make money, that's what it means to be a commercial company).


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
--- Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com> wrote:
> MONGO has been the target of
> massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate
> oneself from becoming a target of the same people

Since "Concerned Wikipedian" was appealing to Jimbo, he might wish to
communicate with Jimbo via private e-mail using his Wikipedia identity.

In a noisy environment, it's not a bad heuristic to use reputation in order to
evaluate how seriously we should take someone's comments.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
> Thus, anonymity is no excuse for not heeding a
> person's concerns -- in fact, in the real world, some of the best tips
> received by law enforcement, tax administration, SEC violations, etc., are
> anonymous.  As KC noted earlier, it is the content that matters not the
> source, and in this case the content is valid.

When someone anonymously reports a crime, they are reporting a
verifiable fact (if the appropriate authorities cannot verify it, they
won't do anything about it). The Concerned Wikipedian's email did not
contain facts, it contained opinions (any facts stated were already
known to anyone following the case). Therefore, it is not comparable
to an anonymous tip off.


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
When your best expert is a guy who sticks two cinderblocks up with a
wrapping of chicken wire between them and lights a fire inside it to claim
this is "proof" that the WTC girders couldn't have melted, it's all fun.

Why do we give credence to the tinfoil hat crowd? Anyone?

Parker

On 12/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> > No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no
> > reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
> >
> > Fred
> >
>
> There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than
> popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
>
> When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category ?Suicides?.
> If
> a person?s article stated they committed suicide, the category, ?Suicides?
> would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> firearm,
> the Category, ?Suicides by firearm? would be also be included. In this
> case
> the Category, ?Deaths by firearm? would also be included. In this way, the
> researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia who
> had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> separate
> lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of
> all
> persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.

And yes, this makes sense.

We've had other writers pulling the same nonsense in other topics in the
past: fictional vampires listed as fictional vampires but not mythological
creatures, articles regarding aspects and criticism of the Koran being
included in the Koran category but with editors insisting that including it
in the "Islam" category as well being redundant, various grades of
conspiracy theory put into one group but not another, and so on.

A square is a rectangle, is also a regular polyhedron, is also a polyhedron,
and so on, and each of these categories applies in its own way. I think the
same thing is true for categories, the more categories something is listed
under (as long as they are relevant), the better and redundancy (the idea
that one category's listings are also completely encompassed by another) is
not a bad thing, it only indicates a tighter degree of search.

Parker


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Code 2.0

body:
Lawrence Lessig has just released the second version of his well/known
book "Code". It is CC-BY-SA and can be bought/downloaded for free at
http://codev2.cc/

Two reasons I mention this here:
1. It was (re)written using a wiki
2. At the beginning, it says:

"Code version 2.0
TO WIKIPEDIA,
THE ONE SURPRISE THAT TEACHES MORE THAN EVERYTHING HERE."

Feeling good,
Magnus


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:  [18296] trunk/phase3

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

leon at svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
> +	 * Is this a subpage?
> +	 * @return bool
> +	 * @access public
> +	 */
> +	function isSubpage() {
> +		global $wgNamespacesWithSubpages;
> +		return ( strpos( $this->getText(), '/' ) !== false && $wgNamespacesWithSubpages[ $this->mNamespace ] == true );
> +	}

$wgNamespacesWithSubpages is sparse; that is, not all namespaces will
necessarily be listed in it.

The check as written will produce an E_NOTICE-level warning when called
on a page containing a slash whose namespace is not listed explicitly in
$wgNamespacesWithSubpages.

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

iD8DBQFFfwrKwRnhpk1wk44RAvy4AJoDKV/X7W7+9MNZL4y5yBQBwsonwQCg0cFU
aUR9rjORUlMvGSAtpweE1Vc=
=823l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 12/12/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Only thing I can think of is that chapters would probably like to sell
> things such as DVDs. Does this document need something about
> fundraising or does that just belong in bylaws?
> "providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public
> free of charge" -- is selling content in opposition to this goal? or
> is it OK as long as the material is still available free of charge
> elsewhere.

Like the German Wikipedia DVD that Wikimedia Deutschland put out. It
seems this sort of thing is anticipated in the agreement:

"4.7. Commercial use of the Wikimedia name, logo, or localised logo
shall be subject to the terms of a separate trademark agreement
between the two parties."

and, with respect to other marks such as the Wikipedia logo:

"5.3. Commercial use of these additional marks shall be subject to the
terms of a separate trademark agreement between the two parties."

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
> Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally
> reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions,  for incivility, which is an
> /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or
> probation?

Incivility is often used as a reason to oppose an RfA, so it is a
perfectly good reason for desysoping. Admins should be held to the
same standards as admin candidates (maybe with a few allowances to
account for the fact that it's almost impossible to be a good admin
without occasionally annoying a few people, but that just increases
the amount of incivility we would allow, it doesn't make all
incivility acceptable).


