from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 5/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> > On 5/4/06, John Tex <johntexster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This is "advocacy".  Contacting people to recruit them to support
> >> you or to
> >> act according to beliefs you think they may already have should
> >> rightly be
> >> called "campaigning". This is a Good Thing.
> >>
> >
> > You're on the wrong project, mate.
>
> He's thinking about policy issues and expressing himself in the
> proper forum. He's being courteous. He may be wrong, but input on
> policy questions is welcome.

All of the above may be true, but he's still on the wrong project.
This is a project for the production of an encyclopedia, not for
political campaigning.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sigvat Stensholt

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

body:
Some good questions here by Steve Bennett, which deserve good answers. I'll
try:

>> a) Most people will abandon "nn, delete" reasoning and seriously consider
good
>>arguments for inclusion if someone throws a strong argument into the debate.

>What if the keep argument is made at the end of the voting period?
>It's obviously the great weakness of AfD that discussion and voting
>happens simultaneously - votes can take place in ignorance of
>intelligent arguments subsequently made.

20 straight "nn delete" votes followed by 3 straight well argued "keep" votes
is something that I for one would take into consideration. If the admin
chooses to close as a "keep", I don't know if DRV would be able to muster the
required 75% majority to "overturn and delete", if it does the article *was*
maybe something which ought to be deleted after all, the experts' opinions
notwithstanding. A 50% majority to overturn will only produce a fresh
relisting, with the keep argument getting the attention it deserves, some
more discussion, and a more thought out result.

Alright, let's say the admin chooses to delete. Sometimes those who vote on
DRV will be sympathetic to the argument that the last three contributions to
the discussion were not adequately addressed because they came so late.
Perhaps especially if the last "voters" made some considerable improvements
to the article shortly before it was deleted.

Well, sometimes not, I do agree that "Keep deleted. Valid AFD debate. ~~~~"
can be a real pain to those who make a good effort to save an article which
arguably should not have been deleted. It is a problem, not one that pops up
very very often, but still annoying at times.

>> b) We have a number of inclusionists on AFD who more or less reject the
notion
>> of notability anyway and will vote to keep articles on all roads, streets,
>> schools and churches.

>I think it would be in the project's interest if we could define a set
>of exceptions to "notability" on the basis that comprehensiveness in
>certain areas is more valuable. Most people would probably agree that
>every university in the world should have an article. However by
>definition, once you include "every" anything, you include "non
>notable" examples.

>In other words, I don't think every subject should have to be notable,
>if it has another reason for being included.

In some cases we do have a consensus. We automatically include all articles on
any thorp, hamlet or village, even if there only live 5 people there. A few
AFD debates have pretty much determined that all railway stations and subway
stations are not subject to notability requirements. When the Hippopotamus
Defence article was kept, it pretty much determined that all chess openings
are worthy of articles, no matter how obscure they are (although I and some
others have boldly gone ahead with some merging the subvariations of various
openings).

On many other things, we will probably never form a consensus but all is not
lost since we can learn by trial and experience. We don't have a consensus to
keep all verifiable schools, but most have acknowledged the futility of
trying to delete them.

>> c) Most people are loathe to delete well-written articles, even if the
>> notability is dubious.

>That's a major problem. Perhaps if we change the emphasis from
>"deleting it", with its connotations of purging it from the surface of
>the earth, to "moving it out of Wikipedia"?

Not really a major problem. Well written articles on borderline notable
subjects don't really do much harm to the project. At best such articles
illustrate the depth and vastness of information which lies in Wikipedia, and
as long as they are verifiable, neutral and tertiary, they don't really do
much harm.

"Moving out of Wikipedia" is a term I would reserve for transwikis.

Sigvat


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> It just doesn't seem fair to delete an article on one school of a
> given type while keeping others. And I suspect "notability" there is
> very much dependent on the social milieu of the voters...
>

So you are saying there is no difference between Eton and Sacred Heart
school, Nowheresville

> For all the standard reasons like Wikipedia is not paper, inclusion of
> any single article does almost infinitesimal direct harm.
>

I can think of quite a few that could do considerable harm.

> Got another?
>

Vaporize. Transition to unarticle.

--
geni


from_name: Bacchante Maenad

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 49

body:
Both times I've tried to register with a name I was reading wikipedia and
wanted to make a small addition/correction.  Inspired by some of the other
funny user names I've seen on wikipedia, I wanted to make one.  But this
whole process has left me with a bad taste about what wikipedia is.  Rather
than 'assume good faith' and not resorting to ad hominem attacks like I've
seen recommended in so many wikipedia pages, I've seen a lot of nastiness,
on this list (which I don't read often, but just glancing at some of the
side conversations and other conversations, it's hard to find one devoid of
insults) and on wikipedia.  I guess this list isn't held to the same
standards as wikipedia, so I suppose maybe why the concentration of nasty
people here is because this is where angry wikipedians go? I don't know.
I'm sure someone will just insult me for being earnest.  Have at it.

Bacchante

> On 5/4/06, Steve wrote :
>
> Quick question: Did you register that name because you wanted to edit
> Wikipedia, or because you wanted to make a point?
>
> Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT
>
> Steve
>
>


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On May 5, 2006, at 12:38 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> That's a major problem. Perhaps if we change the emphasis from
> "deleting it", with its connotations of purging it from the surface of
> the earth, to "moving it out of Wikipedia"?

Gah! Enough with these stupid euphemisms!

"Voting" has changed to "finding consensus", but the process remains
the same. User conduct regulation is called "dispute resolution", but
focuses mainly on finding a pseudo-judicial basis to ban troublesome
editors. The pseudo-judicial body that bans troublesome editors is
called the "arbitration committee", even though they're prohibited
from actually carrying out arbitration by their official charter.

We *delete* things that don't belong here. Deal with it.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On May 5, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> (interesting question: if we delete material, do we still own the
> copyright to it?

We never did. The original contributor does.

> Is it still released under GFDL?)

Yes.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting smarter about surnames

body:
On 5/5/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Guettarda" wrote
>
> > Do you think that a WikiProject Surnames might be in order?
>
> There is certainly enough to do - an essentially unlimited field, you
> could
> say.
>
> <snip>
>
> That's one issue.  Another is that WikiProjects can appear much better at
> prescribing rules to do the work, than at actually doing it.

That was actually what made me think that a WikiProject might be useful -
the issues you outlined about potentially changing the rules for {{dab}}
pages for surnames.

On the other hand, if there's a chance of getting together people who know
> their onomastics, with those with theories on how to integrate and present
> some genealogical information here (for example the boxes turning up on
> [[Arnold J. Toynbee]] to show the relation to [[Polly Toynbee]]), and
> others
> who want to 'add value' to raw lists of names, it could be
> interesting.  I'm
> pretty much a 'raw list' man myself; but a template for a surname page
> ought
> indeed to take into account a bit more.

Now the challenge is to find these people and get them together.


body:
On May 5, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:

>> Again, replace Star Trek with Pokemon (my favourite punching bag, for
>> no real reason). Would you really entrust Pokemon fans with deciding
>> which Pokemon articles are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?
>> Surely your proposal simply leads to vastly greater inclusion rates.
>>
> But if all of those articles were of good quality and well
> referenced, who
> could possibly object? Those articles are still subject to fearless
> editing
> from anybody who wants to fix the often egregious grammar and
> spelling (as
> is common elsewhere I should add :-). Also WP:NOT paper, remember?
> It's not
> as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would
> otherwise be
> available for your own pet subject.

Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more
coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] AfD on unencyclopedic content

body:
On May 5, 2006, at 5:45 AM, Molu wrote:

> I've opened an AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1
> because the article is unenclopedic. WIkipedia is not an
> indiscriminate collection of facts, which means that it is not a
> repository for proofs of arbitrary mathematical nuggets.  Shall I
> proceed to publish Prof that 1+1 = 2. Bertrand Russel proved it in
> 260 pages, but it could be shortened. If this is deleted it will
> also open up the avenue to delete many other proof articles. It's a
> shame that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of
> proffessors and sportspersons while content like this is allowed to
> stay on.

Good job. You've disrupted Wikipedia to make a point.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] meshing (was: Re: AfD on unencyclopedic content)

body:
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yep if you could just spend a couple of minutes unifying the licences
> > for us Guy that would be great ;-).
>
> Wikitravel and Wikipedia have incompatible licenses?

GFDL is incompatible with just about every other free license out there.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
> It's funny that you see the problem with AfD and RfA as being their
> "globalness". With RfA at least, I see the reverse: the fact that a
> subcommunity ("regular RfA participants") has formed, with its own
> norms, culture, convetions and so forth. If you randomly selected any
> Wikipedian, pointed them at the policy for selecting admins, and asked
> them to vote on a given candidate, you would get a result very
> different to what happens at RfA.
>
> I've heard similar stories about AfD - that there is a small group
> that frequently votes, occasionally interrupted by vote stacking or
> interest from outside parties.
>
> Perhaps the real problem is that "locus of control" should not be
> self-selecting.
> I don't want to propose an elected committee to do RfA's or AfD's. But
> do you agree that a) there exists a "locus of control" already, and
> that b) it is self-selecting?

