from_name: Dan Rosenthal

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
I have a fair use/copyright question for you all.

This template:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Safe_Sex

Contains this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Condoms_by_Morrhigan.jpg

with this copyright status:
*This image appears to have come from the stock xchng
<http://sxc.hu/>website. Although
many uploaders to stock.xchng wish their work to be effectively public
domain, many others believe their work is only available under terms similar
to the cc-nc <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/cc-nc/> or
sampling+<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/>licenses.The
stock xchng boilerplace license included with every image contains
terms
which are unacceptable on Wikipedia.*

 [image: Warning]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_important.svg>
*Contact the copyright holder of this image and determine the actual
copyright status of this work*. Add
{{contact<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Contact>|~~~~}}
above the sxc-warning to prevent the copyright holder from being flooded
with requests. It is preferred that you have them email their reply to
a boilerplate
request for permission<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission>to
permissions at wikimedia.org. Alternatively you can include their reply on the
image talk page. It would also be beneficial to invite them to contribute
other artwork to Wikipedia. The reply must explicitly indicate that
derivative works, and wholesale redistribution of the work for any purpose,
commercial or otherwise is permitted to anyone. Once a clear grant under a
free license is available, please move this image to the commons. *If the
copyright holder is not contacted, this image will eventually be deleted.*

   - *DO NOT* REMOVE THIS WARNING UNTIL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS
   CONTACTED.
   - *Do* remove this warning once they have been contacted and obtained
   a free license.

*The SXC license <http://www.sxc.hu/txt/license.html> is:*
------------------------------

All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC
or its Image providers. All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to
You. Your rights to use the Image are subject to this agreement and the
restrictions specified at each Image.

We hereby grant to You a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the
Image on the terms and conditions explained in this Agreement and on the
Image preview page FREE OF CHARGE.

*You may use the Image*

   - In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast
   film and video, cell phones.
   - In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books,
   brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc.
   - Along with your corporate identity on business cards, letterhead,
   etc.
   - To decorate your home, your office or any public place.

*You may not use the Image*

   - For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading
   hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties,
   cultures.
   - To endorse products and services if it depicts a person.
   - In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted
   on the Image.
   - As part of a trademark, service mark or logo.
   - SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH
   OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!

*Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image*

   - In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
   - For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
   - On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads,
   mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced
   item that would contain the Image in a dominant way.

*Information on rights*

Since SXC does NOT require a written Model Release for each Image that has
identifiable people on it, We cannot guarantee that you will be able to use
the Image for any purpose You like. Also, if there is a model release for
the Image, We do not represent or make warranties whatsoever as to the
legality or validity of it.

Furthermore, certain Images may be subject to additional copyrights,
property rights, trademarks etc. and may require the consent of a third
party or the license of these rights. SXC does not represent or make any
warranties that it owns or licenses any of the mentioned, nor does it grant
them. It's your sole responsibility to make sure that You have all the
necessary rights, consents and licenses for the use of the Image.

You acknowledge that by your download the ownership of Image does not get
transferred to You and You must not claim that it is yours. Your license is
non-transferable, which means that You are not allowed to sell, rent, give,
sublicense, or otherwise transfer the Image or the right to use the Image to
anyone else. The work You create with the Image must be used either by
yourself or by your client. You warrant that You do your best to prevent
third parties from duplicating the Image.

You also agree to take the time to comment on and rate the Image you
downloaded and do your best to show the work you created with the Image to
the photographer. This is a simple thing and means a lot to many of our
contributors who simply would like to know how their work is used.

Is this acceptable to put on user pages within copyright laws?


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>On May 22, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Prasad J wrote:
>
>
>>>OH MY GOD. Prasad, we've put up with your shit for long enough.
>>>
>>>
>>Since I am not a hick or a hillbilly you will understand that I do not
>>appreciate the use of profanities against me. I ask that you not use
>>your "git-r-done" lingo whilst communicating with me.
>>
>>
>I don't know about where you live, but in most places people use
>profanity in cities too. In North America, it's generally only
>backwards rural people who get offended by profanity.
>
It's probably more widespread than that, and would definitely include
the boardrooms of the major TV networks.  The seven words that George
Carlin spoke of 30+ years ago are just as taboo now on the networks as
they were then.  The segment of American society that was offended by
Janet Jackson's SuperBowl breast is still powerful.

In Canada where we see TV from both sides of the border we are less
likely to have the naughty words bleeped.

Ec


from_name: Sue Anne Reed

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> On May 22, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> For someone like our Abu Hamza (who at first appearance seems to have
>> indeed engaged in unacceptable editing) it would help if we had
>> mentors
>> available who are sympathetic but rationale in dealing with such
>> points
>> of view.  Perhaps they could pull aside and counsel these wilder
>> newbies
>> in techniques for constructively presenting their opinions.
>
> So you're willing to have Islamists, white supremacists, etc. openly
> editing Wikipedia as long as they attempt to follow NPOV? I don't. I
> think the presence of such individuals is harmful to the community.
>

If a white supremacist is editing an article not related to race, I
don't see any problem with them editing Wikipedia. If that person were
editing an article on racial relations in the U.S. or another country, I
would be highly suspect of anything they would add to that article.

We all have biases. Some users choose to wear those biases on their
sleeves (i.e., user boxes on their user page). Others tend not to openly
share those biases. I actually would prefer to know someone's biases and
be overly cautious of any of their edits vs. have someone push POV and
be unaware.

Sue Anne


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Prasad J wrote:

>I will consider your advice. Though using profanities may be
>considered posh in the U.S.A, I don't think you can take that as sign
>that such habits are condoned in other countries, given that fact that
>America is not really a benchmark when it comes to culture.
>Nontheless, feel free to cuss all you want, if that is the way you
>were raised.
>
"Posh" seems like a peculiar word in these circumstances.  These words
are a part of the language like any other.  They can be most effective
when used sparingly.  When a person overuses "fuck" as every other word
in a sentence it limits his credibility.

I don't agree with you that it's only in North America where profanities
are so widespread.

Ec


body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>On May 22, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>>What is an "Islamist" exactly?
>>
>>
>Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. I'm using the term to
>denote fundamentalists who support things like terrorism and
>destroying the Jews.
>
That seems like a very narrow meaning for this word.

Ec


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK and made it obvious
>> they belonged to the KKK with the following pattern of behavior:
>> making contributions about European history while making biased edits
>> against pro-African or African-American political causes, along with
>> a rigid obsession with mentioning in the lead paragraphs of [[OJ
>> Simpson]], [[John Muhammed]], et. al. that these convicted or
>> suspected murderers were black, and making posts to the listserv
>> under the pseudonym of "David Duke". Now do you see the problem?
>
> Sure. Their inability to follow NPOV is a problem, and if that's
> all they
> do, then they're of net harm to the project. Their membership of any
> particular ideological following is not itself the problem.

But wouldn't you say their espousing of these views creates a hostile
environment towards the ethnic groups they're intolerant of?

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 12:30 AM, Prasad J wrote:

> We'll stop arguing when Muslim users like Abu are treated fairly.

It's an insult to sensible Muslims worldwide to characterize him as a
typical Muslim Wikipedian.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On May 23, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Prasad J wrote:

> I'm not a Muslim but I must agree with Abu's view. Why not just admit
> that some of you are biased against him on account of his religion?

Because he is the biased one, obsessed with denouncing everyone who
disagrees with him as "pro-Zionist".

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

references:
<71cd4dd90605211259x1260092ucddd9b1db4f57cdc@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90605211259x1260092ucddd9b1db4f57cdc-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
	<068f01c67d18$3667b090$6400a8c0@Tiny>
	<85h$2lPYBOcEFwPy@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<85h$2lPYBOcEFwPy-wfA80NnNzEcG2Il/BtU0GPXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
	<4472196E.6080405@telus.net>

body:
In message <4472196E.6080405 at telus.net>, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org> writes
>Arwel Parry wrote:
>
>>I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling
>>copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright
>>holder is inherently indeterminable.
>>
>>For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary
>>school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it
>>reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD
>>or whatever, as:
>>- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
>>children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
>>- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
>>shilling or two),
>>
>This could make it a work for hire.  A licence from your parents may be
>required. :-)

Err, no, if I recall correctly it was a speculative job - all the kids
in school had their photos taken, then some days later a strip of three
photos each about 6x4" turned up and the kids took them home. If the
parents liked them (or were sufficiently nagged...) then they'd cut off
as many copies as they wanted and sent the rest back to school with the
money. In any case, it's a bit difficult to get a licence from beyond
the grave, so I suppose I inherited half the copyrights anyway in that
case (and I'm not bugging my brother for the other half!).  :)

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
On 5/21/06, SCZenz <sczenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds to
> read them and evaluate the claims they make.  Isn't that bad?

