from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal

body:
On 19/06/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility of earmarking their
> donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they want
> their money to go. In that case, one donor may give specifically for servers,
> while another donor may give specifically to promote a language, print a
> particular wikibook, or whatever.

Isn't there a danger of this leading to huge resources for the English
Wikipedia and not enough for the rest of the projects and languages
simply because more people visit that and therefore decide to put all
their donations towards that project rather than the Foundation's
wider goals?

It might make more sense to say we will spend grant money on certain
projects, but I'm not yet convinced it makes sense for all donations
to have to go towards specific tasks in this way.

>     3.  People involved in specific projects will  naturally assume the
> responsibility of "Project Heads" and naturally grow to  fill leadership positions

I'm not sure how the topic of donations is related to this, nor
whether having "Project Heads" is needed.

On 19/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This proposal helps the board to take decisions according to the
> community wishes and at the same time, it allows editors to support
> certain projects rather than others.

Would community wishes be reflected by this though? Many donors are
not members of the community, or not the editing community anyway, and
vice versa. What if a large donor puts all their money towards a
project that is not supported by the community? How could that be
dealt with?

Angela.


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal

body:
Hello Danny,

earmarking is something I generally support, with some caveats. My main
concern is that not everything we *should* do will necessarily be
directly funded by the community. This is especially true for
bootstrapping investments that benefit projects that currently don't
have a large supporting community yet. So I suggest that beyond overhead
costs, a substantial amount of money of every donation is also allocated
to a general bootstrapping fund to be used at the Foundation's discretion.

It could be split into different (broad) areas, e.g.:
Bootstrap - Documentation: $5K
Bootstrap - Development: $5K

I think that operational costs should take top priority. There's not
much point in asking people to fund development if we can't afford to
keep the servers running. So during a fundraising drive, only after our
goal is met, the "slots" for targeted donations should be opened. This
might also add some excitement to the drive.

My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this, we need
to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with that,
though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some
time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of
its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source
development and free content. But that's very long term thinking (years).

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal


list: wikien-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

body:
Wikipedia editors do not have to meekly wait until those who are
disrupting Wikipedia to "get bored." The dispute resolution process
is available to them.

Fred

On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:11 AM, geni wrote:

> On 6/19/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>>> Besides doing a lot of good editing (by repute, as I have only
>>> looked  at
>>> his edit wars involving [[common era]] notation) Jguk believes
>>> that the
>>> notation AD - BC is vastly superior to the common era  notation
>>> CE - BCE
>>> (which he believes is incomprehensible to our  users). Based on
>>> that belief
>>> he has changed the notation in a number  of articles, most of
>>> which he does
>>> not ordinarily edit, and if  reverted, engages in edit wars.
>>>
>>
>> Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a
>> campaign to
>> remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000
>> article
>> edits solely to support that campaign.
>>
>> Jay.
>>
>
> So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well.
> They will probably get bored in the end.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

body:
Gerard, please read this before I send it out ... it might be much too
strong ....

*********************

> The differences between Gerard and me are based in a fundamental
> philosophical differences about the nature of Wiktionaries in
> particular and dictionaries in general.  His position is a logical
> consequence from the premise that Wiktionary is just a translation
> dictionary; I disagree with his premise by considering Wiktionary to
> be much more than that.
>
Wiktionary has a definition for each word + thesaurus part +++

There's plenty of information on what is in there.

> Each Wiktionary may be tasked with explaining all words from all
> languages, but it does so for the benefit of speakers of its own
> language.  Gerard's Ultimate Wiktionary would work well if
> translatiions were simply questions of one on one relationships.  As
> one example, the word "minister" exists in both Dutch, and you are
> probably safe to use the same word when going from Dutch to English.
> It doesn't work in the other direction.  You can't translate the
> English "minister" to its Dutch equivalent when "predikant" is
> intended.  Add in a third language and it can get very complicated.
> As an experiment get someone to translate a short paragraph from a
> modern English novel into Dutch, a second person translates the same
> thing from Dutch to Italian, and a third translates it back to
> English.  Compare the result with the original.  The Wiktionaries in
> individual languages are in a better position to explain this kind of
> problem in the target language for the translation.  Sometimes the
> savings found in a technical shorcut present a false economy.
>
> There is a place for a project that brings things together, but there
> is also a need to recognize the limitations of such a project.  It
> can't be everything to everybody in the way that Gerard seems to
> envision his project.

It seems as if you are not informed what Ultimate Wiktionary is about -
so please before going ahead telling things that are not fact, but your
private meaning, please go, understand what you are talking about and
then come back to discuss.

All this was explained more than once (in the discussionlists and on
meta) and obviously you did not read it, but you only read and write
what you like.

Again: UW will show the same contents as the normal wiktionaries - it
already considers what you are talking about here - one example for what
you are telling here is a word out of the Christianity glossary - mitra
in Italian has two meanings while it has only one in Dutch and in
German. You are only talking about words to be translated and not about
meanings to be translated - these are two different things. Do you
really think that people are such stupid not to consider this? Or is it
just a private thingie that you have to show you are the only one to be
right?

Adding a third language is not complicated, as the relation and the
meanings are always and only between two words. There are already other
dictionaries around that consider this, UW is not the first one to be
based on such an idea. International organisations, like Lisa (and they
are THE language specialists for localisation) and Kennisnet (they are
education specialist and work in many languages) are interested in it
and believe it its value otherwise why would they have paid for the
programming - right ... in such difficult times many are economically
living they have money to waist, or not? So you assume to know more than
language specialists, right? Did you ever actually do a localisation of
a document, a manual or a website?

I repeat: if you want to be constructive and contribute: every critics
is welcome. If you want to be destructive: no critics is accepted.

I know I am becoming personal here, but answering the same things over
and over again with people who obviously don't read but only ready "a
bit" and then have to show whatever is useless, is time lost that could
be used to improve wiktionary and other wikimedia projects.

I am really upset with you, really. Now come on and wake up and see what
you are really talking about. I know you have huge potentials, you could
do so much, so please use them to improve things.

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

body:
On 6/19/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Assuming you're not holding my newbie edits 9 months ago against me, I very quickly stopped changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD notation.

Jon, what you say isn't correct. You made hundreds of edits under your
old user name, and not just as a complete newbie but after two months
of editing, where you deleted BCE and inserted BC, in articles that
had nothing to do with Christianity. See here, for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandragupta_Maurya&diff=prev&oldid=8070685

Sarah


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jeremy Dunck

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tentative schedule for MediaWiki 1.5 conversion

body:
On 6/19/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> We're tentatively scheduling taking MediaWiki 1.5 beta and upgrading the
> Wikimedia sites for next weekend, circa June 24/25/26.
>

Please consider a data export for download as soon as possible after
the conversion.

:)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision
	against jguk

body:
Well put.

Fred

On Jun 19, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 6/19/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On the "offensiveness" point, my opponents have offended me and
>> (as they have admitted themselves) deliberately so.
>> SouthernComfort's "offence" is so acute that when he wrote his
>> paragraph supporting Slrubenstein's proposal, he did not even
>> think it worthwhile mentioning it. Indeed, none of Slrubenstein's
>> supporters actually claimed to be offended themselves by BC/AD
>> notation. So, as RickK said to begin with, shouldn't WP ignore the
>> "I am offended" argument rather than pander to it?
>>
>
> You're right that offense shouldn't be a part of our decision on what
> to use, but it is a part of civility. Following someone around and
> making changes that offend them is not polite. However. some people
> are offended by things which do not push their point of view, so we
> really don't have a choice but to change things. In other cases we do
> have a choice, such as in the linguistic dialect issue.
>
> The primary argument against using the BC/AD notation, after you cut
> away the offense cruft, is the claim that it is a violation of NPOV
> and that it is the more common language used in scholarly research.
> The primary counter argument is that time and commonality has washed
> away any POV status and that BCE/CE is not commonly enough understood.
> ..and it appears that the counter counter claim is that the counter
> claim is bogus since many academics have moved to BCE/CE due to
> perceived POV pushing and that any lack of understanding can be solved
> via a wiki-link.
>
> In all of the discussion it seems to be that the majority of wikipedia
> is not convinced by either argument and is willing to tolerate both
> usages. In the future this position may be clarified, but today it is
> where we appear to stand. As a result, no one should begrudge you for
> using BC/AD in articles as you add content.
>
> However, that isn't the issue in question here.  This isn't a content
> issue at all as the largest part of the complaint appears to be about
> follow around users using the acceptable CE/BCE notation and changing
> it to the BC/AD... That the users here are offended by that usage is a
> matter of merit because it what takes your behaviour from simply being
> against the majority and makes in an uncivil act towards other
> editors.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Requests page

body:
>If the wiki request gets past a certain date with no action, it seems to
>make sense to move it to an archive.  Just need a policy for that, if there
>isn't one already.
>
There isn't one, AFAIK, and that must be just the cause of our quarrel...