I think that you are right but missing the real problem. There will
always be a "locus of control" and unless you want to impose elections
for those who should vote on AfD, that group will always be
self-selecting. I think that the real problem is that the group which
controls which Star Trek articles (for example) that should be
included and deleted from Wikipedia is a different group than those
who are interested in Star Trek. A group of people on Wikipedia is
interested in writing and improving Star Trek articles, another group
is interested in deleting Star Trek articles. That arrangement
obviously causes friction. It would be much better if it could be
arranged so that those people who write Star Trek articles also are in
charge when it comes to deleting Star Trek articles.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
"Raphael Wegmann"  wrote

> charles matthews wrote:
>> - The real issue with systemic bias is not that it contributes to
>> _systematic_ bias.  WP policy directly targets systematic bias, since the
>> NPOV policy says quite clearly that it is not acceptable.  It may be
>> there,
>> but it is not acceptable in the encyclopedia.
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > English Wikipedia is purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an
> > American point of view. The Arabic Wikipedia is probably more
> > sympathetic to a Muslim point of view.
>
> Who is right?
>
> Is the english Wikipedia supposed to have an American point of view,
> or is systemic bias whatsoever not acceptable in the encyclopedia?

Well, I think you may still be missing the key distinction.

Systematic bias: this means the kind of thing that is talked about,
generally, in discussions of 'media bias'.  I happen to think that the whole
'media bias' debate is a serious dumbing down of political discussion: as if
all that mattered was to establish that one kind of media is 'propaganda',
and another is 'truth-telling'.  But, in effect, systematic bias means
something like a propagandistic, party line effect on content.  As I have
said, this is unacceptable under NPOV, article by article.  Whether what
Steve writes is true or not, that would contradict fundamental policy.

Systemic bias is something else.  For example if we have more males than
females editing WP, which is likely, then we get more coverage of
traditional male-interest things than traditional female-interest things.
Our discussion of haute couture fashion supposedly reflects that.  (I find
that much easier to believe than what Steve says.)  It has nothing to do
with whether people are editing to make a propaganda point.  Since on a
wiki, what it written reflects ultimately the community writing it, there is
no obvious policy such as NPOV that is effective.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] We need to recognize that advocating is a basic right

body:
On May 5, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:

> Actually, you would have thought that any given celebrity of any
> rank or
> stripe would rather that there was a freely-available high-quality
> controlled-source picture being used for them than an opportunistic
> snap
> taken during some sweaty ruck at a premiere with inadequate
> lighting and
> extraneous limbs intruding from strange angles...or maybe a
> paparazzi-style
> "candid" image of them in some embarrassing pose.
>
> Obviously we wouldn't necessarily use the latter if it proved too
> salacious
> but if it were the best available free-licence picture you'd likely
> be able
> to build some sort of reasonable argument...

Incidentally, why don't we have free-content paparazzi tracking down
celebrities to take pictures for Wikipedia articles?

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On May 5, 2006, at 1:14 PM, geni wrote:

>> "Voting" has changed to "finding consensus", but the process remains
>> the same. User conduct regulation is called "dispute resolution", but
>> focuses mainly on finding a pseudo-judicial basis to ban troublesome
>> editors.
>
> Not true. Article RFCs can resolve dissputes. I don't know about
> medation.

Article RFCs and mediation actually are dispute resolution, but user
conduct regulation is called "dispute resolution" even though it isn't.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image Downloads

body:
On 05/05/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Rob Church wrote:
> > On 05/05/06, Tom Dichiaro <tom at trasa.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Are the image downloads offline?  I can't pull down the files in the normal
> >>way from:
> >
> >
> > I don't believe we offer image dumps at this time.
>
> Well you believe wrong, they're at http://download.wikimedia.org/images/ .
> However there haven't been any dumps since last November.

Naturally the inclusion of implied time doesn't register with some of us.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony on advocacy - resend with new title

body:
On May 5, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

>> I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to
>> leave the
>> project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate."
>
> I think you're being somewhat disingenuous by implying that I invited
> you to leave.  Stay by all means, but don't describe advocacy as a
> right.

That's how I read it too, Tony. It's not an unreasonable reading.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Cheney Shill

body:
Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

    On May 5, 2006, at 12:38 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
    > That's a major problem. Perhaps if we change the emphasis from
    > "deleting it", with its connotations of purging it from the surface of
    > the earth, to "moving it out of Wikipedia"?

    Gah! Enough with these stupid euphemisms!

    "Voting" has changed to "finding consensus", but the process remains
    the same. User conduct regulation is called "dispute resolution", but
    focuses mainly on finding a pseudo-judicial basis to ban troublesome
    editors. The pseudo-judicial body that bans troublesome editors is
    called the "arbitration committee", even though they're prohibited
    from actually carrying out arbitration by their official charter.

Exactly.  Rebranding doesn't change a thing.  The problems remain.  Let's change it to "Articles for Reorganization" just for the fun social interaction.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Daniel Kinzler

subject: [Wikitech-l] Toolserver update?

body:
Hi all

> Replication of enwiki is running, it's currently still 360'000 seconds
> lagged, but it reduces the lag by some 100'000 s/day, so it should be
> up to date on monday. See
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/replag/replag-en-daily.png

Replication for enwiki is running on zedler (using an external
replication agent developed by DaB), but the database has been corrupted
- something about auto_increment values being out of sync. It's
currently unclear when and how that will be solved. Please direct
questions and suggestions to [[de:User:DaB.]] or to Toolserver-l - DaB
said he's not reading Wikitech.

Regards
-- Daniel

--
Homepage: http://brightbyte.de


list: foundation-l

from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikistats

body:
Bryce Roney wrote:

> I have just proposed a new project, you can find more info here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikistats_proposal . Please comment :)

No, you have not.  You've written ten lines that say absolutely
nothing about your chances to bring this to successful completion.
It's like you're begging for a fast deletion.  It's like you think
people will thank you for spawning unrealistic ideas. Think again.

I'm not speaking for the foundation.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikistats


body:
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > All of the above may be true, but he's still on the wrong project.
> > This is a project for the production of an encyclopedia, not for
> > political campaigning.
>
> I think the issues he was talking about "advocating" or "campaigning"
> for were Wikipedia-specific issues, no?

We don't do advocacy or campaigning on Wikipedia.  Our decision-making
processes are deliberative rather than democratic.


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 05/05/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> That was an extraordinary case, such a thing is not likely to happen
 >> again within some time now. Wikipedia's systemic bias is not exposed
 >> in such a candid way very often. We can not use it as a benchmark.
>
> Sorry, but what did this example have to do with Wikipedia's
> *systemic* bias? Our systemic bias stems from the fact that most of
> our contributors are young American men interested in technology and
> the internet. What does that have to do with one person apparently
> soliciting "votes" from Republican voters for an AfD?
>

The systemic bias, which stems from the fact that most contributors
are living in anglophone countries, where islamist terrorist attacks
occured, which resulted in widespread anti-islam bias, is IMHO bad
enough. You don't believe me? Well, read it up on [[Islamophobia]]
and it's talk page.

The JP cartoon poll results have been no surprise to me at all,
nor have been the hundreds of cartoon deletions ever since.

I can even agree to the many bans, which have applied on editors,
which continuously removed the cartoons without inserting a link
to them, on the basis of vandalism. The cartoons, even if they are
offensive, are indeed highly relevant material, and removing them
without inserting a link can be considered a deliberate attempt to
reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

But I strongly disagree, that replacing the cartoons with a link
to them, is vandalism, because the motivation of those, who do
so, is not to reduce the quality. Instead those who do so (incl.
myself) do in fact want to increase the quality of the article,
because they think, that an article on a controvery needs to have
editors on both sides of this controversy. The current state of
this article and the editors backing it, already drove away
resp. banned countless editors, who could have added valuable
information regarding the muslim POV on this issue.

As if common anti-islam bias among the editors weren't enough,
even administrators, who outed themselves as free speech extremists
on the Image-Display talk page, which has been created for this
content dispute, abuse their administrator privilege by simply
blocking editors they disagree with.

--
Raphael


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/5/06, Sigvat Stensholt <sigvats at mi.uib.no> wrote:
> In some cases we do have a consensus. We automatically include all articles on
> any thorp, hamlet or village, even if there only live 5 people there. A few
> AFD debates have pretty much determined that all railway stations and subway
> stations are not subject to notability requirements. When the Hippopotamus
> Defence article was kept, it pretty much determined that all chess openings
> are worthy of articles, no matter how obscure they are (although I and some
> others have boldly gone ahead with some merging the subvariations of various
> openings).

