subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saints

body:
>
>>James Duffy wrote:
>>
>>>As we have an agreed naming convention, applied to thousands of articles,
>>>by a range of people from professional editors like Zoe and bookworms
>>>like Deb to experts on constitutional history like John Kenney, any
>>>unilateral attempt to abandon what has been agreed because Mark has a POV
>>>he wishes to push, would be a gross abuse of  wiki and grossly insulting
>>>to the many people who solved what had been a glaring problem. Mark may
>>>not like titles, but the fact that they exist. Covering them accurately
>>>and factually is NPOV. Trying to push an agenda that says 'I don't like
>>>them, therefore I will remove them', is pushing a POV, is unencylopic and
>>>grossly disrespectiful to the large numbers of people who debated the
>>>issue, made observations and have spent a year implementing the agreed
>>>wikipedia policy in a professional, encyclopic NPOV manner.
>>
>>
>>I disagree strongly, and your attempt to leverage credentials is both a
>>logical fallacy (look up "appeal to authority", or the equivalent Latin
>>phrase if you prefer) and grossly un-wiki.
>>
>>The issue is that Wikipedia is endorsing certain titles, and not endorsing
>>others, which is inconsistent and POV.  When we use Sir, Blessed, and so
>>on, and refuse to use His All-Holiness, His Excellency, and The Honorable,
>>this is a POV judgment, and unacceptable in a professional encyclopedia.
>>
>>If you do wish to use some honorifics, I would like to see some
>>conventions adopted indicating which we should use, and which we should
>>not.  Why should the article on [[Mother Theresa]] start off "Blessed
>>Mother Theresa", while the article on [[Clarence Thomas]] does not start
>>off "The Honorable Clarence Thomas"?  Is there a principle behind this
>>decision?
>
>You're talking about two different issues.  James is talking about article
>titles.  Delirium is talking about personal titles at the beginning of the
>text IN an article. It makes it easier to know what we disagree about when
>when we agree to disagree about the same thing. :-)
>
>POV is unencyclopic when it pokes out one's only good eye.   ;-)   Sorry
>James, but I can't resist the temptation of a good typo.!
>Ec

:-) Actually Ec, the naming conventions deal with whole issue of naming;
article titles and textual entries. Whether one likes titles or loathe
titles, they do (unfortunately) exist. Using factually existing titles is
simply a recognition of reality. ''Choosing'' to ignore them is by
definition POV and you are choosing because of a point of view to ignore
them. So Delirium's stance, apart from doing a Bobby Ewing and trying to
imagine that the last year and the work of many people, not to mention
debates, discussions, proposals put to the Wiki-L, etc didn't exist, is POV
in that it is taking a policy stance based on personal opinion to ignore
something that exists. So on three fronts, ignorance of what titles are,
ignoring the work of everyone over the last year who following an agreed
naming convention, and seeking to opt for POV reasons to ignore the reality
and push a POV agenda on titles, Delirium is wrong.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]

subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Carr addendum (double)

body:
I sent a second email (which I don't think was received), noting that Adam hadn't really neglected the Muslims -- I dunno. Im not trying to cast him as some crazy; its just, he is being rude to me and I don't like it. Anyways, Im sure Erik Moller is getting pretty sick of seeing my rapidfire mailing list posts, so Ill stop trying to clarify what Im trying to communicate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/04aac439/attachment.htm


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia-in-a-box

body:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Magnus Manske wrote:

>As a demo, I have cundeled up the software and an old (converted) DB
>dump of the German wikipedia. It's about 30 MB and resides here:
>
>	http://download.wikipedia.org/wikipedia_standalone.zip
>

Hey, great work! It runs perfectly, and it's reasonably fast. Now if I
only could make sense of the German language... :-)

Ciao,
Alfio


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Adam Bishop

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
L'anglais n'est que la langue mondiale pour les paresseux :)

>From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>CC: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks
>Date: 24 Oct 2003 06:31:00 +0200
>
>Tim-
> > [en]
> > I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks!
>
>I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its
>name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations? It has the
>additional advantage that it keeps the French out.
>
>In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric
>system.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Erik
>
>PS: Hey, with the Mother Teresa flamewar over, we need to talk about
>something, right?
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re : banning (Tim)

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

>> Egregious is unfortunaly not in my dictionnary, but I
>> can guess.
>
> Out of the ordinary or exceptional. Apparently once upon a time it
> used to be used positively but now it means "very bad".
>
> http://www.bennetyee.org//http_webster.cgi?isindex=egregious

Although it's true that it was once used in a positive sense, your
definition is not correct.  It rather means very apparent, and standing
out, flagrant.  Thus egregiously bad behavious would be of a kind that
would be noticed by everybody.

Ec


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
> From: Stevertigo
> Mach trans isnt supposed to be as good as people are.
> It cant by definition ever be -- because machines are
> machines, and people are not...

Er. Machines are machines by definition, but it doesn't necessarily
follow that machine translation can't ever be as good as human
translation.

One fallacious assumption is that machines are not people--and can't
ever be.

My guess would be that MT equivalence to HT for everyday purposes
(business, science, etc.) is near, and doesn't require machines being
people. To get equivalence in the realm of literature/poetry translation
would probably require AI, and that's probably a while in the future.
Probably within our lifetimes, though. Perhaps even using the nth
generation of Wikipedia somehow.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mis à jour

body:
[fr]
Nouveux dans stable:
* tra?ter des URLs en 'Media:' comme 'Image:'
* invalidiser cache pour pages Image: quand on fait un lien (pour voir
les backlinks)
* lien de dons ($wgSiteSupportPage; allmessages['sitesupport'])
* $wgExtraSubtitle
* $wgDebugDumpSql
* $wgDisableSearchUpdates (quand on n'utilise pas le moteur de
recherche, comment lui mettre ? jour?)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] banning (Aoi)

body:
[fr]
>Si quelqu'un commet un acte de ? vandalisme pure et
>dur ?, je me fiche
>completement de l'impact psychologique du blocage.

Absolument d'accord avec toi.

>Je respecte que l'on soit contre tout blocage,

Ce n'est pas mon cas. Lorsque quelqu'un poste des
textes porno de fa?on r?p?t?e par exemple, je n'ai pas
d'?tat d'ame non plus

>mais je refuse l'argument de l'editeur logg?.
>En quoi aurait t'il plus de droit que l'editeur
>anonyme !

Tu as ?galement parfaitement raison. Nous sommes
d'accord sur ce point aussi.

>>> [fr:]
>>> Aoineko, je d?bloquerais tout utilisateur qui sera
>>> bloqu? pour des actes autres que vandalisme pur et
>>> dur.  En particulier lorsque l'utilisateur sera
>>> provoqu? par d'autres ?diteurs.

>>[fr]
>>Je bloquerais tout utilisateur pour des actes de ?
>>vandalisme pur et dur ?.
>>M?me si l'utilisateur aura ?t? provoqu? par d'autres
>>?diteurs.

>Dresse mieux ton troll la prochaine fois ;o)
>Pas de museliere, mais si il commence a casser la
>maison, faut sortir le
>baton.

>Aoineko

Hum...d'abord, le baton a d?j? ?t? sorti la derni?re
fois, par Ellislk et autres. Ne le nie pas Aoi :-) Il
a m?me ?t? sorti avant m?me que les d?g?ts commencent.

Et puis...d?sol?e, mais j'?tais en vacances quand le
baton a ?t? utilis?; je me suis surtout content?e de
retirer le baton des mains des aggresseurs.

J'ai toujours pens? qu'un chien que l'on maltraite
finit naturellement par faire pipi sur la moquette. De
m?me qu'il semble que beaucoup d'adultes maltraitants,
aient eux-m?me ?t? maltrait?s dans leur enfance.

Peut ?tre devrions nous travailler un peu sur les
articles portant sur la maltraitance ?

Bien le bonjour ? ton fils. Faudrait renouveller la
photo :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
Tim-
> [en]
> I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks!

I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its
name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations? It has the
additional advantage that it keeps the French out.

In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric
system.

Thanks,

Erik

PS: Hey, with the Mother Teresa flamewar over, we need to talk about
something, right?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: translations

body:
Mach trans isnt supposed to be as good as people are.
It cant by definition ever be -- because machines are
machines, and people are not... But it's a tool to
throw stuff out there in more or less like the way the
language should look. There's noone here who reads
French or German who cant figure out pretty easily
what machine translated German/French paragraphs are.
There is usually a term or two which it totally flubs.
 ( like the word flubs!)

~S~

Nod.
Like the machine translation of "Esperanto sucks",
which is Esp?ranto suce.

(hum, blow job right ?)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:03:57PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> [de]
> Ich m?chte gerade auf die Aufzeichnung gehen, die dieses sagt: Esperanto
> saugt! Ich k?mmere mich nicht, um wenn Leute auf franz?sisch schreiben,
> Deutscher, weil die maschinelle ?bersetzung, die von Systran zur
> Verf?gung gestellt wird, scheint, ziemlich gen?gend zu sein, Gespr?che
> zu verstehen. Japaner ist fein, besonders wenn Leute aus dem Kanji in
> den Hiragana buchstabieren. Aber es scheint, kein automatische
> ?bersetzung Service f?r Esperanto geben.

Your German sucks.
I hate translation machines cuz they will NEVER be as good as a human
translator. If there's no machine for Esperanto, than that should be
seen as an advantage, cuz we're save from such bad translations.