Incompetent inauthoritive thought police Wouter S.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger overal en altijd beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/


from_name: Michael Snow

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Article validation probably won't be switched on
	for 1.5

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Unfortunately, unless a lot of good coding happens in reasonably short
>order, Special:Validate probably won't be enabled on en: for 1.5 (to be
>released next weekend). Brion has serious concerns with the present code.
>
>
Since Brion states one of his major concerns as the fact that it loads
metadata for all revisions of the page, can't we restrict the validation
feature so that it only gets applied to the current revision? At least
for the time being, I don't think this feature needs greater capability
than that in order to be useful for testing purposes.

Ratings from the validation feature could still attach specifically to a
particular revision, since the database will now be assigning unique
revision data to current versions, if I understand correctly. And for
those few cases where someone might be wishing to validate something
other than the current revision, it's likely that either the article is
in sufficient flux that they can wait briefly for a version they want,
or they can edit the article themselves before rating it.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 6/19/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On the "offensiveness" point, my opponents have offended me and (as they have admitted themselves) deliberately so. SouthernComfort's "offence" is so acute that when he wrote his paragraph supporting Slrubenstein's proposal, he did not even think it worthwhile mentioning it. Indeed, none of Slrubenstein's supporters actually claimed to be offended themselves by BC/AD notation. So, as RickK said to begin with, shouldn't WP ignore the "I am offended" argument rather than pander to it?

You're right that offense shouldn't be a part of our decision on what
to use, but it is a part of civility. Following someone around and
making changes that offend them is not polite. However. some people
are offended by things which do not push their point of view, so we
really don't have a choice but to change things. In other cases we do
have a choice, such as in the linguistic dialect issue.

The primary argument against using the BC/AD notation, after you cut
away the offense cruft, is the claim that it is a violation of NPOV
and that it is the more common language used in scholarly research.
The primary counter argument is that time and commonality has washed
away any POV status and that BCE/CE is not commonly enough understood.
..and it appears that the counter counter claim is that the counter
claim is bogus since many academics have moved to BCE/CE due to
perceived POV pushing and that any lack of understanding can be solved
via a wiki-link.

In all of the discussion it seems to be that the majority of wikipedia
is not convinced by either argument and is willing to tolerate both
usages. In the future this position may be clarified, but today it is
where we appear to stand. As a result, no one should begrudge you for
using BC/AD in articles as you add content.

However, that isn't the issue in question here.  This isn't a content
issue at all as the largest part of the complaint appears to be about
follow around users using the acceptable CE/BCE notation and changing
it to the BC/AD... That the users here are offended by that usage is a
matter of merit because it what takes your behaviour from simply being
against the majority and makes in an uncivil act towards other
editors.


subject: [WikiEN-l] jguk case: amended FoF brought

body:
On 6/19/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>   6.01) "CE" or Common Era has recently come to be preferred among certain
>   portions of US academia and those who claim to seek to avoid offense in
>   inter-cultural dialog. "AD" spelled out in its full original form is Anno
>   Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ) and thus
>   regarded by them as potentially offensive, see research by El_C. This does
>   not necessarily hold elsewhere, e.g. in UK academia.
>
> This sort of thing is why I am profoundly sceptical that content
> arbitration will not be an utter, utter disaster and just another hammer to
> use in pushing a POV.

Can you actually provide any citations to support your position?
I only ask because in my experience the BCE/CE notation is really
quite common and has been used in the majority of scholarly research
I've read (well the majority hasn't mentioned an era at all, but what
does uses BCE/CE). I am aware that it isn't so universally used in all
fields, but I was taught the BCE/CE notation in grade school...
Perhaps this is just because I am in the United States.

Your rewrite makes it sound like it is only used by an insubstantial minority.

In any case, the arbcom isn't and shouldn't be deciding if we should
use AD/BC or CE/BCE as it appears the larger community has decided
that the issue isn't currently clear enough and we don't care.


from_name: geni

body:
On 6/19/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >Besides doing a lot of good editing (by repute, as I have only looked  at
> >his edit wars involving [[common era]] notation) Jguk believes  that the
> >notation AD - BC is vastly superior to the common era  notation CE - BCE
> >(which he believes is incomprehensible to our  users). Based on that belief
> >he has changed the notation in a number  of articles, most of which he does
> >not ordinarily edit, and if  reverted, engages in edit wars.
>
> Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign to
> remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000 article
> edits solely to support that campaign.
>
> Jay.

So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well.
They will probably get bored in the end.

--
geni


subject:
[WikiEN-l] I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision against
	jguk

body:
> The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with
> whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors
> of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on
> the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of
> the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then
> went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the
> article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
>
> -- ambi
>

But this isn't true. SouthernComfort hit artices on which he had no
previous editing history.

geni


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign
>to
> > remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000
>article
> > edits solely to support that campaign.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well.

Really?  People who edit dozens of articles solely for the purpose of
removing BC/AD notation, and who have made hundreds of edits to further that
goal over a period of many months? Who did you have in mind?

>They will probably get bored in the end.

jguk's campaign lasted for 8 months, from soon after he joined Wikipedia
until the time he left.  I see no indication that he was becoming bored. Who
are these other people, and why do you imagine they will get bored?

Jay.

Jay.


from_name: James A. Bowery

subject: [Wikitech-l] en old_table too large for wget or FireFox?

body:
I've tried downloading the 34GiB
http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/20050516_old_table.sql.gz on
Ubuntu (Debian derivative) Linux via both wget and Firefox but neither
produces the correct length apparently due to the large size of the file.

What is the normal way people grab a copy of that file?


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision
	againstjguk

body:
>From: Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>First all I (and others) were doing was reverting articles back to the
>state they were in before
>SouthernComfort got to them (except for one mistake when I inadvertently
>changed it on
>[[Elamite Empire]]).

That describes your more recent actions on a relatively narrow set of
articles.  It does not describe your more lengthy campaign against BCE/CE
notation, including in the MOS and Common Era articles themselves.

>I should, as an aside, mention that I have in arguments and edit summaries
>to SouthernComfort
>referred to a "preferred notation". The context of that was not to misquote
>WP policy (which all
>participants are quite aware of), but to make the point that in practice
>almost all WP articles where there is a choice use BC/AD notation and that
>the overwhelming majority of English-writers in the
>world (90%+) choose BC/AD notation. It is in that sense that it is
>"preferred", and in that sense
>that I was using "preferred".

The term for what you are describing is "more common", not "preferred".

>I appreciate Fred would not, on a quick and possibly
>non-chronological, readthrough would not have picked up that context, but
>that's what it was.
>It's important ans Fred is saying that an important aspect in this is that
>I was arguing my
>preference was WP policy - let me assure everyone, that was not the case.
>Bearing this in mind
>does Fred accept that his comment is no longer appropriate (or at least,
>should not in particular
>be directed against me)?

You made it clear the you, personally, "preferred" this usage, and attempted
to enforce it on dozens of articles over a period of 8 months.  I find your
current explanation of "preferred" to be difficult to reconcile with your
actions.

Jay.


from_name: James R. Johnson

body:
Where can I find out more about MediaWiki 1.5?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:37 AM
To: wikien-l at wikidia.org; wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article validation probably won't be switched on
for1.5

Unfortunately, unless a lot of good coding happens in reasonably short
order, Special:Validate probably won't be enabled on en: for 1.5 (to be
released next weekend). Brion has serious concerns with the present code.

This is quite annoying, but oh well. Interested PHP coders needed!
Or it stays in limbo!

We appear to have worked out a front end for the initial test, though -
[[m:En validation topics]] has been more or less stable for the last two
weeks. The [[m:Wikimedia research team]] IRC meeting last night was
productive also; I'll be putting some stuff from it on the article
validation pages on Meta and discussing further with Magnus (who wrote the
feature).

