body:
Timwi pravi:

> I tried to make it so that you can write |h8=? and then have
> [[Template:Chess Position]] include another template by saying
> {{chess_{{{h8}}}}}. But this also didn't work: It just generated a link
> to [[Template:Chess_?]] even if that page existed. I don't know why it
> does that. I've examined the source code, but I can't find the error.
> This is clearly a bug which I'm going to file in Bugzilla now.

OK, please let me know the request ID so that I can track the progress
of it.
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales says help Randy30

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Let me give a little background.  L R (Randy30I is a collector of very
>old photographs, from the 1840s-1860s I believe he told me.  He is
>interested in contributing scans from his collection to wikipedia, and
>he is also interested in seeking out information about one particular
>photo from his collection.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queen0e.jpg
>
>He believes this may be a photo of a visiting head of state (queen or
>princess?).  I see that someone has already responded on the image:
>page with an opinion that this is just a costume ball or "Queen for a
>day" shot.  I have no opinion.
>
You sound almost apologetic for the appearance of this. ;-)

Wikipedians are generally highly inteligent and extremely curious.  Some
with whom I have serious differences in some areas I can find to be
brilliant in other areas.  This can make them well suited to answer, or
at least try to answer, some of these questions.  None of us needs feel
under any obligation to answer.  We probably need some sense of intrigue
before we even try.

With Randy my impression is that he makes an effort to work on his
questions, and probably needs other perspectives on the subject.  The
tone of the request is far different from that of some highschool kid
that's too damn lazy to his research on a term paper.  If Wikipedia can
be seen as a place where the members of the community do tackle these
difficult questions it can only enhance its credibility.

Ec


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Announcement mailing list

body:
Sj wrote:
> I would like to request once more an announcement mailing list

What function would an announcement list serve that the Goings-on page
does not already? It is a lot easier to make translations on the wiki
than it would be on an announcements list. On Goings-on, anyone can
read it without needing to subscribe, and translations can be linked
to. How would that work for a mailing list and what benefits would
that have over the wiki?

Angela.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uncategorised pages

body:
Thanks to JeLuf, we now have [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]].  It is a
cached list, so it will not update directly, but at least it gives us
something to start with.  Now we can categorise all articles :-)

(and, incidentally, also find delete-worthy articles...)

Timwi


list: wikipedia-l

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

body:
Roman Maurer wrote:

> Timwi pravi:
>
>> I tried to make it so that you can write |h8=? and then have
>> [[Template:Chess Position]] include another template by saying
>> {{chess_{{{h8}}}}}. But this also didn't work: It just generated a
>> link to [[Template:Chess_?]] even if that page existed. I don't know
>> why it does that. I've examined the source code, but I can't find the
>> error. This is clearly a bug which I'm going to file in Bugzilla now.
>
> OK, please let me know the request ID so that I can track the progress
> of it.

http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.3.0 released

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

After an annoyingly long series of beta releases, say hello to MediaWiki
1.3.0!

Everyone running the beta releases is _strongly_ recommended to upgrade
to the current code.

This release includes a security fix: the 1.3.0 beta releases may be
vulnerable to a PHP inclusion attack if include files are exposed and
you have allow_url_fopen and register_globals on (this is the default
configuration in PHP 4.1.x, but register_globals is off by default in
4.2.x and later).

Note that while MediaWiki through 1.1 required register_globals to be
on, 1.2 and 1.3 *do not*. If you have register_globals on, you should
turn it off unless you are absolutely sure you require it for some other
package. See http://php.net/register_globals for general information.

Release notes:
http://sf.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=34373&release_id=259965

Download:
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.3.0.tar.gz?download

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBGyVDwRnhpk1wk44RAjN2AJ42nlYPLntauo4+EsNVMOO/h6xPuwCgtHQN
x0pVx9MsSUF5xHRyrp7nSRg=
=53NN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Can someone set up another db as a memorial wiki for non-9/11 memorials?
>
> No - just move the sep11 wiki to wikipeple.org and expand that project's focus.
> The sep11wiki on its own has been an embarrassing failure of Wikimedia due to
> its single-event focus. We should either abandon the project entirely or expand
> its focus.

I agree. Many people asked for wikipeople, wikimorial etc. Has someone
objections? Or can this be done finally?

greetings,
elian


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki

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

*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimorial
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GlobalFamilyTree

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

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Memorial Wiki


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Diffs and sources

body:
Robert,

I know all this is crucially important to you, but I wish you would cool
down a bit. The Sabbath starts tonight, and I hope you will take some
time for reflection once the sun goes down.

To handle a controversy about sources, I suggest we DESCRIBE that
controversy. If a newspaper misquoted somebody about topic X, then we
should mention the "misquoting incident" in the article about X.

What you wrote could simply be marked up in Wikipedia format and
inserted verbatim into the article:

==Misquotes of Rabbi Uri Regev==

The newspaper editor who first wrote about Regev's words
was publicly forced to retract her claims. Columbia
University Journalism School Professor Ari Goldman called
the original story, which misrepresented Rabbi Regev, "irresponsible
journalism" and said that it violated several basic principles of
journalism regarding quoting people.

----

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
--Jewish saying, as quoted by Charles Schulz in "Peanuts"

Ed Poor
A member of the Mediation Committee


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

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

body:
The nice thing about "particularly bad serial cybersquatters" is that
they tend to offer reasonable prices.  Once upon I time, I foolishly
allowed bomis.net and bomis.org to expire and they were promptly
squatted.  I was horrified at what it might cost to get them back, but
it turned out to be quite reasonable, given the fact that it was
completely tragic in the first place, of course.

If this person is a professional, he's going to be smart and know that
this isn't worth *that much* money to us.  He'll charge us a small
nuisance amount, like double what he paid, and that'll be that.

Angela_ wrote:

> (moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
> > 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
> > registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
>
> Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
> could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
> domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
> wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.
>
> > 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
> > wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
> > these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
>
> I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
> much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
> friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
> going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
> there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
> this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
> before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
> successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
> so perhaps this can be successful too.
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Image use (was "the document vs. everything vs. the
	text")

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:
> IMHO we would severely hamstring ourselves if we didn't allow this.

I don't think so.  There might be some extreme cases in which we might
desperately need something that is unavailable under a free license
and also unavailable under a conservative interpretation of 'fair
use/fair dealing', but it is very hard to think of examples.

One very big issue is that if we permit ourselves to use content
under a proprietary license, we do two very bad things:

1.  We dilute our standing as a shining example of what freedom can
bring.  We lose the ability to speak publicly and say: "Look, the
claim that proprietary copyright is necessary for the production of
quality content is not true; we have proven it."  Instead, we have to
point to our work and say "Well, some of it is free, but some of it is
proprietary, and we really needed the proprietary stuff to make it
work."

2.  We remove the incentive for free alternatives to develop.  Imagine
if I went to a major stock photo house and obtained, as a charitable
contribution, licenses for wikipedia-only use of photos of major
landmarks around the world.  Then why should anyone bother to go out
and take a photo of the Leaning Tower of Pisa with Wikipedia in mind?

> There are some very important images out there that /should/ be
> included in the Wikipedia -- and we may just (given our "limited" legal
> resources) be unable to ever get them under "free" licenses.

I concede that there may well be *a few* rare cases where this is
absolutely necessary for scholarly integrity.  We should make careful
judgments about those exceptions, on a case-by-case basis.

What we should *not* do is get lax about using non-free content as a
crutch because it is easier or more convenient.

--Jimbo


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] Protected message <-- WARNING, YANNS MAIL CONTAINS VIRUS.


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please deal with issues.

body:
We still have a problem. I was hoping that people would
offer constructive suggestions to help fix the situation.
Ed Poor did, so did a couple of others. I am enthusiastic
about using Ed's suggestions to improve these articles.

However, Danny responded with ad homenin comments to me on
this list, and made an unfortunate comment on my user page
that I am somehow in violation of Wikipedia policy for my
recent letters. (A policy that can be used to ban
people...)

My letters here, with diffs and sources, are not
"hysterical" ad homenim attacks as he claims; they are
sincere efforts to correct a problem. Further, if you check
the history of these articles, you'll see many people work
on those articles besides me. I get along fine with all the
other people on the WikiProject for Judaism articles, which
says a lot, as all religion articles have the potential for
controversy! I can't understand why Danny would make such a
clearly incorrect claim (he says I work on these articles
alone) other than to get people to ignore my letters to
this list. That is not working in good faith.

I came here with diffs and sources to support my views. If
someone takes personal offense at me, that is fine, but
send me such strictures by private e-mail. Otherwise, such
people themselves are violation the no-personal-attacks
policy.

My original point still stands (and so far, no one has
disagred with me.):  There are people who hate George W.
Bush, and who think that he wants to kill all Muslims, and
that George W. Bush deserves to die. (They are wrong, but
whatever). The point is that we do not quote such people
when we want to accurately represent George W. Bush's
views. Rather, we quote and summarize George W. Bush and
his official spokespeople. (And of course, we quote and
summarize the views of groups that disagree with him.)

