from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] User categories and lists

body:
Just remove the advice, and the redirect to the category. It's absolutely
not recommended practice. We can afford redundancy and there are many things
categories either don't do or don't do well, while lists also have their
limitations.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] Esquire article on Wikipedia

body:
On 9/21/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
> damnit, not again.  When Jimbo decided to do this last time
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack of the show it ended up being absolute
> chaos complete with several vandalism sprees.  I wish that the community
> would be consulted in the future when these types of things were decided.

Jtkiefer, no harm no foul. This artice is in "Wikipedia:" namespace
and is not a true encyclopedia entry.

The only thing it will do is show how badly Wikipedians are at writing
magazine feature articles. :)

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Esquire article on Wikipedia

body:
On 9/21/05, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
> "Is it supposed to be a secret that the magazine is Esquire? The the page
> doesn't mention it and user "notafish" is being coy about it on the talk
> page."
>
>
> Um, oops. I must have missed that memo.

I think it's absolutely essential to know that it's Esquire, since
knowing your audience affects the writing style used. That's
Journalism 101.

What I find amusing is that the original ariticle was 709 words. We're
already up to over 1200 in the new "improved" version. :)

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] English orthographies

body:
> > If Norwegian can have two wikipedias, then so should English, for the same
> > reasons.
>
> Or, alternatively, Norwegian shouldn't have two Wikipedias; if the
> situations are as analagous as you imply, I would support their
> merger. What Norwegian speakers would have to say on the matter is a
> whole other debate (and one of which plenty can probably be found in
> the list archives, if you look).

The Norwegian issue was discussed extensively.

In addition to massive (rather than minor) orthographic differences,
Bokm?l and Nynorsk have very different grammars (some examples: the
word "I" is "Jeg" in Bokm?l and "Eg" in Nynorsk, the word "not" is
"ikke" in Bokm?l and "ikkje" in Nynorsk, even the word "Norway" is
"Norge" in Bokm?l and "Noreg" in Nynorsk.)

Now, the heart of this issue is: it isn't just a consensus of
Americans that has led to the status quo. It is a consensus of people
from America as well as from all over the Commonwealth, including but
not limited to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, India...

If you want, you can open a poll on Meta-Wiki. If even 10 established
members of any Wikipedia vote in favour of a split, I will be very
surprised.

Until such time as you open that poll, I respectfully request that you STFU.

Mark


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wiktionary-l] 300 languages on nl.wiktionary :-)

body:
Congratulations on reaching the 300th language :-)

Well some of you will say: but for some languages there are only some
words ... yes, but it is hard to find these "some words" in so many
languages :-)

It is a wonderful starting point to work on minor and rare languages.

So if you have terminology of minor and rare languages: don't wait - add
them to wiktionary :-)

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Wikipedia-l] English stats

body:
Yeah my mailbox is overflowing!

Waerth

>In the last two weeks this list saw 233 messages with "English" in
>the Subject line.  The most common ("Re:" removed) were:
>
> 95 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> 45 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] new request for ASL/English wikipedia
> 30 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sample ASL/English entry
> 22 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anglicised English British English
>  9 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for AS/English Wikipedia
>  9 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] OurMedia for ASL-English video
>
>None of these discussions are expected to lead anywhere in the
>near future.  Please wake me up when you have some ASL websites
>that I can look at, or when you have reached consensus on
>color/colour spelling.
>
>The most of these pointless messages were posted by:
>
> 27 From: Mark Williamson
> 21 From: Gerard Meijssen
> 19 From: Jack & Naree
> 19 From: Alphax
> 16 From: Andrew Gray
> 12 From: James R. Johnson
>
>I admit to having written 2 of the messages, and this is my 3rd.
>
>In 1945 Vannevar Bush wrote an article about the Memex, but he
>never built one.  In 1960 Ted Nelson started to design the Xanadu
>system, but have you seen it in operation?  The aspect that makes
>Wikipedia stand out is that it exists.  We will continue to be
>more successful than those old losers if we keep smalltalk to a
>minimum and get back to work on ideas that we can implement.
>
>
>
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Potential Wikipedian growing pains

body:
> Obviously the "1.0" or rating project is an attempt to
> institutionalize the maintenance of high quality articles.
> But there may be some evolutionary reasons why quality has held up.

My church's Encyclopedia Project will also be helping with "high
quality". We have hired editors who will pay writers substantial fees to
revise existing Wikipedia articles for inclusion in a new work to be
released in 2008. It will be comparable in quality to the Encyclopedia
Britannica, although its word count may be lower.

And of course, all such revised articles will be (must be!) re-released
under GFDL for possible inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not our aim to
create a fork. Think of a river which seems to branch into two wide
streams because there's a long island in it. After the island, the
streams converge again.

> More and more WP articles have taxoboxes, infoboxes,
> templates, categories, and the like, so that when someone
> clicks on "Edit this page" it is more likely now than ever
> before, that they'll be presented with some pretty
> intimidating code. Just check out [[Cat]] for an example.
> There seems to be a higher threshold for older articles once
> these constructs have been placed in the code.
>
> I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the
> inclusiveness of it has to do with not being like a database
> or data entry system. That has changed with templating now
> being extensively used around the Wikimedia projects.
>
> This is not necessarily a bad thing. As articles have evolved
> through Wikipedia's lifetime, moving them to more complex
> stages of coding has likely kept in check some of the
> spurious newbie editing of these articles one would expect
> with WP's explosive growth. At the same time, it still
> remains easy to start an article, and to do basic essential markup.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

Division of labor, Andrew. Some will write, and these are our core
volunteers! Others are good at spell-checking, copy-editing, mark-up,
taxoboxes, assigning categories, removing bias, etc.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Wikipedia English English

body:
>  I'm sorry but there are not a "few" usage differences, there really are
> quite a lot. And this is more than just dialect we are talking about: I'm
> not arguing for "equal rights" for each dialect; but for "equal rights" for
> the two orthographies, in the same way as Scots, and the two forms of
> Norwegian.
>  this is just an example:
> http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/american.html
> http://www.krysstal.com/ukandusa.html

You really are barking mad, aren't you?

The vast majority of those aren't even real differences.

Some examples:

"note" vs "bill" -- "bill" would probably not be understood in the UK,
but referring to them as notes would be understood in the US.
"maths" vs "math" -- any good encyclopaedia should always say
"mathematics" rather than abbreviating it so lazily.
"autumn" vs "fall" -- we use them both as synonyms on this side of the
pond. You guys don't?
"bank holiday" vs "legal holiday" -- I've lived in the US my entire
life, and I've never even heard of the latter
"tick" vs "check" -- not the same thing. a check is a distinct symbol,
as is a tick, and they are two different symbols.
"pissed off" vs "pissed" -- WTF!? first of all, this won't be found in
most encyclopaedia articles. second of all, we say both here.
"trousers" vs "pants" -- although we consider "trousers" to be a bit
old-fashioned, it will be widely understood here. I did used to think
it meant shoes though.
"pedestrian crossing" vs "crosswalk" -- we use both here.
"store" vs "shop" -- this is probably the lamest one on there.
"chemist" vs "drug store" -- "chemist" isn't common here, but it's
better than "apothecary", which is probably less ambiguous than either
of the other two.
"bill" vs "check" -- uhh... we use both.
".co.uk" vs ".com" -- that's not a linguistic difference. There are
plenty of UK companies that have a .com, as it's supposed to be
international (as opposed to .us)
"car" vs "automobile" -- we usually just say "car" here. only people
like you say "automobile".
"jug" vs "pitcher" -- absolut rediculos~!

I could go on. But I'm getting bored. You're mad. End of story.

Mark


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Topic warriors

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>I think portals should be the "public face" of WikiProjects.  A portal
>should only exist if there is a formal set of users dedicated to
>keeping it maintained.  If this is not happening, it should be
>archived or deleted (preferably archived).  Pages like
>[[Portal:Cricket]], while potentially just fan pages, actually provide
>an excellent method of navigating appropriate content.  If they are
>kept up, they do no harm.  If they are not kept up, they look messy
>and a messy portal seems worse than an incomplete article.

It depends. In a contentious area, they can be a way of subtly or
unsubtly pushing a POV, much like bad article series boxes. An example
is [[Template:Scientology]] - the current version is for talk pages
and marks the article as part of WikiProject Scientology, but if
you're an admin then look at the deleted versions - they're article
series boxes that push a critical POV. You could set up a portal for
each POV, but that's just article forks pushed to a higher level.

