from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

    Cheney Shill wrote:

very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an ambiguous scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too ambiguous. It's not just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on this. Are we not supposed to be judging and reporting on the facts as they are, not as we think they should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
    >
    Reporting yes; judging no.

So we should "report" the facts as we think they should be, not as they are?

    Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!

So is bias.  Yet we have something called NPOV.  So is rumor and hoax, yet we have verifiability.  It appears there are contributors having learning issues living with policy.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities

body:
On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's Fox's entertainment gossip.   They aren't held to the same "reporting" standards as the "news".  Equally ironic, the entertainment "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
>
> This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their entries with the aid of their staff?
>

Is Jimbo and/or Danny (his staff) blocked from editing [[Jimmy Wales]]?

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)

body:
Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:

    I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that admins
    should be contactable by e-mail. Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
    a damn good idea for a number of reasons.

    If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it. It'll
    take you less then five minutes. If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
    to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends a
    rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.

I agree.  It should be policy.  Nothing difficult about setting up a separate email for Wiki if you're concerned about acquiring stalkers.  I've had admin stalkers, but that doesn't scare me from setting up a contact, mailing this list, or even using IRC.  To me, it shows paranoia and ignorance in the admin that needs to be questioned at the very least.~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Matsobane

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Downloading Contents from wikis project

body:
Greetings
I installed Mediawiki which i think is working fine on the web server
and i have been trying to download contents from very interesting wiki's
project such as wikibooks;wikiqoute,wikicommons,wiktionery and other
without success.
Could you guys help on the easiest way to dowmload or find the contents.
I am working for a government project in SOUTH AFRICA that specialise in
opensource and our targets are school from primary to secondary levels
so i need to contents that we could install in their labs because they
do not have internet.
I hope i could get helped
Regards
Matsobane Moloto
icommunity(SA)
Tel:+27 15 4834878
cell:0731634000


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
Jimmy can't get outside the door without being accosted by some
pissed-off semi-celebrity about their wikipedia entry, can he :P

Also, I LIKE wikitopeans. I wish we'd thought of it first.....

On 5/9/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194757,00.html
>
> " I also met the guy who invented Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and video
> game designer Rob Pardo, who couldn't believe he'd been invited.
> James, Wales and Pardo were all on the 100 list."
>
> And
>
> "Meantime, I left the Time Warner center just as my pal Ann Coulter
> was busy chastising Jimmy Wales about her Wikipedia entry, and finding
> out from him how to change it. Listen, you Wikipedians, be nice to Ann
> Coulter. I leave you with this thought: she's got great legs no matter
> what her politics are, and you're lucky she has a sense of humor,
> too."
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Matsobane Moloto

body:
     Greetings
I installed Mediawiki which i think is working fine on the web server
and i have been trying to download contents from very interesting wiki's
project such as wikibooks;wikiqoute,wikicommons,wiktionery and other
without success.
Could you guys help on the easiest way to dowmload or find the contents.
I am working for a government project in SOUTH AFRICA that specialise in
opensource and our targets are school from primary to secondary levels
so i need to contents that we could install in their labs because they
do not have internet.
I hope i could get helped
Regards
Matsobane Moloto
icommunity(SA)
Tel:+27 15 4834878
cell:0731634000


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Phil Harnish

subject: [Wikitech-l] Threads: any plans

references:
<87y7xhlsho.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
	<295fb610605051123q3ccca886i2cf0e428b29c8cb1@mail.gmail.com>
	<87hd40g5n6.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
	<295fb610605090924x225afb6ema4a47c0097ecbf5d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
I'm not sure about anyone else following this conversation, but I
applied to this project for the Google Summer of Code. It sounds like
you put a lot of thought into the subject and I would be pretty
interested to hear some of your ideas (or a see demo).

Come to think of it, the stereotypical forum software doesn't do
anything to reach consensus, except maybe for polls. Compare that to
Wikipedia, where talk pages are rarely used for conversations. Having
a conversation and arguing have always been very different. Designing
this feature to facilitate "conversations" might be a mistake.

If you would like, I encourage you to post your thoughts on this
somewhere. Perhaps along with LiquidThreads or simply link to
information from there. If I am not selected or the project is not
picked up for summer of code, it could still be incorporated in
whatever is developed some day.

- Phil Harnish

On 5/9/06, Robert Rapplean <mythobeast at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
> >
> > Your tool is an experiment? Is intended to be included in media wiki?
>
>
> Experiment is the right word for it.  I've identified a lot of uses for it,
> and the talk pages on Wikipedia are an ideal typification of why it would be
> valuable.  Like most online communication tools it's designed to facilitate
> communication between individuals, but has no built in facilities for the
> organization of thoughts, nor for the aggregation of the participant's ideas
> into a single central consensus.
>
> This is especially true for the wikipedia, where one discussion page is
> being used to determine the consensus on a myriad of ideas presented in any
> single entry.  I think it would be an excellent proving grounds for the
> tool.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
The Belarusan language is spoken by 9,081,102 people worldwide
according to the Ethnologue; in Belarus it is spoken by 6,715,000, or
65% of the population (most of the rest are native speakers of
Russian, Trasianka, Yiddish, Polish, or Ukrainian).

In Belarusan schools, the Belarusan language is a cumpulsory subject
for all students who wish to graduate, totalling on average between
75,000 and 100,000 per year (graduates).

The Belarusan language used in schools and by the government and by
the vast majority of the Belarusan people is called Narkamauka,
codified in the 1960s.

However, some Belarusan nationalists favour a return to the older
Belarusan codified in the 1920s, called Tarashkievitsa. Some of the
more radical nationalists also favour a switch to the Latin alphabet,
called Latsinka.

Currently there is a fight on Meta between proponents of the official
Belarusan and proponents of the alternative Belarusan.

By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the
first to arrive at be.wikipedia, and all of the administrators there
write in the alternative style, and the entire interface is written in
it too.

New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety,
however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the
alternative style. According to proponents of the official
orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give
that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.

You can see the entire debate here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Present_Belarusian_.286_support.2C_13_oppose.29

Now, obviously the answer to such questions is generally "resolve
within the community". However, in this case some people are claiming
that the community leaders are acting improperly by deleting new
articles in Narkamauka and then a few minutes later posting the same
articles written in Tarashkievitsa. People also allege that policy on
be.wp favours the alternative spelling over official spelling, and
that it is not possible to change it without outside help because the
admins at be.wp are a dictatorship.

In this case I think it is appropriate for the international Wikimedia
community to get involved. Clearly a neutral third party is needed to
evaluate the claims of both sides and make things right.

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Ben Francis

subject: [Wikitech-l] SoC: MediaWiki Export

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> I've
> badly wanted to see something like this for some time, and would be
> glad (with 20 years system analyst experience :-) to kibitz on the
> design, if you like.

That's cool, thanks.

> My personal target was mostly being able to extract a partial tree from
> a running MW install, and dump it into a DocBook source file,

When you say a "partial" tree, how would you define the boundaries of
said tree?

Ben
--
Ben "tola" Francis
http://hippygeek.co.uk


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org>
>>
>>>How does an article go about asserting the notability of its subject?
>>>What would be an example of an article which asserts notability but
>>>doesn't establish it?
>>
>>Those poor fellows who make music in garages in suburban towns in
>>the American Midwest seem to be a particular favourite target, so let's
>>give an example involving them:
>>
>>"
>>'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan.
>>Next year they are going to take over the world.
>>"
>
> So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert
> notability.  It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to
> assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts
> notability but doesn't establish it.

No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty
weak.  Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith
is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered.  The
assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future,
might perhaps be considered such.  That said, I'd personally do at least
a background check to see if there's more to the claim than that; if the
claim was made by a reliable and/or influential external source, that in
itself would establish some degree of notability.

Basically, this comes down to a form of assuming good faith: while it is
true that articles without an assertion of notability may be deleted
without further ado, it is prudent for the admin (and/or the nominator)
to perform at least a cursory check to see if a plausible claim to
notability can be found off-wiki, and, if so, to add it to the article.

For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would
technically be speediable.   However, if a Google search turned up the
fact that he's also a Nobel prize winner, a reasonable response would be
to amend the article to say so rather than deleting it.