Great, so all we have to do is to formalise this a little bit. Rather
than saying that "in some cases notability requirements are
overlooked", why not just put a list of specific exceptions on the
notability page? eg:

Articles on the following subjects are exempt from notability
requirements. For particularly obscure examples, combining several
subjects in one article may be appropriate:
- Currently functioning railway or subway stations
- Chess openings
- Monarchs or heads of state of any kingdom or country, past or present
- ....

> On many other things, we will probably never form a consensus but all is not
> lost since we can learn by trial and experience. We don't have a consensus to
> keep all verifiable schools, but most have acknowledged the futility of
> trying to delete them.

It just doesn't seem fair to delete an article on one school of a
given type while keeping others. And I suspect "notability" there is
very much dependent on the social milieu of the voters...

> Not really a major problem. Well written articles on borderline notable
> subjects don't really do much harm to the project. At best such articles
> illustrate the depth and vastness of information which lies in Wikipedia, and
> as long as they are verifiable, neutral and tertiary, they don't really do
> much harm.

They do harm in that they set a bad example. "Oh, I saw this great
article on fighting game terms, why can't I have a list of strategy
game terms?" and the accompanying cries of favouritism that emerge.

For all the standard reasons like Wikipedia is not paper, inclusion of
any single article does almost infinitesimal direct harm.

> "Moving out of Wikipedia" is a term I would reserve for transwikis.

Got another?

Steve


body:
On 5/5/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that you are right but missing the real problem. There will
> always be a "locus of control" and unless you want to impose elections
> for those who should vote on AfD, that group will always be
> self-selecting. I think that the real problem is that the group which
> controls which Star Trek articles (for example) that should be
> included and deleted from Wikipedia is a different group than those
> who are interested in Star Trek. A group of people on Wikipedia is
> interested in writing and improving Star Trek articles, another group
> is interested in deleting Star Trek articles. That arrangement
> obviously causes friction. It would be much better if it could be
> arranged so that those people who write Star Trek articles also are in
> charge when it comes to deleting Star Trek articles.

Again, replace Star Trek with Pokemon (my favourite punching bag, for
no real reason). Would you really entrust Pokemon fans with deciding
which Pokemon articles are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?
Surely your proposal simply leads to vastly greater inclusion rates.

Summary:
People who know nothing about a topic are more likely to vote delete,
even for an arguably notable topic
People who are experts on a topic are more likely to vote keep, even
for a topic of little interest to the broader community

Agree?

Steve


body:
On 5/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > All of the above may be true, but he's still on the wrong project.
> > > This is a project for the production of an encyclopedia, not for
> > > political campaigning.
> >
> > I think the issues he was talking about "advocating" or "campaigning"
> > for were Wikipedia-specific issues, no?
>
> We don't do advocacy or campaigning on Wikipedia.  Our decision-making
> processes are deliberative rather than democratic.

A deliberative process requires some level of advocacy. Without that
it would be a bit hard to have a debate. For example I am currently
considering advocateing the idea of turing  CSD A8 into G something.

--
geni


from_name: Birger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Error when overwriting image file

body:
When I want to overwrite an image file A by uploading an image file B with
exactly the same filename, I get the following error-message:

Internal error: File "/tmp/phpwhT5E3" to
"/www/wiki/images/temp/20060505091417!Image.gif" copy not possible.

Warning: move_uploaded_file(/www/wiki/images/temp/20060505091417!Image.gif):
failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
/www/wiki/includes/SpecialUpload.php on line 370

Warning: move_uploaded_file(): Unable to move '/tmp/phpwhT5E3' to
'/www/wiki/images/temp/20060505091417!Image.gif' in
/www/wiki/includes/SpecialUpload.php on line 370

When i (as admin) first delete image file A and afterwards upload image file
B, everything is fine. The problem is that when a normal user (without admin
rights) wants to change his image, he gets the error message.

Has anyone ever encountered this problem before?

thanks in advance for any reply!

Birger

(Mediawiki 1.5.2)


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
On 5/5/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> The systemic bias, which stems from the fact that most contributors
> are living in anglophone countries, where islamist terrorist attacks
> occured, which resulted in widespread anti-islam bias, is IMHO bad
> enough. You don't believe me? Well, read it up on [[Islamophobia]]
> and it's talk page.

I believe you.

> I can even agree to the many bans, which have applied on editors,
> which continuously removed the cartoons without inserting a link
> to them, on the basis of vandalism. The cartoons, even if they are
> offensive, are indeed highly relevant material, and removing them
> without inserting a link can be considered a deliberate attempt to
> reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

Hmm, to play devil's advocate, how would you feel if someone deleted a
hard-core pornographic image, and didn't replace it with a link? I
doubt you would call it vandalism. I believe that most (some?) Muslims
find these cartoons extremely offensive, so it's not surprising that
they would remove them without replacing them with a link.

> As if common anti-islam bias among the editors weren't enough,
> even administrators, who outed themselves as free speech extremists
> on the Image-Display talk page, which has been created for this
> content dispute, abuse their administrator privilege by simply
> blocking editors they disagree with.

It's a fine line between blocking an editor you disagree with
personally, and blocking an editor who behaves in a way inconsistent
with the culture-by-default of the project, one that you share.

English Wikipedia is purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an
American point of view. The Arabic Wikipedia is probably more
sympathetic to a Muslim point of view. I can't read Arabic, so I can't
really check, but it seems that the Arabic Wikipedia for example would
not have these links. I notice very quickly for example that
[[Swimming]] and [[Dancing]] on the English Wikipedia show women with
bare arms. The corresponding articles on the Arabic Wikipedia do not.

Obviously I'm drawing big conclusions from very little data, and would
appreciate confirmation from anyone familiar with the Arabic
Wikipedia.

Steve


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 08:57:15 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> We need to recognize that each user has a right to try to influence policy
>> in ways that they believe are beneficial to the project.
>
> A right?  Perhaps I missed that.  I thought the only rights were to
> fork or to leave.
>

I thought that too, but:

Fred Bauder wrote:
> On May 4, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia is NOT a democracy; the First Ammendment of the Constitution
>> of the United States only guarantees "free speech" against
>> intervention
>> by Congress. Wikipedia is a private website where you have exactly TWO
>> rights:
>>
>> * The right to leave
>> * The right to fork
>
> Those are your enforceable legal rights; however, you also have the
> right to participate on an equal basis in the project; the right to
> be treated with respect; and the right to a fair hearing should your
> rights not be respected or should you be accused of violating the
> rights of others. Just because you cannot go into a court and enforce
> Wikipedia policies does not mean that they do not exist and are not
> upheld.
>
> Fred
>

What next? All users have the right to interpret policy as /they/ see
fit? The customer is always right? Anyone who disagrees with being
blocked will be unblocked? Any page which someone objects to the
deletion of shall be kept? Any POV-whitewashing shall be acceptable?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060505/51bc83fa/attachment.pgp


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Threads: any plans

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Uwe Brauer wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>
>>I asked sometime ago about the possibilities to add some Thread
>>functionality to the discussion pages and I was pointed out that there
>>exists
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiquidThreads.
>>
>>However it seems to me not a very vivid project. Are there any other
>>plans to add such a functionality?
>
> There's a submission to implement this during Google's Summer of Code.

Good to hear! Do you already have a mentor for it as well?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cyde should not have violated Deletion policy (

body:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
> geni wrote:
>> On 5/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It looks a hell of a lot like using common sense.
>> [[Monty Hall problem]]. "Common sense" is not a valid justifcation for
>> descission makeing.
>
> For what it's worth I figured out the Monty Hall problem on my own with
> a simple experiment when I was younger, so don't say it tricks everyone,
> because it doesn't.
>

More to the point, the outcome of the Monty Hall problem is "common
sense" once you understand it. Denying that staying will give you a
better chance of winning when there are 9999998 doors with goats behind
them open, when you've had it explained to you, is /not/ common sense.
On Wikipedia there's a term for this sort of ignoring common sense -
being a dick.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060505/036bc223/attachment.pgp


body:
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you are saying there is no difference between Eton and Sacred Heart
> > school, Nowheresville
>
> The article on the former would probably be much more interesting. And
> there are probably lots of people who would be more likely to care
> about Sacred Heart school than Eton. Hell, there are millions of
> people who've never heard of Eton.
>

However you must conceed there is a difference. The reasoning for
supporting the existance of an article on Eton need not apply for all
schools.

> > > For all the standard reasons like Wikipedia is not paper, inclusion of
> > > any single article does almost infinitesimal direct harm.
> > >
> >
> > I can think of quite a few that could do considerable harm.
>
> Sorry, "inclusion of any single article which might otherwise be
> deleted for lack of notability"...
>

So say a "John doe is a pedophile" article (nn 3 google hits) would do no harm?

