body:
Gutza wrote:

 >/ The
/>/ article in question is the one about Jesus. The Romanian (Eastern)
/>/ Orthodox Church says that the name should be spelled "Iisus Hristos".
/>/ Other religions in Romania (mainly Catholic branches) say that the
/>/ Romanian name is Isus Cristos.
/>/
/>/ Anyhow, the dispute is basically not about the language itself,
/>/ because all religions who dispute the name do it in Romanian. On a
/>/ side note, to put your mind at ease before you assume it as being the
/>/ case, no Magyars are involved in the dispute itself.
/
I'm glad that you've clearly identified. I thought that your approach
in your approach in your first letter was needlessly evasive.
Personally, I was guessing something based on the speech differences
between Romanian and Moldovan, but now I realize that it has to do with
the Greeks and that there is no imminent Eskimo uprising in Timisoara.
:/-) People do bring these issues out of nowhere when they are left to
/guess about the problem.

Going with the majority (Google or otherwise) is never satisfactory.
That breeds the tyranny of the majority. In English these problems have
been numerous in relation to usages by the British and Americans.
French, Spanish and Portuguese also encounter differences between
European and New World versions.

I would be asking questions like: How does the secular press deal with
the issue? How was it dealt with in communist days? (Say what you might
about them, I can't imagine that an atheist organization would favour
one religion over the other.)

_Ok, I might be wrong or subjective here (I'm actually fuming), but what
*do* you imagine such an atheist organization would do? I am trying
really hard not to be sarcastic here, so please excuse me if some
sarcasm gets through, but what do you imagine an atheist organization
would favor? Now now, let's keep things into perspective, think about an
"atheist organization" which is trying to doctor you into believing
whatever they say. Talk to me, Saintonge, you seem to know how this
works, you tell me what such an organization does! If I may "say what I
might", the way you put it, I will tell you that they DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT
ABOUT RELIGION! Sorry, was that too tough for your cute little theory?
Then I will tell you a little more, Mr. Theory Man: not only did they
give a shit about it, they actually resented it. They took down
churches. They forced people to work during holy days. They changed the
names of saints. They condemned you for cherishing your saints. Now you
tell me, how can such an "atheist organization" relate to the discussion
at hand?
_
What does the Romanian Academy have to say about the matter?

_Nothing, they don't regulate these things. If they were somehow forced
to actually take a stand, they would probably promote the BOR naming.
(BOR = The Romanian Orthodox Church)
_
Is there such a thing as an "official" religion in Romania?

_Yes, the Eastern Orthodox religion.
_
I can see that the Orthodox version is based on a transliteration from
the Greek, but how did the other version come to be what it is.
(Romanian, after all, is still a romance language.)

_The "other" version came to be due to whatever reasons the Catholic
Church in Romania decided. Can't you see that all this is more or less
arbitrary? Do you really think that the BOR version is really what one
would call "orthodox" in the ethimological sense? No, it's just a
conventional name for the same religious and historical person, that's all.
_
If reviewing all these question does not give *clear* guidance, you
should accept both.

_Sorry to formulate it this way, but your solution is really cute. Did
you actually take the time to read the original message?_

For each article where the question is relevant, the first form
introduced in that article should have precedence.

_Sorry, I might be off on this one, but IMHO the sentence above doesn't
say anything practical. Yes, the first form always has precedence
because it's the first, but what do you mean? Honestly not being sarcastic._

Ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040801/d859b9a7/attachment.htm


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration versus Mediation

body:
The policy you quote is not yet Wikipedia policy. It remains under
discussion. Please go back and look at that section of [[Wikipedia:Blocking
policy]].

Fred

> From: zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 00:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration versus Mediation
>
> From: "sannse", Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:37:21 +0100
>> As an administrator you do not have the authority to block a logged
> in
>> user except in the cases outlined in the blocking policy - which
> basically
>> comes down to instances of simple vandalism.
>
> According to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]:
> Sysops may also permanently block user accounts that make lots of
> disruptive edits. However, blocks should not be used against
> isolated
> incidents of disruptive behaviour from IP addresses and user
> accounts
> that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.
>
> Reading that carefully, I am permitted to block accounts that make
> many repeated disruptive edits, since those are not "isolated
> incidents".
>> From the previous paragraph we learn that "disruptive edits" include
> "deliberately misleading edits".  Since this particular case fits the
> description quite well, I believe my actions are within the policy.
>
> Also, since "Lance6Wins" is a new user account only created after I
> blocked his IPs, I am entitled to use the more lenient rules on that
> page concerning new user accounts (but I don't need to).  Finally,
> I'll say that in my opinion I am doing Wikipedia a service by cracking
> down on this fanatic who has been a thorn in the side of all decent
> editors of the middle-east portion of Wikipedia for many months.
>
> Zero.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy

body:
It has not been, but that is what is proposed.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy

When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page when
blocking a user?

RickK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040801/b1d8b3c9/attachment.htm


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jerome Jamnicky

subject: [Wikipedia-l] User:Fire

body:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:10, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I am annoyed by the behaviour of user:fire.  He is not a sysop on
> Wikisource, yet he was able to come and block a user indefinitely with
> no better excuse than a non-working link to wikipedia about name-change
> policy.  I immediately reversed the block.
>
> Those who participate in Wikisource are quite capable of deciding who
> should be blocked.  We don't need this loose cannon who has not
> otherwise participated in Wikisource to sneakily acquire some kind of
> superior access for no other reason to block a user that he does not like.

You should get your facts straight before you make accusations like that.


from_name: Jay Robert Nash

subject: [WikiEN-l] imdb

body:
Your statements about IMDB show a complete misunderstanding of the
researching, editing and writing of reliable film data, or any other data
for that matter. IMDB is nothing more than a vacuous depository of
misinformation, plagiarized credits and unreliable commentary from amateur
observers, which, for useful searchers, is gobbledygook. The creators of
this site began with the wholesale filching of all of the credits
laboriously and painstakingly assembled by my firm, CineBooks, in the early
1980s, which produced the definitive work on film, The Motion Picture Guide
(MPG), 25 vols. offering more than 65,000 in-depth, reliable entries on
feature films, from the silent era to the present. These IMDB plagiarists
were smart enough not to steal any of the "creative" synopses in MPG,
knowing that would be a clear-cut violation of copyright. (And that is why
they show so few synopses in their database, having on in-staff films
experts.) They did not attempt to rewrite my synopses because, simply, they
had never seen most of the films (as I and my staff of experts did), nor did
they have the research to show any background on the films (as we did-from
more than 50,000 published works, and 200,000 files, including production
reports). Even in taking all of our credits, these thieves were clever
enough to know that the credits in and of themselves were "facts" that were
copyrightable under the "organization of the facts" (the legal term employed
in suits to prove plagiarism for non-fiction works). To avoid litigation,
they re-arranged the assembly of the credits, cutely positioning them in
"alphabetical order," but in so doing, misrepresented and wrongly positioned
the credits as they appeared for on-screen productions which properly show
appearance in order of importance of players and crew.

What these moronic thieves did not know and still do not know (until the
time of this message to you and the New York Times) is that in their
wholesale theft of MPG research, they mindlessly (and here only a film
expert would know) picked up and posted all of the many seeded
"plants"-fictional creations of my own, films never made-and blithely,
stupidly incorporated these non-existing films into their useless database.
In organizing the Motion Picture Guide (which took ten years in the making)
I anticipated an attempt by those technocrats busying themselves only with
the impending Internet to steal our content, particularly the credits,
knowing full well that they had no analytical ability or discriminatory
knowledge in selecting or evaluating data, and would simply take whatever
they thought they could use without being sued. Of course, IMDB is nothing
more than a job market now, for anyone trying to get a paid position on any
new movie or TV production, and, to that end, IMDB posts claimed credits by
job seekers. As a reliable reference site on the movies, however, it is
utterly unreliable.

The reason why Jeff Bezos at amazon,com bought IMDB is clear to me. Bezos
and his crew, like IMDB, do not have any true experts capable of discerning
genuine data on film, or, for that matter, books. Bezos is typical of the
Internet tycoons who believe that it is not necessary to employ human
analysis to the data he peddles and that programming will do all that is
necessary. Actually, he and too many like him, will not pay to have experts
address his own data, content that requires only expert (human) evaluation
to be worthwhile to anyone. Thus, he and his kind continue to perpetuate and
make millions from useless or misleading data. When it comes to IMDB, the
uninformed Bezos bought a "pig in a poke."

The tradition of "seeding" data to protect content is maintained by standard
reference firms, including Marquis Who's Who, where I once worked as an
editor. My application of that traditional protective measure for MPG was
therefore not exceptional, but routine.

