from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> --- Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2/19/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Still, no value being added for having an 8 word template over a
>>> frivolous irrelevant topic. If people want to express themselves,
>>> they can do so by WRITING their opinions on their userpages, and
>>> that will even let do so on their own words not being restricted
>>> to 8 words. It's not like they're being censored. They can still
>>> talk about icecream flavors on their userpages. (After all, isn't
>>>  WRITING what we are all here fore?). The problem is the
>>> unnecesary waste of resources by having the template.
>>
>> I don't care about the resources.  It's the culture of having these
>>  "prefabricated opinion statements" for people to pick and choose
>> from. Pretty much everything on my user page COULD be reduced to a
>> userbox. But to do so is vile and repulsive, if you ask me.
>>
> So you're saying that you delete the boxes because you don't like
> their presence? I don't buy that argument. There must be a practical
> reason for not wanting them.
>

They demonstrate and encourage groupthink. Groupthink is BAD. Wikipedia
is *NOT* Livejournal, Myspace, or anything other than an encyclopedia.

--
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: 550 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060220/8627fcc6/attachment.pgp


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1, and application to userspace templates

body:
On 2/20/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW
>
> This template which I speedied under CSD T1 and pure common sense is now
> on DRV because some process wonks are pointing out T1 doesn't apply
> outside template-space. (Which is, if you think about, blatant
> wikilawyering, since now anyone can just create the most offensive,
> polemical and divisive template ever in userspace and have all his
> buddies transclude it on their userpages.) I mentioned I had speedied
> the userbox on the Admins' noticeboard, and two other admins expressed
> agreement:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW_deleted
>

Wikipedia:Deletion_review could undelete it wherever it is.

> Maybe Jimbo should clarify how literally he wants T1 interpreted and
> whether userboxen in userspace are subject to this sort of thing.
>
> John

We could but I doubt he could come up with an answer that is short
enough to fit on CSD and impossible to rule lawyer around.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I want people to ask slowly and thoughtfully with deep respect for
> others, even others with whom they disagree.  As far as I can tell,
> there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy
> userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the
> Wikipedia namespace as if they are a normal and proper part of Wikipedia
> culture.

No there isn't. More correctly no one seems to be sure how to define
advocacy exactly so any possible consensus would be a moot point

> I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft
> on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as
> activists for a particular POV.  I think users should realize that
> having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish
> other people's respect for you and your work.  But, whatever, if people
> want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it.
>

It someone admits a POV it makes it much harder for them to push that
POV. I fail to see a problem with this

> However.
>
> The current situation with these things being in the main Template
> namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia
> namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture.  They are
> attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea
> of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
>

I haven't really seen it. Most of the problem users I've run into
lately are the same type I was running into over a year ago. Most new
users settle down and edit quietly away. There will always be a few
who cause problems.

> That's why they need to go.  Not to censor people's self-expression, but
> to make it clear that _as a whole_ the community considers these things
> to be divisive and inappropriate.
>

The community doesn't. Bits of it do but at the last count bits of the
community considered the following to be divisive and inappropriate:

Userboxes
Deleting user boxes
IRC
You
Me
[[Brian Peppers]]
[[Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]]
[[WP:CVU]]

I think getting rid of that lot would be a mistake
--
geni


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/20/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> I suspect this may be a good time to mention
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy
> again.
>
> AFIK, this proposal seems to offer sensible concessions to both
> "sides", and to be feasible, and, so far, has gathered considerable
> support.  I'd urge everyone to look it over, add add your comments.
>

My name is Tony Sidaway and I agree with this message.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A radical proposal

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>"John Lee" <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote in
>message news:43F818B1.10600 at gawab.com...
>
>
>>Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever
>>proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's
>>advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll
>>disagree with someone somewhere. :)
>>
>>
>
>Actually my main problem with posts by "geni" is that they seem to have this
>strange aversion to spell-checking, and grammar seems to be optional.
>
>I actually find it difficult to read these messages because of the strangely
>spelt words, sometimes to the extent that the message states the
>**opposite** of what is meant (which is only discernable after some careful
>thought).
>
>Whether "geni" can spell or not I have no clue, but there is no sign of such
>ability on the mailing list. Whether or not "geni" can operate a
>spell-checker or not, I similarly have no clue: there is no sign of such
>ability here on the mailing list.
>
>After a bit I reach the point where I don't even bother trying to make out
>what "geni" wants to say: I simply click on to the next message.
>
>HTH HAND
>
>
Geni is dyslexic.

