subject:
[WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote about the edit wars
	but it makes no sense!!!!!!!!! (Hganesan)

body:
And also I have already discussed ENOUGH on the
discussion pages for Steve Nash and nobody can reply
to what I wrote. If I DISCUSS it and nobody can reply
or make a good reason why not to include something IN
MY OPINION, then it stays right??? These are all FACTS
BTW THAT I POST THAT RELATE. TOO MUCH BIAS ON SOME OF
THESE SPORTS PAGES.

--- wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Deletion before discussion (Drini drini)
>    2. Re: Deletion before discussion (Katie
> (keitei))
>    3. Re: Message: 4 William M. Connolley- He wrote
> about the	edit
>       (Earthhope Action Network)
>    4. Re: Message: 4 William M. Connolley- He wrote
> about	theedit
>       (Peter Mackay)
>    5. Re: CSD T1 (geni)
>    6. Re: Deletion before discussion (geni)
>    7. Re: Darren at nocuffs (Guy Chapman aka JzG)
>    8. Re: 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to
> misleading	or
>       false (Guy Chapman aka JzG)
>    9. Re: 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to
>       (Earthhope Action Network)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:31:43 -0500
> From: "Drini drini" <wpdrini at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
>
<ca57470e0605171931t2e85f199i8cf010dc92e91d0f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> EXCEPT... that Wikipedia is not your personal blog
> nor a free webhost
> (**Official policy** at [[WP:NOT]] ). Userspace IS
> SUPPOSED to be
> relted to your wikipedia work, not to post pictures
> of your family.
> If you misuse it, don't cry about it later.
> And , do you really think vandals will care about
> the copyright? they
> WILL get the pictures and post them anyway.
>
> Wikipedia IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA not an scrapbook, but
> there's plenty of
> sites where you can put your family pictures if you
> like
>
>
> On 5/17/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > > On 5/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission"
> images.
> > > >
> > > > Even in userspace? Was that an intentional
> decision? Does it apply
> > when
> > > > people upload photos of themselves?
> > >
> > > /Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can
> at least make a case for
> > > fair use).  And people had better be uploading
> those pictures of
> > > themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC,
> or PD.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids
> on WP, I wouldn't
> > want to release it under a free (or free-ish)
> license so every troll I
> > block for vandalism could put my family on their
> webpage.  Of course,
> > they can already do that, but not legally, for
> what it's worth.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:54:34 -0400
> From: "Katie (keitei)" <katiefromuncyc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
>
<bf1babc10605171954w501a69a9ged8585c03d10a0f5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> On 5/17/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net>
> wrote:
> > On May 17, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > > Even in userspace? Was that an intentional
> decision? Does it apply
> > > when
> > > people upload photos of themselves?
> >
> > People should release photos of themselves under
> GFDL or CC-BY-SA if
> > they upload them. If they aren't the original
> photographer they
> > should not upload other people's copyrighted
> photos to Wikipedia.
> >
> > --
> > Philip L. Welch
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
> >
> >
>
> The image this thread was originally about did have
> a CC license. It's
> technically a free license, just not THE free
> license. CC-BY-NC-SA
> should be allowed in userpages, in my opinion.
>
> --
> -Katie
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 00:06:57 -0400
> From: "Earthhope Action Network"
> <contact at earthhopenetwork.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Message: 4 William M.
> Connolley- He wrote
> 	about the	edit
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID:
>
>
<bf12aac60605172106o354a1ba9j9a95040cb8c70573 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote
> about the
> > edit wars butit makes no sense!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> > Why? Because the other wikipedians are vandalizing
> and
> > deleting ALL THE FACTS I WRITE that completely
> RELATE
> > TO THE SUBJECT. I did not do anything wrong this
> time,
> > but he is upset by the info I post. I am steaming
> > about this. He is a horrible admin.
>
> You'll find any number of other editors who agree
> with you, but this isn't
> the place to discuss it. As advised, use the article
> discussion page to talk
> about it in a civil and constructive manner. If you
> still cannot get
> justice*, come back with a couple of good examples
> and ask for help. Don't
> expect much if you are being a self-righteous pest.
>
> Pete, speaking from experience
>
> *Justice is a nebulous concept here. Wikipedia is
> just a website. It's not a
>
=== message truncated ===

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Harish Ganesan

body:
Not only that, but he does not understand the
situation here. EVERYTIME I WRITE SOMETHING totally
LEGITIMATE, it is there for a while and then some nash
lover just deletes it or, people keep complaining. I
am just trying to keep this site neutral but most of
these editors who all HATE KOBE BRYANT are JUST NOT
GETTING IT. I am frustrated and this admin DID NOT
understand the whole situation. That is the problem.
And the other admins don't like me because I bring up
FACTS (I repeat FACTS OR POST ARTICLES) that they
don't want to see and wish they never knew, since this
steve nash guy really is given a lot more credit than
he deserves in my opinion, yet these admins like PS2PC
GAMER and MADCHESTER have swallowed the media spin and
are in love with him.  I never thought admins would be
like this.

--- wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Deletion before discussion (Drini drini)
>    2. Re: Deletion before discussion (Katie
> (keitei))
>    3. Re: Message: 4 William M. Connolley- He wrote
> about the	edit
>       (Earthhope Action Network)
>    4. Re: Message: 4 William M. Connolley- He wrote
> about	theedit
>       (Peter Mackay)
>    5. Re: CSD T1 (geni)
>    6. Re: Deletion before discussion (geni)
>    7. Re: Darren at nocuffs (Guy Chapman aka JzG)
>    8. Re: 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to
> misleading	or
>       false (Guy Chapman aka JzG)
>    9. Re: 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to
>       (Earthhope Action Network)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:31:43 -0500
> From: "Drini drini" <wpdrini at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
>
<ca57470e0605171931t2e85f199i8cf010dc92e91d0f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> EXCEPT... that Wikipedia is not your personal blog
> nor a free webhost
> (**Official policy** at [[WP:NOT]] ). Userspace IS
> SUPPOSED to be
> relted to your wikipedia work, not to post pictures
> of your family.
> If you misuse it, don't cry about it later.
> And , do you really think vandals will care about
> the copyright? they
> WILL get the pictures and post them anyway.
>
> Wikipedia IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA not an scrapbook, but
> there's plenty of
> sites where you can put your family pictures if you
> like
>
>
> On 5/17/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/17/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > > On 5/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I'm afaraid we don't allow "with permission"
> images.
> > > >
> > > > Even in userspace? Was that an intentional
> decision? Does it apply
> > when
> > > > people upload photos of themselves?
> > >
> > > /Especially/ in userspace (in articles you can
> at least make a case for
> > > fair use).  And people had better be uploading
> those pictures of
> > > themselves under free licenses such as GFDL, CC,
> or PD.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids
> on WP, I wouldn't
> > want to release it under a free (or free-ish)
> license so every troll I
> > block for vandalism could put my family on their
> webpage.  Of course,
> > they can already do that, but not legally, for
> what it's worth.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:54:34 -0400
> From: "Katie (keitei)" <katiefromuncyc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
>
<bf1babc10605171954w501a69a9ged8585c03d10a0f5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> On 5/17/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net>
> wrote:
> > On May 17, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > > Even in userspace? Was that an intentional
> decision? Does it apply
> > > when
> > > people upload photos of themselves?
> >
> > People should release photos of themselves under
> GFDL or CC-BY-SA if
> > they upload them. If they aren't the original
> photographer they
> > should not upload other people's copyrighted
> photos to Wikipedia.
> >
> > --
> > Philip L. Welch
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
> >
> >
>
> The image this thread was originally about did have
> a CC license. It's
> technically a free license, just not THE free
> license. CC-BY-NC-SA
> should be allowed in userpages, in my opinion.
>
> --
> -Katie
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 00:06:57 -0400
> From: "Earthhope Action Network"
> <contact at earthhopenetwork.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Message: 4 William M.
> Connolley- He wrote
> 	about the	edit
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID:
>
>
<bf12aac60605172106o354a1ba9j9a95040cb8c70573 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote
> about the
> > edit wars butit makes no sense!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> > Why? Because the other wikipedians are vandalizing
> and
> > deleting ALL THE FACTS I WRITE that completely
> RELATE
> > TO THE SUBJECT. I did not do anything wrong this
> time,
> > but he is upset by the info I post. I am steaming
> > about this. He is a horrible admin.
>
> You'll find any number of other editors who agree
> with you, but this isn't
> the place to discuss it. As advised, use the article
> discussion page to talk
> about it in a civil and constructive manner. If you
> still cannot get
> justice*, come back with a couple of good examples
> and ask for help. Don't
> expect much if you are being a self-righteous pest.
>
> Pete, speaking from experience
>
> *Justice is a nebulous concept here. Wikipedia is
> just a website. It's not a
>
=== message truncated ===

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


body:
The problem here was also 128.6.78.50. THIS was ALL
started by the 128.6 IP USER. He TOTALLY WENT
OVERBOARD and deleted the nash scoring 0 points and
the Nash giving up 30 to RIDNOUR. These had been on
for SEVERAL DAYS. AND I DID NOT EVEN MAKE UP THE 0
POINTS. Check his history he is a big problem here
because all he does is delete everything I write about
nash and kobe and post stupid criticism about bryant.
And guess what??? The difference between him and I- I
DON'T DELETE THE STUFF HE WRITES BUT HE DELETES AND
VANDALIZES WHAT I WRITE!!! and NONE of the adminst care!

