subject: [Wikitech-l]Number of days new users are prevented from	editing semi-pr

body:
I think this will not be necessary, because she has just tried editing again and everything is OK now.

Thanks.

----Message d'origine----
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 05:41:45 -0700
>De: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
>A: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>Sujet: Re: [Wikitech-l] Number of days new users are prevented
>
>folengo at netcourrier.com wrote:
>> 1) User name :
>>
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Suziecat
>>
>> 2) semi-protected page she says she attempted to edit :
>>
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat
>
>Now I need:
>* the exact time of the attempted edit
>* the exact description of the problem
>* if possible, an exact description of a current attempt to make the edit
>* including details of whether there was an attempt to reload the page, log
>out/in, etc
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Prasad J

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Sep 11 memorial, systemic bias, lunacy in Wikipedians,
	and other fine topics (was Re: jaygy and indefinate ban)

body:
Mark,
Have you ever heard the saying "One man's terrorist is another's
freedom fighter"? I'm not saying it applies to 11/9 in particuar, just
to the concept of "terrorism" in general.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rotem Liss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Non-found page text broken?

body:
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Nogomatch#Remove_the_.22:.22_before_the_.241

Steve Bennett wrote:

>Hi,
>  I'm getting this text when searching for page that doesn't exist:
>
>No page with that title exists.
>You can [[::Aoeuaouo|create this article]] or request it.
>
>That is, in the rendered page, I'm actually seeing [[:: etc.
>
>Someone break something?
>
>This is on EN btw.
>
>Steve
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
#define Name RotemLiss
#define Mail mailSTRUDELrotemlissDOTcom
#define Site www.rotemliss.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> Since most of us don't have sufficient funds to travel to public
> meetings, nor sufficiently flexible schedules to sit around on IRC, it
> should be no surprise that we're much more willing to debate on mailing
> lists, which are the most inclusive.  If there were a public meeting in
> Atlanta, I would certainly attend, but to my knowledge there hasn't been
> one.
[snip]

If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
worth our time reading on a mailing list?


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
> not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
> someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
> worth our time reading on a mailing list?

I find questioning people's financial situations in poor taste.
--LV


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
> > not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
> > someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
> > worth our time reading on a mailing list?
>
> I find questioning people's financial situations in poor taste.

Huh? I was refering to the IRC meetings which is what almost all of
them have been.

If you're telling me that financial situation prevents them from
getting someone to go attend an IRC meeting in your place....


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
> > > not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
> > > someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
> > > worth our time reading on a mailing list?
> >
> > I find questioning people's financial situations in poor taste.
>
> The meetings I was talking about were on IRC, not in real life, so
> it's about time, not finance.
>
> Angela.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the "Since most of us don't
have sufficient funds to travel to public meetings" part.  My mistake.
 Nothing to see here... carry on.
--LV


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames

body:
On 26/05/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Prasad,
>
>> Grow up.  Really.
Don't bother trying to continue this conversation. Goodbye.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
Ok well it's fixed now. Thanks for the explanation.

Steve

On 5/26/06, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com> wrote:
> The English Wikipedians added the ":" to the message *before* it was
> automatically added to the parameter, then the developers added it to
> the parameter, so there are two ":" signs.


body:
The content of the parameter "$1" of the system message is specified by
MediaWiki software, not by the system message itself (it just specifies
where to put it in the message).

Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 5/26/06, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com> wrote:
>
>
>>See
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Nogomatch#Remove_the_.22:.22_before_the_.241
>>
>>
>
>Weird, according to the page history, the only change (made today)
>shouldn't have touched that bit. Maybe the change had been made a
>while ago but for some reason wasn't taken into account, until the
>page was resaved today?
>
>Strange. Thanks for pointing me to that anyway.
>
>Steve
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
#define Name RotemLiss
#define Mail mailSTRUDELrotemlissDOTcom
#define Site www.rotemliss.com


from_name: Ben Lowe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames (was: Re: welch and consensus)

body:
On 5/26/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/25/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To test this theory, let someone create a username "Lynddie England"-
> > after the infamous sadist of Abu-Ghraib. If nobody objects, then your
> > plan will fail due to systemic bias.
>
> How many times do people have to tell you they'd block a User:Lynddie
> England on sight before you stop beating this dead horse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3ALynndie+england
 ,

and two minutes later,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Pgk&page=User%3ALynndie+england

So, seriously, the horse is completely dead.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Robin Shannon <robin.shannon at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we need to
> engage anyone who is willing to be engaged in a debate about where we
> should be heading and how we should go about it.

How? Previous public Wikimedia meetings have led nowhere and done
nothing other than highlight how few people in the communities are
interested in _doing_ anything - as opposed to debating on mailing
lists.

> I just think that the future direction of wikimedia
> is up to the community not the board or its officers, staff or
> whoever.

Nice idea... how about you suggest how that might happen? There are
currently two community representatives on the Board, though it's
increasingly obvious that the community are not using either Anthere
or myself to get anything to happen. Anything that does happen comes
through private mailing lists and an increasing number of internal
processes that even Board members don't always have access to.

Angela


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


body:
The English Wikipedians added the ":" to the message *before* it was
automatically added to the parameter, then the developers added it to
the parameter, so there are two ":" signs.

Steve Bennett wrote:

>So what broke?
>
>Steve
>
>On 5/26/06, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The content of the parameter "$1" of the system message is specified by
>>MediaWiki software, not by the system message itself (it just specifies
>>where to put it in the message).
>>
>>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 5/26/06, Rotem Liss <mail at rotemliss.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>See
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Nogomatch#Remove_the_.22:.22_before_the_.241
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Weird, according to the page history, the only change (made today)
>>>shouldn't have touched that bit. Maybe the change had been made a
>>>while ago but for some reason wasn't taken into account, until the
>>>page was resaved today?
>>>
>>>Strange. Thanks for pointing me to that anyway.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>#define Name RotemLiss
>>#define Mail mailSTRUDELrotemlissDOTcom
>>#define Site www.rotemliss.com
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
#define Name RotemLiss
#define Mail mailSTRUDELrotemlissDOTcom
#define Site www.rotemliss.com


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
On 5/26/06, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >
> > frankly there are a number
> > of former featured articles which have seriously deteriorated due to
> > subsequent unprofessional edits.
>
>
> In what ways deteriorated? A couple of examples would be great for the
> discussion.

[[Omnipotence paradox]]
The version that was featured (and that I reverted to after seeing
what had been done to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omnipotence_paradox&oldid=39463700

The version just before my revert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omnipotence_paradox&oldid=39433100

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
Theresa,
Caould you please tell me which mailing list would be more appriopate
for this discussion? Also, the 11/9 Memorial Wiki has .wikipedia in
its URL, so I assumed it was part of Wikipedia.