Jay Robert Nash, Author, MOTION PICTURE GUIDE

Phone: 847-256-2468

Fax: 847-256-2473

Email: via fshields at iservices.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040801/e649c491/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Send in the academics

body:
I have two ideas to boost academic participation.

One idea is to mobilize an academic association. Establish a formal tie with Wikipedia
to get a review for articles in a certain field. This could boost the legitimacy of their
work in the field. (Though not guaranteed.) If they want, they can publish it with their
endorsement and editorship as a book. We may be able to give them some advice on that.

Another idea is to create an official position like "reviewer," "advisor," or
something fancier and give it to academics upon request. The responsibility of
those people are to give comments on articles qualities, suggest ways to improve
them, point to quality citations, etc. And if their contributions are poor,
we revoke their status as a reviewer.

As I suggested on meta, official positions do not have to be limited to things
like chief financial officers, developer rep, etc.

(http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Official_position&diff=42267&oldid=42015 )

Asking opinions only is better than participation for a few reasons, in my opinion:

1) In humanities and social sciences, as I know, academics are not
NPOV, and encyclopedia articles in those fields are not neccessarily NPOV, either.
So, we ask only their comments, without being obliged to follow it.

The academics are very welcome to edit articles, of course, as long as they
follow the NPOV and other policies.

2) Reviewing and critiquing articles is usually easier than writing articles. Even
busy people can possibly participate. And we can possibly benefit from their comments.

3) I am an academic my self, but I have to admit that I am a bit hesitant to recommend
some Wikipedias to some of my colleagues. It is because of trolling, flaming, edit war,
and and other wild behaviors that are not for newcomers if they expect warm and respectable
welcome. I have to say, "participate at your own risk!" Some people do want high respect,
in and out of classrooms.. Some people could humbly deal with hasty defenders of wikipedia,
but others would simply leave after getting a lot of negative feedbacks and not much of
appreciation.

So, it might work better for some academics if they can keep a distance from the wilder
part of Wikipedia.

regards,

Tomos


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
Hello.

It is relatively clear that article names cannot be decided completely neutrally. We sometimes have to choose one, and the choice could be deemed "biased" by some outsiders who don't understand the technical aspect of our wiki.

On Japanese Wikipedia, we have guidelines (a bit different from en), but there are many cases where those guidelines cannot give us the answer.

For those cases, what we can do, it seems, are:

- make sure major alternative spellings are redirected to the article.
- make sure major alternative spellings are mentioned in the article, and given explanations following NPOV policy. Readers will know, if they read the article, that the article is not written in support of either spelling.
- come to an agreement among the users involved in the editing that this issue cannot be solved neutrally, and we should let wikilove lead us for the success of the project.

Hope it helps.

cheers,

Tomos


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: User:Fire, information as a key

body:
I think all this misunderstanding would not have happened if you had
explained what you were doing Fire. Most of the disputes seem to come
from action from person A, misunderstood by person B.

As mediators often say, most disputes have two sides.

So, while it is good that person B try to take more time to understand
what occured and perhaps ask privately at first, it is also good that
person A avoid this to happen in taking care of explaining what is going on.

A link to the request on meta pasted in the user page.
Or a short explanation left in the banning comment would be likely to do
the trick.

Ronny Raschkowan wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I am annoyed by the behaviour of user:fire.  He is not a sysop on
>> Wikisource, yet he was able to come and block a user indefinitely with
>> no better excuse than a non-working link to wikipedia about
>> name-change policy.  I immediately reversed the block.
>> Those who participate in Wikisource are quite capable of deciding who
>> should be blocked.  We don't need this loose cannon who has not
>> otherwise participated in Wikisource to sneakily acquire some kind of
>> superior access for no other reason to block a user that he does not like.
>>
>> Ec
>
>
> Hello Ray,
>
> I was doing username changes  requested on this page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username
>
> There was also a user, 'Spik dk', who asked to get his username changed.
> That's what I did. The instructions say also, that I have to move the
> User: and the User Talk: Page from the old to the new nick.  For
> security reasons ("This prevents a new user claiming the name, which
> would mean the signatures and author attributions made by third party
> users of our content would all be pointing to the wrong person."),
> there's also an instruction to block the old username.
>
> After changing the username(s) in the database, I asked Angela to get
> temp sys-op on the Wikis were I had changed the usernames of the people
> who requested to block the old nicks.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/Archive1
>
> So: I was not blocking the user because I "don't like him" ( I even
> don't know him :) ), but because he asked for a username change and
> (following the instructions) it also included to block the old username :)
>
> Yours,
> Fire


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Minority/majority question

body:
Just a note. In Romania there is no official religion. Everybody has the right of having is one religion, because if it would exist an official religion, you would not be teached in schools Chatolic or Orthodox religion, at your choice. And because you cannot find that in the constitution.

Danutz

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Companion - Scarica gratis la toolbar di Ricerca di Yahoo!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040801/63d32be5/attachment.htm


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] User:Fire

body:
On Aug 1, 2004, at 12:46 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> Jerome Jamnicky wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:10, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am annoyed by the behaviour of user:fire.  He is not a sysop on
>>>>> Wikisource, yet he was able to come and block a user indefinitely
>>>>> with
>>>>> no better excuse than a non-working link to wikipedia about
>>>>> name-change
>>>>> policy.  I immediately reversed the block.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those who participate in Wikisource are quite capable of deciding
>>>>> who
>>>>> should be blocked.  We don't need this loose cannon who has not
>>>>> otherwise participated in Wikisource to sneakily acquire some kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> superior access for no other reason to block a user that he does
>>>>> not like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should get your facts straight before you make accusations like
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Butting in to prove your ignorance are you?
>>
>>
>> Odd that you sent this message three minutes after admitting that you
>> were wrong. Would you mind retracting that statement and apologizing
>> to Ronny, to Jerome, and to this list?
>
> Huh?
>
> There was no such admission, I merely said that I now understood what
> he did, and suggested how the situation could be better handled in the
> future.  My response to Ronny speaks for itself.  Jerome asked for it
> when he stuck his nose in.  Thre was no attack against the list.
>
> Ray

Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if you'd bothered to assume good
faith, or at least contacted Fire privately to find out what was going
on instead of tearing over to the list to complain publicly? I mean,
what happened from the perspective of the uninvolved is that your first
reaction to a sysop action you didn't understand was to come over to
the mailing list and decry the "loose canon sysop" who tried to
"sneakily acquire some kind of superior access" to your Wiki so he
could "block a user that he does not like."

I  mean, clearly he was sysopped by a steward. That is the only way to,
as you put it, sneakily acquire access. There are only eight of those,
and they're all very sane and respectable people. Alternatively, the
other sane assumption would be that he was a developer or some other
person who was supposed to have access wherever he needed it. I  mean,
sysops do not simply materialize from nowhere. In general, if someone
has the power to block a user, there's probably a very good reason.

It seems like the default assumption would not be "Loose cannon trying
to meddle with my Wiki" but "Oh. There must be some reason for this."
Especially since there was a link, albeit a bad one, to the name change
policy. This might have been a clue that the block had something to do
with the name change policy. You could have, perhaps, gone to Wikipedia
and found where the name change policy was supposed to be. Then,
perhaps, if you were still concerned about what the reason was you
could have, say, asked someone. Like Fire, for instance. I think he
would have been a good person to ask.

Or maybe I'm just crazy. Never can tell.

-Snowspinner


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [PATCH] [ 965725 ] Pipe-character (|)in	instantiated Templates

body:
Hi all,

Le Sunday 01 August 2004 05:22, Brion Vibber a ?crit :
> Timwi wrote:
> > Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> >> True, new version correcting this bug.
>
> Seems pretty straightforward, I've gone ahead and copied it to the 1.3
> branch and installed it.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Many thanks to Emmanuel and Brion for this fix.
This bug was quite annoying.

Yann

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


from_name: Emmanuel Engelhart

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [PATCH] [ 965725 ] Pipe-character (|)	in
	instantiated Templates

body:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 11:37:45 +0200
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Le Sunday 01 August 2004 05:22, Brion Vibber a ?crit :
> > Timwi wrote:
> > > Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> > >> True, new version correcting this bug.
> >
> > Seems pretty straightforward, I've gone ahead and copied it to the 1.3
> > branch and installed it.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> Many thanks to Emmanuel and Brion for this fix.
> This bug was quite annoying.
>

And Timwi... of course.