([[m:De Validierungsthemen]] has been stable a lot longer, but is also a
lot shorter and simpler. I'm somewhat surprised the de: quality initiative
hasn't jumped on it with great glee ...)

I know several other Wikipedias are waiting to see how the test goes on en:
(and presumably de:). I also think this feature will be vastly popular in
non-Wikimedia installations of MediaWiki. If we can write it so it doesn't
kill the system ;-)

- d.

----- Forwarded message from Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> -----

From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Validation status
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:43:20 -0700

Just a note; the 'validation' feature will most likely not be turned on
on en.wikipedia.org when we upgrade, since it's not currently in a
usable state.

Problems include, but are not limited to:

* In various places it tries to load metadata for *every* revision of
the page. This would be fatal on the actual Wikipedia, where there are
pages with tens of thousands of revisions. There are likely other severe
performance and scalability issues with it.

* The 'management' interface for defining survey options is not locked
off properly, and is very hard to use if you do get to it.

* Lack of HTML-safety on the UI interface: as a quick hack I added
htmlspecialchars() guards, but things really should be changed to use
wikitext where appropriate; several of the UI messages are currently
displaying raw HTML tags.

If anybody would like to work on it further that would be spiffy;
otherwise it will remain in limbo indefinitely.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

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

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
>From: Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>Assuming you're not holding my newbie edits 9 months ago against me, I very
>quickly stopped
>changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD notation.

What about attempting to change the MOS to reflect your views months after
you joined Wikipedia, and had already been involved in conflicts at the
Common Era
article?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29/proposed_revision&diff=prev&oldid=9603439]

>What I continued doing was (1) reverting
>those who were changing BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation (which
>presumably, if you are
>neutral, you would agree with on the grounds that they shouldn't have
>changed the notation
>in the first place); (2) making articles consistent. When I first came to
>WP most articles that
>used BCE/CE notation also used BC/AD notation. It makes sense (and indeed
>should be
>regarded as a good edit) to copyedit those articles so that they use one
>and only one notation.

That might be a reasonable argument except that you appeared to use any
excuse to convert an article to BC/AD notation.  You used "consistency" as
an excuse to convert an article that had one use of BC and eight of
BCE,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=10934688]
or one that had 10 uses of BC/AD and 19 uses of
BCE/CE,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road&diff=prev&oldid=10939297]
to all BC/AD format.  If a stub used BC, but the subsequent re-write into a
proper article used BCE, you used "original usage" as an excuse to switch it
back; yet if an article originally used BCE as notation, and subsquently
grew to contain both usages, you used "consistency" to switch it to BC.

>Wouldn't a barnstar be more appropriate than approbation?

Perhaps if you had truly been even-handed in your attempts to support the
MOS.

Jay.


from_name: Jon

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision against
	jguk

body:
First all I (and others) were doing was reverting articles back to the state they were in before SouthernComfort got to them (except for one mistake when I inadvertently changed it on [[Elamite Empire]]). SC's changes were just after the community had voted down Slrubenstein's proposal to move wholescale to his preferred notation. As I wasn't changing articles (SC was doing that), but merely enforcing the community vote. Even if the ArbCom disagree and decide SC was right to add his preferred notation to these articles, is taking a different view (in light of the community vote) something that is worthy of admonishment, let alone the threat of banning?

Fred says that the decision shows that "you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups that are offended by that usage....Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy". Yet instead of applying it to SouthernComfort (who was actually changing a wide range of articles in accordance with his preference), he chooses to apply it to me (who was merely trying to stop him from doing that). Has Fred really got the right man?

I should, as an aside, mention that I have in arguments and edit summaries to SouthernComfort referred to a "preferred notation". The context of that was not to misquote WP policy (which all participants are quite aware of), but to make the point that in practice almost all WP articles where there is a choice use BC/AD notation and that the overwhelming majority of English-writers in the world (90%+) choose BC/AD notation. It is in that sense that it is "preferred", and in that sense that I was using "preferred". I appreciate Fred would not, on a quick and possibly non-chronological, readthrough would not have picked up that context, but that's what it was. It's important ans Fred is saying that an important aspect in this is that I was arguing my preference was WP policy - let me assure everyone, that was not the case. Bearing this in mind, does Fred accept that his comment is no longer appropriate (or at least, should not in particular be directed against me)?

Ambi goes on to mention the wishes of the particular editors on the articles being dealt with. Well, I suggest that until SouthernComfort got to the articles, the preference was clear. Does SouthernComfort's involvement change anything. Well, for most of the articles, he had made as many (or as few) edits as me before he changed them. Since one person cannot make a difference to whether there is consensus, surely the answer is no - he alone has changed nothing. As to the "widespread agreement" Ambi refers to - the only evidence of such agreement is SouthernComfort claiming a "consensus" in his edit summaries (and on one talk page there is one other user agreeing with him - and two people does not a consensus make).

This whole case was confused right from the start - half the Arbitrators chose to take the case not to discuss behaviours but to discuss principles - namely (1) We have a failed proposal, which was very divisive; (2) Some editors are trying to implement that failed proposal; (3) Other editors are trying to stop them. It seems ArbCom are deciding whether they like the failed proposal or not (a content issue, which they shouldn't be looking at anyway), deciding that they do like it, and then moving to ban the user who has tried to stop its implementation.

On the "offensiveness" point, my opponents have offended me and (as they have admitted themselves) deliberately so. SouthernComfort's "offence" is so acute that when he wrote his paragraph supporting Slrubenstein's proposal, he did not even think it worthwhile mentioning it. Indeed, none of Slrubenstein's supporters actually claimed to be offended themselves by BC/AD notation. So, as RickK said to begin with, shouldn't WP ignore the "I am offended" argument rather than pander to it?

Overall, I have been completely put off WP by the whole incident, and you will not see jguk returning. I have received many messages of support (and indeed have found it heartwarming that everyone who has commented on the case who does not support SC on the content issue has noted that the ArbCom has gone too far and is too one-sided in this case. This is true regardless of whether they have been involved in the case or are neutral outsiders.

Kind regards

jguk

Ambi wrote:
I think this is a bad way of putting what is a sound idea in this
instance. It is true that Jguk was changing date formats to something
that offended SouthernComfort and others. It is also true, however,
that SouthernComfort had been changing date formats to something that
offended Jguk and others.

The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with
whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors
of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on
the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of
the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then
went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the
article consensus - and that's what isn't on.

-- ambi

On 6/19/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you
> prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are
> offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general
> policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot
> unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having
> it adopted as an actual policy.
>
> Fred
>
> On Jun 18, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Rick wrote:
>
> > This decision is apparently setting the precedent that
> > if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are
> > offensive to them, then their view is the only
> > acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors
> > can go hang.
> >
> > RickK

---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special:Validation status

body:
Brion Vibber a ?crit:
> Just a note; the 'validation' feature will most likely not be turned on
> on en.wikipedia.org when we upgrade, since it's not currently in a
> usable state.
>
> Problems include, but are not limited to:
>
> * In various places it tries to load metadata for *every* revision of
> the page. This would be fatal on the actual Wikipedia, where there are
> pages with tens of thousands of revisions. There are likely other severe
> performance and scalability issues with it.
>
> * The 'management' interface for defining survey options is not locked
> off properly, and is very hard to use if you do get to it.
>
> * Lack of HTML-safety on the UI interface: as a quick hack I added
> htmlspecialchars() guards, but things really should be changed to use
> wikitext where appropriate; several of the UI messages are currently
> displaying raw HTML tags.
>
> If anybody would like to work on it further that would be spiffy;
> otherwise it will remain in limbo indefinitely.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thanks for the info Brion.


body:
Assuming you're not holding my newbie edits 9 months ago against me, I very quickly stopped changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD notation. What I continued doing was (1) reverting those who were changing BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation (which presumably, if you are neutral, you would agree with on the grounds that they shouldn't have changed the notation in the first place); (2) making articles consistent. When I first came to WP most articles that used BCE/CE notation also used BC/AD notation. It makes sense (and indeed should be regarded as a good edit) to copyedit those articles so that they use one and only one notation.

Wouldn't a barnstar be more appropriate than approbation?

Jguk

Jay wrote:

Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign
to
remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000
article
edits solely to support that campaign.