Our policy?  We never quote the views of people who hate a
group, and present them AS IF they were that group's own
views! That is fraud, and that is the issue that we need to
deal with. Not just for this article, but for all articles.
It would set a terrible precedent if we ignored this issue.

However, that is precisely the problem with some of Jayjg's
edits in recent days. This is unfortunate, because until
recently Jayjg has been a valuble contributor. That is why
I am asking for assistance. If you can help, please do so.
If you dislike me, e-mail me privately.

Robert (RK)

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


from_name: Bruno Terra

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: about image tags

body:
Hello, I?m new on the list!

I think that this method may be a little trickier to implement than a more
general model (we?re talking only about images and their freedom and type):

the link to a img could be IMG_link:Free_or_Non_Free_BOOL:License always.

Then we could have a page describing (printable) about all the licenses
(being easier to add more as they appear).

The printing CSS could distinguish wether a Img is printable and link the
license at will. Same as to showing at a CSS-compliant browser.

Just some ideas,

Bruno Longo (Brazil)

> >
> > We use the following tags whenever possible:
> > {{GFDL}}
> > {{DomainePublic}}
> > {{FairUse}}
> > {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
> >
> > So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yann


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: about image tags


from_name: tatet

subject: [Wikitech-l] linkscan?

body:
???????????.

???? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????, ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?
????????? ?? ? ??????? link. ??? ?????????? ?????? Whatlinkshere.
??? ?????? ??????.

--
Best regards,
 tatet                          mailto:serhiy at tatet.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] How about distributing fonts ??

body:
In some recent messages, it was suggested to distribute OGG code.

An equal deserving cause are fonts to obscure (to me)  fonts. I have been working on wiktionary and in the process I have had to find fonts for Khmer, Georgian, Cherokee and a few others. I have no clue if I have the best fonts in the ones that I picked/found.

By adopting fonts and promoting them, we stimulate the development of fonts, some cannot be had for free afaik like Etruscan.

The aim of Wikipedia is to share all the knowledge, this means that the knowledge must be visible. Promoting good free fonts and making them easily available is one way.

Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uncategorised pages

body:
Cool!

Wishlist:
* Don't list articles that are pure numbers or numbers with an "s"
(1100, 1100s) and the like
* Enable this on the German wikipedia as well (it works with the "magic"
URL, though)

Magnus

Timwi wrote:

>
> Thanks to JeLuf, we now have [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]].  It is a
> cached list, so it will not update directly, but at least it gives us
> something to start with.  Now we can categorise all articles :-)
>
> (and, incidentally, also find delete-worthy articles...)
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Uncategorised pages

body:
>> Thanks to JeLuf, we now have [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]].  It is a
>> cached list, so it will not update directly, but at least it gives us
>> something to start with.  Now we can categorise all articles :-)
>>
>> (and, incidentally, also find delete-worthy articles...)
>>

The list appears to be restricted to the first 1000 entries?... meaning
that we don't even get to the start of the alphabet.

If it is possible to cache the whole lot, this would be a neat new
feature. Thanks Jeluf.

Pete/PCb21


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Diffs and sources

body:
>From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Diffs and sources
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:08:56 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mc1-f4.hotmail.com ([64.4.50.11]) by mc1-s21.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:09:51 -0700
>Received: from mail.wikimedia.org ([207.142.131.234]) by mc1-f4.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:09:06 -0700
>Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAAF12501C1;Thu, 12 Aug 2004
>13:09:04 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from mail1.disney.com (mail1.disney.com [204.128.192.18])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB691AC0166for
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from imr11.disney.pvt (imr11.disney.pvt [153.6.60.111])
>bymail1.disney.com with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:10:20 -0700
>Received: from sm-flor-xc04.wdw.disney.com
>(sm-flor-xc04.wdw.disney.com[172.16.177.31]) by imr11.disney.pvt with
>ESMTP;Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:12:58 -0400
>Received: from SM-FLOR-XC02.wdw.disney.com ([172.16.177.19])
>bysm-flor-xc04.wdw.disney.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu,
>12 Aug 2004 09:08:58 -0400
>Received: from SM-NYNY-XC01.nena.wdpr.disney.com ([167.13.137.76])
>bySM-FLOR-XC02.wdw.disney.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu,
>12 Aug 2004 09:08:58 -0400
>Received: from sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com ([167.13.137.80])
>bySM-NYNY-XC01.nena.wdpr.disney.com with MicrosoftSMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
>Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:08:57 -0400
>X-Message-Info: NDMZeIBu+spOgnkywZrzG6xILpbt1enU8fQQbez2oQw=
>X-Original-To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Delivered-To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Message-Id:
><E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC2801FBB770 at sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
>X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [WikiEN-l] Diffs and
>sources
>Thread-Index: AcSAbYXrJ3NltIsITUW0WMpCs1YQ6g==
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2004 13:08:57.0005
>(UTC)FILETIME=[8687BDD0:01C4806D]
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5c2
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>
>Robert,
>
>I know all this is crucially important to you, but I wish you would cool
>down a bit. The Sabbath starts tonight, and I hope you will take some
>time for reflection once the sun goes down.
>
>To handle a controversy about sources, I suggest we DESCRIBE that
>controversy. If a newspaper misquoted somebody about topic X, then we
>should mention the "misquoting incident" in the article about X.
>
>What you wrote could simply be marked up in Wikipedia format and
>inserted verbatim into the article:
>
>==Misquotes of Rabbi Uri Regev==
>
>The newspaper editor who first wrote about Regev's words
>was publicly forced to retract her claims. Columbia
>University Journalism School Professor Ari Goldman called
>the original story, which misrepresented Rabbi Regev, "irresponsible
>journalism" and said that it violated several basic principles of
>journalism regarding quoting people.
>
>----
>
>It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
>--Jewish saying, as quoted by Charles Schulz in "Peanuts"
>
>Ed Poor
>A member of the Mediation Committee
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

In the spirit of compromise (or perhaps the spirit of being beaten down by
all the accusations and rhetoric) I have (on the Talk: page) proposed a new
wording for the section which omits the controversial claim altogether,
makes no reference whatsoever to Rabbi Regev, and instead brings other more
clearly documented claims.  I hope that will end the discussion on this
list, and return it to the Talk: page where it belongs.

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft?
SmartScreen Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.


from_name: wiki

subject: [Wikitech-l] links scan?

body:
Hello ,

I would like to know whether you have a script
that scans links connections and adds them in the table link?
so that Whatlinkshere works well.

I look forward to your reply.

--
Best regards,
 wiki                          mailto:wiki at tatet.com


from_name: Vít Zvánovec

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Czech month abbreviations - just discussion with Ray
	Saintonge 2

body:
	Dear colleague,
	maybe we should switch into personal e-mailing, because our
conversation has not too much common with Wikitech-l.

> What has been the effect of joining the European Union?
	In what sense? I don't see any effect. You can look, for instance,
at
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEX
numdoc&lg=cs&numdoc=31984L0253&model=guichett

> Of course they're different, but in a bilingual country when texts
> must be issued in both languages, it is good to have a neutral standard.
	It may have been this numerical. You can look, for instance, at
http://www.filmsk.sk/show_article.php?id=2137

> All government documents in Canada now use the ISO format, 2004-08-06.
	It sounds to me too bureaucratic. ?SN (Czech standards) are based on
ISO as well, but no one cares.

> He may have taught the Czech language to his children who are more
> familiar with the American system of dates.
	Yes, but with this Latin origin system of month names. Not with
"American" shortcuts for Czech words.