Emmanuel

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
L'informatique, en tant que discipline, ne traite pas plus des
ordinateurs que l'astronomie le fait les t?l?scopes.
	-- E. W. Dijkstra
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Engelhart      ICQ UIN : 53388731   TEL (+49)(0)6.22.15.88.03.31


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy

body:
OK.  I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy is outside the scope of their charter.  I was told that they were not making policy, they were only pointing to it.  They are trying to require sysops to point to a policy page when they block a user.  When I asked where the policy is that says that a sysop has to do that, you say that this is not a policy, but what is proposed.  Therefore, my original point stands.  The arbitration committee is trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of their charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
It has not been, but that is what is proposed.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy

When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page when blocking a user?

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040801/85341a59/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] [PATCH] New feature -> add a rollback comment

body:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:08:13 -0700
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> > This patch provides the possibility for adding a comment with an admin
> > rollback.
>
> Neat! A couple things to work on:
>
> The comment should be retrieved by WebRequest::getText() rather than
> WebRequest::getVal(). This will perform input transcoding on the few
> languages that have this extra feature (Esperanto only, currently). You
> do not need to use urldecode(); this is done by PHP before we ever see
> the data.
>

Ok

> Text put into HTML output should pretty much always be escaped via
> htmlspecialchars() to avoid data corruption problems and HTML/JS
> injection attacks. Titles for instance may contain the & character, and
> all kinds of trouble ensues if it's not escaped properly.
>

ok, I hope I escaped everywhere.

> Title::getText() will return only the non-namespace portion, so this
> doesn't work on non-article pages. You'll want to use
> Title::getPrefixedText().

Ok

>
> Use htmlspecialchars() rather than urlencode() on the user name. The URL
> for the form submission will be created by the browser; we just need to
> make sure that the browser gets the correct data in the first place.
>

Ok

> Also, try to stick with tabs as Timwi's mentioned; it gets really messy
> to work with files where indentation styles change constantly.
>

After one  hour I manage to  reconfigure correctly my  emacs, thx for
your patience.

> A minor UI quibble; since the comment field doesn't support line breaks,
> it should probably be an <input> rather than a <textarea>. Also it might
> be nice to label the comment field and make the form layout a little
> more consistent with how similar features look (deletion, blocking).
>

Ok, I removed the confirm checkbox, Which I found useless.

Thx for all your recommendations.

Emmanuel Engelhart

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
En th?orie il n'y a pas de diff?rence entre la th?orie et la pratique,
en pratique si.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Engelhart      ICQ UIN : 53388731   TEL (+49)(0)6.22.15.88.03.31
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rollbackComment.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3713 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040801/324ec524/attachment.obj>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Minority/majority deadlock (help!)

body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>Le Sunday 01 August 2004 17:21, Tomasz Wegrzanowski a ?crit :
>
>
>>Call the article "Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos" with redirects from
>>both "Iisus Hristos" and "Isus Cristos".
>>
>>
>
>Yes to me, this seems the best way to settle the question, but
>I would rather use a hyphen : [[Iisus Hristos-Isus Cristos]].
>
Useful point.  The diagonal suggests that one is a sub-page of the other.

Ec


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Minority/majority question

body:
So, basically, instead of
* When article X contains" #REDIRECT [[Y]]", it displays "Y (redirected
from X)" in the title and the contents of Y
we have an additional form
* When article X contains "#EQUALS [[Y]]", it dispays "X" in the title
and the contents of Y

That would not be consistent (it would still show "Y" as the title upon
editing), but otherwise pretty easy to do.

Magnus

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>I will have to think some more before I can offer anything that might
>hopefully be constructive, but for now I will just compliment both
>Gutza and Danutz for bringing the issue to us with thoughtful
>explanations and reasons.  I personally think that this is the most
>important thing: to work together with reason and love to find a
>solution that is satisfactory to everyone.
>
>It occurs to me just now that in many cases, what we ought to have is
>something in the software similar to a "hard link" versus a "soft
>link" in Unix.  Let me explain.
>
>Right now, we have the concept of a "redirect".  The redirect is like
>a soft link in Unix, i.e. the redirected term is "inferior" in some
>sense to the "real" name.  Without making any formal comment on
>whether I think the decision is right or not, the redirect of "Eskimo"
>to "Inuit" is a reasonable example -- "Eskimo" is not the preferred
>term, so it is redirected to "Inuit".
>
>But another way of going about this would be to have a way in the
>software to form a special bond between two terms so that the two are
>existentially equal from the point of view of end users of the
>website.  Rather than being a redirect from a less preferred to a more
>preferred term, the two would be totally equal and linked.
>
>This does not solve the problem of what words to use in the body of
>the article, so perhaps it would be pointless.  But it would resolve
>the issue of people feeling that the redirect itself is a commentary
>on the validity of one use.  (Sometimes we _are_ commenting on the
>validity of one use, and that's fine in some cases.  For example, we
>might redirect the common name of some species into the scientific
>name, to promote general consistency of our naming conventions for
>species.)
>
>But really, as I started out saying, I don't think I have anything
>really brilliant to offer in terms of solving the problem, except my
>usual guidance that thoughtfulness, caring, reason, love, and respect
>are the way forward.
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Gutza

body:
Gutza wrote:

 >/ Gutza wrote:
/>/
/>/ _Ok, I might be wrong or subjective here (I'm actually fuming), but
/>/ what *do* you imagine such an atheist organization would do? I am
/>/ trying really hard not to be sarcastic here, so please excuse me if
/>/ some sarcasm gets through, but what do you imagine an atheist
/>/ organization would favor? Now now, let's keep things into perspective,
/>/ think about an "atheist organization" which is trying to doctor you
/>/ into believing whatever they say. Talk to me, Saintonge, you seem to
/>/ know how this works, you tell me what such an organization does! If I
/>/ may "say what I might", the way you put it, I will tell you that they
/>/ DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT RELIGION! Sorry, was that too tough for your
/>/ cute little theory? Then I will tell you a little more, Mr. Theory
/>/ Man: not only did they give a shit about it, they actually resented
/>/ it. They took down churches. They forced people to work during holy
/>/ days. They changed the names of saints. They condemned you for
/>/ cherishing your saints. Now you tell me, how can such an "atheist
/>/ organization" relate to the discussion at hand?
/
-No need to get so worked up about a topic when it's only religion. If
-they were equal opportunity oppressors they would have treated both
-groups in the same way. In the course of their using the Romanian
-language, some reference to the words that you now find difficult would
-have been inevitable.

Ok, first I have to apologize for the tone of my previous reply, I got
emotionally involved. Now, regarding the communists, you don't
understand, that's really completely irrelevant. One of their almost
explicit goals was to break the traditions everywhere and in any way
they could. So the way they spelled the name (which I'm honestly not
aware of them doing anywhere) is probably an invention of theirs. Just
to give you an example I know positively of, they spelled 'God' with no
capital letter. And in Romanian we have a specific word for "the"
Christian God, it's not the same word as for generic gods, like it is in
English. Would you consider that to be relevant in any discussion on
that topic?

 >/ What does the Romanian Academy have to say about the matter?
/>/
/>/ _Nothing, they don't regulate these things. If they were somehow
/>/ forced to actually take a stand, they would probably promote the BOR
/>/ naming. (BOR = The Romanian Orthodox Church)
/
-Not that I support the right of any academy to regulate language - there
-is no academy for English. Still the term that they tend to use in
-their publications would be some kind of evidence.

Well, basically all "evidence", including the Google searches on the RA
site and generic Google searches support the BOR version, but both you
and Danutz deem that to be irrelevant.

 >/ Is there such a thing as an "official" religion in Romania?
/>/
/>/ _Yes, the Eastern Orthodox religion.
/>/ _

/I was wrong on this one, as Danutz pointed out. However, speking
demographically there is a vast majority of Eastern Orthodox people
among the whole of the Romanian ethnics, within Romania or abroad./

/>/ I can see that the Orthodox version is based on a transliteration from
/>/ the Greek, but how did the other version come to be what it is.
/>/ (Romanian, after all, is still a romance language.)
/>/
/>/ _The "other" version came to be due to whatever reasons the Catholic
/>/ Church in Romania decided. Can't you see that all this is more or less
/>/ arbitrary? Do you really think that the BOR version is really what one
/>/ would call "orthodox" in the ethimological sense? No, it's just a
/>/ conventional name for the same religious and historical person, that's
/>/ all.
/
-Of course it's arbitrary. And of course etymological orthodoxy is not
-implied by religious Orthodoxy. The real "conventional" name is the one
-that everybody accepts, but the problem is that you have no convention.

Yes we do, and if that didn't result from the previous posts then it's
my fault for not stating this explicitly. 87% of the Romanians in
Romania are Eastern Orthodox (I can't tell about the Romanians abroad
because I only have the demographics data for Romania).

