subject: [WikiEN-l] Interwiki Cooperation; NSK

body:
Mark Richards wrote:

> Just an observation, I have never seen Rick in
> anything but 'attack dog' mode, and, in the last

There are people out there who I regret to say never saw me in anything
but "attack dog" mode, either. Eventually it was trained out of me by
myself and others (AFTER I burned plenty of bridges).

> couple of weeks alone I think I have seen him accuse
> nearly everyone he disagrees with of being 'trolls'
> (which is, of course, the only real definition of the
> word).
>
> Probably best to not feed him.

I'm not going to write off a long-time contributor just because he's
acting like an old version of me. I have a great deal of faith in the
ability of intelligent people to eventually correct such behaviour, and
I have no reason to think Rick can't.


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: ilooy

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Success! Setting up MediaWiki for use in Presentation
	to Conferences

body:
Hi, and thanks so much for the help in
getting MediaWiki running. I ended up
using the Linspire Laptop since it was
suggested I stick with Linux... and it
went very smoothly. It took me only
a few minutes to download the updates
and then ran the webscripted install from
the browser at the wiki?s directory...
Right away things were configured,
I moved the file over from the config
to the parent directory and refreshed
my browser... the Main_Page popped
up and the cute flower logo looked
great!

I have a question about the address to
the page... it seems to be

http://localhost/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

or

http://linspiron/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
(The laptop is a Dell Inspiron 1150)

somehow the ?index.php? part doesn?t seem
right... is this right or did I goof somehow on
the setup of the software?

Again thanks for all the suggestions and the
excellent support pages I found on setting
up MediaWiki on Linux.

With regards,
Jay B.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology for "anti-US" remark

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:

> On 27 Oct 2004, at 22:56, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> Jens Ropers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With the possible difference being that a complaint that others are
>>> biased against you just sounds so much more convincing if you're not
>>> engaged in an illegal war at the same time.
>>
>>
>> Careful on the nationalism thing
>
>
> Huh?
> What nationalism thing???
> And why should I be careful about it??
>
Nationalism is when you treat every member of a nation as being
equivalent to the nation's government, to the point of treating
the government's political opponents as they were supporters. It's
like saying Tutu and Mandela must be in favor of apartheid because
they didn't renounce their South African citizenship and move to
another country. Wikipedia is already over-politicized by people
who are smart enough to know better.

>
>> I hate Bush as much as anybody, but if Europeans and USians
>> are not in agreement, it's as much a failure of the Europeans
>> to sell their ideas in Iowa as it is of the US to sell its ideas
>> in Belgium. Bush would get even more votes if the average US
>> voter got a look at how much anti-US sneering by Europeans is
>> found on WP talk pages.
>
>
> True, and both any sneering and the defiant "hurt pride" protest vote
> for Bush are unconsidered, immature reactions. However, IMHO Ed's
> initial post clearly shows that there are Americans who already are so
> much in defiant denial mode that they will perceive even factual NPOV
> points argued against "their guy" as "sneering". I mean. Ed's outraged
> initial post sounded as if there was an evil Democratic conspiracy to
> loot and kill.

Well, duh, there are extremists on every side. I was reacting
to how you tarred somebody else with the same brush.

>> Not setting much of an example for
>> international cooperation!
>
>
> Oh, but we are! We Wikipedians are actually talking. Which is ''way''
> better than doing a "Freedom Fries" routine or accusing all Americans
> of being daft, respectively.

You are talking, but are you listening? If the choice of US president
matters so much to Europe, then why aren't the Europeans supporting
Kerry in a way that will get him some more votes? Guardian readers
lecturing Iowans in letters was a really dumb idea, I can't believe
that in all the millions of Europe there isn't anyone with a better
idea for two-way dialogue.

Stan


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
If you want to write an article on a tree, and can
clearly provide references on it, with facts that will
distinguish it from the general class of trees, then
go ahead - we can look at it, but I would not be
inclined to delete it unless you were simply making
millions of articles saying:
Tree1:This is a tree.
Tree2:This is a tree.
If you can do this, then let's see.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> So is every building in the world, every park in the
> world, every street in the world, every tree in the
> world.  Should we have articles on every one of
> those things?
>
> RickK
>
> Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
> John Lee wrote:
>
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Rambot articles are of disputable
> encyclopedicness.
> >>
> > Places are certainly encyclopedic.
>
> Schools are places.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interwiki Cooperation; NSK

body:
God bless you Nicholas. We all need a lesson in trying
to see the best in people from time to time.

Rick - I hold out hope for your salvation.

Mark

--- Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:

> Mark Richards wrote:
>
> > Just an observation, I have never seen Rick in
> > anything but 'attack dog' mode, and, in the last
>
> There are people out there who I regret to say never
> saw me in anything
> but "attack dog" mode, either. Eventually it was
> trained out of me by
> myself and others (AFTER I burned plenty of
> bridges).
>
> > couple of weeks alone I think I have seen him
> accuse
> > nearly everyone he disagrees with of being
> 'trolls'
> > (which is, of course, the only real definition of
> the
> > word).
> >
> > Probably best to not feed him.
>
> I'm not going to write off a long-time contributor
> just because he's
> acting like an old version of me. I have a great
> deal of faith in the
> ability of intelligent people to eventually correct
> such behaviour, and
> I have no reason to think Rick can't.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Interwiki Cooperation; NSK

body:
Commnents by NSK in the past month:

----BEGIN QUOTE
You need to ensure that all WP participants want to help WP, instead of
pushing POV or exercising power. WP's shortcomings is a problem of motives:
People join WP for their own benefit instead of WP's benefit.

If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think
that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.

Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with Britannica need
motivated committed editors, proof readers, maintainers, sysops and policy
makers, i.e. organisation and structure. Serious sites should not be very
friendly to the uneducated masses (i.e. disallow anon editing) and rely
mostly on a small but very effective group of well-educated volunteers who do
their work for a greater good and not just for themselves. For example,
editing of scientific articles could be limited to university students or
holders of a B.Sc. degree. However, I do recognise that it is extremely
difficult to find this kind of volunteers and maintain a huge site only by
their own work.

I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On
the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people
prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".

Commenting on someone's voting patterns is not very democratic.

My impression was that some people prefer to participate in endless
discussions about whether a particular article is encyclopedic or not or
whether it should be deleted or moved instead of editing or improving the
actual content. But it may be just an impression.

I think there are many people here who do not actually care about building an
encyclopedia.

On Saturday 23 October 2004 21:31, Rick wrote:
> VfD has the consensus support of the community.  Articles about schools
> listed on VfD have, for the most part, consensus support to be deleted.

Probably because the masses enjoy destroying things. 18th century
encyclopedists didn't allow the uneducated masses to destroy the knowledge.

> Let's ban people who list articles on VfD which aren't deleted.

Nice idea.

---- END QUOTE

So, tell me again that he hasn't conducted a campaign of personal abuse.

And this doesn't even discuss his "ideas" about changing Wikipedia into a "knowledge base" into of an encyclopedia, which he denigrates.

I'm also sick and tired of being attacked for making person attacks, when the people on the other side who also make the personal attacks get a free ride.

RickK

Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
Rick wrote:

> Gee. Somebody who never posts on Wikipedia (as I suspected) making

I got the impression he does edit some.

> demands that Wikipedia policy be changed. And does anybody wonder why

I saw no demands or anything remotely resembling a demand, only suggestions.

> I think he's probably a troll?

Your apparent definition of "troll" is completely at odds with any I am
familiar with. NSK has merely tried to be helpful, and has been entirely
cordial.

You are being incredibly hostile for no discernable reason other than
you happen to disagree with some of the things NSK has said. Others have
also disagreed with some of the things NSK has said (I disagree with
some of them myself), but none have been rude or hostile except for you,
and there is no reason to be rude or hostile.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion as POV

body:
Great idea! Let people add the category {Things UserX
isn't interested in}, then they never have to see it,
but others can!

