from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] The WikiEN-l Archive

body:
I have a couple of major gripes with this. Firstly, the monthly text
files are un-compressed; secondly, there is no "Get the entire list"
option (which mailman can do). Why not? Will this ever change, or do I
just need to import each monthly archive (I used to get things in
digests, but they are crappy)?

[[en:User:Alphax]]


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:WikiIndex (idea)

body:
Matt Kingston wrote:
> Sounds to me like it would be a sort of "expert" system. Consider:
>
> The Wikipedia article Anne Frank could have tags at the bottom like
>
> {WasBorn:1929}
> (IsA:Woman}
> {Wrote:The_Diary_Of_A_Young_Girl}
> {BornIn:Germany}
>
> you get the idea.

The german wikipedia tagged in a collaborative project approximately
30000 biography entries for the DVD which is currently produced. There
are tools which help with this process.

More infos on:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personendaten

For an example see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Ernst

The data is automatically hidden by CSS (display can be switched on and
off in the stylesheet).

greetings,
elian


list: foundation-l

from_name: notafish

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Business cards

body:
OK, sorry for digging out old conversations, I've been dead for the
past 5 days, and just resurrected for a few hours. So here goes.

> > This said, I stand up to my opinion that mentions of stewards or
> > arbitrators of the english AC has basically nothing to do here. These
> > positions do not exist in the real world. They mean nothing to those
> > outside wikipedia. They are unrelated to the Foundation itself. And
> > they are only part of the status existing on the projects.
>
> Well, there are apparently plans to form Arbitration Committees on other
> language versions of Wikipedia, so it's not en:-centric (or not intended to
> be). Thus Arbitrator status, and certainly, of course, Stewards, are
> Wikimedia-project-wide, and the people who will receive these cards will
> understand that they confer extra 'status' of some kind, as you say. Neither
> job are particularly easy to do, and a small amount of thanks like this is
> perhaps not a bad thing.

Having a card, imho, has nothing to do with getting any thanks for a
job well done within wikipedia or any other project, but more about
having (or not having) a right to speak about certain matters with a
more or less official position. Arbitrators, Stewards are all, as
Anthere pointed out, positions within the projects, but not positions
that mean that you have a right to talk about the Moogle Deal of the
Fahoo proposition or a right to sell Wikipedia and all other projects
to the next Moohoo buyer who comes along. Of course, I am going a bit
far, here, but this is what a "card" could entitle to do.

So no, they should not be given out as thanks, but as an exact
description of who does what in the Wikimedia Foundation and projects,
and who can say "we" when talking about the Foundation, or Wikimedia
Deutschland, or Wikimedia France. People in general, journalists in
particular, are very wary of who their source is, but will be fooled
by a little square of paper. A "business card" gives a credibility
that some of us certainly do not have, and some of us certainly do not
deserve. So let us be careful when handing out those "cards".

My two cents.

Delphine


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Business cards


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:WikiIndex (idea)

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>> and on the article for "The Diary of a Young Girl" we could put
>> [[Category:Books by Anne Frank]]
>
>
> I would question the wisdom and usefulness of a separate category for
> all the books of any person who only wrote one book.

As would I, but the only alternative that came to mind at the time was
to put [[Category:Authors of The Diary of a Young Girl]] on the Anne
Frank page which would have been even worse. :)


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] OTRS (II)

body:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:11:50 -0800 (PST), Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think there is a major problem with the way OTRS seems to work.
> I was told that Angela had already answered it, and this is how I realised something I had not till now.

According to my IRC log, you were trying to open
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=114758

I have no permission to open that either. I don't even know if it
exists. If I go to
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=FOO,
I get the same error.

The mail you're talking about is at
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=14720
 and there should be no reason you can't view it since it's not
locked. Using the search function to find emails there generally works
better than trying to construct the URL. I'm sure Elian or another
OTRS admin could help more if you are still having problems with it.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] OTRS (II)


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Business cards

body:
--- notafish <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, sorry for digging out old conversations, I've been dead for the
> past 5 days, and just resurrected for a few hours. So here goes.
>
> > > This said, I stand up to my opinion that mentions of stewards
> or
> > > arbitrators of the english AC has basically nothing to do here.
> These
> > > positions do not exist in the real world. They mean nothing to
> those
> > > outside wikipedia. They are unrelated to the Foundation itself.
> And
> > > they are only part of the status existing on the projects.
> >
> > Well, there are apparently plans to form Arbitration Committees
> on other
> > language versions of Wikipedia, so it's not en:-centric (or not
> intended to
> > be). Thus Arbitrator status, and certainly, of course, Stewards,
> are
> > Wikimedia-project-wide, and the people who will receive these
> cards will
> > understand that they confer extra 'status' of some kind, as you
> say. Neither
> > job are particularly easy to do, and a small amount of thanks
> like this is
> > perhaps not a bad thing.
>
> Having a card, imho, has nothing to do with getting any thanks for
> a
> job well done within wikipedia or any other project, but more about
> having (or not having) a right to speak about certain matters with
> a
> more or less official position. Arbitrators, Stewards are all, as
> Anthere pointed out, positions within the projects, but not
> positions
> that mean that you have a right to talk about the Moogle Deal of
> the
> Fahoo proposition or a right to sell Wikipedia and all other
> projects
> to the next Moohoo buyer who comes along. Of course, I am going a
> bit
> far, here, but this is what a "card" could entitle to do.
>
> So no, they should not be given out as thanks, but as an exact
> description of who does what in the Wikimedia Foundation and
> projects,
> and who can say "we" when talking about the Foundation, or
> Wikimedia
> Deutschland, or Wikimedia France. People in general, journalists in
> particular, are very wary of who their source is, but will be
> fooled
> by a little square of paper. A "business card" gives a credibility
> that some of us certainly do not have, and some of us certainly do
> not
> deserve. So let us be careful when handing out those "cards".

Samples of titles:

Wikipedia Administrator
Wikimedia Software Developer
Wikimedia Senior Systems Engineer
Contributing Editor
Arbitration Committee Panelist 2005
WikiNews Freelance Photographer
and so on.

I see nothing in there that says they can speak 'for' the foundation.
There should be a link to Wikimedia Foundation's formal contacts on
each card, like this: www.wikimedia.com/press and an explanation on
that page of what cards there are, who has them, and so on. This will
allow the press people to understand who the cardbearer is and what
they do.

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Business cards


from_name: Marc O'Morain

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:WikiIndex (idea)

body:
> > How about this:
> > [[Category:1929 births]]
> > [[Category:German authors]]
> > [[Category:Women]]

Hi all, this is my first mail to the list,

Firstly, a small gripe of mine: The current category system does not
recursively list pages. Consider a Category:Cats, with two
subcategories; Category:WhiteCats and Category:BlackCats. If I go the
the Category:Cats page, I am not shown any pages that are part of
Category:WhiteCats or Category:BlackCats. Also, someone could make
Category:BlackCats have a subcategory Category:Cats. This creates a
loop in the category hierarchy. Cats -> BlackCats -> Cats.
In my opinion:
- When displaying Category:Cats, all members of this category and
subcategories should be displayed to the user.
- If a user adds a subcategory to a category, wikipedia should check
for loops as a post-condition of the edit, and reject the edit if it
does create a loop.

Now, This thread is about adding meta data (data about the data) to
pages. Broadly speaking, there seem to be two suggestions put forward
here to accomplish the same goal.

1. To use better categories to store data about page.
2. To invent a new, separate way of classifying pages.

There are benefits and drawbacks to associated with each suggestion:

1. To use better categories to store data about page:

This method does not store any information about the links between
data. For example, there are subtle semantic differences between
defining a person as Category:Irish and defining a ship as
Category:Irish.