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote about the edit wars but
	it makes no sense!!!!!!!!! (Hganesan)

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=prev&oldid=53547894

This is what I mean by 128.6 he had deleted the two
games and then I warned him and others not to delete
it again or else I would post many other games. Then
he deleted it again, and then I went ahead and posted
13 games:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53625182&oldid=53622122

I know about this topic and I watch a lot of
basketball and have been to several games. I know all
about this, then all of a sudden user downwards comes
in and HIDES EVERYTHING THAT I WROTE. I am furious
because I spent all that time writing it up while i
had been blocked, so i write in my edit summary "(why
are you deleting it now??? You weren't deleting it an
hour ago before i posted 13 nashty games!!! VANDALISM"
 and later "you explain why it needs to be cleaned up?
Why because it has too many examples and evidence? It
is a masterpiece, the last thing we need on Wikipedia
is vandalism". I know it is not vandalism, but I still
can't believe this is edit warring. It is ONLY WAR
WHEN BOTH SIDES ARE BATTLING OTHERWISE IT IS NO WAR. I
am being targeted again. I already had fixed my
civility on those edit summaries. It bothers me to see
everybody so intent on deleting everything I write.
This has happened to a lot of my posts too not only on
STeve Nash, but on LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, ball
hog, NBA MVP, etc. IN ALL CASES, I DON'T DELETE ANY
POINTS UNLIKE THESE NASH LOVERS WHO DELETE ALL MY
POSTS. I BRING UP ANOTHER POINT NOTICE THAT IN MOST OF
MY POSTS.

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


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
 information

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards.  You're
> supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article.
>
Whaaaat!

Isn't this kind of the entire point of using a wiki in the first place?
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zero-information-is-preferred-to-misleading-or-false-information-t1632891.html#a4447533
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this overciting?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The level is not a problem. I tend to agree that there's no such thing
>> as overciting, though I'm sure someone will eventually WP:POINT out an
>> exception to that rule. As you say, the problem is more with the
>> nature of the sources used. Much of the article is currently sourced
>> to a web site called "Megalithic Walks" which is only attributed to
>> "Graham and Angela" and which does not, itself, cite sources.
>>
>> However, citing such amateur websites is perfectly fine -- it's
>> basically one step above "citation needed" and tells other editors
>> that it would be nice to have a more authoritative source for the
>> claim (and also that it's OK to remove it if it is in dispute).
>
>
> Yes, I feel that for a reader, knowing that the information that a given
> stone circle is 23 metres wide came from an amateur website is a hell of a
> lot more useful than just being told "this stone circle is 23 metres wide".
> However I still have two unresolved problems:
> a) How to elegantly express the fact that two different sources have
> contradicting accounts. Do I write: This stone circle is 23 [1] or 28 [2]
> metres wide, and ... or do I actually have to incorporate the metadata about
> the sources into the body: The size of the stone circle is reported
> differently in different accounts, as being either 23 [1] or 28 [2]
> metres...
> b) How to elegantly express the fact that I simply don't know something
> which is pertinent. Wikipedia does not have a narrator's voice. A newspaper
> might say "The Age was unable to determine the man's name", and a book or
> blog might simply use "I". I feel it's misleading to say "The origins of the
> rock are unknown" when surely someone *does* know them - but we (I) don't.
>

"Various sources give differing accounts..." and let NPOV (state all
major viewpoints and let the reader sort it out) do the rest? :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060518/e12f0260/attachment.pgp


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro

> On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > It is probably significant to note that Anthony DiPierro and Peter
> > McKay are on the same side of this question.
> >
> Why?  Who is Peter McKay?  Or is it Peter Mackay?

I couldn't work it out either, but I did make a mental note that perhaps
Jimbo's standards of editing aren't quite as high as he'd like.

-- Peter in Canberra


from_name: Earthhope Action Network

body:
------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:17:12 -0700
From: Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to
       misleading      or false
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <83E0935F-1C7A-47F7-9544-98D727E5BA62 at philwelch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On May 17, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Earthhope Action Network wrote:

All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but what the
group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I don't have
to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen to mine. The
difference between you and me is that I would never advocate punitive
actions to soothe my wounded feelings. You would and do. Also editors are
terrified to speak their mind, the ones that would defend me for fear of the
axe coming down on them next. Corbin Simpson did speak up for me. He was
lucky they didn't block him.  Please see the rfa oppose section on
Swatjester's rfc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Swatjester
Either that or you are just another example of one who is susceptible to
groupthink which is no thought at all. BTW is it okay for admins to refer to
kids as turds?

Bishonen told me my remarks to an editor John Kinney were obscene, the
(beginning or our personal and mutual dislike.) Here is Geogre calling
children turds (to Bishonen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Archive_14#Haymarket.2C_etc.

+:Oh, and for comparison, see the history tab on Attalus I. It has been
vandalized even more than yours was. I think, when it's an interesting
story, the turds vandalize it less. The 11 year olds ''clearly'' don't like
Attalus I. ("You must be this tall to ride the Wikipedia.")
[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go on and on here , but rather than waste my time.. How about this
atfq if you would just answer the fucking question(s).

> Erik Moeller said: RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all work.
>
 I'm stillt wondering. I am an editor, who has been blocked indefinitely
from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom, mediation, or any
dispute resolution at all. Never.
Just wondering why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was
removed. Will you please just answer these  questions. Your answer to
unblock request move and the entire process didn't cut it I'm afraid. Policy
is being broken. I Never had Any Mediation or Any dispute Resolution. Every
single thing the admins did was done in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy

I've been here for two years. So have many of the people on this
list. I think we know Wikipedia policy better than you.

-----

That's interesting. If you know the policy better than I do, then why don't
you follow it?
-----in peace and justice for the wildthings Margie Laupheimer
http://earthhopenetwork.net/


list: foundation-l

subject:
[Foundation-l] The need for identifying languages properly for
 lexicological use

body:
GerardM wrote:
>
> I propose for WiktionaryZ and for the Babel proficiency to exclusively
> use the ISO-639-3 codes. When there are not enough codes in ISO-639-3
> we will have to use codes that are clearly not ISO-639-3.
>
These two sentences are not consistent.

Which is the one you actually meant?
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-need-for-identifying-languages-properly-for-lexicological-use-t1591967.html#a4448789
Sent from the WikiMedia Foundation forum at Nabble.com.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
	information

body:
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's because WP:V is very vague on this one basic point. It defines what
> should be the case. It is conspicuously tacit on what to do if it's not.
> Delete? Remove temporarily? Hide? {{fact}}? Allow for a while? Hence my
> suggestion to designate classes of articles with different rules for
> unsourced material. FA's should not tolerate any unsourced material, for
> instance.

WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use
common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's
no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is
Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back
at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the
editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are
so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples
that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to
be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks,
the faster it should be removed.

Sarah


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Spoilers

body:
Editors Who Are Removing Spoiler Notices From Articles,

  Firstly, please stop doing this. Sections like Plot Details always
include spoiler tags and this is standard practice. Please stop acting
against consensus as established at [[WP:SW]], a project guideline.

  Secndly, Please publish a complete record of all articles from which
you remove spoiler notices so that other editors thinking otherwise may
undo your damaging actions.

  Avoiding your annoyance is not a priority of WIkipedia, nor should it
be.

  Molu

---------------------------------
Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls  with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
G'Day Mr. Wales,

  I find it surprising that you choose to generalise the matter to the whole internet. If you are opposed to such opinions being posted anywhere on the internet, then I can only say that it's a ridiculous and highly dangorous idea. If on the other hand you are talking about Wikipedia, my perceptions of "inflammatory" obviously differ from yours.

  I should also probably make it clear that it was not a challenge, but an opinion itself. If I'm required by Wikipedia rules to remove such statements, then I will abide by the rules, but nevertheless I feel very strongly the I should not be required to remove them.