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
> The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I
> don't see why he should intervene.

They're not that independent. They are appointed by Jimbo and Jimbo
maintains a veto over all their decisions. If he wants to intervene he
can and should. I see no reason to in this case, though.


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Code 2.0

body:
Unfortunately the wiki was AWFUL.

On 12/12/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Lawrence Lessig has just released the second version of his well/known
> book "Code". It is CC-BY-SA and can be bought/downloaded for free at
> http://codev2.cc/
>
> Two reasons I mention this here:
> 1. It was (re)written using a wiki
> 2. At the beginning, it says:
>
> "Code version 2.0
> TO WIKIPEDIA,
> THE ONE SURPRISE THAT TEACHES MORE THAN EVERYTHING HERE."
>
>
> Feeling good,
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 12/10/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Let's paraphrase into parable language:
> >
> > "The explicit goal of the project is to acquire a collection of
> > apples. Therefore, every time someone gives us an orange, this is
> > harmful to our project."

Except that we have people who argue that the project is really to
> acquire a collection of fruit, and see no reason to acquire apples
> because "we already have the oranges, and they taste better anyway".

There is currently very little community acknowledgement or support for any
largescale effort for people to go take and donate free images to the
project.

I'm all for changing that, but I have zero bandwidth to try to drive such a
thing right now.

I have spent several dozens of hours taking photos, making graphics, and
working with some museums trying to get specific images created or get
permission to come take specific images (the latter mostly frustratingly not
succeeding), when I had more time available to help.  I've contacted dozens
of companies trying to get them to free-release images, mostly
unsuccessfully.

Pictures aren't just worth a thousand words; you can write those thousand
words in the time it takes to accomplish getting the picture done, on the
average.

A number of people on the fair use policy pages have explicitly declared
> that they consider the free content goal to be secondary at most. I
> suppose it's fortunate that they haven't started lifting text from other
> websites en masse...
>

Wikipedia stripped of all the fair use images at the moment would suck
rather badly.

Making Wikipedia worse, in order to try and convince people to put more time
in and eventually make it better, seems like a bad tradeoff to me.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Puppy wrote:

> And yet you and the other Arbcom members found MONGO calling their
> nonsense "nonsense" uncivil. Um, right. Complete bollocks being pushed
> by a bunch of conspiracy theorists with no reliable sources cannot be
> called "nonsense". Heaven forfend.

The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it.
The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.

Fred


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

body:
Jacky PB schreef:
>> Your question of "who regulates this language in
>> Transnistria" assumes
>> that a language needs regulation. This is not
>> necessary at all...
>>
>
> Right. But a **standard**, like ISO-????, is about
> **standardisation**. That is, some form of standard
> language different from other standard languages in
> the dialect continuum. My question is: what will be
> the characteristics of Standard Moldovan, as defined
> by the standard?
>
A standard is there to provide information on what linguistic entities
exist. When the Moldovans are happy to call their language Romanian that
is what it will be. When others make a distinction between Romanian and
Moldovan based on orthography, script whatever and, when this has always
been known as Moldovan..
> You brought this standard in the discussion saying
> that it will close the Romanian vs. Moldovan
> discussion. I hope it will, but can't help asking
> myself how. Just assigning language codes is not
> sufficient. Someone has to say: this is standard RO,
> this is standard MO, beat off. Can you? Is ISO-????
> going to define this? Or just follow, I repeat, old
> Soviet practices, by saying: On our side of the
> fronteer the language is called Moldovan with code MO,
> on yours it is called Romanian with code RO, and they
> are different?
>
The notion of "old Soviet practices" is again very much a political way
of looking at it. The notion of identifying linguistic entities is at
issue. The whole point is in being able to identify unambiguously and
having an application for such a distinction. Knowing what
script/orthography to use is part of this.

The WMF has been great in allowing people to use their own language.
When the language is mutually understandable, like for American and
British English (and all the other variations) we have a history of
keeping things together.  When this is not the case, we have a history
of bringing things together like we do for Chinese. What is acceptable
is for one community to trash talk another. The politics around the
Moldovan project make that people do not accept that some need Cyrillic
content. The arguments used are political and have nothing to do with
linguistics.

In order to get a solution people have to respect the needs of others
and both vandalism or trash talking only serve to not get a solution
where we can work on a joint project that can be read in either
script/orthography and provides the NPOV which is central to what
Wikipedia stands for. In my personal opinion, the quality of both the
mo.wikipedia and the ro.wikipedia cannot be considered good when it is
impossible to integrate and to serve the needs that are expressed by the
existence of both projects.

Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whatever you say, dick.
>
> I'm not Muslim. Point of fact is that I'm not anything. I don't think God
> exists, and even if he does, I don't think he gives a flying fuck about
> the
> world as it is now.
>
> Itaqallah, on the other hand, is a member of the POV-pushing group called
> the Muslim Guild, and I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries
> while he was chain reverting people on that page. But you don't seem to
> care
> about that at all.
>
> So I get it: Lying on wikipedia is A-OK as long as you're a muslim, but
> pointing out that a muslim is blatantly lying while also edit warring is
> "incivil." Your policies are so much bullshit.
>
>
>
> On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:38 -0600, "Michael Smith"
> > <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
> > you
> > >can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing
> > the
> > >lying.
> >
> > Redux: "it's all about *me*".
> >
> > How am I supposed to know that Michael Smith is a Muslim?  And why
> > should I care?  I am a Christian; both are Faiths of the Book.  I
> > didn't even notice that JoshuaZ was Jewish (how obtuse does that make
> > me?).
> >
> > Now try reading for comprehension: hysterical accusations of "rouge
> > admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted.  Next time try
> > posting something much less strident.
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
> > --
> > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Without saying anything in regards to the content, characterizing every
action against oneself as a conspiracy by Muslim editors is not likely to
help one's position, but instead further divide the community. I'm sure you
must realize that the [x is an element of {Right-wing, Left-wing, Fascist,
Communist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish} in "The $x conspiracy is out to get
me"] claim has been attempted countless times and has not once garnered
anybody favour.

If you really want it proven that Muslim editors are not out to get you, I
can personally block you myself -- I am not a Muslim.

--
theProject


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
> > >
> > > When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category
> ?Suicides?.
> > > If
> > > a person?s article stated they committed suicide, the category,
> > ?Suicides?
> > > would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> > > firearm,
> > > the Category, ?Suicides by firearm? would be also be included. In this
> > > case
> > > the Category, ?Deaths by firearm? would also be included. In this way,
> > the
> > > researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia
> > who
> > > had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> > > separate
> > > lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list
> of
> > > all
> > > persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.
> >
> >
> > And yes, this makes sense.
> >
> > We've had other writers pulling the same nonsense in other topics in the
> > past: fictional vampires listed as fictional vampires but not
> mythological
> > creatures, articles regarding aspects and criticism of the Koran being
> > included in the Koran category but with editors insisting that including
> > it
> > in the "Islam" category as well being redundant, various grades of
> > conspiracy theory put into one group but not another, and so on.
> >
> > A square is a rectangle, is also a regular polyhedron, is also a
> > polyhedron,
> > and so on, and each of these categories applies in its own way. I think
> > the
> > same thing is true for categories, the more categories something is
> listed
> > under (as long as they are relevant), the better and redundancy (the
> idea
> > that one category's listings are also completely encompassed by another)
> > is
> > not a bad thing, it only indicates a tighter degree of search.
>
>
> Articles should only belong to the most specific of categories in which
> they
> can belong. The goals of categorization are different from the goals of
> flat
> interlinking.

No, articles should belong to whichever categories they reasonably fit into.

If an article fits into Mythology, and Greek Mythology, and Pre-Homeric
Greek Mythology, and Athenian Mythology all at once, then it should be in
ALL of those categories, because each is a different search. Yes, Mythology
might encompass all of Greek Mythology, but So What? Someone looking for
various mythological figures might grab Mythology first, and we're well
served by having them do so and have an easier time migrating to the more
specific area from there.

Parker


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:

When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category ?Suicides?. If
a person?s article stated they committed suicide, the category, ?Suicides?
would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a firearm,
the Category, ?Suicides by firearm? would be also be included. In this case
the Category, ?Deaths by firearm? would also be included. In this way, the
researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia who
had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up separate
lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of all
persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.

Then, I began finding many of my edits being reverting by persons who stated
that only one of these Categories should be included in an article; that
both a main category and a subcategory should not be in the same article.
More and more of these articles were being diluted by this argument.

I have been in constant conflict with some who state that it is not only
redundant to enter a single Article into both Categories; it is actually
against Wikipedia policy. At present, if I enter John Doe into the ?Suicides
by firearm? Category only, he does not appear in the ?Deaths by firearm?
Category list. Consequently, if I want to call up all persons in the
encyclopedia who have died by firearm, I must call up all the subcategory
lists and collate them myself.

Another example: Jane Doe dies from breast cancer. Category: ?Deaths from
breast cancer? is added to her Category box, but I do not include the
Category: ?Cancer deaths?. Then, when I click on the ?Category: Deaths from
breast cancer?, her name is included in this list. But, if I click on the
?Category: Cancer deaths? she is not included.

What I am wanting by adding her name to both Categories is a separate list
of ALL persons who died from breast cancer, and a separate list of ALL
persons who died from cancer. What is the problem with including the same
Article in both a Main Category and a Subcategory?

One more example and I?ll be shut up (for now). If I place the Categories,
?Accidental deaths? & ?road accident victims? in the same article (which I
have done) I am immediately taken into custody by the Category Police, and,
to make matters worse, nobody bothers to read me Miranda.