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Hi,

I wonder how you can say, they are the same user,
when all you can check is that they are using the
same IP-address.

best regards
--
Raphael

Fred Bauder wrote:
> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked this. I
> doublechecked.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>
>>    Hi,
>>    I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username
>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my
>> friend know
>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project.
>> Unfortunately
>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face to an
>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my partner
>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not
>> true. I tried
>> to explain it on the check user page:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem.
>>    I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all
>> living at the
>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's randomly. I
>> understand that check user made his decision based on that.
>>    I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I
>> can. I
>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are
>> not the
>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
>>    Thank you in advance.
>>    Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
>> it's FREE!
>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>David McCabe ('david') will be implementing threaded discussion support
>>(LiquidThreads) as one of our two Google Summer of Code projects.
>
> Nice. Let me know if I can be of help during the development of this.

I am also interested in helping with this, especially testing.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Since most of us don't have sufficient funds to travel to public
>> meetings, nor sufficiently flexible schedules to sit around on IRC, it
>> should be no surprise that we're much more willing to debate on mailing
>> lists, which are the most inclusive.  If there were a public meeting in
>> Atlanta, I would certainly attend, but to my knowledge there hasn't been
>> one.
>>
> [snip]
>
> If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
> not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
> someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
> worth our time reading on a mailing list?

It's more the opposite: I consider in-person meetings of such low value
that they are not worth going out of my way to attend or send someone to
attend.  This is not 1930; internet projects for decades now have been
coordinated solely by means of the internet.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
>>> not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
>>> someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
>>> worth our time reading on a mailing list?
>>>
>> I find questioning people's financial situations in poor taste.
>>
>
> Huh? I was refering to the IRC meetings which is what almost all of
> them have been.
>

Oh, I thought you meant the in-person meetings.

I don't find IRC (or "chat" generally) a useful or efficient means of
communication.  Email gives enough space that people can look up
sources, consider their positions and arguments, read other material if
necessary, and then respond.  IRC is a mixture of off-the-cuff and
prepared remarks, broken up into small bits with a lot of asides and
chit-chat that you have to sit through in real time.

There are some projects that use it effectively, but most projects I've
been involved with have dropped it pretty quickly in favor of the
mailing lists.  The exceptions are ones with a high proportion of people
who hang out on IRC to socialize anyway.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
Ditto below.

On May 26, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Timwi wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> On 5/25/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>>> David McCabe ('david') will be implementing threaded discussion
>>> support
>>> (LiquidThreads) as one of our two Google Summer of Code projects.
>>
>> Nice. Let me know if I can be of help during the development of this.
>
> I am also interested in helping with this, especially testing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection

body:
On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > > Precisely my point.  It is an editorial judgment.  We can't say "just
> > > because it is true and verifiable we should post it in wikipedia".
> >
> > So you believe that ranting criticisms on blogs constitute
> > "verifiable" information?
>
> Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for
> writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute
> verification for "He eats babies".
>
Not according to [[wp:V]] they don't.  "Anyone can create a website or
pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a
certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal
websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.

Anthony


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
On May 26, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> This is from a talk page of a featured article:
>>
>> " Beyond which, this is an FA, and FA's really should be treated
>> as more
>> finalized and finished than general articles, as they have passed
>> through
>> a
>> form of peer review and have a community endorsement in their present
>> forms."
>>
>> Is this view supported anywhere? Should I be more careful when
>> editing a
>> FA,
>> since it should be supposed that the article is good as it is and
>> does not
>> need a change?
>
> Yes, this is the general view. In particular, don't add unsourced
> statements
> to a fully sourced article, don't add spelling mistakes to a proofread
> article etc. I would like us to formalise this.

Featured articles should have guardians who fearlessly revert bad
changes like this while taking useful contributions and massaging
them into the featured whole. This would work a lot better than the
salutory neglect system we employ now. I know this sounds ominously
like WP:OWN, but it's needed.

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


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Precisely my point.  It is an editorial judgment.  We can't say "just
>>>> because it is true and verifiable we should post it in wikipedia".
>>>>
>>> So you believe that ranting criticisms on blogs constitute
>>> "verifiable" information?
>>>
>> Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for
>> writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute
>> verification for "He eats babies".
>>
>>
> Not according to [[wp:V]] they don't.  "Anyone can create a website or
> pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a
> certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal
> websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
>
> I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
> source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
> them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
>

I would assume this means they're not acceptable as sources for facts
that they claim; it seems hard to argue that they aren't credible
sourcees for the statement that they made said claims.  The main purpose
of putting this policy in was to avoid people adding weird things like
"Mint cures cancer [source: some random website claiming so]".

For example, I would see nothing wrong with our article on [[Richard M.
Stallman]] citing something he wrote on his personal website and
attributing it to him.  His personal website saying "[x]" is not a
reliable source for the statement "[x] is true", but it *is* a reliable
source for the statement "Richard Stallman has said [x]", much as a
company's official website is not necessarily a reliable source for what
a company actually does, but *is* a reliable source for what the company
describes itself as doing.

With the personal websites of people less famous than RMS, I don't think
the verifiability issue changes; what changes is that the statement
"Some Guy has said [x]" becomes insufficiently interesting to merit
inclusion in any article.

-Mark


from_name: Selina .

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lost posts?

body:
I never received the last 3 posts on this page:
http://www.nabble.com/%28+First+post+%29+RE%3A+%22In+which+Snowspinner+pwns+WR.%22-t1685546.html

What's up with that, am I still subscribed to this list or am I being
censored already? :?
I tried joining again but it didn't send any new email then either

-Selina


body:
On May 26, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Delirium wrote:

> For example, I would see nothing wrong with our article on
> [[Richard M.
> Stallman]] citing something he wrote on his personal website and
> attributing it to him.  His personal website saying "[x]" is not a
> reliable source for the statement "[x] is true", but it *is* a
> reliable
> source for the statement "Richard Stallman has said [x]", much as a
> company's official website is not necessarily a reliable source for
> what
> a company actually does, but *is* a reliable source for what the
> company
> describes itself as doing.

I see this as a good rule:

When X is a person, anything known to be published by X is a
verifiable source about X. (This is more of a heuristic than a law,
as there are no doubt counterexamples.)

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


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Selina,

[Would you please consider not top-posting?  That'd be tops!]