  The hosting space for that userpage is owned by Wikipedia and it has every right to regulate my expressions on that space. but the question is whether it will be right in doing so.

  Molu

  On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:45:57 -0400 Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Molu wrote:
>> I
>> think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that then
>> by all means stay off my userpage,

>And if you feel that the best way to participate on the Internet is by
>posting inflammatory statements on your userpage, then by all means stay
>off of Wikipedia. Go find a project which welcomes political rants and
>leave us alone.

>--Jimbo

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Yup.  Pages like those serve a useful purpose, in that almost every
> image turns out to be a copyvio of some sort (Cyde's probably being an
> exception).

There are at least a couple of fair use images still there.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
On 5/18/06, Katie (keitei) <katiefromuncyc at gmail.com> wrote:
> The image this thread was originally about did have a CC license. It's
> technically a free license, just not THE free license. CC-BY-NC-SA
> should be allowed in userpages, in my opinion.
>

NC images are not allowed on wikipedia.
--
geni


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[WikiEN-l] New Post. It's time for the admins to explain their
	behavior

body:
I think this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Joe_Scarborough&diff=prev&oldid=51001676

alone is enough to justify an indefinite block. As was recently said
in connection with Ward Churchill, you don't seem to be able to
separate scholarship from polemic.

Fred

On May 18, 2006, at 6:22 AM, Earthhope Action Network wrote:

> New Post. It's time for the admins to explain their behavior
>
> I Maggie user:thewolfstar got blocked indefinitely for:
>
> 1.) telling RyanFriesling to wipe the snot off of his shirt, etc,
>     while he taunted my friend Merecat. (taunting is not allowed
>     by wiki ettiqutee policy Ryan didn't get no punishment.)
>
> 2.) for not making enough main page edits, which rule doesn't exist.
>      And it's not true. KINDLY  LOOK THIS TIME
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> offset=&limit=50&target=Thewolfstar&title=Special%
> 3AContributions&namespace=0


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>So that brought me to my current working idea, which is just a vmware
>>player virtual machine [*] which hosts a Chinese Wikipedia mirror on
>>https.
>
>
> Could be useful - then again, aggressively pushing SSL as a method to
> circumvent censorship will likely lead to the authorities taking a
> closer look at methods to block it.
>
> If there is indeed a shortage of Chinese mirrors, generating a fresh
> static HTML dump + free images and advertising it a bit would probably
> lead to hundreds of copies within weeks.

HTTPS does not protect anonymity for editors. Neither does Tor.
Low-latency encryption methods suffer a common flaw: an attacker
can correlate timestamps and message lengths with the size and posting
time of an edit. With ordinary HTTPS you can also correlate the
destination address. You could almost say that encryption is useless for
sending data which will be public 200ms after it arrives.

The situation is better for reading, not least because judging by the
reports I've read, the Government is primarily interested in tracking
down and prosecuting content producers, not consumers. But I think
Wikipedia's strength is in its editability; that's how it maintains its
growth, neutrality and timeliness. I think it would be a great loss if
Wikipedia was only available in read-only form in mainland China.

Public HTTPS is vulnerable to blocking, almost as much as HTTP. HTTPS
websites can be spidered, indexed and checked for offensive keywords,
just like regular websites. Then they could be blocked at the firewall
by IP. You'd have to use a captcha or some similar means of
authentication to keep the bots out. But if it's not indexed by the
major search engines, then its utility will be limited.

The advantage of HTTPS is that it resists traffic sampling at the
firewall, which appears to be a mainstay of content filtering at the
moment. But I think it's important to note that it's not a magic bullet.
The point is, SSL isn't a good method to circumvent censorship, so the
authorities would be unlikely to block it as a whole, as Erik suggests.

Unfortunately there's a fundamental conflict between offerring a popular
service and offerring a covert service. There's only so much we can do.
That's not to say we shouldn't try, of course.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > Nowadays you don't even have to go to a library to look up journal
> > articles.  Wikipedians must be getting the information they put into
> > articles from somewhere, and I find it hard to believe that more than
> > a miniscule portion of it is straight from their memory.
>
> I know heaps of stuff that isn't in Wikipedia. And I didn't get it from
> reading "reliable sources". To take another example, [[Bouchon]]. Any person
> who has spent more than a couple of days in Lyon knows what a bouchon is (a
> typically Lyonnais restaurant). Yet Wikipedia had nothing on them. I didn't
> feel like I was going out on a limb creating a stub about a bouchon saying
> that they serve very meaty dishes that many foreigners wouldn't necessarily
> appreciate. Of course for the details on exactly what they do and don't
> serve, I went to a book.
>
> I'm offering this account not as what should be done, but what I believe is
> current practice - but the use of a book is even more stringent than most, I
> suspect.
>
Maybe my estimate is wrong, in which case this would be a lot more
work than I suspect.  But then again, it wasn't that hard for me to
find a few decent sources to use when writing about bouchons, using
Google books: The Concise Larousse Gastronomique: The World's Greatest
Cookery Encyclopedia has a short entry, and France by Lonely Planet
Publications has half a page.  That should be enough for a stub.

Now what if the software didn't let you create a stub right off the
bat?  What if you had to list your sources first, then take info from
those sources, *then* you could start a stub?  I don't think writing
an article would be incredibly harder, it'd just be radically
different.  Getting away with plagiarism would be a lot harder too,
probably harder than just writing a decent article yourself.

This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way.
After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely
different from that, and a relatively successful history too
(certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad).  What
I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent
encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure
subjects, whether you've been to university or not.  Providing sources
for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
- that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
article is unverifiable).

Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there
anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon?  Put
them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used
the source?  Put them on the talk page?  Maybe we need a "notes" page
which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.

> The interpretation of WP:V that says that any information that is not
> accompanied by a citation should never enter Wikipedia is, IMHO, novel. I
> would have nothing against that becoming the official interpretation, but
> it's not even close to being the dominant one at the moment.
>
I don't interpret WP:V that way.  The way I interpret WP:V (as of a
few months ago), it means that a citation should be easily added to
any information upon request, which in turn means that anything not
cited, at least in hidden comments, is subject to potential removal.
What I'd like to see Wikipedia move toward is a situation where all
the information is sourced somewhere, though for practicality purposes
the details would probably not be in the article itself (just a list
of sources in ==References== is acceptable for unextraordinary
claims).

But let me be clear that I don't think this can be achieved simply by
a change of policy.  I'm not even sure there is a critical mass of
Wikipedians that want this in order for it to happen.

> The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards.  You're
> > supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article.  Believe
> > it or not I'm completely in agreement with Jimbo that unsourced
> > material should not be in Wikipedia articles.  But just telling people
> > to do a better job or "be kicked out of the project just for being
> > lousy writers" is not a very productive way of achieving that.
> >
>
>
> If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
>
I never said "we" don't want unsourced material.  Jimbo said *he*
didn't want it.  And I said I agreed: I don't think there should be
unsourced material *in Wikipedia articles*.  If you want to create a
stub from your memory, I think it should go on the talk page (yeah,
even if there isn't anything on the article page).

But I'm not claiming to speak for all Wikipedians, just giving my opinion.

Why have Wikipedians tolerated unsourced material so long?  Because
not tolerating unsourced material is *exceedingly* anti-wiki, and
Wikipedia evolved from a wiki.

Anthony


body:
On 5/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
> > HTTPS does not protect anonymity for editors. Neither does Tor.
> > Low-latency encryption methods suffer a common flaw: an attacker
> > can correlate timestamps and message lengths with the size and posting
> > time of an edit. With ordinary HTTPS you can also correlate the
> > destination address. You could almost say that encryption is useless for
> > sending data which will be public 200ms after it arrives.
> >
>
> Now, if there was a way to silently lock the article and delay the
> database update/timestamping for a few seconds...
>
The Mediawiki code goes out of its way to make it extremely hard to
edit Wikipedia anonymously.  If you want to allow anonymous editing, a
start would be a check box which says "post this anonymously".

Anthony


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:40:19 +1000, you wrote:

>If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every
>other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And
>federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?

Yes, why not?  Seriously?  Much more useful than yet another article
on a minor Pok?mon character.

>My feeling is that the information is encyclopaedic, but would be better
>placed elsewhere.

Well yes.  But I couldn't think where, either.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to misleading
	or false

body:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:33:30 -0400, you wrote:

>All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but what the
>group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I don't have
>to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen to mine.