					Yours,
						V?t Zv?novec


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uncategorised pages

body:
Why is it that this is not updated at all on is.?
http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerfiss%C3%AD%C3%B0a:Uncategorizedpages

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:07:32 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks to JeLuf, we now have [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]].  It is a
> cached list, so it will not update directly, but at least it gives us
> something to start with.  Now we can categorise all articles :-)
>
> (and, incidentally, also find delete-worthy articles...)
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Scripted image upload?

body:
There's a PHP class out there

http://freshmeat.net/projects/httpclass/?branch_id=15372&release_id=169649

that can, as of this release, POST-upload files. Sounds like a good way
to mass-upload an image collection (GFDL or PD, of course;-)

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Scripted image upload?

body:
pywikipediabot can do it also IIRC

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:03:24 +0200, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> There's a PHP class out there
>
> http://freshmeat.net/projects/httpclass/?branch_id=15372&release_id=169649
>
> that can, as of this release, POST-upload files. Sounds like a good way
> to mass-upload an image collection (GFDL or PD, of course;-)
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Flagging US Nationalism (was: Toning down the personal
	remarks)

body:
see below :)

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

> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:49:24 -0700
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Flagging US Nationalism (was: Toning down the
> 	personal	remarks)
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC2801FBB76C at sm-nyny-
> xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I see no evidence that US nationalism is flagging. Rather, it seems to
> have increased since 9/11.
>
> Okay, let's see if we can put the worms back in the can now... ;-)
>
> Ed

Ah.
With reference to this dictionary entry (please read on below):

> From WordNet (r) 2.0::
>
> 	(...)
>
>      v 1: communicate or signal with a flag
>      2: provide with a flag; "Flag this file so that I can recognize
>         it immediately"
>      3: droop, sink, or settle from or as if from pressure or loss
>         of tautness [syn: sag, droop, swag]

I didn't mean sense (3), I meant sense (2).
What an interesting ambiguity.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1367 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040812/c8014c4b/attachment.bin


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: linkscan?

body:
tatet wrote:

> Thursday, August 12, 2004, 12:21:39 PM, you wrote:
>
>> tatet wrote:
>
>>>???????????.
>>>
>>>???? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????, ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?
>>>????????? ?? ? ??????? link. ??? ?????????? ?????? Whatlinkshere.
>>>??? ?????? ??????.
>
>> ?? ????????????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ????,
>> ??????????? maintenance/refreshLinks.php.
>
> ? ???? ? ????, ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?
> ??????? cur ? ????????? ????? ?????? ? ??????? links.
> ??? ?????? Whatlinkshere.
>
> ? ???????? maintenance/refreshlinks.php, ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ;-(

Translation: I meant a script that would go through all articles in the
'cur' table and place their links in the 'links' table. For making
Whatlinkshere work. I ran maintenance/refreshlinks.php, but it didn't
create all the links. ;-(


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Uncategorised pages

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> Wishlist:
> * Don't list articles that are pure numbers or numbers with an "s"
> (1100, 1100s) and the like

Hm, why?... just categorise them :-)


from_name: Richards,Michael

subject: [Wikitech-l] Error calling session_set_cookie_params

body:
After copying our install of 1.2.6 from one box to another, when we click on Edit this page it displays this error:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: session_set_cookie_params() in /srv/www/htdocs/wiki/includes/User.php on line 144

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Michael Richards
Gartner

Config:
Suse Linux (SLES9)
Apache 2.0.49-27.8
MySQL 4.0.18
PHP 4.3.4
Mediawiki 1.2.6


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: How about distributing fonts ??

body:
Gerard.Meijssen wrote:

> [...] and in the process I have had to find fonts for Khmer, Georgian, Cherokee and a few others.

Google for "Code2000" and all your problems are set :-)

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image use (was "the document vs. everything vs. the text")

body:
see below :)

"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:49:12 -0700
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the document vs. everything vs. the text
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040811184912.GD5191 at wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> (...)
>
> If the _only_ way we can use a particular image is through a non-free
> license, and we believe that a fair use defense would be unavailable
> to us, or to most contemplated reusers, then it should be avoided.
>
> --Jimbo

I *strongly* disagree.

We should stay able to license (ie. request and permission for the use
of) copyrighted, non-"free license" images. I believe it is *essential*
that we remain able to do so. As far as I understood things, our policy
had always been that it was possible to obtain Wikipedia-specific
permission. I was just now moderately shocked to see that under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Image_copyright_tags#Deprecated_tags  that option is considered
depreciated.

I would like urgently ask people to reconsider on this issue.
It is perfectly possible to clearly tag, index and prevent from print
inclusion any images where "Wikipedia use only" permission was
obtained.

IMHO we would severely hamstring ourselves if we didn't allow this.

Why forbid ourselves the right to individually ask copyright holders
for permission and use images pursuant to such permission (if
obtained)?
Is there /any/ reason why we should disallow ourselves doing this?

I am aware that obtaining permission requires effort -- but it's very
simple and straightforward, really: If people do put in the effort and
obtain permission, then we should remain able to use these specific
images pursuant to their "Wikipedia use only" permission. Where people
don't put in the effort (or don't succeed), we cannot use the relevant
images. To be on the safe side, we should obtain permission first and
/then/ upload, but again: Given the tagging and indexing possibilities
which we have, is there any reason why we would ban ourselves from
doing this?

There are some very important images out there that /should/ be
included in the Wikipedia -- and we may just (given our "limited" legal
resources) be unable to ever get them under "free" licenses.

In fact, I have just recently sent the below email. It would pain me if
you all were to turn around and say "nah-nah, no can do".

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

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

On 8 Aug 2004, at 16:25, Jens Ropers wrote:

> Dear Sir/Madam of the Associated Press,
>
> 	cc: English Wikipedia Mailing List <wikiEN-L at Wikipedia.org>
>
> I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia, the free Internet
> encyclopedia (http://wikipedia.org), of which I am a contributor.
>
> An anonymous contributor has recently uploaded the following image --
> of which I believe you hold the copyright  -- to the Wikipedia:
> 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
> In case the picture is already deleted by the time you access that
> link:
> The picture in question is Huynh Cong (Nick) Ut's "naked girl running
> after napalm attack" photograph of Kim Phuc Phan Thi.
>
> As we have become aware of potential copyright issues with the
> aforesaid photograph, proceedings have been initiated to delete the
> picture.
> However I would like to kindly ask you, on behalf of Wikipedia, to
> please consider granting us permission for reproduction of the said
> picture on the Wikipedia.
>
> The Wikipedia is an Internet based free volunteer project by the
> non-profit Wikipedia Foundation. As such we cannot unfortunately offer
> payment.
> However, I would like to make the following points in favour of
> licensing the picture for Wikipedia use:
>
> - You would leave a lasting very positive impression of the Associated
> Press to Wikipedia users and Internet users worldwide. An appropriate
> caption could be added to that effect.
> - You would not loose any rights to the picture, as NOT all pictures
> on the Wikipedia are in the public domain and neither does the GNU
> Free Documentation License always apply. Copyrighted pictures have
> been licensed for Wikipedia use before. A caption could clearly state
> this and even made part of the picture.
> - You would do the public a service and combat disinformation: The
> picture is at the center of various disputes on Wikipedia, with those
> contributors most emphatically seeking its removal having a
> politicized edit history: For example, they have denied that the U.S.
> strike documented by the picture was carried out by the U.S.; this
> despite the fact that Kim Phuc's meeting with John Plummer is well
> documented.
> - Please also consider that by licensing the picture for Wikipedia
> use, you would NOT loose potential revenue -- due to the volunteer
> nature of the project, Wikipedia cannot incorporate any for-fee
> material (like conventional encyclopedias can). If we cannot convince
> you to kindly grant permission, we would simply have to refrain from
> using the picture.
> - Also, the image file which was uploaded to us is low resolution and
> unfit for print publication. Thus, hypothetically, even if some party
> intended to maliciously copy the file from the Wikipedia for further
> reproduction, they would find it of rather limited use.
>
> Please be invited to visit http://en.wikipedia.org to find out more
> about the Wikipedia.
>
> (The Wikipedia is also available in many languages other than English
> -- including Vietnamese:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#Wikipedia_in_other_languages ,
> http://vi.wikipedia.org.)
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers
>
> There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and
> the ones who watch progress bars.
> http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
>
> PS: I am writing all this on the assumption that you are indeed the
> current copyright holder and that the picture's use with Wikipedia is
> not covered under the "fair use" principle. Should I be wrong, then I
> don't mean to make any misrepresentation one way or the other. I am
> again assuming that you hold the copyright and that we cannot use the
> picture without your permission, but I have no special insight into
> the matter. Should you choose to deny us permission to use the
> picture, I would urgently pass that message on to the relevant admins,
> where such clarification from your side will certainly lead to a
> speedy resolution of the issue.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6755 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040812/ae31aea5/attachment.bin


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/includes Parser.php,1.236,1.237

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> ! 			$r .= '<h2>' . wfMsg( 'subcategories' ) . "</h2>\n";
> !
> ! 			$numchild = count( $children );
> ! 			if($numchild == 1) {
> ! 				$r .= wfMsg( 'subcategorycount1', 1 );
> ! 			} else {
> ! 				$r .= wfMsg( 'subcategorycount' , $numchild );
> ! 			}
> ! 			unset($numchild);

That is quite English centric and discriminates against languages where
numbers were differently.  :-(


body:
Sorry for bothering you - we found it.