> Who is stalking who? Sorry I missed the start of the convo
>
> If you're talking about Amorrow again, I can get rid of that crap, but I
> just don't think it would have any change on his behaviour - maybe a verbal

Jimbo was making a hypothetical example.  Well, sort of.  It was eerily
similar to a real-life case of a Boing Boing editor that someone has
taken a disliking to, but for our purposes it was hypothetical.  In any
case, the stalker in this case wasn't amorrow, unless he has a lot more
time on his hands than I first thought.  I mean, there's only so many
hours in one day --- so there must surely be a limit to the number of
creepy stalkers who turn out to be amorrow.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Sep 11 memorial, systemic bias, lunacy in Wikipedians,
 and other fine topics (was Re: jaygy and indefinate ban)

body:
G'day Selina,

> On 26/05/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>> G'day Angela,
>>
>>> On 5/22/06, Mark Gallagher
>>> <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> It may have escaped your notice, but the "9/11 Memorial Wiki"
>>>> is not a part of Wikipedia (IIRC it's on Wikicities, but ICBW).
>>>
>>> That wiki is not, and never was, part of Wikia (formerly
>>> Wikicities). It's a Wikimedia project with a Wikipedia URL, and
>>> the vote on meta at
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/9/11_wiki_move_proposal shows
>>> there was never any support (including from me) of it being moved
>>> to Wikicities.
>>
>> Yeah, as Prasad pointed out, that was a case of shooting the ol'
>> mouth off without checking if the facts backed me up first (fear
>> not, I don't do this while writing *articles* ...).  Whoops.
>>
>> While the Wikimedia Foundation is, of course, free to host what it
>> likes, I don't think something like this belongs at
>> wiki*pedia*.org.
>
> Liberalism gone crazy, there's nothing wrong with a memorial to
> 9/11...

"Liberalism" and the daemonisation thereof, gone crazy or otherwise, is
an American concept and I do not subscribe to it.  You may wish to call
me a leftist no-goodnik, if you like; it's not true, but it gets the
same concept across.

> Bear in mind this is an Australian advocating it's deletion, not an
> American.

I'm advocating the deletion of nothing.  I agree that there's nothing
wrong with a Sep11 memorial, and I don't even have a problem with the
WMF hosting it.  I just don't think it belongs under the Wikipedia
domain name; WP:NOT a memorial, after all.

Note that I'm not arguing this particularly strenuously, and not
starting any movements to have it moved (heh) to .wikimedia.org or
wikia/wikicities.  That's the problem with us chardonnay socialists,
we're too busy sipping lattes in inner-city Melbourne to actually get
off our well-toned arses and do something ...

(If you got half the jokes in this post, you're probably Australian.  If
you thought they were funny, the cheque is in the mail.)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Death of Wikipedia

body:
On 5/26/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Internet Archive shows when the main page was locked (made
> "read-only").  It can't really be used to prove that nothing else was
> locked before that, though (hard to prove a negative).
>
> Of course, I think it's pretty clear that things have gotten more
> locked-down over the years, regardless of whether or not things were
> ever 100% completely open.

On the other hand, it's very easy to demonstrate that there are far more
unlocked pages than there used to be. More than a million more, in fact.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames

body:
G'day Prasad,

>>As I said before, Wikipedia's biases are what we call "systemic bias".
>>This is because most of our editors are male, white, and American, in
>>their early to mid-twenties.  There's two ways to combat this bias.
>> Sitting around whingeing about how nobody understands
>>how difficult it is to not be American is not only bloody stupid, it's
>>also offensive to the rest of us who aren't American and don't
>>appreciate being considered fellow travellers.
>
> You're white aren't you Mark? And I'm pretty sure "Gallagher" isn't a
> Muslim name. So nobody here considers you a f"ellow traveller".

I think we might be using different definitions.  I meant that I am not
American, and asserting that I hold the same views and mindset as a
bunch of people in a whole 'nother country simply because I am the same
colour as the majority over there is offensive.  There's a word for that
sort of thing; I think it starts with 'r'.

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


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
>
> Nick Boalch wrote:
>> For instance, the username policy forbids using the 'names of religious
>> figures', but in many parts of the world it's common for people to be
>> named after such figures: off the top of my head, I know several
>> Spaniards called Jes?s.
>>
> So if someone creates a username "Jesus Gutierrez" and plonks a {{user
> es-N}} box on their user-page, we'll cut them as much slack as they need.
>
> Turn up with a name like "Jesus on Wheels" and a less warm reception is
> likely.
>

Been there, done that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesus_On_Wheels

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060526/d1af7e5c/attachment.pgp


body:
G'day Prasad,

   <snip/>

Okay, there's "making rational but unpopular arguments" and then there's
"digging a hole and sealing yourself into it".  Guess which one you're
doing.

Wrong.  Guess again.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Prasad,
>
>> Sorry, I just assumed that you were alike.
>
> You would not confuse Indonesians with Chinese; Fijians with Indians.
> Why would you assume an Australian (or a Canadian, or a Greek, or an
> Italian, or a Russian, or a citizen of any other predominately white
> nation) is no different from an American?
>
>

Because he's a troll, of course.

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060526/aac18aa7/attachment.pgp


body:
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Precisely my point.  It is an editorial judgment.  We can't say "just
> >>>> because it is true and verifiable we should post it in wikipedia".
> >>>>
> >>> So you believe that ranting criticisms on blogs constitute
> >>> "verifiable" information?
> >>>
> >> Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for
> >> writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute
> >> verification for "He eats babies".
> >>
> >>
> > Not according to [[wp:V]] they don't.  "Anyone can create a website or
> > pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a
> > certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal
> > websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
> >
> > I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
> > source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
> > them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
> >
>
> I would assume this means they're not acceptable as sources for facts
> that they claim; it seems hard to argue that they aren't credible
> sourcees for the statement that they made said claims.  The main purpose
> of putting this policy in was to avoid people adding weird things like
> "Mint cures cancer [source: some random website claiming so]".
>
> For example, I would see nothing wrong with our article on [[Richard M.
> Stallman]] citing something he wrote on his personal website and
> attributing it to him.  His personal website saying "[x]" is not a
> reliable source for the statement "[x] is true", but it *is* a reliable
> source for the statement "Richard Stallman has said [x]", much as a
> company's official website is not necessarily a reliable source for what
> a company actually does, but *is* a reliable source for what the company
> describes itself as doing.
>
I disagree with this - both the premise and the example.  Besdies just
the lack of verifiability, I believe this is engaging in original
research.  In my opinion there's no need for encyclopedia editors to
do this.  If the quote from RMS is important enough to the RMS article
to be included, then someone else has probably already reported it.

That said, I do believe RMS (and any websites we can definitely
attribute to him) are a reputable source in articles like the [[GPL]],
[[free software]], etc.  But random Joe Blogger wouldn't be.