Mark

--- phil hunt <zen19725 at zen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:26:53 -0400, Anthony DiPierro
> <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Like you, I want to stop the incessant arguing on
> VFD.  But the only way to
> >do that is to reach a compromise.  That doesn't
> mean we keep X and delete Y.
> >It means we consider the point of view of all
> parties.  Deletionists don't
> >want random page filled with non-famous things.
> Inclusionists don't want
> >useful information destroyed.  Surely there are
> solutions which can give
> >both sides what they want.
>
> How about keep the articles in the database, but
> don't display them
> when viewed from a deletionist's account? That way
> everyone gets to
> see the Wikipedia they want.
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly
> support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on
> Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Viewing deleted pages (Kate's script)

body:
there is a big difference between:

<angela> THIS IS A BOARD DECREE - THOU SHALT NOT DO THIS

and:

<angela> probably not

--sannse

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> Calm down, Angela.  I asked Kate about how to get access to the scripts, and
> she said I had to talk to the board.  Here's the conversation from IRC:
>
> <anthony> kate, what's this thing about kate's scripts?
> <kturner> anthony?
> <anthony> you said something about getting permission from the foundation to
> run them
> <kturner> I asked if I could make it available to all users.  The Board of
> Directors told me not to
> <kturner> so presumably it's up to them to give permission
> <anthony> when you say the board told you not to, do you mean someone in
> particular, or this was brought up at a board meeting?
> <kturner> by 'told' i mean I said 'should i do this?' on irc and someone
> said 'probably not'
> <kturner> and since i don't care that much, i didn't
> <anthony> no I'm just wondering who to talk to
> <anthony> angela, apparently
> <kturner> this was angela
>
> I guess I was misinformed.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Preliminary Deletion

body:
As I've probably explained five or six times on this list, Yahoo! doesn't let me bottom-post on this list.  I have no idea why.

RickK

"James D. Forrester" <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
[Evil top-posting and over-quoting counter-surgency attempted ;-)]

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Interwiki Cooperation; NSK

body:
NSK wrote:

>Well, let me ask it again in the right way:
>
>Dear Sir, would you be able to add interwiki links from Wikipedia to
>nerdypc.wikinerds.org, jnana.wikinerds.org and adapedia.wikinerds.org ? Thank
>you very much.
>
>
Close enough. Just edit the page on meta and the interwiki table will be
updated automatically next time a wiki is created. If anyone disagrees
with you they will revert you. It's not necessary to obtain permission
from Wikimedia.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikimedia-l


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Success! Setting up MediaWiki for use in
	Presentation to Conferences

body:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:04:57 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:50, ilooy wrote:
> > went very smoothly
> Good to hear that

Indeed! a Kudos to the development team!
Hip, hip...

> > http://localhost/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> It's the same as http://127.0.0.1/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> This is the IP address of your computer. There is nothing wrong with that.
> > http://linspiron/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> That's the domain name of your computer. You choose the "linspiron" part
> during GNU/Linux installation (can be changed later).

Yes, the computername I chose as a personal
inside joke... Linspiron (Linspire running on a Dell Inspiron)

> It's your computer; there is nothing wrong with that address.
> > somehow the ?index.php? part doesn?t seem
> It's right.

Thanks for reassuring me of this...
It seems a bit strange on the address,
is there some simple way to make it
something else? Wikipedia has
http://XX.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

> MediaWiki uses "pretty URLs" so instead of ? it uses / to make the URL more
> beautiful.

Indeed again! Those query question marks
are a bit distracting on the address... but
my question was about the ??index.php??
part of the address, could this be changed
into something else, easily? It is not really
a problem though, it all seems to work quite
well and I?m quite pleased with the setup
and the configuration parts so far! It is
a tribute to all the developers!

Thanks so much for your feedback and
reassuring message!

With regards,
Jay B.

[[w:en:User:ILVI]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Please point to a single, solitary posting of mine which has EVER said that no one cares about the shool articles.  I have NEVER made that claim, and I do not believe it.

Please note that I disagree with you intensely, but have never called you a troll.

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
That there is a small group of people who are intent
on deleting certain classes of factual, verifiable
articles.

What Anthony seems to be saying, in response to your
comment that no one cares about the schools articles,
is that hardly anyone cares about most of the
articles. Outside of a core of articles that many
people read, there are many that few people read.

The fact that they are of interest to a few, rather
than many, is not reason to delete them.

Mark

--- Rick wrote:

> Are you really trying to claim that there is some
> cabal out there plotting to delete 90% of the
> content of Wikipedia? If not, what ARE you trying
> to say?
>
> RickK
>
> Anthony DiPierro
> wrote:
> So you don't see how we'd lose from deleting 90% of
> the articles we have? I
> guess we'd still be better than the other freely
> distributed online
> encyclopedias; we'd be free as in freedom and have
> more in depth coverage,
> but I seriously doubt we'd be able to crush them out
> of existence within 5
> years.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile
> phone.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
What we do is ban the POV warrior from the area they are focusing on. And
invite them to edit other areas. We don't get into the content of the
article. We let that take care of itself. Often we don't even seriously look
at it. What we look at the the POV warrior's edits as he deletes others
points of view and continually inserts his own.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:21:04 +0200
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
>
> As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision
> "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or
> "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
>
> If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone
> what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another
> unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
>
> If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are
> things handled for now ?
>
> ant
>
>
> Fred Bauder a ?crit:
>> What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that
>> disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a
>> certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is
>> not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage
>> in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those
>> problems are also often involved.
>>
>> NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included
>> in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations
>> where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other
>> viewpoint excluded.
>>
>> There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a
>> few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals
>> trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
>>
>> Fred, Arbitration Committee
>>
>>
>>> From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" <jean-christophe.chazalette at laposte.net>
>>> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200
>>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>> Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
>>>
>>> French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast
>>> majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took
>>> place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the
>>> arbitration rules.
>>>
>>> Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following
>>> : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the
>>> articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can
>>> relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to
>>> the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
>>>
>>> There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or
>>> articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
>>>
>>> The current poll is expected  to last until nov. 7 and could lead to
>>> enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
>>>
>>> Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line
>>> regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a
>>> dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes
>>> sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
>>>
>>> Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support
>>> her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing.
>>> So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village
>>> pump, I'd  like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation,
>>> especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> villy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Personal attack by Mark Richards.  Who's going to be the first to jump on the "Mark, you should stop making personal attacks" bandwagon?  Wanna bet not a single solitary person?  Where's the admin suggesting that Mark stop posting about this?  I refrained for several days, because I was asked to, but I'm not going to keep refraining when I'm the subject of attacks like this and NSK's, and dont' have the right to defend myself, and when Mark keeps churning out the same arguments.

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Rambot articles are certainly controversial, as are
schools. There are schools that you have deleted that
are attended by more people than live in some of the
Rambot towns that have been kept.

He is pointing out how stupid and inconsistant your
ideas of 'notablity' and 'encyclopedic' are.

Mark

--- Rick wrote:

> What odd comments coming from someone who wants to
> keep everything.
>
> How can articles about cities and towns possibly be
> considered nonencyclopedic?
>
> RickK
>
> Anthony DiPierro
> wrote:
> Rambot articles are of disputable encyclopedicness.
> Pokemon articles are of
> disputable encyclopedicness. Articles on years and
> numbers, and lists are
> of disputable encyclopedicness. But none of these
> are listed on VFD.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: sysop vs. admin

body:
Sysops are low level general purpose administrators of the wiki. They have
nothing to do with administration of the hardware or software. There are
higher levels of adminitration.

Fred

> From: Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:37 +0200
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: sysop vs. admin
>
> NSK wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What are the differences between the terms "sysop" and "admin" and which one
>> do you think is better and why?
>
> Don't you have a dictionary ?
> In which way does your question relate to wikipedia project ?
>
>
> Administrator:
> Some one who direct and manage an organisation, a community.
>
> Sysop:
> Means "SYStem OPerator" an administrator of a computer service, be it
> a server, a forum or a wiki.
>
> Basicly administrator is used widely, whereas sysop is almost only used
> in the computer field.
>
> See also:
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Administrator
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysop
>
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Why not?  How is "this is a tree" any different from "this is a school"?