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	        Urlaub? http://www.tomk32.de/fewo-koll/
   / \              http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Saints

in_reply_to:
<BAY1-F140Dll7fnp3eE000012b1@hotmail.com> (James Duffy's
	message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:45:50 +0000")

body:
"James Duffy" <jtdire at hotmail.com> writes:

> You don't know your theology. He (or she) was made a saint in the belief
> that he or she was in heaven, because of his or her conduct on
> earth. Ipso facto, s/he was a saint when he lived, and declared a saint
> when he/she died.

This is true from the POV of the Church.

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Esperanto sucks

in_reply_to:
<8wTW8fbhpVB@erik_moeller> (Erik Moeller's message of "24 Oct
	2003 06:31:00 +0200")

body:
erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:

> I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its
> name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations?

+1

> In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric
> system.

+1

Is it only me who receives some(?) messages of the wikipedia-l mailing
list twice?  (No, I'm not subcribed to wikien-l!)

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


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:

> Er. Machines are machines by definition, but it
> doesn't necessarily
> follow that machine translation can't ever be as
> good as human
> translation.

Well, if a machine could do all that humans do, we
wouldnt just call it a machine anymore --we'd have to
give it a name, wouldnt we?

;)
~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
> RickK wrote:
> No, no, no, no, no! Kill that obnoxious Cleanup
> proposal. It's impossible to understand

1. Copy article wikilink.
2. Visit cleanup
3. Edit
4. Move to line above first entry
5. paste wikilink
6. Type " nominate for VfD in 2 weeks. ~~~~"
7. Save.

Optional:

8. Look for a VfD nominated page with a date 2 weeks ago and not nominated by you and look at it. List it on VfD if it still looks as though it needs it.
9. If you don't think it needs it, drop a note to the lister sayin that it looks OK now so you've removed it from cleanup and ask them to list it on cleanup as a "second listing" if they still think it needs work.
10. If it's a second listing, follow step 9 but suggest VfD instead of cleanup.

Optional, desirable:

11. Scan cleanup to see if there's a page which interests you and fix it or post a note to the primary author(s) which politely reminds them of the page. If they are a newbie, suggest what is needed to fix it and point them to a good example, help articles and your talk page as a way for them to ask for more help. If the page no longer needs work and isn't a deletion candidate, remove it from cleanup.

> and unworkable.

Why is what I just described more unworkable than the current VfD process? Is it more or less likely to help and encourage newbies than a VfD listing?


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
>
> Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad
> idea from the start.
>
> It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
> being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have
> methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
> than simply deleting them.

Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be
deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period
of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links
would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.

-- Jake


from_name: Alex Rosen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
> being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We
have
> methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
> than simply deleting them.

There are plenty of things that are not offensive or illegal that are
fine to list on VfD. "List pages that you believe will simply will never
become encyclopedia articles. For example, articles that represent
completely idiosyncratic non-topics, articles that could never be more
than dictionary definitions, etc." says the deletion policy.

I agree that stubs should not be deleted, but "sub-stubs" should be.
Whether something is a stub or a sub-stub is a matter of opinion of
course.

Jake wrote:
> Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to
be
> deleted.

If you think that Wikipedia is for any kind of knowledge whatsoever,
then you're right. If you think (as I do) that Wikipedia should only be
for topics of a certain importance, then in fact most of the pages
listed there should be deleted.

Again, I find it amazing that we have no policy on this. The deletion
process cannot be fixed until we agree on the most basic criteria for
deletion. We're supposed to delete pages that "will simply will never
become encyclopedia articles", yet we have no basic agreement about what
this means.

Alex


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia-in-a-box

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>>>As a demo, I have cundeled up the software and an old (converted) DB
>>>dump of the German wikipedia. It's about 30 MB and resides here:
>>>
>>>	http://download.wikipedia.org/wikipedia_standalone.zip
>
>
> Tr?s cool... Source?

Thanks! Source is in the waikiki module at sourceforge (as always, GPL).
I'm using Windows/Dev-C++ for development of this one. For linux, you'll
have to include/link the appropriate sqlite stuff (easy enough, I did
that for another project recently).

For http server related material (licence, source) go to
	http://www.ritlabs.com/tinyweb/

I'll try to get Language.php converted to C++, so I won't have to parse
it on *every* page view ;-)

Magnus


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saints

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>I'm not -- and James and Vicki are not -- suggesting that Wikipedia take
>a POSITION on whether the title is justified. It's just the handiest way
>to refer to her.
>
>
As far as I can tell, James is taking the position that we should refer
to her as "Blessed Mother Theresa," because this is the title officially
conferred upon her by the Catholic Church.  This is what I'm disagreeing
with--I have no problem at all referring to her as "Mother Theresa", and
would in fact have a problem with *not* using the "Mother" title in that
case, since it's the most common way to refer to her in English.  So in
short, I agree with the article in its current form (with "Blessed"
moved towards the end of the first paragraph), and am proposing that
other articles (such as Charles, Prince of Wales, which currently starts
off "His Royal Highness") be modified in a similar manner.

-Mark


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saints

body:
The reason the [[Mother Theresa]] article starts off '''Mother
Theresa''' and not "Blessed Mother Theresa" can be explained in two
words:

 * Uncle Ed *

(Those are the two words :-)

As Vicki explained before, our primary rule-of-thumb is that we call a
person the way most people call them. So the article on X at QJKjqjz (or
whatever her birth name was) uses her adopted name of Theresa because
not one reader in 50 would recognize her Albanian (or whatever) name. It
also adds the title "Mother" because she's been famous as a convent
leader for the past 2 decades.

Her recent title, from her beatification this month, makes her the
"Blessed" Mother Theresa (for Catholics and others who believe in
beatification by a sitting pope). I placed her title, if I recall
correctly, at the end of the paragraph with (I hope) a short note
explaining that (a) it's a recent title upgrade and (b) hardly anyone
but Catholics 'recognizes' the title.

I'm not -- and James and Vicki are not -- suggesting that Wikipedia take
a POSITION on whether the title is justified. It's just the handiest way
to refer to her.

*sigh* about twice a year, there's a big re-examination of our style
sheet. I hope this isn't that time...

Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Jake Nelson wrote:

>The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
>>
>>Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad
>>idea from the start.
>>
>>It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
>>being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have
>>methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
>>than simply deleting them.
>>
>Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be
>deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period
>of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links
>would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
>
This has my support.  VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks
determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules.
 It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to
watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours.

Ec


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mailing lists (Was: Dammit!

body:
From: "Stevertigo" <utilitymuffinresearch2 at yahoo.com>
> --- Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp>
> wrote:
> > Don't you feel we make a together monolog (bilog!?).
> >
> > Even when I bother to write a mail to the list I
> > often don't get any
> > answers.
> >
> > The only solution I see to improve multi-language
> > coordination is to create
> > about ten clones of Brion ;o)
> >
> > By the wait, are they any Japanese here!? It is the
> > fastest growing
> > Wikipedia, isn't it?
>
> Well if they are not-- they should be. People should
> not be shy about posting in Japanese to the
> Wikipedia-l, or the Intlwiki-l listss ( although there
> isnt much activity on the WikiJA-l list either)
>
> Everyone-for enjoyment-humourous:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikija-l/2003-September/thread.html
>
> ~S~

[fr]
Oui, il ne faut pas avoir peur d'ecrire dans sa langue, mais est-ce que
quelqu'un prendra la peine de lire le message ? Le probleme c'est pas de
pouvoir ecrire, mais de pouvoir etre compris. Et contraiment a ce que j'ai
pus entendu ici, les traducteurs automatique ne sont pas d'une grande aide.
Je ne suis pas contre l'utilisation de l'anglais, mais il faudrait avoir un
endroit ou soit discuter **toutes** les decisions concernant les wikipedias
et seulement ces decisions.

[ja]
??????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
?????????? ???????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????
??

[en]
Hi !


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: PHP parser made twice as fast

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> I've backported at least part of the changes to stable; it does make a
> difference. On a copy of [[List of China-related topics]], with 1994
> broken links and 1 live one, the new code gives about a 15% increase in
> total page load speed -- which is a big difference considering that the
> page takes about 3.5 seconds to render on my 2GHz Athlon with a single
> request as the sole load! 16 of those page views in 60 seconds vs 70
> seconds is a definite improvement. I'm sure there's more tweaking to be
> done...
>
> (A note: when you're into this many links, the time it takes to load the
> info out of the link tables can actually be a significant chunk of the
> render time. More aggressive caching will hopefully render all this moot
> soon, though...)
>
> Since I'm insane, I've also rewritten the replaceInternalLinks loop,
> which has been pissing me off for a long time. It now lets
> secureAndSplit do the link parsing rather than trying to do some of it
> itself, so the code should be easier to maintain.

That's good. I cut down the number of title-parsing operations from 4 or
5 to 2, and you got it from 2 to 1. It probably didn't impact on speed
much because secureAndSplit is slower than the way replaceInternalLinks
was doing it. Optimising secureAndSplit will now have a more pronounced
effect.

Last night, I moved the first wfProfileIn to the top of Setup.php. It
turns out loading code is taking about 30% of the profiled time (for
[[Anime]] again). I was able to reduce that figure a little bit by
making a few more files conditionally included. But my ISP is down so I
couldn't commit it.

Maybe we should try PHPA:

http://www.php-accelerator.co.uk/

> The rewrite doesn't
> seem to have made a significant impact on speed either way compared with
> my initial backport of Tim's bits, but the code's IMHO cleaner and I
> fixed some bugs while I was in there:
>
> * initial spaces in the title of a link with a namespace are now
> trimmed, so [[Wikipedia:_Oops]] now maps correctly to [[Wikipedia:Oops]]
> instead of generating a technically illegal title with initial
> whitespace in cur_title.