> > Vaporize. Transition to unarticle.
>
> Unarticlize? Dearticlify?
>
> Steve

The "ize" risks starting spelling wars. The first four letters of
dearticlify risk breaking [[WP:TOE]]. Vaporize has a nice 1984 ring to
it.

--
geni


body:
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> (interesting question: if we delete material, do we still own the
> copyright to it? Is it still released under GFDL?)

We never owned the copyright. It is still released under the GFDL as
long as we keep track of the author.

--
geni


body:
On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford <craigwhitford1 at emailaccount.com> wrote:
> I've heard about the Request for comment from the United States Congress.
> It's true, Wikipedia is used as a PR/spin machine.
> I've also noticed Commons is being used to upload PR pictures too, for spin purposes.
>
> Craig
>

A PR photo is better than nothing.

--
geni


body:
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> (interesting question: if we delete material, do we still own the
> copyright to it? Is it still released under GFDL?)

As Geni pointed out, we never owned the copyright. And yes, the
material is still GFDL. It's just that by deleting it, we reject it.

Rob Church


body:
On May 5, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:

>>> Not true. Article RFCs can resolve dissputes. I don't know about
>>> medation.
>>
>> Article RFCs and mediation actually are dispute resolution, but user
>> conduct regulation is called "dispute resolution" even though it
>> isn't.
>
> You must admit, going before ArbCom tends to resolve disputes, one way
> or another.

Well, it resolves disputes frequently by eliminating one of the
disputants. I still maintain that it's a user conduct process and not
a dispute resolution process.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Daniel Arnold

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
	Commons

body:
Am Freitag, 05. Mai 2006 11:30 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Wrong. InstantCommons has everything to do with the WM Foundation.
> InstantCommons would have been coded by now if this was not the case.

InstantCommons is a nice idea but without a notification framework that
*automatically* notifies other projects about things that need their
attention like duplicate files, files missing required info and all kinds of
deletion requests it simply would increase our current problems by a order of
magnitude and thus would make Commons unmaintainable.

Duesentrieb (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb) is currently
writing an automated notification framework called CommonsTicker that would
run on the tool server and would work as follows:

A database cronjob at the toolserver looks for new files that need the above
described attention. The new files will be send through CheckUsage on the
same server and this will return a usage list of these images of every local
project. In the end a pybot will write in every local project a at a
dedicated page a daily compiled list of files that get used by them and that
need their attention (like unlinking images and thus reducing image "holes"
in articles, alerting people on deletion debates in Commons and so forth).

Of course this solution can only be temporarily and needs to be integrated
into MediaWiki via a RSS feed that can be imported by other MediaWiki
installations (which will do the automated checkusage filtering locally on
their own on the imported RSS feed) and thus tracked by them.

So at first we need to solve our current Wikimedia wide communication problem
and see how CommonsTicker performs, after that it needs to be coded into
MediaWiki and later if things have stabilized after a time in Commons we can
think of how to realize InstantCommons.

> A summary of what happened is nice. It is not what I am really
> interested in. What I am interested in is having things announced before
> they happen. This will have, as an effect, that people do not have the
> excuse that they did not know. They will have less reason to moan (they
> will anyway). When you say nobody told us, you mean nobody told you.
> Fine. This has been discussed at previous occasions when we had a flash
> in the commons pan.

See above. We have so many things to do daily it is impossible notifying
people in local wikis on a regular basis manually. And of course there are
also other people suddenly jumping into Commons (you never heared of them
before) and that just put thousands of images onto deletion request without
any debate or worse simply make mass image changes (and are as well unwilling
to share their points) and that make really *big* trouble if I stop them. In
order to get an impression how much energy it took for me making a proper
debate on a certain single issue see:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Review_of_license_templates

Well and for sure there are many more such people I can't be aware of and
ocassionally someone makes a general Commons-admins-flame on Village Pump and
afterwards we try to find out what he was flaming about at all and who was
the person that did something wrong...

So there are two sides:
* One side that makes trouble because we talk to much and do not delete fast
enough.
* The other side that says we talk to less and delete too fast.

Seems to me that at least one side must be wrong...

The facts are:
* Far more images need to be deleted in Commons daily.
* Local unlinking of files and manual local notifications are such a huge task
no Wikipedian can imagine (really Wikipedians simply don't realize *how huge*
Wikimedia universe is).
* Many people upload images in Commons without even interested in a minimum of
communication.
* A tiny fraction of active Commons admins tries to catch up...

> As to my definition of "profound"; changes in policy that affect usage
> need to be communicated widely before they are finalised and implemented.

Well I could have talked a lot previous to my many *very bold* changes in
Commons and wouldn't have come so far. I prefer in that case a model of
communication with some people I know, switching in my brain previous to an
edit of mine and and then simply do the thing and if something is not that
ideal hey we can sort it out afterwards. That's the only way how things can
efficiently get done in Commons.

Regards,
Daniel/Arnomane


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> You do not get my point. When policies are to be
> changed, when the way
> things work are to be changed, this is when you
> should inform the
> communities in advance. Some careful marketing
> communication is what is
> needed. Marketeers call it customer relations. And
> you /need /to inform
> your customers; when you do, you talk to all your
> customers when you
> don't you have to deal with them one at a time and
> you may find that
> customers do no longer give you their custom. Given
> how busy you are,
> you would not even notice.

I disagree with this sentiment in general terms.  If
the "customers" are not making an effort to watch the
pages where policy decisions are disscused, they
should not expect to courted by those wishing to
change policy.  The community that is actually doing
the work of maintaining a project should have the
ability to set policy without going out of their way
to court the fly-by-night users of the project.  I do
not think it is wise to try and alienate the less
active userbase, but it is unrealistic to wait for
their reaction before making any decisions.

The English Wikisource recently made a major change to
it's incluson guidelines (which involves the eventual
deletion of around 200 pages).  We held open
disscusion for over three weeks, and the material is
now being slowly phased out without a mass deletion.
Although there was a small amount of advertising
amoung people with a specific interest, the
participants in the disscusion did not vary from the
regular editors.  I cannot agree that it should have
been advertised at large across projects.  I am very
happy with the way we have handled this situation
which quite at odds with your sentiments.

It would not be productive during a major policy
disscussion to issue an invitation to people who have
no idea how a project operates on a day-to-day basis.
The community which actually *works* on a project
needs to be the ones to set policy.  If the people you
consider "customers" find that the community no longer
serves their needs, they should work to carve out such
a niche themselves.  These projects are all operating
with a limited amount of volunteers and I cannot
imagine any of them would ignore the corcerns of
people willing to get their hands dirty.  But when
someone has the mindset that they are a "customer" and
want to reallocate these existing voluteers to take
care of their pet issues, well I won't be so impolite
as to express what I think of that.  Now they are
welcome to share these concerns.  Many people can
vouch that I am willing to drop my current project to
help them deal with issue I agree is important when
they bring to my attention.  But to say projects
should not attempt to set policy unless they
personally invite over all the people who are standing
on the sidelines is ridiculous.  Even if such people
are the most informed, intelligent, reasonable people
on earth, they will not be a useful addition to policy
disscusions until they have worked within the project
and achieved such understanding that can only be
gained by experience.  The fact that infrequent users
may not *like* the communities policy descision is not
reason enough to hold off on any decision till they
have been consulted.

Birgitte SB

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
charles matthews wrote:
> - The real issue with systemic bias is not that it contributes to
> _systematic_ bias.  WP policy directly targets systematic bias, since the
> NPOV policy says quite clearly that it is not acceptable.  It may be there,
> but it is not acceptable in the encyclopedia.

Steve Bennett wrote:
 > English Wikipedia is purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an
 > American point of view. The Arabic Wikipedia is probably more
 > sympathetic to a Muslim point of view.

Who is right?

Is the english Wikipedia supposed to have an American point of view,
or is systemic bias whatsoever not acceptable in the encyclopedia?

--
Raphael


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 05:17:33 -0700, you wrote:

>I've heard about the Request for comment from the United States Congress.
>It's true, Wikipedia is used as a PR/spin machine.

Indeed.  And guess what?  They've been rumbled.  Good, isn't it?

It is quite easy for POV pushers to get their way on Wikipedia by
relentless reversion and editing, but much harder for a political
campaign to get away with it, I think, because there is much less
inclination to just wander away and leave the idiots to it.  There are
notable exceptions, naturally.  Part of the perceived problem lies in
the idea that something which is briefly crap is therefore crap; a bad
article up for a week before it gets spotted and fixed is not, in the
end, a big deal, unless it is seriously defamatory (which is likely to
get picked up by RC patrollers).

>I've also noticed Commons is being used to upload PR pictures too, for spin purposes.

And?  What's the problem with having good quality photographs of
subjects released to Commons?

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


from_name: Sigvat Stensholt

body:
>> "Moving out of Wikipedia" is a term I would reserve for transwikis.