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
If you want to write an article on a tree, and can
clearly provide references on it, with facts that will
distinguish it from the general class of trees, then
go ahead - we can look at it, but I would not be
inclined to delete it unless you were simply making
millions of articles saying:
Tree1:This is a tree.
Tree2:This is a tree.
If you can do this, then let's see.
Mark

--- Rick wrote:

> So is every building in the world, every park in the
> world, every street in the world, every tree in the
> world. Should we have articles on every one of
> those things?
>
> RickK
>
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
> John Lee wrote:
>
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Rambot articles are of disputable
> encyclopedicness.
> >>
> > Places are certainly encyclopedic.
>
> Schools are places.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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


body:
I approve of this idea but it has been rejected by the users of the English
Wikipedia. It was not included in the jurisdiction of the Arbitration
Commitee. There was very little support for it.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:17:28 +0200
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
>
> Translation of 10B is this :
>
> Arbitration will apply to all type of conflicts, without distinction and
> arbitration decisions may directly be applied to relevance/accuracy or
> validity of contents.
>
> -----
>
> Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be
> interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do
> anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles.
> Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."
>
> In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration
> committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide
> over the community what is correct from what is not.
>
> I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and
> I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of
> reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.
>
> This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is
> giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new
> sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users
> indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what
> is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community
> itself.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>But let's look at some
>real numbers.  Britannica has 120,000 articles.  We have 380,000.  So right
>there our idea of encyclopedic is 3 times as broad as Britannica (68% of our
>articles aren't encyclopedic by the Britannica standard) and we don't even
>cover all of the articles Britannica has, so this number is an
>underestimate.
>
I'd consider it a pretty significant overestimate.  Britannica is
clearly not comprehensive, and lacks many articles few people would
dispute have encyclopedic value, such as many of the world's major
national parks, presidents of nations, very popular music groups, and so on.

>In the period from October 22-26 inclusive (UTC), 200
>articles were listed on VFD, and 4300 were created.  So by ignoring VFD
>we're cutting out 5% of our encyclopedia.  Considering that these articles
>are probably those on which the world has the least free information, this
>is a significant loss in my opinion.
>
I doubt that assessment.  If you look through the articles actually on
VfD, a relatively small percentage are actually controversial (the
school example being one).  To take the top 15 articles currently on VfD
(starting at Oct. 22), there are:
-- a 16-year-old high school student's entry on himself
-- a page created accidentally
-- a misspelled page which looks like it will be kept now that the real
name has been found and verified
-- a random person who lives in Georgia and once played in a high school
marching band
-- an original work of fiction
-- something claimed to be "pseudoscientific nonsense", a claim and
listing that was retracted prior to any comment
-- a music album, with votes about evenly split keep/delete
-- the slogan "The World has been divided into the camps of believers
and disbelievers"
-- a music album; almost all votes to keep
-- a type of tram; almost all votes to keep
-- a person who once wrote for a newspaper
-- a copy of a post someone once made to Slashdot
-- an obscure sport; nearly all votes to keep
-- a list of palestinians killed by israelis, claimed to be unverifiable
and impossible to complete; votes somewhat split
-- a dictionary definition of the word "proliferate"

As you can see, most of those are not particularly controversial, and of
those that are controversial, almost all have overwhelming support to
keep, with usually only the original lister suggesting deletion and
nobody else agreeing with them.

So I would reduce the 5% estimate to perhaps 0.5% at most.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
I appologise if implyed that you have called me a
troll, that was a complete misrepresentation. You
never have.

I honestly did think that you were making the claim
that hardly anyone wants to keep school articles, or
at least, that not as many want to keep them as want
to delete them.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll set me right.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Please point to a single, solitary posting of mine
> which has EVER said that no one cares about the
> shool articles.  I have NEVER made that claim, and I
> do not believe it.
>
> Please note that I disagree with you intensely, but
> have never called you a troll.
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> That there is a small group of people who are intent
> on deleting certain classes of factual, verifiable
> articles.
>
> What Anthony seems to be saying, in response to your
> comment that no one cares about the schools
> articles,
> is that hardly anyone cares about most of the
> articles. Outside of a core of articles that many
> people read, there are many that few people read.
>
> The fact that they are of interest to a few, rather
> than many, is not reason to delete them.
>
> Mark
>
> --- Rick wrote:
>
> > Are you really trying to claim that there is some
> > cabal out there plotting to delete 90% of the
> > content of Wikipedia? If not, what ARE you trying
> > to say?
> >
> > RickK
> >
> > Anthony DiPierro
> > wrote:
> > So you don't see how we'd lose from deleting 90%
> of
> > the articles we have? I
> > guess we'd still be better than the other freely
> > distributed online
> > encyclopedias; we'd be free as in freedom and have
> > more in depth coverage,
> > but I seriously doubt we'd be able to crush them
> out
> > of existence within 5
> > years.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile
> > phone.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
I'm sorry Rick, I don't see the personal attack.

Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Personal attack by Mark Richards.  Who's going to be
> the first to jump on the "Mark, you should stop
> making personal attacks" bandwagon?  Wanna bet not a
> single solitary person?  Where's the admin
> suggesting that Mark stop posting about this?  I
> refrained for several days, because I was asked to,
> but I'm not going to keep refraining when I'm the
> subject of attacks like this and NSK's, and dont'
> have the right to defend myself, and when Mark keeps
> churning out the same arguments.
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rambot articles are certainly controversial, as are
> schools. There are schools that you have deleted
> that
> are attended by more people than live in some of the
> Rambot towns that have been kept.
>
> He is pointing out how stupid and inconsistant your
> ideas of 'notablity' and 'encyclopedic' are.
>
> Mark
>
> --- Rick wrote:
>
> > What odd comments coming from someone who wants to
> > keep everything.
> >
> > How can articles about cities and towns possibly
> be
> > considered nonencyclopedic?
> >
> > RickK
> >
> > Anthony DiPierro
> > wrote:
> > Rambot articles are of disputable
> encyclopedicness.
> > Pokemon articles are of
> > disputable encyclopedicness. Articles on years and
> > numbers, and lists are
> > of disputable encyclopedicness. But none of these
> > are listed on VFD.
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> > finish.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download
> now.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Because there are not any articles that are 'this is a
school'. They are articles that describe a particular
school, with unique information.

This is a straw-tree argument.

Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why not?  How is "this is a tree" any different from
> "this is a school"?
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you want to write an article on a tree, and can
> clearly provide references on it, with facts that
> will
> distinguish it from the general class of trees, then
> go ahead - we can look at it, but I would not be
> inclined to delete it unless you were simply making
> millions of articles saying:
> Tree1:This is a tree.
> Tree2:This is a tree.
> If you can do this, then let's see.
> Mark
>
> --- Rick wrote:
>
> > So is every building in the world, every park in
> the
> > world, every street in the world, every tree in
> the
> > world. Should we have articles on every one of
> > those things?
> >
> > RickK
> >
> > Nicholas Knight wrote:
> > John Lee wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Rambot articles are of disputable
> > encyclopedicness.
> > >>
> > > Places are certainly encyclopedic.
> >
> > Schools are places.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> > finish.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download
> now.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Well, perhaps 'stupid' was a little inflamatory, but
they are certainly inconsistant.

No personal attack intended, but the ideas are
nonsense on stilts, and it was the ideas, not the
person, being attacked.

