from_name: Rick

body:
We have a lot of images with "no commercial use" caveats.  Does that mean these images have to be removed?

RickK

Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> We say "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
> Documentation License" -- note the phrase "all text", not "all content" --
> and then we give a link to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which explains things
> in more detail (especially in section 1.2, at least on [[w:en:]]).

I've spoken with Jimbo about this exact point back in February, and he
responded to me that it "is *not* a claim that _only_ text is available
under the terms of the GNU FDL." Furthermore, the GFDL requires that the
*entire document* is released under the GFDL, and that's exactly what
Wikipedia:Copyrights does. See this edit made by Jimbo after I spoke with
him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&diff=2457295&oldid=2428454

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040811/03035930/attachment.htm


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] the document vs. everything vs. the text

body:
Rick wrote:
> We have a lot of images with "no commercial use" caveats.  Does that
>mean these images have to be removed?

My position is that yes, eventually, these do need to be removed.
There can be exceptions, though...

If an image meets our fair use/fair dealing guidelines, which
basically means that it is easily fair use for us, and likely fair use
for most contemplated reusers, then we can keep it (because it is free
in the relevant sense) *even if* we are *also* able to obtain a
license of some sort.  It can be wise for us to have licenses for
content that we could use without a license, just to make things more
clear.

An example of a "fair use" that would likely be fine for just about
any contemplated reusers would be a quotation from a book that an
article is discussing.  Another example would be a screen shot from a
movie in an article about that movie.

If the _only_ way we can use a particular image is through a non-free
license, and we believe that a fair use defense would be unavailable
to us, or to most contemplated reusers, then it should be avoided.

--Jimbo


list: foundation-l

from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

body:
Hi,

Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:49, Michael Snow a ?crit :

(...)
> But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
> who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
> notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
> print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
> argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
> print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
> are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
> pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
> the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
> page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
> how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
> the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
> Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

I would agree with you on the interpretation of the GFDL, but I think that the
online and paper projects have to be treated differently.
Some people even say that the WMF should never publish a paper edition on its
own, and they may have some good points, but IANAL.

Anyway, I think it's the responsibility of the publisher of the paper edition
to remove fair use images. So it is important that images are clearly tagged,
so they can be easily removed with a simple SQL query.

And I can imagine another scenario where an organisation could buy the rights
of copyrighted images to include them in a paper edition. But I can't say if
this would be valid under the GFDL.

> --Michael Snow

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: xmlizer

subject: [Wikitech-l] minoredit...and al

body:
Hi

We look together with looxix last night to set correctly the display of
the minoredit legend part in [[mediawiki:histlegend]] in fr.wikipedia.org
We saw that :
* in history page, the HTML is m
* in contibutions, it is m
* in recentchanges, it is "m" taken from [[mediawiki:minoreditletter]]

the best, I hope, is m put in a
[[mediawiki:minoreditletter]] used everywhere in the soft
so as to change display in CSS (bold or not, italic or not, showed or not)
so as if some wiki want to change the letter depending on the langage it
would be on a single place

Am I missing some important thing

Xmlizer


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Using a tripod (Re: Obnoxious art galleries...)

body:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:36:40PM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> No flash can be justified because some of these old things can be
> eventually be damaged by repeated exposure to bright lights.

Which is a funny thing to observe: try Louvre/Paris, where you're mostly
forbidden using flashes... but you may do whatever you please in the section
of famous paintings, including [[Mona Lisa]]. Either they're fake (don't
think do), or they're made of flash resistant 15th-18th century painting. :)

I believe most artifacts in the Louvre are free to photo, and they indeed
have a *HUGE* collection of *everything*. French wikipedians with good cams
are a good source of PD pictures. :)

Probably the same at many museums as others mentioned.

But I'm really curious about those claiming rights over PD material, whether
they stand any chance. If they'd do it's pretty scary.

Peter


subject: [Wikitech-l] Hurricane watch

body:
Tropical storm Charley has just been upgraded to Hurricane Charley,
and it is headed more or less my way.

http://hurricane.tbo.com/

I particularly recommend that we keep a watch on 'strike
probabilities', see:

http://hurricane.weathercenter.com/statements/strike/strike3.htm

At the moment, the National Weather Service is projecting a 28% chance
of a hit on Tampa through 8AM EDT on Sat Aug 14.

Although I think our facility is well-poised to withstand a fairly
substantial weather situation, we might want to start thinking in
advance about offsite backups.

--Jimbo


from_name: Robert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Jayjg is still inserting fraudulent info and changing
	protected pages.

body:
Jayjg is now out of control. He is again putting forged
quotes into articles, creating deliberate lies and
presenting them as facts, and is editing protected
articles.

He needs to be banned for at least a week, starting now.

Please note that _none_ of the many people on the
WikiProject for Judaism articles are having such problems
with each other, with the sole exception of Jayjg. Some of
us are ultra-Orthodox, some are Modern Orthodox, some are
Reform, some are Conservative, but none of us have a
problem with basic honestly and accurate quoting.

Jayjg is the only one in the group engaging in outright
fraud, the only one engaged in a non-stop series of
reversions, and the only one engaging in wholesale decit.
he is now up to five revisions per day on a single article,
and he shows no signs of stoping.  Please enforce the
standard Wikipedia rules and ban him.

Robert

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
You may proceed by adding evidence to [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/RK/Evidence]] and otherwise participating in that case.

Fred

> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:09:49 -0400
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is using non-stop reverts
>
> Sorry to have to trouble this list with this issue again.  From my
> perspective RK has recently made a number of major revisions to articles
> which I believe are controversial, non-factual, and often promote a personal
> POV.  I have repeatedly requested that he bring the revisions to Talk: so
> they can be discussed first, before inserting them, but so far he has
> insisted on inserting them, not brought them to Talk:, and threatened to
> have me banned.  I'm kind of at my wit's end here, I'm not sure how to
> proceed.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN? Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling
> get-togethers.
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http:
> //hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
> Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
> first two months FREE*.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Henry H. Tan-Tenn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Lb: Language Questions

body:
Ewen Caroline wrote:

> I have a question: How do you get the whole Wiki interface in your language
> (so that it doesn't say "Main Page" but "Haapts?it" for ex. in the menus) ?
> I translated the language.php from the french version because I thought this
> was it but apparently not. Can anyone help ? :)

Messages can be edited here:
http://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allmessages

But currently names of months, weeks and a few other strings will have
to wait for a new patch to go live.

Also see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_localization

> Oh and we still need a Logo. It has been requested for quite some time now
> but no one seems to be working on it so far. How long does that usually
> take ?

I submitted one recently, too.  I think Nohat moved recently so he may
be busy tending his real life :) .


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is using non-stop reverts

body:
You're doing much better than I am. I'm lucky if I can convince William
Connolley in FIVE DAYS, when he's wrong.

Maybe I should complain more? ;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> It is not clear whether he is engaging in straw-man
> attacks on purpose, or is just not reading carefully. In any
> case, it is taking me an average of two days per article to
> convince him on any given point that he is mistaken. Until
> then he just reverts, reverts, and reverts.


body:
Try doing what I do on science controversies:

1. If someone reverts a perfectly good edit (in your humble opinion),
quit for the day. Go and work on a different article.

2. Try to get to know your fellow contributors. Dr. C. and I disagree on
a lot of stuff, but in the process of dialogue I've discovered quite a
bit that we _do_ agree on.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JAY JG [mailto:jayjg at hotmail.com]
> I'm kind of at my wit's end here, I'm not sure how to proceed.


from_name: Gutza

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla

body:
Bill Clark wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:28:39 +0300, Gutza <gutza at moongate.ro> wrote:
>
>
>>Just to confirm, it now works from Romania with
>>http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ -- if it propagated until here, then it
>>probably should've propagated everywhere ("If I can make it there/Then I
>>can make it everywhere/Bucharest, Buchareeest!" :)).
>>
>>
>
>Contrary to popular belief, DNS doesn't "propagate" -- more
>accurately, cache entries expire.  Distance and topology are
>irrelevant.  What matters is the age and TTL (Time To Live) of DNS
>entries in your local DNS cache (as well as how your local cache is
>configured).
>
>

I just expected us Eastern Europeans to have to access more proxy DNS
caches along the way, as opposed to you westerners who probably have
more direct access to the backbone. Apparently it's the other way
around, due to heavier Internet usage over there, hence more servers,
yours have larger cache periods of time in order to reduce traffic. Not
to worry though, the trend is to decrease 'em:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/13/verisign_dns_update/

--Gutza


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [WikiEN-l] anons editing

body:
Liking Wikipedia to a drug addiction, how appripirate (no joke)

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:04:23 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Fennec Foxen wrote:
>
> ><nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to hear a convincing
> >>reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw plenty of cases when
> >>I wished they couldn't.  Zero.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become
> >non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the
> >anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration.
> >There's one- okay?
> >
> That's an important point.  I tried things for a couple weeks before I
> was addicted enough to join.
>
> Agressively insisting that a person be registered on his first day would
> be like a drug dealer warning a first time client about addiction. :-)
> That's not good for business.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: JAY JG

body:
Sorry to have to trouble this list with this issue again.  From my
perspective RK has recently made a number of major revisions to articles
which I believe are controversial, non-factual, and often promote a personal
POV.  I have repeatedly requested that he bring the revisions to Talk: so
they can be discussed first, before inserting them, but so far he has
insisted on inserting them, not brought them to Talk:, and threatened to
have me banned.  I'm kind of at my wit's end here, I'm not sure how to
proceed.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN? Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling
get-togethers.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hurricane watch

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> Could the database dumps be upgraded ASAP because of this? The last
> ones were taken six days ago.