>Got another?

"Take offline" perhaps. Still, I don't really think a euphemism is needed. We
delete it so let's call it a deletion. We just need to be a bit friendly when
we do so.

Sjakkalle


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/5/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've opened an AfD at >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1 >because the article is unenclopedic.

We appearing to be haveing a n. Keep~~~ "pile-on"

>It's a shame >that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of
proffessors and >sportspersons while content like this is allowed to
stay on.

Are we still deleting articles on full proffessors (aside from all the
copyvios)?

--
geni


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

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

julieharding1 at charter.net stated for the record:

> Sean, you arrogant pig!  I probably have more intelligence in my pinky finger than you have in your entire brain.  Feminine intelligence is intimidating you guys.  Well, I think I'll stick around for a while longer now because of what Sean said and see if I can put some more pressure on your testes.  Maybe if I prove you up long enough I can get one of you guys to puke.
- -Julie

It's far more likely that we'll rupture something from laughing too hard.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot
 sean at epoptic.org | like women. You just have to read the manual
                  | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEW7yXMAt1wyd9d+URAkNyAJ48uX89hsukUxlmc2CGtQN/rppdgACfayYf
f353ACLhBDBRh+vQsYFzr1Q=
=fx7d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: julieharding1 at charter.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy to deal with new policies

body:
---- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Amen.
>
> Process is important. However, the fallacy is to assume any of the following:
>
> 1. Process is not less important than product.
> 2. Process is good, so more process is better.  <-- this is a bad one
> 3. Process is good, so we should not proceed without making process

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they mean, the existing fundemental process is good, so we should not proceed without making more progress.

 Vocabulary can play tricks with anyone's head, even the smartest of geniuses.  If they've been at it all night, who knows what's going to pop out of them.
-Julie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> along the way.
> 4. If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
>
> The fallacious elements of these are:
>
> 1. Process is important, but the product is more important. "We're
> here to write an encyclopedia."
> 2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
> bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is
> important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
> 3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
> can't Taylorise clue.
> 4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
> This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
>
> Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly
> under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
> A PROCESS FOR THAT.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:41:58 +0200, you wrote:

>Hmm, to play devil's advocate, how would you feel if someone deleted a
>hard-core pornographic image, and didn't replace it with a link? I
>doubt you would call it vandalism. I believe that most (some?) Muslims
>find these cartoons extremely offensive, so it's not surprising that
>they would remove them without replacing them with a link.

I kind of agree, but only to this extent: the reader of an article on
a porn "star" is unlikely to be looking for a neutral analysis of the
star's life and work, and if they are they are probably going to be
disappointed.  A reader of the article on the cartoons might
reasonably be expected to be looking for a balanced view of the
controversy.

Most porn articles I've seen link to the subject's website, generally
that is the sole "reliable" source of information in the entire
article, and most of the pictures used on the articles are asserted
fair use, very few are free or released by provable authority.

So I personally would not include the cartoons in the article, because
they are considered offensive by many of the potential readers and
that will colour their view of the neutrality of the article, but
undoubtedly would link to them since the whole issue makes little (or
at least much less) sense if you've not seen them.

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


from_name: Angela

body:
On 5/5/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, I repeat: what subcommittee? Link, please?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/PT#Translation

Angela.


body:
---- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
>
> > "Wikipedia could be really cool, if only
> > it weren't an encyclopaedia."
>
> Truer words were never spoken. In fact, a number of alternatives to
> Wikipedia have the possibility of being very profitable. THINK AND
> GROW RICH... Just do it somewhere else.
>
> Fred

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That spelling of encyclopedia is exactly why Wikipedia is what it is.   Don't let the front door hit you on your way out.  There's plenty of other places on the web for you to get the kicks you're looking for.   If you're that eager, why don't you try and build up an online business such as this on your own. Then, you'll really find out how hard all of this is.
-Julie_______________________________________________
>
 WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:58:48 +0100, you wrote:

>Are we still deleting articles on full proffessors (aside from all the
>copyvios)?

I have seen one or two, I think, for academics who show no
distinguishing features.  Equally I've seen surprising resistance to
removal of associate professors with two publications because both are
listed on Google Scholar.

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


body:
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items
> which we regularly include.
>
> Fred
>
That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the
proof of the [[Taniyama?Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover
it) would be on wikisource.

--
geni


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
>> It's not
>> as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would
>> otherwise be
>> available for your own pet subject.
> Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more
> coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.
>
{{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles about
something you don't like, try writing more articles about something you do.

In the meantime, who's going to want to write new articles in an environment
which is at times actively poisonous towards newbies?

If you can get jumped with an AfD notice before you're finished writing a
simple Pokemon article, who will want to invest the effort writing a complex
article which will have "nn, delete" and "yah, boo, you're expertize meanz
nothing to us, you elitist pig!!11!!" plastered over it before the virtual
ink has dried?

We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current
generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into
19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than drive them
away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/We-need-a-policy-against-vote-stacking-t1553689.html#a4254833
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

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

maru dubshinki stated for the record:
> On 5/5/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>julieharding1 at charter.net stated for the record:
>>
>>
>>>Sean, you arrogant pig!  I probably have more intelligence in my pinky finger than you have in your entire brain.  Feminine intelligence is intimidating you guys.  Well, I think I'll stick around for a while longer now because of what Sean said and see if I can put some more pressure on your testes.  Maybe if I prove you up long enough I can get one of you guys to puke.
>>
>>- -Julie
>>
>>It's far more likely that we'll rupture something from laughing too hard.
>
>
> Now, now, Sean... Let's not get testy.
>
> ~maru

Yeah, I know.  But I'm here to testify that dealing with boobs makes me
... cranky.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot
 sean at epoptic.org | like women. You just have to read the manual
                  | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEW8H/MAt1wyd9d+URApAxAJ9wsBCeIUkI+/0BRlfgsR2NCT8NNACdGtrm
Bb7wqssVOkpWXHcJzq/FiUk=
=K9LY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
On 5/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> Sure it is, it's the contrapositive.
>
> http://regentsprep.org/regents/math/relcond/Lcontrap.htm

Right you are.

> I have no ability to fix the problem of lack of notability definition.
>  My definition is similar to that of Steve Block.  Notability is, as
> far as I'm concerned, equivalent to verifiability (which is a much
> more tightly defined concept).  But, short of talking about it
> (complaining, as you call it), there's nothing I can do to have others
> adopt this same definition.  All I can do is point out the problems
> and hope someone more persuasive realizes the ludicrousness of the
> current situation.

We can at least document the status quo, if this is not already the case.

Steve


body:
On 5/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> All of the above may be true, but he's still on the wrong project.
> This is a project for the production of an encyclopedia, not for
> political campaigning.

I think the issues he was talking about "advocating" or "campaigning"
for were Wikipedia-specific issues, no?

Steve


body:
On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford <craigwhitford1 at emailaccount.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Wikipedia should have some new policies to deal with vote stacking??
> I could do checkuser if anyone wants, I'm a network admin so could probably learn it >fairly quickly.
>

We already have enough policies for dealing with the abuse of sockpupets.

> It would take the workload off admins/current checkusers.
>
> Craig
>

People tend to be slightly paranoid about giving people acess to checkuser.

--
geni


body:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 06:03:59 -0700, you wrote:

>That was one of the factors in Jason Gastrich's downfall??
>Is he still sock/meatpuppeteering on Wikipedia???

New socks were being confirmed by checkuser a couple of weeks back.  I
think the one year arbcom block has now been made indefinite.  He is
still running wiki4christ.

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


body:
On 5/5/06, Sigvat Stensholt <sigvats at mi.uib.no> wrote:
> "Take offline" perhaps. Still, I don't really think a euphemism is needed. We
> delete it so let's call it a deletion. We just need to be a bit friendly when
> we do so.

I like euphemisms. And the thing isn't really deleted. It goes into
stasis, where some months later it may be purged. In the mean time, it
exists in tens or hundreds of copies available on the web.

(interesting question: if we delete material, do we still own the
copyright to it? Is it still released under GFDL?)

Steve


body:
On 5/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> So you are saying there is no difference between Eton and Sacred Heart
> school, Nowheresville

The article on the former would probably be much more interesting. And
there are probably lots of people who would be more likely to care
about Sacred Heart school than Eton. Hell, there are millions of
people who've never heard of Eton.

> > For all the standard reasons like Wikipedia is not paper, inclusion of
> > any single article does almost infinitesimal direct harm.
> >
>
> I can think of quite a few that could do considerable harm.

Sorry, "inclusion of any single article which might otherwise be
deleted for lack of notability"...

> Vaporize. Transition to unarticle.