What about [[Wikipedia:__Oops]]?

> * 'media' is treated as a localizable pseudo-namespace like 'special',
> and can be adjusted in the language files
> * media links should now go into the imagelinks table and show up in the
> image backlinks
> * on the off chance someone makes a link in the form [[:media:foo.jpg]],
> the link won't turn into a misguided attempt to link to an article
> called "Media:foo.jpg".
> * inline language links in the form [[:fr:lien interwiki]] finally work
> * certain illegal links that were vanishing from the output completely
> are now rendered as plaintext (such as "[[ ]]")
>
> Another behavior change that could be changed back if people don't think
> it's a good idea:
> * on links with the initial colon, the colon now isn't displayed in the
> default link text
> * 'class="internal"' removed from normal inline links, it just wastes
> bandwidth without doing anything useful

All sounds good to me.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Simple solution to deletion policy

body:
Oh, Alex, you're making it too complex; stop thinking like a lawyer.
And, Cunc, stop being a dick ;-)

All we have to do is define the Wikipedia Inclusion Policy. Then, we can
start our deletion policy based on:

"Delete anything that shouldn't be included"

Logical, right?

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re : banning (Tim)

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I thank you for this Tim :-)
> I do not question the utility of the loggued in ban
> option to fight worst cases of vandals. Thank you for
> doing it and saving people time.
>
> I note what Jimbo said. I think, just to take a bit of
> perspective, it is interesting to read it again, with
> awareness of the recent cases discussed.
>
>
>>I think we need to revisit having the ability for
 >>sysops to ban logged in users.  Maybe the wiki way
 >>of doing this is to put the ability intothe software,
 >>but all sysops must agree to use it *only* to ban
 >>*certain* variants on a known banned troll.
>>
>>In the current case, it seems clear to me that
>>banning Zog, Anti-Zog, Baboon Mouth, JamesERay,
 >>and so on, should be done virtuallyinstantly,
 >>so as to discourage the behavior.
>
>
> *only* to ban *certain* variants on a known banned
> troll.

And that was basically my policy statement on [[Wikipedia:Bans and
blocks]]. So you can see why I'm pessimistic about the power of
statements of policy, unless they're backed up by threat of punishment
or technical measures.

>>This has to be an emergency situation to ban someone
>>who is doing something really egregious right now, or
>>to ban someone who you are *certain* is one of our
>>usual suspects.
>
>
> Emergency.
> Usual suspects.
>
> Egregious is unfortunaly not in my dictionnary, but I
> can guess.

Out of the ordinary or exceptional. Apparently once upon a time it used
to be used positively but now it means "very bad".

http://www.bennetyee.org//http_webster.cgi?isindex=egregious

-- Tim Starling.


from_name: Louis Kyu Won Ryu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Alex Rosen wrote:
> If you think that Wikipedia is for any kind of knowledge whatsoever,
> then you're right. If you think (as I do) that Wikipedia should only be
> for topics of a certain importance, then in fact most of the pages
> listed there should be deleted.
>
> Again, I find it amazing that we have no policy on this. The deletion
> process cannot be fixed until we agree on the most basic criteria for
> deletion. We're supposed to delete pages that "will simply will never
> become encyclopedia articles", yet we have no basic agreement about what
> this means.

Thank you, Alex.  I couldn't agree more; the process can't possibly get
fixed until we agree in general terms on what should be deleted and what
should be kept.

Louis


subject: [Wikitech-l] Offline editor

body:
Magnus,

I would prefer to do ALL my edits off-line. Half the time, I save my
edits in a /lag or /edit conflict subfolder, as it is.

I'd love to be able to walk away and have my edits uploaded while I eat
lunch. And if the edit conflicts can't be resolved, I'll deal with that
problem on a full stomach!

The other half of the time (as when I'm editing an obscure article no
one has touched in weeks), I don't want to wait for the lag. All I care
about is (a) seeing what the marked-up text will look like and (b)
knowing that the edit will get uploaded in the next day or so.

I'm not asking for much, just utter perfection and ultimate convenience
;-)

Ed Poor


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>Maybe we should try PHPA:
>>
>>http://www.php-accelerator.co.uk/
>
>
> [fr] Nous l'utilisons d?j?. :)
> [eo] Ni jam uzas ghin. :)

Ah. I should probably get that on my test system then.

>>>* initial spaces in the title of a link with a namespace are now
>>>trimmed, so [[Wikipedia:_Oops]] now maps correctly to [[Wikipedia:Oops]]
>>>instead of generating a technically illegal title with initial
>>>whitespace in cur_title.
>>
>>What about [[Wikipedia:__Oops]]?
>
>
> [eo] Sinsekvo de spacoj jam estas unuigita, do estu:
> [fr] Selon ma memoire, une sequence des espaces serait unifi?e en une
>      espace:
>
>   'Wikipedia:__Oops' -> 'Wikipedia:_Oops' -> (4, 'Oops')

Okay, I just did a test and it looks like your memory serves you
correctly. Currently, [[Wikipedia:_____Oops]] will take you a page
titled [[Wikipedia:_Oops]]. I imagine when your latest fix is
implemented, it will become [[Wikipedia:Oops]].

-- ~~~~


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
If you write in both Esperanto and French,
then I'll understand you better than if
you write in French alone.  More generally,
the more Latin-script languages you write,
the better off I am -- unless you write English
(and even then, only if it's good English),
in which case additional languages add nothing.

Supposing that I am typical except (perhaps)
for my set of fluent languages ({English}),
then I'd avise people to write in as many languages
as they find convenient (barring maybe obscure ones
that are unlikely to find readers on the list).

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Carr

body:
Lir (as Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]) wrote:

>At [[Talk:Jesus]], besides being (in my not at all humble opinion) a most
>disagreeable person; Adam has stated that Jews hate Jesus (for good reason).
>I just think people should be aware that he said this, I am sure it has some
>bearing on...something or other. I also noticed that he didn't include Islam
>in his list of major world religions...Im sure you see what Im getting at.

Just for the record, as Lir's next message implies,
Adam (Carr) didn't imply that Islam is not a major world religion.
(Also Adam distinguishes hatred by "Judaism" from hatred by "Jews".)

Anyway, as advice to Lir, don't start off with a personal insult
(accurate or not is beside the point).  Just state the problem.
The items that you've mentioned are rather peripheral, in fact;
given your (unfortunately) low reputation, this won't help your case.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: banning

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I use the word banning and note blocking, because that
> is the one french users use. One must be aware that
> blocking and banning on international wikipedias, will
> have very similar significance.
>
> I do not think it is necessary that you switch off the
> procedure Tim, as I know what french people will vote.

14 vs 1.

>
> I would really would like that
> * the log feature is done, so tracking of who ban is
> available for public consideration
> * a system is made possible to warn people that a
> loggued in user has been banned (could it be a message
> at the top, or an automatic email, or automatic update
> of a visible banning log ?)
> * that on the message displayed to the banned user,
> the adress of the mailing list appears, and that the
> message sent be automatically approved by the emailer
> (perhaps could it be a wikimail to the mailing list)
> and this whether the user has a valid email address or
> not
> * that any first blocking be initially programmed to
> expire after a certain number of hours
> * perhaps that a specific page on wikipedia is made
> editable even by a loggued in user, for wikipedia
> communication. The banned user could not edit any page
> but this one.
>
> These are propositions.
> I think english people can handle blocking better than
> we can, with less risk of abuse.
> But since we have not your safeguard, I think we need
> other tools to avoid slipping.

See my comment on the bistro. Expiry times are easy, the log is in the
dev branch. If you have a proposal for a message which is displayed to
blocked users, I suggest you put it in the fr:Wikip?dia namespace, like
I did with [[en:Wikipedia:You have been blocked]]. Soon (when the CVS
branches are next merged), the message displayed will be directly
editable by any French administrator, or by any user if you choose to
unprotect it. The other suggestions are certainly nice ideas, but they
will take time to implement. We have to prioritise.

-- Tim Starling.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:06 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed
>
> Jake Nelson wrote:
>
> >The Cunctator wrote:
> >
> >>The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
> >>
> >>Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a
bad
> >>idea from the start.
> >>
> >>It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
> >>being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We
have
> >>methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
> >>than simply deleting them.
> >>
> >Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be
> >deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a
> period
> >of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced
red
> links
> >would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as
> well.
> >
> This has my support.  VfD seems to have become a nest of control
freaks
> determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable
rules.
>  It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to
> watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily
humours.
>
Aren't blanked pages indicated by a special color indicating stubs now?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The mailing list

body:
Lir (Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]) wrote:

>If the mailing list html page would place the newest emails at the top; then,
>a user wouldn't have to wait for the whole long thing to load, in order to
>view the newer information. They could just click stop and view the email. The
>same holds true for pages like the Village Pump.

The Village Pump /should/ be kept under 30K, limiting the problem.
But I would accept switching the order on the mailing list archives.
The person to talk to would be, I /think/, Jason Richey.
A post to <wikitech-L> would help you find out about that;
but readers of the mailing lists will also have to agree, of course!

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
[en]
I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks! I don't
mind if people write in French or German because the machine translation
provided by Systran seems to be quite sufficient to understand
conversations. Japanese is fine, especially if people spell out most of
the kanji in hiragana, because that way I might be able to put my junior
high school level Japanese to use. But there does not seem to be any
automatic translation service for Esperanto.