Jay.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal

body:
Angela a ?crit:
> On 19/06/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility of earmarking their
>>donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they want
>>their money to go. In that case, one donor may give specifically for servers,
>>while another donor may give specifically to promote a language, print a
>>particular wikibook, or whatever.
>
>
> Isn't there a danger of this leading to huge resources for the English
> Wikipedia and not enough for the rest of the projects and languages
> simply because more people visit that and therefore decide to put all
> their donations towards that project rather than the Foundation's
> wider goals?

I do not think so. By projects, it does not mean "money for english
wikipedia" or "money for the japanese wiktionary", but rather "money for
the ultimate wiktionary", "money for wikimania", "money for bambara
development", "money for a wikijunior set" etc...

> It might make more sense to say we will spend grant money on certain
> projects, but I'm not yet convinced it makes sense for all donations
> to have to go towards specific tasks in this way.
>
>
>>    3.  People involved in specific projects will  naturally assume the
>>responsibility of "Project Heads" and naturally grow to  fill leadership positions
>
>
> I'm not sure how the topic of donations is related to this, nor
> whether having "Project Heads" is needed.
>
> On 19/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>This proposal helps the board to take decisions according to the
>>community wishes and at the same time, it allows editors to support
>>certain projects rather than others.
>
>
> Would community wishes be reflected by this though? Many donors are
> not members of the community, or not the editing community anyway, and
> vice versa. What if a large donor puts all their money towards a
> project that is not supported by the community? How could that be
> dealt with?

By previously agreeing on which projects to support or not.
If absolutely no one show interest in supporting ultimate wiktionary, it
would not be listed.

> Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal


body:
David A. Desrosiers wrote:

>
>> I've tried downloading the 34GiB
>> http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/20050516_old_table.sql.gz
>> on Ubuntu (Debian derivative) Linux via both wget and Firefox but
>> neither produces the correct length apparently due to the large size
>> of the file.
>
>
>     Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?

Actually there are multiple problems and the fact Ubuntu uses ext3 by
default is one of them.  Converting to a reasonable file system is going
to be problematic.


from_name: Rick

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the
> particular usage you
> prefer on the rest of the world, especially on
> groups who are
> offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of
> our general
> policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision
> is that you cannot
> unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia
> policy without having
> it adopted as an actual policy.
>
> Fred

Isn't that exactly what SouthernComfort did?  He said
he was offended by BC/AD, and you and the rest of the
arbcomm said his offense is more important than
consensus.

RickK

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


from_name: Brian

body:
I hashed through this just yesterday. Type curl -v and make sure you have
Largefile support listed (thanks to Kate for that). If not, recompile a
binary with it. If so, I use this command:

curl -C - --user-agent User:jabowery --remote-name --remote-time --retry 10
--show-error
http://www-dumps.knams.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/20050516_old_table.sql.gz

Will download the remote file name to the current directory with the remote
time stamp. Will fail up to ten times, resuming the download from the
previous position each time. If you fail more than ten times and are not yet
done, restart it with a higher number using the same command and it will
pick up where it left off.

/User:Alterego <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alterego>
http://www.qwikly.com/blog/

On 6/19/05, David A. Desrosiers <desrod at gnu-designs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I've tried downloading the 34GiB
> > http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/20050516_old_table.sql.gz
> > on Ubuntu (Debian derivative) Linux via both wget and Firefox but
> > neither produces the correct length apparently due to the large size
> > of the file.
>
> Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?
>
>
> David A. Desrosiers
> desrod at gnu-designs.com
> http://gnu-designs.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
--- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a bad way of putting what is a sound
> idea in this
> instance. It is true that Jguk was changing date
> formats to something
> that offended SouthernComfort and others. It is also
> true, however,
> that SouthernComfort had been changing date formats
> to something that
> offended Jguk and others.
>
> The issue here, though, is that deciding on these
> issues (as with
> whether to use American or English English) comes
> down to the editors
> of a particular article. There appears to be
> widespread agreement on
> the particular articles involved (of which
> SouthernComfort was one of
> the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this
> instance. Jguk then
> went around changing them to his preference anyway,
> regardless of the
> article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
>
> -- ambi

SouthernComfort was NOT one of the editors involved
until after he got into "change every article about
Iran to BCE" mode.  jguk was RIGHTLY changing SC's
edits back to what the original authors had left them
at.

RickK

____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


body:
--- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be
> surprise when your
> concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast
> amount of evidence
> there points to the conclusion I noted before -
> there are piles upon
> piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing
> stuff, and about
> four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same
> thing. We can only
> consider what is put before us, and almost all of
> that relates to
> Jguk.
>
> -- ambi

Rebecca, I respect you tremendously, but, forgive me,
this just sounds like laziness to me.  If the arbcomm
is given a diff, can't they look at the various
versions of the article in question, or are they
ironclad bound to only look at the single diff?

RickK

____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


body:
--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > > Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he
> has been on a campaign
> >to
> > > remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and
> has made over 1,000
> >article
> > > edits solely to support that campaign.
> > >
> > > Jay.
> >
> >So? There has been a few people campaining the
> other ways as well.
>
>
> Really?  People who edit dozens of articles solely
> for the purpose of
> removing BC/AD notation, and who have made hundreds
> of edits to further that
> goal over a period of many months? Who did you have
> in mind?

SouthernComfort, for one.  It was his sole editing
procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to
engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's
failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.

RickK

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail


from_name: Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in Cebuano

body:
Hello guys.

I would like to reiterate our request to have a
Wikipedia in the Cebuano language. We have the minimum
number of supporters, and we have also promoted the
idea in some fora where Cebuanos frequent.

Our raster name would be using the same image as the
English Wikipedia. The logo would have the text
"Wikipedia   Ang Gawasnong Ensayklopediya".

I have started translating the main page of the
English Wikipedia and some of the required pages.

Unfortunately I don't have a permanent online
connection and I live in a country where one hour of
online connection is 5% of the minimum daily wage. So
I could visit the Internet at most thrice a week. :(

Respectfully yours,

Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles
http://bentong.topcities.com/

P.S. Yes, I do speak the language. I even write using
it (for a small fee in one of our Cebuano magazines).

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
<unl>[s:1]obj(work(agt>thing,obj>thing):07. at entry.@present,
UNL(icl>thing):15. at def)
agt(work(agt>thing,obj>thing):07. at entry.@present, I:00)[/s]</unl>

Mark

On 18/06/05, Guaka <guaka at no-log.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 02:20 -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
> > Also, if you do it for Wiktionary, it would only be logical to merge all
> > wikipedias into the Ultimate Wikipedia, Ultimate Wikiquote, Ultimate
> > Wikibooks, etc.  But that's simply for consistency's sake.
>
> There's a difference huge between a collection of words and a collection
> of lists of phrases.
>
> It would make sense to create an Ultimate Wikipedia when we'll be able
> to create the Ultimate Pivot Language, possibly using the Ultimate
> Wiktionary. If meaning, syntax and all these things are clearly
> seperated in our UW it could guide to the creation of an artificial
> language that does sufficiently well in serving as the thing stuff like
> Universal Networking Language (tm) is supposed to do.
>
> Wikipedia:
> In machine translation, '''Universal Networking Language''' is          an
> artificial pivot language, that requires semi-automated translation from
> the initial text into its pivot equivalent, but allows automated
> translation from documents expressed in the pivot language into
> virtually any language.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Requests page

body:
Hi Wouter,

"Thought police" refers not to your removal of requests, but rather
your removal of individual comments. Which you did do.

Mark

On 18/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear fellow list subscribers,
>
> Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience that Mark Williamson scolded me
> for "Censor" and "Thought police". The reason was that I had deleted some of
> the requests on the Requests for new languages page on meta
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages), and
> subsequently he placed most of them back, along with some other ones that
> had been removed by long, and not by me.
>
> As a matter of facts, I got /furious/ and if Mark had stood right before me
> I would have spit into his face. Later however, he eludicated the reason why
> he placed them back, and we seem to agree on more things than I thought at
> first. The page /is/ really getting overloaded with requests and becomes too
> long. The difference was, he wanted to keep them anyway.
>
> I may opinion, the right solution is to cut-and-paste them to an archive,
> newly to be created. I could very well create it right now, but thanks to
> Mark's great action I am unsure whether this wil be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Incompetent, inautoritive censor and thought police Wouter Steenbeek.
>
> Btw: it seems perhaps a little inappropriate to discuss this meta topic on
> the Wikipedia mailing list, but since the topic is realted to the creation
> of new Wikipedias I took the liberty to post it here.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Speel online games via MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in Cebuano

body:
That is because the people who are responsible for the creation of new
Wikipedias do not keep their eye on the appropriate channels. The last
two Wikipedias that were created, I requested personally from Brion on
IRC (os: and fur:).