 >/ If reviewing all these question does not give *clear* guidance, you
/>/ should accept both.
/>/
/>/ _Sorry to formulate it this way, but your solution is really cute. Did
/>/ you actually take the time to read the original message?_
/
-Since you mentioned it I made a point of re-reading the original post.
-There's nothing to prevent you from accepting both forms as correct. If
-I had wanted to suggest something cute I would have taken note that it
-is a two part name, and split the baby down the middle with one part of
-the name from each group.

Ok, sorry for being ambigous. The original problem is that we argue
about *naming* the article, not about which version to accept. We all
agree that both versions should be accepted.

 >/ For each article where the question is relevant, the first form
/>/ introduced in that article should have precedence.
/>/
/>/ _Sorry, I might be off on this one, but IMHO the sentence above
/>/ doesn't say anything practical. Yes, the first form always has
/>/ precedence because it's the first, but what do you mean? Honestly not
/>/ being sarcastic._
/
-I see it as perfectly practical, and objective. Whoever started the
-primary disputed article has earned the right to name it. I don't know
-which version that person used, and I don't want to know. (I have no
-intention to edit in Romanian, so my own personal preference doesn't
-matter.) As you said the other form would redirect anyway. If another
-person wants to link from another article, he should be free to use
-whatever form he wants there. Internal consistency within an article
-should still be encouraged. It certainly works with the huge number of
-spelling variations that there are between British and American, and
-that's without getting into Canadian, Australian, Indian, South African,
-or Trinidadian variations.

Again, my bad -- the same as above, the problem is naming the article,
and that will also end up being the first version; once we decide on the
former, the latter is automatically solved.

-You raised the question, and I think that all those who responded did so
-in good faith, perhaps it would be a great exercise of Wikiquette to
-recognize that fact. How you decide your question, will not affect
-anything we do where we do it.

Of course you responded in good faith. The problem was not in your
answers, the problem was my attitude in the previous post and the fact
that I wasn't clear enough. I hope this message clarifies some of the
things which I failed to mention in my previous ones. As you can see,
there is an overwhelming majority of Romanians using one form of the
name, and I feel that should be more important than the choice of the
author of the article, as you suggest above.

Thank you for your patience,
Gutza


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: User:Fire -> technical comment

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Walter Vermeir wrote:
>
>> This [[wikipedia:nl:gebruiker:walter]] does not work in a wikipedia
>> but it does in a Wikiquote.
>
>
> Hm. It should be [[w:nl:(etc.)]].

I just tried that on a few links at [[wikisource:Author:John Adams]] and
it didn't work.

Ec


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

body:
Gutza wrote:
> Again, my bad -- the same as above, the problem is naming the article,
> and that will also end up being the first version; once we decide on the
> former, the latter is automatically solved.
>
> [...] As you can see,
> there is an overwhelming majority of Romanians using one form of the
> name, and I feel that should be more important than the choice of the
> author of the article, as you suggest above.
>

I think Jimmy?s idea about the ?hard links? was a good one.  I don?t
know how it should look like on the site, but it?s a great idea.  Have
whichever is the original, and just #ALIAS or something the others.  It
wouldn?t display ?== OTHERNAME == (redirected from [[WHATYOUWROTE]])?,
it would retain WHATYOUWROTE for title.  It will have to notice us that
there are aliases ? I do not know how it would be the best to do that.
And editing can be a little troublesome.

But now that I think about it, the content would be just one, and it?d
look ? to say the least ? silly, to have ?Iisus Hristos? for title, but
?Isus Cristos? in the content.  Ehhhhh? >_<

Hard, hard.

You could have two articles, but then consistency would suffer.


from_name: Timwi

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [PATCH] [ 965725 ] Pipe-character (|) in
	instantiated Templates

body:
Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
>
> And Timwi... of course.

Hee. I get thanked for complaining about indentation tabs. :)

Timwi


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 05:53:18PM +0300, Gutza wrote:
> Is there any reasonable way to settle this

What about first explaining the problem, then using only
"Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos" everywhere on Romanian Wikipedia:

  Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos foo bar xxx yyy, and then the death of
  Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos blah blah blah ...

Call the article "Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos" with redirects from
both "Iisus Hristos" and "Isus Cristos".

It may sound silly, but it's better to be a bit silly than to have
an never-ending flamewar.


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

body:
Gutza wrote:

> Ok, so it finally came down to this: a few people say that some thing
> has to be done one way, while many other people say it has to be done in
> another way. Whatever the discussion, whatever the results of a poll,
> whatever the arguments, the minority can always say that they are being
> trampled upon if things are done the way the majority prefers.

So what? Wikipedia is not an organization for preserving the rights of a
minority but an encyclopedia. As such, it should report the mainstream
view and give adequate space and consideration to minority view points.

If hundred thousand people call a thing X and one thousand call it Y,
wikipedia should call it X and mention that thousand call it Y. If three
people call it Z, it's an aspect which need not be mentioned (except
these three are _very_ important people).

greetings,
elian


body:
Ok, so it finally came down to this: a few people say that some thing
has to be done one way, while many other people say it has to be done in
another way. Whatever the discussion, whatever the results of a poll,
whatever the arguments, the minority can always say that they are being
trampled upon if things are done the way the majority prefers. The net
result is that no amount of effort can result in breaking this deadlock
in any civilised way, because the very fact that a majority thinks
differently than the minority is being challenged.

Imposing the majority's view over the minority will no doubt result in
some negative emotional responses from the minority, but isn't this
preferable to having negative emotional responses from the majority? If
I rename that article I will be both bashed about for "making unilateral
decisions" (they are not unilateral, the majority supports this
decision, but the minority will scream that they are being treated
unfair, as explained above). Also, this would most certainly result in a
bloody edit war (well, "renaming war" would be the proper term in this
case, but I'll use "edit war" for consistency).

So, what are the Wikipedia recommendations in this case? Danutz,
practically the sole proponent of the minority view on the Romanian
Wikipedia, explicitly refuses to acknowledge any support /at all/ for
the majority (BOR spelling) on this mailing list, in the
"Minority/majority question" thread. The trick is that the Romanians'
views are by default tainted with POV in his opinion, therefore he will
not accept any decision made by the majority on the Romanian Wikipedia.
He seems however somewhat willing to accept as NPOV the decision of
other Wikipedians.

Is there any reasonable way to settle this in an objective, quantizable
way (for instance with a poll) on other Wikipedias? Here is what Danutz
is calling for (translated from
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discu%C5%A3ie:Isus_Cristos which is in
Romanian): "I propose [to decide on the main spelling by] asking someone
who can preserve NPOV, from several international Wikipedias, with
experience in such problems, not only the English one (I propose the
Portuguese, Spanish, French and German), but not to the Arbitration
Committee which you [, Gutza] are a member of."

Personally I find these requests unreasonable, but at the end of the day
there are three possible solutions to this problem:
1) Status quo, the minoritarian version is preserved with the current
spelling both for the naming and in the article, probably with a note
acknowledging the majority spelling;
2) I or anyone else renames and changes the spelling in the article,
inserting a note acknowledging the minority spelling;
3) All of Danutz's requests are granted and we act based on the outcome
of that vote.

Both 1) and 2) will result in flames, edit wars, protection wars (both
Danutz and I are administrators), and probably banning users. I don't
find this reasonable either. So, what do we do? You people are the only
hope for a peaceful solution, whichever it may be. So please answer and
make suggestions, we would both appreciate that! Thank you for your
patience and interest.

Have a nice Sunday!
Gutza


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia-Freenode relations

body:
Fennec Foxen wrote:

> However, Freenode also allows groups to set up an official contact
> with Wikipedia. A few months ago, I took some initiative, filled out a
> little form and answered a phone call and got designated as
> Wikipedia's Group Contact with Freenode. (I wanted a .wikipedia
> username cloak, and you needed a group contact to manage that, so...)
> I've used this position mostly to give out similar IRC cloaks.

While I agree that we need a group contact, I'm against the use of
cloaks. It creates an IMO unnecessary distinction between "official" and
normal users and can lead for newbies to the false impression that they
get an somehow more "official" answer from someone with a cloak when
it's in fact only a personal opinion like that of many other users. It
destroys the fundamental equality of the people involved in Wikimedia.

If we use cloaks, it should be reserved to people on the board or people
with an existing official function (like developer liaision, press
contact...) not distributed arbitrarily by an "I trust you policy".

But even for those I think it's not necessary: Jimmy, Angela and Anthere
are anyhow known as members of the board, so a cloak would have no
effect whatsoever.  Or differently put: a cloak is for speaking "ex
cathedra" and I doubt that this will happen very often.