[fr]
Je veux juste aller sur le disque indiquant ceci: L'esp?ranto suce! Je
ne m'occupe pas de si les gens ?crivent en fran?ais, Allemand parce que
la traduction automatique fournie par Systran semble ?tre tout ? fait
suffisante pour comprendre des conversations. Le Japonais est tr?s bien,
particuli?rement si les gens d?finissent le kanji dans les hiragana.
Mais il ne semble pas y avoir aucun service de traduction automatique
pour l'esp?ranto.

[de]
Ich m?chte gerade auf die Aufzeichnung gehen, die dieses sagt: Esperanto
saugt! Ich k?mmere mich nicht, um wenn Leute auf franz?sisch schreiben,
Deutscher, weil die maschinelle ?bersetzung, die von Systran zur
Verf?gung gestellt wird, scheint, ziemlich gen?gend zu sein, Gespr?che
zu verstehen. Japaner ist fein, besonders wenn Leute aus dem Kanji in
den Hiragana buchstabieren. Aber es scheint, kein automatische
?bersetzung Service f?r Esperanto geben.

-- Tim Starling.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Alex Rosen wrote in part:

>If you think that Wikipedia is for any kind of knowledge whatsoever,
>then you're right. If you think (as I do) that Wikipedia should only be
>for topics of a certain importance, then in fact most of the pages
>listed there should be deleted.

>Again, I find it amazing that we have no policy on this. The deletion
>process cannot be fixed until we agree on the most basic criteria for
>deletion. We're supposed to delete pages that "will simply will never
>become encyclopedia articles", yet we have no basic agreement about what
>this means.

One reason that this hasn't been spelt out explicitly very much
is that the notion that Wikipedia should limit itself to "important" topics
has, IME, been at all popular only relatively recently (the past year).
The old notion was that, since [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper|]],
we could (potentially) include articles on every poker variation
and every Simpsons character (I mention these examples specifically,
since The Lord High Jimbo himself agreed to them on that meta page ^_^).
But this idea is less popular now, as we strive to make Wikipedia
look more professional.  Personally, I wish Sifterpedia were professional
(instead of almost nonexistent), Wikipedia remaining relatively expiremental.

One should also note the difference between /potential/ articles
and stubs that probably won't go anywhere anytime soon.
I definitely agree that /most/ Simpsons characters shouldn't have
articles at the moment, since we don't have content for those articles.
Thus they ought to redirect to a larger article like
[[List of Simpsons characters]] (or whatever it's called).
But /potentially/, somebody might come along and expand the material,
thus creating articles on individual characters that didn't use to have them.
That would be a Good Thing (IMO)! but it would also have some opposition now.

-- Toby


from_name: Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]

subject: [WikiEN-l] The mailing list

body:
If the mailing list html page would place the newest emails at the top; then, a user wouldn't have to wait for the whole long thing to load, in order to view the newer information. They could just click stop and view the email. The same holds true for pages like the Village Pump.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/d607829a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Jake Nelson wrote:
>
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>> The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
>>>
>>> Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad
>>> idea from the start.
>>>
>>> It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
>>> being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have
>>> methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
>>> than simply deleting them.
>>>
>> Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be
>> deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a
>> period
>> of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced
>> red links
>> would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as
>> well.
>>
> This has my support.  VfD seems to have become a nest of control
> freaks determined to invent newer, more complicated and more
> unworkable rules. It's managing to suck in more and more useful
> contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with
> maintaining our bodily humours.

I'm not sure I really see that.  There are surely quite a few
contentious issues, but the vast majority of articles are plain nonsense
that *should* be deleted, and generally there is no opposition to their
deletion.  Things like self-aggrandizement (someone listing their own
resume, an ad for their website, etc.), just plain factually wrong
information (made-up characters in non-existent books), and so on.  I
spend a good deal of time clearing out the resolved issues from VfD
every day or two, and the vast majority of the stuff I clear out of
there is completely non-controversial; the only reason it needs to be
listed at all is to make sure the lister didn't make a mistake
(occasionally something gets listed as self-aggrandizement, for example,
but turns out to be about someone who is notable in some way or
another).  But most of the time it turns out to be some graduate
student's resume, in which case after the 7 days deletion is perfectly
reasonable.

-Mark


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>Alex Rosen wrote in part:
>
>>If you think that Wikipedia is for any kind of knowledge whatsoever,
>>then you're right. If you think (as I do) that Wikipedia should only be
>>for topics of a certain importance, then in fact most of the pages
>>listed there should be deleted.
>>
>>Again, I find it amazing that we have no policy on this. The deletion
>>process cannot be fixed until we agree on the most basic criteria for
>>deletion. We're supposed to delete pages that "will simply will never
>>become encyclopedia articles", yet we have no basic agreement about what
>>this means.
>>
>
>One reason that this hasn't been spelt out explicitly very much
>is that the notion that Wikipedia should limit itself to "important" topics
>has, IME, been at all popular only relatively recently (the past year).
>The old notion was that, since [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper|]],
>we could (potentially) include articles on every poker variation
>and every Simpsons character (I mention these examples specifically,
>since The Lord High Jimbo himself agreed to them on that meta page ^_^).
>But this idea is less popular now, as we strive to make Wikipedia
>look more professional.  Personally, I wish Sifterpedia were professional
>(instead of almost nonexistent), Wikipedia remaining relatively expiremental.
>
>One should also note the difference between /potential/ articles
>and stubs that probably won't go anywhere anytime soon.
>I definitely agree that /most/ Simpsons characters shouldn't have
>articles at the moment, since we don't have content for those articles.
>Thus they ought to redirect to a larger article like
>[[List of Simpsons characters]] (or whatever it's called).
>But /potentially/, somebody might come along and expand the material,
>thus creating articles on individual characters that didn't use to have them.
>That would be a Good Thing (IMO)! but it would also have some opposition now.
>
I see a lot of what's going on at VfD as causing a lot more problems
than it's solving.  It's leaving a lot of people uneasy, and that alone
can't be good for Wkipedia and Wikilove.  It can't be good when half of
the population is on edge wodering what these loose canons are going to
do next.  It can't be good when our failure to participate at VfD is
taken as a sign of consent.  What ever happened to the possibility that
people fail to participate in these votes because they have other or
better things to do with their time?

It's all getting to the point where keeping articles on the Bouvier
sisters looks more and more like the lesser evil.  Taking anti-wiki
action to get these people's attention becomes increasingly more attractive.

There is no doubt that the Sifter project, or the 1.0 project, or even
Nupedia require more rigid standards on matters of deletion. Any of
those projects would be a much better place for these compulsive
deleters to spend their time.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

body:
[fr]

Les traducteurs automatiques fonctionnent pas mal pour les langues latines.
Aujourd'hui, nous avons eu une bonne exp?rience avec Tim sur l'?quivalent
fran?ais du ? Village pump ?.

Mais les traducteurs ne sont ni le probl?me ni la solution.

La chose la plus importante serrait de centraliser toutes les discussions
concernant les prises de d?cision.

 [de]

Die automatischen ?bersetzer funktionieren schlecht f?r die lateinischen
Sprachen. Heute haben wir eine gute Erfahrung mit Tim auf dem franz?sischen
?quivalent "des Dorfes gehabt pump". Aber die ?bersetzer sind weder das
Problem noch die L?sung. Die wichtigste Sache dr?ckte, alle Diskussionen zu
zentralisieren, was die Entscheidungsfindungen betrifft.

[es]

Los traductores autom?ticos no funcionan gravemente para las idiomas
latinas. Hoy, ten?amos buena experiencia con Tim en el equivalente franc?s
de la "bomba de la aldea". Pero los traductores son ni el problema ni la
soluci?n. La cosa m?s significativa apret? para centralizar todas las
discusiones referentes a la decisio'n-makings.

[en]

The automatic translators do not function badly for the Latin languages.
Today, we had good experience with Tim on the French equivalent of the
"Village pump". But the translators are neither the problem nor the
solution. The most significant thing tightened to centralize all the
discussions concerning the decision-makings.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks

> On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 21:03 US/Pacific, Tim Starling wrote:
> > But there does not seem to be any automatic translation service for
> > Esperanto.
>
> [eo] Jen unu: http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html
>
> "Welcome to the Vikipedio in Esperanto, a nettally being built
> encyclopedia.  Present-day?  Is Tuesday, the 21-a of October, 2003 /
> (the?  UTC), the Esperanto-versio to begin?  Is in November 2001, and
> we now cooperate about 9244 articles.  A thanks to?  Some people!  We
> want to have than 100 000, so we should work!"
>
> ;)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Thanks for pointing out some of the flaws in [[Votes for Deletion]].
>
>I pretty much ignore that page completely. Except a few cases where
>someone called my attention to a doomed article they thought I might
>care about.
>
>Instead, once or twice a month I glance at the article deletion log and
>resurrect anything that was thrown out too hastily (it's the Ent in me,
>I guess: no such thing as dead wood, hoom, hoom).
>
>The voting process is silly, and there's no consensus.
>
>Whatever happened to [[Wikipedia:be bold]]?
>
>Anyway, I hardly ever want to delete anything; I'd rather fix it. I can
>followe Ahoermeister (spelling?) around and un-delete half the stuff he
>throws out and make a perfectly good stub out of it...
>
>
While that's often true, it's also often not.  If some grad student puts
his resume up, what are you supposed to do with it?  Do we really need a
stub saying "so and so is a first-year graduate student at the
university of idaho; he has not yet published any papers or done any
noteworthy research"?  What about the case a few months ago where
someone was making up characters supposedly from books that as far as
anyone can discern don't actually exist?  Malicious or just plain
useless stuff like that really needs to go, and there's not much else
you can do with it.  And putting it on VfD is better than assuming it's
crap and deleting on sight, because sometimes you turn out to be wrong
and it actually wasn't crap, so it's nice to run it by people first to
make sure.