The last time a Wikipedia was created quickly was for tum.wikipedia.
And tum.wikipedia didn't have very good chances.

Mark

On 19/06/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de> wrote:
>
> I am not sure who is in fact responsible for this but I noticed no new Wikipedias have been set up for quite a few months now. The Cebuano editors are so committed. Their request should be given the highest priority. They shouldn't be kept hanging on the line anymore!
>
> Boris
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
James A. Bowery wrote:
> David A. Desrosiers wrote:
>>     Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?
>
> Actually there are multiple problems and the fact Ubuntu uses ext3 by
> default is one of them.  Converting to a reasonable file system is going
> to be problematic.

ext3 has no problem with files >2gb. If there was a problem, we'd be
pretty roundly screwed. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050619/5952b84d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal

body:
On 6/19/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

First, let me tell Danny how great I find this proposal. My experience
in charitable organisations has led me to realize two things:
1- Donors indeed, do like to know where their money is going, it
comforts them in giving over and over again.
2- Contributors also like to know that their efforts are being
recognized and that what they do is supported not only by the
"administration", but also by other people out there. Earmarking
different projects actually allows them to go on in their projects and
participate to the general purpose where they might not if they're
never heard and never taken into consideration.

On the other hand, the distinctions in donations also prove that we
know where we're going and that we are indeed "organised" and take
care both of our goals and our donors.

> I dont think we really disagree, except in terms of allotment. As I
> mentioned in my previous email, there will certainly be a general fund to cover
> operational costs. In fact, we should encourage people to donate to that, in
> addition to the ten percent from other projects that I propose. Furthermore,  this
> is talking about smaller donations, whereas larger donations will be the
> subject of a second email in a day or two.

>
> As for the ten percent number, admittedly that was random, but it is based
> on some realities. In general, Overhead costs range from 8-15 % in grants,
> though i have seen as low as 0 % and as high as 20 %. I am proposing a
> compromise for small donors, so that they feel that their money is going where  they
> want. For instance, if I want to give 25 euros to Guako, I want to know  that at
> least _most_ of that money reaches him. 50 % would cause me some  concern.
> Nevertheless, I do feel that the 10% I suggested is negotiable. I would  like to
> hear what other people say as well.

I am all in favour of 10%. It also allows people who give to make sure
that the projects they are supporting will still exist since some of
their money goes into servers and bandwidth.  Well presented, this
figure makes a lot of sense.

> I think that operational costs should take top priority.
[snip]
>> I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I think  this
>> will encourage more people to give to something. As Wikipedia continues to
>> grow, actual running costs will be much higher than small donations can  hope
>> to cover.

I agree with Danny. Many people don't give because they don't exactly
know what they give for. The first step to implementation of course
goes through better communication from us of what the money given to
general purposes has been used for. In the longer term, we will
probably rely on steady grants type donations to cover the costs of
running operations, and little donations will be just a "bonus" on top
of those, which will allow us to pursue our more general goal, ie.
spread free knowledge etc.

> My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this,  we need
> to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with  that,
> though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some
> time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of
> its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source
> development and free content. But that's very long term thinking  (years).
> Before we hit long term, I'd like to concentrate on immediate implications.
>> Personally, I think that if we start soon, we may even be able to cover some
>> funding for Wikimania.

Agreed with Danny. And to address Anthere's concern earlier in this
thread, I imagine something like radio buttons allowing the donators
to give to the "budget" they want to, making it easy both for the
donator and the people who behind the scenes have to know where the
money goes. A great thing would be to be able to have by each
"project" its budget value and a changing figure which tells donators
how far from the goal that project is.

Finally, to address Angela's concern, maybe we should find a better
name than "projects" for those "things" we are talking about, not to
mix them with Wikimedia projects. Actions? Community actions? Anything
but *projects* would be fine I suppose.

Cheers,

Delphine
--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Requests page

body:
Yes, since a few of the Wikipedias you removed weren't because they
were old or because they failed, but because you decided they were
"rediculous".

Mark

On 19/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Wouter,
> >
> >"Thought police" refers not to your removal of requests, but rather
> >your removal of individual comments. Which you did do.
>
> and "censor" did refer to removing requests as far as I can judge.
>
> W.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >On 18/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear fellow list subscribers,
> > >
> > > Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience that Mark Williamson scolded
> >me
> > > for "Censor" and "Thought police". The reason was that I had deleted
> >some of
> > > the requests on the Requests for new languages page on meta
> > > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages), and
> > > subsequently he placed most of them back, along with some other ones
> >that
> > > had been removed by long, and not by me.
> > >
> > > As a matter of facts, I got /furious/ and if Mark had stood right before
> >me
> > > I would have spit into his face. Later however, he eludicated the reason
> >why
> > > he placed them back, and we seem to agree on more things than I thought
> >at
> > > first. The page /is/ really getting overloaded with requests and becomes
> >too
> > > long. The difference was, he wanted to keep them anyway.
> > >
> > > I may opinion, the right solution is to cut-and-paste them to an
> >archive,
> > > newly to be created. I could very well create it right now, but thanks
> >to
> > > Mark's great action I am unsure whether this wil be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Incompetent, inautoritive censor and thought police Wouter Steenbeek.
> > >
> > > Btw: it seems perhaps a little inappropriate to discuss this meta topic
> >on
> > > the Wikipedia mailing list, but since the topic is realted to the
> >creation
> > > of new Wikipedias I took the liberty to post it here.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Speel online games via MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> >QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> >POSSIT MATERIARI
> >ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school
> http://webmessenger.msn.com/
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Under the existing style guide that was ok. Either style is acceptable.

Fred

On Jun 19, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Rick wrote:

> SouthernComfort was NOT one of the editors involved
> until after he got into "change every article about
> Iran to BCE" mode.  jguk was RIGHTLY changing SC's
> edits back to what the original authors had left them
> at.
>
> RickK


body:
Numerous diffs were viewed and what was seen was Jguk reverting over
and over giving reasons which have no basis in Wikipedia policy.

Fred

On Jun 19, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Rick wrote:

> --- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be
>> surprise when your
>> concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast
>> amount of evidence
>> there points to the conclusion I noted before -
>> there are piles upon
>> piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing
>> stuff, and about
>> four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same
>> thing. We can only
>> consider what is put before us, and almost all of
>> that relates to
>> Jguk.
>>
>> -- ambi
>>
>
> Rebecca, I respect you tremendously, but, forgive me,
> this just sounds like laziness to me.  If the arbcomm
> is given a diff, can't they look at the various
> versions of the article in question, or are they
> ironclad bound to only look at the single diff?
>
> RickK
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> James A. Bowery wrote:
>
>> David A. Desrosiers wrote:
>>
>>>     Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?
>>
>>
>> Actually there are multiple problems and the fact Ubuntu uses ext3 by
>> default is one of them.  Converting to a reasonable file system is going
>> to be problematic.
>
>
> ext3 has no problem with files >2gb. If there was a problem, we'd be
> pretty roundly screwed. :)

That's what I get for going with the first google hit that said anything
about it:

http://www.linuxgeek.net/beginners/node101.html
says:
Ext3
    The ext3 filesystem is a journaling extension to the standard ext2
filesystem on Linux. Journaling results in massively reduced time spent
recovering a filesystem after a crash, and is therefore in high demand
in environments where high availability is important, not only to
improve recovery times on single machines but also to allow a crashed
machine's filesystem to be recovered on another machine when we have a
cluster of nodes with a shared disk. Maximum file system size 4
Terabytes, Maximum file size 2 Gigabytes.

Apparently the ext3 file size limit varies dramatically with the
blocksize.  So now the question is how can I tell what the blocksize is
of my ext3 file system?