FYI: the german channel elected JeLuf as main channel administrator -
this was done when the need of a channel registration (and ops) arose.
The german wikimedia channels are handled AFAIK by DaB.

greetings,
elian


list: wikimedia-l


body:
Hi,

Le Sunday 01 August 2004 17:21, Tomasz Wegrzanowski a ?crit :
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 05:53:18PM +0300, Gutza wrote:
> > Is there any reasonable way to settle this
>
> What about first explaining the problem, then using only
> "Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos" everywhere on Romanian Wikipedia:
>
>   Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos foo bar xxx yyy, and then the death of
>   Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos blah blah blah ...
>
> Call the article "Iisus Hristos/Isus Cristos" with redirects from
> both "Iisus Hristos" and "Isus Cristos".
>
> It may sound silly, but it's better to be a bit silly than to have
> an never-ending flamewar.

Yes to me, this seems the best way to settle the question, but
I would rather use a hyphen : [[Iisus Hristos-Isus Cristos]].

In any case, whenever there is a subject of hot debate, the best is first cool
down, wait for a week and then come back to the discussion.

Just my 0.02 ?

Yann

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


body:
That can be well acepted. It would be best for the article to be named Iisus Hristos-Isus Cristos or even Iisus Hristos and Isus Cristos.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Companion - Scarica gratis la toolbar di Ricerca di Yahoo!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040801/87aa10ba/attachment.htm


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Outstanding patches?

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Anyway, here is one small bugfix, which I haven't submitted before. Difference
> engine sometimes inserts ISO-8859-1 non-breaking space in the output which on
> UTF-8 wikis appear as a square or question mark in some browsers (for
> example, see
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%86%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0&diff=4374&oldid=4309
> ). It changes the ISO NBSP into the entity which is seen properly regardless
> of the site's encoding.

Ah, thanks!

I've committed and installed a slight variation: I used the numeric
  rather than   since   seems to be problematic in pure
XHTML mode in some browsers (Safari at least). (Only a few of the named
character entities are actually defined by raw XML.) It won't make a
difference on the Wikimedia installations since we're using the
text/html mode.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040801/9f5d91b6/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
The language now reads, "When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an
instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the
Wikipedia:Blocking policy, they may reverse the block but should post a note
on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page explaining why the block
was reversed."

Fred

> From: Finlay McWalter <finlay_wikipedia_94ac at mcwalter.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:22:23 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
>
> I agree entirely with Rick.  A policy is anything that affects future
> conduct by parties unrelated to the matter before the AC.  Fred's
> original posting read "...It would require any administrator...".  The
> AC has no powers whatever to make requirements of the conduct of "any"
> wikipedian.
>
> This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither of
> which the AC is constituted to do.  If a policy requires clarification
> then only the body of the wikipedia may do so.  The AC is not a court;
> its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.
>
> Please don't get me wrong: I understand its members do a thankless,
> unpleasant task, dealing calmy with those many of us would gladly see
> (metaphorically) hang. But this is clearly policy making, and that's not
> the AC's job.
>
> FIn
>
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>> OK.  I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy is
>> outside the scope of their charter.  I was told that they were not making
>> policy, they were only pointing to it.  They are trying to require sysops to
>> point to a policy page when they block a user.  When I asked where the policy
>> is that says that a sysop has to do that, you say that this is not a policy,
>> but what is proposed.  Therefore, my original point stands.  The arbitration
>> committee is trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of
>> their charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.
>>
>> RickK
>>
>> Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
>>
>> When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page when
>> blocking a user?
>>
>> RickK
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
> "With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: textbook-l

from_name: Geoffrey Thomas

subject:
[Textbook-l] Please help right away -- we've got to stick
	together (OT)

body:
--- Kit Langton <komputerkit at comcast.net> wrote:
...
>   Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's
> rights.
...
Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition?

=====
Geoffrey

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

references:
<BD322CAA.58E4%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<20040801192912.61193.qmail@web60609.mail.yahoo.com>
	<cek1fr$6ju$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
It does seem to me, however, that if a case of a sysop alleged to be
abusing their blocking powers came up to the arbcom, the arbcom would
be within their rights to put that specific sysop on "blocking
probation" similar to the revert probation Wik was on, whereby he had
to explain all reverts. But I agree, it does not appear to be in the
province of the arbcom to make the policy that all administrators must
set forth in the block log a reference to a given part of the policy.
In the case in question, I think proposed policy 3 is reasonable and
acceptable, but 1, I think, does overstep the arbcom's bounds, as it is
not currently in the blocking policy that the part of the policy must
be cited.

That said, I don't think this is a case where it matters particularly -
it's not a bad rule and all.

-Snowspinner

On Aug 1, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Finlay McWalter wrote:

> I agree entirely with Rick.  A policy is anything that affects future
> conduct by parties unrelated to the matter before the AC.  Fred's
> original posting read "...It would require any administrator...".  The
> AC has no powers whatever to make requirements of the conduct of "any"
> wikipedian.
>
> This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither
> of which the AC is constituted to do.  If a policy requires
> clarification then only the body of the wikipedia may do so.  The AC
> is not a court; its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.
>
> Please don't get me wrong: I understand its members do a thankless,
> unpleasant task, dealing calmy with those many of us would gladly see
> (metaphorically) hang. But this is clearly policy making, and that's
> not the AC's job.
>
> FIn
>
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>> OK.  I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy
>> is outside the scope of their charter.  I was told that they were not
>> making policy, they were only pointing to it.  They are trying to
>> require sysops to point to a policy page when they block a user.
>> When I asked where the policy is that says that a sysop has to do
>> that, you say that this is not a policy, but what is proposed.
>> Therefore, my original point stands.  The arbitration committee is
>> trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of their
>> charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.
>>  RickK
>> Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>> Fred
>> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
>> When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page
>> when blocking a user?
>> RickK
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
> "With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
--- Finlay McWalter <finlay_wikipedia_94ac at mcwalter.net> wrote:
> This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither of
> which the AC is constituted to do.  If a policy requires clarification
> then only the body of the wikipedia may do so.  The AC is not a court;
> its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.

What the hell is it if it is not a court? It certainly is not a police force.
Yet it takes in evidence from opposing sides, mulls that evidence over,
develops a ruling, and issues it.

Sounds like a court to me.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for bot flag on en.

body:
I requested bot flag for my bot "Sau?kindin" a few days ago here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Requst_for_permission_to_run_a_warnfile
could i get a botflag for this user on en.

Username: Sau?kindin
ID: 90603


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Jerome Jamnicky wrote:
[cut]
> Fire was following instructions and made the simple error of leaving
> "Wikipedia:" out of his explanatory link.  You did not check your facts, and

It would be usefull if a wikilink of the format
[[projectname:language:namespace:page]] whould work on all Wikimedia
project wikis in all languages.

This [[wikipedia:nl:gebruiker:walter]] does not work in a wikipedia but
it does in a Wikiquote.

--
[[wikipedia:nl:gebruiker:walter]]


body:
Walter Vermeir wrote:

> This [[wikipedia:nl:gebruiker:walter]] does not work in a wikipedia but
> it does in a Wikiquote.

Hm. It should be [[w:nl:(etc.)]].


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Finlay McWalter <finlay_wikipedia_94ac at mcwalter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither of
>>which the AC is constituted to do.  If a policy requires clarification
>>then only the body of the wikipedia may do so.  The AC is not a court;
>>its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.
>>
>>
>
>What the hell is it if it is not a court? It certainly is not a police force.
>Yet it takes in evidence from opposing sides, mulls that evidence over,
>develops a ruling, and issues it.
>
>Sounds like a court to me.
>
I think the term is "quasi judicial body".

Ec


from_name: Claudio V

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Joining SQL Dump Files

body:
I used to have a lot of problems trying to concatenate
the data files from the SQL dumps using Windows XP as
an OS but thanks to Brion Vibber and other I figure it
out.

What I did to solve it is use Cygwin:

Download and install Cygwin.

Open Cygwin by clicking on the icon from your desktop
and go to the location of your hard drive where the
split files are situated.

To concatenate multiple files into a single file you
could do:
$ cat xaa xab xac xad xae > old_table.sql.bz2
or
$ cat xa? > old_table.sql.bz2

The name ?old_table? is an arbitrary name and has no
real importance.

To extract the file you can use Bzip2 with this
command:
$ bzip2 ?dc old_table.sql.bz2 > old_table.sql

To perform both tasks in one command you can do:
$ cat xa? | bzip2 ?dc > old_table.sql

Claudio

 --- Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Stuart Ayre wrote:
>
> > What can I use to join the SQL dump files?
>
> In Linux/Unix:   cat    (e.g.  cat xa xb >
> target_file.sql)
>
> In Windows/DOS:  copy   (e.g.  copy xa+xb
> target_file.sql)
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand.  Fine.  Then give me a table of contents.