Mark

--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:

> Rick is right. The "stupid and inconsistant" talk is
> inappropriate.
> The timeout was for "Anthony, Rick and others." It
> was for everyone
> who has fed this running battle.
>
> Please take this to
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion
>
> Thanks.
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Rick
> <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Personal attack by Mark Richards.  Who's going to
> be the first to jump on the "Mark, you should stop
> making personal attacks" bandwagon?  Wanna bet not a
> single solitary person?  Where's the admin
> suggesting that Mark stop posting about this?  I
> refrained for several days, because I was asked to,
> but I'm not going to keep refraining when I'm the
> subject of attacks like this and NSK's, and dont'
> have the right to defend myself, and when Mark keeps
> churning out the same arguments.
> >
> > RickK
> >
> > Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Rambot articles are certainly controversial, as
> are
> > schools. There are schools that you have deleted
> that
> > are attended by more people than live in some of
> the
> > Rambot towns that have been kept.
> >
> > He is pointing out how stupid and inconsistant
> your
> > ideas of 'notablity' and 'encyclopedic' are.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > --- Rick wrote:
> >
> > > What odd comments coming from someone who wants
> to
> > > keep everything.
> > >
> > > How can articles about cities and towns possibly
> be
> > > considered nonencyclopedic?
> > >
> > > RickK
> > >
> > > Anthony DiPierro
> > > wrote:
> > > Rambot articles are of disputable
> encyclopedicness.
> > > Pokemon articles are of
> > > disputable encyclopedicness. Articles on years
> and
> > > numbers, and lists are
> > > of disputable encyclopedicness. But none of
> these
> > > are listed on VFD.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> > > finish.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download
> now.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Lih
> andrew.lih at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

body:
I'm taking a week off from Wikipedia. Too much stress.

And, yes, I know, I started all the threads that are stressing me out.

Ed Poor


body:
Anthere wrote:

> As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision
> "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one"
> or "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".

I don't believe we have, and probably aren't likely to, although some of
the decisions indirectly have that effect.  When problematic people are
banned, their articles are of course usually reverted or deleted if the
banned person was the only one supporting that revision or article.  If
other people who aren't problematic advocate whatever position the
banned person held, we don't interfere with that.

-Mark


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/maintenance/archives
 patch-userlevels-defaultgroups.sql, 1.2, 1.3

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/maintenance/archives
> In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv5272
>
> Modified Files:
> 	patch-userlevels-defaultgroups.sql
> Log Message:
> Give sysops & bureaucrats the 'sysop' permission so they can edit protected pages!
>
>
> Index: patch-userlevels-defaultgroups.sql
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/maintenance/archives/patch-userlevels-defaultgroups.sql,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> retrieving revision 1.3
> diff -C2 -d -r1.2 -r1.3
> *** patch-userlevels-defaultgroups.sql	24 Oct 2004 22:28:21 -0000	1.2
> --- patch-userlevels-defaultgroups.sql	27 Oct 2004 07:20:47 -0000	1.3
> ***************
> *** 9,13 ****
>   	VALUES (2,'Loggedin','General logged in users','read,edit,move,upload');
>   INSERT INTO `group` (group_id,group_name,group_description,group_rights)
> ! 	VALUES (3,'Sysops','Operators of this site','read,edit,move,delete,undelete,protect,block,upload,asksql,rollback,patrol,editinterface');
>   INSERT INTO `group` (group_id,group_name,group_description,group_rights)
> ! 	VALUES (4,'Bureaucrat','The bureaucrat group is able to make sysops for example. They have no other rights.','read,edit,move,delete,undelete,protect,block,userrights,createaccount,upload,asksql,rollback,patrol,editinterface,siteadmin');
> --- 9,13 ----
>   	VALUES (2,'Loggedin','General logged in users','read,edit,move,upload');
>   INSERT INTO `group` (group_id,group_name,group_description,group_rights)
> ! 	VALUES (3,'Sysops','Operators of this site','read,edit,move,delete,undelete,protect,block,upload,asksql,rollback,patrol,editinterface,sysop');
>   INSERT INTO `group` (group_id,group_name,group_description,group_rights)
> ! 	VALUES (4,'Bureaucrat','The bureaucrat group is able to make sysops for example. They have no other rights.','read,edit,move,delete,undelete,protect,block,userrights,createaccount,upload,asksql,rollback,patrol,editinterface,siteadmin,sysop');

Hello,

This is more like a bug in editpage. User with "protect" right should be
able to edit a protected page.
The whole idea of the new user level rights system is to assign to
groups some actions that can be made, naming an action "sysop" is not
really intended :o)

I will try to fix it later, I am ill today ;(

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Has someone done a presentation on Wikipedia to a
	large group?

body:
ilooy wrote:
> Hi fellow Wikipedians,
>
> I'll be doing a presentation on Wikipedia for
> the McAuliffe Conference and the NHAWLT
> Teachers' Conference in the coming weeks
> and was wondering if anyone else has done
> a presentation to a large group... what features
> would be good to highlight... and what seems
> to work well with a group that has not heard
> much about the project yet.
>
> If you have some ideas as to what might
> be good points to bring out please let me
> know. I appreciate any insights you may
> offer on this subject.
>
> with sincere regards,
> Jay B.
> [[w:en:User:ILVI]]

Hello,

I presented "MediaWiki as a collaborative tool" using Wikipedia as an
example. Auditors were professional from education / training , or came
from companies that either sale collaborative tools or use them (like
lotus notes).

I briefly presented the concept of wiki (everyone can edit, edit are
instantly available, no moderator ...). Explained that a project use it
to build a free encyclopedia (wikipedia) and that despite a lot of
objections it works.

You will probably have to read several time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections

Comparing wikipedia to the linux kernel helped me a lot ('it will never
works', 'we can trust that').

Basicly it was:

1/ introducing the wiki system
2/ examples using wikipedia (how to view, edit, save a page, talk)
3/ giving a table of some objections and our answers (like vandalism is
fight by having 20x more people willing to fix them)
4/ Questions / answers

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Nagios: host and service monitoring

body:
Hello,

This email is intended to WikiMedia servers administrators.

I installed and configured Nagios ( http://www.nagios.org/ ) wich is a
website to monitor host and services as well as a tool to plan downtime
and comment about service shutdowns.

It can be accessed at:
   http://zwinger.wikipedia.org/~hashar/nagios/

Login and password are in our zwinger:doc directory.

Nagios is split in 3 part:
  1/ web engine (using cgi)
  2/ a daemon
  3/ plugins to check services (like check_http, check_ping)

web engine and daemon are currently installed in my home dir on zwinger.
Plugins should be spread on all machines to be able to check for local
services through ssh, wich is not really done right now. Actually it
just test ssh, http, ping, squid availability.

Server can be assigned to a hostgroup. Each group can be assigned a
contact-group (ex: database administrators) with several contacts (shai,
brion, jeronim ..). When a service / host goes down, a notification is
raised to the group, we can even have notification enabled only during
work-hour !

Let's have a tour at the interface:

'Tactical Overview' let you have a global report of what's actually down
through the network, be it disk usage > 90% , host down, ssh not answering.

'Host detail' let you know which servers are up/down while 'Host
service' give you a more detailed view (like http on alrazi is down). In
each view you will see when the host/service got last checked.

'Status overview' aggregate server view per hostgroups (mysql-servers,
apache-servers ...).

The most interesting feature is being able to add comment for every
outage and aknowledge a trouble (for example when you are working on
it). You can try it by having a look at Yang switch for which I briefly
explain why it's an outage. We can even stop monitoring this host.

Notification is available through plugins, actually email is somehow
available but we can have messages sent to pager or on irc :o)

Another feature is the ability to plan downtime window, during that
window, the host will no more be monitored and no notification sent.

Also have a look at the various reporting form availables. It's a good
way to find which host have recurrent troubles.

Basicly I would like, if possible, to have every one look at the
interface and play with it a bit then come back to me with their
impression. If we are interested in having this tool available I will
write a doc to install it cleanly on the foundation servers :o)

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


from_name: Dori

body:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:33, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Wikisource has agreed to accept dissertations, but for the protection of
> > the GFDL we do ask that those people identify themselves.
>
> I do support GFDL but I doubt I would allow commercial exploitation and
> modification of my dissertation, unless you can offer me very good arguments
> in support of this.
>
> BTW most of my wikis allow every author to choose any licensing they like and
> I have received good comments about this. For example:
> http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php?title=User_talk:MattisManzel&curid=933&diff=0&oldid=2088
>
> Has Wikimedia examined other licensing options? I know there are many people
> who mostly support CC et cetera.