You have been told how to fix the problem (take it to the article's
discussion page) and you have been told that trading insults is a
great way to get - and stay - blocked.  You are free to ignore this
advice, but be aware that if you do, you will likely be blocked again.
Which is better, debating the merits of being blocked with a group of
people who clearly support the action, or actually fixing what you see
as a pressing problem with content?  Because if you want to do the
latter it is pretty clear that civil debate on the article's Talk page
is the way to go.  It's not like this has never happened before.

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


body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > Now what if the software didn't let you create a stub right off the
> > bat?  What if you had to list your sources first, then take info from
> > those sources, *then* you could start a stub?  I don't think writing
> > an article would be incredibly harder, it'd just be radically
> > different.  Getting away with plagiarism would be a lot harder too,
> > probably harder than just writing a decent article yourself.
>
>
> That's a pretty good description of [[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the first to
> consider using that as a model for *all* editors.
>
Well, certainly not literally [[WP:AFC]], which is a huge mess.

> > This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way.
> > After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely
> > different from that, and a relatively successful history too
> > (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad).  What
> > I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent
> > encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure
> > subjects, whether you've been to university or not.  Providing sources
> > for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
> > - that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
> > article is unverifiable).
>
> If you can't find sources for a written article, it's not a very good
> article is it!
>
If it's not possible to find sources for a written article, it doesn't
belong in an encyclopedia.  It might very well be good, but it's not
verifiable.

> > Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there
> > anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon?  Put
> > them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used
> > the source?  Put them on the talk page?  Maybe we need a "notes" page
> > which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.
>
>
> ==Further reading== is my preference.

Good point.  Hopefully I'll remember this when I get home.

> > I don't interpret WP:V that way.  The way I interpret WP:V (as of a
> > few months ago), it means that a citation should be easily added to
> > any information upon request, which in turn means that anything not
>
> I object to any proposals that rely on challenges, requests, original
> authors etc. The wiki model explicitly rejects the idea that the original
> author is going to hang around or is contactable or responsible for his
> contributions. Once the article is written, all future contributors should
> be equally responsible for its content, no?
>
I didn't mean to imply that the request had to be fulfilled by the
original author.

> > cited, at least in hidden comments, is subject to potential removal.
> > What I'd like to see Wikipedia move toward is a situation where all
> > the information is sourced somewhere, though for practicality purposes
> > the details would probably not be in the article itself (just a list
> > of sources in ==References== is acceptable for unextraordinary
> > claims).
>
> You don't like footnotes?
>
I don't think every single fact in an article should have a footnote.
Maybe "extraordinary" is a bit too high of a standard, though.

> > But let me be clear that I don't think this can be achieved simply by
> > a change of policy.  I'm not even sure there is a critical mass of
> > Wikipedians that want this in order for it to happen.
>
> There are certainly large parts of Wikipedia where sources and WP:V are seen
> as an inconvenience, and a necessary step to avoid WP:AFD, but nothing more.
> Then there are lots of parts where people genuinely make an effort to
> include sources to make WP more useful. I wouldn't want to guess at the
> relative proportions.
>
>
> > > If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
> > >
> > I never said "we" don't want unsourced material.  Jimbo said *he*
> > didn't want it.  And I said I agreed: I don't think there should be
> > unsourced material *in Wikipedia articles*.  If you want to create a
> > stub from your memory, I think it should go on the talk page (yeah,
> > even if there isn't anything on the article page).
> >
> > But I'm not claiming to speak for all Wikipedians, just giving my opinion.
> >
> > Why have Wikipedians tolerated unsourced material so long?  Because
> > not tolerating unsourced material is *exceedingly* anti-wiki, and
> > Wikipedia evolved from a wiki.
>
>
> When do we flick the switch and say "We're not a wiki anymore, our standards
> have been raised"?

Actually, I'd say Wikipedia is already "not a wiki anymore", certainly
not by the original definition, although the popularity of Wikipedia
has tended to change the definition so that Wikipedia always fits.

> My proposal for designating classes of articles based on
> their gradings is effectively a way of progressively flicking that switch.
> Articles start as stubs where almost anything goes. As they improve, the
> classes act as a ratchet mechanism preventing the inclusion of material
> which degrades the quality of the article. Once it reaches "A" level (the
> one below FA) you could consider that article to have fully "evolved from a
> wiki", and that WP:V is now strictly enforced.
>
I see that as backward, though.  The sources should be found first,
then the article should be written.

That said, I can't say I fully remember the details of your proposal.
I kind of skimmed over it when I first saw it.  Could you point me to
the email where you wrote it, or (even better) to a web page where you
described it?

> Put differently, Jimbo wants (IIUC) a hard-line WP:V policy, but doesn't say
> how he would roll it out. I'm suggesting a way.
>
> Steve

What if there were only two classes, "notes" and "article"?  That'd be
a lot easier to implement.  Just add a namespace called "notes".  Of
course, the talk page could theoretically be used for this.  The main
problem with that is that people don't treat talk pages like wikis.
Rather, talk pages are used more like a mailing list or discussion
board.

Anthony


body:
New Post. It's time for the admins to explain their behavior

I Maggie user:thewolfstar got blocked indefinitely for:

1.) telling RyanFriesling to wipe the snot off of his shirt, etc,
    while he taunted my friend Merecat. (taunting is not allowed
    by wiki ettiqutee policy Ryan didn't get no punishment.)

2.) for not making enough main page edits, which rule doesn't exist.
     And it's not true. KINDLY  LOOK THIS TIME

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Thewolfstar&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0
-----------------------------
Harish Ganesan said:
And also I have already discussed ENOUGH on the
discussion pages for Steve Nash and nobody can reply
to what I wrote. If I DISCUSS it and nobody can reply
or make a good reason why not to include something IN
MY OPINION, then it stays right??? These are all FACTS
BTW THAT I POST THAT RELATE. TOO MUCH BIAS ON SOME OF
THESE SPORTS PAGES.
-----------------------------------------------------------

On May 17, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Earthhope Action Network wrote:

My response remains the same. See the above post by Harish Ganesan.
My experience is the same as his. I've explained my behavior many times.
No one listens. Over and over and noone listens.

It's time for the admins to explain their behavior. I saw unfairness and
reacted
to it. I saw ugliness (in rfc's and in admin noticeboards, in harassment
of dissenting editors and on and on. It's you and  the admins that won't
admit that they are doing terrible wrongs to me and to many other editors.
I have made good contributions to articles. Because you or they say I
haven't
doesn't make it so. There is no rule that says you have to make a
proportional
ratio of article edits to talk page edits. If there is show me the rule.

A.T.FQ. Swatjester is a nasty unpopular editor who goes aroung looking for
trouble. He was part of the decision to block me indeginitely. So was
BunchofGrapes.
BunchofGrapes even saw this and told Swatjester how he is a troublemaker.
SlimVirgin
has been showing herself, as you do now, to be a tyrant. (The edit ratio
bullshit.) Show me
the policy. Bishonen should never have become an admin. and on and on and
on.
Show me it's okay for Geogre to call children turds. And show me how it's
okay for
Bishonen to call my language obscene while she listens to her friend Geogre
call
children turds.

Again I say, "All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but
what the
group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I don't have
to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen to mine.This goes
for any
of you admins. The difference between you and me is that I would never
advocate punitive
actions to soothe my wounded feelings. You would and do. Also editors are
terrified to speak their mind, the ones that would defend me for fear of the
axe coming down on them next. Corbin Simpson did speak up for me. He was
lucky they didn't block him." The reason Merecat didn't say anything was, he
wasn't
around to say anything. Others are walking around on eggs afraid to push the
admins
to far lest they get banned, too.

Please see the rfa oppose section on Swatjester's rfc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Swatjester
Either that or you are just another example of one who is susceptible to
groupthink which is no thought at all. BTW is it okay for admins to refer to
kids as turds? Do you think? Do you listen to anyone other than the mob?

Bishonen told me my remarks to an editor John Kinney were obscene, the
(beginning or our personal and mutual dislike.) Here is Geogre calling
children turds (to Bishonen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Archive_14#Haymarket.2C_etc.

+:Oh, and for comparison, see the history tab on Attalus I. It has been
vandalized even more than yours was. I think, when it's an interesting
story, the turds vandalize it less. The 11 year olds ''clearly'' don't like
Attalus I. ("You must be this tall to ride the Wikipedia.")
[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go on and on here , but rather than waste my time.. How about this
atfq if you would just answer the fucking question(s).