2. To invent a new, separate way of classifying pages:

This way of adding meta data to pages would be custom designed to
achieve the goal, and would be better than the current category
system. However, new code would have to be written to add this, which
would take time, labour, money and introduce bugs that would need to
be fixed, costing more time, labour and money. The current Category
system exists, and works.  I therefore feel that it would be a better
decision to augment the current category system, than to create a
second system that shares a lot of common features with the category
system. Also, most of the pages in Wikipedia currently have
categories, and if a new system was created, all the existing pages
would have to be tagged (mostly by hand) for the new system.

If I were in charge of Wikipedia, I would have an overhaul of the
current categories, removing the very specific categories, and adding
the ability to perform the basic set of set operations to categories.

For example:
Currently these exists a Category:Irish_Poets. I would delete this
category and add all pages in it to Category:Irish and Category:Poet.
If a user wants list of Irish Poets, he would ask wikipedia for
(Irish) Intersection (Poets).

Also I would create a category Person. All people in Wikipedia would
be part of this category. Also I would create Category:Men and
Category:Women. These would be subcategories of Category:Person. All
people in Wikipedia would be part of either Category:Men or
Category:Women. If a user is looking for articles about people, they
can simply search within Category:Person to find the information that
they are looking for.

Now we must think about data storage. consider the article on Liam
Neeson. Do we mark it as Category:Person and Category:Men? Or do we
mark the page as just Category:Men. If we store it as both we have
redundancy - it can be deduced from the fact that a page is part of
Category:Men that it must be part of Category:Person too, since Person
is a superset of Men. But for Wikipedia to reason that a Man is a
Person takes computation. The fact that a Man is a Person should never
change, so we could make the page as Category:Person automatically
when a page is marked Category:Men. We are storing more information
that is necessary, but future reasoning becomes faster.

Disjointness must also be considered:
Category:Men is disjoint from Category:Women. How can we store this
information in the database? We may have to add a new tag to category
pages:

Category:Men
[[DisjointFrom:Woman]]

(A page cannot be a member of both Men and Women - For this sake of
argument please ignore trans genders, transsexuals etc, this is just a
blackboard example.)

Also, when someone adds the above tag, the page Category:Woman must
automatically be marked as [[DisjointFrom:Men]].

What happens when a wikipedia user edits the Liam Neeson page and adds
Category:Women? Should wikipedia search what categories have been
marked as disjoint (this is computationally expensive operation), and
not add not allow the edit?

Also, with the category system we could save Categories as virtual
Categories. For example, consider that a VCategory is a virtual
category:

VCategory:Irish_Poets would simply be a re-direct to:
Category:Irish (intersection) Category:Poets

What do other people think?

Best Regards,

Marc O'Morain


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Theora / ogg usage

body:
Actually, one more movie:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Jack-russell.mov

It's a Quicktime movie with the On2 VP3 codec.

So kind of pre-Theora. :)

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:57:59 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> An old theme just came up on the Wikipedia mailing list again :
> Wikipedia strongly
> encourages[1] using theora encoding, strongly enough that I don't think we
> currently host any other video encodings...[2] however, most users know
> how to make and edit and play mpegs, and find theora hard to work with.
>
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/038244.html
>
> Perhaps the theora-dev list can help us overcome our technical problems so
> that we have a reasonable choice in setting policy...
>
> SJ
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Video_policy  (could use better
> theora information)
> [1.1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia (ditto, also better ogg
> information)
>
> [2] Article containing one of the only known video files on Wikipedia :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--

Andrew Lih, Assistant Professor
Journalism and Media Studies Centre
University of Hong Kong
Email: alih at hku.hk | Web: http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih
AOL IM: fuzheado | ICQ: 231894253
Yahoo Messenger: andrew_lih | MSN Messenger: andrew_lih at msn.com


from_name: Galloway Joe

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal for New Project Wikirec

body:
Hello,

I'd like to announce a proposed new project, currently
titled Wikirec,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikirec.  A wiki for
outdoor recreation and locations.  Thanks

Joe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Alison Russell

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Help positioning Google search box - Where is code for
	navigation bar ?

body:
Hi,

I have added a Google search box to my Wiki. I am using 1.4 beta-6. I have
added it to monobook.php which is fine, but the length of the Google section
extends right across the page. I want it to be the same width as the
navigation, search and toolbox section. I think I should be adding it to the
code that controls the left hand side panel of each page, the quickbar I
think its called?!?

Where do I find that code? And where should I add the Google link so that
the text box and Google image appear after the search section and before the
toolbox section along the left of the page?

I want it to look like this wiki
http://creatures.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page

Thanks in advance,
Alison


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the
> watchlist, but a deletion is not.

This is a side effect of how the watchlist works and how page deletion
works.

The watchlist is displayed by looking up the page records of all pages
on your watchlist, and sorting by their last edit times. If a page is
deleted, it no longer has a page record, and won't show up in the list.
There's no record, so there's no datestamp to sort it into place by.

Similarly, edits to deleted pages no longer show up in a user's
contributions history.

There are some potential improvements that can be made here; hopefully I
can work this into MediaWiki 1.5 which should be ready sometime this
spring (April-May).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050315/c0e780d8/attachment.pgp


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference
>>work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for
>>deletion.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
>
>
> Maybe it was me, who removed it from the article.  Those panoramas are
> ugly and they give a wrong impression.

I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "a wrong impression" here.

--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Automatic creation of a table of contents based on
	headline text sections

body:
I noticed this feature being used in pages like:
http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/User_talk:Jasonr
where each headline text addition is automatically added to a dynamic table
of contents.

Is this a feature of MediaWiki or does anyone know what code is required to
implement this? I think its a really neat function.

Thanks in advance,
Alison


list: wikien-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

body:
I do not even see what to add to your mail Sj.

I do not think I can be listed amongst those who generally received it
well. And the very idea is making my blood pressure too high.

Ant

Sj a ?crit:
> Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference
> work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for
> deletion.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
>
> This image had illustrated the article on Wuerzburg for a long while,
> and was then removed by an anonymous edit in February.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%FCrzburg&diff=9939546&oldid=9902946
>
> It was soon afterward listed for deletion as one of hundreds of
> "unverified orphans" [UOs] listed in recent months. Quoth an
> enthusiastic UO deleter:
>   "I've been doing this for about a month, and it's been generally
> well received."
>
> Out of about 100 such images currently listed on Images for Deletion,
> I found about 20 which were either clearly uploaded by their creators,
> or seemed likely to have been (by virtue of composition, edit
> summaries, image descriptions).  Some of these could clearly be used
> productively in articles, even if they aren't at present; in
> particular the Wuerzburg image and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xi%27an_city_wall.jpg
>
> [ Detailed rant:  http://tinyurl.com/4zpyb ]
>
> This kind of careless deletion must stop.  It should be unacceptable
> to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify
> the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
>
> A cardinal rule of image deletion should be : take every precaution
> not to irreversibly delete beautiful, free content.  Particularly so
> long as we tolerate foolish debates about the unproven copyvio-status
> of everyone's favorite autofellatio image.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: OTRS (II)

body:
There seems to be a confusion between Ticket ID and Ticket Number...
114758 is the number
14720 is the ID

Now, how come that for the editor sending a mail and receiving an
answer, the reference is the Ticket number, while we should use the
ticket ID ? Basically errrr, why two unique numbers not compatible ?

Well, at least I found my ticket.

I think I will only use the "search all" interface from now on...

thanks Angela and Sannse.

Angela a ?crit:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:11:50 -0800 (PST), Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I think there is a major problem with the way OTRS seems to work.
>>I was told that Angela had already answered it, and this is how I realised something I had not till now.
>
>
> According to my IRC log, you were trying to open
> https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=114758
>
> I have no permission to open that either. I don't even know if it
> exists. If I go to
> https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=FOO,
> I get the same error.
>
> The mail you're talking about is at
> https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=14720
>  and there should be no reason you can't view it since it's not
> locked. Using the search function to find emails there generally works
> better than trying to construct the URL. I'm sure Elian or another
> OTRS admin could help more if you are still having problems with it.
>
> Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: OTRS (II)


from_name: Blair P. Houghton

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unreasonable block of user Blair P. Houghton by admin
	CryptoDerk

body:
While in the middle of a series of edits and a discussion of those edits, user Blair P. Houghton was blocked by admin CryptoDerk, whose note on the blocked user's talk page indicated that the admin had neither read the talk page nor verified that the three-revert-rule had been broken.