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: cookfire

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

references:
<42B291AC.8060606@gmail.com>
	<42B2B420.1020008@telus.net>	<42B2E41A.7040906@gmail.com>
	<op.ssivn9qw2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>

body:
Muke Tever wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The following is what he says there
>>>
>>>>     Using this imperfect system of templates has taught us that 80% of
>>>>     the lexicological content can be expressed using templates.
>>>>
>>> What evidence is there of this? Sure, we can get closer to that when
>>> translations are viewed as mechanical acts and we can ignore all
>>> subtleties of language. In reality such an attitude only goves a lot
>>> of pap.
>>
>>
>> The evidence can be found in the practice of the it: or nl: and other
>> wiktionaries. Please explain  "goves a lot of pap".
>
>
> it:, nl:, and the other wiktionaries are 99% stubs.  Certainly it's
> conceivable that the language-independent content *now* is 80%.  But
> in the future, when there is actually enough content to make wiktionary
> worth using, both in real definitions and auxiliary information such
> as etymological analysis (not just "{{xx}} X, from {{yy}} Y, ..."),
> discussion of pronunciation and grammatical usage in everyday vs. formal
> or standardized use, citations and translations of same into the user's
> native language, a real and useful thesaurus of each language (I mean
> more than a simple list of synonyms), etc., then the numbers will surely
> be quite different.
>
> This is why I don't see anything particularly "ultimate" about UW. If
> all you really want to build is a "translationary," I don't doubt UW
> will be reasonable and sufficient.  Outside of that, from what I
> understand,
> it looks like the vast amounts of real content will be provincialized,
> stuck in the language of the user who added it. It will be just like
> Wikipedia in that way, where it is little or no effort to carry over an
> infobox template, say, from en.wikipedia to la.wikipedia, but the real
> meat is not the standardized template but the actual article about what
> is being discussed... and UW only seems to concern itself with the
> equivalent of the infobox.

An entry will have the 'real content' available in many languages at the
same time. It will be presented to you in the language of the interface
that you used if available in that language. There will also be icons to
show in what other languages this etymology or comment is available as
well. And a button to translate it to a new  language that wasn't
available yet. Nothing gets provincialized. All the translations of the
content will be found in the same place, instead of having to hunt
across all the different language Wiktionaries. It's not just about
translations. Although, they too, will benefit of only having to be put
in once and become available for each and every person using the Wiktionary.

Ultimate Wiktionary is just a name. Rather fitting, if I may say so, but
just a name all the same. It had to be called something.

I'm going to try and make an example of a common word and what it might
look like in UW.

Bank seems like a good candidate to do this with. It is defined in en,
de, nl, sv and volap?k in the English Wiktionary. The Swedish Wiktionary
doesn't have an entry for it yet. The Dutch and German Wiktionaries and
they both have an extra definition in Indonesian, which is lacking in
the English Wiktionary. Oddly the German Wiktionary is not defining the
German word, so the entry probably wasn't added by a German speaker.
With the UW there would already have been a beginning of an entry since
it had been added by somebody working through the English language
interface. The same goes for the Swedish definition. What's most
important though is that Indonesian wouldn't have been lost to the
English Wiktionary community. It may not have come with a definition
written in English, but a definition in another language would have been
available, ready to be translated. It would have been in view and not
hidden from sight in the Dutch and German  Wiktionaries waiting to be
discovered by somebody who happens to enjoy jumping from one language
Wiktionary to another.

Indicating what more exists will be taken care of by the software. It
won't have to be added manually.

Have to run now.

Polyglot


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Browser breakdown?

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> I've been looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm,
> which gives a quite interesting set of statistics. I note we have a
> (fragmentary) set of stats on the number of visits; do we have any
> figures on the breakdown of those by browser?

We're not currently producing stats from our web logs, due to the
inability of our previous system to handle combining and processing the
massive amounts of log data without bogging down the site for half of
every day.

At such time as we resume with a new system, we may still not have any
browser breakdown data since Squid doesn't normally log the user-agent data.

> I was about to quote some statistics on en:wiki about usage, and it
> struck me that if we had a rough breakdown for wikipedia, rather than
> relying on the wildly fluctuating ones across the web, it'd be useful
> to know, even if no more than a vague snapshot from a year ago.

 From the last update in October last year:
http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/usage_200410.html

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050619/f632aa52/attachment.pgp


from_name: David A. Desrosiers

body:
> I've tried downloading the 34GiB
> http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/20050516_old_table.sql.gz
> on Ubuntu (Debian derivative) Linux via both wget and Firefox but
> neither produces the correct length apparently due to the large size
> of the file.

 	Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?

David A. Desrosiers
desrod at gnu-designs.com
http://gnu-designs.com


body:
James A. Bowery wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> James A. Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> David A. Desrosiers wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually there are multiple problems and the fact Ubuntu uses ext3 by
>>> default is one of them.  Converting to a reasonable file system is
>>> going
>>> to be problematic.
>>
>>
>>
>> ext3 has no problem with files >2gb. If there was a problem, we'd be
>> pretty roundly screwed. :)
>
>
> That's what I get for going with the first google hit that said
> anything about it:
>
> http://www.linuxgeek.net/beginners/node101.html
> says:
> Ext3
>    The ext3 filesystem is a journaling extension to the standard ext2
> filesystem on Linux. Journaling results in massively reduced time
> spent recovering a filesystem after a crash, and is therefore in high
> demand in environments where high availability is important, not only
> to improve recovery times on single machines but also to allow a
> crashed machine's filesystem to be recovered on another machine when
> we have a cluster of nodes with a shared disk. Maximum file system
> size 4 Terabytes, Maximum file size 2 Gigabytes.
>
> Apparently the ext3 file size limit varies dramatically with the
> blocksize.  So now the question is how can I tell what the blocksize
> is of my ext3 file system?
>
$ dumpe2fs /dev/hda1
...
Block size:               4096
...

and:

http://www.novell.com/documentation/suse91/suselinux-adminguide/html/apas04.html
says:
Ext2 or Ext3 (4 kB block size)2^41 (2 TB) maximum file size

so now if _these_ guys aren't lying then indeed maximum file size on
ext3 had nothing to do with my problem.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org>	<d83m69$ilf$1@sea.gmane.org>	<b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5@mail.gmail.com>	<d84kh0$smj$1@sea.gmane.org>	<9f02ca4c05060909194cdb2d5f@mail.gmail.com>	<d8uri1$qru$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<42B3083C.9060007@telus.net>	<d94nbq$d2d$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9839a05c0506191444f19a8ac@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Brian wrote:
> "Since some users skim through a document by navigating its headings, it is
> important to use them appropriately to convey document structure. Users
> should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements
> should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. Content
> developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to
> H3)."http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/
>
> Since we are validating to XHTML 1.0 Strict, I believe this accessibility
> guidance should be followed.

We're certainly not validating as XHTML 1.0 Strict! We're marking output
as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and making a good-faith effort to have output
validate to the transitional DTD (though some wikitext constructs will
not validate).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050619/c9ac509a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Sj

subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal

body:
Hello,

It's great to see a public discussion of grants and donations.  Thanks
for starting one.  You suggest interesting ideas, some of which can be
implemented indepently of the others.

On 6/18/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility of earmarking their
> donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they want
> their money to go. In that case, one donor may give specifically for servers,
> while another donor may give specifically to promote a language, print a
> particular wikibook, or whatever.

This has been discussed before, with the idea that people could
earmark where half of their donations go -- in the context of more
general divisions such as "hardware / software / content / language
development".   I think starting with a simple earmarking scheme like
this will make it easier to tell whether this is useful for small
donors.

People should be encouraged to give to the project as a whole; it
makes life easier for budgeters, and keeps the process of making a
donation simple.  On the other hand, people who really want to fund a
particular project should have a way of doing so.

< 1. People promoting projects [should] submit a budget for their
project.   Budgets should < be as detailed as possible...

Most current projects don't require a budget.  To the extent that they
incur more maintenance and hardware costs, their promoters aren't in a
position to evaluate what the costs will be over time.  Do we want to
encourage people to assess every new project in terms of financial
cost?   I agree that projects which lend themselves to a separate
budget (A VIBBER-box upgrade, a new-language microfinancing
initiative) should have lots of detail; including a budget in currency
and man-hours, a tentative timeline, etc.

>     2.  Donors giving to the Foundation will have the option of giving directly to the
> general running costs of Wikimedia or  perusing the list of specific projects.

This sounds like a bad idea.  I agree that donors who *already know*
what subproject they want to donate to should have a way of supporting
that project in particular - perhaps a separate form linked to from
that project's page, or a separate link on the donations page.  But
I'm not sure that readers who just love Wikimedia's work and follow a
"suppor this site!" link should be encouraged to express themselves
through project choice.