Yes

--
[[en:User:Dori]]


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] NSK

body:
How are you hurt if you don't come out and admit you don't edit
Wikipedia much, if at all? We won't hurt you. We're just curious. We
aren't judging your proposals based on who they're coming from, but if
they sound ridiculous, then the way we look at them does depend on who
you are. If it was, say, any known active Wikipedian, then we'd know for
sure that something has to be corrected. But musings from someone who is
not active on Wikipedia are likely to be way off.

 From your postings, I think we've already established you aren't an
active editor - that's okay with me. But you should know that trying to
cover this up will only hurt your reputation instead of enhancing it.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

NSK wrote:

>On Wednesday 27 October 2004 03:24, Delirium wrote:
>
>
>>it's natural that your ideas
>>will be treated more skeptically than those of someone who is
>>demostrably familiar with the community
>>
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>I think it would be a good idea if people could examine ideas and decide on
>their usefulness without considering who proposed these ideas.
>
>Consider for example that it is possible that a well-known community member
>may say something wrong and a newcomer can say something useful.
>
>So, although some people may be somewhat sceptical seeing a non-familiar name
>in their To: headers, they should examine the ideas and not the poster; or at
>least this is my opinion.
>
>
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
> >Rambot articles are of disputable encyclopedicness.
> Places are certainly encyclopedic.
Places are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.

> > Articles on years and numbers, and lists are of disputable
encyclopedicness.
> >
> Depends on the subject. Most of them are encyclopedic, though (I don't
> really understand why we need lists now when we have categories, though).

Can you point to a single encyclopedia that has articles on years?  What
about non-cardinal numbers?  Lists I think are clearly unencyclopedic.

> It just means Britannica is paper.   Wikipedia is not. Statistics can be
> twisted to back any argument. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can
> afford more articles.
Well, encarta isn't.  But that Wikipedia is inherently more inclusive than
traditional encyclopedias is exactly the point.  Taking a standard like
"encyclopedic" and applying it on an article by article basis makes no
sense.  I agree that articles need to be encyclopedic, but to me that's
about topic, and not about specific instances.  People, schools, companies,
places, these are topics which are in encyclopedias.  Verbs, adjectives,
years, non-cardinal numbers, these aren't.

> I did not argue for an ignorance about what goes on in VFD; what I was
> saying is that much of the articles on which there is such heated
> argument (most common example: schools) are often not as relevant to the
> creation of an enyclopedia.

Well, that's clearly just your opinion.  Those who are arguing for inclusion
of these schools obviously don't feel that way.

>  Schools are relevant only to the population of a certain area.
That's more relevant than many of the other articles in an encyclopedia.
I'm sure I only have to hit "random page" 5 or 6 times before I find
something just about no one cares about.  But, I mean, should I count "Franz
Werfel"?  I'd bet my chemistry teacher changed more lives than he did.
"Hustle is a British TV drama series"?  I mean, more people have heard about
it, maybe, but has it really affected anyone's life?  I mean, c'mon, you
agree we should have articles on places.  Those are relevant to just as many
people as schools.  In fact, one solution to schools other than deletion is
to merge them with their town and redirect.

And you want to talk about substubs?  Rambot articles have less useful
information than most school articles.

[[342]].  There's a year I bet gets a ton of hits, from google searches and
the like.  I mean, I always search on random years when I'm bored.   [[163
(number)]].  This makes us look good?

> Obscure mathematical or scientific concepts, or an
> obscure architect, etc., on the other hand, probably have contributed
> more to the world than any one school.

Depends on the concept, and on the school.

> Perhaps using the word "indisputably" was a mistake. The
> phrase "almost certainly" is probably closer to what I was
> trying to say. It's just an exaggeration for a statement, much
> like your estimate of 90%.

My 90% was based on your "indisputably".

> In short, school articles are nice to have, but higher
> priority should be given to those who have done things on a
> global/national/state-level basis.

So now they're nice to have?  Before I thought you said deleting them would
cause no harm.  Deleting school articles causes two problems.  They remove
something that's nice to have and they waste time on deletion that could be
spend improving articles that are in your opinion more important.

> What I'm trying to say is: We need to learn to differentiate between
> articles that are nice to have and essential.

I firmly disagree.

> Having substub school articles makes us look bad.
Most of the school listings aren't substubs, but if you think substubs make
us look bad, move them to the talk page until they're finished.

> I doubt that assessment.  If you look through the articles actually on
> VfD, a relatively small percentage are actually controversial (the
> school example being one).

If was a rough number, but I think it was if anything a low estimate.  For
every school we delete, there are 100 others that aren't written for fear
that they'll just be deleted.  There are hundreds of thousands of schools.
There are millions of teachers, nearly a million actors, hundreds of
thousands of movies, etc.  Deletionists are keep *all of these* out of
Wikipedia.

> As you can see, most of those are not particularly controversial
Most of them should be kept.

Anthony


from_name: Jean-Christophe Chazalette

subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content

body:
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast
majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took
place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the
arbitration rules.

Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following
: "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the
articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can
relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to
the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."

There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or
articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.

The current poll is expected  to last until nov. 7 and could lead to
enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.

Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line
regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a
dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes
sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.

Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support
her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing.
So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village
pump, I'd  like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation,
especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.

Thanks.

villy


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Muke Tever

subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

references:
<417CB8C9.1030804@yahoo.it> <opsgfimagw2okkek@arcadia.attbi.com>
	<417FF3CC.5030909@yahoo.it>

body:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:15:24 +0200, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>> Looks like:
>> http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Nogomatch
>>
>> In action:
>> http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Specialis:Search?search=absentia&go=Ire
>>
>> Question:  Would it make more sense to link to a search on the other
>> language wikis instead of the article directly?
>>
> Hi, I tried this out, but I am not quite sure to understand. You mean
> that if I implement the same kind of page the search function
> automatically returns the page with the results and the links to the
> other wiktionaries above. This could be a solution.

If it helps any, here is the translation of the box one gets when one searches for "absentia", which does not yet exist in the Latin Wiktionary:

"Wiktionary does not yet have an article about "absentia", trying full text search.
Do you wish to create a new article "absentia"?
If you look at links to "absentia", maybe you will find out something about this word.
Maybe there is an article "absentia" in other Wiktionaries:
"absentia" in English | Polish | Dutch | German | French Wiktionary"

And the links, in order:
* to create a new article "absentia"
* view pages that link to "absentia"
* http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absentia
* http://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/absentia
* http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/absentia
* http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/absentia
* http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/absentia

I include the link to "what links here" because usually words in Wiktionary are linked because they are being defined (e.g. in translations lists) or are used to define something else (in definitions of foreign words).

I do think now it'd be a better idea to link to the "Go" search instead of the article directly.  Especially since users expect search to be case-insensitive and if e.g. "Absentia" is capitalized on a non-capitalizing wiktionary (if there is a German word "die Absentia", I suppose) the link to "absentia" will take them to an empty page, and not tell them that "Absentia" exists.  I will change it tonight.

By the way, is there a list of wiktionaries by size?  It might be most productive for the list of links to be to the five or so largest ones; I'm not sure whether these are those.

> Linking to other search results would be OK, but not to another search
> window to be compiled - so if you think about a page that shows the
> different search results on other wiktionaries I think this would be OK,
> otherwise I prefer the link how you  did it now.

I'm not sure I understand what is being said here.  I can link to searches on other wiktionaries but I don't think I can display the search results all on the same page.

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
>> When you insert a term you need to insert exactly that term to have
>> just "the one present page" as result (when using the button "Go").
>> When using "search" instead  often there's no result even if I know
>> that this term is there. And there seems to be no full-text-search in
>> all pages. Or is there something I am missing, something I don't know?
>>
> I think this kind of search has been disabled, because it was
> overloading the server. What happens now is that Google can be
> searched with en.wiktionary.org or it.wiktionary.org as a subdomain.
>
>
Hi Jo,

I am not sure if I understood this. To search wiktionary I should insert
http://en.wiktionary.org.google.com/
in my browser?

or are you talking about the advanced search
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
and in the first part in the field under "anywhere in the page" on the
right side you insert it.wiktionary.org?

I tried both and searched for a term I know that has to be there, but
there are no results.