What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases of abuse?

--Blair


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unreasonable block of user Blair P. Houghton
	by	adminCryptoDerk

body:
[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] says to ask here, or Jimbo.

Which I guess means Jimbo is the only one who counts.

And he doesn't seem to care that admins aren't paying attention
to the voted-on criteria for blocking users, as it's not sufficient
cause to block an admin.

--Blair

Jack Lutz wrote:
>>What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases
>
> of abuse?
>
> Apparently one must make an appeal to ArbCom or Jimbo, though note that only
> a few (2?) sysops have lost privileges on EN. See also the proposed
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]].
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rick

body:
--- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> It's what I call responding to specious allegations
> by a group of
> sardonic children.
>
> But thanks for taking the quote out of context.
>
> I'll be giving a lecture on intellectual dishonesty
> in short order.
>
> --Blair
>
> Theresa Knott wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:33:34 -0700, Blair P.
> Houghton
> > <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> >
> >>While in the middle of a series of edits and a
> discussion of those edits,
> >
> >
> > " I am working with others, apparently in the way
> that a teacher works
> > with a class of juvenile delinquents. "
> >
> > That's what you call discussing the edits?
> >
> > Theresa

My, aren't we the supercilious jerk?

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


from_name: Mark Williamson

references:
<742dfd06050315075513b4e021@mail.gmail.com>
	<sh4qfcppvy.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de> <4237A197.70703@pobox.com>

body:
I don't mind so much about the watchlist, not using that feature much
myself, but the contributions part sort of bugs me.

And why can't normal logged-in users view deleted pages?

Mark

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:01:43 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> > BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the
> > watchlist, but a deletion is not.
>
> This is a side effect of how the watchlist works and how page deletion
> works.
>
> The watchlist is displayed by looking up the page records of all pages
> on your watchlist, and sorting by their last edit times. If a page is
> deleted, it no longer has a page record, and won't show up in the list.
> There's no record, so there's no datestamp to sort it into place by.
>
> Similarly, edits to deleted pages no longer show up in a user's
> contributions history.
>
> There are some potential improvements that can be made here; hopefully I
> can work this into MediaWiki 1.5 which should be ready sometime this
> spring (April-May).
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>


body:
I can't go there.  While blocked, I'm not allowed to edit any pages on the website.  Which includes discussing repercussions against those who railroaded me.

3RR has a Catch-22.

--Blair

Andrew Lih wrote:
> Blair, according to the 3RR page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule#Enforcement
>
> this is the right place to go:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Blair_P._Houghton
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:06:30 -0700, Blair P. Houghton
> <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
>
>>[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] says to ask here, or Jimbo.
>>
>>Which I guess means Jimbo is the only one who counts.
>>
>>And he doesn't seem to care that admins aren't paying attention
>>to the voted-on criteria for blocking users, as it's not sufficient
>>cause to block an admin.
>>
>>--Blair
>>
>>Jack Lutz wrote:
>>
>>>>What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases
>>>
>>>of abuse?
>>>
>>>Apparently one must make an appeal to ArbCom or Jimbo, though note that only
>>>a few (2?) sysops have lost privileges on EN. See also the proposed
>>>[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]].
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>


from_name: Sj

body:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:20:49 +0100, Karl Eichwalder <ke at gnu.franken.de> wrote:
>
> > This kind of careless deletion must stop.  It should be unacceptable
> > to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify
> > the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
>
> Agreed.  BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the
> watchlist, but a deletion is not.

Quite right.  And, if orphan-status is at all a big deal, you should
be able to see on your watchlist whenever one of your images has
become an orphan, without having to visit it every few days and say
"there, there."

--SJ


from_name: Jack Lutz

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unreasonable block of user Blair P. Houghton by
	adminCryptoDerk

body:
>What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases
of abuse?

Apparently one must make an appeal to ArbCom or Jimbo, though note that only
a few (2?) sysops have lost privileges on EN. See also the proposed
[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]].


body:
Interesting.  I think this would make more sense as part of a general
wikigeography project, which in cities could provides information
about major buildings, parks, and structures; in suburbs provides
information about divisons and neighborhoods; in the countryside
provides information about sites and resorts and ranges and trails and
towns and lakes; in the wilderness provides information about biomes
and ranges and preserves...

There would be well-definied geographical heirarchies, and an accepted
intensity of detail about each particular project; all kinds of
information about local event-calendards, regulations, climate, flora
and fauna and other contents.  And maps.  Lots of maps.

<cue Mav>

SJ

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:43:57 -0800 (PST), Galloway Joe
<threestudindia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to announce a proposed new project, currently
> titled Wikirec,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikirec.  A wiki for
> outdoor recreation and locations.  Thanks
>
> Joe


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:14:40 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> You can suppress the table of contents on a page where you don't want it
> by including __NOTOC__ in the page.

And include it in a page which wouldn't normally qualify by using
__FORCETOC__, or in a position other than just before the first
heading by using __TOC__

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
It's what I call responding to specious allegations by a group of
sardonic children.

But thanks for taking the quote out of context.

I'll be giving a lecture on intellectual dishonesty in short order.

--Blair

Theresa Knott wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:33:34 -0700, Blair P. Houghton
> <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
>
>>While in the middle of a series of edits and a discussion of those edits,
>
>
> " I am working with others, apparently in the way that a teacher works
> with a class of juvenile delinquents. "
>
> That's what you call discussing the edits?
>
> Theresa
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> writes:

> Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference
> work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for
> deletion.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg

Maybe it was me, who removed it from the article.  Those panoramas are
ugly and they give a wrong impression.  We can surely keep it on commons
but using this picture prominently in the W?rzburg article is not
appropriate.

Of course I vote to keep all images, even so called orphans.
Unfortunately, some admins on the German wikipedia are very proud for
all their deletions :-(

> This kind of careless deletion must stop.  It should be unacceptable
> to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify
> the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.

Agreed.  BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the
watchlist, but a deletion is not.

--
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                           |      ,__o
                                                        |    _-\_<,
                                                        |   (*)/'(*)
Key fingerprint = F138 B28F B7ED E0AC 1AB4  AA7F C90A 35C3 E9D0 5D1C


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:WikiIndex (idea)

body:
Agreed to everything, except

> >and on the article for "The Diary of a Young Girl" we could put
> >[[Category:Books by Anne Frank]]

She wrote little apart from her diary, and it is not of big literary
significance. I even don't know if it has been edited.

Wouter

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


body:
What irony.

--Blair

Rick wrote:
> --- "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net> wrote:
>
>>It's what I call responding to specious allegations
>>by a group of
>>sardonic children.
>>
>>But thanks for taking the quote out of context.
>>
>>I'll be giving a lecture on intellectual dishonesty
>>in short order.
>>
>>--Blair
>>
>>Theresa Knott wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:33:34 -0700, Blair P.
>>
>>Houghton
>>
>>><blair at houghton.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>While in the middle of a series of edits and a
>>
>>discussion of those edits,
>>
>>>
>>>" I am working with others, apparently in the way
>>
>>that a teacher works
>>
>>>with a class of juvenile delinquents. "
>>>
>>>That's what you call discussing the edits?
>>>
>>>Theresa
>
>
> My, aren't we the supercilious jerk?
>
> RickK
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonable
	block of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Thanks, Jim.

I don't see my named account as blocked in the block list, but there are two numbered accounts autoblocked (probably because of the NAT serving the multiple computers on my IP) still listed there, which may be why I still can't edit a page yet.

How long does an unblock take to work?