Obviously, it was the php session module that wasn't installed.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Richards,Michael
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:21 PM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Error calling session_set_cookie_params

After copying our install of 1.2.6 from one box to another, when we click on Edit this page it displays this error:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: session_set_cookie_params() in /srv/www/htdocs/wiki/includes/User.php on line 144

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Michael Richards
Gartner

Config:
Suse Linux (SLES9)
Apache 2.0.49-27.8
MySQL 4.0.18
PHP 4.3.4
Mediawiki 1.2.6
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
Timwi wrote:

> That is quite English centric and discriminates against languages where
> numbers were differently.  :-(

... where numbers *work* differently, is what I meant.


from_name: Ewen Caroline

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

body:
Hi again. Thanks a lot for your help :) now off to translating some
messages :)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:09:33 -0400, Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote
> Ewen Caroline wrote:
>
> > Oh and we still need a Logo. It has been requested for quite some time
now
> > but no one seems to be working on it so far. How long does that usually
> > take ?
>
> Oh, btw, although there are requests to make logos on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_logos#Requests ,I
> believe Nohat would like people to make the request on his talk page
> instead.  From his user page:  "If you want me to make a new logo or
> a new version of a logo, please indicate the contents of the logo on
> meta:Wikipedia in other languages and leave me a note on my talk page".
>
> It took me a while to figure out....
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/includes SpecialPage.php,1.11,1.12

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> Removing buggy Special:Userlogin feature (only half the required work done), attempting to explain why it didn't work and to prevent such things from happening again by adding lots of comments

Hi Tim,

unfortunately the comments you added did not explain to me why you think
"only half the required work [was] done", nor does it explain why it
"didn't work" (it worked perfectly on my local installation). Lastly,
please could you at least outline what needs to be done to fix it rather
than just removing it wholesale?

Thanks,
Timwi


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/includes Parser.php, 1.235,
 1.236 MagicWord.php, 1.20, 1.21

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/includes
> In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv15258/includes
>
> Modified Files:
> 	Parser.php MagicWord.php
> Log Message:
> implement a new magic word: PAGENAMEE wich return the escaped title. Implement sourceforge feature requests 999044 and 997771
>
<snip>

Hello,

Sorry I forgot to commit the double to single translation before
comiting the patch :(

--
Ashar Voultoiz


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for the second Serbian Wikipedia

body:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Roman Maurer wrote:
> millosh pravi:
>
> > There is one possibility: I see that there are some users (I think the most of them are stewards) on sr: which can vote... (But, don't ask people from former Yugoslavia to vote such as Romanm; it is not good idea.)
>
> I don't recall that I voted on this issue on sr: (I see it as an
> internal affair between the article writers and target population).  ?

I just said that I understand your position and that is better that
you nor others Wikipedians from former Yugoslavia don't vote for that
question (political and similar shit reasons). In comparation with you,
voting of other active Wikipedians is OK because I think that noone
Wikipedia is private property of some small community.

Milos


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: linkscan?

body:
Hello Tim,

Thursday, August 12, 2004, 12:21:39 PM, you wrote:

TS> tatet wrote:
>> ???????????.
>>
>> ???? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????, ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?
>> ????????? ?? ? ??????? link. ??? ?????????? ?????? Whatlinkshere.
>> ??? ?????? ??????.
>>
>>
>>

TS> Systran says:

TS> "Zdrastvuyte. Me it interests there is whether the script, which
TS> skinruyet the connection of references and are added they into table
TS> link. For the normal operation Whatlinkshere. I await your answer."

TS> Do you mean you want to refresh the link table? For that, use
TS> maintenance/refreshLinks.php.

TS> ?? ????????????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ????,
TS> ??????????? maintenance/refreshLinks.php.

TS> -- Tim Starling

TS> _______________________________________________
TS> Wikitech-l mailing list
TS> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
TS> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?
??????? cur ? ????????? ????? ?????? ? ??????? links.
??? ?????? Whatlinkshere.

? ???????? maintenance/refreshlinks.php, ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ;-(
--
Best regards,
 tatet                            mailto:serhiy at tatet.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Problem when locking database

body:
When trying to lock the database on 1.3 (via the Mediawiki interface), I get an error message:
Could not find file "/srv/www/htdocs/wiki/upload/lock_yBgMBwiR".

Since the upload directory was renamed to the images directory in 1.2 (and 1.3), it of course can't find wiki/upload anymore.

Have I done something wrong in the configuration, or is this a bug?

By the way, have I mentioned lately how fantastic this software is?
I put some money in Tim Starling's donation box, so my next step is to find everyone else's boxes and tip them as well.

Thanks a lot guys,

Michael Richards
Gartner

PS I got the same behavior with 1.2.6

Some lines from LocalSettings.php:

$wgSitename         = "Gartnerpedia";

$wgScriptPath       = "/wiki";
$wgScript           = "$wgScriptPath/index.php";
$wgRedirectScript   = "$wgScriptPath/redirect.php";

## If using PHP as a CGI module, use the ugly URLs
$wgArticlePath      = "$wgScript/$1";
# $wgArticlePath      = "$wgScript?title=$1";

$wgStylePath        = "$wgScriptPath/stylesheets";
$wgStyleDirectory   = "$IP/stylesheets";
$wgLogo             = "$wgStylePath/images/wiki.png";

$wgUploadPath       = "$wgScriptPath/images";
$wgUploadDirectory  = "$IP/images";


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Scripted image upload?

in_reply_to: <51dd1af80408120515632eebbe@mail.gmail.com> (Ævar ArnfjörðBjarmason's message of "Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:15:11 +0200")

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> writes:

> pywikipediabot can do it also IIRC

Yes, I've enhanced it using an AWK script:

#!/bin/awk -f
# usage: upload.awk JOBFILE
#
# a JOBFILE test records looks as follows:
#
# /home/ke/Bilder/2004-05-01/Kraftshof_wehrkirchhof_gruftkapelle_wseite_v_w.jpg
# ;Beschreibung
# : [[Kraftshof]], Stadtteil von [[N?rnberg]], Wehrkirchhof, Kress'sche Gruftkapelle, Westseite, von W (2004-05-01).
# ;Quelle
# : Fotographie 2004-05-01
# ;Fotograph
# : --~~~
# ;Copyright Status
# :   [[GNU Freie Dokumentationslizenz]]
#
# -=-
# /path/to/image/file_1.jpg
# multiline description
# multiline description
# multiline description
# -=-

BEGIN {start = 1}

/-=-/ {
  # record end marker found
  command = "python upload.py -keep -desc-keep " name " \"" text "\""
  system (command)
  start = 1; text = ""
  next
}

start == 1 {
  name = $0
  # in case the record starts with an empty line
  name != "" && start = 0
  next
}

# collect all text lines
{ text = text $0 "\n" }

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Diffs and sources

body:
Robert (rkscience100 at yahoo.com) [040812 13:12]:

> The problem with Jayjg continues. Here is one of many diffs
> were Jayjg falsely accuses "Reform leaders" as viewing
> Orthodox Jews as being 9/11 like terrorists who destroyed
> the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Relationship_between_segments_of_Judaism&diff=4921473&oldid=4921460
> Yet they never said this. As this next few links will show,

Did you take this to the talk page of the article?

- d.


from_name: Michael Snow

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

body:
I tried to send this message yesterday, but later got a message back
that mail delivery failed, so I'm trying again.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
>>"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
>>separate and independent?
>>
>>
>Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
>would say yes, absolutely.  The authorship of the image is different,
>
Yes, but so is the authorship of various portions of text in most
articles. The cumulative effect of different edits does not fragment an
article into tens or hundreds of separate and independent documents.

>the process by which the image is authored is completely different,
>
No argument here.

>it is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
>distribution medium",
>
Not when the distribution medium is print, at least not if it looks like
the standard layout used in most of our articles that have pictures.
Facing page illustrations might be different, but when the image and
text are on the same piece of paper, I'm pretty sure they're being
stored in the same place.

>It is hard to see how the image is somehow
>a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa.  They are simply a
>compilation.
>
My contention is not that the image is a derivative work of the article
text, or that the text is a derivative work of the image. You might say
that the end result is an article that is a derivative work of both the
text and the image (here I'm using "derivative work" in a general sense,
not trying to analyze whether that term applies as used in copyright
law). But the real question is whether Article Foo, illustrated by Image
Bar and Image Foobar, is one Document under the GFDL or three. I think
that's not clearly defined by the license itself, and when the meaning
of a term in a legal document is not clear from the document itself, the
law typically relies on ordinary meaning and usage. In ordinary usage, I
would say that Article Foo is one document, not three, especially given
how we currently use images.

Is there a way to keep Article Foo as three Documents under the GFDL?
Possibly, but I don't think our current practices do much to keep the
works separate and independent, as required for Clause 7. Putting
licensing information in captions would certainly help, since without
that there's usually no indication when looking at the article that the
image is not covered by the license as well (I'm quite aware that we
cleverly say "all text", but that's hardly enough to alert many readers).

>>And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
>>argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
>>separate and independent work from the article text.
>>
>>
>Can you point me to any case law on this point?  Law review articles?
>
Not off the top of my head. Given that copyleft in general has not been
around long enough to generate that much legal scrutiny, I'm skeptical
of finding much on such a specific question. But if you would like me
to, I can try and research the issue further. It may be a little while
before I get a chance to visit the law library, though. Again, given the
fact that "separate" and "independent" are not defined specifically in
the GFDL, I'm simply reasoning based on the ordinary meanings of those
words.

>Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
>of images for book publications.
>
>Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
>copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
>traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
>the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.
>
>After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
>portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
>the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
>no longer separate and independent?
>
I think the analogy to traditional licensing schemes misses the point.
You would have the copyright to your text in this situation, and can do
whatever you want with the text by itself, in the same way that anything
I write on Wikipedia, I have the right to publish elsewhere, under a
different system than the GFDL if I so desire. And the question of
whether images and text are "separate and independent" is significant
specifically because that's the language used by the GFDL. Unless the
traditional license says something along those lines, I don't think the
question is relevant to this hypothetical scenario.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040812/460e4a2a/attachment.htm


body:
I tried to send this message yesterday, but later got a message back
that mail delivery failed, so I'm trying again.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
>>"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
>>separate and independent?
>>
>>
>Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
>would say yes, absolutely.  The authorship of the image is different,
>
Yes, but so is the authorship of various portions of text in most
articles. The cumulative effect of different edits does not fragment an
article into tens or hundreds of separate and independent documents.

>the process by which the image is authored is completely different,
>
No argument here.

>it is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
>distribution medium",
>
Not when the distribution medium is print, at least not if it looks like
the standard layout used in most of our articles that have pictures.
Facing page illustrations might be different, but when the image and
text are on the same piece of paper, I'm pretty sure they're being
stored in the same place.

>It is hard to see how the image is somehow
>a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa.  They are simply a
>compilation.
>
My contention is not that the image is a derivative work of the article
text, or that the text is a derivative work of the image. You might say
that the end result is an article that is a derivative work of both the
text and the image (here I'm using "derivative work" in a general sense,
not trying to analyze whether that term applies as used in copyright
law). But the real question is whether Article Foo, illustrated by Image
Bar and Image Foobar, is one Document under the GFDL or three. I think
that's not clearly defined by the license itself, and when the meaning
of a term in a legal document is not clear from the document itself, the
law typically relies on ordinary meaning and usage. In ordinary usage, I
would say that Article Foo is one document, not three, especially given
how we currently use images.

Is there a way to keep Article Foo as three Documents under the GFDL?
Possibly, but I don't think our current practices do much to keep the
works separate and independent, as required for Clause 7. Putting
licensing information in captions would certainly help, since without
that there's usually no indication when looking at the article that the
image is not covered by the license as well (I'm quite aware that we
cleverly say "all text", but that's hardly enough to alert many readers).

>>And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
>>argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
>>separate and independent work from the article text.
>>
>>
>Can you point me to any case law on this point?  Law review articles?
>
Not off the top of my head. Given that copyleft in general has not been
around long enough to generate that much legal scrutiny, I'm skeptical
of finding much on such a specific question. But if you would like me
to, I can try and research the issue further. It may be a little while
before I get a chance to visit the law library, though. Again, given the
fact that "separate" and "independent" are not defined specifically in
the GFDL, I'm simply reasoning based on the ordinary meanings of those
words.

>Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
>of images for book publications.
>
>Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
>copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
>traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
>the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.
>
>After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
>portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
>the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
>no longer separate and independent?
>
I think the analogy to traditional licensing schemes misses the point.
You would have the copyright to your text in this situation, and can do
whatever you want with the text by itself, in the same way that anything
I write on Wikipedia, I have the right to publish elsewhere, under a
different system than the GFDL if I so desire. And the question of
whether images and text are "separate and independent" is significant
specifically because that's the language used by the GFDL. Unless the
traditional license says something along those lines, I don't think the
question is relevant to this hypothetical scenario.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040812/460e4a2a/attachment-0001.htm


body:
I tried to send this message yesterday, but later got a message back
that mail delivery failed, so I'm trying again.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
>>"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
>>separate and independent?
>>
>>
>Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
>would say yes, absolutely.  The authorship of the image is different,
>
Yes, but so is the authorship of various portions of text in most
articles. The cumulative effect of different edits does not fragment an
article into tens or hundreds of separate and independent documents.

>the process by which the image is authored is completely different,
>
No argument here.

>it is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
>distribution medium",
>
Not when the distribution medium is print, at least not if it looks like
the standard layout used in most of our articles that have pictures.
Facing page illustrations might be different, but when the image and
text are on the same piece of paper, I'm pretty sure they're being
stored in the same place.

>It is hard to see how the image is somehow
>a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa.  They are simply a
>compilation.
>
My contention is not that the image is a derivative work of the article
text, or that the text is a derivative work of the image. You might say
that the end result is an article that is a derivative work of both the
text and the image (here I'm using "derivative work" in a general sense,
not trying to analyze whether that term applies as used in copyright
law). But the real question is whether Article Foo, illustrated by Image
Bar and Image Foobar, is one Document under the GFDL or three. I think
that's not clearly defined by the license itself, and when the meaning
of a term in a legal document is not clear from the document itself, the
law typically relies on ordinary meaning and usage. In ordinary usage, I
would say that Article Foo is one document, not three, especially given
how we currently use images.

Is there a way to keep Article Foo as three Documents under the GFDL?
Possibly, but I don't think our current practices do much to keep the
works separate and independent, as required for Clause 7. Putting
licensing information in captions would certainly help, since without
that there's usually no indication when looking at the article that the
image is not covered by the license as well (I'm quite aware that we
cleverly say "all text", but that's hardly enough to alert many readers).

>>And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
>>argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
>>separate and independent work from the article text.
>>
>>
>Can you point me to any case law on this point?  Law review articles?
>
Not off the top of my head. Given that copyleft in general has not been
around long enough to generate that much legal scrutiny, I'm skeptical
of finding much on such a specific question. But if you would like me
to, I can try and research the issue further. It may be a little while
before I get a chance to visit the law library, though. Again, given the
fact that "separate" and "independent" are not defined specifically in
the GFDL, I'm simply reasoning based on the ordinary meanings of those
words.

>Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
>of images for book publications.
>
>Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
>copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
>traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
>the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.
>
>After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
>portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
>the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
>no longer separate and independent?
>
I think the analogy to traditional licensing schemes misses the point.
You would have the copyright to your text in this situation, and can do
whatever you want with the text by itself, in the same way that anything
I write on Wikipedia, I have the right to publish elsewhere, under a
different system than the GFDL if I so desire. And the question of
whether images and text are "separate and independent" is significant
specifically because that's the language used by the GFDL. Unless the
traditional license says something along those lines, I don't think the
question is relevant to this hypothetical scenario.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040812/460e4a2a/attachment.html>


body:
I tried to send this message yesterday, but later got a message back
that mail delivery failed, so I'm trying again.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
>>"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
>>separate and independent?
>>
>>
>Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
>would say yes, absolutely.  The authorship of the image is different,
>
Yes, but so is the authorship of various portions of text in most
articles. The cumulative effect of different edits does not fragment an
article into tens or hundreds of separate and independent documents.

>the process by which the image is authored is completely different,
>
No argument here.

>it is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
>distribution medium",
>
Not when the distribution medium is print, at least not if it looks like
the standard layout used in most of our articles that have pictures.
Facing page illustrations might be different, but when the image and
text are on the same piece of paper, I'm pretty sure they're being
stored in the same place.

>It is hard to see how the image is somehow
>a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa.  They are simply a
>compilation.
>
My contention is not that the image is a derivative work of the article
text, or that the text is a derivative work of the image. You might say
that the end result is an article that is a derivative work of both the
text and the image (here I'm using "derivative work" in a general sense,
not trying to analyze whether that term applies as used in copyright
law). But the real question is whether Article Foo, illustrated by Image
Bar and Image Foobar, is one Document under the GFDL or three. I think
that's not clearly defined by the license itself, and when the meaning
of a term in a legal document is not clear from the document itself, the
law typically relies on ordinary meaning and usage. In ordinary usage, I
would say that Article Foo is one document, not three, especially given
how we currently use images.

Is there a way to keep Article Foo as three Documents under the GFDL?
Possibly, but I don't think our current practices do much to keep the
works separate and independent, as required for Clause 7. Putting
licensing information in captions would certainly help, since without
that there's usually no indication when looking at the article that the
image is not covered by the license as well (I'm quite aware that we
cleverly say "all text", but that's hardly enough to alert many readers).

>>And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
>>argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
>>separate and independent work from the article text.
>>
>>
>Can you point me to any case law on this point?  Law review articles?
>
Not off the top of my head. Given that copyleft in general has not been
around long enough to generate that much legal scrutiny, I'm skeptical
of finding much on such a specific question. But if you would like me
to, I can try and research the issue further. It may be a little while
before I get a chance to visit the law library, though. Again, given the
fact that "separate" and "independent" are not defined specifically in
the GFDL, I'm simply reasoning based on the ordinary meanings of those
words.

>Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
>of images for book publications.
>
>Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
>copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
>traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
>the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.
>
>After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
>portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
>the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
>no longer separate and independent?
>
I think the analogy to traditional licensing schemes misses the point.
You would have the copyright to your text in this situation, and can do
whatever you want with the text by itself, in the same way that anything
I write on Wikipedia, I have the right to publish elsewhere, under a
different system than the GFDL if I so desire. And the question of
whether images and text are "separate and independent" is significant
specifically because that's the language used by the GFDL. Unless the
traditional license says something along those lines, I don't think the
question is relevant to this hypothetical scenario.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040812/460e4a2a/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uncategorised pages

body:
At 12:07 AM 8/12/2004 +0100, Timwi wrote:
>Thanks to JeLuf, we now have [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]].  It is a
>cached list, so it will not update directly, but at least it gives us
>something to start with.  Now we can categorise all articles :-)

Well, there goes the rest of my life outside of Wikipedia. :)

I note that this list isn't taking into account categories that are part of
templates, though; there are a number of disambiguation pages included in
the list. Since it's only caching the first thousand uncategorized articles
this means that eventually it'll fill up with nothing but those, so that'll
eventually need to be taken into consideration.


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please deal with issues.

body:
On 12 Aug 2004, at 5:30 pm, Robert wrote:

> There are people who hate George W. Bush, and who think that he wants
> to kill all Muslims, and that George W. Bush deserves to die. (They
> are wrong, but whatever).

Well no. Maybe they're right, who really knows? It's a point of view.
Maybe he does want to kill all Muslims (Bush doesn't necessarily let on
what he actually thinks) and maybe he does "deserve" to die. They're
all point of views, and that you think such people who think such
things are "wrong" is another point of view.

Jayjg may not be an angel to work with but to productively collaborate
on a Wikipedia article an understanding of the above is crucial it
seems to me.

Christiaan


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing list configuration

body:
This message shouldn't make it through, if I understand the mailman
config. If it does, I'm going to be annoyed.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040812/bf7bae3c/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing list configuration

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> This message shouldn't make it through, if I understand the mailman
> config. If it does, I'm going to be annoyed.

GRRRRRRR

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040812/c1273d2a/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing list configuration

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>> This message shouldn't make it through, if I understand the mailman
>> config. If it does, I'm going to be annoyed.
>
> GRRRRRRR

Okay, better. _This_ email should go through, but my next message with a
scary binary attachment should _not_.

-- brion
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040812/80819278/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing list configuration

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Okay, better. _This_ email should go through, but my next message with a
> scary binary attachment should _not_.

/me whistles nonchalantly


from_name: xmlizer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/languages LanguageFr.php,1.72,1.73

body:
Hello !

The following text is in French because it deals with the French
translation of the Language.php file

Le texte suivant est en Fran?ais car il concerne la traduction fran?aise
du fichier Language.php

Menu "francisation"

Ashar Voultoiz a ?crit :

>   /* private */ $wgSkinNamesFr = array(
> ! 	'standard' => "Standard",
> ! 	'nostalgia' => "Nostalgie",
> ! 	'cologneblue' => "Cologne Blue",
pourquoi pas plut?t "Cologne Bleu"
> ! 	'smarty' => "Paddington",
> ! 	'montparnasse' => "Montparnasse",
pourquoi pas plutt?t "Mont Parnasse" ? moins que ca ait ? voir avec le
quartier ou la gare....
> ! 	'davinci' => "DaVinci",
pourquoi pas plut?t "De Vinci" ou "de Vinci"
> ! 	'mono' => "Mono",
> ! 	'monobook' => "MonoBook",
> !  "myskin" => "MySkin"
pourquoi pas plut?t "Mon Style"
>   );
>
> *** 48,55 ****
>
>   /* private */ $wgBookstoreListFr = array(
> ! 	"Amazon.fr" => "http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ISBN=$1",
plut?t "amazon.fr" pour pas faire de jaloux .... ;-)
> ! 	"alapage.fr"	=> "http://www.alapage.com/mx/?tp=F&type=101&l_isbn=$1&donnee_appel=ALASQ&devise=&",
> ! 	"fnac.com"	=> "http://www3.fnac.com/advanced/book.do?isbn=$1",
> ! 	"chapitre.com"	=> "http://www.chapitre.com/frame_rec.asp?isbn=$1",
>   );
>
> --- 60,83 ----
>
>   /* private */ $wgValidSpecialPagesFr = array(
> ! 	'Userlogin'     => '',
> ! 	'Userlogout'    => '',
> ! 	'Preferences'   => 'Pr??f??rences',
> ! 	'Watchlist'     => 'Liste de suivi',
> ! 	'Recentchanges' => 'Modifications r??centes',
> ! 	'Upload'        => 'Copier un fichier',
que pensez vous de "Ajouter un fichier" ou "Importer un fichier"
> ! 	'Imagelist'     => 'Liste des images',
> ! 	'Listusers'     => 'Liste des participants',
> ! 	'Statistics'    => 'Statistiques',
> ! 	'Randompage'    => 'Une page au hasard',
>
> ! 	'Lonelypages'   => 'Pages orphelines',
> ! 	'Unusedimages'  => 'Images orphelines',
> ! 	'Popularpages'  => 'Les plus populaires',
> ! 	'Wantedpages'   => 'Les plus demand??es',
> ! 	'Shortpages'    => 'Articles courts',
> ! 	'Longpages'     => 'Articles longs',
> ! 	'Newpages'      => 'Nouvelles pages',
> ! 	'Ancientpages'	=> 'Anciennes pages',
> ! 	'Allpages'      => 'Toutes les pages',
>
>   	"Ipblocklist"   => "Adresses IP bloqu??es",

Question du b?otiens qu'a surement rat? la discussion ad?quate :
   On parles souvent de "Pages" et dans certains textes, il est question
de "Sujet" (a priori sujet incluerai les cat?gories) ou d'"Article" ?
Y'a-t-il une nomenclature ? si oui, o? puis-je la trouver ?

> *** 116,120 ****
>   # User Toggles
>
> ! "tog-hover"  => "Afficher des info-bulles sur les liens wiki",
>   "tog-underline" => "Liens soulign??s",
>   "tog-highlightbroken" => "Liens vers les sujets non existants en rouge",
> --- 116,120 ----
>   # User Toggles
>
> ! "tog-hover" => "Afficher des info-bulles sur les liens wiki",
>   "tog-underline" => "Liens soulign??s",
>   "tog-highlightbroken" => "Liens vers les sujets non existants en rouge",

Cordialement

Xmlizer


subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing list configuration

body:
I've turned on Mailman's mime filtering for all lists. It should,
hopefully, reject binary attachments such as the virus mails we've
recently been seeing.

Also, hideous HTML mail should be automatically converted to nice text.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040812/147c9b7f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: linkscan?

body:
tatet wrote:
> ???????????.
>
> ???? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????, ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?
> ????????? ?? ? ??????? link. ??? ?????????? ?????? Whatlinkshere.
> ??? ?????? ??????.
>
>
>

Systran says:

"Zdrastvuyte. Me it interests there is whether the script, which
skinruyet the connection of references and are added they into table
link. For the normal operation Whatlinkshere. I await your answer."

Do you mean you want to refresh the link table? For that, use
maintenance/refreshLinks.php.

?? ????????????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ????,
??????????? maintenance/refreshLinks.php.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Austin Hair

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Nauruan and this ugly message under each
	en:article

body:
> Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm. Having the URL be
> missing from the printed page does more harm.

"Harm?"  This feature was only introduced last week.  Were we somehow
hurt by the lack of this text before?

The phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" makes the attribution
clear, IMO, and most browsers print the URL in the heading of each page
by default.  This, however, is hardly the point -- I'm not arguing for
the removal of the text, as most have noticed, but rather for its
re-implementation using CSS.

--
Austin D. Hair <austin at austinhair.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Callidus
http://www.austinhair.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040812/238f7dd8/attachment.pgp


from_name: Yann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hidden message

body:
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040812/982ef5a2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Your_money.com
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 21271 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040812/982ef5a2/attachment.obj>


from_name: Roman Maurer

body:
Gerard.Meijssen pravi:

> The aim of Wikipedia is to share all the knowledge, this means
> that the knowledge must be visible. Promoting good free fonts
> and making them easily available is one way.

As it turn out there are problems with finding good *and* free fonts.
This is an attempt of a fellow Wikipedian Primo? Peterlin and others:

http://www.nongnu.org/freefont/
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/freefont/
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


body:
xmlizer wrote:

> Question du b?otiens qu'a surement rat? la discussion ad?quate :
>   On parles souvent de "Pages" et dans certains textes, il est question
> de "Sujet" (a priori sujet incluerai les cat?gories) ou d'"Article" ?
> Y'a-t-il une nomenclature ? si oui, o? puis-je la trouver ?

Tous les "articles" sont aussi des "pages", mais une "page" peut aussi
?tre une page de discussion, une page d'un utilisateur, une page
Wikip?dia, une cat?gorie, un mod?le, une page de d?scription d'un image
ou autre fichier, ou une page d'aide. Les "articles" sont les pages dans
l'espace sans nom.