When writing up [[WP:SCN]], I strongly suggested we not vary Wikipedia
styles and policies at all where at all possible - a project should
IMO be invisible except by its fruits. Similarly, I do think the only
"portal" it needs is [[Category:Scientology]] - which means building a
category tree that presents all relevant viewpoints suitably and
accessibly. The Wikipedia content on the subject should be just as
good for and accessible to the interested Scientologist (CoS or
non-CoS) and the pissed-off critic.

BTW, I see nothing wrong with people going to VFD/AFD and voting
"keep" on their topic area. You know, they might KNOW THE AREA or
something better than nonspecialist VFD regulars. What a thought, eh?

- d.


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Potential Wikipedian growing pains

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

> >From: Zephram Stark <zephramstark at yahoo.com>
> >
> >The only significant source of contention at
> Wikipedia is when people try
> >to unduly influence articles.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly
> influencing articles
> >cannot be achieved.
>
> But how can this benefit you?  If such a system
> actually worked, you'd be
> completely unable to edit.  Oh wait, we must already
> have such a system,
> because you are effectively unable to edit now.
>
> >if we are willing to let our influence be based on
> the quality of our edits
>
> We are; that's why you have absolutely no influence.
>
> Jay.

You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity when
we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and as a
valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique) to
trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).

To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent
appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD.

SV

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Public Domain in occupied Iraq

body:
The below is at [[Image_talk:2UK_soldiers2.jpg]]. Im
curious what the "public" thinks of the issue.
----

I have two questions on the public domain status of
this image. On what basis is this said to be the work
of an Iraqi government employee- it explicitly says
"AFP" on the bottom right. Also, is the work of Iraqi
government employees actually public domain- this is
the situation with the U.S. government, but in most
countries it is not.--Pharos 23:31, 19 September 2005
(UTC)

The image was taken while the agents were in custody.
No evidence or mention suggests that the photo was
itself taken by afp, or any other copyright interested
news agency. The photo has been published elsewhere on
the web in an uncensored form, where there is no
attribution to AFP. It is common practice for news
agencies to claim source rights for images, even
without modifications, as reproductions of photos
which are in fact public domain. For these reasons I
believe the photo is not the property of AFP, but
instead is the work of an Iraqi police officer, taken
in the conduct of official duties. -St|eve 23:43, 19
September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's originally from the AFP or not;
it's quite possible it's from the Iraqi government,
but there is no source for that. More important, there
is no source saying Iraqi govenment photos are PD (in
fact I don't think they are). BTW, if there is an
"uncensored" version (presumably with the faces
unblurred?), why shouldn't we have uploaded that
one?--Pharos 23:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would they not be public domain? They dont even
currently have an established system of patents and
intellectual property. You're right--I will find a
good uncensored version. -St|eve 23:56, 19 September
2005 (UTC)

The intellectual property produced by most governments
is not public domain- the U.S. is a real exception. I
would guess they're probably operating under the old
Saddam-era copyright system- the previous laws have
not been repealed en masse, and most are still in
operation. We can't just exclude Iraq from the
international system of intellectual property and say
that nothing produced by an Iraqi can be
copyrighted.--Pharos 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats just speculation. We will have to do some
research on Iraqi law. Maybe theres a lawyer we can
reach through wikien. A second photo is at Image:2UK
soldiers2.jpg, by the way. Still looking. -St|eve
00:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is speculation, but we must presume a photo is
copyrighted unless there is actual evidence it is not.
We can't speculate in the other direction. I'm looking
into the copyright law now; I'm sure it would be
useful to know and not just in this instance.--Pharos
00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, and to act within your bounds
would be to completely submit to transitional and
subjective interpretations of law which is equally
transitional. There is a good case to make that the ip
of nations in transition is in the PD, and not the
copyright of any entity. -St|eve 16:47, 21 September
2005 (UTC)

* Here's a PDF [1] of a 2004 ammendment by Bremer to
the 1971 law. I'm not sure if it may have been
superceded since then by the Iraqi Interim Government
or the Iraqi Transitional Government, but probably
not. No special mention is made of government works,
so we should presume they are copyrighted. Moreover,
look at the official government website, which says "?
2004 Iraqi Transitional Government - All rights
reserved." at the bottom.--Pharos 00:39, 20 September
2005 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to assume that a decree by a
corporate appointee to the leadership position of a
colonial government should be considered the basis for
any laws by which we must abide. Your suggestion of
"probably not" may be true, but only by the most
cynical of rationales. And the notion that a
disclaimer on a government website should be an
indicator of the entirety of ip law in an entire
country is likewise flacid. -St|eve 16:47, 21
September 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
Andrew Lih wrote:

>I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness
>of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system.
>That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the
>Wikimedia projects.

Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few
paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy
markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's
a real article about a real thing."

(references++)

- d.


body:
>  And so why don't Bokmal speakers have to put up with Nynorsk? The ratio of
> Bokmal speakers to Nynorsk seems to reflect the difference between the size
> of the USA and UK.

The difference is that Bokm?l and Nynorsk are both spoken in the same
country. Not only are they vastly more different than British and
American English, the politics surrounding them are much more
sensitive.

>  No, because it's a different issue to orthography. The fact that you
> recognise the differences implies that you recognise that these are two
> different orthographies - just like the two forms of Norweigan.
> The question remains why does a country of less than 4m deserve more than a
> country of 60m?

The "two forms of Norwegian" aren't just different orthographies.

Mark


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: AFD only doesn't scale for people who want to vote
	on all listed articles.

body:
On 9/21/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> > From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
> > AFD only doesn't scale for people who want to vote on all listed
> > articles.
> > Only vote for articles that need the votes and to ones where you can
> > add something to the discussion.
>
> This is pretty much what I do. My interest in AfD waxes and wanes,
> but if I look at AfD at all, you may take it as given that I have
> glanced at every discussion for an entire day. I probably participate
> in less than one in ten.
>
> *I don't participate if there is already obvious consensus and it's
> clear which way the discussion will go. (But if it's important to me
> I will put it on my watchlist).
>
> *I don't participate if I truly am indifferent to the outcome of the
> particular nomination.
>
> *I don't participate if I am not in a position to make an informed
> judgement, _and_ the subject is of so little interest to me that I
> can't spare ten minutes to start to educate myself about it.
>
> *I _do_ participate if it's something that is _almost_ a speedy and
> there are only a couple of votes there already. (FIRST POST!!!!)
>
> *I _do_ participate if I'm aware of possessing some relevant fact
> about the article or topic that has not already been mentioned by
> another participant.
>
> *I _do_ participate if I click on the article and it makes a very
> different impression on me than it made on the nominator.
>
> *I _do_ participate if the article arouses my curiosity. (I enjoy
> improving/rewriting/"rescuing" AfD's _if it's a topic that happens to
> pique my interest_.)
>
> *I'm afraid that I _do_ participate if I see a number of "votes" that
> give no rationale, or a bad rationale. These are probably my least
> useful comments.
>
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
> Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
> Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Good to hear, in my opinion most of those are excellent reasons to
enter a particular discussion.


body:
An article on a Wayne's World character shouldn't even see AfD because it
can be redirected in seconds.

But that isn't the reason why AfD doesn't scale.

Even if we only listed articles that are deletable under the deletion
policy, there would be no way that AfD could keep up and scrutinize even a
significant proportion of them.


body:
The point, though, is that that these words are much more common --
"ikke" and "ikkje" will show up much more often in a random text
sample than "color" and "colour".

Mark

On 21/09/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> > In addition to massive (rather than minor) orthographic differences,
> > Bokm?l and Nynorsk have very different grammars (some examples: the
> > word "I" is "Jeg" in Bokm?l and "Eg" in Nynorsk, the word "not" is
> > "ikke" in Bokm?l and "ikkje" in Nynorsk, even the word "Norway" is
> > "Norge" in Bokm?l and "Noreg" in Nynorsk.)
>
> Well, that's a vocabulary difference, not a grammar difference. But I
> believe you that there are also some grammar differences :), although
> the examples you gave look pretty minor to me, like color/colour...
>
> --
> Ausir
> Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
> http://pl.wikipedia.org
>
>

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


body:
> I don't think you have to look too desperately to start a new article
> - as long as humans exist and make news, there will be plenty of
> things to add. The next killer hurricane, the next teenage gal missing
> in the Caribbean, the next popular TV show, the next government
> official arrested for corruption, et al.