> With the personal websites of people less famous than RMS, I don't think
> the verifiability issue changes; what changes is that the statement
> "Some Guy has said [x]" becomes insufficiently interesting to merit
> inclusion in any article.
>
> -Mark

I don't think "sufficiently interesting" is a clear enough criterion
to be at all useful in a wiki.  While it's true that "reputable
source" can lead to its own disputes, I think it's a lot more clear
what is meant by that term, plus it separates the issue of the source
from the issue of the fact.

Essentially, I thought that's what the NPOV, V, and NOR rules were all about.

Anthony


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
On 5/26/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> If you can improve it go right ahead, but frankly there are a number
> of former featured articles which have seriously deteriorated due to
> subsequent unprofessional edits.
>
> Fred
>

At the same time the standards for FAs have risen. A static FA would
lose that status sooner or later.

--
geni


body:
On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
> > source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
> > them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
>
> However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a
> blog called Y".

Well, what I'm saying is that no, it isn't, or at least that it shouldn't be.

Anthony


body:
G'day Prasad,

> I am making a rational arguement. It is only Americans who really care
> about the 11/9 incident. Do you guys in Melbourne mourn 11/9 each
> year? Do you fly the Australian flag at halfmast?  What about
> memorial-services- do you have those?Have you built a Freedom Tower
> there yet? I didn't think so. Then why should a international
> organisation like the Wikimedia Foundation have this Memorial
> dedicated solely to 11/9?

Ahh, I think I see where you're going wrong:

	Care != "build towers with stupid names".

Just remember that little factoid, and you should be jake.  Forgetting
it is what leads you to do silly things like make statements that look
very much like you're saying only the Americans agree Sep11 was a Bad Thing.

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


from_name: David McCabe

subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
Hi, folks. Thanks much for the offers of help. I hadn't yet subscribed
here when this thread began, so please forgive me if I am being
redundant of have neglected any questions.

What I'm trying to figure out at the moment, if you have any
suggestions, is the nicest URL scheme for the new pages that are going
to be implemented.

In LQT, there is a many-to-many relationship between articles and talk
pages (which we call 'channels'). When you click 'discuss' for an
article, you'll be taken to the article's primary, default channel,
but at the top of the page, there will be a list of other channels
that are attached to the article. So, the URL for a given talk page
must include both the article and the specific channel being viewed.
And I guess we'll have to hack in a Channels: namespace, since
channels are not ordinary pages, and since putting it in the Special:
namespace would be pretty ugly. Any ideas?

If you want to check out what I'm doing, I'm working in
/branches/liquidthreads. At present, though, I haven't committed
anything. I have a test wiki here at http://dmccabe.org:8000/wiki/.
Please don't hit it too hard.

Thanks!

--
David McCabe


subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames

body:
G'day Prasad,

> Sorry, I just assumed that you were alike.

You would not confuse Indonesians with Chinese; Fijians with Indians.
Why would you assume an Australian (or a Canadian, or a Greek, or an
Italian, or a Russian, or a citizen of any other predominately white
nation) is no different from an American?

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] ( First post ) RE: "In which Snowspinner pwns WR."
 [longish]

body:
G'day Selina,

>> Funny that fiction about stalking someone raises alarm bells on WR,
>> given that they welcome amorrow and similar editors. I suspect
>> Snowspinner could collect a lot of valuable advice on what it's
>> like to be a creepy psychopath from some of WR's more respected
>> contributors.
>
> Tolerate =\= respected. ;)
> http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1386&st=20#entry7870
> http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7257
> http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7218

Well, I'm pleased to hear that you're less than impressed with amorrow's
deranged ranting.  Sometimes it's nice to be wrong.  In this case, being
wrong is so nice that I'd rather be even wronger --- unfortunately, as I
understand it, you're not the only WR poster, and there are those who
are quite fond of the cowardly little creep.

Is it true that Daniel Brandt, privacy campaigner extraordinaire,
enlisted amorrow's aid in tracking down information about one particular
female Wikipedian?  Is it true that the caring, nurturing environment of
WR allowed both gentlemen to enjoy such a meeting of minds?

> I'm not sure how
> you got that conclusion, but posting a lot does not equal "respected"
> either :) You can't really attack the site for allowing a few wackos
> to post, there's plenty of crazies (from all kind of POVs, religions
> and ideologies) on Wikipedia too. If you're wondering why I haven't
> banned him, I seriously thought about it but I don't think it would
> achieve much. If he wasn't ranting on there he'd probably be sending
> creepy emails or something anyway, banning him from WR wouldn't
> actually achieve much, certainly ain't gonna change his behavior.

amorrow isn't the only person of ... dubious sanity ... posting to WR,
although he's certainly the one voted Most Likely to Spend Time in Gaol
Because He Can't Keep His Disgusting Little Hands to Himself in an
informal, one-person poll recently conducted in this 'ere computer room.

I'm given to understand Zordrac is quite influential at WR.  He is,
unless I'm very much mistaken, the fellow who seriously entertained the
thought that everyone's favourite Yorkshireman, Tony Sidaway, was in
fact a CIA plant.  He maintains to this day that Stephen Bain, a
university student in Melbourne, is moonlighting as an ASIO agent.

You've definitely got wackos infesting your ranks, and some of them are
quite important regulars.  Not all of them post a danger to people other
than themselves, however.

> One thing a lot of Wikipedia users seem to do is group everyone at WR
>  as though they're one person with some single goal or whatever.
> Totally untrue. For all the nuts there are reasonable conversations
> too, General Discussion is usually pretty clean

I imagine General Discussion is not where you lot decided to hurt Phil
Sandifer IRL, then, or post personal information about one of our most
popular administrators then gloat when she decided to leave rather than
risk further harrassment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure WR is unfairly maligned at times.  You're
not *entirely* a nest of crazy losers, I'm sure.  But the craziness your
forum *does* display is so extreme that I trust you'll understand why we
formed this impression, and why your reputation will never go away as
long as the users responsible for some of the behaviour I've mentioned
remain on the forum.

> Anyway, as it's my first post I just thought I'd say hi. :) I am, of

Well, welcome!  Try not to let your crazy friends influence your
behaviour here, and all will be well ;-)

<snip/>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames

body:
Prasad,

> I'm not sure. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the
> British and the Americans and the Australians and the other "whites"
> seemed to get along mighty well when they were kicking around Indians
> during the Raj. And they seem to be behaving the same way down in Iraq
> too. Funny coincidence is it not? I think that's what lead to me
> making that error.

Grow up.  Really.

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


from_name: habj

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
This is from a talk page of a featured article:

" Beyond which, this is an FA, and FA's really should be treated as more
finalized and finished than general articles, as they have passed through a
form of peer review and have a community endorsement in their present
forms."