Timwi


body:
Austin Hair wrote:

> Consider the number of people printing Wikipedia articles from "less
> comforming browsers" vs. the number of people actually viewing Wikipedia
> articles online.  Is this the correct assumption to make?  Why do we
> have to endure such frivolities as painting the current URL boldly
> across the page, especially when this is almost always in the print
> header to begin with?

Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm. Having the URL be
missing from the printed page does more harm.


body:
Roman Maurer wrote:

> Gerard.Meijssen pravi:
>
>> The aim of Wikipedia is to share all the knowledge, this means
>> that the knowledge must be visible. Promoting good free fonts
>> and making them easily available is one way.
>
> As it turn out there are problems with finding good *and* free fonts.

There is a good and free font, and I already mentioned how to find it.
Google for "Code2000". http://home.att.net/~jameskass/


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

body:
Roman Maurer wrote:

> As it turn out there are problems with finding good *and* free fonts.
> This is an attempt of a fellow Wikipedian Primo? Peterlin and others:
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/freefont/
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/freefont/

Files section seems empty, last news from 2002...


subject: [Wikitech-l] References to Wikipedia in the source code

body:
Hi,

is my impression correct that if you install MediaWiki using all default
values, not changing anything, your wiki will call itself "Wikipedia"?

On the German mailing list, it has been mentioned that many of the
Wikipedia mirrors who copy the content of the German Wikipedia receive a
higher Google rank than the German Wikipedia itself.  I suppose we could
counter-act this trend by making sure that the default values of a
default MediaWiki installation do not use the word "Wikipedia".  In
particular, I think it is important that other sites not use the word
"Wikipedia" in the <title>, though another contributing factor may be
that loads of pages on those mirror sites are in a "Wikipedia" namespace.

Maybe we should change it to something meaningless, like "FreeWiki" or
something?

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Uncategorised pages

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

[ Special:Uncategorisedpages ]
> I note that this list isn't taking into account categories that are part
> of templates, though; there are a number of disambiguation pages
> included in the list. Since it's only caching the first thousand
> uncategorized articles this means that eventually it'll fill up with
> nothing but those, so that'll eventually need to be taken into
> consideration.

Interesting.  It is not supposed to do that.  Thanks for the notice, I
will investigate this.


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Scripted image upload?

body:
It would need writing, but all the 'hard work' has already been done - there
is a library to do the actual uploading, so all one would have to do is get
a loop over it and define the text to go with the image. Being especially
written for the Mediawiki software probably makes it better usable than any
external program, since it 'knows' what values to give for the various data
that have to be sent together with the upload.

Andre Engels

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:15:11 +0200 ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason
<avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
>pywikipediabot can do it also IIRC
>
>On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:03:24 +0200, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de>
>wrote:
>> There's a PHP class out there
>>
>> http://freshmeat.net/projects/httpclass/?branch_id=15372&release_id=169649
>>
>> that can, as of this release, POST-upload files. Sounds like a good way
>> to mass-upload an image collection (GFDL or PD, of course;-)
>>
>> Magnus
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body: Tim and I have settled this issue on IRC.


from_name: coxcustomer3 at cox.net

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Mintguy is an ad-hominem,
	British Upper Class POV revert war monger

body: I can't ever get a word in without him getting on my case.  Mintguy has this stuffy, toffee-nosed, Upper Class, British POV, Canonical Fascism about every article and doesn't allow for American contributions on British and British related topics by me, although it was beginning to spill into other articles including American that I contributed to in his quest to stamp me out and erase my efforts to Wikipedia.  He vandalised my User Talk Page and banned my IP address in the midst of a revert war in which he facilitated a prejudicial and ad hominem, mass revert spree towards my contributions without excuse by any discussion, despite my message to him on his talk page for a reason of his and a warning against such behaviours. - Kenneth Alan


from_name: Kenneth Alan

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Mintguy is an ad-hominem,
	British Upper Class POV revert war monger

body:
Sorry about the long line of writing.  I thought the wrap-around features work at the mailing list.  I hope this one comes out right.
>
> From: <coxcustomer3 at cox.net>
> Date: 2004/08/13 Fri AM 05:37:51 EDT
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Mintguy is an ad-hominem, British Upper Class POV revert war monger
>
> I can't ever get a word in without him getting on my case.  Mintguy has this stuffy, toffee-nosed, Upper Class, British POV, Canonical Fascism about every article and doesn't allow for American contributions on British and British related topics by me, although it was beginning to spill into other articles including American that I contributed to in his quest to stamp me out and erase my efforts to Wikipedia.  He vandalised my User Talk Page and banned my IP address in the midst of a revert war in which he facilitated a prejudicial and ad hominem, mass revert spree towards my contributions without excuse by any discussion, despite my message to him on his talk page for a reason of his and a warning against such behaviours. - Kenneth Alan
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Soft-pedal the personal remarks

body:
Two recent posts to this list have complained about other contributors,
including even some name-calling.

Surely we are all mature adults here, and can discuss issues of how to
write good articles -- without such comments as:

* stuffy, toffee-nosed, Upper Class, British
* responded with ad homenin comments to me on this list
* made an unfortunate comment on my user page

Please allow me suggest that we all confine our remarks to discussion of
the articles themselves, and to specific additions or deletions to them.
And leave personalities out of it.

The reason for this is that when you depart from the articles and veer
into discussing the writers, a lot of them "take it personally" and feel
"attacked". Then they start defending themeselves or even
counter-attacking, and we lose the focus of the thread: which should be
on how we can improve this encyclopedia.

Ed Poor
Not the Moderator, but...
The English Mailing List Administrator


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another, unresolved security problem

body:
This was taken from Jimbo's talk page:

User:Mats Halldin
This user is harrassing me to no end. Whenever I contribute anything, he calls me a troll and gets me blocked on the Swedish Village Pump. He's trying to do that here, too at the English Wikipedia. I was complaining about being sabotaged by some other Wikipedia user I don't know who, but likely on the English Wikipedia. What happens is, I open the English Wikipedia and it gets moved to another website. This effectively blocks me from seeing any articles and learning the things I want to know. I have two spy/ad/malware blockers and two web browsers now to combat this garbage. I hope the problems goes away soon because this behaviour is completely unacceptable no matter who it's done to. The website isn't supposed to be tampered with. I am very sure that it is only the English site that doesn't work when I have a problem accessing Wikipedia. Lord Kenne? Alansson 00:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See User Talk:OlofE about possible implications in relevance to the Trump Family(Donald and Matthew) of NYC. Lord Kenne? Alansson 13:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? Basically, you and Mats can email each other through a mediator, and resolve your disputes in private. I don't think Jimbo needs to deal with this; we have a mediation committee to handle battles between users. Samboy 22:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is about the security of the website. It shouldn't be so exploited maliciously. J?rv?kingr 06:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] RE: Mintguy is an ad-hominem,
	British Upper Class POV revert war monger

body:
Just because I've had some editing flaws in the past, doesn't permit somebody to abuse their privileges and ban somebody for their opinions.  That is expressly forbidden at Wikipedia.

Not that I have a problem with British people, it's that I have a problem with POV spins in favour of merely the Upper Class propaganda.  Wikipedia is not for such things as Wikipedia is not a place for establishing social heirarchy as a reason for what edits to favour.


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Letting a group speak for itself

body:
Christiaan writes:
> Well no. Maybe they're right, who really knows?
> It's a point of view.  Maybe he does want to kill all
> Muslims (Bush doesn't necessarily let on what he
> actually thinks) and maybe he does "deserve" to die.
> They're all point of views, and that you think such
> people who think such things are "wrong" is another
> point of view.
> Jayjg may not be an angel to work with but to
> productively collaborate on a Wikipedia article an
> understanding of the above is crucial it seems to me.

I'm glad that we agree with each other, but JayJg does not
seem to agree with this (at least not in practice).  You
offer a crucial point: There is a difference between what a
person says (e.g. George Bush) and what critics of that
person claims they really believe (e.g. certain Muslim
groups.)

We must accurately describe what George W. Bush and the
White House present as their policy.  We must also
accurately describe the POV of critics of the Bush White
House. If someone wants, we even can present the POV of
extremist groups that hate Bush and wish that he would be
killed. (But to be fair, we would also have to note that
such groups are not mainstream and are considered violent.)

But we must never present the view of Muslim terrorist
groups AS IF they were the views of George W. Bush! That is
intellectually dishonest.

The same is true for describing the beliefs and teachings
of religious groups, like Conservative Judaism, Reform
Judaism, the Catholic Church, etc. We must never present
the view of their most angry critics AS IF they were the
views of the group itself! That is intellectually dishonest

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Timwi wrote:
> is my impression correct that if you install MediaWiki using all default
> values, not changing anything, your wiki will call itself "Wikipedia"?

Some of the language files still have "Wikipedia" hard coded in them,
but most of them should have long since replaced it with whatever you
set as the site name at install time.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040813/b5f8d4f3/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Timwi

body:
Austin Hair wrote:

>>Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm. Having the URL be
>>missing from the printed page does more harm.
>
> "Harm?"  This feature was only introduced last week.  Were we somehow
> hurt by the lack of this text before?