There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day.  I
think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands
of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it
would be nice if there were no bad calls.


body:
On May 23, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>>> What is an "Islamist" exactly?
>>>
>>>
>> Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. I'm using the term to
>> denote fundamentalists who support things like terrorism and
>> destroying the Jews.
>>
> That seems like a very narrow meaning for this word.

It is pretty narrow. In general discourse, "Islamist" refers to a
rather sophisticated political ideology. But I'm using the term
provisionally.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 2:03 AM, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

>>> It is very
>>> unprofessional of you, and others, to accuse abuhamza1970 to be
>>> "furthering a political agenda" when you are also guilty of the same
>>> "crime."
>>
>> Please, if you think I'm trying to further a political agenda,
>> provide evidence of your accusations, or take them back. Personal
>> attacks and libel are not welcome on Wikipedia.
>
> The political agenda you have been advocating on this list is pretty
> obvious. I don't have the time to go through all your edits on
> Wikipedia, but this one,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Libertarians_for_Life&diff=prev&oldid=40785660,
> is pretty telling.

It is pretty telling. For instance, I change "explain why" to "argue
that", removing the biased implication that LFL's position is
correct. I also remove a largely unnecessary paragraph and make some
style improvements. The net result of that diff is a more neutral and
better written article. Thanks for posting it--I'm rather proud of it.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On May 23, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> But wouldn't you say their espousing of these views creates a hostile
>> environment towards the ethnic groups they're intolerant of?
>
> If that's the case, then they should be asked to stop it, and
> perhaps forced
> to do so. But you're stretching if you want to suggest that the
> presence of
> a white supremacist *by itself* creates a hostile environment for
> any black
> editors.

Not all. If we had racist editors but they provided no evidence that
they were racist, things would be fine. (Given the vast number of
editors on Wikipedia, I have to surmise that the vast majority of the
racist editors we do have fall within this category--we don't know
who they are and that makes things fine.)

> The debacle caused by the admin who threatened to ban any user of
> {{user
> pedophile}} demonstrated that banning for ideology or membership is
> not
> practical or desirable. Incivil actions or undesirable edits, yes.
> But not
> memberships or ideologies.

That's a good point. Then again, had Saladin1970 not made his
attitude toward the Jews clear in his edits, I would have no problem
with him. We really don't disagree on this point--it's the expression
of anti-Semitism that bothers me, not what he privately chooses to
believe.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 2:03 AM, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

> The political agenda you have been advocating on this list is pretty
> obvious.

I'd like to add something here. The only political agenda I've been
advocating is (a) not denouncing the Jews (b) not blowing up
inhabited office buildings, and (c) when pressed, I've also denounced
the excesses of the Iraq War.

But really, the only agenda I've been advocating on this list with
regards to Wikipedia is (a) not using Wikipedia to denounce the Jews
and (b) not using Wikipedia to advocate political agendas. I've been
especially vehement about not using Wikipedia to advocate anti-
Semitic political agendas because that's the intersection of the two.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
>
> On 5/22/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As a side-note have any of you noticed that the 9/11
> Memorial Wiki has
> > not been deleted despite ample consensus being achieved towards its
> > deletion? Don't you guys feel that there were far greater tragedies
> > which occured during the 20th century-like World War 2 or the
> > Holocaust or the Nagasaki-Hiroshima Nuclear bombing, apartheid in
> > Africa, to name a few? Making such a big deal about the
> loss of 3000
> > lives while fully neglecting much more horrific incidents is a
> > shockingly clear example of how America-centric Wikipedia
> has become.
> > I urge someone to please delete this absurd memorial which
> seems (in a
> > way) to place the people who died on 9/11 on a much higher pedestal
> > than (for example) the 7 million who were murdered in Nazi Germany.
>
> Anyone can start a wiki on any subject.  If you feel that the
> tragedy of the Holocaust, for example, is terribly
> underrepresented on the internet, go start a wiki on the
> subject.  The solution is to fix the problem of
> underrepresentation, not to delete what is already
> represented.

Hear hear! All of the above are tragedies of immense proportions and should
be known and understood by as many as possible. We should have MORE memorial
wikis, not fewer. I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington last year and
it was a distressing and sobering experience. Last month I was in Hiroshima,
where the scars of the attack remain beneath the cherry blossoms, and it was
a poignant but beautiful moment in my life.

We should learn about these and other tragedies and say "NEVER AGAIN!"

Pete, unable to think of a tagline


subject: [WikiEN-l] Historical debates

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
>
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 06:43, Molu wrote:
> > What do you think?
>
> There would be some redundancies with:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever

Some of WP's greatest debates have been anything but lame, but yes, there
would be a bit of overlap.

I love [[WP:LAME]]. We can all learn something about not seeing the tree for
the leaves.

Pete, occasional contributor to the lameness


body:
On May 22, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>> The difference with anti-Semites is that we have Jewish editors.
>
> Your POV is showing...

How is that POV? Look, if you're on Wikipedia and you make it known
that you're an anti-Semite, doesn't that count as being pretty damned
uncivil to the Jews? The difference with communists, anarcho-
capitalists, furries, et. al. is that saying "I'm an anarcho-
capitalist" doesn't constitute an attack on anyone else. Saying (or
otherwise making clear) "I am an anti-Semite" is, by definition, the
same as saying, "I hate Jewish people". If you don't see that as
uncivil I don't know what you can see as uncivil.

>> If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white
>> supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either
>> of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you
>> make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be
>> welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the
>> community would be an insult.
>
> The act of openly rejecting these types is just as big an insult.
> Who's
> next? Non-Americans?

I don't worry about insulting anti-Semites, thanks. Please stop using
up all the straw.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against feeding the trolls

body:
Either that or a separate mailing list for these activities. I don't know why experienced editors let themselves get dragged into irrelevant and pointless debates and name-calling on silly issues. This is a mailing list about Wikipedia, not about conspiracy theories or their refutations. These long threads are really lowering the signal-noise ratio. Trolls will be trolls, but those of us who are NOT trolls don't need to compete at the same level. Let's put an end to this unhygienic practice.

  Molu

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index missing?

references:
<e4qac4$uqr$1@sea.gmane.org> <4470D6AF.3010003@pobox.com>
	<e4ul3g$hm1$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> The fields required to do this efficiently aren't there; the revision table has
>> no namespace information.
>
> We can't add the fields either, if we copied the namespace to the
> revision table, then we'd lose constant time page moves. It seems to be
> an O(N) problem whichever way you look at it, unless someone else has
> some bright ideas?

Weeeeellll, we _could_ add indexable summary fields, and update them lazily in
the background when required.

Still means a database layout change to the revision table, which might be a
little expensive on upgrade.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060523/40bb13e6/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

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

> After looking at this case you have no other logical option than to
withdraw your support from Wiki, on grounds that you have had faith that a
sacred principle exists and it doesn't.

Huh. Wikipedia's just a website. Don't expect too much from a community of
geeks. The wonder is that it has scaled as well as it has.

I'm a staunch critic of many aspects of WP, but on the whole, the positives
(often generated by unsung folk labouring into the small hours) far outweigh
the noisy negatives.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

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

> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that
> > these images are non-controversial and the problem is
> finding the best
> > way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
>
> Seems to me the best solution is to tag it as {{GFDL}} or
> {{PD}} or whatever, and add a note of "Taken at my request".

Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you
copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without explicit
assignment.

--Peter


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.6.6 released (security)

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

MediaWiki 1.6.6 is a security and bugfix maintenance release.

An XSS injection vector in brace replacement has been fixed, as have some
potential problems with table parsing. Upgrading is strongly recommended
for all users of 1.6. MediaWiki versions 1.5 and earlier are not affected.