Is this view supported anywhere? Should I be more careful when editing a FA,
since it should be supposed that the article is good as it is and does not
need a change?

/habj


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Robin Shannon wrote:
> On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>We have been talking about this for at least a couple years; the last time
>>we did so publicly was
>>just mentioned and linked to by Erik. The reason why this is necessary is
>>due to the fact that we
>>long ago reached the limit on what volunteers alone can accomplish. We have
>>therefore been missing
>>out on many different potential opportunities (for getting grants, very
>>large donations and to
>>reach our ultimate goals) simply because we have not had proper staffing.
>>And a staff needs a
>>person to manage them and the daily aspects of running the organization.
>>Simply put, we are
>>transitioning from the amateur football club model to a professional
>>organization. Staff are an
>>investment.
>>
>>-- mav
>
>
> You see i really don't like how that was worded (this is not meant at
> all to be a personal attack on mav just a warning about what we may
> become). " We have been talking about this for at least a couple
> years; the last time we did so publicly was just mentioned and linked
> to by Erik." I've been lurking and occasionally posting on this list
> and others for most of the time it has existed and now that Erik
> linked to that thread i do remember it but that is the only previous
> mention i remember (i'm not saying there haven't been more, just that
> we haven't had a large public debate about it). I think we need to
> engage anyone who is willing to be engaged in a debate about where we
> should be heading and how we should go about it. Espesially if the
> direction is towards corpratisation. So far i think the WMF has been
> doing the best it can of a difficult job and i don't mean to critisise
> anyone personally, I just think that the future direction of wikimedia
> is up to the community not the board or its officers, staff or
> whoever. The money that the foundation spends is not the foundation's
> but the wikimedia community's (i am not talking in a legal way i am
> talking in an ethical way. It was given for the community not the
> foundation).
>
> The balance sheets tell me that 60 something percent of money goes to
> servers and hardware and the rest goes to other stuff. I don't think
> that is a good balance. That is my view. What is the view of most
> people in the community? What is the view of most donors? I dunno.
> Does anyone? Do all the board members and others who have most to do
> with the day to day running of foundation issues think we need a CEO?
>
> paz y amor,
> -rjs.
>

Oh YES. We do need a CEO. Badly.

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
>>> source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
>>> them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
>>>
>> However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a
>> blog called Y".
>>
>
> Well, what I'm saying is that no, it isn't, or at least that it shouldn't be.
>

I guess you must be using some jargonish meaning of "verifiable" that is
not in keeping with the standard English meaning of the word?  I find it
difficult to claim that the existence of a website at www.foo.com
stating "foo.com is run by bar" is not a reputable and verifiable source
for the statement "the website www.foo.com claims to be run by bar".
The source is indeed verifiable (even into the future, thanks to
archive.org), and leaves little room to doubt that the statement it's
supporting is true.

I think the issue is one of notability---the statement "the website
www.foo.com claims to be run by bar" is only worth including if foo.com
is a famous website.

As your other post notes, this makes "notability" an issue, but it
always has been.  When we choose to publish facts on private people
versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
"notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
e.g. phone books.  And I think a bit of subjective good judgment is
better than redefining words to mean strange things.

-Mark


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't find IRC (or "chat" generally) a useful or efficient means of
> communication.  Email gives enough space that people can look up
> sources, consider their positions and arguments, read other material if
> necessary, and then respond.  IRC is a mixture of off-the-cuff and
> prepared remarks, broken up into small bits with a lot of asides and
> chit-chat that you have to sit through in real time.
[snip]

IRC's time constraints, is by large, a primary factor in its
attractiveness. It acts as a great time equalizer, preventing kooks
with unlimited time to prepare their rants from monopolizing the
fourm. Actions are what counts, not how long you can make your
argument.

If someone were to propose such discussions happen on a mailinglist
with a limit of ~100 words per person/day, then I'd find that
agreeable. If you can't make your point in a small space you either
haven't thought about it enough or it's just not a good idea. Brevity
also helps non-native English speakers understand.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you consider your own contributions of such low value that they are
> > not worth going out of your way to present, even including sending
> > someone else in your place... then why should we expect them to be
> > worth our time reading on a mailing list?
>
> I find questioning people's financial situations in poor taste.

The meetings I was talking about were on IRC, not in real life, so
it's about time, not finance.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


body:
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
> >>> source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
> >>> them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.
> >>>
> >> However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a
> >> blog called Y".
> >>
> >
> > Well, what I'm saying is that no, it isn't, or at least that it shouldn't be.
> >
>
> I guess you must be using some jargonish meaning of "verifiable" that is
> not in keeping with the standard English meaning of the word?

Yeah, pretty much.  I'm talking about the definition as it applies to Wikipedia.

> As your other post notes, this makes "notability" an issue, but it
> always has been.

Actually, notability is a fairly recent issue with regard to the
history of Wikipedia.  Verifiability isn't.

> And I think a bit of subjective good judgment is
> better than redefining words to mean strange things.
>
Fair enough.  I should have been more clear that I was talking
specifically about Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

Of course, the initial question I asked was in response to a statement
made by Jimbo, and I had assumed he *was* talking specifically about
Wikipedia's verifiability policy.  In fact, I'm still not sure whether
or not he was.

Anthony


from_name: le Richard

subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
As a recent contributor to Wikipedia, I'd like to give you some feedbacks.
I edited a few pages, some of them about Mathematics or Science (my username is
Lerichard). In a very short time most of my contributions disappeared, removed
by users with privileges, or users that were very active on wikipedia. However
I contributed a few pages about comics that stayed.
Someone claimed we reached the death of Wikipedia. I think that's exagerated and
provocative, but there could be a dangerous shift.
My impression is that many popular articles are not made of the best
contributions, rather they are made by people who are willing to spend a lot of
time on wikipedia, and contribute a lot, editing and removing others
contributions, knowing exactly what are the rules, making the rules and so on.
It makes less room for the ones who are not willing to spend hours each day on
wikipedia, but would be able to contribute a bit sometimes. But when I see my
contributions being removed shortly after, I just do not want to contribute
anymore, just use it.
This is not bad per se, but it makes things indeed slightly less democratic, and
creates a difference between those who are wikipedians, and casual users.
Rather than restricting editing of pages, I would rather restrict the number of
contributions that an individual can do. That would be much more democratic.
Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> When we choose to publish facts on private people
> versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
> "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
> private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
> e.g. phone books.

Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source.  It's
pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book.  Also I'd say
there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely
identify a person anyway.

I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as
Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a
public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or
"non-notable".

Anthony


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and consensus

body:
On 25 May 2006 at 11:17,  "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Offensive names are offensive names. Whether you actually intended them that
> way isn't relevant.