> Erik Moeller said: RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all work.
>
 I'm stillt wondering. I am an editor, who has been blocked indefinitely
from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom, mediation, or any
dispute resolution at all. Never.
Just wondering why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was
removed. Will you please just answer these  questions. Your answer to
unblock request move and the entire process didn't cut it I'm afraid. Policy
is being broken. I Never had Any Mediation or Any dispute Resolution. Every
single thing the admins did was done in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy

I've been here for two years. So have many of the people on this
list. I think we know Wikipedia policy better than you.

-----
That's interesting. If you know the policy better than I do, then why don't
follow it?
----

-----
You speak from ignorance. Don't include me in your list of "power-hungry
admins". I'm Skyring - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyring - and let
me tell you, when it comes to injustice here, it comes right from the top.
Deal with it.

-- Peter in Canberra
  I apologize Peter. There are many new names and I often get people mixed
up.
I thought you were an admin. I am really sorry about your situation, too.
thewolfstar
----
http://earthhopenetwork.net  Maggiethewolfstar


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-18

body:
On 18/05/06, brion at pobox.com <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!

I've fixed the test suite in SVN trunk, r14287 so this won't be
misreported again.

Rob Church


from_name: Chris Lüer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
At 08:24 AM 5/18/2006, Andrew Gray wrote:

>In some circumstances ([[F-19]]!) an "artists impression" might be OR,
>but in general terms sketching something is no more OR than touching
>up a photo of it.

...or than writing about it!

I would like to draw a line at artist's impressions that are clearly
fictional, though. Such as drawings or paintings of people that died
centuries before the artist's birth -- they are either fictional or
based on another representation (and in that case we should include
the other representation instead).

         Chl


from_name: Laura Scudder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> What about an artists' impression of the inhabitants of an ancient
> civilisation, based on archeological evidence?

I think that the only people qualified to carefully interpret
archeological evidence and render it into an artists' impression would
be those who do it professionally (it's not as simple as interpreting
other's drawings).

Laura Scudder


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[Wikitech-l] "Image Credits" proposal to allow images to link
	to pages

body:
On 5/18/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> If a user clicks through to it, thumbnail up a 50x50px thumb for
> everything larger than that, and show the name and creator, with the
> image the traditional link-to-the-image-page.
>
> That specific approach might create load issues, if care isn't taken
> about whether such pages would get spidered, but I suspect URL games
> could be played to preclude that.

Just for the sake of argument, you could implement it in javascript in
an hour or two just by scanning the document tree and pulling out all
the images. To fancier stuff like redisplaying them all at a fixed
size you'd need the MediaWiki engine involved. Technically you *could*
do that by editing a non-existant article with some arbitrary new code
and getting it previewed...

Just trying to envision solutions that don't involve an extension to
the engine, for what it's worth.

Steve


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki Parser fuzz-tester source code

body:
Nick Jenkins schrieb:
> Hi All,
>
> The source code to a MediaWiki Parser fuzz-tester is now available online at:
> http://files.nickj.org/MediaWiki/wiki-mangleme.phps
>
> Some of the problems it has found are listed at: http://nickj.org/MediaWiki
>
Nice! After hearing about fuzzing on the last CCC in Berlin, I did
wonder if this could be a parser test. Glad someone finally implemented
it, and the results show it was worth the effort.

Just for fun (and to boast of course;-) I ran some of the examples
through my wiki-to-XML parser [1], and it seems impervious to them (the
ones I've tested, anyway), as it renders invalid XML and wiki markup as
plain text. Maybe I should adapt the fuzzer to do testing automatically,
just to be sure (and maybe find some bugs).

Magnus

[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/wiki2xml/w2x.php

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060518/4d89a2d2/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote about the edit wars
	butit makes no sense!!!!!!!!!

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Harish Ganesan
> Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2006 5:30 AM
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote about the
> edit wars butit makes no sense!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Why? Because the other wikipedians are vandalizing and
> deleting ALL THE FACTS I WRITE that completely RELATE
> TO THE SUBJECT. I did not do anything wrong this time,
> but he is upset by the info I post. I am steaming
> about this. He is a horrible admin.

You'll find any number of other editors who agree with you, but this isn't
the place to discuss it. As advised, use the article discussion page to talk
about it in a civil and constructive manner. If you still cannot get
justice*, come back with a couple of good examples and ask for help. Don't
expect much if you are being a self-righteous pest.

Pete, speaking from experience

*Justice is a nebulous concept here. Wikipedia is just a website. It's not a
court of law, and even the community's most senior magistrates are
overworked volunteers who will aim for expedience over rigorous
investigation.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
I'm saying that taking archeological primary sources on some skeleton
to an artist's impression of the person is more difficult than taking
several drawings to some composite artist's impression.

The latter is more like what we do everyday on Wikipedia: we take
multiple sources to generate a composite representation of the
information out there.  We don't do OR interpreting original data
ourselves.

Laura Scudder

On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Laura Scudder <laurascudder at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that the only people qualified to carefully interpret
> > archeological evidence and render it into an artists' impression would
> > be those who do it professionally (it's not as simple as interpreting
> > other's drawings).
>
>
> So who is qualified to write an encyclopaedia? :)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/18/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > A knowledgeable person, a practitioner, contributing
> content albeit in
> > doubtful format, but nonetheless referenced to penal codes.
>  Vanity?
> > Or the first steps to a seriously useful contribution?
>
> Weird, and they all end with "*If you or a loved one was
> arrested for DUI, please contact a skilled defense lawyer
> immediately."*
> **
> I don't get it, but I don't see that they're OR either. Maybe
> {{tone}} would be better. They're weird topics for articles
> anyway, and not all very suited to Wikipedia. Asked him what
> his game is?

If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every
other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And
federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?

My feeling is that the information is encyclopaedic, but would be better
placed elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_Beverage#Legal_considerations looks
good. I note with some amusement that this section is illustrated with a
beachfront sign from Corangamite Shire Council.
[[Image:AlcoholConsumptionSign.jpg]]

This editor could be a valuable contributor so long as he fits in with our
ways and stays off the booze.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to
> illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in
> Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we
> envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an
> "artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?

Are you using "artists' impression" to refer specifically to something
drawn by _editors_, or are you including normal (as in
exhibited-in-a-museum) paintings?  If it's the second option, then
clearly yes; just look at any illustrated article about a pre-1850s
battle or war.

--
Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

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

Rob stated for the record:

> Yes, I am obviously aware that Wikipedia is not my blog or my
> scrapbook.  But neither is my workplace my home, and my desk at work
> is supposed to be related to my work there. But I am allowed to place
> pictures of my family on my desk at work without giving up the
> copyright to those pictures.

Wikipedia is not your desk at work.  You are not allowed to post
copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia.  On the other hand, you are
allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude.  (But please don't tell us when
you do.)

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A thunder of jets in an open sky,
 sean at epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!"
                  | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb,
                  | And once again you know it's time....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbKpyMAt1wyd9d+URAgWfAJ4/KokQ9dZIStuIulskMhQwEZDo0gCdG+9q
TCXsG+HVW8Wse8/19/P6pYQ=
=L4yO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Musings on fair use (was Re: Getting rid of bad fair
	use (was:Zero information...))

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite
> > > interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use
> > the
> > > cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main
> > > image of an article about the person
> >
> > As far as I know, that isn't.
>
>
> It almost certainly has to be a grey area though.

*Most* of the fair-use parts of copyright law are grey areas.  We try
to avoid them as much as possible, since they're also the parts that
lead to copyright-infringement lawsuits.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
geni wrote:

>On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>  Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to
>>illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in
>>Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we
>>envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an
>>"artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?
>>
>>
>In most cases you would have a had time coming up with something that
>was not a derivative work.
>
Strictly speaking "artists'  impressions" have no basis in reality.
Religious icons fall into that.  It would be an uphill battle to
convince me that any picture of Jesus was based on a contemporary
photograph.

A drawing based on a copyright photograph of an archaeological site may
not be an infringement of copyright.  Only the representation of
information is copyrightable, not the information itself.  If you
shuffle the information about the layout of an archaeological site you
no longer an accurate representation of the facts.  The notion that the
site must be interpreted by a trained professional is preposterous;
Wikipedia has already shown that the work of amateurs in many subjects
is every bit as good as what is done by professionals.