A backup is in progress now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040811/7b0af98b/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki

body:
--- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can someone set up another db as a memorial wiki for non-9/11 memorials?

No - just move the sep11 wiki to wikipeple.org and expand that project's focus.
The sep11wiki on its own has been an embarrassing failure of Wikimedia due to
its single-event focus. We should either abandon the project entirely or expand
its focus.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sub-stub city

body:
--- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Why not have the software add {{autostub}} or
> > [[Category:Wikipedia:Automatic stub]] to every new article below, say,
> > 500 bytes? That would keep track of those and give stubhunters a list of
> > what to look at. If it is a "legimate stub", replace the automated
> > message with {{stub}}.
> >
> > Magnus
>
> This would be nice.  +sj+

Absolutely not! Keep the category namespace free from Wikipedia-specific
references.

--mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Jayjg is still inserting fraudulent info and
	changingprotected pages.

body:
>From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is still inserting fraudulent info and
>changingprotected pages.
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mc1-f24.hotmail.com ([64.4.50.31]) by mc1-s5.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:52:51 -0700
>Received: from mail.wikimedia.org ([207.142.131.234]) by
>mc1-f24.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Wed, 11 Aug 2004
>12:52:38 -0700
>Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D4B11D019F;Wed, 11 Aug 2004
>19:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from web20321.mail.yahoo.com
>(web20321.mail.yahoo.com[216.136.227.6])by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix)
>with SMTP id A8AA71AC0207for <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2004
>19:52:33 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from [209.247.222.100] by web20321.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;Wed,
>11 Aug 2004 12:52:32 PDT
>X-Message-Info: NDMZeIBu+spUr8/bcC4c0FYrKuuhQH+ZbOIeUNOG3fc=
>X-Original-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Delivered-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Message-ID: <20040811195232.30319.qmail at web20321.mail.yahoo.com>
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5c2
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2004 19:52:39.0811 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[C208DD30:01C47FDC]
>
>
>Jayjg is now out of control. He is again putting forged
>quotes into articles, creating deliberate lies and
>presenting them as facts, and is editing protected
>articles.
>
>He needs to be banned for at least a week, starting now.
>
>Please note that _none_ of the many people on the
>WikiProject for Judaism articles are having such problems
>with each other, with the sole exception of Jayjg. Some of
>us are ultra-Orthodox, some are Modern Orthodox, some are
>Reform, some are Conservative, but none of us have a
>problem with basic honestly and accurate quoting.
>
>Jayjg is the only one in the group engaging in outright
>fraud, the only one engaged in a non-stop series of
>reversions, and the only one engaging in wholesale decit.
>he is now up to five revisions per day on a single article,
>and he shows no signs of stoping.  Please enforce the
>standard Wikipedia rules and ban him.

Robert, has it occurred to you that if you stopped inserting controversial
text into articles five times a day, without first bringing it to Talk:,
then there would be no need to revert it five times a day?

I suggest you go to Talk: to work this out, and stop using this list for
that purpose.

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new
MSN Search! Check it out!


from_name: Krzysztof Kowalczyk

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Small fund-rising improvements.

body:
I was just looking on Foundation's fund-rising page and have two comments.

1. I think that "Merchandise" and "Donations" should be separated,
similar to what http://www.mozilla.org/ does. I believe more people
would visit "Merchandise" or "WikiPedia merchandise" resulting in more
sales => more funding. I believe that because in people's minds
"donating" and "buying cool stuff" (even if it ultimately leads to
funding a good cause) is strongly separated.

In more specific terms, things that could be done:
* a link to "Merchandise" on main wikipedia.org page, in the nav
section, next to "Donations" link
* this link goes to a separate page on foundation's website which only
deals with merchandise (and not all donations options)

In general I think that foundation should study what Mozilla project
does for fundraising as they are not larger/more visible project but
according to http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=110721 they
do much better at getting funding via. t-shirt sales ($15,000.00 for
mozilla vs. $460.90 for wikipedia).

Things that I think mozilla.org does better:
* much nicer web design. No offense, but
http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising is bad, both functionally
(it's hard to read, the copy isn't that great) and visually (compare
to http://www.mozillastore.com/products/clothing)
* selling t-shirts on open-source conventions (linuxcon/oscon/devday)
which is what http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=110721
implies that mozilla foundation is doing (I don't really know, I
haven't been there)

2. More t-shirt designs.

I think that a design that gives emphasis on personal involvement in
the project would be more attractive to people than a generic design
with a logo. E.g. designs with teksts such as "I contribute to
WikiPedia.org" or "I wrote for Encyclopedia \n wikipedia.org", "I
write Encyclopedia articles \n wikipedia.org". I'm not claiming that
exactly this wording should be used - I just want to give an example
of what I mean (emphasis on contributing/writing for
WikiPedia/Encyclopedia).

Also, I think that Mozilla's "$50 donation t-shirt"
(http://www.mozillastore.com/products/donations/50shirt) is a good
idea. It could even had a text that says that e.g. "I donated to
WikiPedia", "I make Free Encyclopedia possible", "I fund Free
Encyclopedia" - something along those lines.

Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info


from_name: Ewen Caroline

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lb: Language Questions

body:
Hi,

I have a question: How do you get the whole Wiki interface in your language
(so that it doesn't say "Main Page" but "Haapts?it" for ex. in the menus) ?
I translated the language.php from the french version because I thought this
was it but apparently not. Can anyone help ? :)

Oh and we still need a Logo. It has been requested for quite some time now
but no one seems to be working on it so far. How long does that usually
take ?

Thanks a lot :-)

Caroline aka Bris?is, http://lb.wikipedia.org


from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hurricane watch

body:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:05:13 +0200, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason
<avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could the database dumps be upgraded ASAP because of this? The last
> ones were taken six days ago.
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:45:34 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
>
>
> <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Tropical storm Charley has just been upgraded to Hurricane Charley,
> > and it is headed more or less my way.
> >
> > http://hurricane.tbo.com/
> >
> > I particularly recommend that we keep a watch on 'strike
> > probabilities', see:
> >
> > http://hurricane.weathercenter.com/statements/strike/strike3.htm
> >
> > At the moment, the National Weather Service is projecting a 28% chance
> > of a hit on Tampa through 8AM EDT on Sat Aug 14.
> >
> > Although I think our facility is well-poised to withstand a fairly
> > substantial weather situation, we might want to start thinking in
> > advance about offsite backups.
> >
> > --Jimbo

Is there a formal site for keeping / storing offsite backups (not just the
latest backup, btw, for cases of unnoticed corruption)?  It would be useful
to have a tested failover plan for the unlikely event of a collapse of the
Florida facility.

+sj+


from_name: phil hunt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: anons editing

body:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:04:23 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>Anonymous editors may become interested in Wikipedia and become
>>non-anonymous. This occurs with greater frequency it would if the
>>anonymous user was not able to experiment prior to registration.
>>There's one- okay?
>>
>That's an important point.  I tried things for a couple weeks before I
>was addicted enough to join.

Me too

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sub-stub city

body:
> Why not have the software add {{autostub}} or
> [[Category:Wikipedia:Automatic stub]] to every new article below, say,
> 500 bytes? That would keep track of those and give stubhunters a list of
> what to look at. If it is a "legimate stub", replace the automated
> message with {{stub}}.
>
> Magnus

This would be nice.  +sj+


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki

body:
Can someone set up another db as a memorial wiki for non-9/11 memorials?