As a quick fix, if you are not able to fully upgrade to 1.6.6 you can apply this
two-line patch to fix the main known problems:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/branches/REL1_6/phase3/includes/Sanitizer.php?r1=14042&r2=14351&view=patch&pathrev=14351

Additionally some localization and user interface updates are included.

* Correct "revertpage" message in English
* (bug 5507) Logouttext uses now wiki markup
* (bug 5857, 5957) Update for German localisation (de)
* (bug 5586) <gallery> treated text as links
* (bug 5957) Update for Hebrew language (he)
* (bug 6025) SpecialImport: wrong message when no file selected
* (bug 6015) EditPage: add spacing in the boxes "edit is minor" and "watch this"
* (bug 6018) Userrights: new message when no user specified ('nouserspecified')
* (bug 6055) Fix for HTML/JS injection bug in variable handler (found by Nick
Jenkins)
* Reordered wiki table handling and __TOC__ extraction in the parser to better
  handle some overlapping tag cases.
* Only the first __TOC__ is now turned into a TOC.
* (bug 361) URL in URL, they were almost fixed. Now they are.

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_6/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_6/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.6.6.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
b19b11dbe4a9c61bf857f6584e4d6010  mediawiki-1.6.6.tar.gz

SHA-1 checksum:
debb5970dd30632b0d6fff6dd95727da9d730f6f mediawiki-1.6.6.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEcutRwRnhpk1wk44RAudPAKDJg58CEg9ROIbTDL3kG8jBrW0AgACfeWTk
25YeMM3CnncCe/QQGK1fyrs=
=JbhE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph
> actually give
> > you copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it
> does, without
> > explicit assignment.
>
> The suggestion was {{GFDL}} not {{GFDL-self}}. No worries.

So you can release a photograph as GFDL if you do not hold the copyright to
it? Is this fair dinkum?

--Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
I've decided to post one last message to clarify my views on this
matter. If I'm asked additional questions about it, I'm gladly
willing to clarify beyond this, but I'm done arguing.

I support the indefinite block of Saladin1970. He has made no useful
edits, and has committed copyvios, violated NOR, violated the 3RR,
and has shown a significantly biased editing pattern. This much is,
as far as I can tell, undisputed by anyone except the blocked user
himself.

Saladin1970's biased editing patterns, particularly in the case of
the Harold Shipman article, are problematic. This disturbed me a
great deal. He denounces much of Wikipedia's content as "pro-
Zionist", as well as the admin Jayjg as a "pro-Zionist editor". This,
along with the Shipman obsession, provided significant evidence of
anti-Semitism.

For the purposes of this message, my religious and political views
are completely irrelevant; however, to show that I'm not acting out
of bias, I'm going to clarify a few things. I'm not Jewish, although
I have known my fair share of Jewish people and report that they are
excellent people. For that matter, I'm not Christian either, although
many of them are excellent people too. I am not a conservative, and I
do not support the Bush administration. I think the war on terror and
the war in Iraq are scams--although I'm not a big fan of terrorism
either. I don't have a settled opinion about Israel yet, but I don't
think it was fully moral for the Jews to claim Palestine as their own
and take the place over. I understand the argument that "Zionism is
racism" and give it some credence.

So why do I find this editor's obsession with Zionism evidence of
anti-Semitism? Sensible people don't go around accusing random people
(i.e. Jayjg) of being Zionists. Sensible people don't accuse
administrators in general of favoring a pro-Zionist bias unless they
see a Zionist conspiracy around every corner, which I have to say is
a pretty clear indicator of anti-Semitic conspiracy nutjobbery.

in contrast to my earlier opinions, I don't think that being an anti-
Semite in and of itself justifies a ban. Anti-Semitism is...well,
it's not "fine", but it's tolerable if you keep it to yourself. This
editor's mistake was not keeping it to himself. Even if he doesn't
cop to it now, his editing pattern is not only biased, it's nakedly
biased in favor of a highly offensive viewpoint, in a way that
communism or anarcho-capitalism or furry fandom are not highly
offensive. The distinction in this case is that while communism and
anarcho-capitalism may offend some people's sensibilities, they do so
merely out of disagreement. Anti-Semitism, and any other form of
racism, offends people by attacking an important aspect of their
identities. Whether or not you agree with me that editing towards a
heavily offensive and racist bias is worse than editing towards a
political or ideological bias, I think we can all agree that editing
towards any bias is unhelpful.

A couple more points of clarification. Regarding his use of the name
"Abu Hamza", I can't reliably argue that it's a deliberate reference
to [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], the British Islamic claric convicted for
racial hatred and incitement to murder. It's been argued that "Abu
Hamza" isn't an uncommon name among those Muslims who choose to use
an Arabic name, and it very well may be. I also have no evidence that
this editor in any way supports terrorism or any of the other
violence advocated by Islamists, so I apologize for earlier
suggesting that he did.

Speaking of that word, I think my usage of it was insufficiently
explained. If you look up "Islamism" on Wikipedia, you'll see that
"Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from
Islamic fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not
only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal,
economic and social imperatives of the state according to its
interpretation of Islamic Law." My denouncing of Islamism was only
meant to apply to these ideologies, and not to the Islamic religion
as a whole. In fact, Wikipedia also reports that "Some Muslims find
it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to
organizations they consider radical and extreme." I will agree with
this--"Islamist" is indeed an unfortunate term to apply to the
ideologies of Abu Hamza al-Masri, Osama bin Laden, and their
followers. But it is perhaps necessary for the lack of any better
term, as "Islamofascist" and such are ridiculous terms invented by
right wing nutjobs with little understanding of Islam or fascism.

In either case, I'm fully able to distinguish between the ideology of
Hamas and the Islamic religion. The ideology of Hamas is something I
object to rather strongly--the Islamic religion, in contrast, is no
better or worse than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other
sensible religion. For those of us who understand analogies well, let
me put it this way: Islamism is to Islam what Christian Identity (the
ideology of the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist groups) is
to Christianity. Stated more plainly: Islamism is an attempt to twist
an otherwise sensible religious faith into a justification for murder
and mayhem. Islam is a sensible religious faith practiced by
countless sensible individuals, some of whom I have been fortunate to
have known. If there are any Muslims reading this exchange, allow me
to apologize to them for any misunderstandings I have created.

That is all. Thank you for your attention.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Stan Shebs
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >>So you can release a photograph as GFDL if you do not hold the
> >>copyright to it? Is this fair dinkum?
> >>
> >>No. Check the {{GFDL}} template. It's not a release, it's an
> >>assertion. If you stamp the photo {{GFDL}}, you're simply
> saying that
> >>the person who took it has previously released it - a
> different kind
> >>of sin, that may or not let you sleep better at night.
> >>
> For instance, if my wife takes a picture of me, I ask her to
> release it under GFDL so it can be on WP and she agrees, I
> can legitimately do the uploading and GFDL-tagging myself,
> crediting her as photographer. We do take it on a certain
> amount of faith that I'm representing the situation
> truthfully, but given that the GFDL requires that the creator
> of the work be identified, a skeptic would in theory have
> enough info to contact her directly and confirm the license.

If they wanted to. Actually, I don't have much of a problem with this for
non-controversial user photographs. I don't know if it would stand up in
court, but you'd have to say that if someone asks a random person on the
street to take their photograph, then it was implicit that the photographer
would have no ownership or control over the resultant image. Afer all, you
wouldn't ask someone you didn't know to take your photograph with your own
camera if you thought you wouldn't end up with rights to it. It's a little
different to going into a studio and asking a professional photographer to
shoot you. You end up with copies, he keeps the rights.

My problem is where uploaders identify themselves as the creators of the
image when clearly they are not. I'd like to see some explicit WP-agreed way
of doing this.

And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm
eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a picture
of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded individual who
pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the exact same quibble with
ownership.

Here's the photograph I want to upload.
http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in Hiroshima with
cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.

Pete, back home again


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

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

> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry Prasad, I never said I identify with SPC. England:
> In fact, I
> >condemn her actions as strongly as possible. I do think it
> is shameful
> >for users to refer to US soldiers with disrespect: I also feel it's
> >shameful for people to refer to ANY soldiers with
> disrespect. I believe
> >the Bushido code, the Way of the Warrior is alive and well amongst
> >soldiers.
> >
> I would not be inclined to view any trained killer with undeserved
> respect.

Not until they put the gun down...