--Blair

Jim Cecropia wrote:
> I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
>
> The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes give actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am an amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it. Either the prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and I believe Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects the state-of-the-art.
>
> HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should stand, just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at least, not vandalism.
>
> The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
>
> The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for 3RR, it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to block; I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's judgment, but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock.
>
> I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the article to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being blocked in other forums.
>
> I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment specifically on the Weight Training article.
>
> -Cecropia


body:
It was a trap.  GeorgeStepanek accepted almost all of my edits, but only after I was blocked.

Clearly he wasn't disagreeing with everything I was saying, he was just reverting the page to goad me into re-reverting it.  I did, three times.  Then I changed the edit to include others' suggestions.  Then Taxman continued reverting in GeorgeStepanek's stead.  Then they created the false allegations of 3RR violation.

And once the unblock actually allows me into the server, I'll repeat all of this on the talk page so everyone concerned can see the mess these guys made.

--Blair

Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself
>>in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
>>
>>The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to
>>favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better solution
>>is to protect the article for a limited time to get the combatants to hash
>>out the issue in article talk. In the instant case, I notice that
>>GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts ("first, second, third")
>>which telegraphs consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor
>>who disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
>
>
> It's dangerous to ascribe intent. Simply numbering one's edits does
> not mean it's a "trap." In fact, *not* numbering them, and losing
> count, could be construed as a trap as well.
>
> But I agree that an outside admin would have served the community
> better by simply locking the page, and not banning anyone. Somehow
> this needs to be emphasized on the 3RR page - not all 3R violations
> need to be followed up by a ban.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Careless image deletion : a minor outrage

body:
1) Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?

2) Many votes were based on a misreading of the question as indicated
by the accompanying comments. The question was "Should non-admins be
given access to view deleted articles (except those that Wikipedia is
legally required to remove)?", yet many people demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the parenthetical in their comments. While this
doesn't nessecarily render the vote invalid, I think it raises some
questions about the meaning of the results.

3) In addition, many of the "no" votes were by administrators who
already have the ability to view deleted pages. While this doesn't
invalidate the results, I think it is something to think about and
believe that expecting administrators to understand the practical
limitations the inability to view deleted content can cause is
unreasonable as they never run into that problem.

Mark

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:29:50 +0000, Kate Turner
<keturner at livejournal.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc:
>
> > [W]hy can't normal logged-in users view deleted pages?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_deleted_articles
>
> > Mark
>
> kate.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] What is de.wikiversity.org?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) When and why was this wiki set up? Who made the decision?

I set up the wiki on March 1 on Kurt Jansson's request.

I'm sure Kurt won't mind if I reprint his request here: "hi! I already
asked in #wikimedia, but didn't have any luck, so I'm trying again here:
could one of you server guys please set up de.wikiversity.org (just with
an empty wiki)? we still don't have any news about funding, but people
want to start working on it and keep bugging me. would be really nice :-)"

> 2) Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
> Wikinews not followed?

My understanding is that this was all discussed ages ago, and the
project's just been waiting on the external funding (which hasn't quite
happened yet).

> 3) What are the future plans for the wiki?
>
> If this is merely meant to be a demonstration prototype and not an
> official project of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that status should
> be clearly indicated on the wiki.

That's my understanding of the present situation; it's for demo /
discussion / planning for now.

> Last but not least, a MAJOR issue: all the wikiversity.org language
> subdomains have an unprotected "Create wiki" link. If this is meant to
> be a German demo only, then we have to disable this link ASAP, or
> otherwise people will start building their things there before the
> project has been officially approved.

If you find such links *anywhere* they need to be disabled. The
autocreation script is broken.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050315/aa9b6a66/attachment.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) When and why was this wiki set up? Who made the decision?

I set up the wiki on March 1 on Kurt Jansson's request.

I'm sure Kurt won't mind if I reprint his request here: "hi! I already
asked in #wikimedia, but didn't have any luck, so I'm trying again here:
could one of you server guys please set up de.wikiversity.org (just with
an empty wiki)? we still don't have any news about funding, but people
want to start working on it and keep bugging me. would be really nice :-)"

> 2) Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
> Wikinews not followed?

My understanding is that this was all discussed ages ago, and the
project's just been waiting on the external funding (which hasn't quite
happened yet).

> 3) What are the future plans for the wiki?
>
> If this is merely meant to be a demonstration prototype and not an
> official project of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that status should
> be clearly indicated on the wiki.

That's my understanding of the present situation; it's for demo /
discussion / planning for now.

> Last but not least, a MAJOR issue: all the wikiversity.org language
> subdomains have an unprotected "Create wiki" link. If this is meant to
> be a German demo only, then we have to disable this link ASAP, or
> otherwise people will start building their things there before the
> project has been officially approved.

If you find such links *anywhere* they need to be disabled. The
autocreation script is broken.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050315/aa9b6a66/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) When and why was this wiki set up? Who made the decision?

I set up the wiki on March 1 on Kurt Jansson's request.

I'm sure Kurt won't mind if I reprint his request here: "hi! I already
asked in #wikimedia, but didn't have any luck, so I'm trying again here:
could one of you server guys please set up de.wikiversity.org (just with
an empty wiki)? we still don't have any news about funding, but people
want to start working on it and keep bugging me. would be really nice :-)"

> 2) Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
> Wikinews not followed?

My understanding is that this was all discussed ages ago, and the
project's just been waiting on the external funding (which hasn't quite
happened yet).

> 3) What are the future plans for the wiki?
>
> If this is merely meant to be a demonstration prototype and not an
> official project of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that status should
> be clearly indicated on the wiki.

That's my understanding of the present situation; it's for demo /
discussion / planning for now.

> Last but not least, a MAJOR issue: all the wikiversity.org language
> subdomains have an unprotected "Create wiki" link. If this is meant to
> be a German demo only, then we have to disable this link ASAP, or
> otherwise people will start building their things there before the
> project has been officially approved.

If you find such links *anywhere* they need to be disabled. The
autocreation script is broken.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20050315/aa9b6a66/attachment.pgp>


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) When and why was this wiki set up? Who made the decision?

I set up the wiki on March 1 on Kurt Jansson's request.

I'm sure Kurt won't mind if I reprint his request here: "hi! I already
asked in #wikimedia, but didn't have any luck, so I'm trying again here:
could one of you server guys please set up de.wikiversity.org (just with
an empty wiki)? we still don't have any news about funding, but people
want to start working on it and keep bugging me. would be really nice :-)"

> 2) Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
> Wikinews not followed?

My understanding is that this was all discussed ages ago, and the
project's just been waiting on the external funding (which hasn't quite
happened yet).

> 3) What are the future plans for the wiki?
>
> If this is merely meant to be a demonstration prototype and not an
> official project of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that status should
> be clearly indicated on the wiki.

That's my understanding of the present situation; it's for demo /
discussion / planning for now.

> Last but not least, a MAJOR issue: all the wikiversity.org language
> subdomains have an unprotected "Create wiki" link. If this is meant to
> be a German demo only, then we have to disable this link ASAP, or
> otherwise people will start building their things there before the
> project has been officially approved.

If you find such links *anywhere* they need to be disabled. The
autocreation script is broken.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20050315/aa9b6a66/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:
	[WikiEN-l]	Unreasonableblock
	of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Garrrr! It not roid rage! It justifiable barbellcide! Garrr!!!

I even spelled out in the talk page that I wasn't being vituperative.  But did anyone read back more than two layers of comments? Hard to tell.

What goes a long way is actually doing what is right, but clearly some people insist on manipulating the process to get their way while others are blocked from acting within their rights.

The passive-aggressive nature of the conflicts I've observed on Wikipedia is flat-out dysfunctional.  This one has been no different.  I try to be direct so people will act appropriately.  Instead they get offended by the truth and accuse me of antisocial behavior.  And other people buy into it.  Madness among epistemologists must lead to a loss of information.  Bad mojo.

...wait a sec...