I just took a refreshing dip in the VfD drainage pit, and was reminded
that we still have no
place for the scads of well-intentioned memorial pages and obits of
people who have been
deemed too unencyclopaedic for WP, making exception for th victims of 9/11.

There have been many different discussions about setting up a
Wikimorial or some alternately
named memorial wiki -- I think this would be an excellent idea.  It
hurts noone, can be clearly
identified by skin and disclaimers as distinct from WP, and will
provide a place for people who
are interested in a genealogy wiki (cf. [[m:Wikifamily]]) to start
putting information.

I regularly see VfD comments of the form "transwiki to memorial and
delete"; where do those
end up at present?  There are a number of non-9/11 memorial transwikis
listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old , but
not nearly as many as
have passed through VfD in recent months.

+sj+


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki


body:
Hi,

Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:56, mbecker a ?crit :
> Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you
> everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of
> images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we
> have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a
> lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It
> concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is
> dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between
> copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this
> will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to
> use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including
> non-free content.

On fr:, we are doing it now.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
and the list is getting smaller every minute.

We use the following tags whenever possible:
{{GFDL}}
{{DomainePublic}}
{{FairUse}}
{{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)

So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


subject: [Foundation-l] Announcement mailing list

body:
Hello all,

I would like to request once more an announcement mailing list, which
would send out at most
a few moderated messages a week, which I could automatically flag as
'important' when they
arrive.

The messages would ideally be as short as possible, with links to
relevant news reports,
announcements, votes, and more-detailed discussions.  The content of
this mailing list
could later form the basis for a slightly more meaty newsletter.

Translation issues exist, as they do with this list and with
[[m:Goings On]] , but could be
worked out once the list is up and in use.

One possible announcement-note this week, as an example:
* fr: is working on a 50k-article press release;
* en: is having a minor election;
* results of the recent bug hunt; possible timeline for a stable MW 1.3 release

+sj+


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
> who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
> notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem
> is print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying
> any argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
> print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the
> images are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier
> facing pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book.
> But in the routine print version, where the image is printed out on
> the same page as the article, they look like part of one document and
> I don't see how you can make much of a case that they're not.

We have too little detail on the printing and publication plans for the
print edition.  The danger with an edition that infringes copyright
revolves around injunctive measures that would prevent its
distribution.  By limiting press runs to what can be distributed in one
month that would limit those damages.  In going from version 1.0 to
version 1.1 it would be easier to adjust  for any copyright complaint
that might have been received.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikipedia-Freenode relations

body:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:35:32 +0100, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> That identifies you as the same person each time on IRC, but it doesn't
> identify you as the same person as whoever is using that nick on Wikipedia.
>
> If someone registers "timwi" before you do on IRC they could pretend to be
> the Wikipedia Timwi - and there is no way to tell differently.  Cloaks have
> only been given out to people who have confirmed their nick on Wikpedia.
>
> Like Jimbo - I like the security of knowing that I can be seen to be the
> same "sannse" on IRC and Wikipedia.
>
> --sannse

I agree with sannse here -- I like being able to map someone I talk to on
IRC, via the IRCnick--to--WPusername linkage provided by cloaking.  Then even
when someone is fooling around and switching names back and forth, you
can have a private conversation with them and ask them to switch to their
cloaked nick.

+sj+


body:
Peter Gervai wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:36:40PM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>No flash can be justified because some of these old things can be
>>eventually be damaged by repeated exposure to bright lights.
>>
>>
>
>Which is a funny thing to observe: try Louvre/Paris, where you're mostly
>forbidden using flashes... but you may do whatever you please in the section
>of famous paintings, including [[Mona Lisa]]. Either they're fake (don't
>think do), or they're made of flash resistant 15th-18th century painting. :)
>
>
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the no
flash policy may be doing the amateur photographer a favour.  It
prevents the situation where he gets back home to find nothing but
pictures of the glare back of his own flash equipment. :-)

Ec


body:
Ewen Caroline wrote:

> Oh and we still need a Logo. It has been requested for quite some time now
> but no one seems to be working on it so far. How long does that usually
> take ?

Oh, btw, although there are requests to make logos on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_logos#Requests ,I believe
Nohat would like people to make the request on his talk page instead.
 From his user page:  "If you want me to make a new logo or a new
version of a logo, please indicate the contents of the logo on
meta:Wikipedia in other languages and leave me a note on my talk page".

It took me a while to figure out....


from_name: Dietrich von Hase

body:
Hi,

>
>On fr:, we are doing it now.
>http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
>and the list is getting smaller every minute.
>
>We use the following tags whenever possible:
>{{GFDL}}
>{{DomainePublic}}
>{{FairUse}}
>{{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
>
>So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
If find this a very good approach and advance.

However, I might suggest to additionally offer at least the Creative
Commons license types as further options / choices for a picture
publisher (for images only) in WP.  Its as easy as with Gnu Fdl to link
the license info to the Creative Commons (CC) full text license text of
the CC-Website.

I suggest to consider it, because CC use is growing especially for media
types of content. And CC should therefore be not left out since more and
more picture databases grow under CC which can be used for WP too. And
they should not be put under "LicenseInconnue" (rest of the pack) only
because there is no other option for the CC licenses available.

Dietrich


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright

body:
Hi, this is my first mail to this list, to which I've just subscribed.
I understand the below discussion has been moved here?

The discussion in question concerns various issues I described in
detail on a password-protected area of my website (as there were
problems w/ list members receiving the relevant HTML file containing my
writings). I would invite list members here to also read this page.
 From a previous email I sent:

> I have thus now posted my "little paper" on my website, at:
> 	http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html

capitalization matters on the URL, btw.

> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: guest
> 	password: 1ns4nI+y
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to give the rascal I'm exposing there easy opportunity
> to sue me.
> Please feel free to pass these account details on to other *trusted*
> Wikipedians.
>
> _Please, PLEASE DO have a look at it and read it!_
>
> Please, let's start tackling these issues! If there is a better place
> to take this, please tell me so! -- I am still fairly new and chances
> are I'm just not aware of it.
> I really do want these issues addressed!

In case people have commented on this issue already, I would be very
grateful to be forwarded copies of any relevant emails. I would not
have received them previously as I wasn't a list member till now.

In response to my email, Angela_ responded as follows:

On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:29, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:59:25 +0100
> From: Angela_ <beesley at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <8b722b800408101459821267b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> (moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
>> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
>
> Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
> could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
> domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
> wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.

True, but that confusion is already there. People /are/ accessing
wikipAEdia domains. I did. Also, as I observed in my wikipaedia.html
paper above, Dr. Schlabeck is actively furthering that confusion by
impersonating us and linking to us in a confusing (non-working) way.
(See Gripe #1, #3 and #4.)
We're not helping ourselves by avoiding the battle and "yielding
ground". We should claim and hold what ground is rightfully ours and
systematically pursue our claims on the domains Dr. Schlabeck currently
controls. (Sorry about the militaristic lingo. Couldn't think of a
clearer way to put it.)
I would also suggest that things get implemented as follows as far as
DNS servers:
1. Make wikipaedia.net /redirect/ to wikipedia.org, so that users
hitting wikipaedia.net will find themselves looking at the Wikipedia,
/with/ a wikipedia.org URL in the address bar. (And let's /not/ put in
one of those silly 5-second-delay-to-redirect, "please change your
bookmarks" pages. Those are pretty friggin useless anyway.
2. Configure the DNS boxen in such a fashion that, say, a URL of
http://en.wikipaedia.net/wiki/Charlie_Muffin will automatically
redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Muffin. This may be
slightly controversial in that there's the downside that such a
"forgiving" behaviour might encourage people to keep using the "wrong"
URL. On the other hand, as long as it fully redirects to the correct
.org address, there shouldn't be much to worry about as people will
realize very quickly that our "main" URL is wikipedia.org. And it's not
as if we had to fear loosing wikipaedia.net anytime soon.

I've also email Jimmy on this -- no reply yet -- because I wanted to do
the actual turning over of the domain directly to him, to avoid any
possible issues, say, with someone untrustworthy reading this list,
grabbing the domain and sodding off with it.