I believe an organized Project Group needs to take a long and quite serious
look at the whole of Wiki categorization with the goals of deciding what its
purpose is, and then to reconstruct it to accomplish that purpose.

Be healthy,

Marc

> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:44:20 +1100
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hello
>
> On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> When I came upon Wikipedia early this year I was thrilled. Here were
>> countless biographies (case histories if you will) of persons who, among
>> other things, were categorized according to similar traits and life
>> experiences. I could, for instance, click on the Category ?Writers who
>> committed suicide? and have hours of work done for me. Now, as the
>> categories become more and more diluted, this is becoming more and more
>> unavailable.
>
> What do you mean by "diluted"? If you can give examples, and maybe
> even some tentative solutions, we would be more than happy to listen
> to your bitching and moaning.[1]
>
> Steve
> [1] Well, I would anyway. I think our categories fall well short of
> what they can and should do.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject:
[Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Cookie based blocking and bug #3233.
	A quick hack implimented on commons.

body:
How can the MAC address be read out using javascript?

Bryan

On 12/12/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> A better solution is to embed the MAC address of the workstation into
> the cookie itself, so you can track someone no matter what account
> or IP they use.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
> >A cookie is a piece of data stored by a website in your web browser
> >and made available to that site when you use the site.  (see [[HTTP
> >cookie]] for more info)
> >
> >For a while people have thought it would be useful to use cookies as
> >part of our blocking system.  The idea is that when a user is blocked,
> >mediawiki would give them a cookie to indicate that they are blocked.
> >This would then inhibit them from editing even if they changed IPs.
> >The primary limitation to this approach is that any terminologically
> >savvy user could easily remove the cookie.
> >
> >There is a request filed for this feature
> >(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3233) along with a
> >patch, but this patch has not yet been merged into mediawiki.
> >
> >Because interest for this feature keeps reoccurring, I threw together
> >a quick hack using javascript. This method of implementation allows us
> >to experiment and gauge the value of the approach without distracting
> >the core developers with more code to merge and support.
> >
> >This could be implemented by any admin on an of our wiks.
> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.js&diff=prev&oldid=3757203
> >
> >Like all cookie based solutions, it is easy to bypass. Its primary
> >disadvantage compared to the mediawiki patch is that it is not
> >integrated with the block page, to activate a cookie based block you
> >must make a separate edit to the target user's javascript.
> >
> >The current behavior blocks all uploads and edits by the impacted
> >browser, but it would be fairly trivial to make the function more like
> >regular blocking... or even more fine grained with per-namespace or
> >per article blocks. The current behavior also renews the block for 24
> >hours every time the user *views* a page while logged in as the
> >blocked user. This too could be trivially changed.
> >
> >If anyone tries this out or improves it, please let me know. I pretty
> >much learned javascript in order to do this.. and it only took about
> >15 minutes to do, so don't expect it to work miracles but it should
> >work as advertised.
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 12/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template
> > {{fair use wanted}}.
>
> Sounds brilliant.  Jimmy, any chance you could talk this issue up in any
> press you do or the foundation release, or would this draw attention to
> our fair use images and lead to possible legal problems?

I didn't comment on it before but I'm pretty sure we've already tried
a replace this fair use image notice.. and I think we found that it
was ineffective while simply removing the images was more effective.
I'm sure someone else can chime in with more data.

As far as PR goes... The fair use issue is mostly "sausage making"
which is intersting to us but not interesting or even confusing to
outsiders.  I think it would be better to instead say "We need
photographers and other people with the skills required to make
quality illustrations."


subject: [Wikitech-l] Htdig, mailman & broken links

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

Michael Bimmler wrote:
> Quite easy to reproduce:
> Go to http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l

You're at the wrong place, you want to be at:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/

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

iD8DBQFFfxOrwRnhpk1wk44RAofFAKCQ8yH2x4Zl6PrAAh39XPge2qgEkACg2chI
MVxXU5qAOkCsBkKtOpQW76E=
=AU7q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Cool Cat

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
I do not think this is good enough to celebrate. I'd welcome a tool that
would allow us to move properly licensed free images from wikipedias to
commons. Now I'd celebrate then.

   - Cool Cat

On 12/10/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/12/06, Eugene Zelenko <eugene.zelenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's great news! Should we bug developers to install extension on
> > Commons as soon as possible?
>
> I don't see why not -- as long as we can control how the info is
> imported (eg, to use Template:Information, and I guess some
> flickrreview thing). I just tried it out and it is frankly far easier
> than searching flickr!
>
> Undoubtedly people will not realise it is installed and continue to
> manually upload Flickr images, but for people who are aware of this,
> it will be a huge boon. :)
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061212/6f24496c/attachment.htm


from_name: Luna

body:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you
> can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing
> the
> lying.