There'll always be valid topics to write about, but like Daniel I'm
worried about the amount of granular entries we're receiving. "Guy
making a canoe out of a log" (or whatever it was), a minor character
from Wayne's World 2 is on AFD. While he may be real and verifiable,
people need to take into account Wikipedia structure more. Important
and big stuff can get a seperate article and granular stuff should
only get an article if something encyclopedic can actually be said
about it. Otherwise merge per WP:FICT or whatever equivalent we've
got.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>An article on a Wayne's World character shouldn't even see AfD because it
>can be redirected in seconds.
>
>But that isn't the reason why AfD doesn't scale.
>
>Even if we only listed articles that are deletable under the deletion
>policy, there would be no way that AfD could keep up and scrutinize even a
>significant proportion of them.
>
True as that might be, you still need to be able to separate those
articles that can be diverted like the Wayne's World character, and
convince the contributor that all the information that he added already
exists somewhere else.

Ec


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] User categories and lists

body:
>From: Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com>
>
>The List of Caribbean Wikipedians was redirected to the Category:Caribbean
>Wikipedians tonight. Thus I learned about Wikipedia:User categorisation.
>While I realised that these cats (Wikipedians in Foo) were spreading, I was
>shocked to realise that this page was telling people to redirect lists to
>categories. Maybe I missed the discussion at the Village Pump, but I could
>not figure out what the point of this change was.
>
>The List of Caribbean Wikipedians is a working resource associated with the
>Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. It serves a purpose in the improvement
>of Caribbean-related articles. So why must it be removed? In addition,
>although there are 17 names on the list, there are only 4 names in the
>Category, and over a dozen national sub-categories...sub-categories which
>are so badly named that I cannot add myself to one of them (I am not in
>Trinidad and Tobago). The best case scenario would leave the names
>scattered
>through over a dozen categories, with no clue as to whether they had any
>interest in matters arising from the notice board or not.
>
>Am I the only one who is bothered by projects which set out to remove
>useful
>material? True, some of the lists are too long to be useful, and true, it's
>"fun" to be able to add a link to your user page saying that you in Foo
>(not
>from, not associated with...in). But what sort of a project focusses on the
>appearance of the Wikipedia namespace instead of focussing on usefulness?
>Or
>is it no longer true that we are here to write an encyclopaedia?

There's a natural tension between Categories and Lists.  On the one hand,
categories are self-maintaining, and only link to things that actually exist
on Wikipedia.  On the other hand, lists can contain additional information
about the items in them, can reference important information for which no
articles yet exist on Wikipedia, and can be organized in more meaningful
ways than categories.

I'm tend to favour Categories over Lists, but I can see why someone would
prefer to have Lists as well.

Jay.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Again, TINC (Was: Potential Wikipedian growing pains)

body:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:

> You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity when
> we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and as a
> valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique) to
> trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).
>
Steve, you just lost a large chunk of credibility with me by using
the word "clique".

TINC. It's a case of thinking the grass is greener on the other
side of the fence: because some people do more work, or are more
persuasive in their arguments, other people think that they are
part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret Masonic handshake [*]
& Get Out of Jail cards.

I've been on Wikipedia as long as you, & I don't see any special
favors here. I have met only one person here in Real Life, & only
know one other person from previous usenet contact -- & I doubt that
I have any special clout with them because of it. (Sometimes I
doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list -- but that's another
subject entirely.)

And if there was a clique, they'd either moderate this list entirely
("Hey, that ligwitch guy's trying to post again! Silly rabbit, hasn't
he learned that he's Not Allowed?"), or ignore it & communicate on
their own list or IRC channel.

And it's an easier idea to accept than that Wikipedia has grown so
much that unless you spend a good chunk of time looking for
conversations & disputes, things will happen & decisions will be
made that will surprise you. And even if you do extend the effort,
these surprises will still happen.

At the end of the day, after contributing hours of labor on the
dull, unexciting parts of Wikipedia, one might wish there was a
cabal or clique when some pissant resurrects the same trivial argument
for the upteenth time that her/his POV is not being heard, & that
not only could he/she be banned from Wikipedia, but someone sent to
the person's home & have their modem & hard drive smashed. But one
doesn't, because the other members of this alleged clique would be
just as angry at you for high-handedness as the pissant in question.

In short, if there was a real ruling clique on Wikipedia, we'd
all know it. For one thing, we'd have at least one mediocrity
here who would be rubbing the fact that she/he belongs in our faces.

</rant>

Geoff

* For the record, I've been shown a Real Masonic Handshake. It's
not as interesting as the Monty Python sketch makes it out to be.


body:
I was simply commenting on how one particular leg of
the "Trifecta" may naturally be more popular with
egomaniacs than the other two.

SV

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

> >From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
> >
> >To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent
> >appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD.
> >
> >SV
>
> Steve, it would be interesting to see exactly how
> you react had you been
> subjected to the personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and
> trolling to which
> Zephram has subjected many others, but with a
> particular focus on me.  You
> might find your equanimous mien slipping just the
> tiniest bit, particularly
> given the evidence of your own e-mail, which appears
> to be an unambiguous
> violation of WP:NPA, without any provocation
> whatsoever.
>
> 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
>

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


body:
Well, just judging by his comments on the list, I
would have said that he was simply your normal average
newbie wikian interested in the wiki internalz.

Now that I know that he said that, I now think that
he's just plain evil, evil, evil!!  (More evil even
than those CIA who threw "suspected VC" out of flying
helicopers.) All hope of social and spiritual
redemption is lost for one who has in the past uttered
such words of ethnism.

:-)

SV
PS: Has he at least apologised by the way?

--- Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/21/05, Michael Turley
> <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > He's not blocked.
> >
> > Then my point is even more important; this isn't
> some obscure Usenet
> > group we're communicating on. This is the official
> mailing list of
> > the "flagship project" of a well respected
> worldwide community with
> > scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors
> is warranted.
>
>  Before you decide that more courtesy for Zephram is
> warranted, please be
> aware that this is the user who blanked his talk
> page with the edit summary,
> "*This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had
> possibilities before
> all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is,
> I never had anything
> against you before this. Now I see what people
> mean.*" In general, I
> completely agree with your comment. For Zephram,
> It's well past the time for
> assuming good faith or extending courtesy.
>  Carbonite
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Worldtraveller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Topic warriors

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Korn [mailto:smoddy at gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 September 2005 6:24 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Topic warriors
>
>
> On 9/20/05, Worldtraveller <wikipedia at world-traveller.org> wrote:
>> Hm, personally I don't see too much of a link between portals and
>> projects.  Astronomy-related projects include telescopes and
>> astronomical
>> objects, neither of which would make a good topic for a portal, while a
>> wikiproject:astronomy would be too broad to work well as a project.  I
>> agree with MgM that the portals I listed in my earlier mail cover topics
>> much more suited to a project than to a portal.
>
> On the contrary.  I thought the entire intention of portals was to
> provide a comprehensive overview (I don't think that's an oxymoron) of
> a certain area.  I think an astronomy portal would be excellent.
> There should be the possibility of a good article every month to
> feature.  I guess some of the wikiprojects are too narrow: they should
> combine to form the portal.  If there is enough coverage to keep a
> portal going, we should have a portal.
>
> Sam

Sorry - I think I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying.  We have an
astronomy portal, and I think it's excellent :) But I think projects and
portals fulfil very different remits.  Projects are to improve and
organise content, and I think they work well when they concentrate on
narrow areas (such as telescopes).  A wikiproject:astronomy would be too
broad to be very useful.  Portals, though, are for displaying all the good
content that's out there, and I think they work best when they cover broad
areas - a portal:telescopes wouldn't be that interesting or viable.

A project:Doctor Who makes sense to me, to provide material which can then
be showcased in a portal:TV programs or suchlike, but a portal:Doctor Who
seems over-specialised and not of great interest to a general reader to
me.

Should there be some kind of mechanism for approving portals before they
are created?  And should there be a mechanism for proposing the removal or
merging of portals that are too narrow and specialised?