Unarticlize? Dearticlify?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
charles matthews wrote:
> "Raphael Wegmann"  wrote
>
>
>> charles matthews wrote:
>>> - The real issue with systemic bias is not that it contributes to
>>> _systematic_ bias.  WP policy directly targets systematic bias, since the
>>> NPOV policy says quite clearly that it is not acceptable.  It may be
>>> there,
>>> but it is not acceptable in the encyclopedia.
>> Steve Bennett wrote:
>>> English Wikipedia is purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an
>>> American point of view. The Arabic Wikipedia is probably more
>>> sympathetic to a Muslim point of view.
>> Who is right?
>>
>> Is the english Wikipedia supposed to have an American point of view,
>> or is systemic bias whatsoever not acceptable in the encyclopedia?
>
> Well, I think you may still be missing the key distinction.
>
> Systematic bias: this means the kind of thing that is talked about,
> generally, in discussions of 'media bias'.  I happen to think that the whole
> 'media bias' debate is a serious dumbing down of political discussion: as if
> all that mattered was to establish that one kind of media is 'propaganda',
> and another is 'truth-telling'.  But, in effect, systematic bias means
> something like a propagandistic, party line effect on content.  As I have
> said, this is unacceptable under NPOV, article by article.  Whether what
> Steve writes is true or not, that would contradict fundamental policy.
>
> Systemic bias is something else.  For example if we have more males than
> females editing WP, which is likely, then we get more coverage of
> traditional male-interest things than traditional female-interest things.
> Our discussion of haute couture fashion supposedly reflects that.  (I find
> that much easier to believe than what Steve says.)  It has nothing to do
> with whether people are editing to make a propaganda point.  Since on a
> wiki, what it written reflects ultimately the community writing it, there is
> no obvious policy such as NPOV that is effective.
>

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. Back on this issue:
Anti-Islam bias (regardless of whether it's systematic or systemic)
results in one-sided articles on certain topics, which is IMHO
derogatory to an encyclopedia. And putting the JP cartoons in the
article increases systemic bias by driving away muslim editors.

--
Raphael


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 5/5/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more
> coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.

You probably need to find a better example.  According
[[User:Carnildo/The 100]] and [[User:Carnildo/The 100 Biography]], we
don't have any articles on either.  On the other hand, we've got 4,535
articles on Digimon characters, 40,814 Rambot-created stubs, 4,535
biographies of saints, 15,872 articles on schools, 2,267 articles on
episodes of television series, and 2,267 copyvios on [[The Elf Queen
of Shannara]].

This abuse of statistics has been brought to you by the letters ? and
?, and by the number e.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Julie on Mod

body:
G'day Phil W,

> On May 4, 2006, at 6:24 PM, <julieharding1 at charter.net>
> <julieharding1 at charter.net> wrote:
>>>You better watch it Phil.  I am fingerprinted and accepted by the
>>>State of California and it is illegal for you to make false
>>>allegations against me, even if it is in cyberspace.  The police
>>>know how to track people down with just their email addresses.
>>>What's wrong?  Does a little intelligence from a woman intimidate
>>>you?  One more public false allegation and I'll turn you in.
>
> Case in point.

Last I heard, being fingerprinted by the State of California (or,
indeed, any American state) was a Bad Thing, and certainly didn't
entitle you to special status (well, unless you consider free use of a
taxi at certain times, and if you're really lucky, free room and board
for consecutive lifetimes, to be "special status").

AIUI, there are some email addresses that would give even the police
some difficulty.  But a gmail email address (seein' as they're *so*
concerned about privacy ...) combined with, I dunno, *using your real
name* and being *completely open about who you are* would surely not be
such a mean feat.  Phil S, if by some miracle the cops give enough of a
shit about Julie to come knocking on his door, is not going to scream in
shock and explain: "I never thought you'd be able to track me down!  I'm
sorry I accused her of taking crack instead of calling her a psycho!"

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.4/332 - Release Date: 4/05/2006


body:
---- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:16 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >> All users are entitled to respect and to cooperation in participating
> >> productively in the project. These "rights" are not enforceable in
> >> any court, but are a part of our common culture. They are enforced.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, of course.  But Tony's fundamental point was being ignored: there
> > is no right to advocacy.  I would have said that advocacy is the
> > precise opposite of what Wikipedia is for.
> >
> > Perhaps I need a nice cup of tea and a sit down.
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
>
> There is a bit of talking by one another here. Reasoned polite
> advocacy of policy positions is welcomed. Tendentious biased editing
> (especially when you are working in a group) is not. However, there
> are numerous situations where which is occurring is not immediately
> clear. Often the touchstone is that the nasty behavior goes on and on
> and on and on and on and at some point you realize you are engaging
> in deliberate behavior calculated to subvert neutral point of view
> (or in some other way create some tendency which simply doesn't
> belong in a reference work.
>
> Fred

--------------------------------------------------
>
> Absolutely Fred!
_How come noone is trying to pinpoint the nasty behavior, (especially if it is repetative,) and rid of it in your 'reference work?'  This nasty behavior adverts the mind and draws newcomers into thier cat-calling and insulting.   Thier actions are absolutely premeditated.  It's obvious, because they have to think of what they are writing before they write it down. They go after people who they think may be of a threat to them.   I believe that everyone deserves a chance to at least try to be a part of Wikipedia.  But if they don't respect it, or if they take advantage of it, then they don't belong here.  They will only cause you headache. -Julie
______________________________________________

> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On 5/5/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you know any examples of a good surname page?  Something people could use
> as a model to improve others?

>From memory a couple made it to FP didn't they? Some Chinese ones? But
that may not be the same model exactly.

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Phil Boswell" wrote

> My known family tree stretches back 27 generations, and the
> surname is spelt in very nearly that many ways. Originally "de Bossuille",
> it has been "Bosvil" and "Boswil" at various times. Only in recent
> generations has the spelling settled down, and even so the variant
> "Boswall"
> is still around: there's a famous TV producer of that name who's a distant
> cousin.

In a sense though that discussion , valid for anyone pre-1600, is as much
about redirects.  Any medieval-type person is quite likely to have six or
more synonymous names (Latin versions and vernacular, nicknames ...) and it
is our duty to the reader to create redirects.  Variant surname orthography
is just part of that.  On the whole I prefer one page per name ([[Millar]]
separate from [[Miller]]) unless tiny.

> There is a discussion on Meta as to whether a genealogy project should be
> adopted under the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella: this kind of data would
> be
> invaluable for the kind of page Charles is describing. Imagine not simply
> having to say "This John Smith is the one born in 1710" but also being
> able
> to say "This John Smith is in our genealogy wiki [[here]]" with a proper
> link!

This might be a way in to thinking what it is we do want out of surname
pages (etymology of the name ... origins if geographically or otherwise
precise ... dynastic sweep for example as at [[Uys family]] ... ).  I mainly
want to have the names listed in an easy-reference format.  I'm not sure
about always adding dates, as per the MoS.  It would definitely help in
deciding which John Smith out of many was the relevant one; otherwise it
duplicates article content and is just time-consuming to add.

There is a notability point here: dab pages don't need to assert notability,
because that is implicitly assumed from the existence of an article.  The
MoS gets that right, in effect, in saying you don't write a short essay,
just the essentials.  A genealogical project is interested in people who
procreate, which is not WP's criterion at all outside a few royal or
aristocratic or plutocratic contexts.

Charles


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a socially defined collection of original research.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which subverts the usual definition of an
encyclopedia and expands far beyonds the bounds of typical
encyclopedias because of its social model, one based on collective
authorship. You can't get around the social interaction, it is what
makes the entire thing work. I should think such is fairly obvious.

> "In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
> In other words, there is even less need for social interaction.  No need to petition funding for a laboratory to test a hypothesis.  No questions about which researcher should have his name placed first next to a theory.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by social interaction. I do not
mean funding or interactions with "society" (a slippery term), I mean
something roughly like "practices by which human beings interact with
one another to establish knowledge." The social practices cannot be
avoided. Especially since we do not do original research (though even
establishing what "original research" is a social practice here as
well, one based on collaboration, discussion, and compromise!). But
even in the scientific laboratory, facts do not just spring out of the
air, nor do they cling onto the pages of journals by themselves, nor
do they maintain themselves under the sheer weight of their own
conviction.

We need to accept the social nature of Wikipedia's claims to truth
(even if we do not want to bother trying to accept the social nature
of truth itself), and understand that 1. it does not devalue
Wikipedia's claims to truth, and 2. it is not something which can be
avoided anyway. The value of accepting such a thing is not that we
throw our hands up and say "Well, that's just how it is and we've got
to accept it, whatever it is!" of course, but it directs our lines of
inquiry away from things such as "How does one know whether something
is Original Research or not?" and instead re-frames the question into
something like, "What policies and social mechanisms will produce the
sorts of content we want, in the end, given our system of knowledge
production?" And again, by "social" I mean only that which refers to
the interactions and mediations between users themselves, and that's
all.