> I still have no idea what it means to "assert notability" or what "an
> article with no claim to notability" is.

A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:

"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school.  He
plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers.  He's a really
great guy."

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Feature suggestion: See all redirects to a page as
	aliases

body:
On 5/9/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > When you add new lines, they would
> > be converted to new redirects. Deletion of redirects via this method
> > would require consideration...
>
> You're right, there are copyright issues here: any redirect that's the
> result of a merge has to be preserved so that the original editors are
> attributable.

Probably best just not to do it. It's not often that redirects need to
be deleted anyway. The only harmful ones are stuff like "Monkey face
-> [[George W Bush]]" or whatever.

Steve


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] title case mapping and Wiktionary links

body:
Several of us on the English Wiktionary are trying to resolve an issue
and we could use some advice.

(This is my frist post to this list, so apologies if I restate the
obvious.)

What's the best way to rig it up so that when you interlink to [[Foo]]
on a caseful Wiki project, where "Foo" does not exist but "foo" does,
to give the user a convenient shortcut to [[foo]]?

Background: unlike most Mediawiki projects, the English Wiktionary
honors case in the first character of article titles .  (That is, I
assume it has $wgCapitalLinks set to false.)  This can cause problems
with links to Wiktionary from other Mediawiki projects, and from the
outside world (such as Wiktionary mirrors), since those incoming links
are often to the capitalized version of a word, on the assumption that
Wiktionary works like Wikipedia.  (As, in fact, it once did.)

Even since it switched over to casefulness, Wiktionary has evidently
been trying to "solve" this problem by having an explicit, capitalized
redirect in place for every lower-case entry.  But that's clearly a huge
nuisance and waste of time.

Instead, some of us have been thinking it Would Be Nice if we could
adjust the behavior on a missing page ("broken link") slightly.  Instead
of saying "Wiktionary does not have an entry for this word yet", in the
case where Wiktionary does have an alternate-case version of the word,
perhaps it should display an explicit "Did you mean?" link right up
front (along with but ahead of the other search and create options).

There are probably several ways of approaching this.  I've already
implemented one way, but I'm curious as to this list's opinion of the
most appropriate approach.

   1. I added some code (in a test wiki) to getContent() in Article.php
      to optionally display "Did you mean ___?" before displaying
      'noarticletext', in the case where an alternate-case version does
      exist.  In some ways this is the right approach, but it's awkward,
      because it has to prepend its text to the 'noarticletext'
      boilerplate.  Someone editing MediaWiki:noarticletext would
      reasonably expect to see the "Did you mean?" text there,
      and might want to integrate it with the rest of the boilerplate,
      but wouldn't be able to.

   2. It might also be possible to implement the test and optional text
      right there in 'noarticletext', using the new in-line conditional
      expressions.  (But I'm not sure they're quite powerful enough.)

   3. Arguably, this is a problem that doesn't need solving, and the
      typical, already-existing "You can search for this article in
      Wiktionary" link should suffice.

   4. Arguably, this is a problem that does need solving, but in an even
      more general case, whenever there are other kinds of near matches,
      that aren't appropriate to handle with redirects or with the
      automatic case mapping that happens when $wgCapitalLinks is on.

(Someone might ask, "Why provide an interactive question and a link;
why not just quietly redirect?"  But that defeats the purpose of being
caseful and makes it difficult or impossible to create a second entry
with the other case.  If you're going to redirect in this case, you
might as well turn on $wgCapitalLinks and be done with it.)

Another way of thinking of this is that the proposed "Did you mean?"
question is a little like a disambiguation page, in a case where user
confirmation is required (i.e. in cases where a more implicit Wiki
redirect or 302 redirect is not appropriate).

For all I know this issue has been discussed already and some consensus
reached.  But does anyone have any advice or suggestions?  Thanks.


from_name: Wildrick Steele

body:
On 09/05/06, Matsobane Moloto <molotomf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>      Greetings
> I installed Mediawiki which i think is working fine on the web server
> and i have been trying to download contents from very interesting wiki's
> project such as wikibooks;wikiqoute,wikicommons,wiktionery and other
> without success.
> Could you guys help on the easiest way to dowmload or find the contents.
> I am working for a government project in SOUTH AFRICA that specialise in
> opensource and our targets are school from primary to secondary levels
> so i need to contents that we could install in their labs because they
> do not have internet.
> I hope i could get helped
> Regards
> Matsobane Moloto
> icommunity(SA)
> Tel:+27 15 4834878
> cell:0731634000
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

All downloads are available at
http://download.wikimedia.org/

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus


from_name: Mark Gallagher

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

body:
G'day Steve,

<many snips/>

> deletion. It's exactly the same issue as with RfA - I believe we
> should as a group decide how many edits are required for an admin, and
> set that in stone. Then for any individual candidate, we can simply
> check that he meets all the requirements.

Oh, good grief, no.  There was a user a while back --- unlike most of my
examples, I actually remember his name, but 'twouldn't be right to
reveal it[0] --- who made a complete nuisance of himself on a particular
article that was very topical at the time.

He started POV-pushing on Article X, attempting to make it a hagiography
of its subject.  Then he began inserting unnecessary detail into the
article, making an already unmanageable article balloon out to a size
that can best be described as "ghastly".  Then, after fighting with
other editors for some time, he proposed the article on FAC.  When his
proposal was rejected, he told the other editors that they had no choice
but to accede to his wishes, because he'd asked a trusted family member
to review the case, and the family member agreed with him.

Then he ran for RfA.  He was opposed on many counts, including general
immaturity, low-level creepiness, having an huge edits-per-article
average (because of his obsession with Article X), and having a really
annoying way of using talkpages (coloured text and a big .sig).  He
attempted to argue that, since he was a "Wikipedian in good standing",
because he had the minimum cited edit count at the time, we owed him
adminship.  He even complained to Jimbo about it.

As long as we persist in expecting admins to have the support of the
community, there should be a way for us to have input on candidates who
may meet all the requirements but who nevertheless should not be allowed
to ever touch those extra buttons.

[0] I've already had a go at two people on the list this week, that's
     bad enough --- at least both occurrences were to their face.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 5/05/2006


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] wiki for lyrics and general music info

body:
There's another one somewhere - tabwiki I think, and another one just
for lyrics.
On May 9, 2006, at 6:00 PM, alforishnor wrote:

>
> I created www.breadformusic.com several weeks ago in hopes of
> creating a wiki
> community for lyrics and information on songs, artists, albums, and
> record
> labels. Many of the lyrics sites out there nowadays are incorrect
> and a wiki
> seems to be the ideal format for a lyrics site.
>
> We've already got a small community started but if any of you are
> willing to
> help out or just spread the world it would be much appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> daniel
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wiki-for-lyrics-
> and-general-music-info-t1588783.html#a4311959
> Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Jeff Carr

subject: [Wikitech-l] 10k

body:
On 05/01/06 13:53, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today we came over 10k HTTP requests per second (even with inter-squid
> traffic eliminated). Especially thanks to Mark and Tim, who've been
> improving our caching, as well as doing lots of other work, and
> achieved incredible results (while I was slacking). Really, thanks!
>
> Domas

Wow. That is a cool statistic. Way to go on tuning those systems.
*10k/sec is a lot* Time to think about writing an article for the Linux
Journal? Hmmm, "Performance Tuning at the Wikipedia"...

--
Enjoy,
Jeff


body:
On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Consensus really shouldn't be getting interepreted at all, however.  To put it another way, policies and guidelines are determined by consensus, so by definition the decisions admins make are consensus.  The presumption here is that admins are following policy.  If they aren't, they are ignoring consensus (behaving like aristocracy).~~~~Pro-Lick

Interpretation is definitely required to decide whether 20 supports, 3
weak supports, 1 vehemently violent oppose, and 6 normal opposes is
consensus or not. Or whatever figures you like.

Occasionally also admins overrule consensus, usually with good reason.

Steve


from_name: alforishnor

body:
I created www.breadformusic.com several weeks ago in hopes of creating a wiki
community for lyrics and information on songs, artists, albums, and record
labels. Many of the lyrics sites out there nowadays are incorrect and a wiki
seems to be the ideal format for a lyrics site.