In the meantime, the suggested DNS changes could already be
implemented! :)
I don't have a DNS server and I don't have the option to directly enter
a redirection URL with my domain name registrar (i.e. they're not
offering DNS services for this domain-name-only account). What I can
enter are DNS server addresses. So if the appropriate Wikipedia admins
(Jimmy?) were to include the appropriate records with their name
servers (possibly zwinger.wikipedia.org and gunther.bomis.com?), I
could then enter these server addresses into the wikipaedia.net domain
control panel and things should be working, even before the actual
domain ownership gets formally transferred to the WP Foundation.

>> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
>> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
>> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
>
> I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
> much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
> friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
> going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
> there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
> this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
> before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
> successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
> so perhaps this can be successful too.
>
> Angela.

True, it can't hurt to ask -- and it's The Right Thing™.
However, I still have my doubts, because Dr. Schlabeck is not only
cybersquatting on us but also impersonating us and infringing our
copyrights (see Gripe #1, #2, #3 and #4). To top things off, he seems
to be a truly "remarkable" serial cybersqatter (see Gripe #5). I think
what'll happen is this:
1. He'll claim ignorance on the content copyright infringement and
impersonation issues ("I thought it was free!").
2. He'll demand cash, and not only cash but extortionate sums for the
wikipaedia domains he currently controls.
But -- true enough -- it can't hurt to ask. It actually strengthens our
case.

As regards the VereinDE-l mailing list, well, actually, I happen to
speak German. So I'll join the VereinDE-l ML (any minute now...) and
see what can be done there. (I was actually hoping others to take over
the baton from me with these things, because I've already spent quite a
bit of time on this. ;-) Anyhoo, the wikipaedia.de and content
infringement issues are probably better dealt with by the German Verein
(because the domain and content in question are German).

BUT:
I would still suggest tackling the wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.org
issues from our end, because these issues concern us more than our
German Verein. Plus, we don't even have to sue: It is /perfectly
sufficient/ to pursue our claims on these gTLD domains under the ICANN
UDRP! (And, IANAL, but the way I read the UDRP we're pretty much
/guaranteed/ to win there. The only semi-legitimate "claim" Dr.
Schlabeck could put to the domain is to say the -paedia bit stood for
Paediater (German for pediatrician) --- but he's a psychiatrist, not a
pediatrician!) Anyways, if needed I could translate agreed-upon
Schlabeck-addressed correspondence to German (if it's not too long.)
Besides, IMHO we needn't necessarily worry about a language barrier
from our end. -- It is quite reasonable to expect holders of gTLDs to
respond to related correspondence in English.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8056 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040811/0db27674/attachment.bin


body:
Hi, this is my first mail to this list, to which I've just subscribed.
I understand the below discussion has been moved here?

The discussion in question concerns various issues I described in
detail on a password-protected area of my website (as there were
problems w/ list members receiving the relevant HTML file containing my
writings). I would invite list members here to also read this page.
 From a previous email I sent:

> I have thus now posted my "little paper" on my website, at:
> 	http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html

capitalization matters on the URL, btw.

> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: guest
> 	password: 1ns4nI+y
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to give the rascal I'm exposing there easy opportunity
> to sue me.
> Please feel free to pass these account details on to other *trusted*
> Wikipedians.
>
> _Please, PLEASE DO have a look at it and read it!_
>
> Please, let's start tackling these issues! If there is a better place
> to take this, please tell me so! -- I am still fairly new and chances
> are I'm just not aware of it.
> I really do want these issues addressed!

In case people have commented on this issue already, I would be very
grateful to be forwarded copies of any relevant emails. I would not
have received them previously as I wasn't a list member till now.

In response to my email, Angela_ responded as follows:

On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:29, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:59:25 +0100
> From: Angela_ <beesley at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <8b722b800408101459821267b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> (moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
>> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
>
> Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
> could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
> domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
> wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.

True, but that confusion is already there. People /are/ accessing
wikipAEdia domains. I did. Also, as I observed in my wikipaedia.html
paper above, Dr. Schlabeck is actively furthering that confusion by
impersonating us and linking to us in a confusing (non-working) way.
(See Gripe #1, #3 and #4.)
We're not helping ourselves by avoiding the battle and "yielding
ground". We should claim and hold what ground is rightfully ours and
systematically pursue our claims on the domains Dr. Schlabeck currently
controls. (Sorry about the militaristic lingo. Couldn't think of a
clearer way to put it.)
I would also suggest that things get implemented as follows as far as
DNS servers:
1. Make wikipaedia.net /redirect/ to wikipedia.org, so that users
hitting wikipaedia.net will find themselves looking at the Wikipedia,
/with/ a wikipedia.org URL in the address bar. (And let's /not/ put in
one of those silly 5-second-delay-to-redirect, "please change your
bookmarks" pages. Those are pretty friggin useless anyway.
2. Configure the DNS boxen in such a fashion that, say, a URL of
http://en.wikipaedia.net/wiki/Charlie_Muffin will automatically
redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Muffin. This may be
slightly controversial in that there's the downside that such a
"forgiving" behaviour might encourage people to keep using the "wrong"
URL. On the other hand, as long as it fully redirects to the correct
.org address, there shouldn't be much to worry about as people will
realize very quickly that our "main" URL is wikipedia.org. And it's not
as if we had to fear loosing wikipaedia.net anytime soon.

I've also email Jimmy on this -- no reply yet -- because I wanted to do
the actual turning over of the domain directly to him, to avoid any
possible issues, say, with someone untrustworthy reading this list,
grabbing the domain and sodding off with it.

In the meantime, the suggested DNS changes could already be
implemented! :)
I don't have a DNS server and I don't have the option to directly enter
a redirection URL with my domain name registrar (i.e. they're not
offering DNS services for this domain-name-only account). What I can
enter are DNS server addresses. So if the appropriate Wikipedia admins
(Jimmy?) were to include the appropriate records with their name
servers (possibly zwinger.wikipedia.org and gunther.bomis.com?), I
could then enter these server addresses into the wikipaedia.net domain
control panel and things should be working, even before the actual
domain ownership gets formally transferred to the WP Foundation.

>> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
>> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
>> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
>
> I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
> much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
> friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
> going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
> there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
> this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
> before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
> successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
> so perhaps this can be successful too.
>
> Angela.

True, it can't hurt to ask -- and it's The Right Thing™.
However, I still have my doubts, because Dr. Schlabeck is not only
cybersquatting on us but also impersonating us and infringing our
copyrights (see Gripe #1, #2, #3 and #4). To top things off, he seems
to be a truly "remarkable" serial cybersqatter (see Gripe #5). I think
what'll happen is this:
1. He'll claim ignorance on the content copyright infringement and
impersonation issues ("I thought it was free!").
2. He'll demand cash, and not only cash but extortionate sums for the
wikipaedia domains he currently controls.
But -- true enough -- it can't hurt to ask. It actually strengthens our
case.

As regards the VereinDE-l mailing list, well, actually, I happen to
speak German. So I'll join the VereinDE-l ML (any minute now...) and
see what can be done there. (I was actually hoping others to take over
the baton from me with these things, because I've already spent quite a
bit of time on this. ;-) Anyhoo, the wikipaedia.de and content
infringement issues are probably better dealt with by the German Verein
(because the domain and content in question are German).

BUT:
I would still suggest tackling the wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.org
issues from our end, because these issues concern us more than our
German Verein. Plus, we don't even have to sue: It is /perfectly
sufficient/ to pursue our claims on these gTLD domains under the ICANN
UDRP! (And, IANAL, but the way I read the UDRP we're pretty much
/guaranteed/ to win there. The only semi-legitimate "claim" Dr.
Schlabeck could put to the domain is to say the -paedia bit stood for
Paediater (German for pediatrician) --- but he's a psychiatrist, not a
pediatrician!) Anyways, if needed I could translate agreed-upon
Schlabeck-addressed correspondence to German (if it's not too long.)
Besides, IMHO we needn't necessarily worry about a language barrier
from our end. -- It is quite reasonable to expect holders of gTLDs to
respond to related correspondence in English.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8056 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040811/0db27674/attachment-0001.bin


body:
Hi, this is my first mail to this list, to which I've just subscribed.
I understand the below discussion has been moved here?

The discussion in question concerns various issues I described in
detail on a password-protected area of my website (as there were
problems w/ list members receiving the relevant HTML file containing my
writings). I would invite list members here to also read this page.
 From a previous email I sent:

> I have thus now posted my "little paper" on my website, at:
> 	http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html

capitalization matters on the URL, btw.

> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: guest
> 	password: 1ns4nI+y
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to give the rascal I'm exposing there easy opportunity
> to sue me.
> Please feel free to pass these account details on to other *trusted*
> Wikipedians.
>
> _Please, PLEASE DO have a look at it and read it!_
>
> Please, let's start tackling these issues! If there is a better place
> to take this, please tell me so! -- I am still fairly new and chances
> are I'm just not aware of it.
> I really do want these issues addressed!

In case people have commented on this issue already, I would be very
grateful to be forwarded copies of any relevant emails. I would not
have received them previously as I wasn't a list member till now.

In response to my email, Angela_ responded as follows:

On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:29, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:59:25 +0100
> From: Angela_ <beesley at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <8b722b800408101459821267b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> (moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
>> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
>
> Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
> could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
> domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
> wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.

True, but that confusion is already there. People /are/ accessing
wikipAEdia domains. I did. Also, as I observed in my wikipaedia.html
paper above, Dr. Schlabeck is actively furthering that confusion by
impersonating us and linking to us in a confusing (non-working) way.
(See Gripe #1, #3 and #4.)
We're not helping ourselves by avoiding the battle and "yielding
ground". We should claim and hold what ground is rightfully ours and
systematically pursue our claims on the domains Dr. Schlabeck currently
controls. (Sorry about the militaristic lingo. Couldn't think of a
clearer way to put it.)
I would also suggest that things get implemented as follows as far as
DNS servers:
1. Make wikipaedia.net /redirect/ to wikipedia.org, so that users
hitting wikipaedia.net will find themselves looking at the Wikipedia,
/with/ a wikipedia.org URL in the address bar. (And let's /not/ put in
one of those silly 5-second-delay-to-redirect, "please change your
bookmarks" pages. Those are pretty friggin useless anyway.
2. Configure the DNS boxen in such a fashion that, say, a URL of
http://en.wikipaedia.net/wiki/Charlie_Muffin will automatically
redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Muffin. This may be
slightly controversial in that there's the downside that such a
"forgiving" behaviour might encourage people to keep using the "wrong"
URL. On the other hand, as long as it fully redirects to the correct
.org address, there shouldn't be much to worry about as people will
realize very quickly that our "main" URL is wikipedia.org. And it's not
as if we had to fear loosing wikipaedia.net anytime soon.

I've also email Jimmy on this -- no reply yet -- because I wanted to do
the actual turning over of the domain directly to him, to avoid any
possible issues, say, with someone untrustworthy reading this list,
grabbing the domain and sodding off with it.

In the meantime, the suggested DNS changes could already be
implemented! :)
I don't have a DNS server and I don't have the option to directly enter
a redirection URL with my domain name registrar (i.e. they're not
offering DNS services for this domain-name-only account). What I can
enter are DNS server addresses. So if the appropriate Wikipedia admins
(Jimmy?) were to include the appropriate records with their name
servers (possibly zwinger.wikipedia.org and gunther.bomis.com?), I
could then enter these server addresses into the wikipaedia.net domain
control panel and things should be working, even before the actual
domain ownership gets formally transferred to the WP Foundation.

>> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
>> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
>> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
>
> I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
> much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
> friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
> going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
> there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
> this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
> before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
> successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
> so perhaps this can be successful too.
>
> Angela.

True, it can't hurt to ask -- and it's The Right Thing™.
However, I still have my doubts, because Dr. Schlabeck is not only
cybersquatting on us but also impersonating us and infringing our
copyrights (see Gripe #1, #2, #3 and #4). To top things off, he seems
to be a truly "remarkable" serial cybersqatter (see Gripe #5). I think
what'll happen is this:
1. He'll claim ignorance on the content copyright infringement and
impersonation issues ("I thought it was free!").
2. He'll demand cash, and not only cash but extortionate sums for the
wikipaedia domains he currently controls.
But -- true enough -- it can't hurt to ask. It actually strengthens our
case.

As regards the VereinDE-l mailing list, well, actually, I happen to
speak German. So I'll join the VereinDE-l ML (any minute now...) and
see what can be done there. (I was actually hoping others to take over
the baton from me with these things, because I've already spent quite a
bit of time on this. ;-) Anyhoo, the wikipaedia.de and content
infringement issues are probably better dealt with by the German Verein
(because the domain and content in question are German).

BUT:
I would still suggest tackling the wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.org
issues from our end, because these issues concern us more than our
German Verein. Plus, we don't even have to sue: It is /perfectly
sufficient/ to pursue our claims on these gTLD domains under the ICANN
UDRP! (And, IANAL, but the way I read the UDRP we're pretty much
/guaranteed/ to win there. The only semi-legitimate "claim" Dr.
Schlabeck could put to the domain is to say the -paedia bit stood for
Paediater (German for pediatrician) --- but he's a psychiatrist, not a
pediatrician!) Anyways, if needed I could translate agreed-upon
Schlabeck-addressed correspondence to German (if it's not too long.)
Besides, IMHO we needn't necessarily worry about a language barrier
from our end. -- It is quite reasonable to expect holders of gTLDs to
respond to related correspondence in English.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040811/0db27674/attachment.bin>


body:
Hi, this is my first mail to this list, to which I've just subscribed.
I understand the below discussion has been moved here?

The discussion in question concerns various issues I described in
detail on a password-protected area of my website (as there were
problems w/ list members receiving the relevant HTML file containing my
writings). I would invite list members here to also read this page.
 From a previous email I sent:

> I have thus now posted my "little paper" on my website, at:
> 	http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html

capitalization matters on the URL, btw.

> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: guest
> 	password: 1ns4nI+y
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to give the rascal I'm exposing there easy opportunity
> to sue me.
> Please feel free to pass these account details on to other *trusted*
> Wikipedians.
>
> _Please, PLEASE DO have a look at it and read it!_
>
> Please, let's start tackling these issues! If there is a better place
> to take this, please tell me so! -- I am still fairly new and chances
> are I'm just not aware of it.
> I really do want these issues addressed!

In case people have commented on this issue already, I would be very
grateful to be forwarded copies of any relevant emails. I would not
have received them previously as I wasn't a list member till now.

In response to my email, Angela_ responded as follows:

On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:29, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:59:25 +0100
> From: Angela_ <beesley at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <8b722b800408101459821267b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> (moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
>> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
>
> Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
> could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
> domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
> wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.

True, but that confusion is already there. People /are/ accessing
wikipAEdia domains. I did. Also, as I observed in my wikipaedia.html
paper above, Dr. Schlabeck is actively furthering that confusion by
impersonating us and linking to us in a confusing (non-working) way.
(See Gripe #1, #3 and #4.)
We're not helping ourselves by avoiding the battle and "yielding
ground". We should claim and hold what ground is rightfully ours and
systematically pursue our claims on the domains Dr. Schlabeck currently
controls. (Sorry about the militaristic lingo. Couldn't think of a
clearer way to put it.)
I would also suggest that things get implemented as follows as far as
DNS servers:
1. Make wikipaedia.net /redirect/ to wikipedia.org, so that users
hitting wikipaedia.net will find themselves looking at the Wikipedia,
/with/ a wikipedia.org URL in the address bar. (And let's /not/ put in
one of those silly 5-second-delay-to-redirect, "please change your
bookmarks" pages. Those are pretty friggin useless anyway.
2. Configure the DNS boxen in such a fashion that, say, a URL of
http://en.wikipaedia.net/wiki/Charlie_Muffin will automatically
redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Muffin. This may be
slightly controversial in that there's the downside that such a
"forgiving" behaviour might encourage people to keep using the "wrong"
URL. On the other hand, as long as it fully redirects to the correct
.org address, there shouldn't be much to worry about as people will
realize very quickly that our "main" URL is wikipedia.org. And it's not
as if we had to fear loosing wikipaedia.net anytime soon.

I've also email Jimmy on this -- no reply yet -- because I wanted to do
the actual turning over of the domain directly to him, to avoid any
possible issues, say, with someone untrustworthy reading this list,
grabbing the domain and sodding off with it.

In the meantime, the suggested DNS changes could already be
implemented! :)
I don't have a DNS server and I don't have the option to directly enter
a redirection URL with my domain name registrar (i.e. they're not
offering DNS services for this domain-name-only account). What I can
enter are DNS server addresses. So if the appropriate Wikipedia admins
(Jimmy?) were to include the appropriate records with their name
servers (possibly zwinger.wikipedia.org and gunther.bomis.com?), I
could then enter these server addresses into the wikipaedia.net domain
control panel and things should be working, even before the actual
domain ownership gets formally transferred to the WP Foundation.

>> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
>> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
>> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
>
> I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
> much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
> friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
> going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
> there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
> this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
> before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
> successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
> so perhaps this can be successful too.
>
> Angela.

True, it can't hurt to ask -- and it's The Right Thing™.
However, I still have my doubts, because Dr. Schlabeck is not only
cybersquatting on us but also impersonating us and infringing our
copyrights (see Gripe #1, #2, #3 and #4). To top things off, he seems
to be a truly "remarkable" serial cybersqatter (see Gripe #5). I think
what'll happen is this:
1. He'll claim ignorance on the content copyright infringement and
impersonation issues ("I thought it was free!").
2. He'll demand cash, and not only cash but extortionate sums for the
wikipaedia domains he currently controls.
But -- true enough -- it can't hurt to ask. It actually strengthens our
case.

As regards the VereinDE-l mailing list, well, actually, I happen to
speak German. So I'll join the VereinDE-l ML (any minute now...) and
see what can be done there. (I was actually hoping others to take over
the baton from me with these things, because I've already spent quite a
bit of time on this. ;-) Anyhoo, the wikipaedia.de and content
infringement issues are probably better dealt with by the German Verein
(because the domain and content in question are German).

BUT:
I would still suggest tackling the wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.org
issues from our end, because these issues concern us more than our
German Verein. Plus, we don't even have to sue: It is /perfectly
sufficient/ to pursue our claims on these gTLD domains under the ICANN
UDRP! (And, IANAL, but the way I read the UDRP we're pretty much
/guaranteed/ to win there. The only semi-legitimate "claim" Dr.
Schlabeck could put to the domain is to say the -paedia bit stood for
Paediater (German for pediatrician) --- but he's a psychiatrist, not a
pediatrician!) Anyways, if needed I could translate agreed-upon
Schlabeck-addressed correspondence to German (if it's not too long.)
Besides, IMHO we needn't necessarily worry about a language barrier
from our end. -- It is quite reasonable to expect holders of gTLDs to
respond to related correspondence in English.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040811/0db27674/attachment-0001.bin>


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: minoredit...and al

body:
xmlizer wrote:

> We look together with looxix last night to set correctly the display of
> the minoredit legend part in [[mediawiki:histlegend]] in fr.wikipedia.org
> We saw that :
> * in history page, the HTML is m
> * in contibutions, it is m
> * in recentchanges, it is "m" taken from [[mediawiki:minoreditletter]]
>
> the best, I hope, is m put in a
> [[mediawiki:minoreditletter]] used everywhere in the soft
> so as to change display in CSS (bold or not, italic or not, showed or not)
> so as if some wiki want to change the letter depending on the langage it
> would be on a single place

Thanks for the notification.  I have changed the places you mentioned to
use  for minor edits, and  for
new pages.

Timwi


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: (unicode) templates in chess table

body:
Roman Maurer wrote:

> I was using direct unicode characters instead of chess-piece templates,
> but Internet Explorer users complained that they cannot see the
> characters and they appeared in background color in Mozilla (*), so I
> switched to templates that should display picture on the background.
>
> But this does not work!  Any hints where did I go wrong?

You should probably describe in greater detail what you mean by "does
not work".  It works perfectly for me.

Timwi


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki

body:
--- Angela_ <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this supposed to be at wikipeople.org (which Jimbo registered) or
> wikimorial.org (which mav registered)? Are Wikimorial and
> GlobalFamilyTree supposed to separate projects, or part of the same
> domain? The discussions on Meta do not seem conclusive on this.
>
> *http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimorial
> *http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GlobalFamilyTree

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipeople

The different proposals need to be merged - I have not had time to do that yet.
Some people had a strong dislike for the name "Wikimorial" so I'm going to let
that domain name expire. Everybody I'm aware of who commented on the issue
liked or at least could live with the 'Wikipeople' name.

> Also, can whoever has the passwords for these domains please pass them
> on to Tim Starling since nothing can be moved to them without the DNS
> settings be changed.

You'll have to ask Jimbo.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki


from_name: Roman Maurer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (unicode) templates in chess table

body:
Hello!

I have a problem encoding the chess table in Slovene Wikipedia:
http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uporabnik:Romanm/%C5%A0ahovska_deska
The upper-right version is twice-templated and subject to my question
since it is not working, the lower version does not use main template
and is there only for comparision.

The idea is to have [[Template:Chess_Position]] and use it like follows:

{{Chess_Position|white=white
|black=lightgray
|a1=
... other initialisations
|h8=
|h8=template for black knight
|g7=template for black king
|f7=template for white pawn
|e5=template for white king
|h4=template for white queen}}

I was using direct unicode characters instead of chess-piece templates,
but Internet Explorer users complained that they cannot see the
characters and they appeared in background color in Mozilla (*), so I
switched to templates that should display picture on the background.

But this does not work!  Any hints where did I go wrong?

* Version with Unicode characters:
http://sl.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Uporabnik:Romanm/%C5%A0ahovska_deska&oldid=32268
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


body:
--- Krzysztof Kowalczyk <kkowalczyk at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just looking on Foundation's fund-rising page and have two comments.
>
> 1. I think that "Merchandise" and "Donations" should be separated,
> similar to what http://www.mozilla.org/ does. I believe more people
> would visit "Merchandise" or "WikiPedia merchandise" resulting in more
> sales => more funding. I believe that because in people's minds
> "donating" and "buying cool stuff" (even if it ultimately leads to
> funding a good cause) is strongly separated.

As a matter of fact I also like the way the Mozilla people have their website
organized in that regard. However we only currently have one page and that is
in pure HTML which is hard to maintain. The WMF website under development will
have more than one page for fund raising.

But don't expect a Wikimedia store anytime soon - selling merchandise is fairly
low on my list of priorities. We might eventually partner with ThinkGeek,
MandrakeSoft, or even Mozilla to sell Wikimedia/Wikipedia merchandise.

> In more specific terms, things that could be done:
> * a link to "Merchandise" on main wikipedia.org page, in the nav
> section, next to "Donations" link

There are already too many links and the amount of money we get per order is
paltry. Thus a direct link is not warrented.

> In general I think that foundation should study what Mozilla project
> does for fundraising as they are not larger/more visible project but
> according to http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=110721 they
> do much better at getting funding via. t-shirt sales ($15,000.00 for
> mozilla vs. $460.90 for wikipedia).

Is that gross or net for Mozilla? How does the donation/t-shirt bundle come
into play? Our figure is net. Either way I plan to study many different
non-profit's websites to see what they do. I'm particularly interested in how
different NPR/PBS affiliates do this type of thing as well as free software
projects/distributions.

> Things that I think mozilla.org does better:
> * much nicer web design. No offense, but
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising is bad, both functionally
> (it's hard to read, the copy isn't that great) and visually (compare
> to http://www.mozillastore.com/products/clothing)

It is hard to read at low resolution and the copy could use some condensing,
yes. But comparing it to Mozilla's clothing sales page is not valid or fair.

> * selling t-shirts on open-source conventions (linuxcon/oscon/devday)
> which is what http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=110721
> implies that mozilla foundation is doing (I don't really know, I
> haven't been there)

Again the focus on t-shirts is misplaced. We've had our CafePress shop linked
very prominently for some time now and have only seen a small trickle of money
come in from that. At the same time we have taken in close to a $100,000 from
donations.

> Also, I think that Mozilla's "$50 donation t-shirt"
> (http://www.mozillastore.com/products/donations/50shirt) is a good
> idea. It could even had a text that says that e.g. "I donated to
> WikiPedia", "I make Free Encyclopedia possible", "I fund Free
> Encyclopedia" - something along those lines.

In the future perhaps. Right now that is not practical.

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Diffs and sources

body:
The problem with Jayjg continues. Here is one of many diffs
were Jayjg falsely accuses "Reform leaders" as viewing
Orthodox Jews as being 9/11 like terrorists who destroyed
the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Relationship_between_segments_of_Judaism&diff=4921473&oldid=4921460

Yet they never said this. As this next few links will show,
this was not the position of the "Reform leadership", but
instead came from now-proven misquotes of Rabbi Uri Regev.
The newspaper editor who first wrote about Regev's words
was publicly forced to retract her claims. Columbia
University Journalism School Professor Ari Goldman called
the original story, which misrepresented Rabbi Regev,
?irresponsible journalism? and that it violated several
basic principles of journalism regarding quoting people.