As far as stubbing things goes as well, I'm not that sure it makes much
difference either way.  If the submission was about a legitimate topic
but a content-free submission, nothing's really lost by deleting it.
Sure, you can undelete and stub it, but if it was content-free anyway,
you could just as easily stub it from scratch without undeleting.  It
doesn't take too much research to write two sentences from scratch on
most topics (a google search usually suffices).  I'd personally rather
just delete crap, and readd it later when someone has something
contentful to write about it; there's thousands of potential articles to
be written, so there's no reason we should be forced to write a
particular one right now just because someone submitted nonsense with
its title.  Just delete it, and write it later if anyone feels like it
(or write a different article instead; doesn't matter much either way).

The main problem I see with not deleting crap is that it won't all get
fixed for a while, and then the links will be blue instead of red.
Instead of a source text, I'd much rather have a red link.  The source
text adds no content (it's easy to google for), so there's no advantage
to having it on Wikipedia in the meantime until a real article gets
written, and some disadvantage.

-Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: banning

body:
> [fr:]
> Aoineko. Je pense que tu sous estimes l'impact
> psychologique d'un blocage, ou de tout situation
> d'exclusion, m?me temporaire. Ce n'est pas le fait de
> relacher un innocent apr?s coup qui efface d'un coup
> de baguette magique l'impression d'?tre exclu. Et le
> fait de reconnaitre une erreur apr?s coup ?galement, a
> ces limites en termes de responsabilit?. Toute
> personne qui a un pouvoir, quel qu'il soit, doit ?tre
> capable de se justifier, doit accepter de reconnaitre
> ses erreurs, et doit ?tre pr?te ? les assumer. Toi,
> moi, Chirac (enfin, dans le meilleur des mondes). Il
> ne doit pas y avoir pouvoir sans controle de pouvoir
> et sans pouvoir retirer le dit pouvoir ? celui qui en
> abuse.
> Cela ne veut pas dire que cela sera pratiqu?, mais en
> cas de besoin, et pour l'avenir, c'est n?cessaire ? un
> bon ?quilibre.

[fr]
Si quelqu'un commet un acte de ? vandalisme pure et dur ?, je me fiche
completement de l'impact psychologique du blocage.
Je respecte que l'on soit contre tout blocage, mais je refuse l'argument de
l'editeur logg?.
En quoi aurait t'il plus de droit que l'editeur anonyme !

> [fr:]
> Aoineko, je d?bloquerais tout utilisateur qui sera
> bloqu? pour des actes autres que vandalisme pur et
> dur.  En particulier lorsque l'utilisateur sera
> provoqu? par d'autres ?diteurs.

[fr]
Je bloquerais tout utilisateur pour des actes de ? vandalisme pur et dur ?.
M?me si l'utilisateur aura ?t? provoqu? par d'autres ?diteurs.

Dresse mieux ton troll la prochaine fois ;o)
Pas de museliere, mais si il commence a casser la maison, faut sortir le
baton.

Aoineko


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Newest e-mails on top (was: [WikiEN-l] The mailing
	list)

body:
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] [mailto:[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:26 PM
To: WikiEN-l
Subject: [WikiEN-l] The mailing list

If the mailing list html page would place the newest emails at the top;
then, a user wouldn't have to wait for the whole long thing to load, in
order to view the newer information. They could just click stop and view
the email. The same holds true for pages like the Village Pump.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031024/67c2f9ed/attachment.html>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Carr

body:
Toby is right, and I'll add that BOTH Adam's seem to be making personal
remarks. Ironically, it's on a page about someone who said [[turn the
other cheek]] (see Wikipedia article).

I hope neither of them "takes this observation personally".

Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] Offline editor

body:
Good news, everyone! :-)

My offline browser ("wikipedia-in-a-box") is now also an offline editor.
You can edit, preview, and save in your local database, just like you
can do on wikipedia - only *way* faster.

In fact, I am already thinking about a "split screen" mode - top is the
edit box, bottom is the preview, which gets updated by JavaScript on
every change to the edit box. Poor Ed's (eh, man's) WYSIWYG ;-)

You can download it with the German test db from the old place (~30 MB):
	http://download.wikipedia.org/wikipedia_standalone.zip

I'll have to try Brion's linux makefile later. But, is there a
standalone http server for linux as well? Otherwise, this won't really
work...

Now just give me the wikipedia images, and we can start mass-dumping CDs :-)

Magnus


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Delirium wrote:

> [...]  If some grad student puts his resume up, what are you supposed
> to do with it?  Do we really need a stub saying "so and so is a
> first-year graduate student at the university of idaho; he has not yet
> published any papers or done any noteworthy research"?  What about the
> case a few months ago where someone was making up characters
> supposedly from books that as far as anyone can discern don't actually
> exist?  Malicious or just plain useless stuff like that really needs
> to go, and there's not much else you can do with it.  And putting it
> on VfD is better than assuming it's crap and deleting on sight,
> because sometimes you turn out to be wrong and it actually wasn't
> crap, so it's nice to run it by people first to make sure.
>
> As far as stubbing things goes as well, I'm not that sure it makes
> much difference either way.  If the submission was about a legitimate
> topic but a content-free submission, nothing's really lost by deleting
> it.  Sure, you can undelete and stub it, but if it was content-free
> anyway, you could just as easily stub it from scratch without
> undeleting.  It doesn't take too much research to write two sentences
> from scratch on most topics (a google search usually suffices).  I'd
> personally rather just delete crap, and readd it later when someone
> has something contentful to write about it; there's thousands of
> potential articles to be written, so there's no reason we should be
> forced to write a particular one right now just because someone
> submitted nonsense with its title.  Just delete it, and write it later
> if anyone feels like it (or write a different article instead; doesn't
> matter much either way).
>
> The main problem I see with not deleting crap is that it won't all get
> fixed for a while, and then the links will be blue instead of red.
> Instead of a source text, I'd much rather have a red link.  The source
> text adds no content (it's easy to google for), so there's no
> advantage to having it on Wikipedia in the meantime until a real
> article gets written, and some disadvantage.

I think part of the problem is that VfD is a lightning rod for dispute.
90% of the discussion could
have taken place on the talk page (remember talk pages? :-) ), and as
usual there's nothing to prevent
poor content from being severely modified or even deleted. Junk article
names could be redirected to
a designated page called [[Dead End]], and if nobody ever re-edits the
article into a non-redir, then a
periodic scan of "what links here" will give candidates for quiet
deletion if anyone wants to bother
then.

Much of the time the junk articles are orphans, so it's unlikely that
readers will ever see
them, and so there's really no urgency about doing something with them
*today*. Creation
rate is just a small percentage of legitimate article creation, so they
will alway be a
minority.

Stan


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Mailing lists

body:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:04:33PM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> >[eo]
[...]
> >[fr]
[...]
> Well, between Esperanto and French, I can understand this!

Well I hope it's okay then if I expect everyone to resolve issues in
Hungarian language, since I only understand English and Hungarian?

Akkor ezennel javaslom, hogy Wikip?dia editor csak v?rszerz?d?ssel lehessen
valaki, teliholdn?l egy fekete kakast ?ldozva. Ha valaki nem ?rt egyet, azt
jelezze. Ha mindenkinek j?, akkor egy h?t m?lva bevezethetj?k. :-)

--grin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Delirium wrote:

> While that's often true, it's also often not.  If some grad student
> puts his resume up, what are you supposed to do with it?  Do we really
> need a stub saying "so and so is a first-year graduate student at the
> university of idaho; he has not yet published any papers or done any
> noteworthy research"?  What about the case a few months ago where
> someone was making up characters supposedly from books that as far as
> anyone can discern don't actually exist?  Malicious or just plain
> useless stuff like that really needs to go, and there's not much else
> you can do with it.  And putting it on VfD is better than assuming
> it's crap and deleting on sight, because sometimes you turn out to be
> wrong and it actually wasn't crap, so it's nice to run it by people
> first to make sure.
>
> As far as stubbing things goes as well, I'm not that sure it makes
> much difference either way.  If the submission was about a legitimate
> topic but a content-free submission, nothing's really lost by deleting
> it.  Sure, you can undelete and stub it, but if it was content-free
> anyway, you could just as easily stub it from scratch without
> undeleting.  It doesn't take too much research to write two sentences
> from scratch on most topics (a google search usually suffices).  I'd
> personally rather just delete crap, and readd it later when someone
> has something contentful to write about it; there's thousands of
> potential articles to be written, so there's no reason we should be
> forced to write a particular one right now just because someone
> submitted nonsense with its title.  Just delete it, and write it later
> if anyone feels like it (or write a different article instead; doesn't
> matter much either way).
>
> The main problem I see with not deleting crap is that it won't all get
> fixed for a while, and then the links will be blue instead of red.
> Instead of a source text, I'd much rather have a red link.  The source
> text adds no content (it's easy to google for), so there's no
> advantage to having it on Wikipedia in the meantime until a real
> article gets written, and some disadvantage.

Some people just don't get it.  Most of what Mark describes really
should be deleted, but that's not the issue.  The issue is about a
demented voting system that alienates people.  It's about people who
judge the work of others to be crap.  If people don't get around to
fixing these articles for a while it's NO BIG DEAL.  In the midst of
167,000 articles this handful is no challenge to the credibility of
Wikipedia.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Thanks for pointing out some of the flaws in [[Votes for Deletion]].