Drawings are often more instructive than photographs.  Two species from
the same genus of wasps may only be easily distinguished by studying the
patterns of wing venation.  Information about this is available and
verifiable, though it is often termed in a special kind of technical
jargon of official species descriptions.  Using drawings to represent
this does nothing more than change the way in which something is
expressed; calling it original research stretches the imagination.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Post. It's time for the admins to explain

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

Earthhope Action Network stated for the record:

> No, you're right, Guy, I didn't like their explanation because
> it was a lie, and I tend to not like lies. I tend to not like liars,
> either. Maggiethewolfstar

LIST ADMINS: can this user, who is indefinitely banned by community
acclaim, be moderated on this list?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A thunder of jets in an open sky,
 sean at epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!"
                  | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb,
                  | And once again you know it's time....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbLH3MAt1wyd9d+URApA9AKCFPSUA1ExR+ejwr+a+wQvjNCAbzACfYG/4
wG+YkAT8d71oBfFt+yJov3E=
=LkFu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>> Accordingly on other articles, different points of view need
>> to be included based on their prominence and level of support
>> in the real world, not just on which happens to be most
>> popular among the Wikipedia editing community.
>
> That's the problem. In theory, theory and practice are identical. In
> practice, they aren't.
>
> WP articles are not written by the general community, they are written by
> editors, usually a handful of core contributors. NPOV works out to what
> these editors agree it is, simply because nobody else has any significant
> input.

Indeed. The point is that those editors

>> Writing consistently with NPOV is not 'inflicting your opinion on an article'.
>> Biasing an article towards your own opinions *is* inflicting your opinion on
>> an article, is obviously not consistent with NPOV.
>
> Beg pardon, but it is. If (say) a Republican and a Democrat write an
> article, each one only writing material that supports and reinforces their
> partisan views, but the end result is balanced and consistent with community
> support, then that is NPOV.

That is entirely dependent on where you draw the line on what the 'end
result' is. I am perfectly happy with the idea of Wikipedia articles
gradually improving over long amounts of time towards some future goal,
but NPOV is non-negotiable and, regardless of how eventualist your
philosophy is, an article must always be NPOV. Now. Not at some time in
the future. Now. Therefore I'm not happy with the editing process you
suggest above, which implies one editor biasing the article towards one
particular viewpoint then another editor coming along later and biasing
it in a different direction. Every version should always be NPOV.

>> With all due respect to you, I think you're slightly
>> misinterpreting what Jimbo (and I) actually mean. I don't
>> think either of us are suggesting that editors should be
>> 'opinionless automatons', just that they shouldn't let their
>> opinions influence the way they write articles.
>
> That's plain bizarre. There's absolutely nothing wrong with editors
> inserting their own opinions into articles. It happens every day. So long as
> it is done with NPOV in mind it works fine.

Now I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I mean in order to
throw up an irrelevant straw man (note that this is a discussion tactic
that I have absolutely no 'due respect' for).

Obviously writing an NPOV-compliant article isn't a problem. Unduly
biasing an article towards your own opinions is not compliant with NPOV.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 18/05/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder whether speedy deletions under proposed criteria come under
> the category of disrupting wikipedia to make a point.

Depends on the scale and nature of the disruption, and the consequences overall.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use (was:Zero information...)

body:
On 18/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite
> interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use the
> cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main
> image of an article about the person

As far as I know, that isn't.

Rob Church


subject:
[WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley- He wrote about the edit wars
	but it makes no sense!!! (Hganesan)

body:
On 18/05/06, Harish Ganesan <kamehameha87 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok I am having major problems here. Can someone who
> has experienced this help me out?? When the admins are
> just targeting you. I still cannot believe this. There
> is vandalism going on in the pages of so many that I
> edited and everyone agreed on, now people are changing
> it to make it seem so biased. Take a look at "ball
> hog" article for instance why is there a picture of
> KOBE BRYANT on it??? It is total bias.
<snipping a long rant>

Two invaluable pieces of advice.

1. Calm down. Acting in an irrational fashion is going to cause people
to label you as an idiot who shouts, screams and rants like a child,
and who therefore isn't worth helping with...

2. Discuss it on the relevant talk pages. If a consensus cannot be
reached or if problems begin to occur, raise a request for comment on
the specific page - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment - and
bring the matter to a wider audience.

Please remember that admins on this site are a bunch of editors with a
few extra tools. Their purpose is not to serve as moderators of
content; I'm of the school of thought that when it comes to resolving
a content dispute, the admin's job is akin to dragging apart two
fighting children and holding them apart until they calm down and
begin to resolve their differences.

Stop posting to the mailing list with long rants full of
capitalisation, cul-de-sac arguments, irrelevant points, etc. Get the
simplest facts out, and someone will help. Confuse and annoy the shit
out of people, and they'll respond by deleting your posts.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Nick Boalch wrote:

>>> Accordingly on other articles, different points of view need
>>> to be included based on their prominence and level of support
>>> in the real world, not just on which happens to be most
>>> popular among the Wikipedia editing community.
>>
>> That's the problem. In theory, theory and practice are identical. In
>> practice, they aren't.
>>
>> WP articles are not written by the general community, they are written by
>> editors, usually a handful of core contributors. NPOV works out to what
>> these editors agree it is, simply because nobody else has any significant
>> input.
>
> Indeed. The point is that those editors

...should agree on what is NPOV based on the mixture of points-of-view
*in the real world*, not just on their own opinions.

(Oops.)

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


body:
On 5/18/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not an expert, but I believe that since we'd still be making the
> image available (via the image page, etc.) then we'd have a potential
> legal battle later. Check with Brad on that one, though.

Yep, it's tricky. It seems to me that if a fair use case could possibly ever
be made for an image that there would be some legitimacy in storing it in
such a form (low res etc). Take the case of a map of some suburb. It's
theoretically possibly that we would one day have an article about the
construction of that map, for which we would be entitled to have a low res
copy.

I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite
interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use the
cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main
image of an article about the person, when the book itself is discussed in
passing in the text. And lots of other borderline cases where the image
serves two purposes simultaneously - one if which is criticism or
identification of the object, and one of which is illustration of what the
object itself illustrates.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spoilers

body:
Molu wrote:

>Editors Who Are Removing Spoiler Notices From Articles,
>
>  Firstly, please stop doing this. Sections like Plot Details always
>include spoiler tags and this is standard practice. Please stop acting
>against consensus as established at [[WP:SW]], a project guideline.
>
>  Secndly, Please publish a complete record of all articles from which
>you remove spoiler notices so that other editors thinking otherwise may
>undo your damaging actions.
>
I really don't give a damn about whether spoiler notices are in an
article or not; it's just not a serious issue.  Sometimes they make me
giggle.  They represent a "Mostly Harmless" portal into an alternative
universe where, "Anything that, in happening, causes itself  to happen
again, happens again."

For many hope is an essential element of life.  Some need to believe
that an article or movie about the Titanic can have a different ending. :-)

Ec


body:
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Nowadays you don't even have to go to a library to look up journal
> articles.  Wikipedians must be getting the information they put into
> articles from somewhere, and I find it hard to believe that more than
> a miniscule portion of it is straight from their memory.

I know heaps of stuff that isn't in Wikipedia. And I didn't get it from
reading "reliable sources". To take another example, [[Bouchon]]. Any person
who has spent more than a couple of days in Lyon knows what a bouchon is (a
typically Lyonnais restaurant). Yet Wikipedia had nothing on them. I didn't
feel like I was going out on a limb creating a stub about a bouchon saying
that they serve very meaty dishes that many foreigners wouldn't necessarily
appreciate. Of course for the details on exactly what they do and don't
serve, I went to a book.

I'm offering this account not as what should be done, but what I believe is
current practice - but the use of a book is even more stringent than most, I
suspect.

The interpretation of WP:V that says that any information that is not
accompanied by a citation should never enter Wikipedia is, IMHO, novel. I
would have nothing against that becoming the official interpretation, but
it's not even close to being the dominant one at the moment.

The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards.  You're
> supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article.  Believe
> it or not I'm completely in agreement with Jimbo that unsourced
> material should not be in Wikipedia articles.  But just telling people
> to do a better job or "be kicked out of the project just for being
> lousy writers" is not a very productive way of achieving that.
>

If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?