Note that Regev has made quotes explicitly denying the
beliefs incorrectly attributed to him. Similarly, the
leadership of Reform Judaism disavows any such beliefs.
(And having full access to their rabbinic journals and
websites, I can verify this.)

Thus, Jayjg has no source for his claim; he refuses to
insert actual quotes from the Reform leadership and instead
Jayjg is copying the claims from one Avi Shafran. Here are
the links which prove Jayjg's position is false:

Editor admits manufacturing Uri Regev's anti-haredi quotes

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk011130/us19.shtml

Paper ?Clarifies? Reform Leader?s Remarks Cleveland Jewish
News editor acknowledges that Israeli rabbi never compared
haredim with Islamic terrorists

http://www.jewishweek.org/news/newscontent.php3?artid=5379

Unfortunately, Jayjg is not letting facts get in his way.
He is intent on painting Reform Jews as viewing Orthodox
Jews as terrorists and murderers. Jayjg is repeating the
claims of Avi Shafran. Shafran is obviously not a good
primary source for the beliefs of Reform Judaism, as (A) he
is not a Reform Jew, and (B) he has publicly stated that
Reform rabbis deserve to be killed for their heresy. (See
previous messages for quotes and source.)

Let me give an analogy: There are people who hate George W.
Bush, and who think that he wants to kill all Muslims, and
that George W. Bush deserves to die.  (They are wrong, but
whatever).  The point is that we do not quote such people
when we want to accurately represent George W. Bush's
views. Rather, we quote and summarize George W. Bush and
his official spokespeople.  (And of course, we quote and
summarize the views of groups that disagree with him.)

We never quote the views of those people who hate George W.
Bush, and present them AS IF they were Bush's own views!
That is intellectually dishonest; it is fraud. However,
that is precisely the problem with some of Jayjg's edits in
recent days. This is unfortunate, because until recently
Jayjg has been a valuble contributor. I got along fine with
him on many other articles, and we never reverted each
other's edits.

Until a few days ago, I never saw Jayjg make false claims,
but now he is going on a tear. He is doing the same thing
in regards to other people and groups, which I can document
if you wish. The point is that something on his side has
changed, and I don't know what, or why.  But we cannot
allow people to insert false information bordering on libel
into our articles.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
I've now also notified DENIC.de about this issue. I did NOT /complain/
to DENIC about Dr. Schlabeck -- I sent them an expressly
"information-only" email, purely to notify them of what's going on (as
I think that hundreds of, or a thousand domain names are somewhat
unusual). I did not lobby them to take any action whatsoever. See
below.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

On 11 Aug 2004, at 13:47, Jens Ropers wrote:

> Dear Sir/Madam of Denic,
>
> I have recently conducted an extensive investigation into the
> activities of a person I personally consider a cybersquatter.
> My investigation was triggered by perceived (by myself and others)
> infringement of Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) copyrights and
> interests.
>
> During my investigation, I found out about an extraordinarily large
> extent of questionable activity within the .de ccTLD.
>
> Because of the large extent of the related issues, I am now emailing
> you about them. At this time, I am NOT making any claims as regards
> the legality of the activities in question. I am NOT asking you to
> take action of whatever sort and I am aware that it may not be within
> your brief to do anything, even in cases like this. I am merely
> emailing you on an information-only bases, simply because I feel it
> might be helpful for you to know of these issues.
>
> On this basis, I would now like to invite and encourage you to read
> the results of my investigation at:
>
> http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html
> The only issue I expect to be of concern to you is the "Gripe #5"
> item, which I could imagine you to find of great interest.
> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: -----
> 	password: -----
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to publicly reveal my results at this time (since I
> don't know whether doing so would put me at risk to get sued).
>
> Please treat this information as Denic confidential and do not pass on
> the said login details.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers
>
> There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and
> the ones who watch progress bars.
> http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2828 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040811/901c165b/attachment.bin


body:
I've now also notified DENIC.de about this issue. I did NOT /complain/
to DENIC about Dr. Schlabeck -- I sent them an expressly
"information-only" email, purely to notify them of what's going on (as
I think that hundreds of, or a thousand domain names are somewhat
unusual). I did not lobby them to take any action whatsoever. See
below.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

On 11 Aug 2004, at 13:47, Jens Ropers wrote:

> Dear Sir/Madam of Denic,
>
> I have recently conducted an extensive investigation into the
> activities of a person I personally consider a cybersquatter.
> My investigation was triggered by perceived (by myself and others)
> infringement of Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) copyrights and
> interests.
>
> During my investigation, I found out about an extraordinarily large
> extent of questionable activity within the .de ccTLD.
>
> Because of the large extent of the related issues, I am now emailing
> you about them. At this time, I am NOT making any claims as regards
> the legality of the activities in question. I am NOT asking you to
> take action of whatever sort and I am aware that it may not be within
> your brief to do anything, even in cases like this. I am merely
> emailing you on an information-only bases, simply because I feel it
> might be helpful for you to know of these issues.
>
> On this basis, I would now like to invite and encourage you to read
> the results of my investigation at:
>
> http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html
> The only issue I expect to be of concern to you is the "Gripe #5"
> item, which I could imagine you to find of great interest.
> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: -----
> 	password: -----
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to publicly reveal my results at this time (since I
> don't know whether doing so would put me at risk to get sued).
>
> Please treat this information as Denic confidential and do not pass on
> the said login details.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers
>
> There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and
> the ones who watch progress bars.
> http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2828 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040811/901c165b/attachment-0001.bin


body:
I've now also notified DENIC.de about this issue. I did NOT /complain/
to DENIC about Dr. Schlabeck -- I sent them an expressly
"information-only" email, purely to notify them of what's going on (as
I think that hundreds of, or a thousand domain names are somewhat
unusual). I did not lobby them to take any action whatsoever. See
below.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

On 11 Aug 2004, at 13:47, Jens Ropers wrote:

> Dear Sir/Madam of Denic,
>
> I have recently conducted an extensive investigation into the
> activities of a person I personally consider a cybersquatter.
> My investigation was triggered by perceived (by myself and others)
> infringement of Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) copyrights and
> interests.
>
> During my investigation, I found out about an extraordinarily large
> extent of questionable activity within the .de ccTLD.
>
> Because of the large extent of the related issues, I am now emailing
> you about them. At this time, I am NOT making any claims as regards
> the legality of the activities in question. I am NOT asking you to
> take action of whatever sort and I am aware that it may not be within
> your brief to do anything, even in cases like this. I am merely
> emailing you on an information-only bases, simply because I feel it
> might be helpful for you to know of these issues.
>
> On this basis, I would now like to invite and encourage you to read
> the results of my investigation at:
>
> http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html
> The only issue I expect to be of concern to you is the "Gripe #5"
> item, which I could imagine you to find of great interest.
> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: -----
> 	password: -----
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to publicly reveal my results at this time (since I
> don't know whether doing so would put me at risk to get sued).
>
> Please treat this information as Denic confidential and do not pass on
> the said login details.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers
>
> There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and
> the ones who watch progress bars.
> http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040811/901c165b/attachment.bin>


body:
I've now also notified DENIC.de about this issue. I did NOT /complain/
to DENIC about Dr. Schlabeck -- I sent them an expressly
"information-only" email, purely to notify them of what's going on (as
I think that hundreds of, or a thousand domain names are somewhat
unusual). I did not lobby them to take any action whatsoever. See
below.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

On 11 Aug 2004, at 13:47, Jens Ropers wrote:

> Dear Sir/Madam of Denic,
>
> I have recently conducted an extensive investigation into the
> activities of a person I personally consider a cybersquatter.
> My investigation was triggered by perceived (by myself and others)
> infringement of Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) copyrights and
> interests.
>
> During my investigation, I found out about an extraordinarily large
> extent of questionable activity within the .de ccTLD.
>
> Because of the large extent of the related issues, I am now emailing
> you about them. At this time, I am NOT making any claims as regards
> the legality of the activities in question. I am NOT asking you to
> take action of whatever sort and I am aware that it may not be within
> your brief to do anything, even in cases like this. I am merely
> emailing you on an information-only bases, simply because I feel it
> might be helpful for you to know of these issues.
>
> On this basis, I would now like to invite and encourage you to read
> the results of my investigation at:
>
> http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html
> The only issue I expect to be of concern to you is the "Gripe #5"
> item, which I could imagine you to find of great interest.
> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> 	user name: -----
> 	password: -----
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to publicly reveal my results at this time (since I
> don't know whether doing so would put me at risk to get sued).
>
> Please treat this information as Denic confidential and do not pass on
> the said login details.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers
>
> There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and
> the ones who watch progress bars.
> http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040811/901c165b/attachment-0001.bin>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on
	thin ice

body:
> Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
> copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
> traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
> the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.