Could you exaclty tell me how to do this so I can create an example with
screenshots and insert it on the wiktionary itself and on my portal for
translators.

Thank you!!!

Ciao, Sabine


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I have no objective data about our proportion of "American geeks", and
> I would say that your asserion that the rest of Wikipedia doesn't mind
> being deleted by them is not evidence based.

Yes, there are people who mind, but the average user won't notice the
deletion of articles on a Hong Kong handbag company or a school. They
will notice if you delete an article on, say, Gucci, or Eton, because
those are indisputably encyclopedic. Where there's a grey area, the only
people who actually make a big deal about it are inclusionists and
deletionists, because most of them lack an ability to accept "in
between" things, like most extremists.

Although I sound like a deletionist, in reality, like Dpbsmith, I am a
strong neutral on much of this - I don't see how Wikipedia gains or
loses from the creation or deletion of any of these articles, unless
indisputably encyclopedic. And though there is no hard evidence, I think
it's suggestive how there are never any complaints about the deletion or
creation of these articles except from the article's author(s) and the
hardline inclusionists/deletionists.

> While there is some element of truth to the belief that "an"
> encyclopedia is not "drastically" hurt by deleting school articles.
> The conclusions that you extrapolate from that are little more than
> sophistry.  Yes, eventually we should have more school articels, but
> meanwhile they need to be subjugated to a deletionist gauntlet which
> then turn around and says that the paucity of such articles justifies
> the deletion of additional ones.

It depends on how they use the deletion of an article to justify the
deletion of another. Articles under a grey area of encyclopedic value
should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The last thing we need is for
everything to be handled in a cookie cutter manner.

> This may be hypocrisy as well as sophistry.  You have purported to
> reflect the community, but have you tested your hypothesis, or are you
> just engaging in pseudoscience?

My hypothesis is based on my experience that it is only the hardliners
and those who have nothing better to do complain about the deletion or
creation of such articles. Most users couldn't care less.

>   And to close by saying, "WE must work with the community, even if
> YOU think it's an unreasonable one."  Is this rhetorical flourish or
> what?  It's a clever change from first to second person in the
> sentence.  Where do you get the idea that the rest of us consider the
> community unreasonable?  We may consider you unreasonable, but you are
> not the community.

It was 1AM when I wrote that, so maybe I wasn't paying attention to my
writing, but what I was trying to say was that even if you think it's
unfair that much of the community doesn't care very much about the
inclusion or deletion of certain articles, trying to subvert the process
isn't helping your cause (this applies to both deletionists and
inclusionists).

> Ec

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
Muke Tever wrote:

>> When you insert a term you need to insert exactly that term to have just
>> "the one present page" as result (when using the button "Go"). When
>> using "search" instead  often there's no result even if I know that this
>> term is there. And there seems to be no full-text-search in all pages.
>> Or is there something I am missing, something I don't know?
>
>
> Full-text search is turned off for at least several hours a day.  To
> get around this on la.wikt I added a link in [[Mediawiki:Nogomatch]]
> to list pages that link to the search query--if you are looking for a
> key word and the article itself does not exist, it may be linked to in
> an article that defines it by context or in translation.
>
> I also put in, besides that and the option to create the article,
> automatic links to what article the search term may have on en: pl:
> nl: de: and fr:.
>
> Looks like:
> http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Nogomatch
>
> In action:
> http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Specialis:Search?search=absentia&go=Ire
>
> Question:  Would it make more sense to link to a search on the other
> language wikis instead of the article directly?
>
>
Hi, I tried this out, but I am not quite sure to understand. You mean
that if I implement the same kind of page the search function
automatically returns the page with the results and the links to the
other wiktionaries above. This could be a solution.

Linking to other search results would be OK, but not to another search
window to be compiled - so if you think about a page that shows the
different search results on other wiktionaries I think this would be OK,
otherwise I prefer the link how you  did it now.

Ciao, Sabine


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:

>
>>> When you insert a term you need to insert exactly that term to have
>>> just "the one present page" as result (when using the button "Go").
>>> When using "search" instead  often there's no result even if I know
>>> that this term is there. And there seems to be no full-text-search
>>> in all pages. Or is there something I am missing, something I don't
>>> know?
>>>
>> I think this kind of search has been disabled, because it was
>> overloading the server. What happens now is that Google can be
>> searched with en.wiktionary.org or it.wiktionary.org as a subdomain.
>>
>>
> Hi Jo,
>
> I am not sure if I understood this. To search wiktionary I should insert
> http://en.wiktionary.org.google.com/
> in my browser?
>
> or are you talking about the advanced search
> http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
> and in the first part in the field under "anywhere in the page" on the
> right side you insert it.wiktionary.org?
>
> I tried both and searched for a term I know that has to be there, but
> there are no results.
>
> Could you exaclty tell me how to do this so I can create an example
> with screenshots and insert it on the wiktionary itself and on my
> portal for translators.
>
> Thank you!!!
>
> Ciao, Sabine

Hoi,
Try
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Google+Search&domains=it.wiktionary.org&sitesearch=it.wiktionary.org
This should do the trick. Notice that there are two time "it" in there
change this for any other wiktioanry. :)

PS Have you had a look at what I have done in Access ??

PS2 I just learned that all the names of languages in Czech are wrong;
they should NOT be in capitols :(


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
John Lee wrote:

> Depends on the subject. Most of them are encyclopedic, though (I don't
> really understand why we need lists now when we have categories, though).

Lists can be annotated. Also, lists can be sorted other than in alphabetical
order (all that categories allow).

What I'd *really* like to see wiped off the face of the Wikipedia is
article series boxes. Those are what categories should be eliminating.
(I realise this doesn't have consensus. But I can dream!)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] three lefts = right

body:
> I'm also sick and tired of being attacked for making person attacks,
> when the people on the other side who also make the personal
> attacks get a free ride.

> RickK

You're an admin, RickK.  We hold you to a higher standard than a newb who
"doesn't edit Wikipedia that much".

Anthony


subject: [Wiktionary-l] search function

body:
>
> Hoi,
> Try
> http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Google+Search&domains=it.wiktionary.org&sitesearch=it.wiktionary.org
>
> This should do the trick. Notice that there are two time "it" in there
> change this for any other wiktioanry. :)

OK Thank you Gerard!

I just added this note to my portal as well - and will insert in in my
weekly update on wiktionary I send to Langit and Biblit - one more
advantage :-)

>
> PS Have you had a look at what I have done in Access ??

Yes, but I have a real problem: if we would like to use the Papiamentu
stuff  I need to see the translation into German, Italian, French,
Spanish or any other language I understand beneath to insert if it is a
noun or anything else.

I can work with this system only for the languages I know. Another
problem I have: sometimes I could immediately add German and/or Italian
so for now I will create the attributes for Italian and German and we
have part of it done - than, before going ahead I must first of all
insert the translations into the table. Is there an online dictionary
for Dutch-German? This could help a lot to complete the tables (besides
the fact that I'll get used to Dutch as well ;-)
Is there a way to copy the noun/verb/adjective etc. attribute to the
other languages in the table as well?

>
> PS2 I just learned that all the names of languages in Czech are wrong;
> they should NOT be in capitols :(

Hmmm ...  - I'll check the languages on the Italian wiktionary to
according to this info - strange enough I don't have any Czech language
names in my table ... or maybe it is an advantage that I did not copy
them up to now.

We need some people to do this kind of work.

Btw.: when discussing with people on Langit an Italian speaking
discussion group would be good - this way I could also ask for help for
specific items - now I can send in a review just once a week, otherwise
it would be too much for the list members that are not interested in
wiktionary.

I'll be back later on.

Ciao, Sabine

>


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject:
[WikiEN-l] off-topic political thread (was "More anti-US bias in
	Current Events")

body:
On 27 Oct 2004, at 14:28, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> In the course of a Canadian Broadcating Corporation program on the US
> election it reported on a survey of whom Canadians would vote for if
> they could.  80% favored Kerry.  That's an astounding ratio, but I
> suspect that a similar result would be found in many countries.