I pretty much ignore that page completely. Except a few cases where
someone called my attention to a doomed article they thought I might
care about.

Instead, once or twice a month I glance at the article deletion log and
resurrect anything that was thrown out too hastily (it's the Ent in me,
I guess: no such thing as dead wood, hoom, hoom).

The voting process is silly, and there's no consensus.

Whatever happened to [[Wikipedia:be bold]]?

Anyway, I hardly ever want to delete anything; I'd rather fix it. I can
followe Ahoermeister (spelling?) around and un-delete half the stuff he
throws out and make a perfectly good stub out of it...

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saints

body:
I agree with Delerium; we should try to avoid including titles as part of a formal statement of the person's name.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/b25efe97/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Some people just don't get it.  Most of what Mark describes really
> should be deleted, but that's not the issue.  The issue is about a
> demented voting system that alienates people.  It's about people who
> judge the work of others to be crap.  If people don't get around to
> fixing these articles for a while it's NO BIG DEAL.  In the midst of
> 167,000 articles this handful is no challenge to the credibility of
> Wikipedia.

I'm not that sure about that.  I've actually run across non-articles on
Wikipedia before while doing research, which was rather annoying (for
example, a dump of the full text of some treaty masquerading as an
"article" on that treaty).  If we didn't delete these sorts of things,
there'd be a lot more of that, which I think would hurt Wikipedia's
credibility ("250,000 articles, but only 190,000 real ones" isn't a good
tagline).  When someone finds a Wikipedia article, it should be at least
a decent stub, in order to keep our reputation for quality at least
moderately high.  "Oh, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this
subject" is a lot better than "Wikipedia has an article on this subject,
let me click on that... oh, never mind, it's not a real article, just a
155KB text dump."

I do agree that the whole process should be less antagonistic, but I'm
not too sure what to do about that.  There are some fundamental
disagreements about what sorts of things should be in Wikipedia (for
example, [[List of multiracial people]]), and somehow these have to be
resolved.  I'm not sure "just don't delete any of them" is the best
resolution (another easy one would be "delete all lists", but I don't
think that's particularly good either--though it might not be any worse
than "leave all lists", really).

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion Poetry

body:
If I think anything needs deleting, I just delete it. Right away.

So far, I've gotten away with that. Larry (anyone remember Larry?) said
to "be bold", and I've been bold ever since (tempered by occasional
meekness).

Grad student resumes go right in the garbage; I'm not waiting a week for
the 11-point vFd process. Same as graffiti.

This is a WIKI, fer crying out loud!!!

Uncle Ed
Going to bed
Because his head
Is full
Of stupid jinx
And foolish kinks
That pull

His mind from work
Like Captain Kirk
Beaming down to save the crew
So do not shirk
Or meekly lurk
Do what you have to do


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Esperanto sucks

body:
-- en <fr>
-- http://babelfish.altavista.com
-- http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html

Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> Your German sucks.
> I hate translation machines cuz they will NEVER be as good as a human
> translator. If there's no machine for Esperanto, than that should be
> seen as an advantage, cuz we're save from such bad translations.

They can already translate far better than a human if that human happens
to be me. You don't have to read it if you don't want to -- just cover
your eyes ;) <Ils peuvent d?j? traduire bien meilleur qu'un humain si
cet humain s'av?re justement ?tre moi. Vous ne devez pas le lire si vous
ne voulez pas -- couverture juste vos yeux ;) >

Brion Vibber wrote:
 > [eo] Jen unu: http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html

Thank you Brion. But it doesn't seem to go the other way. So you'll have
to put up with French. <Merci Brion. Mais il ne semble pas aller l'autre
mani?re. Ainsi vous devrez accepter le fran?ais.>

Brion Vibber wrote:
 > [eo]
 > Eksperimente, dum la sekvaj tagoj mi ne parolos angle en Vikipedio. Por
 > kontakti min, nepre uzu Esperanton au( la francan. Se vi ne parolas tiujn
 > lingvojn, serc^u tradukiston. Mi esperas demonstri iomete la frustron
 > kiun sentas la eksterangla vikipediistularo; mi petas pardonon se tio
 > g^enas.

Machine translation:

:Experimentally, during the next days I will not speak in English in
:Vikipedio. In order to contact me, without fail use Esperanto or
:French! If you do not speak those languages, should search for
:translator. I hope to demonstrate slightly somewhat the frustrate which
: feels the eksterangla vikipediistularo; I requests a pardon if that
:bothers.

Fine by me. Go for your life. <Fin par moi. Allez pendant votre vie.>

-- Tim Starling.


body:
--- user_Jamesday <user_Jamesday at myrealbox.com> wrote:

> 6. Type " nominate for VfD in 2 weeks. ~~~~"