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
>
> On May 22, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > For someone like our Abu Hamza (who at first appearance
> seems to have
> > indeed engaged in unacceptable editing) it would help if we had
> > mentors
> > available who are sympathetic but rationale in dealing with such
> > points
> > of view.  Perhaps they could pull aside and counsel these wilder
> > newbies
> > in techniques for constructively presenting their opinions.
>
> So you're willing to have Islamists, white supremacists, etc. openly
> editing Wikipedia as long as they attempt to follow NPOV? I don't. I
> think the presence of such individuals is harmful to the community.

That's a very POV statement in itself.

The presence of holders of minority (and majority) viewpoints on WP is
welcome. So long as they don't attempt to impose their views above all
others, and they are civil to other editors.

--Peter in Canberra


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >> If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image
> >> of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the
> >> photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a
> >> derivative work of any one photograph.
> >>
> > *Still* not off the hook! The copyright covers any sort of
> > depiction of the character, irrespective of the mechanics of
> > production. For instance, a Han Solo action figure is not an
> > exact reproduction of any screenshot from the movie, but it
> > can only be legally sold under license from the moviemaker. Ditto
> > for 3D meshes and textures ending up in a Star Wars-themed video
> > game. As I said in another message, the pros at this are wise to
> > all kinds of trickery, and there is case law for a remarkable
> > variety of attempts to find loopholes.
>
> Well, I guess that's that then. No images of Han Solo. (But images of
> Harrison Ford are okay for [[Harrison Ford]]?)
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Hi all,

Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow
us to use?

After all, we are a top 20 website and we probably have the most Star Wars
related articles of any big site on the web. We are a non-profit
organisation and we don't provide material that directly competes with them.

If they told us what they are happy with and what they are not happy with
us, it would make life a whole lot easier for all concerned. Perhaps we
should look at identifying the rights holders for much of the so-called fair
use material we have and try contacting them.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
>
> On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm
> > eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a
> > picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded
> > individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the
> > exact same quibble with ownership.
> >
> > Here's the photograph I want to upload.
> > http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in
> Hiroshima
> > with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
> >
> Do you still speak to Cari?  If so, just get Cari to agree to
> release the photo under a free license.  But please don't
> pick {{GFDL}}.

She's an angel. She'll happily release the photograph if I ask. My problem
is that I can't upload it.

--Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Historical debates

body:
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Nope. When I saw that image I was thinking of my own smiling photograph,
> ripped off my used page by someone making bad faith assumptions about
> copyright status.
>
You probably took it too personal.  This same thing happened to a
board member.  Wikipedia has in many ways gone from one extreme
(having blatant copyright violations scattered throughout the articles
and no one willing to take them down) to the other (having public
domain or licensed images ripped off user pages and deleted simply
because the uploader didn't state the source fast enough).

That's not to say that you responded to it correctly.

Anthony


from_name: abu hamza

body:
oh really, so the inclusion of the three talmuds on the discussion of
zionism is not a useful edit.
the inclusion of famous chinese muslims, discussion of the chinese flag and
its reference to minorities, and inclusion of the number of chinese muslims
is not a useful edit
and perhaps a reference to the xiongnu roots of turkic people was also not a
useful edit.
Neither were the laws passed in the 13th century leading up to the spanish
inquisition useful edits either
the fact that you only choose to concentrate on a small part, is a problem
with you.
just like your citing my inclusion of alan harts book 'zionism the real
enemy of jews' in his page was considered copyright even though it met every
single criteria wikipedia lays down for 'fair use'.

Admit it, you banned me because any balanced view of zionism is not
acceptable to you, only pro zionism is, and so all those who attempt to make
the zionist page a NPOV should be banned indefinately on his first ever ban
due to trumped up charges and false accusations.

>From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:38:57 -0400
>
>On 5/22/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/22/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK as well as large
> > > numbers of black editors. Still don't see the problem?
> >
> >
> > Nope, and we've been around and around on this on the mailing list
>before.
> > People who make good edits are welcome to do so, regardless of
>ideological
> > affinity.
>
>Right.  Which, of course, was not the case here; quite the opposite in
>fact, as there is no evidence of even a single "good edit".
>
>Jay.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sandy Davis

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] English Link Lags before loading each page;
	French Okay

body:
Using XP Workstation.
Windows & Office Updates up to date.
Cookies Cleared.

This was reported by our staff & they said it was okay until a few
weeks ago.

Sandra Davis

Sandy.Davis at co.washington.mn.us

Washington County Library
IRA Department
8595 Central Park Place
Woodbury, MN 55125

651-275-8516
651-275-8509 (Fax)


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

> It's a pity we're using the example of anti-Semitism. Maybe
> we could keep this more abstract? Say I'm a rabid
> anti-Pokemonite (not far from the truth :)). Does the
> existence of Pokemon fans on Wikipedia make me unwelcome?
> Nah, I just keep my distance.
>
> You might find similarities in the fact that we have both
> sides of various ethnic conflicts, in Yugoslavia or Israel
> and whatever. We also have anti-abortionists and
> pro-abortionists. Do they bicker? Yep. Does the very fabric
> of Wikipedia fall apart? Nah.

The biggest battles seem to be waged over the smallest details. Change the
colour or border of {{Infobox_Ukkingstyles}} by so much as a pixel and you'd
best dig in for a long campaign.

Give me the big issue campaigners any day. At least they are fighting over
something you can see and understand, rather than the length of their penis.

--Pete, taking the long view


list: foundation-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
2006/5/22, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com>:

> As long as adminship only represents a certain level of trust and is
> primarily used to push buttons for those who can't, that shouldn't be
> a problem. I've long felt that admins should be called "trusted
> users". To de-admin someone is then to explicitly label them as
> untrusted, and that should only be done in nasty cases. It would also
> mean that everyone who contributes and understands the policies should
> eventually become trusted, without a need to sum up percentages for
> namespace contributions or edit summaries.

Please not. I don't want to be an admin. I don't want to get into
fights about admin policy again. When someone makes a mistake, I
prefer being able to call admin abuse above getting into a
blocking/deblocking war. It would be nice to have the rollback buttons
again, but becoming an admin would be too high a price for that.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
2006/5/22, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com>:

> As long as adminship only represents a certain level of trust and is
> primarily used to push buttons for those who can't, that shouldn't be
> a problem.

But is it primarily used that way? I don't see it being used as such.
If I, as a non-admin, want someone to be blocked, there's a procedure
so difficult and long that I might as well not do it, which will
probably fail anyway. If an admin wants someone to be blocked, they do
it, and a day later some other admin comes by and decides that the
block was too long and unblocks.

Can an admin do anything then? No, certainly not. That's what I
discovered. I unblocked addresses. That was so bad that I basically
got into a war with another admin on nl:, which ended in both of us
resigning. I don't want those fights any more. I don't want to be an
admin the way things are now. Even though it would be damn nice to
have that rollback button, but then again, another advantage of not
being an admin is that I don't feel the pressure to help fight
vandalism.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
2006/5/22, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com>:

> As long as adminship only represents a certain level of trust and is
> primarily used to push buttons for those who can't, that shouldn't be
> a problem.

But is it primarily used that way? I don't see it being used as such.
If I, as a non-admin, want someone to be blocked, there's a procedure
so difficult and long that I might as well not do it, which will
probably fail anyway. If an admin wants someone to be blocked, they do
it, and a day later some other admin comes by and decides that the
block was too long and unblocks.

Can an admin do anything then? No, certainly not. That's what I
discovered. I unblocked addresses. That was so bad that I basically
got into a war with another admin on nl:, which ended in both of us
resigning. I don't want those fights any more. I don't want to be an
admin the way things are now. Even though it would be damn nice to
have that rollback button, but then again, another advantage of not
being an admin is that I don't feel as much pressure to help fight
vandalism.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >>But for casual shots, it is not only
> >>unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases
> >>about the copyright status, but the risk of legal
> >>intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case
> >>like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner
> >>who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very
> >>low priority.
> >>
> >>
> >You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can
> get away with
> >it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
> >
> Your misconception of law is phenomenal.  In some situations
> the breach
> of the law does not happen until there has been a complaint
> by someone
> with standing.

So it's legal to breach copyright until someone complains? If you steal from
an outlaw it's not theft?