You bet it is: http://www.iht.com/articles/537873.html

Try running around with a Kerry T-shirt in Germany. Some people will
actually give you stern looks -- not because they're against Kerry, but
because they've started to despise the entire U.S. during Dubya's
tenure. Where I currently live (in Germany), there essentially are two
opposing groups: The better informed ones (who love Kerry), and the
less well informed ones (who now just hate all of the U.S., and
everything about it, including the U.S. flag on Kerry T-shirts). I have
yet to meet ANY Bush supporting Germans. If they exist.

> The damage that Bush has done to the reputation of the United States
> may take at least a generation to repair.

That's not what frightens me most.

What frightens me most is the spectre of another 9/11:
George Bush senior's (and Reagan's) policies sow the seeds for 9/11 and
now Bush junior is committing the very same political mortal sins (only
this time they're actually raised to the power of n). Al Qaeda couldn't
be happier. Bush junior has guaranteed them a steady stream of new
recruits for generations to come. Including recruits from countries
where al Qaeda didn't previously exist, such as Iraq.

Ok, considering that this story was hardly reported in the U.S. --
here's a quick recap:

During the Kuwait crisis, the Bush senior administration relayed
satellite photos to the Saudis. The satellite photos reportedly showed
Saddam amassing troops on the Iraqi-Saudi border, supposedly on the
verge of invading Saudi Arabia. The only trouble is the troops were
just not there. The satellite photos were likely doctored. Even today,
traces of German WWII troop movements (under "desert fox" Erich Rommel)
can still be seen from space. However only 14 years later there is no
such trace from Saddams army on the Iraqi-Saudi border. Also, Russian
satellite photographs were made publicly available (in the U.S. only
one (regional) newspaper printed them). The Russian photos showed NO
Iraqi troops on said border. Nevertheless the photographs had their
desired effect -- shortly afterwards, the Saudis allowed U.S. troops
into their country.
Granted, we don't know if Bush tricked the Saudi government with the
above satellite photos. The Saudi government might have been in on the
deal and might have used this together with the U.S. to sway the Saudi
public's opinion. On the other hand, it's intriguing that the U.S. have
only very recently (and rather silently) started withdrawing from Saudi
-- and that withdrawal was AFTER the 9/11 attacks in which Saudi
nationals had a hand. (Conspiracy theories may however not be
warranted. Maybe the way the U.S. military is overstretched has more to
do with the withdrawal.)

Now, the fact that the Saudis allowed U.S. troops into their country in
the early nineties -- this totally shocked and outraged an affluent
Saudi, the former "Afghanistan resistance fighter" (CIA trained in that
context) Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden (an extreme Islamist religious fundamentalist) had at a time
been moderately pro-U.S. He had been grateful for the U.S. help in
bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan (and kicking the Soviets
out of there, which was the reason why Reagan/Bush senior were so happy
to deal with, support and install the Taliban). Bin Laden became
opposed to the U.S. over U.S. support of Israel's continued attacks
against Palestinian civilians. Because of these Israeli attacks, bin
Laden grew sympathetic to the POV of Palestinian terrorists and suicide
bombers. However, his attitude and views really changed when U.S.
troops entered Saudi. Bin Laden (arguably not a peaceful man before
either) got totally, murderously outraged by this -- in his eyes the
U.S. troop presence amounted to "infidels" desecrating Islam's holy
land. And not just infidels but actual infidel soldiers!
Including--gosh--WOMEN SOLDIERS!! And not through an invasion but
actually ''with the consent'' of the Saudi government. Bin Laden
started hating the Saudi government and the U.S. (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/panorama/01/laden_clip2.ram --
Real player format). He started to openly campaign against the Saudi
government and the U.S. This led to him getting ousted from Saudi (and
getting denied some or most of his money at that stage). He next
settled in Sudan and started to build a radical terrorist organization,
both from scratch and by using and building on his existing contacts
and expertise (the expertise again was in part obtained through his CIA
training). Al Qaeda started to grow and operate (African U.S. embassy
bombings, U.S. Cole, etc.). NB: Perhaps surprisingly al Qaeda was less
funded by bin Laden's personal fortune (see above) than by individual
follower's contributions. Sure, Clinton aggressively pursued bin Laden,
ordered him killed and bombed bin Laden's later Afghanistan hideouts
with cruise missles, but Clinton didn't manage to take him out.
However, bin Laden didn't strike on U.S. soil during Clinton's watch
either.

Bush senior probably could not have foreseen that this particular
nutcase extremist bin Laden was to turn terrorist over U.S. troops
moving into Saudi. BUT he could have and should have been aware of and
understood the local attitudes and sensitivities. And from that it's
not rocket science to figure out that if you're royally pissing off a
fair share of the local populace, then among that populace there are
bound to be some nutcases who will simply flip. So while I don't think
that Bush senior is personally, directly to blame for 9/11, there
nevertheless is a clear connection between his administration's
policies and the 9/11 attacks. With slightly more intelligent policies
and slightly more truthful diplomacy I think at least bin Laden would
not have mutated into the maniacal terrorist mastermind he has become
and that tells me that there is a fair chance that without the events
on Bush senior's watch 9/11 would not have happened.

To finally come to my main point:
There is little historical parallel to the extent and way Bush junior
now has pissed of and continues to piss off sh*tloads of people in the
Arab world. Al Qaeda recruitment is up, and that's very clearly thanks
to Bush jr. This could easily have been avoided.

What really frightens me then is this:
As the bin Laden example has again demonstrated, mercilessly murderous
terrorists have a long, long memory. Terrorism has a rather long
incubation period. Worse, there is little chance of a cure once an
infection has taken place. I hate to say it, but I suspect that
regardless of how the election turns out, the enormity of Bush's
actions has already ensured that the U.S. will see several further
9/11s. I have high hopes about the determination and skill of the
current opposition to turn things around and defuse a great many future
terrorist threats. But I still fear that given what the current
administration has already done, the point of no return may already be
past for quite a few future terrorists and it may no longer be possible
to avoid all further attacks -- it may only be possible to reduce their
scale and frequency. And that's only '''if''' the two Johns play their
cards right. And ''if'' America dumps the current incumbent. I hate to
think what'll happen if they don't.

> No US president has been so widely reviled around the world as the
> current one.

No US president has been so widely off the mark as regards world
politics as the current one.

> The opportunities which the 9/11 tragedy afforded him to improve
> international co-operation he has turned into a disastrous legacy of
> bitterness, hatred and resentment.  The platitude about keeping
> America strong does not win friends anywhere, because at anywhere law
> applies equally to the ultra powerful.
>
> To keep my observations on domestic policies short, the US has not
> seen a comparable government since Harding.
>
> Ec

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com

PS: A quite informative bin Laden profile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Calling me stupid isn't a personal attack?

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm sorry Rick, I don't see the personal attack.

Mark

--- Rick wrote:

> Personal attack by Mark Richards. Who's going to be
> the first to jump on the "Mark, you should stop
> making personal attacks" bandwagon? Wanna bet not a
> single solitary person? Where's the admin
> suggesting that Mark stop posting about this? I
> refrained for several days, because I was asked to,
> but I'm not going to keep refraining when I'm the
> subject of attacks like this and NSK's, and dont'
> have the right to defend myself, and when Mark keeps
> churning out the same arguments.
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards wrote:
> Rambot articles are certainly controversial, as are
> schools. There are schools that you have deleted
> that
> are attended by more people than live in some of the
> Rambot towns that have been kept.
>
> He is pointing out how stupid and inconsistant your
> ideas of 'notablity' and 'encyclopedic' are.
>
> Mark
>
> --- Rick wrote:
>
> > What odd comments coming from someone who wants to
> > keep everything.
> >
> > How can articles about cities and towns possibly
> be
> > considered nonencyclopedic?
> >
> > RickK
> >
> > Anthony DiPierro
> > wrote:
> > Rambot articles are of disputable
> encyclopedicness.
> > Pokemon articles are of
> > disputable encyclopedicness. Articles on years and
> > numbers, and lists are
> > of disputable encyclopedicness. But none of these
> > are listed on VFD.
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> > finish.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download
> now.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


subject: [WikiEN-l] three lefts = right

body:
So what is the grounds for giving Mark Richards so much slack?