We've already got a small community started but if any of you are willing to
help out or just spread the world it would be much appreciated.

thanks,
daniel
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wiki-for-lyrics-and-general-music-info-t1588783.html#a4311959
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question - illegal publications

body:
I'm hoping someone here can help non a copyright issue.

I want to post a translation (probably on Wikiquote) of
an article of just over a page that appeared in an illegal
newspaper in 1943.  There is no author given and the
underground organization which published the newspaper
disbanded in 1948.   The article has substantial historical
importance.

Can I do it legally?  I can't see any explicit clauses in
copyright legislation that would exclude illegal publications
from copyright protection, but it is the sort of thing that
might have come up in court cases.

Any pointers would be appreciated.

Thanks, Zero.

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


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/9/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy can't get outside the door without being accosted by some
> pissed-off semi-celebrity about their wikipedia entry, can he :P
>

Wait until her next book comes out. Then she might have a reason to be
pissed off.

--
geni


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An "approved" project ??

body:
Hoi,
Right, but we moved from 639-2 to 639-3 and as a 639-3 code it is not a
language at all. Have a look at
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90484 it shows that
Buriat is a language family. It is not a language, it is many languages.
Consequently the proposal is deficient.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Gerard, you're quite wrong. BUA is a perfectly valid iso 639-2 code.
>
> Mark
>
> On 07/05/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I read on the list of "approved" project a proposal for a
>> bua.wikipedia.org The code bua is NOT an ISO-639 code. The article about
>> this language on the en.wikipedia is almost a stub. I find the quality
>> of the requests for many new projects really low. Have a few people,
>> find yourself a code .. or make one up who cares .. :(
>>
>> This is not the first time we have projects started where it is assumed
>> that the facts given are solid. This is definitively another one of them.
>>
>> I object to the start of this project under this code. As it is for the
>> special projects committee to accept new language versions or projects,
>> I urge them to be diligent in the checking of the basic facts.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
Sorry, I didn't mean to advertise them, I just replied! [X-:]

On May 9, 2006, at 7:37 PM, Angela wrote:

> On 5/10/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> There's another one somewhere - tabwiki I think, and another one just
>> for lyrics.
>
> There's lots of them. The original tabwiki, at what was Wikicities,
> closed due to copyright violations. But then, I've not yet seen a
> lyrics/tab wiki that wasn't full of copyright violations. Anyway, the
> wikitech list isn't an appropriate place to advertise other wikis.
> It's specifically for discussing technical issues on Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 88

body:
They and their staff // shouldn't // under the autobio rules, except in the limited cases listed, regarding pure factual errors. However, the IP addresses of FOX News aren't blocked, so they could, and just not admit who they were.

Nick

----- Original Message ----
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20060509154409.63253.qmail at web35201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

It's Fox's entertainment gossip.   They aren't held to the same "reporting" standards as the "news".  Equally ironic, the entertainment "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.

This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their entries with the aid of their staff?

Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

    How is it that Fox can get "Wikipedians" right, when even articles
    *about* Wikipedia came up with "Wikitopians"?


from_name: Minh Nguyen

body:
You should be able to use the following code, based on
[[w:Template:Exists]] (but not compatible with it):

	{{#ifeq: [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]] |
{{:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}}} | | Did you mean
'''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]]'''? }}

Steve Summit wrote:
 > Several of us on the English Wiktionary are trying to resolve an issue
 > and we could use some advice.
 >
 > (This is my frist post to this list, so apologies if I restate the
 > obvious.)
 >
 > What's the best way to rig it up so that when you interlink to [[Foo]]
 > on a caseful Wiki project, where "Foo" does not exist but "foo" does,
 > to give the user a convenient shortcut to [[foo]]?
 >
 > Background: unlike most Mediawiki projects, the English Wiktionary
 > honors case in the first character of article titles .  (That is, I
 > assume it has $wgCapitalLinks set to false.)  This can cause problems
 > with links to Wiktionary from other Mediawiki projects, and from the
 > outside world (such as Wiktionary mirrors), since those incoming links
 > are often to the capitalized version of a word, on the assumption that
 > Wiktionary works like Wikipedia.  (As, in fact, it once did.)
 >
 > Even since it switched over to casefulness, Wiktionary has evidently
 > been trying to "solve" this problem by having an explicit, capitalized
 > redirect in place for every lower-case entry.  But that's clearly a huge
 > nuisance and waste of time.
 >
 > Instead, some of us have been thinking it Would Be Nice if we could
 > adjust the behavior on a missing page ("broken link") slightly.  Instead
 > of saying "Wiktionary does not have an entry for this word yet", in the
 > case where Wiktionary does have an alternate-case version of the word,
 > perhaps it should display an explicit "Did you mean?" link right up
 > front (along with but ahead of the other search and create options).
 >
 > There are probably several ways of approaching this.  I've already
 > implemented one way, but I'm curious as to this list's opinion of the
 > most appropriate approach.
 >
 >    1. I added some code (in a test wiki) to getContent() in Article.php
 >       to optionally display "Did you mean ___?" before displaying
 >       'noarticletext', in the case where an alternate-case version does
 >       exist.  In some ways this is the right approach, but it's awkward,
 >       because it has to prepend its text to the 'noarticletext'
 >       boilerplate.  Someone editing MediaWiki:noarticletext would
 >       reasonably expect to see the "Did you mean?" text there,
 >       and might want to integrate it with the rest of the boilerplate,
 >       but wouldn't be able to.
 >
 >    2. It might also be possible to implement the test and optional text
 >       right there in 'noarticletext', using the new in-line conditional
 >       expressions.  (But I'm not sure they're quite powerful enough.)
 >
 >    3. Arguably, this is a problem that doesn't need solving, and the
 >       typical, already-existing "You can search for this article in
 >       Wiktionary" link should suffice.
 >
 >    4. Arguably, this is a problem that does need solving, but in an even
 >       more general case, whenever there are other kinds of near matches,
 >       that aren't appropriate to handle with redirects or with the
 >       automatic case mapping that happens when $wgCapitalLinks is on.
 >
 > (Someone might ask, "Why provide an interactive question and a link;
 > why not just quietly redirect?"  But that defeats the purpose of being
 > caseful and makes it difficult or impossible to create a second entry
 > with the other case.  If you're going to redirect in this case, you
 > might as well turn on $wgCapitalLinks and be done with it.)
 >
 > Another way of thinking of this is that the proposed "Did you mean?"
 > question is a little like a disambiguation page, in a case where user
 > confirmation is required (i.e. in cases where a more implicit Wiki
 > redirect or 302 redirect is not appropriate).
 >
 > For all I know this issue has been discussed already and some consensus
 > reached.  But does anyone have any advice or suggestions?  Thanks.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


body:
Ah, no problem.

To make a tertiary note, a mailing list for sharing wiki help and
interests wouldn't be a bad idea, methinks.

On May 9, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Angela wrote:

> On 5/10/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't mean to advertise them, I just replied! [X-:]
>
> I meant the original poster, not you. Sorry for the confusion. :)
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Research request

body:
On 09/05/06, Michael P. Tomaszewski <mpt28 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I would like to ask your permission to post a mail to the mailing list
> containing a link towards an online survey. I am really dependent on
> obtaining information empirically, and wikien-l seems to be the best way to
> do that.
> I didn't want to spam to the list, before discussing it with the admins in
> charge.  Do you think that would be feasible?

A few people have run surveys on wikien-l. They're not in plague
proportions as yet, so I don't see a problem myself. (I'm cc'ing this
reply to wikien-l in case anyone wants to say something either way.) I
assume you are aware of the hazards of self-selecting samples!

Do please give us a link to your research afterwards!

- d.


body:
What are these {{#if things and lcfirst and all that? I don't
remember these... am I totally missing something?