Steve


from_name: Harish Ganesan

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
	admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan)

body:
BTW my block has gone from 1 day to a week now,
because the fools PS2PCGAMER, Madchester, and Stifle
have teamed up. It's very funny that now the admins
are teaming up trying to stop me. Retarded admins,
that's all I can say. They make wikipedia messed up.
I've only started editing for a week and all of a
sudden they are all going after me after the profanity
I put on my discussion page in anger. What they are
doing reminds me of the Bush administration's plan to
stop terror, aka focusing on and going after the wrong
thing. HAHA anyways,

here is why I was angry at William Connoley. I first
got blocked for 8 hrs because of incivility. Now here
are my posts after that 8 hr block, BEFORE i was
blocked for another 24 hrs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ball_hog&diff=prev&oldid=53624826
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ball_hog&diff=prev&oldid=53624947
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ball_hog&diff=prev&oldid=53624987

Then came this post (the 4th post):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=prev&oldid=53630437
Which was a result of these posts btw ALL before my 8
hr ban, read the three in order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53536488&oldid=53536114
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53547894&oldid=53547479
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53574883&oldid=53567857

So after that came the 5th post (the three above are
not counted, they are from BEFORE the 8hr ban):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53630841&oldid=53630437
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53630977&oldid=53630841
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53631052&oldid=53630977
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53633749&oldid=53633135
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53634941&oldid=53633749
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53642527&oldid=53641701

And btw I would have NEVER put on 13 games and gone
extreme if it were not for 128.6.78.50, the guy was
just trying to rile me up. I warned him not to delete
it. IT IS ONE THING TO DISCUSS WITHOUT DELETING. BUT
HE DELETES IT AND THEN WANTS TO DISCUSS, NOTICE THAT.
Those two games had also been there before. I KNOW HE
WRITES PLEASE DISCUSS IN THE POST BUT THEN HE DELETES
IT AT THE SAME TIME??? WHO DOES THAT S***? SAME THING
WITH DOWNWARDS IT WAS NOT VANDALISM BUT ONCE I POSTED
THOSE GAMES ALL OF A SUDDEN HE DECIDES TO HIDE THE
INFO BECAUSE HE'S SCARED SCARED LIKE ALL THE NASH
LOVERS. SCARED I SAY. I worked hard to put all those
games together and the guy just HIDES IT. NOW WHAT IS
PS2PCGAMER and the other admins doing?? Just sitting
back and allowing it, but when I do something, OH NO
STOP STOP STOP THEY SAY. FOOLS.

Then all of a sudden the next time i log on, I find I
have been blocked by the dumb admin. None of these
post violated ANYTHING. And if they did, connoley boy
should atleast tell me. If you check my posts BEFORE
my 8hr ban with these, you will notice this IS A MUCH
MUCH BETTER IMPROVEMENT. Now this idiot admin just
discourages me and got me angry. Then I was just upset
so I went totally off on my discussion page. And then
the admins freaking team up and my block went from 24
hrs now to 1 week. These admins make things tough for
some editors and they just single them out, the ones
whos views and edits they are SCARED of like PUNKS and
DON'T LIKE. The fools think they can do this and make
wikipedia better, why don't the fools just focus on
VANDALISM rather than silly **** like CIVILITY or EDIT
WARS (which i still don't even understand how mine
is). There is a lot more VANDALISM in wikipedia and it
has only increased and will continue to increase,
because the admins don't care about that and can't get
that in their head that vandalism is a lot worse than
incivility or edit wars and crap like that. BOTTOM
LINE IS WIKIPEDIA HAS TOO MANY DUMB RULES AND I CAN
ALREADY TELL JUST FROM BEING HERE A WEEK THAT ALL THE
ADMINS ARE FOCUSING ON THOSE DUMB RULES. It is like
the dumb Bush admin going after Iraq rather than the
real terror. Dumb admins.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
	admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan) REVISED VERSION
	made a slight error

body:
Hi what I posted as my 4th is the 6th so below is the
correct order:

> BTW my block has gone from 1 day to a week now,
> because the fools PS2PCGAMER, Madchester, and Stifle
> have teamed up. It's very funny that now the admins
> are teaming up trying to stop me. Retarded admins,
> that's all I can say. They make wikipedia messed up.
> I've only started editing for a week and all of a
> sudden they are all going after me after the
> profanity
> I put on my discussion page in anger. What they are
> doing reminds me of the Bush administration's plan
> to
> stop terror, aka focusing on and going after the
> wrong
> thing. HAHA anyways,
>
> here is why I was angry at William Connoley. I first
> got blocked for 8 hrs because of incivility. Now
> here
> are my posts after that 8 hr block, BEFORE i was
> blocked for another 24 hrs:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ball_hog&diff=prev&oldid=53624826
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ball_hog&diff=prev&oldid=53624947
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ball_hog&diff=prev&oldid=53624987
>
> Then came this post (the 4th post):
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=prev&oldid=53625182
> Which was a result of these posts btw ALL before my
> 8
> hr ban, read the three in order:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53536488&oldid=53536114
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53547894&oldid=53547479
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53574883&oldid=53567857
>
> So after that came the 5th post (the three above are
> not counted, they are from BEFORE the 8hr ban):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53630841&oldid=53630437
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=prev&oldid=53625757
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53630977&oldid=53630841
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53631052&oldid=53630977
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53633749&oldid=53633135
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53634941&oldid=53633749
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nash&diff=53642527&oldid=53641701
>
> And btw I would have NEVER put on 13 games and gone
> extreme if it were not for 128.6.78.50, the guy was
> just trying to rile me up. I warned him not to
> delete
> it. IT IS ONE THING TO DISCUSS WITHOUT DELETING. BUT
> HE DELETES IT AND THEN WANTS TO DISCUSS, NOTICE
> THAT.
> Those two games had also been there before. I KNOW
> HE
> WRITES PLEASE DISCUSS IN THE POST BUT THEN HE
> DELETES
> IT AT THE SAME TIME??? WHO DOES THAT S***? SAME
> THING
> WITH DOWNWARDS IT WAS NOT VANDALISM BUT ONCE I
> POSTED
> THOSE GAMES ALL OF A SUDDEN HE DECIDES TO HIDE THE
> INFO BECAUSE HE'S SCARED SCARED LIKE ALL THE NASH
> LOVERS. SCARED I SAY. I worked hard to put all those
> games together and the guy just HIDES IT. NOW WHAT
> IS
> PS2PCGAMER and the other admins doing?? Just sitting
> back and allowing it, but when I do something, OH NO
> STOP STOP STOP THEY SAY. FOOLS.
>
> Then all of a sudden the next time i log on, I find
> I
> have been blocked by the dumb admin. None of these
> post violated ANYTHING. And if they did, connoley
> boy
> should atleast tell me. If you check my posts BEFORE
> my 8hr ban with these, you will notice this IS A
> MUCH
> MUCH BETTER IMPROVEMENT. Now this idiot admin just
> discourages me and got me angry. Then I was just
> upset
> so I went totally off on my discussion page. And
> then
> the admins freaking team up and my block went from
> 24
> hrs now to 1 week. These admins make things tough
> for
> some editors and they just single them out, the ones
> whos views and edits they are SCARED of like PUNKS
> and
> DON'T LIKE. The fools think they can do this and
> make
> wikipedia better, why don't the fools just focus on
> VANDALISM rather than silly **** like CIVILITY or
> EDIT
> WARS (which i still don't even understand how mine
> is). There is a lot more VANDALISM in wikipedia and
> it
> has only increased and will continue to increase,
> because the admins don't care about that and can't
> get
> that in their head that vandalism is a lot worse
> than
> incivility or edit wars and crap like that. BOTTOM
> LINE IS WIKIPEDIA HAS TOO MANY DUMB RULES AND I CAN
> ALREADY TELL JUST FROM BEING HERE A WEEK THAT ALL
> THE
> ADMINS ARE FOCUSING ON THOSE DUMB RULES. It is like
> the dumb Bush admin going after Iraq rather than the
> real terror. Dumb admins.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

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


from_name: Rob

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I object to any proposals that rely on challenges, requests, original
> authors etc. The wiki model explicitly rejects the idea that the original
> author is going to hang around or is contactable or responsible for his
> contributions. Once the article is written, all future contributors should
> be equally responsible for its content, no?

Exactly!  An uncited fact should not be a battleground between
opposing political viewpoints, where one side challenges the other
with "Either source this or I'm removing this fact I don't like
immediately".  Once an challenged fact has been in the article a
while, for years in some cases, all editors on an article should share
the responsibility of researching and verifying, not just those of a
certain political affiliation.


body:
On 5/18/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use
> common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's
> no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is
> Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back
> at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the
> editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are
> so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples
> that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to
> be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks,
> the faster it should be removed.

The problem is POV warriors aren't interested in gradations.  Anything
they don't like is challenged and deleted immediately.  Perhaps, with
the exception of the most obvious cases, we should change the policy
to require that any facts challenged on the grounds of simply being
unsourced should be immediately moved to the talk page by the person
deleting them.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
On 5/17/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
> EXCEPT... that Wikipedia is not your personal blog nor a free webhost
> (**Official policy** at [[WP:NOT]] ). Userspace IS SUPPOSED to be
> relted to your wikipedia work, not to post pictures of your family.
> If you misuse it, don't cry about it later.