WT


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Better tools to fight Wiki vandalism

body:
You might want to check out CDVF. It has most of that: [[WP:CDVF]]
 Ryan

 On 9/20/05, Frederic <frederic at conrotte.be> wrote:
>
> Hi Wikipedians,
>
> just a question regarding Wiki Vandalism on Wikipedia.
>
> On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges, would it
> be possible to display a symbol in front of the line (let's say "V" for
> Vandalism)
> if some facts are met about the changes on an article ?
> E.g. : if size has decreased of more than 20%
> Another way would be to compute a level of probability of vandalism based
> on some criteria, a bit like SpamAssasin is working on killing spams.
>
> Another tool that would usefull to fight spam would be to create a page
> like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
> but with differences directly displayed, without the full articles. I mean
> you would have all the differences on the latests articles amended displayed
> on one page.
> Ok ok It would cost maybe too much CPU to do this, but this could be a
> tool reserved for "significant Wikipedia contributors"
>
> Fred
>
> (Sorry if this topic has already been discussed/solved but I didn't find a
> way to query the ML's history)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Andrew Lih wrote:
>
>
>>I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness
>>of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system.
>>That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the
>>Wikimedia projects.
>>
>>
>Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few
>paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy
>markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's
>a real article about a real thing."
>
Absolutely!  Speaking as the one who has been pushing the POV on
Wiktionary that even vocabulary needs to be referenced, I am amazed by
the people who consider some number of Google hits as evidence.  Some of
the most common offending terms are those that seek to rename sexual
practices, or characterize some kind of on-line activity.  A large
proportion of these terms may indeed be valid, but that requires some
kind of documentation to distinguish them from something that the
contributor just made up for the occasion.

Ec


body:
Alphax wrote:

>David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew Lih wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness
>>>of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system.
>>>That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the
>>>Wikimedia projects.
>>>
>>>
>>Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few
>>paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy
>>markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's
>>a real article about a real thing."
>>
>>
>I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that
>isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the
>will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
>
>(The other day, when the wiki went slow, someone said suggested
>disabling editing, serving Wikipedia from one of the static database
>dumps, and declaring Wikipedia as being version 1.0 ;) )
>
Honestly, I really am an inclusionist. :-)
I have never believed that "notability" alone should be a significant
criterion for deletion.

Putting this kind of problem off onto the backs of those who will be
editing 1.0 seems like avoiding responsibility.  It will be even harder
for them because time will have left them even further removed from the
original contributor, who may be the only one capable of answering the
questions.  If the wiki is having a slow day I see that as a temporary
situation which should have no bearing on editorial policy.

Clear objective standards are important to credibility, and what is
needed to achieve those standards should also be very clear.
Verifiability can be clearly defined; notability cannot.

Ec


body:
> I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that
> isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the
> will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
>
I don't think that's a good idea. The speedy criteria are purposely
limited to specific cases. Most people won't argue the fact there's
definitely articles in existence that should clearly be deleted, but
don't fit a particular speedy criterion because we couldn't come to an
agreeable phrasing of such a criterion.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Topic warriors

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I see nothing wrong with people going to VFD/AFD and voting
>>>"keep" on their topic area. You know, they might KNOW THE AREA or
>>>something better than nonspecialist VFD regulars. What a thought, eh?
>>>
>>>
>>I've said that several times now...
>>
>>
>It's not them voting "keep" that is a problem. Often people vote keep
>on topics that interest them merely because they want that topic in
>Wikipedia regardless of whether it's actually good for the
>encyclopedia. Still, as long as they provide sources as to why it
>should be kept, I don't see much of a problem either.
>
Sources substantiate the material in the article rather than the POV of
whether or not it should be kept.

Saying that people are acting "regardless of whether it's actually good
for the encyclopedia" imputes motives of recklessness to these people.
In the case of a newbie, he may not even have had the opportunity to
consider what "good for the encyclopedia" means.  Entering a dialogue
with them about that broader subject may be more constructive.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Topic warriors

body:
> <snip>
> >
> > BTW, I see nothing wrong with people going to VFD/AFD and voting
> > "keep" on their topic area. You know, they might KNOW THE AREA or
> > something better than nonspecialist VFD regulars. What a thought, eh?
> >
>
> I've said that several times now...

It's not them voting "keep" that is a problem. Often people vote keep
on topics that interest them merely because they want that topic in
Wikipedia regardless of whether it's actually good for the
encyclopedia. Still, as long as they provide sources as to why it
should be kept, I don't see much of a problem either.


from_name: Carbonite

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: AfD Threshold being Revised Downward Again?

body:
On 9/21/05, Zephram Stark <zephramstark at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> .

Now that we have grown to an unwieldy size, it is painfully obvious that we
> cannot continue top-down approval of writings. Yesterday, User:Carbonite
> deleted an entire article without reading the definitions involved or
> understanding the issues. (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carbonite&oldid=23635316#The_United_States_Declaration_of_Independence)
> I feel confident that, if he had time to read the article he was redirecting
> toward, he would have realized that the people involved were doing nothing
> but trying to slam the U.S. Declaration of Independence via POV
> conclusions and original research. Carbonite did not have time to look at
> his actions objectively for the same reason that the Soviet Union found its
> task unwieldy: top-down micromanagement of large-scale social interactions
> takes too long. The only efficient way to keep Wikipedia going at this point
> in our growth, is to make it self-manageable. Giving up top-down control
> sounds like a risk, but m
> any of
> the greatest thinkers of history are behind us, and look at the result if
> we don't:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carbonite&oldid=23635316#The_United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

  Zephram, I'm going to ask you one last time to stop trolling. The next
time I will submit an ArbCom case.
 Your comments above have zero merit. As I explained at length on my talk
page, the consensus of an AfD was to redirect [[Unalienable rights]] to
[[Inalienable rights]]. No articles were deleted. From this and many other
incidents (especially [[Terrorism]]), it's now clear that you will not
accept consensus if it goes against your way of thinking. This is
unacceptable, as are your personal attacks and disruptive rants against
Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the way Wikipedia works (or the way you
think it works), no one is forcing you to stay.
 Carbonite


from_name: Jack & Naree

body:
On 20/09/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 20/09/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And what if they search for "red", which version does it link to?
> >
> > a single version of course, as mentioned, and as is surely obvious.
>
> No, I meant would it link to "color", "colour", or both.

 it's link to "red" wouldn't it? and on the red page, you could have a link
to both "color" and "colour" - unless of course you have previous selected
the English (US) wiki, in which case, the issue shouldn't arise, should it.

Then perhaps a solution to that problem, such as one article having
> multiple headwords, might be more appropriate?

 Agreed.

> Sure; and some don't; and some articles which don't have varying
> "orthographies" might contain different information. If it's a really
> fundamental difference, we use "disambiguation" of some form; if it's
> a more minor difference, the difference is incorporated and/or
> discussed in the article itself. There is no correlation between
> needing such disambiguation or discussion and having two spellings, so
> why build a policy as though there were?

 I think the issue was mainly about choosing one headword/spelling over
another. The fair solution is to include both; how is tricky.
It should be no problem to have multiple headwords, but in text it seems
impractical.
Unless of course you can have a bit of software that makes the article
headword active (a php thing perhaps) and that inserts the headword you
searched for whereever it appears.
Otherwise it seems likely that the only articles that will be in English
English will be ones about the British Isles. Pretty much everything else
will end up American.

> So a British reader might come upon a sentence saying "it is made from
> [[eggplant]]/[[aubergine]]", and, seeing that the two articles were
> separate, assume that these were alternative ingredients. Then,
> following the links, they might realise that the two were actually the
> same text copy-and-pasted with a bit of search-and-replace, and wonder
> why on earth we didn't just have one article.

 I actually thought an Eggplant was an Avocado, and I don't think it's fair
to assume that all, most, or even any significant number of British people
will necessarily know or understand the American language entries. It works
against Accessibility and Inclusiveness.
What you are advocating is effectively that British people learn American,
and accept it; and also accept that the orignal English form is defunct, or
"lesser", and is putting English English on linguistic death row..

>
> Can what? I was trying to point the absurdity of treating "aubergine"
> and "eggplant" as different subjects.

 Like I said, I didn't even know what an Eggplant was until I tried
searching for Aubergine.
 It sounds like a very fair solution to have the scientific name as the
headword for both "Eggplant" and "Aubergine" -searchers to be directed to.