> >I agree that these photographs are (mostly)
> non-controversial. But what
> >is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can
> use them with
> >*zero* risk of being sued?
> >
> Zero risk is a figment of your imagination.

Fair enough.

I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is
the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with minimal
risk of being sued?

--Peter, playing the game


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
My apologies with the double post, I was having some small problem with gmail.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 48

body:
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:14:21 -0400
> From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20060522221421.GB5518 at cgi.jachomes.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:53:32PM +0200, Chuck Smith wrote:
> > We have actually implemented this kind of WYSIWiki (What You See Is
> > Wiki) editor as a Java applet called WikiWizard for the JSPWiki.  We
> > will also be presenting it at Wikimania if our proposal is accepted.
> > I have already talked with Brion Vibber about integrating it into
> > Wikipedia and we would be happy to do that, but we are now waiting for
> > the Wikipedia wiki markup spec to be finalized.  In the meantime, we
> > are continuing to debug our software and add new features.  One of its
> > more interesting features is the ability to copy from Word and paste
> > formatted directly into the applet and have your content automatically
> > pasted in as wiki syntax.
>
> Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it would probably be good to keep
> in mind, too, that wiring the wikitext syntax into an editor like this
> puts binders on the extension of that syntax: it has to be done in two
> places.
>
> That may not be the best thing.

This is why we set up the WikiWizard so that an XML file describes the
wiki syntax to the editor, so that it can theoretically work in
different wiki engines and so that it can be altered quite quickly
without touching the base code if wiki syntax changes.  Of course,
when we adapt it for the second engine, we'll see how much our applet
needs to be changed to make it generic for multiple wiki engines.
This is one reason we're heavily pushing for a wiki markup standard,
but I don't want to open that can of worms on this mailing list.

Chuck


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Several people have drawn attention to
the fact that i am called abu hamza as a mechanism to accuse me of
supporting 911

My Math Professors is named Hamza , and he teaches in a Christian
institution. Do you reckon he's a terrorist on account of his name?

I typically don't respond to your posts, Bjorn, because they're filled
with nonsense like this, but every once in a while you really step
over the line in your outrageously ignorant and plainly false
statements

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Such immaturity is
unbecoming of you, Jay.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

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

Prasad J stated for the record:
> We'll stop arguing when Muslim users like Abu are treated fairly.

Or when all the trolling posters are put on moderation.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Most people who need to be shot
 sean at epoptic.com | need to be shot soon and a lot.
                  | Very few people need to be shot
		  | later or just a little.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEczDoMAt1wyd9d+URAq+eAJ9VXBRZpbApnleBKYkcCwINh+TjHwCbBzkk
wa8Kbao5O8gFAOeVN/cgkUM=
=mbGZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you
> copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without
> explicit
> assignment.
>
If you were on holiday and asked a passing random person to use your camera
to take a picture of you, I suspect that you would be quite surprised were
they to attempt to assert copyright over the picture.

Many people are in the habit of acquiring pictures in this manner : I don't
suppose there can be more than a handful who would ever even contemplate
this scenario as more than a mental exercise, and if there is a single one
who would consider forcing said passer-by to sign something forfeiting
copyright, they would rightly be judged a lunatic.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Speedy+deletions-t1656863.html#a4525722
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK and made it obvious
> they belonged to the KKK with the following pattern of behavior:
> making contributions about European history while making biased edits
> against pro-African or African-American political causes, along with
> a rigid obsession with mentioning in the lead paragraphs of [[OJ
> Simpson]], [[John Muhammed]], et. al. that these convicted or
> suspected murderers were black, and making posts to the listserv
> under the pseudonym of "David Duke". Now do you see the problem?

Sure. Their inability to follow NPOV is a problem, and if that's all they
do, then they're of net harm to the project. Their membership of any
particular ideological following is not itself the problem.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> My point in all this is that I uploaded a photograph of myself a while
> back
> and some mean-minded admin had it deleted because the license was
> inadequate. He gloated over the fact that I couldn't do anything about it.
> What I want to know for when I'm able to upload it again, is what licence
> to
> use so that I can keep my happy snap on my user page.

So you're angry and want to take it out on another user. I'm glad we've come
to the real basis of this conversation.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
For god's sake, can you guys give this all a rest? There are lots of places
where you can argue about this stuff, but this isn't one of them.

Steve


from_name: arnomane at gmx.de

subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
Am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2006 08:18 schrieb Andre Engels:
> Please not. I don't want to be an admin. I don't want to get into
> fights about admin policy again.

At least in Wikimedia Commons you're still bureaucrat although you haven't
used these "powers" a lot in the last time. ;-)

> When someone makes a mistake, I prefer being able to call admin abuse above
> getting into a blocking/deblocking war. It would be nice to have the
> rollback buttons again, but becoming an admin would be too high a price for
> that.

I think this motivation problem shows clearly that any policy with regular
adminship votes should be discouraged. Why? Here my reasons:
* Regular voting tends people to transform Wikipedia into a democracy
simulation (creating a full nation with constitution, parliament, parties,
judges and whatnot) with votes on every edit. Wikis are no democracies
(although they have some demecratic elements), wikis are more like
involvement in a charity organisation: "Just change world on your own now."
It's not that democracy in reallife is bad -quite the contrary our ancestors
have fought for it- but online is not real life.
* Voting is easy in contrast to a useful ns-0 edit. Trolls are happy voters.
Also a thoughtfull comments and creativity get often neglected if you call
for a vote.
* Many voting tends to create a lot of arbitrary policies (wikis and exact
policies are two things that don't really fit that much together. Policies
should be thatfor reduced to the absolute minimum) that makes our life hard
and reduce our own motivation why we are here at all and happy policy-trolls
will try to enforce every policy to the letter against better knowledge.
* You don't get real power in a wiki by becoming an admin. You get power by
trust. And this power is the one that matters (especially when you see that
you have just made something that you consider useful and a large group of
people likes it and defends your action). For example I got a half call for
de-admin in de.wp because a troll thought I am an admin and have abused my
admin rights. Well this was really funny. I wasn't an admin at that time.
* In the end the good admins that do the hard work will get discouraged and
only some policy fanatics will remain.

With regard to the inititial thing on zh.wp. This is very much the same:
Admins are no angels. Admins are voluntarily users and demanding from other
users some "terms of service" is exactly the wrong thing and will frustrate
the good people. And I really hope that every admin everytime risks his
adminship status in case he sees that something goes wrong or in case he
notices that something must be done. Of course as long as you're reasonable
and not arrogant...

So my small wish is: Please let us vote less and do more. If there is a strong
disagreement of a larger group we can still vote in order to come to a
decission. If an admin misbehaves make a deadmin-vote in case it is necessary
but not regularly. Create policies by doing things and forseeing and
respecting the positions of others. The strongest policies are the informal
ones that get considered after a certain time the "natural thing" (TM).

Arnomane


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

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

> In some cases the people stealing the million are the ones
> who write the
> laws; they are in a position to ensure that stealing a cent
> is punished
> more severely. :-)

Heh. Spot on. Steal a shilling, get sent to Australia for life. Steal a
million pounds, get a knighthood.


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] In which Snowspinner pwns WR.

body:
On 5/23/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Seed of story:
> > http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1116
> >
> > What happened next:
> > http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52175.html
> > http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52385.html
> >
> > Story at BoingBoing:
> > http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u_florida_cops_ask_f.html
> >
> > What's the proper gamer term for when you mount a fiendishly clever
> > attack on someone and get handed your arse, on a plate, with garnish?
>
>
> Unfuckingbelievable pretty much sums this up.

Indeed.  This should serve as a good object lesson to anybody who
tries to bring up the whole "Wikipedia Review is a legitimate
criticism site" business again.

--
Kirill Lokshin


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

> That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists,
> radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho-
> capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti-
> Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on
> Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you
> had no way to tell they were either of these things from
> their edits,
> that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known,
> however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia.
> The very
> act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult.

Perhaps we should ban all intolerant users.

Pete, pegging the first yonnie


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
2006/5/23, arnomane at gmx.de <arnomane at gmx.de>:

> I think this motivation problem shows clearly that any policy with regular
> adminship votes should be discouraged. Why? Here my reasons:

I don't see the connection between your reasons and my message.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


body:
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> But wouldn't you say their espousing of these views creates a hostile
> environment towards the ethnic groups they're intolerant of?