> After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
> portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
> the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
> no longer separate and independent?

> I don't see how that could be so.

> Jimbo

It's not so, and it's tangential to the argument.  Derived works necessarily
include the original work in them.  To quote Galoob v. Nintendo, "the
infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some
form."  Just because the combination of an image with text is a derived work
of both the image and the text that doesn't mean the image alone is a
derived work of the text.

I think your argument that this falls under clause 7 is plausible.  But case
law makes it clear that this aggregation is indeed a derived work (it just
might be a derived work which is permitted under the GFDL).  Take a look at
Mirage v. Albuquerque ART.  In that case it was decided that mounting plates
from an art book onto tiles was the preparation of a derivative work.

Anthony


body:
> The intepretation that says that just because two things appear on the
> same page, they are therefore derivative works (of each other?)
> strikes me as unfounded, but I am willing to look at case law, if any
> exists.

>  --Jimbo

I don't think that's the argument, it's certainly not the one I am making.
The argument is that the web page as a whole is a derivative work of both
the image and the text.  I am almost certain that there is a case where this
exact point was decided.  But here's a quote on a similar issue, regarding
"framing":

"In Futuredontics v. Applied Anagramics, Inc . , the federal district court
for the Central District of California in 1998 denied a motion to dismiss
Futuredontics' case for copyright infringement arising from framing by the
defendant. The court found that, by placing a frame around plaintiff's web
page, the defendant was not unlawfully reproducing the copyrighted content.
Rather, the court found that the defendant's presentation of the framed page
as a whole, containing the content and the frame, could be considered an
unlawful derivative work of the original content."

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/kubiszyn-2000-04-all.html

But as I said before, the issue of whether or not a derived work is created
is not the same as the question of whether or not the derived work is
permitted under the GFDL, especially clause 7.

Anthony


body:
Roman Maurer wrote:

> Timwi pravi:
>
>> You should probably describe in greater detail what you mean by "does
>> not work".  It works perfectly for me.
>
> Sorry for not being precise.  By "this" I meant the positioning of
> images in a 8x8 matrix, not displaying background images.
>
> So bottom line is this:
> http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uporabnik:Romanm/%C5%A0ahovska_deska is not
>  displaying two chessboards - the upper-right is corrupt and I don't
> have a clue why would that be.

OK, it's not working because you're trying to nest two levels of
{{...}}. You're trying to do something like this: |h8={{?}} inside a
{{template inclusion block}}. This doesn't work because the parser isn't
that smart. It stops at the first "}}" and doesn't realise that several
{{...}}s were nested inside each other.

I've experimented around a bit (maybe you've seen the edits that I
accidentally sent to sl.wikipedia.org rather than my local install :) ).
I tried to make it so that you can write |h8=? and then have
[[Template:Chess Position]] include another template by saying
{{chess_{{{h8}}}}}. But this also didn't work: It just generated a link
to [[Template:Chess_?]] even if that page existed. I don't know why it
does that. I've examined the source code, but I can't find the error.
This is clearly a bug which I'm going to file in Bugzilla now.

Greetings,
Timwi


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Approaching galleries (was: Obnoxious art
	galleries...)

body:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:28:28AM +0000, Andre Engels wrote:

>
> I agree. It would also be good to have a discussion going with a gallery
> like this - what about offering them a link for each work of 'theirs' that's
> on our site. Problem is of course the GNU/FDL - as we do not believe them to
> be copyright holders, we cannot require of downstream users to keep that
> kind of thing.
>

I've tried this with a major Australian art gallery.  Their multimedia
guy was very excited about the possibility of releasing "web-sized"
images of PD works and seeing them used in the web's best encyclopedia.
I got the distinct impression that the higher-ups weren't, and are still
pretty clueless about this sort of thing.

Still, just because *one* gallery didn't go for it, doesn't mean every
gallery will knock us back.  I'm considering contacting one of the
*other* major galleries and pointing out to them the benefits of having
the works *they* have of famous Australian artists in the Wikipedia,
rather than the gallery that knocked us back :)

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
                                        http://benambra.org

The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go
wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.
    --Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Jayjg is still inserting fraudulent info and changing
	protecte...

body:
In a message dated 8/11/2004 2:52:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rkscience100 at yahoo.com writes:
He needs to be banned for at least a week, starting now.
You have stated that many times in the edit summary. In fact, you wrote:
"Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and
will could get a one-day ban" three times today. Frankly, after being here for
so long, I am surprised you are still unfamiliar with the procedure for banning
a user. It is difficult, and disagreeing with you is not yet grounds for
banning. Please stop making idle threats.
Please note that _none_ of the many people on the
WikiProject for Judaism articles are having such problems
with each other, with the sole exception of Jayjg.
That may be because many of the people who could potentially edit these
articles have made a conscious decision to stay away so as to avoid your virulent,
ad hominen histrionics.

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040811/c7ca3d21/attachment.htm


body:
Timwi pravi:

> You should probably describe in greater detail what you mean by "does
> not work".  It works perfectly for me.

Sorry for not being precise.  By "this" I meant the positioning of
images in a 8x8 matrix, not displaying background images.

So bottom line is this:
http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uporabnik:Romanm/%C5%A0ahovska_deska is not
  displaying two chessboards - the upper-right is corrupt and I don't
have a clue why would that be.
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

body:
Roman Maurer wrote:
> Timwi pravi:
>
>> You should probably describe in greater detail what you mean by "does
>> not work".  It works perfectly for me.
>
>
> Sorry for not being precise.  By "this" I meant the positioning of
> images in a 8x8 matrix, not displaying background images.
>
> So bottom line is this:
> http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uporabnik:Romanm/%C5%A0ahovska_deska is not
>  displaying two chessboards - the upper-right is corrupt and I don't
> have a clue why would that be.

If I delete {{}} around the unicode characters, it works like a charm

When I moved them inside, where they belong -- so there's no
"overloading" the fields --, on many places a {Template:XN} would appear.

Does the whole {{ }} thing support nesting?  So, is {{ {{ }} }} valid?


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Hi,

Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 18:31, Dietrich von Hase a ?crit :
> Hi,
>
> >On fr:, we are doing it now.
> >http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
> >and the list is getting smaller every minute.
> >
> >We use the following tags whenever possible:
> >{{GFDL}}
> >{{DomainePublic}}
> >{{FairUse}}
> >{{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
> >
> >So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
> If find this a very good approach and advance.
>
> However, I might suggest to additionally offer at least the Creative
> Commons license types as further options / choices for a picture
> publisher (for images only) in WP.  Its as easy as with Gnu Fdl to link
> the license info to the Creative Commons (CC) full text license text of
> the CC-Website.

We do whenever this license is used, but that's not very often.
I personally put my images under both licenses, GFDL and CC-BY-SA.
There are also a few other cases:
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Drapeau_quebec.png (authorized by the
government of Quebec under some restrictions);
* non commercial only.

> I suggest to consider it, because CC use is growing especially for media
> types of content. And CC should therefore be not left out since more and
> more picture databases grow under CC which can be used for WP too. And
> they should not be put under "LicenseInconnue" (rest of the pack) only
> because there is no other option for the CC licenses available.

"LicenceInconnue" means the license _is unknown_. Sorry if I was not clear.
Usually it means the source is unknown. If the author of a picture is known,
it's usually easy to find the license.

> Dietrich

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hurricane watch

body:
Could the database dumps be upgraded ASAP because of this? The last
ones were taken six days ago.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:45:34 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Tropical storm Charley has just been upgraded to Hurricane Charley,
> and it is headed more or less my way.
>
> http://hurricane.tbo.com/
>
> I particularly recommend that we keep a watch on 'strike
> probabilities', see:
>
> http://hurricane.weathercenter.com/statements/strike/strike3.htm
>
> At the moment, the National Weather Service is projecting a 28% chance
> of a hit on Tampa through 8AM EDT on Sat Aug 14.
>
> Although I think our facility is well-poised to withstand a fairly
> substantial weather situation, we might want to start thinking in
> advance about offsite backups.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Yann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Protected message

body:
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040811/f709e455/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Loves_money.vbs
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 70615 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040811/f709e455/attachment.obj>