RickK

Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It does seem to me, however, that if a case of a sysop alleged to be
abusing their blocking powers came up to the arbcom, the arbcom would
be within their rights to put that specific sysop on "blocking
probation" similar to the revert probation Wik was on, whereby he had
to explain all reverts. But I agree, it does not appear to be in the
province of the arbcom to make the policy that all administrators must
set forth in the block log a reference to a given part of the policy.
In the case in question, I think proposed policy 3 is reasonable and
acceptable, but 1, I think, does overstep the arbcom's bounds, as it is
not currently in the blocking policy that the part of the policy must
be cited.

That said, I don't think this is a case where it matters particularly -
it's not a bad rule and all.

-Snowspinner

On Aug 1, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Finlay McWalter wrote:

> I agree entirely with Rick. A policy is anything that affects future
> conduct by parties unrelated to the matter before the AC. Fred's
> original posting read "...It would require any administrator...". The
> AC has no powers whatever to make requirements of the conduct of "any"
> wikipedian.
>
> This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither
> of which the AC is constituted to do. If a policy requires
> clarification then only the body of the wikipedia may do so. The AC
> is not a court; its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.
>
> Please don't get me wrong: I understand its members do a thankless,
> unpleasant task, dealing calmy with those many of us would gladly see
> (metaphorically) hang. But this is clearly policy making, and that's
> not the AC's job.
>
> FIn
>
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>> OK. I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy
>> is outside the scope of their charter. I was told that they were not
>> making policy, they were only pointing to it. They are trying to
>> require sysops to point to a policy page when they block a user.
>> When I asked where the policy is that says that a sysop has to do
>> that, you say that this is not a policy, but what is proposed.
>> Therefore, my original point stands. The arbitration committee is
>> trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of their
>> charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.
>> RickK
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>> Fred
>> From: Rick
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia
>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: English Wikipedia
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
>> When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page
>> when blocking a user?
>> RickK
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> W.Finlay McWalter [[User:Finlay McWalter]] http://www.mcwalter.org
> "With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040801/e3fd478e/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Still unacceptable.  The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
The language now reads, "When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an
instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the
Wikipedia:Blocking policy, they may reverse the block but should post a note
on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page explaining why the block
was reversed."

Fred

> From: Finlay McWalter
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia
> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:22:23 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
>
> I agree entirely with Rick. A policy is anything that affects future
> conduct by parties unrelated to the matter before the AC. Fred's
> original posting read "...It would require any administrator...". The
> AC has no powers whatever to make requirements of the conduct of "any"
> wikipedian.
>
> This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither of
> which the AC is constituted to do. If a policy requires clarification
> then only the body of the wikipedia may do so. The AC is not a court;
> its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.
>
> Please don't get me wrong: I understand its members do a thankless,
> unpleasant task, dealing calmy with those many of us would gladly see
> (metaphorically) hang. But this is clearly policy making, and that's not
> the AC's job.
>
> FIn
>
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>> OK. I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy is
>> outside the scope of their charter. I was told that they were not making
>> policy, they were only pointing to it. They are trying to require sysops to
>> point to a policy page when they block a user. When I asked where the policy
>> is that says that a sysop has to do that, you say that this is not a policy,
>> but what is proposed. Therefore, my original point stands. The arbitration
>> committee is trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of
>> their charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.
>>
>> RickK
>>
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> From: Rick
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia
>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: English Wikipedia
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
>>
>> When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page when
>> blocking a user?
>>
>> RickK
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> W.Finlay McWalter [[User:Finlay McWalter]] http://www.mcwalter.org
> "With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040801/7e266a9d/attachment.htm


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>> Walter Vermeir wrote:
>>
>>> This [[wikipedia:nl:gebruiker:walter]] does not work in a wikipedia
>>> but it does in a Wikiquote.
>>
>> Hm. It should be [[w:nl:(etc.)]].
>
> I just tried that on a few links at [[wikisource:Author:John Adams]] and
> it didn't work.

In that case I think it is w: in some places and wikipedia: in others.
They should probably be unified.


from_name: Kit Langton

body:
well.. that was a bad idea and taken away.. but yeah.. i forgot about
that.
-Kit Langton

On Aug 1, 2004, at 10:21 PM, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:

> --- Kit Langton <komputerkit at comcast.net> wrote:
> ...
>>   Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's
>> rights.
> ...
> Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition?
>
> =====
> Geoffrey
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Outstanding patches?

body:
On Friday 30 July 2004 23:02, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Hey you out there -- have you submitted bug fix patches that haven't
> been applied yet? (I'm pretty sure there are a few.) I know that's awful
> frustrating...

I have a few larger patches that haven't been applied yet, but they aren't
bugfixes.

Anyway, here is one small bugfix, which I haven't submitted before. Difference
engine sometimes inserts ISO-8859-1 non-breaking space in the output which on
UTF-8 wikis appear as a square or question mark in some browsers (for
example, see
http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%86%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0&diff=4374&oldid=4309
). It changes the ISO NBSP into the entity which is seen properly regardless
of the site's encoding.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wp.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 329 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040802/cea1ef13/attachment.bin>


from_name: Jerome Jamnicky

subject: [Wikitech-l] $1 Billion in Grants available

body:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:45, Tom Randall wrote:
> I invite you to view the ForeignAID.com International Funding
> Directory online at:
> http://www.foreignaid.com/foundations
>
> The ForeignAID.com International Funding Directory is a database of
> over 700 foundations and donors in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide
> that give over $1 Billion every year in grants and scholarships to
> individuals and projects. Please tell me what you think.
>
> Most Sincerely,
> Tom Randall
> http://www.foreignaid.com/foundations
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

I'm the one who approved this.  i checked the page before I approved it and it
looked completely different to how it does now - before it didn't look like
they were just selling a directory.  Rather it looked like a free directory
which could be useful.

--
Jerome


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
Crap, and I was just about to reply. Such an honest offer can't possibly be a scam!
-Slowking Man
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Arno M<mailto:redgum46 at lycos.com>
  To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
  Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:43 PM
  Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fw: TRUST, or, an old e-mail scam.

  Did anyone else get this??

  If so, then beware, this is a scam. See http://www.stlouis.bbb.org/news052004a.html<http://www.stlouis.bbb.org/news052004a.html>
  for details.

  Arno

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "jan tinubu" <janproject200 at galmail.co.za<mailto:janproject200 at galmail.co.za>>
  Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:05:51 +0200
  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
  Subject: TRUST

  > DEAR SIR,
  >
  >
  > I AM MISS JAN TINUBU 25YRS,THE DAUGHTER OF THE
  > PRESENT EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE, NIGERIA,
  > SENATOR AHMED BOLA TINUBU. I HAVE IN MY
  > POSSESSION THE SUM OF TWELVE MILLION UNITED STATE
  > DOLLARS{$12,000,000.00},AND THE TOP LIST OF MY
  > PRIORITY
  > IS WHERE TO INVEST THIS MONEY OUTSIDE MY COUNTRY.
  > "REASON BEST KNOWN TO ME" . I URGENTLY NEED YOUR
  > ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING A RELIABLE GENUINE TRADE OR
  > COMPANY WHERE I CAN INVEST THE FUND AND IMMEDIATELY
  > MEET YOU IN YOUR COUNTRY FOR SETTLEMENT.
  > PLEASE I WILL KINDLY WELCOME YOUR ADVICE TOO.
  >
  > I AM EXPECTING YOUR URGENT MAIL REPONSE. I NEED YOUR
  > SUPPORT AND URGENT REPONSE. I HAVE RESIGNED MY
  > APPOINTMENT IN THE STATE MINISTRY BECAUSE OF THE
  > INVESTMENT.
  >
  >
  > MISS JAN TINUBU
  >
  >
  > THE $12M IS OUT OF NIGERIA AND PRESENTLY DEPOSITED IN
  > A SECURITY VAULT. DETAILS WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU AS SOON
  > AS YOU REPLY THIS MAIL. PLEASE YOUR REPLY TO MY
  > CONFIDENTIAL BOX:janinvest2004 at indiatimes.com
  >
  >
  >

  --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040802/6ec297d3/attachment.htm


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Rick wrote:

> Still unacceptable.  The Arbcom is still making policy which has not
> been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.

Incorrect.  Fred was editing that page as a Wikipedian.  Other
Wikipedians may also edit it; the blocking policy page is not an
arbitration committee page, but a Wikipedia community page, edited by
the community at large.  If you disagree with its wording, I suggest you
comment on its talk page.  That's how policy is made here, after all.