If that's the case, then they should be asked to stop it, and perhaps forced
to do so. But you're stretching if you want to suggest that the presence of
a white supremacist *by itself* creates a hostile environment for any black
editors.

The debacle caused by the admin who threatened to ban any user of {{user
pedophile}} demonstrated that banning for ideology or membership is not
practical or desirable. Incivil actions or undesirable edits, yes. But not
memberships or ideologies.

Steve


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>>This leads me to believe that a relevant index is missing on the DB table?
>
> The fields required to do this efficiently aren't there; the revision table has
> no namespace information.

We can't add the fields either, if we copied the namespace to the
revision table, then we'd lose constant time page moves. It seems to be
an O(N) problem whichever way you look at it, unless someone else has
some bright ideas?

-- Tim Starling


from_name: cuneyt san

subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
sorrr?

>From: arnomane at gmx.de
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Term of service?
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:54:01 +0200
>
>Am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2006 10:26 schrieb Andre Engels:
> > I don't see the connection between your reasons and my message.
>
>The connection is that admins are seen as some kind of superman and in the
>end
>admins expect from each other the same too and then you have nice revert-
>and
>block-unblock-wars because the admins think the action of each other is
>against policy $foobar. The consequence is that admins themselves take
>their
>actions too serious and too political and loose joy.
>
>And regular voting and "terms of service" policies and thus no ethusiastic
>collaboration are the deeper reason behind that frustration. Not some
>recent
>controversy.
>
>Arnomane
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Messenger uzaklardaki sevdiklerinizle bulusturur!
http://messenger.msn.com/?mkt=tr&DI=3147&XAPID=2533


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
> > Phil, the burden of proof is upon you to show that Wikipedia, in its
> > rules and policies, is "concerned with contributors editing Wikipedia
> > to further a political agenda."
>
> Read: "[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]".

Done. Now you read the mails I'm writing.

> > In fact, if it was disallowed, then a
> > large porition of Wikipedia's users would be banned, including
> > abuhamza1970 and his opponents. You too, would be banned.
> No I wouldn't. My only agenda in editing Wikipedia is to provide a
> neutral encyclopedia.

If you say so..

> > It is very
> > unprofessional of you, and others, to accuse abuhamza1970 to be
> > "furthering a political agenda" when you are also guilty of the same
> > "crime."
>
> Please, if you think I'm trying to further a political agenda,
> provide evidence of your accusations, or take them back. Personal
> attacks and libel are not welcome on Wikipedia.

The political agenda you have been advocating on this list is pretty
obvious. I don't have the time to go through all your edits on
Wikipedia, but this one,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarians_for_Life&diff=prev&oldid=40785660,
is pretty telling.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>I've decided to post one last message to clarify my views on this
>matter. If I'm asked additional questions about it, I'm gladly
>willing to clarify beyond this, but I'm done arguing.
>
>I support the indefinite block of Saladin1970. He has made no useful
>edits, and has committed copyvios, violated NOR, violated the 3RR,
>and has shown a significantly biased editing pattern. This much is,
>as far as I can tell, undisputed by anyone except the blocked user
>himself.
>
Thank you for your informative and conciliatory outline.  In the light
of this an indefinite block is a premature proposal.  Saladin1970's
response to this will be important.  If he shows any significant
tendencies toward understanding what is going on they should be
profusely rewarded.  The breach of specific Wikipedia rules can be
forgiven if the broad underlying are grasped.

>Saladin1970's biased editing patterns, particularly in the case of
>the Harold Shipman article, are problematic. This disturbed me a
>great deal. He denounces much of Wikipedia's content as "pro-
>Zionist", as well as the admin Jayjg as a "pro-Zionist editor". This,
>along with the Shipman obsession, provided significant evidence of
>anti-Semitism.
>
I agree that even if Shipman is Jewish it is not relevant to his
infamy.  The first lesson for Abu Hamza should be not to intrude Jewish
related issues in places where they don't belong.

>For the purposes of this message, my religious and political views
>are completely irrelevant; however, to show that I'm not acting out
>of bias, I'm going to clarify a few things. I'm not Jewish, although
>I have known my fair share of Jewish people and report that they are
>excellent people. For that matter, I'm not Christian either, although
>many of them are excellent people too. I am not a conservative, and I
>do not support the Bush administration. I think the war on terror and
>the war in Iraq are scams--although I'm not a big fan of terrorism
>either. I don't have a settled opinion about Israel yet, but I don't
>think it was fully moral for the Jews to claim Palestine as their own
>and take the place over. I understand the argument that "Zionism is
>racism" and give it some credence.
>
I'm willing to thank the British for this mess, as well as the continued
division of Kashmir which is also a product of the same time period.
The State of Israel is now a fait accompli, and those of us who believe
that putting it there was wrong in the first place must now face the
reality of making the best of a bad colonial decision.

>So why do I find this editor's obsession with Zionism evidence of
>anti-Semitism? Sensible people don't go around accusing random people
>(i.e. Jayjg) of being Zionists. Sensible people don't accuse
>administrators in general of favoring a pro-Zionist bias unless they
>see a Zionist conspiracy around every corner, which I have to say is
>a pretty clear indicator of anti-Semitic conspiracy nutjobbery.
>
_Both_ sides tend to muddle and obscure the distinction between
anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.  While anti-Semitism suggests a
pathological hatred for everything Jewish, anti-Zionism is properly
applied to people who oppose Judaism as the basis for establishing a
modern political state.  Anti-Zionists are thus a subset of those who
oppose any religion as the raison d'?tre for such a state.  They are
secularists with a firm belief in the separation of church and state.

>in contrast to my earlier opinions, I don't think that being an anti-
>Semite in and of itself justifies a ban. Anti-Semitism is...well,
>it's not "fine", but it's tolerable if you keep it to yourself. This
>editor's mistake was not keeping it to himself. Even if he doesn't
>cop to it now, his editing pattern is not only biased, it's nakedly
>biased in favor of a highly offensive viewpoint, in a way that
>communism or anarcho-capitalism or furry fandom are not highly
>offensive. The distinction in this case is that while communism and
>anarcho-capitalism may offend some people's sensibilities, they do so
>merely out of disagreement. Anti-Semitism, and any other form of
>racism, offends people by attacking an important aspect of their
>identities. Whether or not you agree with me that editing towards a
>heavily offensive and racist bias is worse than editing towards a
>political or ideological bias, I think we can all agree that editing
>towards any bias is unhelpful.
>
This is a key analysis.

>A couple more points of clarification. Regarding his use of the name
>"Abu Hamza", I can't reliably argue that it's a deliberate reference
>to [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], the British Islamic claric convicted for
>racial hatred and incitement to murder. It's been argued that "Abu
>Hamza" isn't an uncommon name among those Muslims who choose to use
>an Arabic name, and it very well may be. I also have no evidence that
>this editor in any way supports terrorism or any of the other
>violence advocated by Islamists, so I apologize for earlier
>suggesting that he did.
>
An excellent clarification.

>Speaking of that word, I think my usage of it was insufficiently
>explained. If you look up "Islamism" on Wikipedia, you'll see that
>"Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from
>Islamic fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not
>only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal,
>economic and social imperatives of the state according to its
>interpretation of Islamic Law." My denouncing of Islamism was only
>meant to apply to these ideologies, and not to the Islamic religion
>as a whole. In fact, Wikipedia also reports that "Some Muslims find
>it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to
>organizations they consider radical and extreme." I will agree with
>this--"Islamist" is indeed an unfortunate term to apply to the
>ideologies of Abu Hamza al-Masri, Osama bin Laden, and their
>followers. But it is perhaps necessary for the lack of any better
>term, as "Islamofascist" and such are ridiculous terms invented by
>right wing nutjobs with little understanding of Islam or fascism.
>
The linguistic problem here is that there is not always a one-to-one
correspondance between the "-ism" and the "-ist".  The association seems
to work relatively well between "fascism" and "fascist".  It does not
work between "Islamism" and "Islamist", and is downright misleading
between "scientism" and "scientist". For me "Islamist" can also apply to
an academic student of Islam, its history and its institutions.