The blocks are all gone.  I can get edit pages now.  Thanks, Jim.  You are a musclehead and a gentleman.

--Blair

Jim Cecropia wrote:
> Blair, I removed the autoblocks as well. You should be able to edit now.
>
> I strongly suggest you brush up Wittiquette. I know how frustrating it can be to see what you view (and may be) unfair or inaccurate material in an article. Yet the (sometims almost goofy) courtesies of Wikipedia, surprisingly, go a very long way. Argue on substance, not personalities or characterizations.
>
> Remmeber that cardinal Wikirule "No 'Roid Rage" ;-)
>
> --C
>
>
>
>>Thanks, Jim.
>>
>>I don't see my named account as blocked in the block list, but
>>there are two numbered accounts autoblocked (probably because of
>>the NAT serving the multiple computers on my IP) still listed
>>there, which may be why I still can't edit a page yet.
>>
>>How long does an unblock take to work?
>>
>>--Blair
>>
>>Jim Cecropia wrote:
>>
>>>I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself
>>>in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes
>>>give actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some
>>>logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am
>>>an amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like
>>>many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it.
>>>Either the prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and
>>>I believe Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects
>>>the state-of-the-art.
>>>
>>>HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should
>>>stand, just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at
>>>least, not vandalism.
>>>
>>>The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends
>>>to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the
>>>better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to
>>>get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the
>>>instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered
>>>his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs
>>>consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who
>>>disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
>>>
>>>The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for
>>>3RR, it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to
>>>block; I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's
>>>judgment, but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock.
>>>
>>>I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the
>>>article to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being
>>>blocked in other forums.
>>>
>>>I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor
>>>accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment
>>>specifically on the Weight Training article.
>>>
>>>-Cecropia
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: Jim Cecropia

body:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.

The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes give actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am an amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it. Either the prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and I believe Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects the state-of-the-art.

HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should stand, just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at least, not vandalism.

The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.

The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for 3RR, it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to block; I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's judgment, but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock.

I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the article to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being blocked in other forums.

I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment specifically on the Weight Training article.

-Cecropia
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Cecropia" <jcecropia at mail.com>

I will make one addendum to my comments below.

Houghton and GeorgeStepanek alternated three reverts, with Houghton making the last, then Taxman made another revert. Then Houghton reverts that (fourth revert) and is blocked. Then Taxman made another revert, but Houghton is blocked, and that ends that.

Having two people on one side of a disagreement play "tag team" on reverts (consciously or not) is a violation of the spirit, if not exactly the wording, of the 3RR. In effect, Taxman's first and second reverts were really GeorgeStepanek's fourth and fifth. Result: one side in an article can always win AND get the opposition blocked so long as they have one more supporter than the other side.

This 3RR gamesmanship has to end. Ask an admin to protect the article and take it to the talk page.

--Cecropia

To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400

>
> I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself in
> the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
>
> The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes give
> actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some
> logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am an
> amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like many
> who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it. Either the
> prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and I believe
> Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects the
> state-of-the-art.
>
> HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should stand,
> just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at least, not
> vandalism.
>
> The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to
> favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better
> solution is to protect the article for a limited time to get the
> combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the instant
> case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his
> reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs consciousness of
> the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who disagrees with Houghton
> picked up on the reverting.
>
> The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for 3RR,
> it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to block;
> I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's judgment,
> but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock.
>
> I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the article
> to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being blocked in
> other forums.
>
> I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor
> accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment
> specifically on the Weight Training article.
>
> -Cecropia
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l]
	Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

body:
Blair, I removed the autoblocks as well. You should be able to edit now.

I strongly suggest you brush up Wittiquette. I know how frustrating it can be to see what you view (and may be) unfair or inaccurate material in an article. Yet the (sometims almost goofy) courtesies of Wikipedia, surprisingly, go a very long way. Argue on substance, not personalities or characterizations.

Remmeber that cardinal Wikirule "No 'Roid Rage" ;-)

--C

>
> Thanks, Jim.
>
> I don't see my named account as blocked in the block list, but
> there are two numbered accounts autoblocked (probably because of
> the NAT serving the multiple computers on my IP) still listed
> there, which may be why I still can't edit a page yet.
>
> How long does an unblock take to work?
>
> --Blair
>
> Jim Cecropia wrote:
> > I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself
> > in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
> >
> > The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes
> > give actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some
> > logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am
> > an amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like
> > many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it.
> > Either the prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and
> > I believe Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects
> > the state-of-the-art.
> >
> > HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should
> > stand, just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at
> > least, not vandalism.
> >
> > The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends
> > to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the
> > better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to
> > get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the
> > instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered
> > his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs
> > consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who
> > disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
> >
> > The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for
> > 3RR, it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to
> > block; I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's
> > judgment, but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock.
> >
> > I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the
> > article to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being
> > blocked in other forums.
> >
> > I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor
> > accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment
> > specifically on the Weight Training article.
> >
> > -Cecropia
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
You are right. I apologize to George if I seem to characterizing his intentions. I am assuming good faith on all sides here, even if they get annoyed.

I hope you generally support the idea that if an article gets too contentious, "locking is better than blocking." I believe honest editors, even if they get a bit hot under the collar, should be engaged, not blocked. Save blocking for actual vandals.

-- C

>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> > I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself
> > in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
> >
> > The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends
> > to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the
> > better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to
> > get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the
> > instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered
> > his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs
> > consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who
> > disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
>
> It's dangerous to ascribe intent. Simply numbering one's edits does
> not mean it's a "trap." In fact, *not* numbering them, and losing
> count, could be construed as a trap as well.
>
> But I agree that an outside admin would have served the community
> better by simply locking the page, and not banning anyone. Somehow
> this needs to be emphasized on the 3RR page - not all 3R violations
> need to be followed up by a ban.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
----- Original Message -----
Well, let's all step back, take a deep breath, and maybe we can all go forward with good faith.

My broader interest in this is that we are slipping in trying to have editorial standards on Wikiedpia (an encyclopedia first and foremost) at the same time when 3RR and ArbCom are starting to be used as editing tools.

--C

>
> It was a trap.  GeorgeStepanek accepted almost all of my edits, but
> only after I was blocked.
>
> Clearly he wasn't disagreeing with everything I was saying, he was
> just reverting the page to goad me into re-reverting it.  I did,
> three times.  Then I changed the edit to include others'
> suggestions.  Then Taxman continued reverting in GeorgeStepanek's
> stead.  Then they created the false allegations of 3RR violation.
>
> And once the unblock actually allows me into the server, I'll
> repeat all of this on the talk page so everyone concerned can see
> the mess these guys made.
>
> --Blair
>
> Andrew Lih wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself
> >> in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends
> >> to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the
> >> better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to
> >> get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the
> >> instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example,
> >> numbered his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs
> >> consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who
> >> disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
> >
> >
> > It's dangerous to ascribe intent. Simply numbering one's edits does
> > not mean it's a "trap." In fact, *not* numbering them, and losing
> > count, could be construed as a trap as well.
> >
> > But I agree that an outside admin would have served the community
> > better by simply locking the page, and not banning anyone. Somehow
> > this needs to be emphasized on the 3RR page - not all 3R violations
> > need to be followed up by a ban.
> >
> > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
Please reread #2.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:48:06 +0800, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
> > put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
>
> Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes
> cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:
>
> "Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some
> because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non
> visible for obvious legal reasons."
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>


from_name: zero 0000

body:
I'll go further and say that the image cops are doing more
harm to Wikipedia than the same number of vandals.

I think that an image of unknown provenance should only
be deleted if it appears likely to be someone's substantial
commercial asset.  That is the only circumstance in which
a lawsuit is even remotely plausible.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


body:
I think we may have short-circuited the de-admin, RfC, ArbCom route. Sometimes a word to the wise (on both sides) is sufficient. I think everyone can now act in good faith. Hopefully, I will be proven right; stay tuned.