<    3.  IMPORTANT:  10 percent will be deducted automatically for "Overhead,"
< i.e., the day-to-day  costs of running the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikimedia is not a normal non-profit.  The "operating costs" you
mention are not salaries, stationary, international phone bills, and
rent.  They are the costs of *running the primary projects* which make
Wikimedia useful and successful.   Far less than 10% of the foundation
budget goes towards true overhead (salaries, travel).

It seems reasonable to require more than 20% of subproject donations
to go towards the main projects -- general-use hardware and software
development, for instance -- to ensure that the trunk and roots of the
wikimedia projects grow in proportion to new, tentative branches.  And
it seems reasonable to require a true overhead of 5% or so from each
donation to go into a long-term Wikimedia trust.  The core Wikimedia
projects and structures /still need much support/, and this should not
be forgotten in a rush to create new ones.

>     4.  Sums collected will be charted on the project page.  Once a project
> has reached its target sum, it will be removed from the list of projects
> available to donors.

I like the idea of asking projects to set budgets for themselves
before raising money through the foundation directly, and of tracking
their fundraising success.  Of course each project can still go out
and solicit grants and support on its own, as was done for Wikidata;
but the promise of foundation support will help get better and more
organized information about budding projects.

> Any additional funds earned will be given to the general Foundation fund.

This, unfortunately, is hard to do.  The whole downside to constrained
giving is that you can't as a Foundation later decide it should be
spent some other way.

> I believe that this proposal has a number of important advantages.
>     3.  People involved in specific projects will  naturally assume the
> responsibility of "Project Heads" and naturally grow to  fill leadership positions
>     4.  Motivated individuals will promote their  projects, gaining them
> greater visibility.

How does this depend on the proposal above?  People active in a
project already naturally grow to fill leadership positions.  I'm not
sure it's a good idea to encourage a first-mover advantage here.  The
best project head is not necessarily the person most skilled at
'monetizing' and promoting a project.

Do we want motivated individuals to see creating a budget for a
project, and trying to raise strings-attached money for it, as a
necessary step on the road to personal visibility and project
ownership?  Do we want to promote project ownership?

>     5.  Public budgets for projects will foster greater transparency of the
> financial process. People like to know where their money is going and how it
> is being spent.
>     6.  With several projects emerging, the Foundation  will be able to
> release a "Catalogue of Giving Opportunities" for potential  donors, including
> large-gift donors.

Right on.  These things don't require the above proposal, but having
better public budgets for every project requiring specific funds --
and clear line-items in financial reports -- will make everyone feel
better about donating.

#6 is what I would like to see the Grants Team tackle : making the
soup of Wikimedia projects make sense to external donors.  We could
create public budgets and a catalogue out of existing projects,
without implementing any new proposals; and a focused group is
probably better at writing the needed copy than individual project
enthusiasts.

I hope such a Catalogue would have a few broad avenues for donation,
mentioning some specific projects associated with each; not a dozen
detailed initiatives.  This would make it less complex, and leave the
Foundation with fewer frustrating liquidity constraints.  ( For
instance, if 2,000 Euros have been earmarked specifically for Bambara
project A, and the coordinator disappears; we won't be able to use
those funds for Bambara project B, or for an identical project in
Twi.. )

-- SJ

P.S. Now if only we could get some big-picture hardware, software,
content, and usability discussions going as well...


subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in Cebuano

body:
Could you explain what you mean here?

Mark

On 19/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >That is because the people who are responsible for the creation of new
> >Wikipedias do not keep their eye on the appropriate channels. The last
> >two Wikipedias that were created, I requested personally from Brion on
> >IRC (os: and fur:).
> >
> >The last time a Wikipedia was created quickly was for tum.wikipedia.
> >And tum.wikipedia didn't have very good chances.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >
> Why do you always project yourself as the languageguru?
>
> W
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
> Please consider a data export for download as soon as possible after
> the conversion.

and also immediately before the conversion.


from_name: Jeremy Farrell

body:
Please unsubscribe me from this list.  Ta.

Image by FlamingText.com

>From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: geni
<geniice at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: Jack Lynch
<jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
<wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration
Commitee Seeking Comment
>Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:22:43
+0100
>
>On 6/17/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Sounds like a very good idea, I thought that was already
policy...
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
>
>
>
>No. Formal surveys have to registed. Straw polls don't
have to
be.
>
>--
>geni
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l
mailing
list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: tex: \cdot

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Johan F wrote:
>> It would be nice if the could \cdot be rendered in html, as it would
>> greatly reduce the number of tex snippets needing image conversion.
>> Perhaps '?' could be used? (E.g. 3?4=12.)
>
> According to texutil.ml, it seems that it already uses ⋅.
>
> According to the HTML output, however, it seems to use ⋅.

Is that because tidy is rewriting the character references on the wiki
you're looking at?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050619/10ab3e6d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
To be fair, in my experience, often one can provide evidence and
still not have much of the arbcom read it....

-Snowspinner

On Jun 19, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Rebecca wrote:

> Folks, if you don't provide evidence, then don't be surprise when your
> concerns aren't included in a ruling. The vast amount of evidence
> there points to the conclusion I noted before - there are piles upon
> piles of examples of Jguk systematically changing stuff, and about
> four examples of SouthernComfort doing the same thing. We can only
> consider what is put before us, and almost all of that relates to
> Jguk.
>
> -- ambi
>
> On 6/19/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with
>>> whether to use American or English English) comes down to the
>>> editors
>>> of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on
>>> the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was
>>> one of
>>> the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then
>>> went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of
>>> the
>>> article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
>>>
>>> -- ambi
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But this isn't true. SouthernComfort hit artices on which he had no
>> previous editing history.
>>
>> geni
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rebecca

body:
I think this is a bad way of putting what is a sound idea in this
instance. It is true that Jguk was changing date formats to something
that offended SouthernComfort and others. It is also true, however,
that SouthernComfort had been changing date formats to something that
offended Jguk and others.

The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with
whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors
of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on
the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of
the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then
went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the
article consensus - and that's what isn't on.

-- ambi

On 6/19/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you
> prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are
> offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general
> policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot
> unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having
> it adopted as an actual policy.
>
> Fred
>
> On Jun 18, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Rick wrote:
>
> > This decision is apparently setting the precedent that
> > if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are
> > offensive to them, then their view is the only
> > acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors
> > can go hang.
> >
> > RickK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Discover Yahoo!
> > Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
> > http://discover.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org> <d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d83m69$ilf$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<d84kh0$smj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9f02ca4c05060909194cdb2d5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<d8uri1$qru$1@sea.gmane.org> <42B3083C.9060007@telus.net>
	<d94nbq$d2d$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
"Since some users skim through a document by navigating its headings, it is
important to use them appropriately to convey document structure. Users
should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements
should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. Content
developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to
H3)."http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/

Since we are validating to XHTML 1.0 Strict, I believe this accessibility
guidance should be followed.

/User:Alterego <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alterego>
http://www.qwikly.com/blog/

> If you set up an article with sections like this, the auto-numbering gives
> an incorrect result:
> == 1
> ==== 1.1
> ==== 1.2
> === 1.1
> === 1.2

 <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/>

--


references:
<42B5B811.2040109@laboratoryofthestates.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506191448030.17516@aphrodite.gnu-designs.com>
	<42B5C9EB.5010400@laboratoryofthestates.com>
	<42B5D86F.4090201@pobox.com>
	<42B5E6C0.3020902@laboratoryofthestates.com>

body:
May I ask if you tried curl? As I said, I went through the same situation
yesterday. Firefox consistently finished downloading early and wget only
downloaded up to 4kb. It was only once I tried curl with explicit Largefile
support that the download would progress, and I now have 13GB finished.