>In either case, I'm fully able to distinguish between the ideology of
>Hamas and the Islamic religion. The ideology of Hamas is something I
>object to rather strongly--the Islamic religion, in contrast, is no
>better or worse than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other
>sensible religion. For those of us who understand analogies well, let
>me put it this way: Islamism is to Islam what Christian Identity (the
>ideology of the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist groups) is
>to Christianity. Stated more plainly: Islamism is an attempt to twist
>an otherwise sensible religious faith into a justification for murder
>and mayhem. Islam is a sensible religious faith practiced by
>countless sensible individuals, some of whom I have been fortunate to
>have known. If there are any Muslims reading this exchange, allow me
>to apologize to them for any misunderstandings I have created.
>
Since you mentioned Hamas, I think that Western and Israeli reactions to
its democratic election as government of Palestine have been excessive.
The responsibilities of power often change the views of political
movements.  I don't dispute that the destruction of Israel was a part of
their philosophy, but insisting that they remove these policies from
their programme as a precondition of being recognized as a legitimate
government seems unwise.  It inspires a siege mentality.  Better to let
them govern, and to suggest diplomatically that the world would prefer
that they eliminate thesse provisions before the time comes for their
re-election.  The whole region is in serious need of trust-building efforts.

Once again, I thank you for your more moderate tone.  Wikipedia thrives
more from seeking common ground between disputants than from the
application of punitive measures.  I sincerely hope that Abu
Hamza/Saladin will approach the situation in a similar manner.

Ec


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index
	missing?

body:
On 5/23/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > It's damn useful to be able to filter down contributions to a particular
> > namespace.  For example, if I know a user has repeatedly violated
> > copyrights, I can check all Image:-related edits without needing to wave
> > through edits to the other namespaces, to ensure that all his copyvios
> > are tracked down and destroyed.
>
> The upload log would probably help with that one.

The log isn't too useful if they've changed the tags after uploading,
or if they're applying copyright tags to images they haven't uploaded.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Jay:
I didn't call you immature, I informed you that acting immature was
unbecoming of a (mature) person like you. Also refusing to engage
people who do not share your point of view and dismissing them as
"trolls" is a rather childish thing to do.

 Or
what a "strawman argument" is?

Don't dismiss everything you disagree with as a "strawman arguement".
By the way, I'm sure the concerned teacher has a relative named Abu
Hamza, considering Abu is a pretty common Muslim name.

Philip:

OH MY GOD. Prasad, we've put up with your shit for long enough.

Since I am not a hick or a hillbilly you will understand that I do not
appreciate the use of profanities against me. I ask that you not use
your "git-r-done" lingo whilst communicating with me.


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body: Two words - Hiroshima, Nagasaki.


from_name: [LiM] Manop

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sort order in Thai Wikipedia

body:
Hello,

I'm wondering where I can find how to fix the sort order in Thai Wikipedia.
The problem is that, in Thai language, words starting with a vowel alphabet
need to use the second alphabet (consonant alphabet) as the sort key but the
Mediawiki always use the first alphabets sorting by its unicode.

I searched some and found out that someone already asked this question in
bugzilla.wikimedia.org (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164)
(#32, Oct 05). And also the related one is already mentioned in unicode
collation algorithm for Thai/Lao (
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr10/  in #3.1.3 Rearrangement). And
also I found someone talking about LC_COLLATE in English WP for sorting
specific alphabet order (but I really don't know about this).

Thank you for any answer.

Regards,
Manop


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Prasad J wrote:

>I don't agree with you that it's only in North America where profanities
>are so widespread.
>
>
>>From what I know of the U.S through American T.V shows, music, movies
>etc. it seems profanities are used in a more routine manner in the U.S
>than in other countries.
>
>
>These words
>are a part of the language like any other.  They can be most effective
>when used
>
>Although they are useful when used to indicate emphasis, these words
>reflect on the (lack of) refinity of their user.
>
Please could you avoid muddling between quotes and your own responses.

Also, in the last sentence that you "quoted" from me, you should be
reminded that I had the adverb "sparingly" at the end.  It makes a big
difference to the meaning.

Your observation that profanities are so prevalent in American
entertainment is inconsistent with the European view that Americans are
prudish.  However I can see that any entertainment that deviates from
the politically correct monotony of Bollywood could be interpreted as
profanity.  Remember too that much of European entertainment is not in
English, and I don't know the extent to which these films are translated
for audiences in India.  Even if they are translated, it is difficult to
compete against the American marketting behemoth.

Ec


from_name: Dan Rosenthal

body:
I think a wiki-off topic list would be a great idea.

-Swatjester

On 5/23/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually I must admit that I have been involved in off-topic
> "debates", at times bordering on trolling. Sorry for any inconvenience
> caused, I forgot that these e-mails are sent to everyone on the
> mailing-list including those not involved in the arguement.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Dan Rosenthal
IWVO National Legislative Director


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.6.5 JavaScript Execution Vulnerability

body:
Hi All,

There's a MediaWiki client-side JavaScript execution vulnerability
here: http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser24
(Just move your cursor over the underlined text - if you see a popup
dialog box, then there's a problem).

Affects MediaWiki 1.6.5 (current stable). Also happens in 1.6.1, so
probably sensible to assume 1.6.x <= 1.6.5 is affected.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
G'day Keither,

> Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow
> us to use?
>
> After all, we are a top 20 website and we probably have the most Star Wars
> related articles of any big site on the web. We are a non-profit
> organisation and we don't provide material that directly competes with them.

Uhh, actually, we *do*.  Have you seen the "Expanded Universe" section
of the /Star Wars/ website?  And the "Expanded Universe" section of
Wikipedia?  It's spooky.  There's even the same overtone of worrying
earnestness that you get from anoraks pervading both sites ...

<snip/>

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 22/05/2006


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Seed of story:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1116

What happened next:
http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52175.html
http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52385.html

Story at BoingBoing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u_florida_cops_ask_f.html

What's the proper gamer term for when you mount a fiendishly clever
attack on someone and get handed your arse, on a plate, with garnish?

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
Am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2006 10:26 schrieb Andre Engels:
> I don't see the connection between your reasons and my message.

The connection is that admins are seen as some kind of superman and in the end
admins expect from each other the same too and then you have nice revert- and
block-unblock-wars because the admins think the action of each other is
against policy $foobar. The consequence is that admins themselves take their
actions too serious and too political and loose joy.

And regular voting and "terms of service" policies and thus no ethusiastic
collaboration are the deeper reason behind that frustration. Not some recent
controversy.

Arnomane


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
I will consider your advice. Though using profanities may be
considered posh in the U.S.A, I don't think you can take that as sign
that such habits are condoned in other countries, given that fact that
America is not really a benchmark when it comes to culture.
Nontheless, feel free to cuss all you want, if that is the way you
were raised.


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body: We'll stop arguing when Muslim users like Abu are treated fairly.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
G'day Peter,

>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wagner
>
>>On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, we got lots of such pictures. I think we've established that
>>>these images are non-controversial and the problem is
>>
>>finding the best
>>
>>>way for uploaders to license them without claiming ownership.
>>
>>Seems to me the best solution is to tag it as {{GFDL}} or
>>{{PD}} or whatever, and add a note of "Taken at my request".
>
> Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually give you
> copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without explicit
> assignment.

When I take a photo for someone else, using his camera, so that he can
appear in the photograph as well, the *last* thing on my mind is "who
gets copyright?"  I'm just pressing a button as a favour to a tourist or
something (latest example, an immigrant who wanted to send a photo of
himself frolicking in < 1cm of snow home, to say to his parents "look,
it's really cold in Canberra!").

Unless my views are totally out of touch with those of the average
passer-by (who knows, they could be), I think most would, if they
consider copyright at all, be happy to let the subject have it.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 22/05/2006


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.6.5 JavaScript Execution Vulnerability # 2

body:
Hi All,

Second MediaWiki 1.6.5 JavaScript Execution Vulnerability in the Parser.

Unlike the previous one, this one affects the live Wikipedia too (i.e.
tidy does not prevent it).

Vuln is here: http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser25
And also on the wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nickj/JS-vuln-2

And the full list of Parser problems is here: http://nickj.org/MediaWiki
(Anything with yellow or red in the "Security aspects?" column is a
potential or actual JS execution problem, respectively; everything
else is an HTML validation problem).