> Wikipedia IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA not an scrapbook, but there's plenty of
> sites where you can put your family pictures if you like

Yes, I am obviously aware that Wikipedia is not my blog or my
scrapbook.  But neither is my workplace my home, and my desk at work
is supposed to be related to my work there. But I am allowed to place
pictures of my family on my desk at work without giving up the
copyright to those pictures.

> And , do you really think vandals will care about the copyright? they
> WILL get the pictures and post them anyway.

No need to make it easy or legal for them.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 17, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Rob wrote:
>
> > If I ever wanted to put a pic of myself or my kids on WP, I wouldn't
> > want to release it under a free (or free-ish) license so every troll I
> > block for vandalism could put my family on their webpage.  Of course,
> > they can already do that, but not legally, for what it's worth.
>
> Sounds like putting a pic of yourself on Wikipedia is not for you.

No, it's not, and I won't be doing it regardless of what the policy
is.  But I think contributors who wish to add pictures of themselves
and their family to their userspace should be allowed to do so without
giving up the rights to those photos.   I don't see why we can't give
contributors this minor concession.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
On 5/18/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every
> other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And
> federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?

Well, there are lots of problems with them, such as that they define their
scope particularly badly. But in general having lots of information on
certain aspects of a certain legal system does not strike me as a bad thing.
Having that information presented as advice or a series of essays is
incorrect though. That can be worked on however.

This editor could be a valuable contributor so long as he fits in with our
> ways and stays off the booze.

Definitely. Although apparently he has removed some {{AFD}} tags which is
just not the done thing. I gather there are a few people who would love to
know what he's really up to.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia is not your desk at work.  You are not allowed to post
> copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia.  On the other hand, you are
> allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude.  (But please don't tell us when
> you do.)

Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing Wikipedia in
the nude? ;)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Musings on fair use (was Re: Getting rid of bad fair use
	(was:Zero information...))

body:
On 5/18/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite
> > interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use
> the
> > cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main
> > image of an article about the person
>
> As far as I know, that isn't.

It almost certainly has to be a grey area though. For example:

Jim Smith is a famous author best known for his stunning autobiography
"Smith in 2000"
Jim Smith is a famous jockey best known for winning the Grand National. In
2000 he released an autobiography...
Jim smith blah blah. [second paragraph] Smith's autobiography, released in
2000, was recognised as a flop.

Etc.

Steve


from_name: Earthhope Action Network

body:
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:57:11 +0100
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] New Post. It's time for the admins to explain
       their   behavior
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <s96p62pi4a8043gorlkf6b7auu3knq397b at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:22:01 -0400, you wrote:

>New Post. It's time for the admins to explain their behavior

They did.  You just didn't like the explanation.  Sorry, I can't help
you with that.

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

No, you're right, Guy, I didn't like their explanation because
it was a lie, and I tend to not like lies. I tend to not like liars,
either. Maggiethewolfstar


from_name: Death Phoenix

body:
On 5/18/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:22:01 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >New Post. It's time for the admins to explain their behavior
>
> They did.  You just didn't like the explanation.  Sorry, I can't help
> you with that.
>

Well put.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
On 18/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to
> illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in
> Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we
> envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an
> "artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?

We have plenty of diagrams of things where it's inappropriate,
impossible or ineffective to have a photograph - many of our
engineering articles, for example, have drawn diagrams of machinery
rather than photographs which don't actually show much.

In some circumstances ([[F-19]]!) an "artists impression" might be OR,
but in general terms sketching something is no more OR than touching
up a photo of it.

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


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to
> illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in
> Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we
> envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an
> "artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?
>
> Steve

In most cases you would have a had time coming up with something that
was not a derivative work.

--
geni


body:
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Now what if the software didn't let you create a stub right off the
> bat?  What if you had to list your sources first, then take info from
> those sources, *then* you could start a stub?  I don't think writing
> an article would be incredibly harder, it'd just be radically
> different.  Getting away with plagiarism would be a lot harder too,
> probably harder than just writing a decent article yourself.

That's a pretty good description of [[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the first to
consider using that as a model for *all* editors.

This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way.
> After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely
> different from that, and a relatively successful history too
> (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad).  What
> I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent
> encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure
> subjects, whether you've been to university or not.  Providing sources
> for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
> - that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
> article is unverifiable).

If you can't find sources for a written article, it's not a very good
article is it!

Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there
> anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon?  Put
> them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used
> the source?  Put them on the talk page?  Maybe we need a "notes" page
> which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.

==Further reading== is my preference. I've occasionally seen
==Bibliography==. I would suggest putting them in the main article rather
than the talk page unless you have strong doubts about their relevance.
Remember, we're trying to be helpful to the reader - giving pointers to
further information fulfils that goal.

Incidentally, I feel a bit dumb not having used the Lonely Planet - I have a
copy, which I use frequently, but have never yet used for Wikipedia, though
it's such an incredibly obvious source of good concise information on all
aspects of France.

I don't interpret WP:V that way.  The way I interpret WP:V (as of a
> few months ago), it means that a citation should be easily added to
> any information upon request, which in turn means that anything not

I object to any proposals that rely on challenges, requests, original
authors etc. The wiki model explicitly rejects the idea that the original
author is going to hang around or is contactable or responsible for his
contributions. Once the article is written, all future contributors should
be equally responsible for its content, no?

cited, at least in hidden comments, is subject to potential removal.
> What I'd like to see Wikipedia move toward is a situation where all
> the information is sourced somewhere, though for practicality purposes
> the details would probably not be in the article itself (just a list
> of sources in ==References== is acceptable for unextraordinary
> claims).

You don't like footnotes?

But let me be clear that I don't think this can be achieved simply by
> a change of policy.  I'm not even sure there is a critical mass of
> Wikipedians that want this in order for it to happen.

There are certainly large parts of Wikipedia where sources and WP:V are seen
as an inconvenience, and a necessary step to avoid WP:AFD, but nothing more.
Then there are lots of parts where people genuinely make an effort to
include sources to make WP more useful. I wouldn't want to guess at the
relative proportions.

> > If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
> >
> I never said "we" don't want unsourced material.  Jimbo said *he*
> didn't want it.  And I said I agreed: I don't think there should be
> unsourced material *in Wikipedia articles*.  If you want to create a
> stub from your memory, I think it should go on the talk page (yeah,
> even if there isn't anything on the article page).
>
> But I'm not claiming to speak for all Wikipedians, just giving my opinion.
>
> Why have Wikipedians tolerated unsourced material so long?  Because
> not tolerating unsourced material is *exceedingly* anti-wiki, and
> Wikipedia evolved from a wiki.

When do we flick the switch and say "We're not a wiki anymore, our standards
have been raised"? My proposal for designating classes of articles based on
their gradings is effectively a way of progressively flicking that switch.
Articles start as stubs where almost anything goes. As they improve, the
classes act as a ratchet mechanism preventing the inclusion of material
which degrades the quality of the article. Once it reaches "A" level (the
one below FA) you could consider that article to have fully "evolved from a
wiki", and that WP:V is now strictly enforced.

Put differently, Jimbo wants (IIUC) a hard-line WP:V policy, but doesn't say
how he would roll it out. I'm suggesting a way.

Steve


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
...
> This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way.
> After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely
> different from that, and a relatively successful history too
> (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad). What
> I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent
> encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure
> subjects, whether you've been to university or not. Providing sources
> for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
> - that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
> article is unverifiable).
>
> Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there
> anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon? Put
> them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used
> the source? Put them on the talk page? Maybe we need a "notes" page
> which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.
....
> Anthony

Actually, this runs contrary to my experience. The more obscure a
subject, the easier it is for me to write a decent article
(referencing it heavily) on the subject- simply because it is feasible
for me to read through and absorb a sizeable fraction of the English
literature on it within a few weeks; for my [[Fujiwara no Teika]] and
[[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]] articles, I've read at
least a third of the recent English literature on them. Now, it would
be utterly impossible for me to do so on a subject such as [[George W.
Bush]]- I'd still be reading the work of a few years ago decades from
now (to exaggerate a little bit).

~maru


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/18/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently labelling yourself is divisive and inflammatory, taking the
> most general definition of divisive (aka. categorising) and saying
> that because you disagree with atheism this person is deliberately
> trying to inflame you or some other person. On the other hand, when

That's too general. "Wikipedians who can't spell" is not a divisive category
if applied to oneself.

Steve


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

body:
Hi

Yesterday, I tried to forward three times a mail with attachment from
the partnership queue on OTRS. Nothing happened (no mail was received).

It reminds me that there was a similar bug some time ago, but it was fixed.

Do you guys observe the same issue (no forward when done with
attachment) ? Could that be the old bug going live again ?

Thanks

Anthere