On May 9, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Steve Summit wrote:

> I had written:
>>>>   2. It might also be possible to implement the test and
>>>> optional text
>>>>      right there in 'noarticletext', using the new in-line
>>>> conditional
>>>>      expressions.  (But I'm not sure they're quite powerful
>>>> enough.)
>
> Brion replied:
>
>>> I'd say give this a shot, and if it doesn't look like it's going
>>> to work
>>> we could probably add a special-case on the software as 1)
>
> Thanks.
>
> I was about to say, "but the new in-line conditional
> expressions don't do string functions like lowercasifying
> things", but shows what I know.  Minh Nguyen proposed:
>
>> {{#ifeq: [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]] |
>> {{:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}}} | | Did you mean
>> '''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]]'''? }}
>
> Oh!  Splendid!  I didn't know about those.  I'll install the
> parser in my test wiki, and try this out.  Thanks very much.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Wytukaze

body:
Whoops. Sorry guys, I should really check the list before clearing out the
pending items.

(Matsobane, see the reply to your other email for help.)

--
Wytukaze - Any?? m?bi.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 09/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's Fox's entertainment gossip.   They aren't held to the same "reporting" standards as the "news".  Equally ironic, the entertainment "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
> >
> > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their entries with the aid of their staff?
> >
>
> Is Jimbo and/or Danny (his staff) blocked from editing [[Jimmy Wales]]?

No. Wales has controversially done so before, and has been accused of
attempting to play down Sanger's involvement with founding the
Wikipedia project.

Rob Church


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An "approved" project ??

body:
Hi!

Mmmm... I know people from the Altaj region who are buriat. AFAIK, the
language is now taught in schools in full parity with russian. I'll have to
check it, though. It's quite a while since I've have been talking to them
about this.

B?rto

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] An "approved" project ??

Hoi,
Right, but we moved from 639-2 to 639-3 and as a 639-3 code it is not a
language at all. Have a look at
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90484 it shows that
Buriat is a language family. It is not a language, it is many languages.
Consequently the proposal is deficient.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Gerard, you're quite wrong. BUA is a perfectly valid iso 639-2 code.
>
> Mark
>
> On 07/05/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I read on the list of "approved" project a proposal for a
>> bua.wikipedia.org The code bua is NOT an ISO-639 code. The article about
>> this language on the en.wikipedia is almost a stub. I find the quality
>> of the requests for many new projects really low. Have a few people,
>> find yourself a code .. or make one up who cares .. :(
>>
>> This is not the first time we have projects started where it is assumed
>> that the facts given are solid. This is definitively another one of them.
>>
>> I object to the start of this project under this code. As it is for the
>> special projects committee to accept new language versions or projects,
>> I urge them to be diligent in the checking of the basic facts.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

    On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
How many people arrive at Wiki as a result of a "social interaction" or "chat" search on Google? Has that even been suggested in a motto of the day? That's a reasonable argument for mysapce's success, not an encyclopedia who's goal is to share the sum of the world's knowledge.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
    > I'll respond on the rest later.~~~~Pro-Lick

    I still think you've entirely missed the point of what I mean by
    "social interaction." Wikipedia works because people come together,

Then don't use "social interaction".  How about some words that generally encapsulate whatever it is your point is?  After reading the current reply, I didn't see any other point.

    Wikipedia works because people come together
    contribute information, edit information, squabble over it, have
    little arguments, e-mail each other, organize list serves, organize
    chats, use elaborate guidelines and rule structures to get what they

Again, that's why you think it works.  Repeating this over and over isn't the same as verifiability.  I think you're mistaking the means with the end.  We've been over this.  Source it.  I'm not interested in socializing about it.

    All of this would fall under "social interaction" in the standard

So your point is "social interaction".  Start a new email thread with that subject and enjoy.  You won't have to "exhaust" yourself for my social development because I won't be socially interacting with it.  This email subject is very clearly about applying existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes with doing so.  I do appreciate you providing an interactive case study.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Earthhope Action Network

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 89

body:
*Hey,*
*Can one of you good folk give me a hand? I am blocked indefinitely and
believe it is time for me to be unblocked and given another chance to show I
can be a normal and friendly editor on Wikipedia. Can someone help me
please?*
**
*Maggie User:thewolfstar*
**
*Margie Laupheimer*