/User:Alterego <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alterego>
http://www.qwikly.com/blog/

On 6/19/05, James A. Bowery <jabowery at laboratoryofthestates.com> wrote:
>
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > James A. Bowery wrote:
> >
> >> David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can your kernel and filesystem handle >2gb contiguous files?
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually there are multiple problems and the fact Ubuntu uses ext3 by
> >> default is one of them. Converting to a reasonable file system is going
> >> to be problematic.
> >
> >
> > ext3 has no problem with files >2gb. If there was a problem, we'd be
> > pretty roundly screwed. :)
>
> That's what I get for going with the first google hit that said anything
> about it:
>
> http://www.linuxgeek.net/beginners/node101.html
> says:
> Ext3
> The ext3 filesystem is a journaling extension to the standard ext2
> filesystem on Linux. Journaling results in massively reduced time spent
> recovering a filesystem after a crash, and is therefore in high demand
> in environments where high availability is important, not only to
> improve recovery times on single machines but also to allow a crashed
> machine's filesystem to be recovered on another machine when we have a
> cluster of nodes with a shared disk. Maximum file system size 4
> Terabytes, Maximum file size 2 Gigabytes.
>
> Apparently the ext3 file size limit varies dramatically with the
> blocksize. So now the question is how can I tell what the blocksize is
> of my ext3 file system?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 6/19/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> (5) I have copyedited articles that have used inconsistent notation so that they use consistent notation (which is consistent with good practice on style)

Can you cite an example where you normalized an article to CE/BCE when
there were multiple uses?  If not, then I would suggest you drop the
'I only made them consistent' defense. (Sorry to ask you to find one,
but I looked ... and couldn't)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org> <d83m69$ilf$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<d84kh0$smj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9f02ca4c05060909194cdb2d5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<d8uri1$qru$1@sea.gmane.org> <42B3083C.9060007@telus.net>
	<d94nbq$d2d$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9839a05c0506191444f19a8ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<42B5E9C7.2010402@pobox.com>

body:
Oops. You know, I could have swore I validated a page the other day, but it
appears now that the w3c user agent has been blocked?

 I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>:

403 Forbidden

 Please make sure you have entered the URL correctly.

On 6/19/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Brian wrote:
> > "Since some users skim through a document by navigating its headings, it
> is
> > important to use them appropriately to convey document structure. Users
> > should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2
> elements
> > should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc.
> Content
> > developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to
> > H3)."http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/
> >
> > Since we are validating to XHTML 1.0 Strict, I believe this
> accessibility
> > guidance should be followed.
>
> We're certainly not validating as XHTML 1.0 Strict! We're marking output
> as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and making a good-faith effort to have output
> validate to the transitional DTD (though some wikitext constructs will
> not validate).
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com <http://pobox.com>)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


from_name: Muke Tever

body:
cookfire <cookfire at softhome.net> wrote:
> An entry will have the 'real content' available in many languages at the
> same time. It will be presented to you in the language of the interface
> that you used if available in that language. There will also be icons to
> show in what other languages this etymology or comment is available as
> well.

That sounds like it will be a *very* crowded interface before too long.

> And a button to translate it to a new  language that wasn't
> available yet. Nothing gets provincialized.

The provincialization remains in the fact that most people don't
understand several languages.  So, apparently a person can see that
a definition is given in French and Hebrew... but..
   * Do they know whether the Hebrew definition is a translation of
     the French definition, vice versa, or written independently?
   * Do they have any way of knowing whether the French definition has
     any more or less information than the Hebrew one?
   * Do they know whether they are perhaps for different senses of the
     same word? (Did the person who added the definition in Hebrew know
     enough French to mark it as a translation of a French one?)

> All the translations of the content will be found in the sameplace, instead of having to hunt across all the different languageWiktionaries.

Interwiki links do that already, and are flexible enough to handle
information that isn't just a translation of prior information.

> It's not just about translations. Although, they too, will benefitof only having to be put in once and become available for each andevery person using the Wiktionary.

This, frankly, seems impossible, except for words with very specific
semantics.  I would like to see how this is supposed to be done.

> I'm going to try and make an example of a common word and what it might
> look like in UW.
>
> Bank seems like a good candidate to do this with.

Or maybe [[You]]. :p

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

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


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in Cebuano

body:
Hi Vincent,

You did a lot of excellent work and you are one of the really few who follow
the procedure for requests so well. I think it is time to create this
Wikipedia asap!

Wouter

>Hello guys.
>
>I would like to reiterate our request to have a
>Wikipedia in the Cebuano language. We have the minimum
>number of supporters, and we have also promoted the
>idea in some fora where Cebuanos frequent.
>
>Our raster name would be using the same image as the
>English Wikipedia. The logo would have the text
>"Wikipedia   Ang Gawasnong Ensayklopediya".
>
>I have started translating the main page of the
>English Wikipedia and some of the required pages.
>
>Unfortunately I don't have a permanent online
>connection and I live in a country where one hour of
>online connection is 5% of the minimum daily wage. So
>I could visit the Internet at most thrice a week. :(
>
>
>Respectfully yours,
>
>Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles
>http://bentong.topcities.com/
>
>
>P.S. Yes, I do speak the language. I even write using
>it (for a small fee in one of our Cebuano magazines).

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/


from_name: James A. Bowery

body:
Brian wrote:

>May I ask if you tried curl? As I said, I went through the same situation
>yesterday. Firefox consistently finished downloading early and wget only
>downloaded up to 4kb. It was only once I tried curl with explicit Largefile
>support that the download would progress, and I now have 13GB finished.
>
>
Based on your recommendation I have now and with some minor mods it is
loading now.

I did an:

apt-get install curl

which went to the Ubuntu repository and grabbed a version of curl that
didn't support --retry as an option, but everything else in your command
line appears to have worked (but for a typo where you said "show_error"
rather than the proper "show-error").


body:
On 6/19/05, Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> SouthernComfort, for one.  It was his sole editing
> procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to
> engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's
> failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.

I know it might not be entirely obvious just just because someone
prefers something doesn't make it 'POV' in the NPOV sense. The only
POV  intrinsic to the BCE/CE side is that BC/AD is not NPOV.  BCE/CE
doesn't push a specific world view, it doesn't deny the existence or
importance of Jesus, it merely doesn't support that view either.

Just because the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE
doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.

So at worst you could claim that it is meta-meta-pov: the use of
BCE/CE implies that BC/AD may not be NPOV.

The majority opinion on Wikipedia doesn't support the claim that
BCE/CE use is a POV, but rather that the use of BC/AD is so old that
the POVness of it has been washed away by time and therefor it is
permissible.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Validation status

body:
I took a quick look at it, fixed on fatal XML error, there are also
some untranslatable strings in there and all the styles are hard coded
(should use CSS), furthermore there's some code duplication in there,
it has its own linking routines but should use the Linker class.


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>

>--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> > > > Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he
> > has been on a campaign
> > >to
> > > > remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and
> > has made over 1,000
> > >article
> > > > edits solely to support that campaign.
> > > >
> > > > Jay.
> > >
> > >So? There has been a few people campaining the
> > other ways as well.
> >
> >
> > Really?  People who edit dozens of articles solely
> > for the purpose of
> > removing BC/AD notation, and who have made hundreds
> > of edits to further that
> > goal over a period of many months? Who did you have
> > in mind?
>
>SouthernComfort, for one.  It was his sole editing
>procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to
>engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's
>failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.
>
>RickK

Rick, SouthernComfort edited a narrow set of subject topics (Iran-related),
over a period of a few weeks, as part of his general interest in Iran;
included in that was his conversion of pages from BC/AD to BCE/CE.  He did
not edit dozens of articles over a period of many months for the sole
purpose of (and to which he contributed nothing else but) date notation
conversions.  If jguk had converted cricket related articles he was already
editing to BC/AD, that would have been one thing; but he has been on an
obvious campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia from any
article he comes across which uses it, using the pretense of either
"consistency" or "original usage" depending on which best serves his
purposes.  He still insists on this pretense, rather than admitting the
nature of his campaign, though evidence has been presented which shows its
specious nature.  He has even gone so far as to try to remove all links to
www.religioustolerance.org from Wikipedia, a reasonably popular (Alexa
ranking 10,000-11,000) religion-oriented website promoting religious
tolerance, using the pretense that it is a "blog", but with the obvious
reason being that it supports BCE/CE notation.  I haven't seen behaviour
comparable to this by any of the pro BCE/CE editors.

Jay.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Browser breakdown?

body:
Hi all.

I've been looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm,
which gives a quite interesting set of statistics. I note we have a
(fragmentary) set of stats on the number of visits; do we have any
figures on the breakdown of those by browser?

I was about to quote some statistics on en:wiki about usage, and it
struck me that if we had a rough breakdown for wikipedia, rather than
relying on the wildly fluctuating ones across the web, it'd be useful
to know, even if no more than a vague snapshot from a year ago.

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