--C

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unreasonable block of user Blair P. Houghton byadminCryptoDerk
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:38:27 +0100

>
> I think that Jimbo might have sligthly more pressing matters than
> investigating himself all disputes on the english wikipedia. He
> certainly do cares and would regret a lot that abuse is practiced,
> but any investigation takes a lot of time. This is why an arbcom
> was set. So that an instance can be delegated power by Jimbo and by
> the community to consider such things.
>
> So, for any such issue, you should first of all consider turning to
> the arbcom, and trust the arbcom to take the right decision; and
> see Jimbo as the final person you can go to when ALL OTHER means
> have failed (to your opinion).
>
> Ant
>
> Blair P. Houghton a ?crit:
> > [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] says to ask here, or Jimbo.
> >
> > Which I guess means Jimbo is the only one who counts.
> >
> > And he doesn't seem to care that admins aren't paying attention
> > to the voted-on criteria for blocking users, as it's not sufficient
> > cause to block an admin.
> >
> > --Blair
> >
> > Jack Lutz wrote:
> >
> >>> What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases
> >>
> >>
> >> of abuse?
> >>
> >> Apparently one must make an appeal to ArbCom or Jimbo, though note that only
> >> a few (2?) sysops have lost privileges on EN. See also the proposed
> >> [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]].
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Simple ACL implementation for 1.3.11

body:
MaPhi Werner wrote:
> Now, as I have no idea on how the submittal process works.
> Is there a chance to include this into the wiki itself, or
> does it have to be for 1.4 in order to be included?

1.3 has been in maintenance mode for some time, and is receiving only
security updates at this time.

1.4 is in release candidacy and is receiving only bug fixes.

Any significant new features would only be accepted on the 1.5 branch.
1.5 already has a fairly different user rights system than the older
versions, and it's currently unfinished and will require a lot of work
and changes before 1.5 is released.

> Do I need to submit the changes in a specific format, like
> a diff? If so, which would be the right tool to use? I'm
> working on a Windows box, using WinDiff - I guess that's not
> the right tool here :)

Unified diff format against CVS is preferred (produced by cvs diff -u).
Patches should probably be posted as attachments (*not* comments) to an
enhancement request on our bugzilla: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

> The protect page contains a checkbox to hide a page from
> public view. If this checkbox is set, the "hidden" restriction
> is added to the page as well.

Note that this is likely unreliable; see past posts on this list about
page hiding schemes being defeatable by template inclusion etc.
MediaWiki is *not* designed to hide active pages on an editable wiki,
and this should *not* be relied upon.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050316/55947375/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:33:34 -0700, Blair P. Houghton
<blair at houghton.net> wrote:
> While in the middle of a series of edits and a discussion of those edits,

" I am working with others, apparently in the way that a teacher works
with a class of juvenile delinquents. "

That's what you call discussing the edits?

Theresa


from_name: Kate Turner

body:
Mark Williamson wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc:

> [W]hy can't normal logged-in users view deleted pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_deleted_articles

> Mark

kate.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ambi said on the mailing list last October that the domain name
> (<http://www.wikiversity.org>) had been registered (by mav) and that
> she thought there was a sufficient amount of support for the project
> to proceed. There were a few emails then where people appeared
> confused about the difference between this and Wikibooks, but no
> explicit objection to the project, and no suggestion a vote was
> needed. Around the same time, Eclecticology registered wikiversity.ca
> with no objections, and Sj suggested the same be done for
> wikiversity.fr.

Yep - I registered it. For a while I was toying with the idea of renaming
Wikibooks to Wikiversity and expanding that project?s focus. That idea,
however, wasn?t well supported in the Wikibooks community, so I dropped it. My
ideas are now focused on having Wikiversity be a super-project that uses
content (no forks!) created from the various Wikimedia projects (such as
textbooks from Wikibooks, encyclopedias from Wikipedia, source material from
Wikisource, etc) along with being a place for instructors to create lesson
plans and to serve as a discussion forum and workspace for students.

Eventually we may even want to become accredited in one or more nations and
actually offer degree programs. But all these ideas are still in my head ? I
haven?t had much time to write them down and run them by others. Some software
features I think are really needed for this to happen though ; inter-wiki
transclusion of pages from one wiki to another, talk page wikiforum software
(in development), and universal login.

> However, now that Wikinews has gone through a proper creation process,
> and thinking of the problems caused by Wikispecies, which didn't, I
> think it would be a good idea to follow the policy at
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy>. This basically
> means that the project should be discussed, voted on and then a
> decision made by the board. I have spoken to Anthere this morning
> about this and she agrees that the project could be ready to start,
> but it shouldn't be being presented as a Wikimedia project before it
> is formally approved.

I agree.

> The German language version has been created at <http://
> de.wikiversity.org/>, but I propose that this should left up as a demo
> site, since attempts to get funding for the project are already
> underway (<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversit%C3%A4tSkizze2>).

I didn?t even know it existed? Also agree.

> Is anyone willing to organize a vote along the same lines as the
> Wikinews one? It would be a good idea for the current pages about
> Wikiversity on Meta and on Wikibooks to be refined into a clearer
> proposal before the voting begins, to ensure the confusion about the
> aims of the project are clarified before a decision is made.

I?ll help starting this weekend.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


body:
--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Galloway Joe wrote:
> > I'd like to announce a proposed new project, currently
> > titled Wikirec, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikirec
>
> Sj  wrote:
> > Interesting.  I think this would make more sense as part of a general
> > wikigeography project...
>
> I agree with Sj that this would be better as part of a project with a
> broader scope.
>
> Related proposals on Meta include:
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps>
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiatlas>
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGPS>
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps/GeonamenDB>

Also wikiGIS (the .com and .org of that and wikimaps are owned by the
foundation; or at least registered by me and awaiting the foundation to claim
them from me)

Yep ? this all needs to be in one uber-project that has highly-structured data
in a relational database. The wikidata module needs to be developed before this
type of project could exist, however. I hear there is some possible funding for
that.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>?.
> software features I think are really needed for this to happen though ;
inter-wiki
> transclusion of pages from one wiki to another, talk page wikiforum software
> (in development), and universal login.

Also the ability to create lots and lots of radio-button-enabled test questions
and serve a randomized subset for each test session. Then have that graded
automatically by the software.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
I just noticed on User:WiseWoman's user page that a German Wikiversity
has been created at

	http://de.wikiversity.org/

According to the Main Page history, it seems to have been started on
March 2. I see no discussion on this list regarding the creation of this
project. It does reside on our servers, however.

I am aware that there are Wikiversity-endeavors taking place within the
Wikibooks framework. But this is different, it has its own domain name
and is clearly labeled as a separate project. No mention is made of
Wikibooks on the Wikiversity homepage. And it is German-specific -- no
other wikiversity.org wikis exist.

 From what I understand, this may be related to the continuing effort to
get a German government grant for the project. I'm not opposed to
Wikiversity, though it is not yet fully clear to me what the project
should encompass and whether it should happen within Wikibooks, above
it, or in parallel. I would simply like to know:

1) When and why was this wiki set up? Who made the decision?

2) Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
Wikinews not followed?

3) What are the future plans for the wiki?

If this is merely meant to be a demonstration prototype and not an
official project of the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that status should
be clearly indicated on the wiki.

Last but not least, a MAJOR issue: all the wikiversity.org language
subdomains have an unprotected "Create wiki" link. If this is meant to
be a German demo only, then we have to disable this link ASAP, or
otherwise people will start building their things there before the
project has been officially approved.

Peace,

Erik


body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that this was all discussed ages ago, and the
> project's just been waiting on the external funding (which hasn't quite
> happened yet).

Discussed, yes. Decided, no. Please don?t create new projects again (even in
beta) without at least explicit board approval (which should in turn should not
be granted until *after* a community-wide vote informs their decision).