 But if you want a question to
> respond to, what "orthography" would you write the article in if it
> was under its scientific classification? Such an article would contain
> exactly the same *information* whichever of the 3 headwords you filed
> it under, so the only possible reason for having more than one would
> be to "translate" a few usage differences to suit the same dialect as

 I'm sorry but there are not a "few" usage differences, there really are
quite a lot. And this is more than just dialect we are talking about: I'm
not arguing for "equal rights" for each dialect; but for "equal rights" for
the two orthographies, in the same way as Scots, and the two forms of
Norwegian.
 this is just an example:
http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/american.html
http://www.krysstal.com/ukandusa.html

the headword [I note from the Wikipedia article that this *wouldn't*
> be possible in this case, because there are two species, but the point
> stands]
>
>
> Well, since any "good" edit to the article "eggplant" would also be a
> "good" edit to the article "aubergine" (except for those edits
> correcting orthographical differences), I fail to see how
> synchronisation could be avoided.

 In some or many cases yes, but... blanket policies are flawed. it may be
inconvient, but can't assume that two apparently identical articles should
be entirely synchronised - even if they are talking about the same thing,
because the articles can also contain other culturally-specific information.

> No. They are *arguably* two separate languages, though I've heard few
> people take such a strong stance, except in jest. If it was at all
> clear, we wouldn't be having this argument.

 it might not be clear to people in the mainstream, but that is the result
of accepting Americanisation.
Here is an American academic piece which supports my argument that these are
not the same language:
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/norton.pdf

> "blatant waste of effort" is invested in creating wikis for tiny,
> pointless
> > languages and dialects: Ossetic, Tartar, Walloon, Interlingua,
> Limburgish,
> > Western Frisian, Asturian, Sicilian, Scots, Macedonian, Esperanto, the
> list
> > is bloody endless.
>
> So, because we have wikis in languages which are "pointless" but
> unambiguously distinct languages, we should not have wikis which
> include minor variations of the same language?

 these are not minor (unless you can prove it) - they are quantifiably the
same as several of the differences between wikis that currently exist.

But I won't go into this - if you want to read endless debates about
> wiki creation policy, go to
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ Yes, we have lots of
> wikis. Yes, a lot of them are controversial. No, you're not the only
> one who thinks we have too many. No, you're not the first to suggest
> merging some similar ones. Right now, however, we're discussing the
> particular case of the English wiki, not some other case with
> different political, linguistic, and geographic facts.

 The discussion of the particular case of the English wiki, must include a
justification of why other languages with similar degrees of difference -
such as Norwegian - are allowed two wikis, when English is not.

> You've even got the two forms of Norwegian! Yet English English speakers
> > have to accept American-English!
>
> And "American-English" speakers have to accept a little bit of
> "English English" in return. Most of us learn to live with it.

 And so why don't Bokmal speakers have to put up with Nynorsk? The ratio of
Bokmal speakers to Nynorsk seems to reflect the difference between the size
of the USA and UK.

> > Indeed, the main problem would be defining the various variants (it
> > > would be as arrogant to claim there are only two "proper" forms of
> > > English as to claim there is only one)
> >
> > there really are only two orthographies. Canadian and Australian just
> aren't
> > anywhere near divergent enough.
>
> I'm sure Canadians and Australians will be pleased to hear you
> pronounce that from your golden pedestal. As will Indians, New
> Zealanders, South Africans, etc etc. [It was pointed out, for
> instance, that an Australian user would not wish to select either "US"
> nor "British" spellings, because they would naturally use a mixture of
> the two.]

 I'm sorry, but there's no evidence to support that view. Provide evidence,
and I'll agree with you. How does an Australian write "colour" then? They
choose one or the other, if they wrote "culla" for instance, then I'd agree
with you, but they don't, do they.
have a look, find me some "Australian English" variations from either
American or English:
http://www.abc.net.au/default_800.htm
The only thing you'll find is Labor = American orthography, it is not
uniquely Australian. The content is at least 99% identical to the BBC site.
Compare to any American text.

> > and there'd still be compromises needed on
> > > grammar and punctuation issues, etc etc
> >
> > grammar and punctuation is a different issue - one for edit whores.
>
> Why? Because it doesn't annoy you as much as spelling does? Because
> it's not as straght-forward to "correct"? It seems to be very much
> part of the same issue if you ask me.

 No, because it's a different issue to orthography. The fact that you
recognise the differences implies that you recognise that these are two
different orthographies - just like the two forms of Norweigan.
The question remains why does a country of less than 4m deserve more than a
country of 60m?

> the "we're all against you" playground routine doesn't wash. It's no
> > surprise for a handful of Americans and Americanised types to oppose
> this,
> > but I doubt you'd get the same from Brits and Irish.
> > If this is to be an inclusive, uniting project, then this issue over
> > American-English hegemony needs to be resolved in a fair way.
>
> I am British, born and bred, and strongly object to being labelled
> "Americanised" simply because I am pragmatic enough to put up with two
> spellings of the word "colour".

 "put up with". You may not like it, but if you accept and use American
orthography (use in general), then you are Americanised to a degree.

 I hate to say this, but you're
> beginning to remind me of a much-discussed-on-this-list anti-semitic
> individual (sorry, "White Nationalist") who believed Wikipedia was run
> by a Zionist Conspiracy of Jews, with the unaware support of "useful
> idiots". I am not a "useful idiot" of either a Jewish or an American
> conspiracy, I am an individual who tries to examine propositions
> logically and reach his own conclusions.

 That is a disgusting and pathetic insinuation to make, and makes your
declaration of trying to examine propositions logically, laughable.
You have already proven that you have flawed logic by deploying a logical
fallacy in your rather pretentious "thought experiment", which was a total
straw man.
 It is not morally wrong to be patriotic; it does not make you a fascist -
what If I told you I was Jewish-Scottish-British, would that make you look
like an idiot?
It is not morally wrong to campaign for equality for English with
American-English.
There is a section of society that wants to make people feel wrong and
embarrassed about preserving what's good about Britain. If we yielded to
that tyranny, then we may as well fold away our flags, and have
American-English taught in our primary schools, and consign everything in
English English to museums and skips, and apply to become the 51st state.
Why should we? Why should we accept Americanisation? Why should we accept
the abolishment of Britain? Why should we be ashamed and embarressed of who
we are?
This is not any kind of extremism, it's asking for the same service that
everyone else gets - the same treatment for our language as the Norwegians
get for theirs. It's not wrong, it's not daft, it's not unreasonable. It's
fair.

That rant over, I would characterise it more as you coming and saying
> "I'm against all of you" than us saying "we're all against you" - you

 and this is more "logical examination of proposals"?!
I'm not "against all of you", I'm against unfairness, which is fundamentally
what this is about. Inaccuracy is also the other major issue, on top of
that, there's a lack of consistency.
I've included evidence in this response, because there are too many
irrational, unreasonable, and unsubstantiated rebuttles to my proposal.
There are double standards present, and it's against what I believe
Wikipedia is all about.
"back up your articles" it says... and so I am.

have yet to prove that there is even an issue to solve (except
> inasmuch as it is stopping you from contributing; and the more I hear
> of your biases, the less of a problem that seems).

 I'm biased towards fairness; you appear to be biased towards something
else.

--
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: TINC, TANC, TUNC

body:
Reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_internet_slang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WP

(I didnt really know TINC - still dont know TANC,
TUNC,
AOUM...)

SV

--- dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote:

> Various people wrote:
>
> >> You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity
> when
> >> we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite,"
>
> >TINC. ... because some people do more work, or are
> more
> >persuasive in their arguments, other people think
> that they are
> >part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret
> Masonic handshake [*]
> >& Get Out of Jail cards.
>
> TINC, IAR, DBAD, AFD, VFU, nn, AOUM...
>
> Will I learn what these mean when I join the Cabal?
>
> Well, Ten-four, good buddies... TTFN...
>
> -30-
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.3.16, 1.4.10 released [SECURITY]

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

MediaWiki 1.4.10 and 1.3.16 are security maintenance releases. A bug in
edit submission handling could cause corruption of the previous revision
in the database if an abnormal URL was used, such as those used by some
spambots.