-Mark


from_name: Stuart Ayre

subject: [Wikitech-l] Joining SQL Dump Files

body:
What can I use to join the SQL dump files?

many thanks

Stu

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Finlay McWalter

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
I agree entirely with Rick.  A policy is anything that affects future
conduct by parties unrelated to the matter before the AC.  Fred's
original posting read "...It would require any administrator...".  The
AC has no powers whatever to make requirements of the conduct of "any"
wikipedian.

This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither of
which the AC is constituted to do.  If a policy requires clarification
then only the body of the wikipedia may do so.  The AC is not a court;
its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.

Please don't get me wrong: I understand its members do a thankless,
unpleasant task, dealing calmy with those many of us would gladly see
(metaphorically) hang. But this is clearly policy making, and that's not
the AC's job.

FIn

Rick wrote:

> OK.  I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy is outside the scope of their charter.  I was told that they were not making policy, they were only pointing to it.  They are trying to require sysops to point to a policy page when they block a user.  When I asked where the policy is that says that a sysop has to do that, you say that this is not a policy, but what is proposed.  Therefore, my original point stands.  The arbitration committee is trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of their charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.
>
> RickK
>
> Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>
> Fred
>
> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
>
> When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page when blocking a user?
>
> RickK
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Joining SQL Dump Files

body:
Stuart Ayre wrote:

> What can I use to join the SQL dump files?

In Linux/Unix:   cat    (e.g.  cat xa xb > target_file.sql)

In Windows/DOS:  copy   (e.g.  copy xa+xb target_file.sql)

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Sort arabian words

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> Gerard.Meijssen schrieb:
>> Now the catch is that in these languages the first letter is on the
>> right. The query will be used to show all words in order, and to
>> create a list of all words starting with ..
>
> Well, this is not a catch for the computer:
>
> ???? - shalom is stored in utf as "shin lamed waw final-mem". The
> right-to-left direction is up to the rendering engine.  Same applies to
> ????, so I can't really see a huge problem here.
>
> Can someone verify this?

Correct.

The only catch is whether the unicode ordering of the characters
produces correct sorting of strings. If it doesn't, you'll have to
manually produce sort keys that do. The category system provides for this.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040802/82675d12/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:

> It does seem to me, however, that if a case of a sysop alleged to be
> abusing their blocking powers came up to the arbcom, the arbcom would
> be within their rights to put that specific sysop on "blocking
> probation" similar to the revert probation Wik was on, whereby he had
> to explain all reverts.

Absolutely.  That specific sysop is subject to arbitration, and the AC
needs to have sufficient flexibility such that its rulings on that case
can be reasonably be expected to be effective.

> But I agree, it does not appear to be in the
> province of the arbcom to make the policy that all administrators must
> set forth in the block log a reference to a given part of the policy.
> In the case in question, I think proposed policy 3 is reasonable and
> acceptable, but 1, I think, does overstep the arbcom's bounds, as it is
> not currently in the blocking policy that the part of the policy must
> be cited.

> That said, I don't think this is a case where it matters particularly -
> it's not a bad rule and all.

Probably not, but we shouldn't set a precedent of asking the AC to rule
on things that should properly fall to the wiki as a whole (that
business about asking the AC to decide whether "troll" in the username
was acceptable being another bad precedent, an unfair position in which
to put the already overworked AC).  Where it's a matter of
interpretation (as in fairness this seems to be) whether something is
within or without the AC's pervue, we should failsafe to "not".

Urgh, past my bedtime ;(
FIn

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> The language now reads, "When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an
> instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the
> Wikipedia:Blocking policy, they may reverse the block but should post a note
> on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page explaining why the block
> was reversed."

On a sidenote, do we have page that properly defines "should" and "must"
(etc.)?  I know it sounds pedantic, but [[RFC]]s have just such a
section, which makes knowing what to do in borderline circumstances a
good deal clearer.

FIn

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


subject: [Wikipedia-l] User:Fire

body:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:46, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >> Jerome Jamnicky wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:10, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>>> I am annoyed by the behaviour of user:fire.  He is not a sysop on
> >>>> Wikisource, yet he was able to come and block a user indefinitely with
> >>>> no better excuse than a non-working link to wikipedia about
> >>>> name-change
> >>>> policy.  I immediately reversed the block.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those who participate in Wikisource are quite capable of deciding who
> >>>> should be blocked.  We don't need this loose cannon who has not
> >>>> otherwise participated in Wikisource to sneakily acquire some kind of
> >>>> superior access for no other reason to block a user that he does
> >>>> not like.
> >>>
> >>> You should get your facts straight before you make accusations like
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> Butting in to prove your ignorance are you?
> >
> > Odd that you sent this message three minutes after admitting that you
> > were wrong. Would you mind retracting that statement and apologizing
> > to Ronny, to Jerome, and to this list?
>
> Huh?
>
> There was no such admission, I merely said that I now understood what he
> did, and suggested how the situation could be better handled in the
> future.  My response to Ronny speaks for itself.  Jerome asked for it
> when he stuck his nose in.  Thre was no attack against the list.
>
> Ray

Sticking my nose in?  This is my business since I am one of the two people who
has recently been doing the username change work.  You have falsely accused
Fire of two serious offences:

1) Acquiring sysop access in an underhanded way.
2) Blocking someone for personal reasons.

Fire was following instructions and made the simple error of leaving
"Wikipedia:" out of his explanatory link.  You did not check your facts, and
you behaved as a "loose cannon" (to borrow from your vocabulary) and a "bull
in a china shop" (your vocab, again).

People are wondering if this kind of behaviour makes your net contribution to
the project negative.  If you'd like to change this, you could start by
apologising to Fire.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
A Wikipedia administrator needs to be thoroughly familiar with those parts
of Wikipedia policy they chose to deploy.  Many of us never block anybody.
Those who do need to know what is permitted and what is not. That is laid
out on the page [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. What the arbitration
committee is trying to do is to craft a remedy for those instances where
administrators are making up their own policy, perhaps to some extent in
reliance on community consensus but nevertheless expanding their actions
beyond those set forth in blocking policy.  Certain parts of that policy are
somewhat ambiguous but it is a limited policy which permits blocks only in
certain cases. Not in every case where it "feels right" or in every case
where "something has to be done".

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages
available at hand.  Fine.  Then give me a table of contents.

RickK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040802/026410da/attachment.htm


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeopardy question

body:
Answer:

> You keep using that word...
> I do not think it means what you think it means.

Question:

"What is 'inconceivable'?"


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy

body:
Fred wrote:

> It would require any administrator who blocks a user to set
> forth at least a reference to the section of
> [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely in order for
> the block to be presumed valid and not subject to immediate
> reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive" would not be
> acceptable.

I will adhere to this. I think it should be policy.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Julian Ostrow

subject: [Wikitech-l] IRC

body:
Anthere,

I can't attest to how good it is because I've never used it, but I hear
IRCle being mentioned from time to time.  It works on all kinds of
MacOS versions (their site says): http://www.ircle.com/download.shtml

Good luck!

- Julian Ostrow (X13)

> Hi
>
> Would someone have an idea for me (how to fix the bug) or a new IRC
> client to recommand me (I am on macintosh OS9, netscape 7.02 and no,
I
> cant upgrade to a newer system) ?
>
> I was previously on chatzilla.
> I had what I thought a bug (I could not close tabs of personal
channels).
> I went to freenode to seek from help and they recommanded I upgraded
my
> chatzilla. Looking in the new versions, I discovered it was not a
bug,
> but... a non existent feature, which was fixed in most recent
versions.
>
> I hence upgraded chatzilla. http://www.hacksrus.com/~ginda/chatzilla/
> Now, when I start chatzilla (I later tried all versions I could
find), I
> have an error message, and the application is not working anymore.
>
> I installed with pain Shadow IRC (which was the first irc I used, but
is
> by far less confortable to use) and contacted the chatzilla irc. I
> discussed during 2 hours with Silver, one of the big guy for
chatzilla.
> We concluded that for some reason, I had a file missing nslFile
> Protocole Handler component.
>
> I understood that file location was changed in 2002, so it was likely
> that chatzilla was looking at the new location, while my browser
being
> borderline 2002-2003, could still have it at the ancient location
> (chatzilla does not handle "yet" the old location, but Silver said he
> might do the patch for the next release).
>
> However, the problem is that we were not able to find the file at all.
>
> When I evaluate in the javascript window whether
>
> Components.classes["@mozilla.org/network/protocol;1?
name=file"].createInstance
(Components.interfaces.nsIFileProtocolHandler).getFileFromURLSpec
> or
> Components.classes["@mozilla.org/network/io-service;1"].getService
(Components.interfaces.nsIIOService).getFileFromURLSpec
>
> neither of the two exist.
>
> What is quite curious is that chatzilla was previously working on an
old
> version. But when I installed it, I remember quite well that the
newer
> version had the same bug. This suggest that the file concerned
existed
> then, and that older versions of chatzilla were able to manage
somehow.
>
> I entirely reinstalled my computer about 1 month ago; so might have
> "lost" something ???
> I already reinstalled netscape/mozilla and chatzilla entirely
yesterday
> night, but the file still not there.
>
> Does that suggest any thing to someone ?
>
> Alternatively, who has a decent and free irc client to recommand me ?
> Shadow is really unconfortable to use.
>
> Meanwhile, I think I won't be much on IRC any more. Which is somehow
> problematic for communication.
>
> Only benefit is that it will help cure my wikiholism :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Fennec Foxen

subject: [Wikitech-l] IRC

body:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:35:35 +0200, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Would someone have an idea for me (how to fix the bug) or a new IRC
> client to recommand me (I am on macintosh OS9, netscape 7.02 and no, I
> cant upgrade to a newer system) ?