There is also the technical point that the foundation does not yet own the
Wikiversity name, domain name, or trademark. I will of course transfer all that
as soon as the project is officially approved.

-- mav

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


body:
Update: I asked Tim Starling to disable the "create a wiki" link for the
other language subdomains, and he did so. So this problem is now out of
the way.

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Business cards

body:
Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
> --- notafish <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, sorry for digging out old conversations, I've been dead for the
>>past 5 days, and just resurrected for a few hours. So here goes.
>>
>>
>>>>This said, I stand up to my opinion that mentions of stewards
>>>
>>or
>>
>>>>arbitrators of the english AC has basically nothing to do here.
>>>
>>These
>>
>>>>positions do not exist in the real world. They mean nothing to
>>>
>>those
>>
>>>>outside wikipedia. They are unrelated to the Foundation itself.
>>>
>>And
>>
>>>>they are only part of the status existing on the projects.
>>>
>>>Well, there are apparently plans to form Arbitration Committees
>>
>>on other
>>
>>>language versions of Wikipedia, so it's not en:-centric (or not
>>
>>intended to
>>
>>>be). Thus Arbitrator status, and certainly, of course, Stewards,
>>
>>are
>>
>>>Wikimedia-project-wide, and the people who will receive these
>>
>>cards will
>>
>>>understand that they confer extra 'status' of some kind, as you
>>
>>say. Neither
>>
>>>job are particularly easy to do, and a small amount of thanks
>>
>>like this is
>>
>>>perhaps not a bad thing.
>>
>>Having a card, imho, has nothing to do with getting any thanks for
>>a
>>job well done within wikipedia or any other project, but more about
>>having (or not having) a right to speak about certain matters with
>>a
>>more or less official position. Arbitrators, Stewards are all, as
>>Anthere pointed out, positions within the projects, but not
>>positions
>>that mean that you have a right to talk about the Moogle Deal of
>>the
>>Fahoo proposition or a right to sell Wikipedia and all other
>>projects
>>to the next Moohoo buyer who comes along. Of course, I am going a
>>bit
>>far, here, but this is what a "card" could entitle to do.
>>
>>So no, they should not be given out as thanks, but as an exact
>>description of who does what in the Wikimedia Foundation and
>>projects,
>>and who can say "we" when talking about the Foundation, or
>>Wikimedia
>>Deutschland, or Wikimedia France. People in general, journalists in
>>particular, are very wary of who their source is, but will be
>>fooled
>>by a little square of paper. A "business card" gives a credibility
>>that some of us certainly do not have, and some of us certainly do
>>not
>>deserve. So let us be careful when handing out those "cards".
>
>
> Samples of titles:
>
> Wikipedia Administrator
> Wikimedia Software Developer
> Wikimedia Senior Systems Engineer
> Contributing Editor
> Arbitration Committee Panelist 2005
> WikiNews Freelance Photographer
> and so on.
>
> I see nothing in there that says they can speak 'for' the foundation.
> There should be a link to Wikimedia Foundation's formal contacts on
> each card, like this: www.wikimedia.com/press and an explanation on
> that page of what cards there are, who has them, and so on. This will
> allow the press people to understand who the cardbearer is and what
> they do.

you forgot mediators.

But I think that for press curiosity, it would be interesting to have a
couple of very short pages to define this.

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Business cards


body:
--- Marc Colbeck <marc at colbeck.ca> wrote:
> This seems obvious to me because I'm a paramedic, but has anyone thought of,
> or suggested, Wikimedicine?

All that info should be included in Wikipedia as encyclopedia articles and in
Wikibooks as textbooks. There is already an emergency medicine textbook on
Wikibooks and a good deal of articles in Wikipedia on the subject.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Angela

body:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:12:59 +0100, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> I just noticed on User:WiseWoman's user page that a German Wikiversity
> has been created at http://de.wikiversity.org/
> Why was the procedure for launching new projects as established with
> Wikinews not followed?

To be honest, I'd just been assuming this project was happening and
hadn't even thought about whether or not it should go through any
formal procedure, in the same way Wikisource and other projects never
did.

Ambi said on the mailing list last October that the domain name
(<http://www.wikiversity.org>) had been registered (by mav) and that
she thought there was a sufficient amount of support for the project
to proceed. There were a few emails then where people appeared
confused about the difference between this and Wikibooks, but no
explicit objection to the project, and no suggestion a vote was
needed. Around the same time, Eclecticology registered wikiversity.ca
with no objections, and Sj suggested the same be done for
wikiversity.fr.

However, now that Wikinews has gone through a proper creation process,
and thinking of the problems caused by Wikispecies, which didn't, I
think it would be a good idea to follow the policy at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy>. This basically
means that the project should be discussed, voted on and then a
decision made by the board. I have spoken to Anthere this morning
about this and she agrees that the project could be ready to start,
but it shouldn't be being presented as a Wikimedia project before it
is formally approved.

The German language version has been created at <http://
de.wikiversity.org/>, but I propose that this should left up as a demo
site, since attempts to get funding for the project are already
underway (<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversit%C3%A4tSkizze2>).

Is anyone willing to organize a vote along the same lines as the
Wikinews one? It would be a good idea for the current pages about
Wikiversity on Meta and on Wikibooks to be refined into a clearer
proposal before the voting begins, to ensure the confusion about the
aims of the project are clarified before a decision is made.

Angela.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Unreasonable block of user Blair P. Houghton by
	adminCryptoDerk

body:
I think that Jimbo might have sligthly more pressing matters than
investigating himself all disputes on the english wikipedia. He
certainly do cares and would regret a lot that abuse is practiced, but
any investigation takes a lot of time. This is why an arbcom was set. So
that an instance can be delegated power by Jimbo and by the community to
consider such things.

So, for any such issue, you should first of all consider turning to the
arbcom, and trust the arbcom to take the right decision; and see Jimbo
as the final person you can go to when ALL OTHER means have failed (to
your opinion).

Ant

Blair P. Houghton a ?crit:
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] says to ask here, or Jimbo.
>
> Which I guess means Jimbo is the only one who counts.
>
> And he doesn't seem to care that admins aren't paying attention
> to the voted-on criteria for blocking users, as it's not sufficient
> cause to block an admin.
>
> --Blair
>
> Jack Lutz wrote:
>
>>> What is the usual procedure for having admin privileges stripped in cases
>>
>>
>> of abuse?
>>
>> Apparently one must make an appeal to ArbCom or Jimbo, though note
>> that only
>> a few (2?) sysops have lost privileges on EN. See also the proposed
>> [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]].
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> The question is, where do we go from here? Larry Sanger left the project
> for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We
> never resolved the tension between:
>
> A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and,
> B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.

Nod.

> Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't
> know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software. Do we need to
> fork?

Absolutely not. The online version needs to be accurate and fair just as much
as any version in any other medium. We need to work out a way to incorporate a
wiki way to do this (that is, fast, open and scalable).

> I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million
> dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
> to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me
> out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.") But I
> worry whether a fork is the best approach, or even necessary at all.

We cannot control what others do, but we should not support any content fork of
our own. However the fact that others are thinking about this in terms of
needing a fork should get our attention that we need to create something
in-house ASAP that is fast, open and scalable (see above).

I think it is high time to re-look at Magnus? reader-controlled article rating
software. We have gone far trusting editors with the ability to edit, I think
we should see if we can trust readers with the ability to rate article
versions.

-- mav

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


from_name: Amgine

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikiversity

body:
IMO: MediaWiki software is not an appropriate medium for online courses.
I also get very frustrated by the shortcomings of WebCT. The demands of
online course leaders and participants are too specialized when you're
planning a series of courses to be academically challenging enough to be
considered creditable at the international academic level. If that's
your goal I would encourage adopting a floss project whose sole goal is
an online course software and which is willing to integrate with
Wikimedia resources.