And that's where you lost my attention, I'm afraid. Please try to calm down,
or you very probably will lose any chance of getting a fair hearing.  If you
have a legitimate complaint, I'd love to try and investigate it -- as is,
however, you look too much like a troll for me to eagerly invest the time to
find out.

By looking anything like a troll, you only play into the hands of those who
want you blocked. Stay calm, keep collected, and you stand a chance.
Everything here is about discussion to reach consensus.

Just my thoughts,
-Luna


subject: [Commons-l] New tool - User dupes

body:
On 12/4/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> There was a discussion somewhere (maybe on this list? I don't
> remember) to store MD5-hashes of image data in the table with the
> other image information (size etc.). Nothing came of it, I'm afraid.
> Too bad.
What was the reason for this? Was it the technical difficulties, or
just a lack of willingness?


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

references:
<457E4A5C.1060904@wikia.com>
	<A3D73CA7-306E-4C3A-B200-0DB3E3A10DA2@waterwiki.info>
	<mqftn2lcfma5bm1dg7tjjnkg2gmbocjo8h@4ax.com>
	<35C63923-9D4B-45B7-86E2-6D8B609F939D@waterwiki.info>
	<f80608430612120812h2848f5c6g6f767d4ea6143bea@mail.gmail.com>
	<8448DB0E-94EF-41C4-A955-3E4929BC9872@waterwiki.info>
	<457EFDF2.5030905@KillerChihuahua.com>
	<BFED0585-0D94-43FA-B5BB-5E22A12B5104@waterwiki.info>
	<lo0un252neiq4cchotk8qkd0ob78976qug@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060612121208r177e29ecgff1caadf2ee73732@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 15:17:28 UTC 2006, Fred Bauder

fredbaud at waterwiki.info
<wikien-l%40Wikipedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20MONGO%20and%20the%20ArbCom&In-Reply-To=mqftn2lcfma5bm1dg7tjjnkg2gmbocjo8h%404ax.com>
wrote:

*>* I think that is the most important thing any of us can do here,
>insist on verifiable information from reliable sources.
>
>Fred

If there were more support for Principal (4) Reliable sources,
it would put some teeth into WP:DR and lessen the burden that clogs
Arbitration.

nobs


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
>
> When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category ?Suicides?.
> If
> a person?s article stated they committed suicide, the category, ?Suicides?
> would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> firearm,
> the Category, ?Suicides by firearm? would be also be included. In this
> case
> the Category, ?Deaths by firearm? would also be included. In this way, the
> researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia who
> had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> separate
> lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of
> all
> persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.
>
> Then, I began finding many of my edits being reverting by persons who
> stated
> that only one of these Categories should be included in an article; that
> both a main category and a subcategory should not be in the same article.
> More and more of these articles were being diluted by this argument.
>
> I have been in constant conflict with some who state that it is not only
> redundant to enter a single Article into both Categories; it is actually
> against Wikipedia policy. At present, if I enter John Doe into the
> ?Suicides
> by firearm? Category only, he does not appear in the ?Deaths by firearm?
> Category list. Consequently, if I want to call up all persons in the
> encyclopedia who have died by firearm, I must call up all the subcategory
> lists and collate them myself.

Yes. This is actually a very simple thing to do programmatically.

What you are calling dilution is the exact opposite.

Maybe we should add a feature that traverses category trees automatically,
but it also seems like a nice outside-of-Wikipedia javascripty feature
someone could build pretty easily.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO and the
	ArbComm)

body:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all sorts
of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.

Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to
tolerate breakdowns and depressions.

Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will,
-Luna

On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Mind you, if we auto-moderated all "I'm leaving" posts from this list,
> > life would probably be more pleasant :-)
> >
> /me goes constructing an Artificial Intelligence Module which
> auto-moderates all potential trolls by assessing their previous posts
> and thus drawing conclusions about their character.
> Michael
> > Guy (JzG)
> > --
> > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
> >
> > When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category ?Suicides?.
> > If
> > a person?s article stated they committed suicide, the category,
> ?Suicides?
> > would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> > firearm,
> > the Category, ?Suicides by firearm? would be also be included. In this
> > case
> > the Category, ?Deaths by firearm? would also be included. In this way,
> the
> > researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia
> who
> > had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> > separate
> > lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of
> > all
> > persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.
>
>
> And yes, this makes sense.
>
> We've had other writers pulling the same nonsense in other topics in the
> past: fictional vampires listed as fictional vampires but not mythological
> creatures, articles regarding aspects and criticism of the Koran being
> included in the Koran category but with editors insisting that including
> it
> in the "Islam" category as well being redundant, various grades of
> conspiracy theory put into one group but not another, and so on.
>
> A square is a rectangle, is also a regular polyhedron, is also a
> polyhedron,
> and so on, and each of these categories applies in its own way. I think
> the
> same thing is true for categories, the more categories something is listed
> under (as long as they are relevant), the better and redundancy (the idea
> that one category's listings are also completely encompassed by another)
> is
> not a bad thing, it only indicates a tighter degree of search.