You could view the scientific method as a social system meant to
produce a certain type of knowledge, for example. It (ideally)
organizes researchers in a way which attempts to develop reliable and
hopefully incremental knowledge, to fact-check and self-police itself,
to standardize vocabularies and agreed-upon sets of beliefs, and so
forth. Calling something a social system does not devalue it in the
slightest; it is a system for organizing human interactions.

I apologize if this all sounds terribly academic or pedantic but I do
have a point in all of this -- I think too many of these discussions
are based on some sort of abstract way of trying to define things like
"Undue weight" or "Neutral Point of View" or "Original Research" as if
these were just natural categories sitting out there in the world. I
think considering them to be guidelines by which a social process will
produce certain types of knowledge, at the deliberate exclusion of
others, will help better focus exactly what sorts of policies we
should have and also help us avoid dreaming of a day when there will
be no ambiguity or disagreements between users on these issues. Rather
than viewing ambiguity and disagreement as things which should be
eliminated, I think they should be viewed as necessary elements of a
larger system, things which can probably be channeled or transformed
or mediated to certain degree by policies but something which will,
and must, always be a part of a relatively communitarian system as
Wikipedia uses.

(Even relatively authoritarian systems of knowledge production, with
top-down hierarchy and clear guidelines worked under by people of a
similar mindset, have their internal conflicts. But their lack of
transparency just keeps it out of sight, something we can't do under
our system.)

> It seems the policies and problems of the foundation in general (i.e., which projects and enhancements to fund, which gets a new server, which gets a new lawyer, etc.) are being confused with those of the encylopedia itself.  Yet another area in need of clarification, not ambiguity.~~~~Pro-Lick

I don't quite see that particular slippage going on, myself...

FF


body:
---- Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Wikitravel and Wikipedia have incompatible licenses?
>
> I am no expert but I believe the GFDL with clauses as used by Wikipedia
> and the CC-sharealike-attribution licence used by Wikitravel are only
> "morally compatible" i.e. they have basically the same intent (viral, free reuse,
> including making derivatives, is allowed, even commercially, if original is
> attributed). But they are not legally compatibles for various reasons (I believe).
>
> Thus there has been talk of future versions of each licence being written in such a way
> to move towards compatibility.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Has Wikipedia ever claimed that Wikitravel is a licensed brance of Wikipedia?  As long as they are both safe, is it an absolute necessity?  What are the clauses?
-Julie
--------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Any Roman Catholics on the list?

body:
I could do with some input at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic

Thanks.

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


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Anthony,
>
>> On 5/4/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>  >
>>> "He won the nobel prize!" under the title "Joe Bloggs" would be speedy
>>> deletable because of a lack of context and a desire to see how Jimbo
>>> would react.
>> Would "Joe Bloggs won the nobel prize." be speedy deleteable (assuming
>> it was true, and not patent nonsense).  If so, why wouldn't we want
>> the otherwise deleting admin to just substitute the name for "He" and
>> the period for exclamation point?  If not, which nobel prizes are
>> notable, and which aren't?
>
> You'll have to ask Jimbo about that one.
>
> Serves me right for relying on an incident hardly anyone knew about (and
> fewer remember) for humour ...
>

Serves you right for being awake at 6 am! And yes, /I/ remember it.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060505/caa5d6fc/attachment.pgp


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > For all the standard reasons like Wikipedia is not paper, inclusion of
> > > > any single article does almost infinitesimal direct harm.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can think of quite a few that could do considerable harm.
> >
> > Sorry, "inclusion of any single article which might otherwise be
> > deleted for lack of notability"...
> >
>
> So say a "John doe is a pedophile" article (nn 3 google hits) would do no harm?

Yawn. You know exactly what I'm saying.

> The "ize" risks starting spelling wars. The first four letters of
> dearticlify risk breaking [[WP:TOE]]. Vaporize has a nice 1984 ring to
> it.

Terminate :)

Steve


from_name: Cheney Shill

body:
geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

    On 5/5/06, Philip Welch wrote:
    > Gah! Enough with these stupid euphemisms!

    You mean differently intelligent

I understood him to mean those with a special gift to subvert intelligence.

    > "Voting" has changed to "finding consensus", but the process remains
    > the same. User conduct regulation is called "dispute resolution", but
    > focuses mainly on finding a pseudo-judicial basis to ban troublesome
    > editors.

    Not true. Article RFCs can resolve dissputes. I don't know about medation.

Verifiability.  Provide some recent cases where RFCs have.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


body:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 07:04:18 -0700, you wrote:

>I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the
>project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate."  However, since
>you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let
>it slide.

Really?  I thought Tony was best-known for his outspoken support for
policy and the fundamental purpose of the project against all
conflicting influences.  Silly of me.

He is right: the only two *rights* are to fork or to leave.  If you
require any other rights to be extended you are indeed quite likely in
the wrong place.

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


body:
---- Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yep if you could just spend a couple of minutes unifying the licences
> > for us Guy that would be great ;-).
>
> Wikitravel and Wikipedia have incompatible licenses?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
>
You guys just like to complain.  So go ahead and tell everyone, what are the consequences that the licenses...(you are spelling it wrong!) are incompatible?  They are both separate entities.  They are both businesses.  People should be happy that they are licensed.  Enlighten us, what are these horrible consequences?
-Julie
_________________________________________________

 WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On May 5, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>>    "Voting" has changed to "finding consensus", but the process
>> remains
>>    the same. User conduct regulation is called "dispute
>> resolution", but
>>    focuses mainly on finding a pseudo-judicial basis to ban
>> troublesome
>>    editors.
>
> You think?
>
> Look at the RfC on Whaleto.  Does that fit this description?  Very
> often problems are quietly resolved.  Of course sometimes they aren't,
> but I'd suggest that far more disputes are resolved than end up with
> indef-blocks.

My point isn't that we don't have dispute resolution. Article RfCs
and mediation are, in fact, forms of dispute resolution. But "dispute
resolution" also lumps in our user conduct processes, including user
RfC's (which are the most pointless thing ever) and ArbCom.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> That depends on your criteria for interest. Those families spread more
> widely than is sometimes supposed. I have just spent some while trying to
> find somewhere on Wikipedia a list of famous...and maybe not so
> famous...people related to Queen Elizabeth II, which I am reasonably certain
> would contain several surprising names; the fact that I have not been able
> to locate any such list inspires me to wonder whether we need something
> which could generate it automatically.
>

The closest would be [[Line of succession to the British Throne]]

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

body:
Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:

    maru dubshinki stated for the record:
    > On 5/5/06, Sean Barrett wrote:
    >
    >>julieharding1 at charter.net stated for the record:
    >>>Sean, you arrogant pig! I probably have more intelligence in my pinky finger than you have in your entire brain. Feminine intelligence is intimidating     >>
    >>It's far more likely that we'll rupture something from laughing too hard.
    >
    >
    > Now, now, Sean... Let's not get testy.

    Yeah, I know. But I'm here to testify that dealing with boobs makes me
    ... cranky.

Apparently everybody (and their typing fingers) missed the South Park episode involving Oprah's minge.  Just for the record, that's the term South Park used.  And, yes, it did speak with a British accent.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


from_name: Tom Dichiaro

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image Downloads

body:
Hey,

No, I've got a supposedly 8M road runner connection - Not that I get that on
download.

Anyway, that's not really the problem - it never gets that far.  It claims
that it's downloading a file that is 3.5G but then downloads what appears to
be a valid, empty tar that is only 700 bytes.  My tar program opens it,
doesn't complain about the format, and says its empty.

I am one of the those dreaded windows users, but I didn't have any trouble
downloading the articles ( I know, much smaller).  and the download help
page seems to say that NTFS on win2k/xp is okay for large files, so I
thought I'd be okay.

Anyway, with the apparently valid, empty tar downloading I thought it was
worth checking whether the 75G file was really still there.  If it is,  I
should probably look elsewhere for my problems solution.

Thanks for all your help.

Tom

"Steve Bennett" <stevage-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote in
message
news:<f1c3529e0605050751r1dd5047cv1c106dcd53fff4b9 at mail.gmail.com>...
> On 5/5/06, Tim Starling
<t.starling-JAjqph6Yjy+R5oW9C2NzqLs0Z2mYlMph at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > What happens when you try? I believe some clients have trouble
downloading
> > files bigger than 2GB.
>
> Maybe he was on dialup...?
>
> Steve


body:
On May 5, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Phil Boswell wrote:

>>> It's not
>>> as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would
>>> otherwise be
>>> available for your own pet subject.
>> Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more
>> coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.
>>
> {{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles
> about
> something you don't like, try writing more articles about something
> you do.

It's not about someone (me) liking one thing or another. It's about
objective importance and notability. Pokemon's influence even within
contemporary popular culture is minimal outside a devoted community
of fans.

> We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current
> generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into
> 19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than
> drive them
> away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever.