On 5/9/06, wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org <wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org>
wrote:
>
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
>        wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: NPOV majorities/minorities (Ray Saintonge)
>   2. Re: NPOV majorities/minorities (maru dubshinki)
>   3. Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 88 (Nicholas Moreau)
>   4. Re: The lovely world of celebrities (Anthony DiPierro)
>   5. Re: The lovely world of celebrities (Rob Church)
>   6. Re: Research request (David Gerard)
>   7. Re: The lovely world of celebrities (Guettarda)
>   8. Re: Verifiability equating to notability (Ilmari Karonen)
>   9. Re: NPOV majorities/minorities (Cheney Shill)
> 10.  Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)
>      (Ilmari Karonen)
> 11. Re: Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)
>      (Cheney Shill)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:05:26 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4460E7F6.60708 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Cheney Shill wrote:
>
> >Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> >    I think the ambiguity is necessary -- 10 fringe sources do not
> >    outweigh 2 sources from recognized authorities. But there's no easy
> >
> >I agree about the 10 fringe vs. 2 authorities.  But that has nothing to
> do with this scenario, in which the sources are of equal authority.  In
> fact, the very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an
> ambiguous scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too
> ambiguous.  It's not just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on
> this.  Are we not supposed to be judging and reporting on the facts as they
> are, not as we think they should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
> >
> Reporting yes; judging no.
>
> Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:42:03 -0400
> From: "maru dubshinki" <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <f5238c30605091242s749c491ehd29a8ad309a37494 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/9/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Reporting yes; judging no.
> >
> > Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
> >
> > Ec
>
> Maybe I will, then!
>
>
> ~maru
>
> "If I don't survive, tell my wife: Hello." -Futurama
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:46:35 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Nicholas Moreau <beaubeaver at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 88
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20060509194635.17709.qmail at web26915.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> They and their staff // shouldn't // under the autobio rules, except in
> the limited cases listed, regarding pure factual errors. However, the IP
> addresses of FOX News aren't blocked, so they could, and just not admit who
> they were.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20060509154409.63253.qmail at web35201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> It's Fox's entertainment gossip.   They aren't held to the same
> "reporting" standards as the "news".  Equally ironic, the entertainment
> "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
>
> This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked
> from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their
> entries with the aid of their staff?
>
> Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    How is it that Fox can get "Wikipedians" right, when even articles
>    *about* Wikipedia came up with "Wikitopians"?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:54:54 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <71cd4dd90605091254u66aadfe7p3aaad8507bfd2721 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's Fox's entertainment gossip.   They aren't held to the same
> "reporting" standards as the "news".  Equally ironic, the entertainment
> "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
> >
> > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked
> from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their
> entries with the aid of their staff?
> >
>
> Is Jimbo and/or Danny (his staff) blocked from editing [[Jimmy Wales]]?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:57:22 +0100
> From: "Rob Church" <robchur at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <e92136380605091257s521adc07mdbdfdc9b0e1a84e1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 09/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It's Fox's entertainment gossip.   They aren't held to the same
> "reporting" standards as the "news".  Equally ironic, the entertainment
> "reporters" apparently lack an actual sense of humor.
> > >
> > > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters
> blocked from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit
> their entries with the aid of their staff?
> > >
> >
> > Is Jimbo and/or Danny (his staff) blocked from editing [[Jimmy Wales]]?
>
> No. Wales has controversially done so before, and has been accused of
> attempting to play down Sanger's involvement with founding the
> Wikipedia project.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:19:09 +0000
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Research request
> To: "Michael P. Tomaszewski" <mpt28 at cam.ac.uk>, "English Wikipedia"
>        <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Cc: wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID:
>        <fbad4e140605091319i6c433fe1s2a3b7b3a06296fd4 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 09/05/06, Michael P. Tomaszewski <mpt28 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I would like to ask your permission to post a mail to the mailing list
> > containing a link towards an online survey. I am really dependent on
> > obtaining information empirically, and wikien-l seems to be the best way
> to
> > do that.
> > I didn't want to spam to the list, before discussing it with the admins
> in
> > charge.  Do you think that would be feasible?
>
>
> A few people have run surveys on wikien-l. They're not in plague
> proportions as yet, so I don't see a problem myself. (I'm cc'ing this
> reply to wikien-l in case anyone wants to say something either way.) I
> assume you are aware of the hazards of self-selecting samples!
>
> Do please give us a link to your research afterwards!
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:52:22 -0500
> From: Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <47683e960605091352r24cc1fb4l623e7e3a7cd3e858 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/9/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This does bring up the question, are "news" and PR broadcasters blocked
> > from Wiki like congress?  Or can Coulter, Rush, and Oreilly edit their
> > entries with the aid of their staff?
>
>
> See WP:AUTO.  Editing your own article is strongly discouraged, as is
> editing any topic which you are too close to.  If one of them edited their
> own article they would probably get a warning from the other editors.  If
> they edited their own articles they way the write/speak, it would get
> reverted anyway, even if no one knew it was them.  But most celebrities
> have
> too big egos to edit anonymously.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 01:00:15 +0300
> From: Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <446110EF.3050208 at vyznev.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> >>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>>On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton,
> Michigan.
> >>>>Next year they are going to take over the world.
> >>>
> >>>So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert
> >>>notability.  It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to
> >>>assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts
> >>>notability but doesn't establish it.
> >>
> >>No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty
> >>weak.  Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith
> >>is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered.  The
> >>assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future,
> >>might perhaps be considered such.
> >
> > But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton,
> > Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.
>
> Yes, but being a rock band does not make them notable, since there are
> millions of rock bands and we're not interested in covering them all.
> As for being from Houghton, Michigan, there doesn't seem to be any
> reason to suspect that bands from that town would, as a class, somehow
> be statistically different from bands from any other town.
>
>
> >>For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would
> >>technically be speediable.
> >
> > Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.
>
> Right.  I don't consider being a chemist a claim to notability, since,
> again, there are millions of chemists and we (Wikipedia editors) don't
> generally feel they should all have Wikipedia articles merely because
> they are chemists.
>
> Of course, the line can be fuzzy.  We don't try to have articles on all
> humans, so being a human is not an assertion of notability per se.  On
> the other hand, we do try to have articles on all presidents of major
> countries, so being a president does make one notable.  But does being a
> cabinet minister make one notable?  How about a member of parliament?
> Member of a town council?  Those are judgement calls, and in such cases
> other issues may ultimately outweigh notability.
>
> Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should have articles on
> all Nobel laureates, so being one automatically makes one notable.  It's
> equally obvious that Wikipedia should not have articles on all students,
> -- probably not even on all grad students -- so being a student does not
> make one notable.  But is a Ph.D. enough to make one notable?  Some feel
> it is, some don't.
>
>
> >>A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
> >>
> >>"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school.  He
> >>plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers.  He's a really
> >>great guy."
> >
> > I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.
>
> You seem to be using curious definitions of notability and absurdity.
> To me there's nothing absurd about the description; such a description
> is quite likely to be true (and even mostly verifiable), except maybe
> for the subjective assertion in the end.
>
> On the other hand, the description places Joe Smith in a number of
> categories (people born in 1989, students of Whateverville high school,
> football players, people who listen to RHCP, really great guys), none of
> which we believe Wikipedia should be a comprehensive index of.  So none
> of them count as claims of notability.  The same, also, goes for any
> intersections of the categories: we don't aim to have articles on all
> football players who listen to RHCP either.
>
> Of course, failing to assert notability does not mean an article *must*
> be deleted.  But let's face it, the article I gave as an example has
> nothing else going for it either.  As Wikipedia generally operates on
> the presumption that biographies of random people should _not_ be
> included unless there is a particular reason for it, the default for
> such articles, in the absence of any generally accepted reason for
> keeping, is to delete.
>
> (In other fields it's different: for example, articles on animal or
> plant species are considered worth keeping by default, even if they make
> no claims of notability.  One might say that species are consider
> notable per se, but that's perhaps not _quite_ correct either, since we
> don't really aim to catalog all species known to man in Wikipedia, at
> least not in the near future.  It might be more accurate to say that, in
> the case of species -- and most other non-biographical topics -- the
> default presumption is inclusion rather than exclusion.  In any case,
> the distinction is hairline thin, and might not even exist outside my
> own head.  But that's pretty much how I see it.)
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20060509225235.90043.qmail at web35207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>    Cheney Shill wrote:
>
> very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an ambiguous
> scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too ambiguous. It's not
> just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on this. Are we not supposed
> to be judging and reporting on the facts as they are, not as we think they
> should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
>    >
>    Reporting yes; judging no.
>
> So we should "report" the facts as we think they should be, not as they
> are?
>
>    Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
>
> So is bias.  Yet we have something called NPOV.  So is rumor and hoax, yet
> we have verifiability.  It appears there are contributors having learning
> issues living with policy.~~~~Pro-Lick
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just
> 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 02:02:22 +0300
> From: Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l]  Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was:
>        RfAs)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <44611F7E.5050904 at vyznev.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > And opposing admins for silly things like not yet having
> > validated their email is totally inappropriate.
>
> I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that admins
> should be contactable by e-mail.  Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
> a damn good idea for a number of reasons.
>
> If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it.  It'll
> take you less then five minutes.  If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
> to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends a
> rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.
>
> (Of course, having a valid e-mail address does not guarantee that an
> admin can actually contacted by e-mail, or by any other means, or that
> they'll respond to contact attempts.  But it sure makes it more likely.)
>
> (Can you tell I've had more than one encounter with current or former
> admins who don't seem to read their talk page and either have no e-mail
> address or don't read their e-mail -- while actively editing?  *grmbl*)
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins without validated e-mail addresses
>        (was: RfAs)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20060509231335.12512.qmail at web35210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
>    I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that
> admins
>    should be contactable by e-mail. Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
>    a damn good idea for a number of reasons.
>
>    If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it. It'll
>    take you less then five minutes. If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
>    to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends
> a
>    rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.
>
> I agree.  It should be policy.  Nothing difficult about setting up a
> separate email for Wiki if you're concerned about acquiring stalkers.  I've
> had admin stalkers, but that doesn't scare me from setting up a contact,
> mailing this list, or even using IRC.  To me, it shows paranoia and
> ignorance in the admin that needs to be questioned at the very
> least.~~~Pro-Lick
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 89
> ****************************************
>

--
in peace and justice for the wildthings,
Margie Laupheimer

http://earthhopenetwork.net/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An "approved" project ??

body:
Hi!

> Why it is deficient?

I guess the problem is that sometimes ethnologue codes may differ from
reality. The further away languages get from the west, the lower is the
probability of having people inform ethnologue of the problem, in order to
correct the situation. Now maybe there really are a number of variations of
the buryaty language, one of which has got govt recognition. The problem is
that no ethnologue code was issued, following this event. I suspect that
more than just one language may find itself in this situation, in the area
of the Russian Federation. It would be nice to set up a systematic
verification process and clear up the mess.

Gerard, is there any standard procedure we should follow to report the
problem to ethnologue?

B?rto


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An "approved" project ??

body:
> Have a look at
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90484 it shows that
> Buriat is a language family. It is not a language, it is many languages.
> Consequently the proposal is deficient.

Speakers only in Russia: 300.000

It's official language of Buryat Republic (republic within Russian
Federation), so where are education and regulation in the language.
Where are many dialects, but was elected as official.

Website of local goverment in Buryat language: http://egov-buryatia.ru:8082/

Russian-Buryat dictionary
http://www.buryatia.org/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=list_content&eid=4

textbook of Buryat language: http://uchebnik.netfirms.com/less1-4.htm

active webforum in the language:
http://www.buryatia.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7

Why it is deficient?