Affected releases:
* 1.4.x <= 1.4.9; fixed in 1.4.10
* 1.3.x <= 1.3.15; fixed in 1.3.16

1.5 release candidates are not affected by this problem.

All publicly editable wikis are strongly recommended to upgrade
immediately. 1.4 releases can be manually patched by changing this bit
in EditPage.php:

~    function importFormData( &$request ) {
~        if( $request->wasPosted() ) {

to:

~    function importFormData( &$request ) {
~        if( $request->getVal( 'action' ) == 'submit' &&
~            $request->wasPosted() ) {

1.3 releases can be manually patched by changing this bit in EditPage.php:

~    if( $this->tokenOk( $request ) ) {
~        $this->save    = $request->wasPosted() && !$this->preview;
~    } else {

to:

~    if( $this->tokenOk( $request ) ) {
~        $this->save    = $request->getVal( 'action' ) == 'submit' &&
~                         $request->wasPosted() && !$this->preview;
~    } else {

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=358163
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=358162

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4.10.tar.gz?download
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.3.16.tar.gz?download

MD5 checksum:
mediawiki-1.4.10.tar.gz  2376f043109066d19830d05b6682c64b
mediawiki-1.3.16.tar.gz  7dae5d937c6803d970e803ddece750dc

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.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 / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDMbnuwRnhpk1wk44RAhV5AJ4/1UljYlTQ6paaSkdX/Bkz8Kw6hACfVDuq
Imq2VMNjyi2TRyziRRa3O0Q=
=0YtO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
The name is not misleading. It's called English because it's the language of
the English ethnolinguistic group in the nation of England.
That's academically accepted, end of story.
 If Norwegian can have two wikipedias, then so should English, for the same
reasons.


body:
>From: Zephram Stark <zephramstark at yahoo.com>
>
>The only significant source of contention at Wikipedia is when people try
>to unduly influence articles.

Exactly.

>Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly influencing articles
>cannot be achieved.

But how can this benefit you?  If such a system actually worked, you'd be
completely unable to edit.  Oh wait, we must already have such a system,
because you are effectively unable to edit now.

>if we are willing to let our influence be based on the quality of our edits

We are; that's why you have absolutely no influence.

Jay.


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Zephram Stark <zephramstark at yahoo.com>
> >
> >The only significant source of contention at Wikipedia is when people try
> >to unduly influence articles.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >Yet, it is possible to create a system where unduly influencing articles
> >cannot be achieved.
>
> But how can this benefit you?  If such a system actually worked, you'd be
> completely unable to edit.  Oh wait, we must already have such a system,
> because you are effectively unable to edit now.
>
> >if we are willing to let our influence be based on the quality of our edits
>
> We are; that's why you have absolutely no influence.
>
> Jay.

Even if everything you've written is correct, there's no need to be so
antagonistic with someone who is already blocked.  This reads as a
petty stab at someone who's already  ostracized from the Wiki.  Admins
and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests
their patience.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>
>On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Even if everything you've written is correct, there's no need to be so
>antagonistic with someone who is already blocked.  This reads as a
>petty stab at someone who's already  ostracized from the Wiki.  Admins
>and arbitrators should rise above such behavior, even when it tests
>their patience.

He's not blocked.

Jay.


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On 9/21/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Oddly enough, I wonder about the exact opposite. I fear that people
> enjoy creating new articles far more than they enjoy editing existing
> articles, and that people look desperately for topics that do not
> exist yet so that they can be the first to create them. The
> Wikipedian equivalent of the Slashdot FIRST POST!!!!

I don't think you have to look too desperately to start a new article
- as long as humans exist and make news, there will be plenty of
things to add. The next killer hurricane, the next teenage gal missing
in the Caribbean, the next popular TV show, the next government
official arrested for corruption, et al.

> I do not think its growth will stop. The problem is, will the quality
> of the articles hold up? There's no obvious reason why it shouldn't,
> and no obvious reason why it should.

Obviously the "1.0" or rating project is an attempt to
institutionalize the maintenance of high quality articles. But there
may be some evolutionary reasons why quality has held up.

More and more WP articles have taxoboxes, infoboxes, templates,
categories, and the like, so that when someone clicks on "Edit this
page" it is more likely now than ever before, that they'll be
presented with some pretty intimidating code. Just check out [[Cat]]
for an example. There seems to be a higher threshold for older
articles once these constructs have been placed in the code.

I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness
of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system.
That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the
Wikimedia projects.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. As articles have evolved through
Wikipedia's lifetime, moving them to more complex stages of coding has
likely kept in check some of the spurious newbie editing of these
articles one would expect with WP's explosive growth. At the same
time, it still remains easy to start an article, and to do basic
essential markup.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Anglicised English British English

body:
This reminds me of one of the [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever]],
addressing a double dispute:

[[Potato chips]]

"Should potato chips be flavored or flavoured? What is the provenance
of the potato chip, America or UK? Four-user revert war on these
important issues results in the page getting protected and listed on
RfC. As a compromise, the chips become 'seasoned.'"

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

PS: Apologies for adding to this useless thread

On 9/21/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> James R. Johnson wrote:
> > Anyone else prefer Lay's chips and Dorito's over french fries?  And anyone
> > else prefer having biscuits as a desert/snack over cookies?
> >
>
> You mean crisps over Belgian-style fried potato sticks? :) Corn chips
> are a whole different kettle of fish ;)
>
> --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
>From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
>To my mind there is less ambiguity when a recent
>appointee to WP:AC forgets to mind WP:DBAD.
>
>SV

Steve, it would be interesting to see exactly how you react had you been
subjected to the personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and trolling to which
Zephram has subjected many others, but with a particular focus on me.  You
might find your equanimous mien slipping just the tiniest bit, particularly
given the evidence of your own e-mail, which appears to be an unambiguous
violation of WP:NPA, without any provocation whatsoever.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] User categories and lists

body:
I too am worried about the "Wikipedians" lists being eradicated in
favor of categories.

The "List of" pages served a rare social function within the community
which is missing with the sterile category method of aggregating the
names.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 9/21/05, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> The List of Caribbean Wikipedians was redirected to the Category:Caribbean
> Wikipedians tonight. Thus I learned about Wikipedia:User categorisation.
> While I realised that these cats (Wikipedians in Foo) were spreading, I was
> shocked to realise that this page was telling people to redirect lists to
> categories. Maybe I missed the discussion at the Village Pump, but I could
> not figure out what the point of this change was.
>
> The List of Caribbean Wikipedians is a working resource associated with the
> Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. It serves a purpose in the improvement
> of Caribbean-related articles. So why must it be removed? In addition,
> although there are 17 names on the list, there are only 4 names in the
> Category, and over a dozen national sub-categories...sub-categories which
> are so badly named that I cannot add myself to one of them (I am not in
> Trinidad and Tobago). The best case scenario would leave the names scattered
> through over a dozen categories, with no clue as to whether they had any
> interest in matters arising from the notice board or not.
>
> Am I the only one who is bothered by projects which set out to remove useful
> material? True, some of the lists are too long to be useful, and true, it's
> "fun" to be able to add a link to your user page saying that you in Foo (not
> from, not associated with...in). But what sort of a project focusses on the
> appearance of the Wikipedia namespace instead of focussing on usefulness? Or
> is it no longer true that we are here to write an encyclopaedia?
>
> Ian (Guettarda)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Zoney

body:
On 9/21/05, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> More and more WP articles have taxoboxes, infoboxes, templates,
> categories, and the like, so that when someone clicks on "Edit this
> page" it is more likely now than ever before, that they'll be
> presented with some pretty intimidating code. Just check out [[Cat]]
> for an example. There seems to be a higher threshold for older
> articles once these constructs have been placed in the code.
>
> I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness
> of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system.
> That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>

Well, templating is preferable than having the code contained within the
template (usually a complex table) within the main article. Also, templates
do make things much easier to maintain for a series of similar or linked
articles.

Is there a sensible explanation anywhere of how templates work, orientated
towards newbies/less experienced editors?

Some template proliferation is possibly overboard, but in any case, those
are usually the templates without variables (articles series, etc.) which
shouldn't confuse new editors too much, and are often at the bottom of
articles.

Adding the links to the template pages on the edit page was a good idea, but
perhaps they shouldn't just be plonked there, should have a more useful
subheading/explanation above them, or some more help to the editor.

Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:

> He's not blocked.

Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet
group we're communicating on.  This is the official mailing list of
the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with
scholarly goals.  More courtesy for other editors is warranted.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
On 9/21/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He's not blocked.
>
> Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet
> group we're communicating on. This is the official mailing list of
> the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with
> scholarly goals. More courtesy for other editors is warranted.

 Before you decide that more courtesy for Zephram is warranted, please be
aware that this is the user who blanked his talk page with the edit summary,
"*This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before
all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything
against you before this. Now I see what people mean.*" In general, I
completely agree with your comment. For Zephram, It's well past the time for
assuming good faith or extending courtesy.
 Carbonite


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 9/21/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that
> > isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the
> > will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
> >
> I don't think that's a good idea. The speedy criteria are purposely
> limited to specific cases. Most people won't argue the fact there's
> definitely articles in existence that should clearly be deleted, but
> don't fit a particular speedy criterion because we couldn't come to an
> agreeable phrasing of such a criterion.
>

I agree that we still need to delete hoax entries and copyright violations.

Copyvios are fairly straightforward. We list the article and its source for
a few days and then delete it, replacing with the rewrite if one has been
made in the meantime. AfD is not involved in this unless a copyvio occurs
during the discussion.

There is no reason why hoaxes should not be treated in a similar manner.
They're quite rare.

A highly unscientific survey I just carried out suggests that non-notability
is the most frequent reason given by the nominators of AfDs, "gamecruft" the
next. Neither of these is a reason for deletion; they can be dealt with by
redirects and merges.

ads can usually be dealt with by deleting the promotional material within
the article.


body:
On 9/21/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/21/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Then my point is even more important; this isn't some obscure Usenet
> > group we're communicating on.  This is the official mailing list of
> > the "flagship project" of a well respected worldwide community with
> > scholarly goals.  More courtesy for other editors is warranted.
>
>
> Before you decide that more courtesy for Zephram is warranted, please be
> aware that this is the user who blanked his talk page with the edit summary,
> "This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all
> you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything
> against you before this. Now I see what people mean. " In general, I
> completely agree with your comment. For Zephram, It's well past the time for
> assuming good faith or extending courtesy.
>
> Carbonite

This is EXACTLY what I meant by "Admins and arbitrators should rise
above such behavior, even when it tests their patience."

Based on his message, we may want to make sure to review all of his
edits, but that's no excuse to be discourteous to anyone.  There is no
"well past time" for courtesy.  Even as we show someone the exit, we
can still be courteous and polite.  Even as we lock the door behind
them, we can still be courteous and polite.  Doing so improves
Wikipedia and its image worldwide.

What possible good can come from being discourteous to an editor,
especially one who is not blocked or banned?

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
The use of clique should not be considered a
pejorative, and may refer just as much to a "web of
trust" as to a "cabal." I dont make any judgements,
but rather chose a term which is neutral, and which
critics as well as core members of the "cabal" (you
and I ;)) may find agreeable.

TINC, true, but WIND (democracy) is also true. Whether
one prefers the term "core" or "cabal" is a matter of
where one is on the map.
SV

--- Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, steve v wrote:
>
> > You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity
> when
> > we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite, and
> as a
> > valve to allow "decent wikipedians" (our clique)
> to
> > trump "trolls, vandals" (undesirables, etc.).
> >
> Steve, you just lost a large chunk of credibility
> with me by using
> the word "clique".
>
> TINC. It's a case of thinking the grass is greener
> on the other
> side of the fence: because some people do more work,
> or are more
> persuasive in their arguments, other people think
> that they are
> part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret
> Masonic handshake [*]
> & Get Out of Jail cards.
>
> I've been on Wikipedia as long as you, & I don't see
> any special
> favors here. I have met only one person here in Real
> Life, & only
> know one other person from previous usenet contact
> -- & I doubt that
> I have any special clout with them because of it.
> (Sometimes I
> doubt anyone even reads my emails to this list --
> but that's another
> subject entirely.)
>
> And if there was a clique, they'd either moderate
> this list entirely
> ("Hey, that ligwitch guy's trying to post again!
> Silly rabbit, hasn't
> he learned that he's Not Allowed?"), or ignore it &
> communicate on
> their own list or IRC channel.
>
> And it's an easier idea to accept than that
> Wikipedia has grown so
> much that unless you spend a good chunk of time
> looking for
> conversations & disputes, things will happen &
> decisions will be
> made that will surprise you. And even if you do
> extend the effort,
> these surprises will still happen.
>
> At the end of the day, after contributing hours of
> labor on the
> dull, unexciting parts of Wikipedia, one might wish
> there was a
> cabal or clique when some pissant resurrects the
> same trivial argument
> for the upteenth time that her/his POV is not being
> heard, & that
> not only could he/she be banned from Wikipedia, but
> someone sent to
> the person's home & have their modem & hard drive
> smashed. But one
> doesn't, because the other members of this alleged
> clique would be
> just as angry at you for high-handedness as the
> pissant in question.
>
> In short, if there was a real ruling clique on
> Wikipedia, we'd
> all know it. For one thing, we'd have at least one
> mediocrity
> here who would be rubbing the fact that she/he
> belongs in our faces.
>
> </rant>
>
> Geoff
>
> * For the record, I've been shown a Real Masonic
> Handshake. It's
> not as interesting as the Monty Python sketch makes
> it out to be.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Esquire article on Wikipedia

body:
This appeared to have been true, and Ive done my best
to inject some life into it. ( WP:ITAAW )

There is currently some debate over the article's size
-- Im now wondering if there was some naive assumption
on the part of the writer that there would be a side
by side of similar sized versions.

SV

Fuzheado:

> >The only thing it will do is show how badly
> Wikipedians are at writing
> >magazine feature articles. :)
> >
> >-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

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


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Reboots of doom

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
>>>The one thing that came to my mind is: why does anyone log into zwinger
>>>in the first place?  Since it's this horribly frightening SPOF, ought we
>>>to not avoid even _looking_ at it funny?
>>
>>One reason is that some things are installed on it that aren't (afaik)
>>installed anywhere else, like dsh(1) which is required for scap(1) and
>>sync-file(1)
>
>
> *nod*
>
> This doesn't sound like a particular hard technical challenge to solve. ;-)

dsh is already installed on albert, and I've got a cron job set up to
synchronise the node group files. I did this based on the theory that if
zwinger fails, we'll use albert instead. Trouble is, albert is a SPOF
too. We could set up another host as a bastion, but as Mark said on IRC,
zwinger is fine as a bastion, but it's underpowered for an NFS server
(no RAID). Once the next batch of DB servers arrives, we can move one of
the old DB servers (e.g. bacon or suda) into NFS duty, and thereby
relieve zwinger of that task.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Alphax

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:
> Anyone else prefer Lay's chips and Dorito's over french fries?  And anyone
> else prefer having biscuits as a desert/snack over cookies?
>

You mean crisps over Belgian-style fried potato sticks? :) Corn chips
are a whole different kettle of fish ;)

--
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: TINC, TANC, TUNC

body:
Various people wrote:

>> You know, Ill admit there is a certain ambiguity when
>> we talk about "IAR" as a "stick of dynamite,"

>TINC. ... because some people do more work, or are more
>persuasive in their arguments, other people think that they are
>part of some ruling clique, complete with a secret Masonic handshake [*]
>& Get Out of Jail cards.

TINC, IAR, DBAD, AFD, VFU, nn, AOUM...

Will I learn what these mean when I join the Cabal?

Well, Ten-four, good buddies... TTFN...

-30-


subject: [Wikipedia-l] English stats

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> In the last two weeks this list saw 233 messages with "English" in
> the Subject line.  The most common ("Re:" removed) were:
>
>  95 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
>  45 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] new request for ASL/English wikipedia
>  30 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sample ASL/English entry
>  22 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anglicised English British English
>   9 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for AS/English Wikipedia
>   9 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] OurMedia for ASL-English video
>
> None of these discussions are expected to lead anywhere in the
> near future.  Please wake me up when you have some ASL websites
> that I can look at, or when you have reached consensus on
> color/colour spelling.
>
> The most of these pointless messages were posted by:
>
>  27 From: Mark Williamson
>  21 From: Gerard Meijssen
>  19 From: Jack & Naree
>  19 From: Alphax
>  16 From: Andrew Gray
>  12 From: James R. Johnson
>

Equal 3rd place! w00t!