I have high doubts that such editors are likely to mature. It's more
likely that they'll turn us into Pokepedia, with only slight coverage
of the real world (appended, always, by every single reference to
such real world occurrences in TV shows and Flash cartoons).

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 10:22:45 -0400, you wrote:

>> Really?  I thought Tony was best-known for his outspoken support for
>> policy and the fundamental purpose of the project against all
>> conflicting influences.

>Sure.  But he can come off as being very surly and rude while he's
>about it.

That is a true text, Brother.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

body:
julieharding1 at charter.net wrote:
    > It's not that hard to figure out guy's. You act as if you are trying to
    explain something as intricate as world security when in reality it is as
    simple as picking your nose. These are computer systems, keyboards and
    mouses. Don't get your panties in an uproar.

I'm pretty sure my panties have more brains than I do, so they probably are not happy with their present position.  They told me to recommend the Church of Danaeism to you:
http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/05/04/
I can't add anything more as my fingers have an ongoing POV war with my panties and the consensus of my other body parts and clothing refuses to make a change regardless of how many external, non-panty sources support them.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


body:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:16 -0600, you wrote:

>All users are entitled to respect and to cooperation in participating
>productively in the project. These "rights" are not enforceable in
>any court, but are a part of our common culture. They are enforced.

Yes, of course.  But Tony's fundamental point was being ignored: there
is no right to advocacy.  I would have said that advocacy is the
precise opposite of what Wikipedia is for.

Perhaps I need a nice cup of tea and a sit down.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intelligent body parts

body:
---- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> maru dubshinki stated for the record:
> > On 5/5/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> >
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>julieharding1 at charter.net stated for the record:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sean, you arrogant pig!  I probably have more intelligence in my pinky finger than you have in your entire brain.  Feminine intelligence is intimidating you guys.  Well, I think I'll stick around for a while longer now because of what Sean said and see if I can put some more pressure on your testes.  Maybe if I prove you up long enough I can get one of you guys to puke.
> >>
> >>- -Julie
> >>
> >>It's far more likely that we'll rupture something from laughing too hard.
> >
> >
> > Now, now, Sean... Let's not get testy.
> >
> > ~maru
>
> Yeah, I know.  But I'm here to testify that dealing with boobs makes me
> ... cranky.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot
>  sean at epoptic.org | like women. You just have to read the manual
>                   | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEW8H/MAt1wyd9d+URApAxAJ9wsBCeIUkI+/0BRlfgsR2NCT8NNACdGtrm
> Bb7wqssVOkpWXHcJzq/FiUk=
> =K9LY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -------------------------------------------------------------
You guys are hilarious!  Did you know that all of the emails that have been coming to me today, I've been editing?  All of you intelligent men spell like you're in the third grade.  If there are other women in here, don't tolerate thier behavior!  Putting up with boobs?  Many of you men are probably so fat from sitting around that you have your own boobs to contend with, so leave ours alone.  And I'm here to testify that a man's crotch is a lot like a nuclear reactor.  Bump it up against anything, and it's ready to go!  Now calm down boys.  Without titties in the world, you wouldn't be here.
-Julie
_____________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 05/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford <craigwhitford1 at emailaccount.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps Wikipedia should have some new policies to deal with vote stacking??
> > I could do checkuser if anyone wants, I'm a network admin so could probably learn it >fairly quickly.
> >
>
> We already have enough policies for dealing with the abuse of sockpupets.
>
> > It would take the workload off admins/current checkusers.
> >
> > Craig
> >
>
> People tend to be slightly paranoid about giving people acess to checkuser.

It's not paranoia, it's common sense. While there are all sorts of
arguments about whether or not an IP address is private information or
how useful it is to a would-be attacker or whoever, the fact remains
that the Foundation is obliged to retain this information as it agrees
to in the current policies.

Granting access to utilities which make this sort of information
available is going to be done under strict controls because of the
sheer nature of it.

A certain level of competence *is* required to use the tool, and
misinterpreting the information could lead to someone being banned
from Wikipedia for a long period of time, or an indefinite time. While
I've no wish to cast dispersion on the offer or the qualifications
behind it, one has to see that it is a matter of trust and common
sense; this is the reason our CheckUsers are all users who have
demonstrated common sense, competence, and good faith over time.

Rob Church


body:
On 05/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford <craigwhitford1 at emailaccount.com> wrote:
> > I've heard about the Request for comment from the United States Congress.
> > It's true, Wikipedia is used as a PR/spin machine.
> > I've also noticed Commons is being used to upload PR pictures too, for spin purposes.
> >
> > Craig
> >
>
> A PR photo is better than nothing.

"PR photo" implies non-free licencing, which means that it's not
acceptable on Commons, our free media repo. So in this case, and in
others, no image *is* better.

Rob Church


body:
On 5/5/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not paranoia, it's common sense.

Just because people are paranoid does mean they are not out to get
you. I'm at uni. I would rather certian people to get hold of my IP.
--
geni


body:
---- Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Philip Welch wrote:
> >
> > On May 5, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
> >> It's not
> >> as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would
> >> otherwise be
> >> available for your own pet subject.
> > Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more
> > coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.
> >
> {{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles about
> something you don't like, try writing more articles about something you do.
>
> In the meantime, who's going to want to write new articles in an environment
> which is at times actively poisonous towards newbies?
>
> If you can get jumped with an AfD notice before you're finished writing a
> simple Pokemon article, who will want to invest the effort writing a complex
> article which will have "nn, delete" and "yah, boo, you're expertize meanz
> nothing to us, you elitist pig!!11!!" plastered over it before the virtual
> ink has dried?
>
> We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current
> generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into
> 19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than drive them
> away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever.
> --
> Phil
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/We-need-a-policy-against-vote-stacking-t1553689.html#a4254833
> Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

You are kidding aren't you?  You are using Pokemon as a metaphor right?  Please tell me that Pokemon is not a subject in Wikipedia.  No Phil, you're just being a jerk and screwing with my head again.  Knock it off.  And if Pokemon really is in there, then it's your idiocy.
-Boobs
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On 5/5/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/5/06, Craig Whitford <craigwhitford1 at emailaccount.com> wrote:
> > > I've heard about the Request for comment from the United States Congress.
> > > It's true, Wikipedia is used as a PR/spin machine.
> > > I've also noticed Commons is being used to upload PR pictures too, for spin purposes.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> >
> > A PR photo is better than nothing.
>
> "PR photo" implies non-free licencing, which means that it's not
> acceptable on Commons, our free media repo. So in this case, and in
> others, no image *is* better.
>
>
> Rob Church

I assumed that people were releasing them under a free lisence (it
might be a logical course of action for politicians although not so
much for celebrities).

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
On 5/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:41:58 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >Hmm, to play devil's advocate, how would you feel if someone deleted a
> >hard-core pornographic image, and didn't replace it with a link? I
> >doubt you would call it vandalism. I believe that most (some?) Muslims
> >find these cartoons extremely offensive, so it's not surprising that
> >they would remove them without replacing them with a link.

> So I personally would not include the cartoons in the article, because
> they are considered offensive by many of the potential readers and
> that will colour their view of the neutrality of the article, but
> undoubtedly would link to them since the whole issue makes little (or
> at least much less) sense if you've not seen them.

Well, the comparison I was making was linking to an image of explicit
hardcore porn (not just a film website, for example). There are
probably people who argue that such links are a good thing. However,
most people don't. However, if you find the cartoons similarly
offensive, then linking to them would be quite comparable.

Steve


body:
On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> geni wrote:
> >
> > On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >> Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items
> >> which we regularly include.
> > That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the
> > proof of the [[Taniyama?Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover
> > it) would be on wikisource.
> >
> The actual proof itself, yes.
>
> I would hope that an explanation for mathematical peons like myself would
> also be forthcoming. Whether that would be more appropriate to Wikipedia or
> Wikibooks is a matter for conjecture.
>

That could be a problem since I suspect any explantion would first
require teching the person something that amounts to a maths degree

Generaly I would assume a good article on a mathmatical proof would
include it's history, why it matters, the proof itself if it is short
enough, a summery if not and if required a summery that makes sense to
people without a Phd in the subject.

I assume a pop culture section would take care of its self.

> I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is
> supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some
> of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of
> "meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me...
> --
> Phil
> --

It is meant to be for text books and instruction manuals

--
geni


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image Downloads

body:
Tom Dichiaro wrote:
> No, I've got a supposedly 8M road runner connection - Not that I get that on
> download.
>
> Anyway, that's not really the problem - it never gets that far.  It claims
> that it's downloading a file that is 3.5G but then downloads what appears to
> be a valid, empty tar that is only 700 bytes.  My tar program opens it,
> doesn't complain about the format, and says its empty.

This is most likely a problem with your download tool failing to handle large
file sizes.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060505/c9bf0351/attachment.pgp>