Articles should only belong to the most specific of categories in which they
can belong. The goals of categorization are different from the goals of flat
interlinking.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

>>Is a snapshot of a wall plaque different because it's taken by a
>>reference librarian as opposed to a Wikipedian?
>>
>>--Michael Snow
>>
>>
>Well, that was a jocular aside, my point being that the wall plaque
>is very significantly harder for me to obtain than any of fourteen
>million-odd books in my state's "library of last resort."
>
>But in fact there _is_ an _obvious_ difference, and it is much the
>same difference that exists between a contributor to the Britannica
>or _Nature_ or the New York Times. A reference librarian is a) a
>known person with a known real-world identity, with b) professional
>credentials and a code of ethics. (One to which, of course, an
>individual librarian may or may not adhere).
>
As much as I like to believe that librarians are more honest and
trustworthy than other professionals, this approach puts us on the
slippery slope of believing the person instead of the information.  Even
with the publications that you mention there is a presumption that they
put some effort into fact-checking.  Certain comparisons between
Wikipedia and Britannica, and a few events in the news in the last year
about the New York Times have shown that these highly reputed
institutions have not yet attained perfection.  Whether the author of
such articles is identified should make no difference.

We want prople to doubt and be critical rather than develop a debt of
idolatry to the professionals.

Ec


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> It's not me, Jimmy, but I will put my name to it.  MONGO should go on
> a Wikibreak but should absolutely not be hounded out of the project
> (which is in effect what has happened).  He has dealt tirelessly with
> the 9/11 "truthers", whose tactics begin in the sewer and get steadily
> worse over time.
>
> This is, without question, a victory for the trolls.

I'm not unsympathetic, given that I've spend much of my Wikitime
trying to clean up articles related to the JFK assassination, which as
we all know is the mothership of conspiracy.  But many in Mongo's
corner are just as bad if not worse than the 9/11 truth crowd, and so
it looks more like a troll gang fight than a bunch of trolls attacking
a bunch of saintly editors.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
>
> When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category ?Suicides?.
> If
> a person?s article stated they committed suicide, the category, ?Suicides?
> would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> firearm,
> the Category, ?Suicides by firearm? would be also be included. In this
> case
> the Category, ?Deaths by firearm? would also be included. In this way, the
> researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia who
> had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> separate
> lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of
> all
> persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.
>
> Then, I began finding many of my edits being reverting by persons who
> stated
> that only one of these Categories should be included in an article; that
> both a main category and a subcategory should not be in the same article.
> More and more of these articles were being diluted by this argument.
>
> I have been in constant conflict with some who state that it is not only
> redundant to enter a single Article into both Categories; it is actually
> against Wikipedia policy. At present, if I enter John Doe into the
> ?Suicides
> by firearm? Category only, he does not appear in the ?Deaths by firearm?
> Category list. Consequently, if I want to call up all persons in the
> encyclopedia who have died by firearm, I must call up all the subcategory
> lists and collate them myself.
>
> Another example: Jane Doe dies from breast cancer. Category: ?Deaths from
> breast cancer? is added to her Category box, but I do not include the
> Category: ?Cancer deaths?. Then, when I click on the ?Category: Deaths
> from
> breast cancer?, her name is included in this list. But, if I click on the
> ?Category: Cancer deaths? she is not included.
>
> What I am wanting by adding her name to both Categories is a separate list
> of ALL persons who died from breast cancer, and a separate list of ALL
> persons who died from cancer. What is the problem with including the same
> Article in both a Main Category and a Subcategory?

It pretty much defeats the purpose of having subcategories.

By putting an article into a subcategory, you are effectively putting it
into the parent category.

Maybe we should figure out a way to make that more obvious.


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your
> name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not
> KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia
> administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good
> reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in
> general a Good Idea also applies here.

No, it's hardly the same thing.  Editors on wikipedia are not
anonymous, they are pseudonymous.  They build up a track record of
contributions which can be checked by anyone and they earn the respect
of the community with their work.  I may not know the real name of a
pseudonymous editor, but that is a pretty meaningless bit of
information in Wikipedia-land compared to an editor's history and
reputation.  While no one is expecting complaints to come notarized
with a copy of your passport, it is not unreasonable to weigh a
complaint on the basis of the complainer's willingness to stand behind
it and put their WP "reputation on the line", as Jimbo put it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