--
Alexander Sigachov


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
>     > Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a socially defined collection of original research.
>
>     Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which subverts the usual definition of an
>     encyclopedia and expands far beyonds the bounds of typical
>     encyclopedias because of its social model, one based on collective
>     authorship. You can't get around the social interaction, it is what
>     makes the entire thing work. I should think such is fairly obvious.
>
> I think "free", the assumption of accuracy that comes with "encyclopedia", and the assumption that reasonable people will be reviewing the changes without requiring days of debate over easily verifiable knowledge is more obvious.  Unless we're discussing trolls, you'll have to provide support for your opinion.  How many people arrive at Wiki as a result of a "social interaction" or "chat" search on Google?  Has that even been suggested in a motto of the day?  That's a reasonable argument for mysapce's success, not an encyclopedia who's goal is to share the sum of the world's knowledge.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
> I'll respond on the rest later.~~~~Pro-Lick

I still think you've entirely missed the point of what I mean by
"social interaction." Wikipedia works because people come together,
contribute information, edit information, squabble over it, have
little arguments, e-mail each other, organize list serves, organize
chats, use elaborate guidelines and rule structures to get what they
want, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia's content is produced through these
interactions between users, who are organized and regulated by the
software which runs Wikipedia, by their shared (and not shared) values
and norms, and by a complex set of regulations, stated ideals, and
bureaucratic procedures which have been formulated over time.
Wikipedia succeeds to the degree that it does because these
regulations of user activity are, ideally, designed to encourage
contribution, discourage the effects of vandalism, and weed out bad
content.

All of this would fall under "social interaction" in the standard
definition. If the "social" is what is confusing you, you might look
at our article on [[social interaction]] which goes into a little more
detail on this, if you are interested in pursuing this further. I
think I've exhausted my ability for explaination it at the moment.

FF


from_name: Molu

body:
But the discretion to be exercised now is regarding whether consensus has been formed. The admin decides whether there exists a consensus to delete while accepting that counting votes is not the only way to determine consensus. But what is being proposed is that in the absence of established policies closing admins be allowed to delete or not delete based on their personal views regarding the matter while ignoring consensus if they choose to. I find that to be entirely unacceptable. Let's not make a holy thing out of a necessary evil.

  Molu

  On Tue, 09 May 2006 09:53:50 +0100, Steve Block wrote:

>> On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>> Why not just scrap the concept of a vote entirely, and make it more
>>> like a judge deciding a case.
>>
>> Because then the judges (closing admins) have discretionary power,
>> and in that situation, decisions are made by admin aristocracy, not
>> consensus.
>>
>> I'm willing to accept a degree of admin aristocracy, so I consider
>> this worth consideration. But we should be under no illusions about
>> what's going on here.
>>

>But that's the process as stands now, in that per [[Wikipedia:Deletion
>guidelines for administrators]], "Administrators necessarily must use
t>heir best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a
>fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached."

>An admin is supposed to weigh the debate, and also take into account
>that the three key policies cannot be over-ridden by a consensus formed
>in a deletion debate.

>The admin has always had the discretion in calling the outcome. Killing
>the idea it was about counting votes was the whole reason the name was
>changed to afd.

>Steve block

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


from_name: Harish Ganesan

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
The blocking policy was violated. I wrote in trivia
under Tony Banks (football player) that he is known
for his etopps 2001 card, which is the highest priced
in etopps history. Then user PS2pcGAMER just erased it
and did not allow me to edit anymore. This is in no
way a commercial thing. I was posting trivia, that is
all. It is an interesting fact.

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


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 5/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When you add new lines, they would
> be converted to new redirects. Deletion of redirects via this method
> would require consideration...

You're right, there are copyright issues here: any redirect that's the
result of a merge has to be preserved so that the original editors are
attributable.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-10

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

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

Passed 303 of 313 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

    The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba reads to me
    like a hagiography, but is that just my Western bias?

After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth, I'd say that's in need of an NPOV tag and Sathya's article is giving equal time to other omnipotent godmans.  Until you get your god of choice to manifest and declare otherwise, pretty much anyone born outside of the modern medical system can claim virgin birth, etc.  And the guy apparently has lots of actual followers.  As valid as any other religion.  Besides, the article is half references including a section on books by "skeptics and critics".~~~~Pro-Lick (aka, the virgin born tongue)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
I had written:
>>>   2. It might also be possible to implement the test and optional text
>>>      right there in 'noarticletext', using the new in-line conditional
>>>      expressions.  (But I'm not sure they're quite powerful enough.)

Brion replied:

>> I'd say give this a shot, and if it doesn't look like it's going to work
>> we could probably add a special-case on the software as 1)

Thanks.

I was about to say, "but the new in-line conditional
expressions don't do string functions like lowercasifying
things", but shows what I know.  Minh Nguyen proposed:

> {{#ifeq: [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]] |
> {{:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}}} | | Did you mean
> '''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]]'''? }}

Oh!  Splendid!  I didn't know about those.  I'll install the
parser in my test wiki, and try this out.  Thanks very much.


body:
Elliott Cable wrote:
> What are these {{#if things and lcfirst and all that? I don't
> remember these... am I totally missing something?

#if is brand new; see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions
for info.  I haven't found {lcfirst} yet, but I expect it'll be
pretty obvious once I start looking.


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>>On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan.
>>>>Next year they are going to take over the world.
>>>
>>>So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert
>>>notability.  It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to
>>>assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts
>>>notability but doesn't establish it.
>>
>>No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty
>>weak.  Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith
>>is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered.  The
>>assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future,
>>might perhaps be considered such.
>
> But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton,
> Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.

Yes, but being a rock band does not make them notable, since there are
millions of rock bands and we're not interested in covering them all.
As for being from Houghton, Michigan, there doesn't seem to be any
reason to suspect that bands from that town would, as a class, somehow
be statistically different from bands from any other town.

>>For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would
>>technically be speediable.
>
> Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.

Right.  I don't consider being a chemist a claim to notability, since,
again, there are millions of chemists and we (Wikipedia editors) don't
generally feel they should all have Wikipedia articles merely because
they are chemists.

Of course, the line can be fuzzy.  We don't try to have articles on all
humans, so being a human is not an assertion of notability per se.  On
the other hand, we do try to have articles on all presidents of major
countries, so being a president does make one notable.  But does being a
cabinet minister make one notable?  How about a member of parliament?
Member of a town council?  Those are judgement calls, and in such cases
other issues may ultimately outweigh notability.

Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should have articles on
all Nobel laureates, so being one automatically makes one notable.  It's
equally obvious that Wikipedia should not have articles on all students,
-- probably not even on all grad students -- so being a student does not
make one notable.  But is a Ph.D. enough to make one notable?  Some feel
it is, some don't.

>>A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
>>
>>"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school.  He
>>plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers.  He's a really
>>great guy."
>
> I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.

You seem to be using curious definitions of notability and absurdity.
To me there's nothing absurd about the description; such a description
is quite likely to be true (and even mostly verifiable), except maybe
for the subjective assertion in the end.

On the other hand, the description places Joe Smith in a number of
categories (people born in 1989, students of Whateverville high school,
football players, people who listen to RHCP, really great guys), none of
which we believe Wikipedia should be a comprehensive index of.  So none
of them count as claims of notability.  The same, also, goes for any
intersections of the categories: we don't aim to have articles on all
football players who listen to RHCP either.

Of course, failing to assert notability does not mean an article *must*
be deleted.  But let's face it, the article I gave as an example has
nothing else going for it either.  As Wikipedia generally operates on
the presumption that biographies of random people should _not_ be
included unless there is a particular reason for it, the default for
such articles, in the absence of any generally accepted reason for
keeping, is to delete.

(In other fields it's different: for example, articles on animal or
plant species are considered worth keeping by default, even if they make
no claims of notability.  One might say that species are consider
notable per se, but that's perhaps not _quite_ correct either, since we
don't really aim to catalog all species known to man in Wikipedia, at
least not in the near future.  It might be more accurate to say that, in
the case of species -- and most other non-biographical topics -- the
default presumption is inclusion rather than exclusion.  In any case,
the distinction is hairline thin, and might not even exist outside my
own head.  But that's pretty much how I see it.)

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: zero 0000

body:
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 03:14:36 +0100
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question - illegal publications
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f80608430605091914t5d9fd62aq184a80ae0bbb0010 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/10/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm hoping someone here can help non a copyright issue.
> >
> > I want to post a translation (probably on Wikiquote) of
> > an article of just over a page that appeared in an illegal
> > newspaper in 1943.  There is no author given and the
> > underground organization which published the newspaper
> > disbanded in 1948.   The article has substantial historical
> > importance.
> >
> > Can I do it legally?  I can't see any explicit clauses in
> > copyright legislation that would exclude illegal publications
> > from copyright protection, but it is the sort of thing that
> > might have come up in court cases.
> >
> > Any pointers would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks, Zero.
>
>
> In which country was it pubished?
> --
> geni

In Palestine, then under a Mandate from the League
of Nations.  So the legal regime at the time has also
been long ago terminated.  The copyright regulations
of the time would have been inherited from the
Ottoman empire, unless the British administration
specifically changed them.