No, this is not true.  It has always been there in the previous skin.
It has only been overlooked in the Monobook skin, so it was added last
week.  It is easy to miss because not many people look at the print
preview very often; still, it is important to have the message on
printed pages.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/includes SpecialAllpages.php,1.15,1.16

body:
Timwi wrote:

> A major reworking of [[Special:Allmessages]].

Gah. Of course I meant [[Special:Allpages]].  Why do I always get the
most embarrassing errors?  :-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Updating cur and old database tables

body:
Claudio V wrote:
> I was wondering if it is possible to update a
> localhost Wikipedia cur and old tables or every time a
> new database dump is available you must completely
> overwrite the cur and old tables with the most recent
> ones.

Until someone gets around to producing a nice way of updating, yes. Feel
free to do that.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040813/b5dce00c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
While I know nothing of this particular dispute, I do have to say that
nobody has the right to demand forgiveness for past actions.
Especially since, despite your wishing to characterise it as "long ago
past", you're talking about one single year.  Most people do not
change all that much in one year, unless we're talking of very young
children.

A certain amount of suspicion that the former behavior will be
continued is to be EXPECTED; if you're truly sorry for that behavior,
that suspicion is something you will, bluntly, just have to take.
Only your actions will prove to people that you have changed.

-Morven


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: How about distributing fonts ??

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Roman Maurer wrote:
>
>> Gerard.Meijssen pravi:
>>
>>> The aim of Wikipedia is to share all the knowledge, this means
>>> that the knowledge must be visible. Promoting good free fonts
>>> and making them easily available is one way.
>>
>>
>> As it turn out there are problems with finding good *and* free fonts.
>
>
> There is a good and free font, and I already mentioned how to find it. Google for "Code2000". http://home.att.net/~jameskass/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>

The Code2000 code is shareware. So it is expected that you pay for the privilige. Wikimedia is free and OGG is free, there are free fonts. There are fonts that for dead languages that are missing from Code2000 like Etruscan. My point was that by hosting the distribution of free fonts, promoting the development of free fonts we would enhance the wikimedia experience exactly like we would do with distributing OGG.

Thanks,
  GerardM

ng them easily available is one way.
>>
>>
>> As it turn out there are problems with finding good *and* free fonts.
>
>
> There is a good and free font, and I already mentioned how to find it. Google for "Code2000". http://home.att.net/~jameskass/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>

The Code2000 code is shareware. So it is expected that you pay for the privilige. Wikimedia is free and OGG is free, there are free fonts. There are fonts that for dead langua


from_name: John Robinson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] RE: Mintguy is an ad-hominem, 	British Upper Class
	POV revert war monger

body:
>I don't appreciate falsifications that justify social institutions
>which people like Mintguy adhere to.

You have a lot of gall coming onto the list spouting about how
"abused" you think you are. You should have been banned months ago.

-Hephaestos


body:
I don't appreciate falsifications that justify social institutions which people like Mintguy adhere to.  The nature of his interests and the form of his edits and attacks against me happen to reflect class basis.  He has closeminded attitude to seeing anything which is not canon in his perceptions by the education he had in school.  Mature contributers look beyond traditional, child-geared teachings to find more than the simple lullaby story.  He has no understanding of how to expound upon articles to really bring their nature to light.  All is dry and dreary, a lacklustre approach that signifies lack of creative inspiration for presentation.  I believe that he is locked in his own willfull ignorance of more than the dogmatic simple take, always used and always believed.  It is types like him that prevent needed changes in education from reflecting the real truth, instead of the one that justifies his quaint fantasy.  Painting realities is what upper class snobs like him do to prevent others from seeing through them and their motives for trading truth for money for political advantage.  I do not merely uphold the establishment's needs for preserving their perfect story on matters.  I reveal the depth of things uncovered which are normally the stuff of what is taboo to speak of.  My revelations found in the texts I read are never merely my opinion, they reflect often a side that has merit and is stomped by the bully.  Voting for truth isn't realistic, but that is exactly how people like him resolve their insecurities with handling the flaws of power and propaganda.  I am not satisfied with simply regurgitating the winning side of every debate, when that winning side had certain incentives to choose the main reality to focus on.  I do not respond kindly to boxed-minded and living people who insist that others must comply.  When the big picture is understood, this gives people a choice to decide for themselves just where their loyalties lie to the wording.  I will not condone sheltering people from more knowledge than others want them to know when it affects us all who art involved.

No matter the fact that he has a British style and I American, there is fault in his approach to dealing with me in his prejudices and abuse of power, that he used absolutely.  I may be seen as living in my box and insisting that others comply, but that doesn't give Mintguy merit to break the rules he himself is supposed to uphold.  He is given privileges in return for adhering the rules, not willfully breaking them.  He confessed that he knows not what steps to take in regards to my banning that he did of me without counsel and approval.  Follow our user contributions to see that Mintguy banned me for what is an unpopular opinion in his eye.  He is irresponsible for doing so, when that breaks the rules of his station.


from_name: Peter Jacobi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Code 2000

body:
Whereas Code 2000 may be a good start to support a lot of scripts, you
shouldn't repeat the claim of it being "free". It's shareware.

<cite>
 If you like it and use it after a reasonable evaluation period,
 you are  obliged to register the font by sending me $5 (Five
 U.S. Dollars, or equivalent in any currency.)
 Registration Fee Schedule:
 US$  5.00 - Single user registration fee
 US$ 50.00 - Single site registration fee
 US$100.00 - Server/Web site (embedding) registration fee
</cite>

In fact it is speculated that James Kass would be able to live a leisurely
life if every user would actually pay him.

A very complete directory of available fonts is at:
http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html

Regards,
Peter Jacobi

--
NEU: WLAN-Router f?r 0,- EUR* - auch f?r DSL-Wechsler!
GMX DSL = superg?nstig & kabellos http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Text-to-speech

body:
Hi,

I just found an AT&T demo site for text-to-speech synthesis:

http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html

which appears to generate *way* better speech than I got from other
(local installation) demos.

They want to sell it, of course, but I thought we should ask them for a
cooperation. This would be the ultimate demonstration for their software
(better than a million people typing "this is a test"), and it could
enable us to provide access to the "visually impaired" without the need
for a local text-to-speech browser, and with better speech quality. Or
it could be a "convenience link", like "read this article to me, I'm too
lazy to move my eyes" (or: wikipedia for mp3 players? ;-)

As Wikipedia has a good and innovative image, and since we wouldn't buy
their product anyway, I guess AT&T would be interested in such a thing.
Question is, would we?

Magnus


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Text-to-speech

body:
Magnus Manske schrieb:
> As Wikipedia has a good and innovative image, and since we wouldn't buy
> their product anyway, I guess AT&T would be interested in such a thing.
> Question is, would we?

Sure! I would love to see that.

The quality even of the German part is impressive, with much space to
improve :)

Mathias


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikitech-l] Testing list configuration

body:
Hi,

Le Friday 13 August 2004 04:05, Brion Vibber a ?crit :
> I've turned on Mailman's mime filtering for all lists. It should,
> hopefully, reject binary attachments such as the virus mails we've
> recently been seeing.
>
> Also, hideous HTML mail should be automatically converted to nice text.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thanks a lot Brion!
This was needed since long.

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


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] How about distributing fonts ??

body:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:03:15AM +0200, Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote:

> >http://www.nongnu.org/freefont/
> >http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/freefont/
>
> Files section seems empty, last news from 2002...

See te CVS (browse on the web on
http://savannah.nongnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/freefont/freefont/ ).

g


from_name: Jimmy O'Regan

body:
Kenneth Alan wrote:

>This was taken from Jimbo's talk page:
>
>User:Mats Halldin
>This user is harrassing me to no end. Whenever I contribute anything, he calls me a troll and gets me blocked on the Swedish Village Pump. He's trying to do that here, too at the English Wikipedia. I was complaining about being sabotaged by some other Wikipedia user I don't know who, but likely on the English Wikipedia. What happens is, I open the English Wikipedia and it gets moved to another website. This effectively blocks me from seeing any articles and learning the things I want to know. I have two spy/ad/malware blockers and two web browsers now to combat this garbage. I hope the problems goes away soon because this behaviour is completely unacceptable no matter who it's done to. The website isn't supposed to be tampered with. I am very sure that it is only the English site that doesn't work when I have a problem accessing Wikipedia. Lord Kenne? Alansson 00:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
>
>
I remember having a conversation with Menchi on IRC about this; user
customisations (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_styles) can
potentially be abused:

function elsewhere ()
 {
    window.location = "http://www.google.com";
 }
 if (window.addEventListener)
window.addEventListener("load",elsewhere,false);
 else if (window.attachEvent)     window.attachEvent("onload",elsewhere);

I can't see any sign of this being the case here though.