--
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \


body:
steve v wrote:

>The below is at [[Image_talk:2UK_soldiers2.jpg]]. Im
>curious what the "public" thinks of the issue.
>----
>
>I have two questions on the public domain status of
>this image. On what basis is this said to be the work
>of an Iraqi government employee- it explicitly says
>"AFP" on the bottom right. Also, is the work of Iraqi
>government employees actually public domain- this is
>the situation with the U.S. government, but in most
>countries it is not.--Pharos 23:31, 19 September 2005
>(UTC)
>
One needs to approach such issues in the spirit of common sense.
    1.   I don't think that AFP should be recognized as a copyright
holder, and that French law should be thus brought into the back door.
I think that it is safe to say that the got the picture from someon else
who would have a stronger claims to copyright.  No evidence has been
provided that this other person would have somehow transferred those
rights to AFP.

    2.   Iraq did have a copyright law before it was invaded and
occupied.  That law was based on the old Universal Copyright Convention
(UCC), and had never been updated to conform with the Berne Convention.

    3.   The US occupation forces purported to amend Iraqi copyright law
to conform to the Berne Convention standards.  It is not unusual for an
occupying power to leave the laws of a hated regime in place when there
is no need to change the specific law in question.  It is also unclear
whether the purported changes would apply to all of Iraq or only those
parts of Iraq under US rather than other foreign occupation.  Basra is
under British occupation, and the US change should not apply there.

    4.   Inasmuch as the pre-existing Iraqi protection is weaker than
the Berne Convention protection it should continue to be recognized, and
only those parts of the changes which extend that law should be brought
into question.

    5.   The policy of putting all government publications into the
public domain is unique to the United States.  For that to be applied in
an occupied country the least that one would expect is that the US edict
would include a specific mention of that change.  Failing this, any
question of whether it had the right to make the change becomes moot.

    6.   Although the presence of the servers in the United States
implies that US copyright law will be prima facie applicable, it does
not imply that it is the only applicable law.  Some respect needs to be
shown for the laws of other countries whether or not they have copyright
relations with the United States.

    7.   If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide protection for this
photograph, it should be recognized for a period of at least 25 years
after the date of first publication.  There is ample time before we need
to determine whether that period of time should be longer.

Ec


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On 21/09/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> The name is not misleading. It's called English because it's the language of
> the English ethnolinguistic group in the nation of England.
> That's academically accepted, end of story.

Not really - I'd say it's called English by a historical accident; it
could as well be described as "Franco-Latinate-Norse-Anglo-Saxon", the
people as "Romano-Celtic-Norman-Anglo-Saxons", and the "nation" as
"the Union of Normandy, Anglo-Saxony and the Daneland" [the Danes
being the Vikings who spoke Old Norse]

At best, it's called English because for a while it was only spoken in
the area known as "England" - before spreading to Scotland, Ireland,
the New World, and the British Empire. Did it cease to be English the
moment it reached India? Of course not. And plenty of words were
brought back to England having been incorporated into the language in
these other places; were they only part of English when they reached
the shore at Dover? Or, perhaps, when they reached the ears of
Londoners? I see no reason to declare so.

If there were no longer any such disctinguishable place as "England"
(not so hard to imagine, given suggestions that areas like Cornwall,
or "The North" around Yorkshire, could be separate nations with in the
United Kingdom) it would not suddenly mean there was no such language
as "English".

Indeed, depending on your definition, this "English ethnolinguistic
group" probably inhabits either the whole of the British Isles,
including Scotland, and probably Ireland; or it only covers a fraction
of what is currently considered the "nation" of England, historically
centred around the educational and commercial triangle of Oxford,
Cambridge and London. It seems arbitrary in the extreme to include a
Cornish farmer and a Yorkshire miner in such a definition, but exclude
a middle-class family from Edinburgh.

> If Norwegian can have two wikipedias, then so should English, for the same
> reasons.

Or, alternatively, Norwegian shouldn't have two Wikipedias; if the
situations are as analagous as you imply, I would support their
merger. What Norwegian speakers would have to say on the matter is a
whole other debate (and one of which plenty can probably be found in
the list archives, if you look).

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
Andrew Lih wrote:
> On 9/21/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Oddly enough, I wonder about the exact opposite. I fear that people
>>enjoy creating new articles far more than they enjoy editing existing
>>articles, and that people look desperately for topics that do not
>>exist yet so that they can be the first to create them. The
>>Wikipedian equivalent of the Slashdot FIRST POST!!!!
>
>
> I don't think you have to look too desperately to start a new article
> - as long as humans exist and make news, there will be plenty of
> things to add. The next killer hurricane, the next teenage gal missing
> in the Caribbean, the next popular TV show, the next government
> official arrested for corruption, et al.
>
>
>>I do not think its growth will stop. The problem is, will the quality
>>of the articles hold up? There's no obvious reason why it shouldn't,
>>and no obvious reason why it should.
>
>
> Obviously the "1.0" or rating project is an attempt to
> institutionalize the maintenance of high quality articles. But there
> may be some evolutionary reasons why quality has held up.
>
> More and more WP articles have taxoboxes, infoboxes, templates,
> categories, and the like, so that when someone clicks on "Edit this
> page" it is more likely now than ever before, that they'll be
> presented with some pretty intimidating code. Just check out [[Cat]]
> for an example. There seems to be a higher threshold for older
> articles once these constructs have been placed in the code.
>
> I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness
> of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system.
> That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the
> Wikimedia projects.
>

Fr: is the worst :)

--
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \


from_name: steve v

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

> 7.   If pre-occupation Iraqi law would provide
> protection for this
> photograph, it should be recognized for a period of
> at least 25 years
> after the date of first publication.  There is ample
> time before we need
> to determine whether that period of time should be
> longer.

Really? This is interesting, because Saddam law might
have ruled it illegal to drive tanks over his statues,
and take pictures of him in his underwear. Current
"law" in Iraq doesnt seem to hold those "rights"
inviolate. Theres a similar issue with Nazi-era
photographs, etc. Does Germany claim Deutchland? for
anything Fuhrer??

SV

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


from_name: Stephen Forrest

body:
On 9/21/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > I'm sure Canadians and Australians will be pleased to hear you
> > pronounce that from your golden pedestal. As will Indians, New
> > Zealanders, South Africans, etc etc. [It was pointed out, for
> > instance, that an Australian user would not wish to select either "US"
> > nor "British" spellings, because they would naturally use a mixture of
> > the two.]
>
>  I'm sorry, but there's no evidence to support that view. Provide evidence,
> and I'll agree with you. How does an Australian write "colour" then? They
> choose one or the other, if they wrote "culla" for instance, then I'd agree
> with you, but they don't, do they.

Whether Canadians or Australians have unique spellings or only use
some combination of British and American spellings is not the issue at
hand.  The point is that their spelling conventions *differ* from both
American and British conventions.  (At least Canadian English does: I
don't know Australian, and it seems closer to British.)  If you
believe that splitting the English wikipedia into "American" and
"English Squared" forms over spelling differences is justifiable, then
you should apply this rule consistently and have Wikipedias for all
the other orthographic dialects of English.  And that'd be reductio ad
absurdum, eh?

Steve


from_name: Phroziac

subject: FW: [WikiEN-l] Improper speedy taggings

body:
I agree. Notability is useless. Certainly, if there was enough notable
information on someone to write a decent length article on the person,
then they should have an article. But, if you have to pad it with
stuff about his being arrested for playing too much ddr, then....

On 9/21/05, Worldtraveller <wikipedia at world-traveller.org> wrote:
> > I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or
> > sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
> > deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of
> > grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable
> > contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
> >
> > -Snowspinner
>
> Nah, I disagree with that.  I've written several papers in astronomy, and
> a referee's report has even described me as a world leader in my field,
> but I'd hate to see an article about myself.  The specific field I am
> allegedly a world leader in does not even deserve its own article,
> although it gets a mention in [[planetary nebula]] (because I wrote that)
> and one of my papers is cited in [[Cat's Eye Nebula]].
>
> Wikipedia readers are far better served by a brief mention of my field in
> the appropriate context than they would be by any article on my personal
> contribution to that field, and I suspect the same is true for 90% of
> published academics.
>
> WT
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>