Zero.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l]  Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> And opposing admins for silly things like not yet having
> validated their email is totally inappropriate.

I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that admins
should be contactable by e-mail.  Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
a damn good idea for a number of reasons.

If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it.  It'll
take you less then five minutes.  If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends a
rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.

(Of course, having a valid e-mail address does not guarantee that an
admin can actually contacted by e-mail, or by any other means, or that
they'll respond to contact attempts.  But it sure makes it more likely.)

(Can you tell I've had more than one encounter with current or former
admins who don't seem to read their talk page and either have no e-mail
address or don't read their e-mail -- while actively editing?  *grmbl*)

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/10/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm hoping someone here can help non a copyright issue.
>
> I want to post a translation (probably on Wikiquote) of
> an article of just over a page that appeared in an illegal
> newspaper in 1943.  There is no author given and the
> underground organization which published the newspaper
> disbanded in 1948.   The article has substantial historical
> importance.
>
> Can I do it legally?  I can't see any explicit clauses in
> copyright legislation that would exclude illegal publications
> from copyright protection, but it is the sort of thing that
> might have come up in court cases.
>
> Any pointers would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Zero.

In which country was it pubished?
--
geni


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
alforishnor wrote:
> I created www.breadformusic.com several weeks ago in hopes of creating a wiki
> community for lyrics and information on songs, artists, albums, and record
> labels. Many of the lyrics sites out there nowadays are incorrect and a wiki
> seems to be the ideal format for a lyrics site.

Fair warning: you're going to find yourself shut down for copyright violation
sooner or later.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060510/f5c3f60a/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical
	to	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
Shinjiman wrote:
> The issue has been mentioned at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-
> l/2006-March/034397.html in wikitecl-l, and also in BugZilla:5790
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5790.
>
> Hi all,
>
> As I've mention that pages above, some Wiki sites has the incorrect lang tags
> which neither assiciated with ISO-693 nor IANA language tags. So I've examined
> this issue, and have a patch sibmitted to BugZilla. However the patch I've
> made cannot be accepted as Brian said that this would break up the caching
> system.

There was not any such patch for this, and it would be totally unnecessary to
make one. Just let us know what the incorrect ones are and we'll fix the
configuration.

Are you maybe thinking of the patch for something totally different which tries
to guess the visitor's language variant and change the lang attribute based on it?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060510/86e0e261/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
While there is an author and the "heirs and assigns"  (a debtor for
example) of an organization which may have legal claims there is
miniscule chance that any of them would come forth. I know of no
clause which excludes illegal publications from copyright protection.
If the article has substantial historical importance it would fall
under fair use.

Fred

On May 9, 2006, at 8:04 PM, zero 0000 wrote:

>
> I'm hoping someone here can help non a copyright issue.
>
> I want to post a translation (probably on Wikiquote) of
> an article of just over a page that appeared in an illegal
> newspaper in 1943.  There is no author given and the
> underground organization which published the newspaper
> disbanded in 1948.   The article has substantial historical
> importance.
>
> Can I do it legally?  I can't see any explicit clauses in
> copyright legislation that would exclude illegal publications
> from copyright protection, but it is the sort of thing that
> might have come up in court cases.
>
> Any pointers would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Zero.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Shinjiman

subject:
[Wikitech-l] The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical to
	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
The issue has been mentioned at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-
l/2006-March/034397.html in wikitecl-l, and also in BugZilla:5790
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5790.

Hi all,

As I've mention that pages above, some Wiki sites has the incorrect lang tags
which neither assiciated with ISO-693 nor IANA language tags. So I've examined
this issue, and have a patch sibmitted to BugZilla. However the patch I've
made cannot be accepted as Brian said that this would break up the caching
system.

Is there any workaround/suggestions how to resolve this issue without breaks
the current caching system? (As my limited knowledge in PHP5 classes, so I
need some help who is familar with PHP5 classes).

This patch would solve the issues that the lang tag cannot associated to any
of valid language tags, such as there's no "simple" tag which assiciated
neither ISO-693 nor IANA language tags. And also the patch fixes the incorrect
language tag which depends on the user interface language. There's some sample
patch explaining how the language tag to be determined, such as a Traditional
Chinese user which supposes to using Traditional Chinese fonts (zh-hant/zh-TW)
to see the contexts, rather than using Simplified Chinese fonts (zh/zh-hans/zh-
CN).

regards, :)
Shinjiman

--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/User:Shinjiman
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Shinjiman


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
What you are concerned with is the point of view of worshippers who
reputedly consider him divine. There is substantial critical material
also, including allegations of murder and pedophilia. However this is
a living person so those negative criticisms would need to be very
well sourced.

Fred

On May 10, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba reads to me
> like a hagiography, but is that just my Western bias?
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/10/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> On 10 May 2006, at 11:07, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 5/10/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> >> If you make the translation, thats no problem at all. The
> >> original author has no rights over translations.
> >
> > I think you might be mistaken - that would lead to a logical
> > contradiction, as you could translate back into the original language,
> > and claim copyright over the result, which would be very similar to
> > the original.
>
> Hmm, further research suggests I am wrong.
>
> http://www.artslaw.com.au/ArtLaw/Archive/01Translations.asp
>
> You own the copyright in the translation, but it can still
> infringe on the copyright of the original.
>
> Justinc

This is how it works with any derivative work.  A translation is an
example of a derivative work.

Anthony


from_name: Pete Bartlett

body:
>Arwel wrote:

> I agree that all admins /should/ to have a valid email
>contact address, and really ought to be de-adminned if they don't
>provide one.

Once again assumes that the set of all admins is equal to the
set of admins who get involved in contentious actions.

We really must stamp out this false assumption.

There are many many admins who never do something sufficiently contentious
to warrant the use of email. I personally have made admin actions numbering
in the hundreds and have _never_ been emailled about them.

Only if you are going to go round contentiously banning people do you need
your email available....

Pete


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia-X-Files

body:
---- Original Message ----
From: Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net>

>Many people must have known that this gene therapy patient died.
>His/her relatives, hospital staff. I would guess that one of them
>called a news reporter, who couldn't use the information because the
>caller was anonymous and the official sources were still denying it.
>So he decided to post it to Wikipedia and see what happened.

Sounds like the medical profession needs its own equivalent to Popbitch.


body:
Mark wrote:
>I (like to think I) have never gone around "contentiously banning
>people", but I receive emails about Wikipedia all the time ... sometimes
>even when I'm on wikibreak.

>Perhaps I just have an open, inviting face?

Out of interest, what sort of emails do you get?

I get lots of emails because of Wikipedia - normally asking
for hi-res versions of my photos - but that's independent
of me being an admin.

Pete


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba reads to me
like a hagiography, but is that just my Western bias?

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


body:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:22:52 +0930, you wrote:

>The unfortunate thing is, we don't have a trust model. Short of people
>writing down lists of people that they consider "problem users", it's
>roughly "Do they sound like a nice person? Do I like their userpage? Do
>I like their answers to the questions? Do I like their signature? Do
>they agree with my idea of what Wikipedia is?"

Or in my case: do I know them, have I seen them about the place, does
their edit history look good, do they interact well with others on
Talk pages, do they spread calm or do they sow dissent.

I don't vote on most RfAs because I don't know most of the candidates.

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


body:
Arwel wrote:
>Hmm, no... how about when a user has a run-in with an admin and wants
>another admin to review the situation? I've had a few people ask me to
>look at something, even though I usually agree with the other admin.

The ability to play "pick the admin" is actually a disadvantage to having
email system available as a companion to the talk page system.

Guilliame wrote:
>As for myself, most of the time emails are sent from people who are unfamiliar
>with our talk pages system, and for who it's simpler to send an email.
>Most frequent email being : "Why have you deleted my article ?"