One thing you could try (if the bug fixing does not work out) is to
get someone to give you a shell account somewhere with access to
irssi, and use IRC from there. You'd need to do a little bit of a song
and dance manuver to get it to do UTF-8, but as long as you have a SSH
client to get to it, it would work on any kind of computer.

--
You keep using that word...
I do not think it means what you think it means.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] IRC

body:
Hi

Would someone have an idea for me (how to fix the bug) or a new IRC
client to recommand me (I am on macintosh OS9, netscape 7.02 and no, I
cant upgrade to a newer system) ?

I was previously on chatzilla.
I had what I thought a bug (I could not close tabs of personal channels).
I went to freenode to seek from help and they recommanded I upgraded my
chatzilla. Looking in the new versions, I discovered it was not a bug,
but... a non existent feature, which was fixed in most recent versions.

I hence upgraded chatzilla. http://www.hacksrus.com/~ginda/chatzilla/
Now, when I start chatzilla (I later tried all versions I could find), I
have an error message, and the application is not working anymore.

I installed with pain Shadow IRC (which was the first irc I used, but is
by far less confortable to use) and contacted the chatzilla irc. I
discussed during 2 hours with Silver, one of the big guy for chatzilla.
We concluded that for some reason, I had a file missing nslFile
Protocole Handler component.

I understood that file location was changed in 2002, so it was likely
that chatzilla was looking at the new location, while my browser being
borderline 2002-2003, could still have it at the ancient location
(chatzilla does not handle "yet" the old location, but Silver said he
might do the patch for the next release).

However, the problem is that we were not able to find the file at all.

When I evaluate in the javascript window whether

Components.classes["@mozilla.org/network/protocol;1?name=file"].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsIFileProtocolHandler).getFileFromURLSpec
or
Components.classes["@mozilla.org/network/io-service;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.nsIIOService).getFileFromURLSpec

neither of the two exist.

What is quite curious is that chatzilla was previously working on an old
version. But when I installed it, I remember quite well that the newer
version had the same bug. This suggest that the file concerned existed
then, and that older versions of chatzilla were able to manage somehow.

I entirely reinstalled my computer about 1 month ago; so might have
"lost" something ???
I already reinstalled netscape/mozilla and chatzilla entirely yesterday
night, but the file still not there.

Does that suggest any thing to someone ?

Alternatively, who has a decent and free irc client to recommand me ?
Shadow is really unconfortable to use.

Meanwhile, I think I won't be much on IRC any more. Which is somehow
problematic for communication.

Only benefit is that it will help cure my wikiholism :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Jeopardy question

body:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:24:53 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > Answer:
> >>You keep using that word...
> >>I do not think it means what you think it means.
> > Question:
> > "What is 'inconceivable'?"
> I don't think anyone here knows what you're talking about, what you're
> referring to, what you're getting at or what your point is.

Au contrare. He is talking about my .signature (though he may have
made that clearer). I think that a significant number of people here
recognize the only slightly obscure reference. :)
--
You keep using that word...
I do not think it means what you think it means.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Sort arabian words

body:
I would like to have a query with all words in Arabian, Farsi, Hebrew sorted alphabetically. Arab words can be found in nl:wiktionary by the references to [[Sjabloon:-ar-]]. (15 words at this time but growing..)

Now the catch is that in these languages the first letter is on the right. The query will be used to show all words in order, and to create a list of all words starting with ..

Thanks,
  GerardM


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Joining SQL Dump Files

body:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Timwi wrote:

>Stuart Ayre wrote:
>
>> What can I use to join the SQL dump files?
>
>In Linux/Unix:   cat    (e.g.  cat xa xb > target_file.sql)
>
>In Windows/DOS:  copy   (e.g.  copy xa+xb target_file.sql)

Under Windows, use the /b switch to ensure that no funny cr-lf translation
will occur:

copy /b xa+xb+xc target.sql

Alfio


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Wikitech-l] Sort arabian words

body:
Gerard.Meijssen schrieb:

> Now the catch is that in these languages the first letter is on the
> right. The query will be used to show all words in order, and to
> create a list of all words starting with ..

Well, this is not a catch for the computer:

???? - shalom is stored in utf as "shin lamed waw final-mem". The
right-to-left direction is up to the rendering engine.  Same applies to
????, so I can't really see a huge problem here.

Can someone verify this?


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy

body:
Me too, it seems pretty reasonable.
Mark

--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>
> > It would require any administrator who blocks a
> user to set
> > forth at least a reference to the section of
> > [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely
> in order for
> > the block to be presumed valid and not subject to
> immediate
> > reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive"
> would not be
> > acceptable.
>
> I will adhere to this. I think it should be policy.
>
> Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Jeopardy question

body:
Fennec Foxen wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:24:53 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Answer:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You keep using that word...
>>>>I do not think it means what you think it means.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Question:
>>>"What is 'inconceivable'?"
>>>
>>>
>>I don't think anyone here knows what you're talking about, what you're
>>referring to, what you're getting at or what your point is.
>>
>>
>
>Au contrare. He is talking about my .signature (though he may have
>made that clearer). I think that a significant number of people here
>recognize the only slightly obscure reference. :)
>
>
Hmm.  I do watch "Jeopardy" frequently, and I'm usually good at "getting
it"  What's so inconceivable about a big-eared African fox?

Ec


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] CVS HEAD on German wikipedia?

body:
Hello all,

as some of you know, a company will release a snapshot of the German
wikipedia on CD. They will use a dump from September 1, less than one
month from now.

We (de.wikipedia) would very much like to get the validation feature up
and running ASAP, even though it is only in the early stages (but
functional), so we can harvest WikiPower (tm) to sort out the junk, er,
the "articles" that should rather not go on CD.

Now for the scary part: Can we soon go live with what is CVS HEAD, or is
there something utterly unstable in it?

Also, any help with the validation feature will be greatly appreciated.
The current state of affairs can be seen at http://test.wikipedia.org

Magnus


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Security hole in "What_we_use_the_money_for" on
	meta.wikimedia.org -- ???

body:
I just got this email from a reader (I've already explained that we are a wiki
and he did not do any harm):

|I noticed an "edit" tab.  I clicked on this at got an edit form that
|seems to have allowed me to edit this text, for real, right on your site!
|I've taken a look in a couple different browsers and even a different CPU
|and it seems to be there consistently -- despite clearing cache and
|cookies.   (my "here's MM's edit") at the end of the body text.
|
|Is this for real?  Did I make a permanent modification on your public page?
|If so, isn't that a big security hole?  If not, it's very confusing to me
|what I did and why I was able to do it.

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


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:

>
> While I agree that we need a group contact, I'm against the use of
> cloaks. It creates an IMO unnecessary distinction between "official"
> and normal users and can lead for newbies to the false impression that
> they get an somehow more "official" answer from someone with a cloak
> when it's in fact only a personal opinion like that of many other
> users. It destroys the fundamental equality of the people involved in
> Wikimedia.
>
> If we use cloaks, it should be reserved to people on the board or
> people with an existing official function (like developer liaision,
> press contact...) not distributed arbitrarily by an "I trust you policy".
>
I thought so too, until I realised that they were useful for technical
reasons, especially +I modes. That caused me to go from grumpily
complaining about their problems to requesting one. Cloaks aren't highly
visible, especially when users join the room before identifying with
NickServ, as they often do. Some users have a cloak but don't bother
identifying at all. I usually don't notice cloaks unless I go looking
for them.

Most #wikipedia regulars seem to have a cloak now, so I'd expect a bit
of opposition if we tried to take them away. Also, the Freenode staff
seem to be very much in favour of the idea.

I often talk on IRC without having identified, and I've never been
challenged by a newbie wanting "official" answers. I can't remember
anyone ever commenting on the presence or absence of a cloak in relation
to any kind of officialness.

-- Tim Starling