That doesn't seem like a fair policy; you seem to believe that it's a
good idea to ban somebody from using the name they wish, even if it's
their actual given name, just because somebody else finds it
offensive for some (culturally-specific) reason.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
These users seem to be the faculty of a University, so it seems
unlikely that they are doing this with malicious intent. Perhaps the
benefit of the doubt should be given to them.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/25/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What key non-Wikimedia contacts are in St Pete? None outside the tourist industry and Scientology AFAIK.

Well, there's also the [[St. Petersburg Times]], one of the only
newspapers in the world which is owned by a non-profit organization
(the [[Poynter Institute]]), and by far the largest of that sort.

But obviously NYC and DC have a lot more :)

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Robin Shannon

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Is this the first time a CEO has been proposed? what on earth would be
the point of having one? I ask if this is the first time it has been
asked because i would like to see any wikipages or archeived email
threads to see what the arguments are for having one.

paz y amor,
-rjs.

On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we have people near D.C. or NYC, they could do that without the
> > office being there physically. If we have no people there, then it
> > would in my opinion be stupiditiy to move our office there.
>
> Of course we already have people (volunteers) there in the strictest sense.
> What I'm talking about
> is having most or at least the top paid staff there instead of in a place
> where they won't be as
> effective (a tourist hot spot). Remember, this whole thread started with a
> mention of hiring a
> CEO/Executive Director. I do not propose closing the St Pete office since we
> have two board
> members there along with our main server farm.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon at jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

body:
Update: We're leaving the possibility of many-to-many between articles
and channels open, but for now we're not implementing it.

We need URLs for each comment's permalink, for each article's current
talk page, and for monthly-or-so browsable archives for each talk
page.

--
David McCabe


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What key non-Wikimedia contacts are in St Pete? None outside the tourist industry and Scientology AFAIK.
>
> Well, there's also the [[St. Petersburg Times]], one of the only
> newspapers in the world which is owned by a non-profit organization
> (the [[Poynter Institute]]), and by far the largest of that sort.
>

Doing a bit more research, apparently it's only the largest *US*
newspaper owned by a non-profit.  The Guardian, for example, has a
higher circulation.

Still more of a key contact than Scientology, though :)


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I don't find IRC (or "chat" generally) a useful or efficient means of
> communication.  Email gives enough space that people can look up
> sources, consider their positions and arguments, read other material if
> necessary, and then respond.  IRC is a mixture of off-the-cuff and
> prepared remarks, broken up into small bits with a lot of asides and
> chit-chat that you have to sit through in real time.

I agree that IRC is next to useless when you have any sizable number
of people involved, especially since most such "meetings" are poorly
moderated or not moderated at all; but for small, well-behaved groups,
it's a good medium between the careful but time-consuming
consideration of e-mail and the real-time demands of a conference
call.  And for one-on-one interaction, I prefer it to the telephone
for the same reason you prefer e-mail.

> There are some projects that use it effectively, but most projects I've
> been involved with have dropped it pretty quickly in favor of the
> mailing lists.  The exceptions are ones with a high proportion of people
> who hang out on IRC to socialize anyway.

Yeah, I'm one of those guys.  I've been connected more or less every
day for the last ten years, I've administered IRC networks, I've
written tons of IRC daemon code.  You'll be hard-pressed to find a
bigger IRC geek than me, so it should be no surprise that I'm an
advocate of it in general.  It's not a proper substitute for
face-to-face contact, though?Wikimania 2005 was probably the most
productive week in wiki history; certainly in Wikimedia history.

On the topic at hand, however, I find the mailing list more productive
as a whole.  Any kook can rant, sure, but it's actually easier to
ignore him via e-mail.

Austin


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 26/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> > Precisely my point.  It is an editorial judgment.  We can't say "just
> > because it is true and verifiable we should post it in wikipedia".
>
> So you believe that ranting criticisms on blogs constitute
> "verifiable" information?

Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for
writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute
verification for "He eats babies".

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
On 5/26/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> frankly there are a number
> of former featured articles which have seriously deteriorated due to
> subsequent unprofessional edits.

In what ways deteriorated? A couple of examples would be great for the
discussion.

Have new facts been added, in a way that is stylistically inferior to the
rest of the article? That can be fixed. Have new facts been added that
really need not be there? They can be removed, when someone decides to take
an overall view of the article - most of the time when people add stuff in
articles, they do not do that. Have important facts been removed? That is
more troublesome, as it is more job to dig it out of the page history. If
the article has in fact detoriorated - who has not someone dug the old,
better version out and replaced the new one, or (probably preferrably)
created an imbetween? unless really all of the new edits were 100% bad.

The better the article, the less chance that a given edit is an improvement
but still - IMHO the wiki way in reality sometimes has to be four steps
forward and three steps back. Not every edit will in itself be an
improvement, but they might form the background to help someone else make
the article better.

/habj


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> Featured articles should have guardians who fearlessly revert bad
> changes like this while taking useful contributions and massaging
> them into the featured whole. This would work a lot better than the
> salutory neglect system we employ now. I know this sounds ominously
> like WP:OWN, but it's needed.
>

This already unofficially happens, sometimes for better and sometimes
for worse.  Some articles are indeed neglected, but there are many on
which you can't change so much as a bit of wording without attracting
attention.

WikiProjects and setting up "related changes" watchlists are one way
some people try to organize such oversight.  It seems to work pretty
well in some areas, and not even just for featured articles---if you add
a new page to any subcategory of [[Category:Mathematics]], you're likely
to get someone stopping by within the next few hours to fiddle with some
part of it or another.  (But then we have some very good and diligent
mathematics editors.)

-Mark


from_name: Seth Price

subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on adding (many, relevant) links to articles?

body:
I've been working on an outdoors website that has a focus on parks.
The idea is I can add photos, reviews, scores, and other information
to a given park. The site is Wiki-like, in that people can correct
and add information that is listed (like admission fee info and lat/
long). I think that I have many pages that would be of interest to a
person browsing related Wikipedia articles.

So, I would like to edit a number of articles to add links to my
pages. For example, I would link to my Yellowstone National Park
(http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/140 ) from Wikipedia (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park ). Would this be
acceptable? Could I do the same for many other pages?

Like (for another example):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_National_Wildlife_Refuge
http://www.unearthedoutdoors.net/parks/1594

Making these links makes sense, as far as I can tell, but I thought
I'd ask about them first, because I'd be making a few hundred of them
(at least) and I don't want to step on any toes.
Thanks,
Seth


from_name: Platonides

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
> So what broke?
>
> Steve

Disagree on the "::" answer. I think they were the <nowiki> tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Nogomatch&diff=next&oldid=38165493
as i just removed them from
MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext where it broke on the same way (there were no ':'
before).