Actually we want to keep comments brief as possible --
so just VFD is always fine. Also, just use ~~~ -- not
~~~~. Saves space.

> 10. If it's a second listing, follow step 9 but
> suggest VfD instead of cleanup.

Exactly -- the Cleanup process is a separate track,
but parallel to the VFD process.  Sysops can delete
junk all they want, but Cleanup at least implies a
different intent --that pages in one way or another
can be
"cleaned up."  Which is a nice idea, WP being a wiki
and all...

Cleanup is like PNA only with a better name, and the
implied fact that there is some junk there. Say I have
to leave in two minutes, and I dont have time to cache
the entire VFD page - Ill throw it on WP:CU.  VFD is
where people like Kurt Kawohl hang out. Thats the way
I think of it. ;)

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

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

> Some people just don't get it.  Most of what Mark
> describes really
> should be deleted, but that's not the issue.  The
> issue is about a
> demented voting system that alienates people.  It's
> about people who
> judge the work of others to be crap.  If people
> don't get around to
> fixing these articles for a while it's NO BIG DEAL.
> In the midst of
> 167,000 articles this handful is no challenge to the
> credibility of
> Wikipedia.
>
> Ec

My G-sh, Ray -- you're actually pretty damn
to-the-point when you get irritated.

:D
~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Some people just don't get it.  Most of what Mark describes really
>> should be deleted, but that's not the issue.  The issue is about a
>> demented voting system that alienates people.  It's about people who
>> judge the work of others to be crap.  If people don't get around to
>> fixing these articles for a while it's NO BIG DEAL.  In the midst of
>> 167,000 articles this handful is no challenge to the credibility of
>> Wikipedia.
>
>
> I'm not that sure about that.  I've actually run across non-articles
> on Wikipedia before while doing research, which was rather annoying
> (for example, a dump of the full text of some treaty masquerading as
> an "article" on that treaty).  If we didn't delete these sorts of
> things, there'd be a lot more of that, which I think would hurt
> Wikipedia's credibility ("250,000 articles, but only 190,000 real
> ones" isn't a good tagline).  When someone finds a Wikipedia article,
> it should be at least a decent stub, in order to keep our reputation
> for quality at least moderately high.  "Oh, Wikipedia doesn't have an
> article on this subject" is a lot better than "Wikipedia has an
> article on this subject, let me click on that... oh, never mind, it's
> not a real article, just a 155KB text dump."

But under the current Wikipedia rules, you're allowed and even
encouraged to replace that
text dump with a one-sentence stub, no questions asked, no votes
required, and almost
certainly no one objecting. It should arouse curiosity that a normal
everyday task of clearing
junk text suddenly becomes a big deal when it's a '''DELETION''', since
the net effect is
very nearly the same.

Ironically, we even tell people not to make a big deal when reverting
vandalism,
so as not to gratify the vandals' desire for attention.  How they must
enjoy the fierce
combats that erupt over VfD-listed articles! (And indeed some of the
postings on
VfD clearly indicate that articles are being created precisely to start
fights - the
trolls are now having to push their plates back before they burst at the
seams. :-) )

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:

> I'm not that sure about that.  I've actually run
> across non-articles on
> Wikipedia before while doing research, which was
> rather annoying (for
> example, a dump of the full text of some treaty
> masquerading as an
> "article" on that treaty).

So put them on Cleanup! Leave "VFD" as your sole POV
opinion of the "issue" -- but report the actual *issue
on Cleanup.

> If we didn't delete
> these sorts of things,
> there'd be a lot more of that, which I think would
> hurt Wikipedia's
> credibility ("250,000 articles, but only 190,000
> real ones" isn't a good
> tagline).

"If we dont kill them they are going to kill us...
Aarrggh!"  You dont belong to any... cults... do you
Mark? I mean besides this one. :)

> When someone finds a Wikipedia article,
> it should be at least
> a decent stub, in order to keep our reputation for
> quality at least
> moderately high.

This can be better emphasized with consistent
correction -- by example -- wikifying, making a
comment, etc. Not slapping the hand of the people that
make a wiki work. Dont be wikelitist now....

> "Oh, Wikipedia doesn't have an
> article on this
> subject" is a lot better than "Wikipedia has an
> article on this subject,
> let me click on that... oh, never mind, it's not a
> real article, just a
> 155KB text dump."

All your complaints are about newbies and their
newbieism -- its better to deal with them with some
respect than simply flushing what they do down the
drain. I remember when "Stevertigo" was up for
deletion -- someone ( I forget) made it a simple
redirect -- I remember feeling sort of.. picked on
just for that... and maybe if people werent reasonable
about it (Rick...) then that would have soured my
opinion of the community.

> I do agree that the whole process should be less
> antagonistic, but I'm
> not too sure what to do about that.

Try "Cleaning up" articles instead of automatically
"Delete" ing them.

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Stevertigo wrote:

>Try "Cleaning up" articles instead of automatically
>"Delete" ing them.
>
>
In general I'm fairly convinced.  I previously hadn't been familiar with
Cleanup (it was a little bit baffling the one time I stumbled across
it).  In the future if I come across a text dump of a treaty or
something similar, I'll either replace with a stub, or if I don't have
the time or inclination list on Cleanup so it doesn't get overlooked.

The main remaining problem for VfD then is things that don't belong in
Wikipedia at all.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's a
non-antagonistic way to resolve that, since the very idea of what
belongs in Wikipedia is a contentious issue, with a wide range of
opinions on just how inclusive we should be.  To pick just one example
currently on there, some people find [[List of localities in Britain
where rare ant species had previously been recorded but are no longer
considered to be present]] to be a useful encyclopedia article, while
others consider the very existence of an article with such a title as
bordering on the ludicrous.  It's not really an issue of cleaning up,
because the people who object to its inclusion are objecting to its very
existence, not to its current state.

Oddly I think [[List of...]] discussions are probably a good 80% of the
contentious issues on VfD these days, so *something* needs to be done
about that.  What, I'm not sure.  The other 20% seem to be mostly "is
this famous or just self-aggrandizing" (cf. [[Daniel C. Boyer]], random
webcomics, etc.), but I think we can manage to handle those if we got
rid of all the List discussions.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Ed Poor wrote in part:

>Instead, once or twice a month I glance at the article deletion log and
>resurrect anything that was thrown out too hastily (it's the Ent in me,
>I guess: no such thing as dead wood, hoom, hoom).

Ed, I'd like to hear more (on the list or by email)
about how you find this tactic works for you --
especially given the cautious approach you take to most controversy.
For example, do people get upset at your undeletions?
Do you find yourself spending a lot of time researching good stubs
to replace deleted text on articles that you'd otherwise ignore?
And so on.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion Poetry

body:
Ed Poor wrote in part:

>If I think anything needs deleting, I just delete it. Right away.

>This is a WIKI, fer crying out loud!!!

But it is, in the words of one wiki (not ours!) "a very unwiki wiki".

One example of this is the fact that most users cannot undo deletions
(nor undeletions, for that matter).  Ultimately, /this/ is the reason
that we have to worry so much over deletion policy.
Otherwise, deletion policy would be like all other edit policy,
and admins would only get involved in deletion/undeletion wars
(which just be like any other edit war).

There are reasons for this particular unwiki feature, of course.
But there it is, all the same.

-- Toby


from_name: James Duffy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Saints

body:
>From: Karl Eichwalder <ke at gnu.franken.de>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Saints
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:37:23 +0200
>
>"James Duffy" <jtdire at hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > You don't know your theology. He (or she) was made a saint in the belief
> > that he or she was in heaven, because of his or her conduct on
> > earth. Ipso facto, s/he was a saint when he lived, and declared a saint
> > when he/she died.
>
>This is true from the POV of the Church.

Garbage. I was simply pointing out the complexity which bares little
parallel to your simplistic theories.
>
>--
>                                                          |      ,__o
>                                                          |    _-\_<,
>http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Delirium wrote:

> In general I'm fairly convinced.  I previously hadn't been familiar
> with Cleanup (it was a little bit baffling the one time I stumbled
> across it).  In the future if I come across a text dump of a treaty or
> something similar, I'll either replace with a stub, or if I don't have
> the time or inclination list on Cleanup so it doesn't get overlooked.

Hooray!!! We're getting somewhere!
Nobody seriously objected when the entire text of "Origin of Species",
"Macbeth" and the Oregon State Constitution were deleted.

> The main remaining problem for VfD then is things that don't belong in
> Wikipedia at all.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's a
> non-antagonistic way to resolve that, since the very idea of what
> belongs in Wikipedia is a contentious issue, with a wide range of
> opinions on just how inclusive we should be.  To pick just one example
> currently on there, some people find [[List of localities in Britain
> where rare ant species had previously been recorded but are no longer
> considered to be present]] to be a useful encyclopedia article, while
> others consider the very existence of an article with such a title as
> bordering on the ludicrous.  It's not really an issue of cleaning up,
> because the people who object to its inclusion are objecting to its
> very existence, not to its current state.

My inclination with the long example-title would be to create a
reasonable place to redirect, change all the links that lead there to
the new title, wait for a month, then quietly delete the long-titled
article.  A lot of other lists would be better served by consolidation.

A very few lists seem to generate heat well beyond their merit.  The
List of heterosexuals has been like that.  It's become a lightning rod.
 Geting rid of that one will just send the lightning elsewhere.
 Occasionally threatening to delete it (without actually doing so) keeps
the attention of its proponents focused where they can be relatively
harmless. :-)

As for lists generally, I think that they have a peculiar fascination
for people.  I suspect that it is just as strong for Wikipedia readers
as for writers.  I don't know whether there have ever been any
psychological studies on this kind of thing, nor do I know how we might
go about designing an experiment to scientifically test this hypothesis.

> Oddly I think [[List of...]] discussions are probably a good 80% of
> the contentious issues on VfD these days, so *something* needs to be
> done about that.  What, I'm not sure.  The other 20% seem to be mostly
> "is this famous or just self-aggrandizing" (cf. [[Daniel C. Boyer]],
> random webcomics, etc.), but I think we can manage to handle those if
> we got rid of all the List discussions.

That "other 20%" is a big grab-bag.  I tend to give the writer the
benefit of the doubt, and to look at these on a case by case basis with
many different possibilities.  If an orphan article with no redeeming
value was contributed by an anonymous user and nothing has happened to
it for a month no one will notice if it's quietly deleted.

Ec

>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
Stan Shebs wrote in part:

>I think part of the problem is that VfD is a lightning
>rod for dispute.  90% of the discussion could
>have taken place on the talk page (remember talk
>pages? :-) ), and as usual there's nothing to prevent
>poor content from being severely modified or even
>deleted. Junk article names could be redirected to
>a designated page called [[Dead End]], and if nobody
>ever re-edits the article into a non-redir, then a
>periodic scan of "what links here" will give
>candidates for quiet deletion if anyone wants to bother
>then.

The idea of [[Dead End]] (or [[Wikipedia:Dead End]], to be proper)
gives me two immediate reactions:

1)  This isn't as clean or professional as a straight-out deletion.
2)  This is reversible by any editor, thus much more wiki.

I find it likely that much of the acrimony on VfD,
and certainly the impetus for voting over consensus,
is the inherenly unwiki nature of admin-led deletions.
Making the process more wiki won't just please some ideologues
(like Ec, or Cunc, or even myself for that matter);
it will also lower the finality, hence importance, of the vote,
leading to reduced tension and calmer tempers.
(Goodness knows I hate to look at VfD anymore.)

Some people will probably find (1) much more important than (2).
But (1) is a dime a dozen; (2) is what makes Wikipedia what it is.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
Delirium (Mark) wrote in part:

>There are some fundamental
>disagreements about what sorts of things should be in Wikipedia (for
>example, [[List of multiracial people]]), and somehow these have to be
>resolved.  I'm not sure "just don't delete any of them" is the best
>resolution (another easy one would be "delete all lists", but I don't
>think that's particularly good either--though it might not be any worse
>than "leave all lists", really).

I'm convinced that some of these lists, even ones that I've defended,
have been created by trolls (less newbie than they pretend to be)
trying to test Wikipedia's policy or accuse us of hypocrisy or bias.
If deletion was not such a big deal -- by being more wiki in nature --
then it would be easier to ignore (that is, don't feed) the trolls.

I think that Wikipedia has too many pointless lists.
But if they're being created by people that are actually interested,
rather than by people that are out to prove a point, then they're harmless.