references:
<457E4A5C.1060904@wikia.com>
	<5cosn2he24nt57ntjdorgog081p8pjsbph@4ax.com>
	<A3D73CA7-306E-4C3A-B200-0DB3E3A10DA2@waterwiki.info>
	<mqftn2lcfma5bm1dg7tjjnkg2gmbocjo8h@4ax.com>
	<35C63923-9D4B-45B7-86E2-6D8B609F939D@waterwiki.info>
	<f80608430612120812h2848f5c6g6f767d4ea6143bea@mail.gmail.com>
	<8448DB0E-94EF-41C4-A955-3E4929BC9872@waterwiki.info>
	<457EFDF2.5030905@KillerChihuahua.com>
	<BFED0585-0D94-43FA-B5BB-5E22A12B5104@waterwiki.info>
	<lo0un252neiq4cchotk8qkd0ob78976qug@4ax.com>

body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0700, Fred Bauder
> <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it.
> >The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.
>
> Why?  Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
> Seriously. The 9/11 truthers are right up there on the grassy knoll
> with the "Elvis was abducted by aliens" crowd.  Like all classic
> conspiracy theories it demands that we believe several implausible
> hypotheses while simultaneously dismissing the perfectly rational but
> prosaic alternatives.

I've been down this road in arguments (with MONGO, strangely
enough...).  Here are my two cents.

One, to begin with, I absolutely agree that the engineering and
physics and analytical skills of 9/11 conspiracists are at best
sketchy and at worst flat-out self-delusional.  The technical claims
they make are easily demonstrably false.  My arguments here do not
spring from any sort of sympathy with what I percieve accuracy to be.

Two, there are large numbers of people who believe various aspects of
9/11 conspiracy theories.  These are verifyable (polls have been done
and published, by reputable mainstream polling organizations) and
sourced.

Three, the conspiracists have voluminously documented their beliefs,
in a verifyably sourceable manner.

Four, as a personal belief, attempts to supress conspiracists are
ultimately self-destructive.  Their ideas thrive on any public
perception that "mainstream" scientists, politicians, whoever are
seeking to deny the public the ability to read about the theory.  I
have hands-on experience with this problem going back to the Richard
Hoagland "Face on Mars" problem.  Ignoring it isn't great, and
confronting it often leads to frustration, but supressing it boosts
the popularity of the theory immensely.

I have fought this problem publically on the Internet on the Face on
Mars claims.  I have fought this problem on the Challenger Space
Shuttle disaster, the TWA flight 800 disaster, the Space Shuttle
Columbia disaster, and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I have the
experience to talk to this point.

It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy
theories about 9/11.  In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document
that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.

It's also perfectly fine to segregate that off on topic specific pages
with a brief mention in the event page that says "Various
organizations believe different theories of these events, see
[[Conspiracy theories about XYZ]]".  Segregation is not suppression,
and even the conspiracists eventually generally give in on those types
of points.

I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages
regularly for a while and I don't know the degree of shove we're
getting from those conspiracists of late.  I am sympathetic with "it
takes too much effort to fight these kooks", but suppressing Wikipedia
*coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to
dealing with it.

In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which
says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page,
and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and
puts it on the main pages.  Let them have their playpen at the
conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a
"Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point
on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate
onto the main page.  Give Arbcom the ability to decide if a particular
issue or page / set of pages meet the conspiracy theory policy, and
then let the normal admin anti-vandalism policy take hold.

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


from_name: pekka.gronow at yle.fi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

body:
Although I have nothing useful add on mo.wiki, I am tempted to comment on
the situation in a more general may.

As some participants have noted, it is not an easy thing to say what is a
language and what is not. The Norwegian linguist Einar Haugen used to say
that a language is a dialect which has its own army. The question has been
studied a lot in Norway, because the country uses two official variants of
Norwegian which are quite close to each other (from an outsider's
viewpoint).

Swedish is both the national language of Sweden and the second official
language of Finland. Although spoken Swedish in Finland differs somewhat
from the Swedish spoken in Stockholm, the written languages are officially
the same.

In addition to Finland, Finnish is also spoken in Sweden and Russia. The
language spoken and written by the original Finnish-speaking population of
Lappland is called "me?nkieli", and its ortography differs considerably
from standard Finnish. In this form, it has a legal minority language
status in Sweden, although most Finns in Finland would consider it just
another dialect. You might say that this was a political decision to
create a new language, but I would certainly welcome a wikipedia in
me?nkieli.

Finnish is also spoken in Russia, but c. 1939 the Soviet government
decided that the language should be written in cyrillic script and called
Karelian. This experiment was abandoned after the war.

If Moldovan is just the same as Romanian, then it is like Swedish in
Finland. If it differs in some respects from Romanian, but uses the same
script, then it is like me?nkieli. When it is written in Cyrillic, it is
like Karelian.  If Moldova decides to accept all of them, then it would be
like Norway. The problem with standards is that someone can always
introduce a new standard.

Pekka Gronow

Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com>
Sent by: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
12.12.2006 12:22
Please respond to
wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org

To
wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
cc

Subject
Re: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

> Your question of "who regulates this language in
> Transnistria" assumes
> that a language needs regulation. This is not
> necessary at all...