Platonides


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Native Cherokee XML Dumps Posted

body:
The Native Cherokee Language Translation Project has posted its first
series of XML dumps against enwiki 05-18-2006 at

ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki

Please feel free to download and review.   The translation is readable,
but requires conjugation and verb stem analysis reconstruction
to remove the remaining English words.  Translation runs are performed
every few days and the translations are posted in Sequoyah Syllabary
and text phonetics.  MediaWiki Messages.php files have been reviewed
line by line by our linguists.  The Machine translation is a work in
progress.

Jeff Merkey


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-27

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 318 of 327 tests (97.25%) FAILED!


from_name: Hsiang-Tai Chien

body:
Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the good news, that's really great!! :D

Best regards,
H.T. (w:zh:User:Htchien)

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:59 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Delhi visit, sponsorship for CWMC

RedHat invited me to speak at a conference in Delhi, India, at a time which
is just before the CWMC.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CWMC_2006

I asked them, in lieu of me getting any honorarium personally, if they would
agree to pay for my flights to Delhi and Hong Kong, and also to donate $3000
to support the CWMC.  They agreed to do so!

KJ is the main organizer of CWMC, and she is communicating the good news to
her community.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

___________________________________________________  ??? Yahoo!?????? 7.0???????????  http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/


subject: [Foundation-l] Delhi visit, sponsorship for CWMC


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We have been talking about this for at least a couple years; the last time
> we did so publicly was
> just mentioned and linked to by Erik. The reason why this is necessary is
> due to the fact that we
> long ago reached the limit on what volunteers alone can accomplish. We have
> therefore been missing
> out on many different potential opportunities (for getting grants, very
> large donations and to
> reach our ultimate goals) simply because we have not had proper staffing.
> And a staff needs a
> person to manage them and the daily aspects of running the organization.
> Simply put, we are
> transitioning from the amateur football club model to a professional
> organization. Staff are an
> investment.
>
> -- mav

You see i really don't like how that was worded (this is not meant at
all to be a personal attack on mav just a warning about what we may
become). " We have been talking about this for at least a couple
years; the last time we did so publicly was just mentioned and linked
to by Erik." I've been lurking and occasionally posting on this list
and others for most of the time it has existed and now that Erik
linked to that thread i do remember it but that is the only previous
mention i remember (i'm not saying there haven't been more, just that
we haven't had a large public debate about it). I think we need to
engage anyone who is willing to be engaged in a debate about where we
should be heading and how we should go about it. Espesially if the
direction is towards corpratisation. So far i think the WMF has been
doing the best it can of a difficult job and i don't mean to critisise
anyone personally, I just think that the future direction of wikimedia
is up to the community not the board or its officers, staff or
whoever. The money that the foundation spends is not the foundation's
but the wikimedia community's (i am not talking in a legal way i am
talking in an ethical way. It was given for the community not the
foundation).

The balance sheets tell me that 60 something percent of money goes to
servers and hardware and the rest goes to other stuff. I don't think
that is a good balance. That is my view. What is the view of most
people in the community? What is the view of most donors? I dunno.
Does anyone? Do all the board members and others who have most to do
with the day to day running of foundation issues think we need a CEO?

paz y amor,
-rjs.

--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon at jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


body:
On 27/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> > Ranting criticisms on blogs certainly constitute verification for
> > writing "It has been claimed he eats babies". They do not constitute
> > verification for "He eats babies".
> >
> Not according to [[wp:V]] they don't.  "Anyone can create a website or
> pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a
> certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal
> websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
>
> I've always taken "verifiability" to mean verifiable *in a reputable
> source*.  Some people disagree, of course (apparently you're one of
> them), but I wasn't aware that Jimmy Wales was one of them.

However, the existence of that blog is a valid source that "X has a
blog called Y". I think we're talking a bit at cross purposes here,
since I certainly agree with the unspoken "reputable". The existence
of something, and it being accessible to all, is grounds to verify its
*existence* - if for some reason our normal editorial processes feel
we should mention the cranky blog exists, then we can point to it
without worrying that we need to find a footnote in a newspaper
mentioning the URL. We don't need to refer to a secondary source which
says "X exists and writes about Y" in order to say that, yes, X
exists, and has an article on Y.

Verifiability of existence of a statement and verifiability of
validity of a statement are different but slightly intertwined
concepts. We can't write "John Smith eats babies (see
smith-baby-killer.blogspot.com)" - we can't verify the existence of
the fact - but we can write "It has been claimed by [some member of
the lunatic fringe] that John Smith eats babies (see etc.)" - we can
verify the existence of the claim.

Of course, this is all essentially moot - whilst we can say that the
"claim of a claim" is verifiable, we do have a vast community reserve
of editorial discretion, good taste and common sense to draw on. And
with those, we can say "yes, I suppose you could legitimately say that
so-and-so thinks such-and-such. But writing that here is not
appropriate for our article, so bugger off".

The more of that I see the happier I am. (I removed a bit of
gratuitous nudity from an article yesterday; it was exceptionally
tasteless in context. It's cheering that no-one has yet accused me of
being a crazed censor...)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed. (was Wikimedia main office)

body:
On 27/05/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> How? Previous public Wikimedia meetings have led nowhere and done
> nothing other than highlight how few people in the communities are
> interested in _doing_ anything - as opposed to debating on mailing
> lists.

I apologise if i came across preachy or whiney or anything and i
appreciate being on the board can't be easy what with constant howls
of cabals and whatnot by the tinfoil hat brigade. What i am perhaps
getting at here is asking if anyone knows/cares if the majority of
wikimedians agree (or even know about) the current direction being
taken by the foundation. That is making the foundation more than a
body who provides servers, bandwidth, developer support, and deals
with legal issues arising from writing the world's biggest and best
encyclopedia, dictionary, source of free books, news, and open content
repository (did i miss any?).

Tim Starling has said before (and i apologise if i am misquoting him)
that we basicly got lucky with the idea of a wiki encylopedia and that
we should really just stick to what we are good at. I have always
disagreed with this point of view but lately have been coming around
to it, because you know what what, the results of what the average
wikimedian does have been hugely successful but other things we've
tried or talked about trying just don't seem to live up to its
success. I just don't think it is our role to deal with the problems
of Africa and any of the other projects envisioned.