* Threaded forums, with thread and forum privileges definable by course
leaders
* Private messaging, including file attachment
* File uploading (and serving if possible) for learning modules
* (WebCT has a "Chalkboard", which is a sort of js graphical shoutbox -
probably useful in courses using formulae, etc.)
* Chat/IRC integrated - leader/participant "office hours" as well as groups
** Should also include audio/video lectures at some point
* Quiz/exam server
** Timing feature (when it can be taken, how long they have to complete
it, etc.)
** Random question feature should be included (not yet in WebCT.)
** Answer key/scoring options
** Leader response/discussion is optional
** Statistical output (quiz analysis, student analysis, class analysis,
as well as data dumping)
** Needs to allow essay and fill-in-the-blank type questions at some point.
* Grading tool
** Lists all assignments in course, grade for each completed assignment,
cumulative grade to date
*** shows weight of each assignment toward final grade
** Leaders can define what constitutes passing scores for their
particular course
* Calendar tool
** Leader can build-in course calendar
** Participants have a personal calendar which can incorporate all
enrolled course calendars
*** personal calendars also editable

Specific for the leaders...
* Participant tracking
** Identifies if they have logged in to course
** Tracks time spent in different modules/sections of the course
** Statistics available for sections, lesson modules at the class and
participant levels
* Lesson module building
** prebuild html
*** upload as a directory
** online editor
*** upload files separately
** multimedia modules possible
** Timed release is definable by course leader
*** lesson modules available on dates or everything at the start, other
options should be made available
* Grading tools
** Exams - currently feedback is optional; should be feedback optional
on a per-question basis, to address specific problems a participant
might be experiencing and to allow for essay questions.
** statistical analysis is still limited at this point, but a current
data dump in a portable format is available.

There are many additional elements which would be useful, some of which
may be a part of other online course software.

Amgine


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikiversity


body:
Galloway Joe wrote:
> I'd like to announce a proposed new project, currently
> titled Wikirec, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikirec

Sj  wrote:
> Interesting.  I think this would make more sense as part of a general
> wikigeography project...

I agree with Sj that this would be better as part of a project with a
broader scope.

Related proposals on Meta include:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps>
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiatlas>
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGPS>
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimaps/GeonamenDB>

Is there a way these could be combined?

I think the project would be more useful if the articles were at least
accessible, if not editable, via PDAs etc (without needing to download
a database <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TomeRaider_database>),
and if they were written in a way which made them easy to read on
these devices, rather than being the sort of 32kb articles Wikipedia
has. h2g2 announced a few days ago that their "encyclopedia" is going
to be available for PDAs:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F77636?thread=609391>

Angela.


body:
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is indeed funding for WikiData. Programming will start within two
> weeks. WikiData will be a buildingblock within the MediaWiki software.
> It will indeed enable new projects.
>
> Initially there are two prime candidates for Wikidata: Wiktionary and
> Wikispecies. The implementation of "the ultimate wiktionary" is part of
> the implementation of Wikidata.

For Wikimaps to work, a single record would need to be IDd as being associated
with a particular point, line, polygon, or raster coordinate feature. That
record would contain one to many fields of user-inputable and human readable
data. Developing a way to tie that into a true wiki-editable GIS (meaning users
could move points, lines, and polygons; since rasters are effectively images,
editing them will be difficult) will require a separate module (call that the
WikiGIS module if you like). That module would also need to support exporting
to popular GIS formats, such as shapefiles and geodatabases.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
Daniel (mav) wrote:

> We cannot control what others do, but we should not
> support any content fork of our own. However the fact
> that others are thinking about this in terms of needing
> a fork should get our attention that we need to create
> something in-house ASAP that is fast, open and scalable
> (see above).
>
> I think it is high time to re-look at Magnus' reader-
> controlled article rating software. We have gone far
> trusting editors with the ability to edit, I think we
> should see if we can trust readers with the ability to
> rate article versions.

I hate the idea of forking just as much as I hate
having to put up with vandalism, trolls, POV-pushing
and edit wars. I'll do whatever I can to prevent a
Robert Frost style fork:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.

I do NOT want to take the other. I don't think it's
"just as fair" (i.e., attractive). I'm not convinced
it has "the better claim". At this point it seems
"really about the same."

If the foundation chooses MediaWiki software (as
opposed to just copying and pasting articles into
Microsoft Word, fer Pete's sake!), it will have to
hire programmers to set up their server, administer
their web site, and (most likely) customize
MediaWiki for their unique requirements. It should
be OBVIOUS that any changes to MediaWiki ought to be
shared with Wikipedia.

I don't have all the answers, but the first idea
that popped into my mind was:

* Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article
  version.
* A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned
  meaning.
* My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!)
* Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"

If the foundation chooses to cooperate with
Wikipedia as much as I hope, then I would expect to
have it identify particular VERSIONS of Wikipedia
articles which it has approved. I daresay some of
these might be the "current version" and even remain
as the current version.

Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like
spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously
relevant internal link) to an article version tagged
by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the
software would notify the foundation's editors. They
could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD
to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT
forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.

Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version,
I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to
endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about
using the History and Diff functions.)

Ed Poor


subject:
[WikiEN-l] The wikimedia.org servers are currently overloaded,
	or down.

body:
Don't blame me, but I think that the article in Software Development
magazine might have triggered some extra web traffic.

It has a large circulation, and it goes to the best of the best. Just
the sort of people who would immediately try out our most sophisticated
(and processor-time-consuming) features!

Uncle Ed


from_name: Lane, Ryan

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Automatic creation of Table of Contents after th
	ree or more headers on a page??

body:
Alison,

Add these as wiki-text into whichever page you want the table of contents to
appear in.

Ryan Lane
NAVOCEANO

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Alison Russell
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:30 AM
> To:	wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject:	[Wikitech-l] Automatic creation of Table of Contents after
> three or more headers on a page??
>
> Hi,
>
> I want a table of contents to be displayed. My main page has more than
> seven
> pieces of headline text, but my table of contents is not being created. A
> past suggestion was to force it by using __FORCETOC__, or in a position
> other than just before the first heading by using __TOC__. Unfortunately I
>
> don't understand what this means because I am just an eager novice?!?
>
> What piece of code should I be editing with these lines?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alison
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT
> IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version,
> I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to
> endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about
> using the History and Diff functions.)

Such ?tagging? should be part of a proper meta-data system that associates with
particular article versions and *not* done through the category system or
through the use of templates. Thus the metadata would need to be separate from
the article. I think Magnus? reader-created rating system works that way.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unreasonable block of user Blair P.
	Houghton	by	adminCryptoDerk

body:
Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> I can't go there.  While blocked, I'm not allowed to edit any pages on
> the website.  Which includes discussing repercussions against those
> who railroaded me.
>
> 3RR has a Catch-22.

Perhaps what is needed is a separate mailing list for disciplinary
issues.  That would address the real dilemma that Blair raises.

This kind of thing generates a lot of heat on this mailing list.  By
having a separate list only those interested in such matters would be
exposed to it.

Ec


from_name: Tom Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
David Geerard wrote:

> Nah. A massively distributed rating system seems the only workable idea
> to me, because it will harness dilettantism. Editorial committees aren't
> the sort of thing that scales.
>
> And I think a ratings system should be worth a try, on the assumption
> that
> most of the ratings will be good faith. 'Cos if we can't assume that,
> then
> we can't assume good faith for the project in general. And I think we
> can.
>
> If their money can be directed that way, get them to hire a PHP developer
> for a while to get the rating feature polished up ;-)

Right, David.  Don't think fork; think Add-on.  And don't think
editorial committee; think reputation/rating system.  And always keep
dilettantism at the front of your cogitations.

To those considering forking Wikipedia, I say why not simply start an
add-on site where users can register, build reputation, and rate article
versions.  All their edits originating from the Add-on site
(credipedia.org or respectipedia.org) go straight into the main
Wikipedia database, and the add-on site sifts articles for presentation
to anonymous users according to its added features of user and article
rating.  Any successful feature are sure to find their way back into
MediaWiki.

Tom Haws