Right. But a **standard**, like ISO-????, is about
**standardisation**. That is, some form of standard
language different from other standard languages in
the dialect continuum. My question is: what will be
the characteristics of Standard Moldovan, as defined
by the standard?

You brought this standard in the discussion saying
that it will close the Romanian vs. Moldovan
discussion. I hope it will, but can't help asking
myself how. Just assigning language codes is not
sufficient. Someone has to say: this is standard RO,
this is standard MO, beat off. Can you? Is ISO-????
going to define this? Or just follow, I repeat, old
Soviet practices, by saying: On our side of the
fronteer the language is called Moldovan with code MO,
on yours it is called Romanian with code RO, and they
are different?

Dpotop

The whole discussion here

What you say about not needing regulatory bodies is
simply that they are going to adopt the appro

 many
> languages are recognised some are more like a
> language continuum.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the problem.

What is wrong with that page?

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


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
> Deadminship is a break which many should welcome. We should offer it
> more freely.

I put the syllable break in the wrong place in that first word... I
thought you were going a little over the top there...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
I don't understand how it would defeat the purpose of subcats. My goal is to
be able to retrieve lists of persons with like characteristics. Unless a
person is included in a subcategory, they will not be included in that list.
A person who dies from lung cancer, also belongs in the larger list of
persons who died from cancer.

Marc

> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:24:45 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hello
>
> On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
>>
>> When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category 3Suicides2.
>> If
>> a person1s article stated they committed suicide, the category, 3Suicides2
>> would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
>> firearm,
>> the Category, 3Suicides by firearm2 would be also be included. In this
>> case
>> the Category, 3Deaths by firearm2 would also be included. In this way, the
>> researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia who
>> had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
>> separate
>> lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of
>> all
>> persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.
>>
>> Then, I began finding many of my edits being reverting by persons who
>> stated
>> that only one of these Categories should be included in an article; that
>> both a main category and a subcategory should not be in the same article.
>> More and more of these articles were being diluted by this argument.
>>
>> I have been in constant conflict with some who state that it is not only
>> redundant to enter a single Article into both Categories; it is actually
>> against Wikipedia policy. At present, if I enter John Doe into the
>> ?Suicides
>> by firearm1 Category only, he does not appear in the ?Deaths by firearm1
>> Category list. Consequently, if I want to call up all persons in the
>> encyclopedia who have died by firearm, I must call up all the subcategory
>> lists and collate them myself.
>>
>> Another example: Jane Doe dies from breast cancer. Category: 3Deaths from
>> breast cancer2 is added to her Category box, but I do not include the
>> Category: 3Cancer deaths2. Then, when I click on the ?Category: Deaths
>> from
>> breast cancer1, her name is included in this list. But, if I click on the
>> ?Category: Cancer deaths1 she is not included.
>>
>> What I am wanting by adding her name to both Categories is a separate list
>> of ALL persons who died from breast cancer, and a separate list of ALL
>> persons who died from cancer. What is the problem with including the same
>> Article in both a Main Category and a Subcategory?
>
>
> It pretty much defeats the purpose of having subcategories.
>
> By putting an article into a subcategory, you are effectively putting it
> into the parent category.
>
> Maybe we should figure out a way to make that more obvious.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
 friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

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

Michael Smith stated for the record:
> Whatever you say, dick.
> ... Your policies are so much bullshit.

Moderators, please put Michael Smith on moderation.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Is smoke supposed to come out of it like that?
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFfyK0/SVOiq2uhHMRAmR7AJ9Qz9JbQVSX7K1pPlCGahzrlyOFcACePZ1q
+Pz3bFLET+MaYlq1WFMCHn0=
=YU0h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Arne Klempert

body:
On 12/12/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Only thing I can think of is that chapters would probably like to sell
> > things such as DVDs. Does this document need something about
> > fundraising or does that just belong in bylaws?
> > "providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public
> > free of charge" -- is selling content in opposition to this goal? or
> > is it OK as long as the material is still available free of charge
> > elsewhere.
>
> Like the German Wikipedia DVD that Wikimedia Deutschland put out.

Just a clarification: Wikimedia Deutschland is not the publisher of
the DVD. This is done by a company, Directmedia Publishing. And I'm
very happy that we don't have to take the attached financial and legal
risks.

Arne


body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all
> > sorts
> > of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore
> that
> > option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm
> not
> > too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
> certain
> > amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
> >
> > Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
> more
> > problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to
> > tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
> >
> > Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will,
> > -Luna
> >
>
> MONGO: I lost count.
> Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this
> user I'm leaving."
> FloNight: at least 2 instances.
>
> I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my head.
>

Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions,
other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad thing.  No,
let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible idea.

I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and
fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam.  It's
not hurting us to let people do it.  It may be irritating you, but that's
not by itself a reason to take official action over it.

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