So I vote ("vote" verb used in OED sense 9b) "leave all lists" --
with the exception of those that would be deleted for some other reason.
(After all, one should never leave "all" unqualified.)

-- Toby


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Carr

body:
No, I really don't.  Please explain.

RickK

Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] <[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
At [[Talk:Jesus]], besides being (in my not at all humble opinion) a most disagreeable person; Adam has stated that Jews hate Jesus (for good reason). I just think people should be aware that he said this, I am sure it has some bearing on...something or other. I also noticed that he didn't include Islam in his list of major world religions...Im sure you see what Im getting at.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/14389bfe/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam Carr addendum (double)

body:
What ARE you gabbling about?

RickK

Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] <[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> wrote:
I sent a second email (which I don't think was received), noting that Adam hadn't really neglected the Muslims -- I dunno. Im not trying to cast him as some crazy; its just, he is being rude to me and I don't like it. Anyways, Im sure Erik Moller is getting pretty sick of seeing my rapidfire mailing list posts, so Ill stop trying to clarify what Im trying to communicate.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/cd0348de/attachment.htm


body:
Gee, I don't know.  10 steps instead of 1.  Wow, how easy is that?

RickK

user_Jamesday <user_Jamesday at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> RickK wrote:
> No, no, no, no, no! Kill that obnoxious Cleanup
> proposal. It's impossible to understand

1. Copy article wikilink.
2. Visit cleanup
3. Edit
4. Move to line above first entry
5. paste wikilink
6. Type " nominate for VfD in 2 weeks. ~~~~"
7. Save.

Optional:

8. Look for a VfD nominated page with a date 2 weeks ago and not nominated by you and look at it. List it on VfD if it still looks as though it needs it.
9. If you don't think it needs it, drop a note to the lister sayin that it looks OK now so you've removed it from cleanup and ask them to list it on cleanup as a "second listing" if they still think it needs work.
10. If it's a second listing, follow step 9 but suggest VfD instead of cleanup.

Optional, desirable:

11. Scan cleanup to see if there's a page which interests you and fix it or post a note to the primary author(s) which politely reminds them of the page. If they are a newbie, suggest what is needed to fix it and point them to a good example, help articles and your talk page as a way for them to ask for more help. If the page no longer needs work and isn't a deletion candidate, remove it from cleanup.

> and unworkable.

Why is what I just described more unworkable than the current VfD process? Is it more or less likely to help and encourage newbies than a VfD listing?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/0e2a49bd/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
How do you expect to make links red if they arent' deleted?

RickK

Jake Nelson <jnelson at soncom.com> wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
> The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
>
> Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad
> idea from the start.
>
> It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
> being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have
> methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
> than simply deleting them.

Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be
deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period
of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links
would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.

-- Jake

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/90163d85/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
WHAT????? Are you saying that those of us who actually believe in deleting obnoxious and ridiculous articles are somehow damaging Wikipedia?

RickK

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks
determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules.
It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to
watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours.

Ec

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031024/f1629577/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
This is an insult to the people who actually participate in Votes for Deletion and feel that we and the page provide a useful function.  If you feel that any and all pages need to be kept, then why don't you say so on the VfD page?  Because you are better than that?  You're above it?  VfD is beneath your contempt?  You are so much superior to those of us who feel that made-up articles and people's resumes don't belong on Wikipedia?

Please explain how to fix an article which contains nothing but a resume of someone nobody has ever heard of.

RickK

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
Thanks for pointing out some of the flaws in [[Votes for Deletion]].

I pretty much ignore that page completely. Except a few cases where
someone called my attention to a doomed article they thought I might
care about.

Instead, once or twice a month I glance at the article deletion log and
resurrect anything that was thrown out too hastily (it's the Ent in me,
I guess: no such thing as dead wood, hoom, hoom).

The voting process is silly, and there's no consensus.

Whatever happened to [[Wikipedia:be bold]]?

Anyway, I hardly ever want to delete anything; I'd rather fix it. I can
followe Ahoermeister (spelling?) around and un-delete half the stuff he
throws out and make a perfectly good stub out of it...

Ed Poor
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031025/ed58bcb6/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion Poetry

body:
I wish I could do that.  Whenever I delete ANYTHING without going through VfD, I'm attacked as a terrible person.  You must have some sort of special dispensation.

RickK

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
If I think anything needs deleting, I just delete it. Right away.

So far, I've gotten away with that. Larry (anyone remember Larry?) said
to "be bold", and I've been bold ever since (tempered by occasional
meekness).

Grad student resumes go right in the garbage; I'm not waiting a week for
the 11-point vFd process. Same as graffiti.

This is a WIKI, fer crying out loud!!!

Uncle Ed
Going to bed
Because his head
Is full
Of stupid jinx
And foolish kinks
That pull

His mind from work
Like Captain Kirk
Beaming down to save the crew
So do not shirk
Or meekly lurk
Do what you have to do

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031025/138a13cb/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Nobody automatically deletes much.  That's what VfD is for.  Cleanup is garbage.

RickK

Stevertigo <utilitymuffinresearch2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Try "Cleaning up" articles instead of automatically
"Delete" ing them.

~S~

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031025/fe7a3022/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
RickK wrote:

>Gee, I don't know.  10 steps instead of 1.  Wow, how easy is that?

VfD is down to only 1 step now?  Goodness, things have changed!

If you have a serious objection to [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]], then state it.
Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth (3 posts in a row now).

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
RickK wrote:

>Jake Nelson <jnelson at soncom.com> wrote:

>>Making it so that blanked pages produced red links
>>would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.

>How do you expect to make links red if they aren't deleted?

This is a software change that's been requested for years now
(in various forms -- actually predating the switch to red!).
Jake is giving an argument in favour of it.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV and personal attacks

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Both very nice!

(And yes, I've made comments. -_^)

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
Eclecticolgoy (Ray Saintonge) wrote in part:

>My inclination with the long example-title would be to create a
>reasonable place to redirect, change all the links that lead there to
>the new title, wait for a month, then quietly delete the long-titled
>article.  A lot of other lists would be better served by consolidation.

The final sentence is the only serious disagreement that I have
with anything that you've said on this matter, Ec.
Once we move the article to a more convenient name,
then the long name is harmless and it's ''OK'' to leave it alone.
OTOH, if it exists for a month, then it will get archived,
so there is a reason, assuming that you didn't catch it immediately,
why it's ''good'' to leave it alone.

This is the "Redirect, don't delete!" slogan (well, part of it).

-- Toby


from_name: Russell Jones

subject: [Wikitech-l] C++ parser : executable

body:
Use bzip2 -9 and it might be about the same size :-)  See
http://unxutils.sf.net for a win32 port.

Russell

Magnus Manske wrote:

> I might have to work on that part some more ;-)
>
> But, I noticed that the zipped sqlite DB is only ~20% larger than the
> zipped MySQL dump, so this could be offered for download as well, so
> one can skip the "translation".
>
> Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Offline editor

body:
You might try dhttpd, boa or fnord.  Found with google and the debian
package list. I can't sleep, so I thought I'd do something useful :-) I
haven't tried any of these.

http://dhttpd.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/index.pl
http://www.boa.org/
http://www.fefe.de/fnord/

Russell

Magnus Manske wrote:

> I'll have to try Brion's linux makefile later. But, is there a
> standalone http server for linux as well? Otherwise, this won't really
> work...
>
> Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed

body:
Not at all.  I was referring to the activities at VfD.
Ec

Rick wrote:

> WHAT????? Are you saying that those of us who actually believe in
> deleting obnoxious and ridiculous articles are somehow damaging Wikipedia?
>
>
>
> RickK
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>     This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control
>     freaks
>     determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable
>     rules.
>     It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to
>     watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily
>     humours.
>
>     Ec
>


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Inline linking

body:
Anthere wrote:
> From: Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck at easynet.be>
>
> Pas de probl?me pour le delai, mais j'avais compris
> qu'il ?tait question que les tous les wikis seraient
> modifi?es en m?me temps, mais tous les
> wikis ne sont pas pr?ts en m?me temps. D?sol? si ma
> demande ?tait une peu
> ''rude'', ce n'?tait pas son intention.
>
> ------
>
> C'est juste que j'avais esp?r? que d'autres wikipedias
> profiteraient du "wagon", et ?clairciraient leur
> politique d'utilisation des images en m?me temps que
> les francophones.
>
> I had just hoped that other wikipedias could benefit
> of the "legal" work we had done with Alex, and would
> go toward a cleaner image use policy with us.
>
> Since Alex showed us inline linking could lead to
> liability issues, since english had proof it could go
> with strong vandalism, and since I try to show that
> inline linking would be detrimental to the information
> we are trying to offer readers and users of the
> encyclopedia, I had hoped in my innocence, that
> disabling inline linking could be made a global policy
> (perhaps with exceptions) on wikipedia.
>
> For this reason, I have several times tried to raise
> the topic here, on international list and one meta. It
> was meant to be an international work, not something
> with just french people in mind. That was why I talk
> about it here.
>
> Not just a "french" policy because "french" people had
> asked for it. But a global policy because a wikipedian
> has suggested it, given arguments for it, and asked
> for feedback.
>
> Except for Andre who asked for time to fix the images,
> no one opposed this disabling of in line linking. I
> think it should be disabled everywhere.
>

The inline images have also been removed or replaced on the german wikipedia.
If a wikipedia feel the need to clean up their inline images, I can give them a list
of all of them (and on which article these image s are used).

-- Looxix


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion policy needed

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>Eclecticolgoy (Ray Saintonge) wrote in part:
>
>>My inclination with the long example-title would be to create a
>>reasonable place to redirect, change all the links that lead there to
>>the new title, wait for a month, then quietly delete the long-titled
>>article.  A lot of other lists would be better served by consolidation.
>>
>
>The final sentence is the only serious disagreement that I have
>with anything that you've said on this matter, Ec.
>Once we move the article to a more convenient name,
>then the long name is harmless and it's ''OK'' to leave it alone.
>OTOH, if it exists for a month, then it will get archived,
>so there is a reason, assuming that you didn't catch it immediately,
>why it's ''good'' to leave it alone.
>
>This is the "Redirect, don't delete!" slogan (well, part of it).
>
I don't think we really have a big difference here.  All that would be
left to delete after a month is a redirecting article with a long title
that is too long to be something that would be used in a search.  I know
the argument that redirect articles take up minimal space in the DB.  I
clashed with Mav on that when I was suggesting in my newbie days that
some old Camel Case titles should be deleted.

Sigh, what with the first computer that I ever met face to face having
been one with drum memory, and paper tape,  that's tended to taint my
attitude toward memory even now as we get closer to terabyte drives.

Ultimately deleting the orphaned redirecting remnant was relly the least
important element in my proposal.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Mis à jour

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> [fr]
> Nouveux dans stable:
> * tra?ter des URLs en 'Media:' comme 'Image:'
> * invalidiser cache pour pages Image: quand on fait un lien (pour voir
> les backlinks)
> * lien de dons ($wgSiteSupportPage; allmessages['sitesupport'])
> * $wgExtraSubtitle
> * $wgDebugDumpSql
> * $wgDisableSearchUpdates (quand on n'utilise pas le moteur de
> recherche, comment lui mettre ? jour?)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Merci; pour le travail et pour l'info.

-- Looxix