RickK

Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also sick and tired of being attacked for making person attacks,
> when the people on the other side who also make the personal
> attacks get a free ride.

> RickK

You're an admin, RickK. We hold you to a higher standard than a newb who
"doesn't edit Wikipedia that much".

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology for "anti-US" remark

body:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Delirium wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> >On 10/27/04 9:32 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry, Jeff, I wrote hastily. I should have said "Anti-US Military" bias
> >>or "Anti-Bush Administration bias". I apologize for my offensive
> >>wording.
> >>
> >You keep on digging the hole deeper. How was it "anti-US military" bias?
> >
> I find this issue of semantics is kind of annoying, because although I'm
> a strong Bush opponent, I tend to agree with Ed's phrasing.

But it was Ed's phrasing that made me speak up in the first place.

As I explained to him privately, his principal point was that the article
was unbalanced or POV, & that this imbalance offended him. Had he expressed
himself with those words, I doubt anyone would lack sympathy for him.

However, using the phrase "anti-U.S." merely rubs salt into a growing
division here within this country. A large group of people here believe that
as president in a time of war, he deserves unquestioning obedience, & any
languge to the contrary is "anti-U.S." Another group, equally large,
believes that Bush has acted with a mixure of arrogance & incompetence,
which has hurt this country materially & in reputation.

It has not helped that Bush or anyone around him has failed to demonstrate
an awareness of this growing rift, & attempted to address it. I could
speculate why this is, but that would take me away from my point that
this is a very contentious subject within the U.S.; & should Bush manage
to win re-election, I would not be surprised if a significant number of
skilled & educated people leave the U.S. because of it.

>    It is not
> *in principle* "anti-US" or "anti-US-military" bias, but I'd argue that
> *in practice* many people do have an anti-US bias that leads them to
> look for and promote stories that make the US look bad.  This has
> nothing to do with anti-Bush bias---it was the same people doing the
> same thing when Clinton was president and bombing Kosovo.
>
I suspect this is an expression of what is called elsewhere "tall-poppy
syndrome": people angry at the U.S. simply for being the most powerful
country, which will persist whether the U.S. acts with restraint & justice
or not.  (And it doesn't help that we have a leader who has failed to.)
I feel that the best course is to be patient, explain how unjustified
bashing of the U.S. can hurt me, an individual who just wants to contribute
to Wikipedia, & keep in mind that abrasive personalities tend not to last
at Wikipedia.

But the simple fact that I don't have as much time as I would like to
spend on Wikipedia, & I end up dropping most exchanges concerning the U.S.
due to either lack of time or the decision to return to making edits &
contributions to Wikipedia itself. There are far too many disagreements
currently on the Internet that will never be decisively resolved with the
exchange of an email or two, no matter how well thought out they may be.

Geoff (spelled with a G & not a J)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apology for "anti-US" remark

body:
On 27 Oct 2004, at 17:53, Delirium wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/04 9:32 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, Jeff, I wrote hastily. I should have said "Anti-US Military"
>>> bias
>>> or "Anti-Bush Administration bias". I apologize for my offensive
>>> wording.
>>>
>>>
>> You keep on digging the hole deeper. How was it "anti-US military"
>> bias?
>>
> I find this issue of semantics is kind of annoying, because although
> I'm a strong Bush opponent, I tend to agree with Ed's phrasing.  It is
> not *in principle* "anti-US" or "anti-US-military" bias, but I'd argue
> that *in practice* many people do have an anti-US bias that leads them
> to look for and promote stories that make the US look bad.  This has
> nothing to do with anti-Bush bias---it was the same people doing the
> same thing when Clinton was president and bombing Kosovo.
>
> -Mark

With the possible difference being that a complaint that others are
biased against you just sounds so much more convincing if you're not
engaged in an illegal war at the same time.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion as POV

body:
Rick wrote:

>So is every building in the world, every park in the world, every street in the world, every tree in the world.  Should we have articles on every one of those things?
>
Why not? There are biologists who would give their left pinkie
fingers to have a complete and verifiable description of every
tree in the world. Realtors, homebuyers, and residents would
love to know more about particular streets, and buildings too
for that matter. Parks are already well on the way to coverage.

WP's own definition of encyclopedia says "written compendium of human
knowledge", and doesn't limit it to "notable topics only". Printed
encyclopedias had to start pinching down on their content when the
excessive physical size would have bankrupted the publisher, not
because of any desire to reduce coverage.

So it's a little anachronistic to try to prune out "non-notable"
things just because print encyclopedias have done so as part of
making more money.

Stan


from_name: NSK

body:
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:50, ilooy wrote:
> went very smoothly

Good to hear that

> http://localhost/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

It's the same as http://127.0.0.1/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

This is the IP address of your computer. There is nothing wrong with that.

> http://linspiron/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

That's the domain name of your computer. You choose the "linspiron" part
during GNU/Linux installation (can be changed later).

It's your computer; there is nothing wrong with that address.

> somehow the ?index.php? part doesn?t seem

It's right.

MediaWiki uses "pretty URLs" so instead of ? it uses / to make the URL more
beautiful.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org


body:
On 27 Oct 2004, at 20:26, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> 3. You suspect that people dislike you and that they do so because
>> they somehow don't want you to have your own wikis.
>> Lemme put it like this:
>> Imagine some person travelled to the U.S. Now imagine that it turns
>> out that that person didn't actually come as an immigrant, and didn't
>> come to settle in and become a citizen of the country but rather
>> proceeded to lecture the citizens of the U.S. that the Declaration of
>> Independence and all these old handwritten papers were fundamentally
>> unimportant because all men are not created equal and actually,
>> certain people are per se inferior and not to be trusted and it is ok
>> to rape and murder them and plunder their houses, whereas others are
>> really not to be blamed of anything of any consequence, whatever
>> happens and, err... actually...
>
> To put this more starkly:  Imagine visiting a country that has a known
> reputation for human rights violation.  You meet with a small group of
> people and the conversation turns to the human rights situation where
> you have tremendous ideas about what THEY can do to improve things.
> Some of the group show a great deal of enthusiasm about your
> proposals.  After the conversation ends you go to the airport and
> home.  You later receive a message that one of the people in the group
> was an incognito agent for the government who subsequently arranged
> for the arrest and re-education of some of the group.  What
> responsibility would you accept for that situation?
>
> Ec
>

I guess I see what you're saying there "having a stake in the outcome".
And morally, yea, I maybe should accept some responsibility then but
the stark reality there is that it really wouldn't matter whether or
not I felt bad in the said scenario, because my attitude would pretty
much have zilch impact on the other's predicament. Again, the question
of having or not having a stake in the outcome is what it runs down to.
Anyway, I don't really want to pursue this particular thread further,
because it concerns point (3) of this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-October/
001375.html -- which was really just something that veered off into an
ironic aside.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


from_name: Anthere

body:
Jean-Christophe Chazalette a ?crit:

> Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following
> : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the
> articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can
> relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to
> the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."

The translation is not very good villy. The word relate does not
translate well the french term.

the originals are

10.A. L'arbitrage n'est applicable qu'aux conflits entre ?diteurs sans
jamais porter directement sur la pertinence des contenus encyclop?diques
ni sur leur neutralit?. Les arbitres examinent des comportements
individuels sans ?tre les juges de la validit? des contenus.

10.B. l'arbitrage s'applique ? tous les conflits sans distinction et
peut porter directement sur la pertinence ou la validit? des articles

Translation of 10A is this :

Arbitration will apply only to conflict between editors, without being
related to accuracy or neutrality of encyclopedic content. The
arbitrators will look at individual behavior without being judges of
content validity.

-----
Translation of 10B is this :

Arbitration will apply to all type of conflicts, without distinction and
arbitration decisions may directly be applied to relevance/accuracy or
validity of contents.

-----

Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be
interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do
anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles.
Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."

In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration
committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide
over the community what is correct from what is not.

I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and
I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of
reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.

This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is
giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new
sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users
indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what
is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community
itself.