That is not to say that all the amazing idealism and good intentions
constantly shown are a bad thing TM. I am just throwing this out there
as an idea but perhaps we should have to separate but linked
organisations. One non-profit organisation whose only charge is to own
and buy servers/bandwidth, support devs and to provide the legal
backing for wikimedia this would be as small and lean as possible
(though would presumably hire at least one lawyer and accountant). The
other would be a more traditional charity and would be charged with
overseeing and sponsoring wikimania, getting grants for special
projects and trying to get wikipedia on to mobile phones and all the
other cool stuff people want to do. People would be able to choose to
which of the organisations they would like to donate. Perhaps two
organisations is too radical but perhaps some kind of internal
breakdown of the foundation into core functions and non-core
functions. I dunno. I'm just throwing this out there as an idea to
start a conversation because I appreciate that although the foundation
has worked hard to try to be inclusive, there are a large number of
people (or at least i get the feeling that there are anyway) who feel
like the foundation is going in a direction contrary to where they
would like it to go.

Then again maybe i'm misinterpreting the wikimedian community (i only
subsist in a very small bit of it) and everyone is quite happy with
what the foundation is doing and where it is heading. I dunno.

paz y amor,
-rjs.

> Nice idea... how about you suggest how that might happen? There are
> currently two community representatives on the Board, though it's
> increasingly obvious that the community are not using either Anthere
> or myself to get anything to happen. Anything that does happen comes
> through private mailing lists and an increasing number of internal
> processes that even Board members don't always have access to.
>
> Angela

--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon at jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
On 5/26/06, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is from a talk page of a featured article:
>
> " Beyond which, this is an FA, and FA's really should be treated as more
> finalized and finished than general articles, as they have passed through
> a
> form of peer review and have a community endorsement in their present
> forms."
>
> Is this view supported anywhere? Should I be more careful when editing a
> FA,
> since it should be supposed that the article is good as it is and does not
> need a change?

Yes, this is the general view. In particular, don't add unsourced statements
to a fully sourced article, don't add spelling mistakes to a proofread
article etc. I would like us to formalise this.

Steve


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
What?

Fred Bauder wrote:
> There is more to it than that.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder how you can say, they are the same user,
>> when all you can check is that they are using the
>> same IP-address.
>>
>> best regards
>> --
>> Raphael
>>
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked this. I
>>> doublechecked.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Hi,
>>>>    I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username
>>>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
>>>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my
>>>> friend know
>>>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project.
>>>> Unfortunately
>>>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face to an
>>>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my partner
>>>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not
>>>> true. I tried
>>>> to explain it on the check user page:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>>>> Rgulerdem.
>>>>    I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all
>>>> living at the
>>>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's randomly. I
>>>> understand that check user made his decision based on that.
>>>>    I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I
>>>> can. I
>>>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are
>>>> not the
>>>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
>>>>    Thank you in advance.
>>>>    Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
>>>>


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Further explanations of the case

body:
A small group of people who act like one person may be treated as one
person.

Fred

On May 27, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:

> I will try to explain as briefly as possible:
>
> Please check the following links to see the case clearly:
> * [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> * [[Fethullah Gulen]]
> * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem]
>
> Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid
> background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I
> have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he
> has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue
> but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few
> books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to
> the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried
> to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles.
>
> Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on
> Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We
> quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and
> [[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity
> towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without
> much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or
> cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him,
> together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified
> indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user
> does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions
> took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems
> to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again
> indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no
> doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in
> Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem]).
> He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because
> Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under
> some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried
> really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can
> ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block
> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem]).
> That is the main picture in my mind.
>
> Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him
> to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a
> check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate
> his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what
> they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is
> strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact
> not a violation except under some certain situations which are not
> applicable to our case.
>
> What are these guys doing on that Gulen article:
>
> [[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at
> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Response]).
> A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier
> accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has
> been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also
> asking about any possible relation between these two users but it
> was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and
> quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that
> and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my
> critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at
> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/
> Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]).
> Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about
> who is doing what on that article.
>
> [[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits
> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%
> BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962])
> over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on
> the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is
> irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant
> contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active
> in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never
> provided a reason
> to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable.
> I should also add that
> [[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the
> article from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of
> the main article. I hope this gives some insight
> about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The
> links are provided at
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Response]
> you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the
> quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from
> a block
> that is applied to two others in the same conflict
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not
> be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I
> have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing
> Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at
> the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems
> with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it
> from his talk page.
>
> Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the
> middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we
> know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check
> user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and
> the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations,
> there is no a single serious statements made among those
> accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok)
> and Dr. Gulerdem
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Response).
>
> Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also
> change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and
> want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate
> accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter.
>
> Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a
> just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I
> doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem.
>
> Ceyda Lacin
>
>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600
>> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar
>> IP's
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>> Message-ID: <BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77 at ctelco.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>>
>> Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia.
>> Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the
>> very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three
>> accounts will not wash.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >    No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not
>> > looking at the
>> > case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page
>> are not
>> > legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am
>> > expecting a
>> > sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later.
>> >    Thank you.
>> >    Ceyda.
>> >
>> > Message: 9
>> > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600
>> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> > Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>> > Message-ID: <1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA at ctelco.net>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>> >
>> > There is more to it than that.
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >
>> > On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I wonder how you can say, they are the same user,
>> >> when all you can check is that they are using the
>> >> same IP-address.
>> >>
>> >> best regards
>> >> --
>> >> Raphael
>> >>
>> >> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked
>> this. I
>> >>> doublechecked.
>> >>>
>> >>> Fred
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>    Hi,
>> >>>>    I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username
>> >>>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
>> >>>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my
>> >>>> friend know
>> >>>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project.
>> >>>> Unfortunately
>> >>>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face
>> to an
>> >>>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my
>> >>>> partner
>> >>>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not
>> >>>> true. I tried
>> >>>> to explain it on the check user page:
>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> >>>> Rgulerdem.
>> >>>>    I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all
>> >>>> living at the
>> >>>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's
>> randomly. I
>> >>>> understand that check user made his decision based on that.
>> >>>>    I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as
>> much as I
>> >>>> can. I
>> >>>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are
>> >>>> not the
>> >>>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
>> >>>>    Thank you in advance.
>> >>>>    Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> >>>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
>> >>>> it's FREE!
>> >>>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
>> > it's FREE!
>> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://
> search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Being in NYC, DC, or varrious other locations would being us closer to
> some subset of interesting orginizations...  But being near a solid
> airport places us near all of them.  This really is the way a lot of
> business is done today.
>
> Whenever we have a critical mass of people in a spot we should
> consider opening an office, but lets not let the tail wag the dog.
> The increased cost of travel doesn't justify the cost of an additional
> office in a prime location and if the location is non-prime, what did
> you save on travel?

That is not the same at all. I live a 20 minute metro ride from the busiest airport in the world
and that is not AT ALL the same as being a 20 minute metro ride to various contacts we would want
to be in close communication with. There is added cost and time needed for air travel and that
leads to fewer opportunities to meet. Proximity is very important.

-- mav

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