I accept this is a good reason for demanding email turned on.

>Emails are also used by regular editors/admins who simply don't want
>to write some of their messages on my public talk page.
>This can happen during edit wars or other conflicts.

A good reason for having email turned off!

>Last but not least, I've received emails from blocked editors asking me
>to unblock them because admin X had blocked them "unfairly".

Ditto
These last two are better off done in public.


body:
On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/9/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> >>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>>On 5/4/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>'''Hormonal Screamings'' is a rock band hailing from Houghton, Michigan.
> >>>>Next year they are going to take over the world.
> >>>
> >>>So that's an example of an article which you feel *doesn't* assert
> >>>notability.  It still doesn't answer the question of what it means to
> >>>assert notability, and it isn't an example of an article which asserts
> >>>notability but doesn't establish it.
> >>
> >>No, it does assert notability -- it's just that the assertion is pretty
> >>weak.  Per [[WP:VAIN]], patently absurd assertions (such as "Joe Smith
> >>is the King of the United States") do not need to be considered.  The
> >>assertion given above, being an unsubstantiated claim about the future,
> >>might perhaps be considered such.
> >
> > But the claim that they are a rock band hailing from Houghton,
> > Michigan is not about the future, and is not patently absurd.
>
> Yes, but being a rock band does not make them notable, since there are
> millions of rock bands and we're not interested in covering them all.
> As for being from Houghton, Michigan, there doesn't seem to be any
> reason to suspect that bands from that town would, as a class, somehow
> be statistically different from bands from any other town.
>
It's just as easy to say that "being a city isn't notable" or "being a
high school district isn't notable" or "being a Pokemon card isn't
notable" or "being a Korean children's science-fiction film directed
by Kim Cheong-gi and starring Shim Hyung-rae isn't notable" or "being
a seiy? isn't notable".

Click on random page a few times.  I don't see an indisputable claim
to notability for any of the articles I managed to hit.

> >>For example, an article that only said "John Doe is a chemist" would
> >>technically be speediable.
> >
> > Only if you assume that being a chemist is not a claim to notability.
>
> Right.  I don't consider being a chemist a claim to notability, since,
> again, there are millions of chemists and we (Wikipedia editors) don't
> generally feel they should all have Wikipedia articles merely because
> they are chemists.
>
I don't know of a poll to determine if your speculation as to the
Wikipedia editors opinion is correct.  In fact, I think a significant
portion of Wikipedia editors *does* feel that we should have a
Wikipedia article on all chemists.  Not that I think inclusion in
Wikipedia should be decided by a poll in the first place.

I'd bet there are less than a million chemists in the world.  Not that
it matters, I don't see any reason why being in a group which consists
of "millions" does not amount to notability.

So you don't feel that all chemists should have Wikipedia articles,
therefore being a chemist isn't notable.  That's what your argument
boils down to.

> Of course, the line can be fuzzy.  We don't try to have articles on all
> humans, so being a human is not an assertion of notability per se.  On
> the other hand, we do try to have articles on all presidents of major
> countries, so being a president does make one notable.  But does being a
> cabinet minister make one notable?  How about a member of parliament?
> Member of a town council?  Those are judgement calls, and in such cases
> other issues may ultimately outweigh notability.
>
There's *nothing but* judgement calls.  That's essentially my point.

> Similarly, it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should have articles on
> all Nobel laureates, so being one automatically makes one notable.  It's
> equally obvious that Wikipedia should not have articles on all students,
> -- probably not even on all grad students -- so being a student does not
> make one notable.  But is a Ph.D. enough to make one notable?  Some feel
> it is, some don't.
>
>
> >>A typical article with no claim to notability might be something like:
> >>
> >>"Joe Smith (b. 1989) is a student at the Whateverville high school.  He
> >>plays football and listens to Red Hot Chili Peppers.  He's a really
> >>great guy."
> >
> > I'd say that has plenty of claims to notability, but is patently absurd.
>
> You seem to be using curious definitions of notability and absurdity.
> To me there's nothing absurd about the description; such a description
> is quite likely to be true (and even mostly verifiable), except maybe
> for the subjective assertion in the end.
>
There is no such high school as Whateverville high school, so that's
patently absurd.

As for my definition of notability, unless someone else comes up with
a better one (which was one of the goals of this thread), I'd say
notability = worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  Since I think every
high school student who plays football and listens to RHCP should be
included in Wikipedia, I think they're all notable.

Now maybe you have a better definition of notable.  If so, I'd love to hear it.

Julie harding came up with a reasonable one, though I disagree with it
(and it would include all chemists, so it apparently isn't the one you
have).

> On the other hand, the description places Joe Smith in a number of
> categories (people born in 1989, students of Whateverville high school,
> football players, people who listen to RHCP, really great guys), none of
> which we believe Wikipedia should be a comprehensive index of.

Speak for yourself.  I see no reason not to include, for instance, all
students of Whateverville high school, if indeed that high school
existed.

> So none
> of them count as claims of notability.  The same, also, goes for any
> intersections of the categories: we don't aim to have articles on all
> football players who listen to RHCP either.
>
Why not?

> Of course, failing to assert notability does not mean an article *must*
> be deleted.  But let's face it, the article I gave as an example has
> nothing else going for it either.  As Wikipedia generally operates on
> the presumption that biographies of random people should _not_ be
> included unless there is a particular reason for it, the default for
> such articles, in the absence of any generally accepted reason for
> keeping, is to delete.
>
> (In other fields it's different: for example, articles on animal or
> plant species are considered worth keeping by default, even if they make
> no claims of notability.  One might say that species are consider
> notable per se, but that's perhaps not _quite_ correct either, since we
> don't really aim to catalog all species known to man in Wikipedia, at
> least not in the near future.  It might be more accurate to say that, in
> the case of species -- and most other non-biographical topics -- the
> default presumption is inclusion rather than exclusion.  In any case,
> the distinction is hairline thin, and might not even exist outside my
> own head.  But that's pretty much how I see it.)
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/10/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that admins
> should be contactable by e-mail.  Even if it's not mandatory, it's still
> a damn good idea for a number of reasons.
>
> If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it.  It'll
> take you less then five minutes.  If you're lazy or stubborn enough not
> to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends a
> rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship.

I certainly agree that admins should validate their email addresses.
If a candidate hadn't done that, I would even suggest that they do.
But voting against them for not having done so is just an example of
using RfAs to exert power over candidates. In the normal course of
events, there is no power you could exert over either admin or
non-admin who hadn't validated. Only in that moment of vulnerability
do you have a stick to whack him with, and that technicality is a
pretty minor one to whack him for.

Steve


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
On May 9, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Cheney Shill wrote:

> So your point is "social interaction".  Start a new email thread
> with that subject and enjoy.  You won't have to "exhaust" yourself
> for my social development because I won't be socially interacting
> with it.  This email subject is very clearly about applying
> existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes with
> doing so.  I do appreciate you providing an interactive case
> study.~~~~Pro-Lick

Is this an argument for the sake if argument? The explanations given
by several editors is pretty clear, and I fail to understand what
your point is. Can you succintly explain what is your concern and
what is your proposal (if you have any) to ameliorate the situation?

-- Jossi


body:
On 5/10/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> While there is an author and the "heirs and assigns"  (a debtor for
> example) of an organization which may have legal claims there is
> miniscule chance that any of them would come forth. I know of no
> clause which excludes illegal publications from copyright protection.
> If the article has substantial historical importance it would fall
> under fair use.
>
> Fred
>
My thought was that the copyright in the US might have elapsed due to
publication without a copyright notice.  But that's dependent on the
status in the country of first publication, unless the work was
published in the US within 30 days of that.

OTOH, it would be tempting to use the strategy of "just do it and see
if anyone complains", especially as this work seems to be the type
that would stand alone and not taint other parts of the corpus.

Anthony


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
On May 10, 2006, at 12:17 AM, Cheney Shill wrote:

>     The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba reads
> to me
>     like a hagiography, but is that just my Western bias?

There has been a huge effort to make this article compliant with WP
content policies. Recently, an attempt to informal mediation took
place, but unfortunately the mediator had to step down for personal
reasons.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

-- Jossi