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Historical debates

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
>>
>> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 06:43, Molu wrote:
>>> What do you think?
>> There would be some redundancies with:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever
>
> Some of WP's greatest debates have been anything but lame, but yes, there
> would be a bit of overlap.
>
> I love [[WP:LAME]]. We can all learn something about not seeing the tree for
> the leaves.
>
> Pete, occasional contributor to the lameness
>

I suppose that includes questioning the copyright status of an image
based on your personal dislike of the uploader?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/e5b8400b/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and his islamaphobia

body:
abu hamza wrote:
> Well welch you are at it again with your accusations of anti semitism, and
> being an al qaida operative, and supporting 911 and anything else you can
> make up.
>
> And all this when just a few posts ago you talked about how there is no
> place in wikipedia for personal attacks. I nearly fell on the ground
> laughing at that one.
>
> So once again for the record.
> adding a section on the three oaths is not evidence of anti semitism
> neither is putting back the reference to harold shipmans geneolgy .
>
> what is islamaphobic however  and down right racist and bigoted is to accuse
> someone of being an alqaida operative, supporting the blowing up of 911, etc
> because their email address is abuhamza.
>
> I am really, really shocked at the level of unprofessionalism you have shown
> phil. how on earth someone allowed you to act as an adminstrator for
> wikipedia is beyond me.
>

Interesting, I didn't realise that discussing photographs of Harrison
Ford equated to anti-semitism...

PS. Your ad-hominim attacks look /far/ more professional if you use the
<SHIFT> key occaisonally...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/a43e9c7d/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
>>> Let's respect everyone's privacy please.
>>> I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum.
>>>
>> It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard
>> Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman
>> or not, wouldn't you?
>
> NO! The right to remain anonymous on Wikipedia is SACRED. Don't mess
> with it unless you want someone to reveal who "alphasigmax at gmail.com"
> is. If you want to inquire about someones real identity, then email
> that person DIRECTLY.
>

In case you hadn't noticed, my account name is linked from my .sig -
what's YOUR username?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/a8af0555/attachment.pgp


body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> On May 22, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
>
>>> So you're willing to have Islamists, white supremacists, etc. openly
>>> editing Wikipedia as long as they attempt to follow NPOV? I don't. I
>>> think the presence of such individuals is harmful to the community.
>> That's a very POV statement in itself.
>>
>> The presence of holders of minority (and majority) viewpoints on WP is
>> welcome. So long as they don't attempt to impose their views above all
>> others, and they are civil to other editors.
>
> That's a reasonable thing to say about communists,

We have people who spent the entire Cold War thinking that communists
were going to to nuke them.

> anarchists, radical feminists,

We have single fathers.

> furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho-capitalists, or almost any
> fringe group.

We have people who hate them too.

> The difference with anti-Semites is that we have Jewish editors.

Your POV is showing...

> If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white
> supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either
> of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you
> make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be
> welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the
> community would be an insult.

The act of openly rejecting these types is just as big an insult. Who's
next? Non-Americans?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/966fd799/attachment.pgp


from_name: Domas Mituzas

references:
<e4qac4$uqr$1@sea.gmane.org> <4470D6AF.3010003@pobox.com>
	<e4ul3g$hm1$1@sea.gmane.org> <4472DFF9.9010701@pobox.com>

body:
Hi!

> Weeeeellll, we _could_ add indexable summary fields, and update
> them lazily in
> the background when required.
>
> Still means a database layout change to the revision table, which
> might be a
> little expensive on upgrade.

It can be a task for tool server, and can be as well derived from our
xml dumps.

We have all that information in recentchanges (without an index for
this exact operation), but even then, I'm not convinced it has to be
used his way.

What is the point of per-namespace contribution feature on live site?
What are the applications of it?

Domas


from_name: Prasad J

body:
Admit it, you banned me because any balanced view of zionism is not
acceptable to you, only pro zionism is, and so all those who attempt to make
the zionist page a NPOV should be banned indefinately on his first ever ban
due to trumped up charges and false accusations

I actually would prefer to know someone's biases and
be overly cautious of any of their edits vs. have someone push POV and
be unaware.
Sue Anne

I'm not a Muslim but I must agree with Abu's view. Why not just admit
that some of you are biased against him on account of his religion?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
<snip>
> I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But maybe
> you're banned from that too.
>

For that matter, why are you (Skyring) still on this mailing list?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/54166877/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
>>
>> On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is that when I'm
>>> eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to upload a
>>> picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded
>>> individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the
>>> exact same quibble with ownership.
>>>
>>> Here's the photograph I want to upload.
>>> http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in
>> Hiroshima
>>> with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
>>>
>> Do you still speak to Cari?  If so, just get Cari to agree to
>> release the photo under a free license.  But please don't
>> pick {{GFDL}}.
>
> She's an angel. She'll happily release the photograph if I ask. My problem
> is that I can't upload it.
>

If you tag it with a relevant CC license on Flickr, the FlickrLickr
(sic) project will catch it.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/4104b869/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>
>> In some cases the people stealing the million are the ones
>> who write the
>> laws; they are in a position to ensure that stealing a cent
>> is punished
>> more severely. :-)
>
> Heh. Spot on. Steal a shilling, get sent to Australia for life. Steal a
> million pounds, get a knighthood.
>

Kill a few people, they call you a murderer. Kill a million and you're a
conqueror.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/bff25fe1/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
> --Peter, playing the game
>

You are trolling.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/d3cb6a12/attachment.pgp


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index missing?

body:
There's been some discussion on a development mailing list regarding
the namespace selector in contributions pages, which is expensive due
to our schema arrangement.

One of our database administrators has posed this question, which I
thought I'd forward to this list, since it's full of users.

Rob Church

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com>
Date: 23-May-2006 11:28
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index missing?
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>

Hi!

It can be a task for tool server, and can be as well derived from our
xml dumps.

We have all that information in recentchanges (without an index for
this exact operation), but even then, I'm not convinced it has to be
used his way.

What is the point of per-namespace contribution feature on live site?
What are the applications of it?

Domas


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy

body:
On 5/23/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unfortunately in English law it is potentially actionable to call
> someone litigious.

Only editors from England are subject to that restriction.  More
accurately, given England's ... generous libel laws ... saying
ANYTHING about someone they don't like is potentially actionable.

Of course, in the US, you can pretty much sue anyone for anything -
whether you can win in court is another matter, of course.

-Matt


body:
On 23/05/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the point of per-namespace contribution feature on live site?
> What are the applications of it?

I've forwarded this question to the user base at large.

Rob Church


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> otherwise making clear) "I am an anti-Semite" is, by definition, the
> same as saying, "I hate Jewish people". If you don't see that as
> uncivil I don't know what you can see as uncivil.

I don't see that as particularly uncivil, actually.  Wikistalking, leaving
messages on user talk pages, personal attacks on article talk pages,
excessive reverting - these things fall much better into that category.
Stating that you hate jews on your user page is more in the nature of
generally unpleasant and inflammatory, whereas incivility has more to do
with being unpleasant on an individual basis.

Steve


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer

body:
On 5/23/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I would request that my user page is unblocked so that i can put my case
> against the reasons for the ban, as it is quite difficult to do so on the
> emailing list. such as proving there was no copyright violations, proving
> there was no personal attacks, proving there where useful posts according to
> NPOV, not own work etc, and finally to address the horrid and hateful
> accusations by welch that i am an antisemite.

You seem to have no problem posting here, nor have you refrained from
addressing these topics.  Why should you be unblocked on this basis?


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 2:00 PM, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> When you say "no useful edits," does that mean that you are "able to
> provide evidence of your accusations?" It seems to be that Saladin1970
> definitely has made useful contribution(s):

I can't comment on the 2nd link you gave, but this one at least...

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Turkic_peoples&diff=53987242&oldid=53921254.
This one is already addressed *directly* below, and links to a quite
long, and apparently well-referenced article on the subject:
[[Xiongnu]].  While I, personally can't comment on the good faith or
lack of such in the edit, it was, in fact, not useful where it was put,
and was redundant (as best as I can tell) in the article where it
should have been put.

Jesse Weinstein


body:
Jimbo wrote:

>Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we
>automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)

Can I propose it then?

1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it.
2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.

This is a [[SMOP]], of course.

(We had a Wikimedia UK meeting on Saturday. A few of us came up with
this precise policy independently. Great cabals think alike and all
that.)

- d.