John


body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>>Actually my main problem with posts by "geni" is that they seem to
>>have this
>>strange aversion to spell-checking, and grammar seems to be optional.
>>
>>I actually find it difficult to read these messages because of the
>>strangely
>>spelt words, sometimes to the extent that the message states the
>>**opposite** of what is meant (which is only discernable after some
>>careful
>>thought).
>>
>>Whether "geni" can spell or not I have no clue, but there is no
>>sign of such
>>ability on the mailing list. Whether or not "geni" can operate a
>>spell-checker or not, I similarly have no clue: there is no sign of
>>such
>>ability here on the mailing list.
>>
>>After a bit I reach the point where I don't even bother trying to
>>make out
>>what "geni" wants to say: I simply click on to the next message.
>>
>>HTH HAND
>>
>>
>
>My main problem with posts by "Phil Boswell" is that they contain
>gratuitous unsolicited commentary on other people. No one cares what
>you think about anyone, so just Sierra Tango Whiskey Foxtrot. Thanks.
>
>
>
Shouldn't that be Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform? Or am I confusing this
with another acronym?

John


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Death Phoenix wrote:
> > Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree would have the authority
> > behind it. A great many people disagreed with Jimbo's actions in the
> > pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still carried the weight of
> his
> > ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether people agreed
> with
> > his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt with very quickly.
>
> Who disagreed with my actions?  I know there was some quite justified
> quibbling on minor points, but the *temporary* and yet *swift* action to
> put a stop to what was a very bad situation, and to make it clear to
> people that we should stop and discuss this whole thing rather than
> having manic wheel wars about it, is as far as I know near universally
> supported.
>
> Some people say I act with too much power, some say I need to act with
> more.  Old timers will tell you that this is normal.  I act slowly and
> as little as possible, trying hard to push people on all sides to
> recognize that among those of us who are here to build the greatest
> encyclopedia in history and give it away for free, we can always find a
> peaceful way to move forward in harmony.  Noisy harmony *g* but harmony.

Sorry, Jimbo, I meant that the matter was dealt with quickly AFTER you
performed your actions. As for the people who disagreed with your actions, I
remember there being many people complaining long and loud about it. My
point was, regardless of this, things were dealt with quickly. Overall, I
approved of your actions (I think I probably approved a little too
vigorously on a few talk pages) and I think I'm one of the folks who was
hoping for QUICKER action ;-). You don't exercise your authority often, but
it is there for you to use if needed. My point is that I think you'll need
to exercise it again in the future w.r.t. the userbox issue.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Shoko Asahara Wikipedia article

body:
On 2/20/06, kosebamse at gmx.net <kosebamse at gmx.net> wrote:
> My apologies for bothering the list with this, as the matter should normally
> be referred to peer review et al.; however I thought it might be a little
> urgent. I am afraid I won't be able to help myself, as I know next to
> nothing about the person and the relevant sources are likely to be in
> Japanese.

Not at all, it seems quite proper to bring issues like this to this
list. If I only I could help :)

Steve


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
A template is something that gets transcluded somewhere else, regardless of
what namespace it's in.

While some templates are suitable to Wikipedia and User namespaces,
templates that are speediable in the template namespace should be speediable
anywhere else per common sense.

Mgm

On 2/20/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW
> >
> > This template which I speedied under CSD T1 and pure common sense is now
> > on DRV because some process wonks are pointing out T1 doesn't apply
> > outside template-space. (Which is, if you think about, blatant
> > wikilawyering, since now anyone can just create the most offensive,
> > polemical and divisive template ever in userspace and have all his
> > buddies transclude it on their userpages.) I mentioned I had speedied
> > the userbox on the Admins' noticeboard, and two other admins expressed
> > agreement:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW_deleted
> >
>
> Wikipedia:Deletion_review could undelete it wherever it is.
>
>
>
> > Maybe Jimbo should clarify how literally he wants T1 interpreted and
> > whether userboxen in userspace are subject to this sort of thing.
> >
> > John
>
> We could but I doubt he could come up with an answer that is short
> enough to fit on CSD and impossible to rule lawyer around.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW

This template which I speedied under CSD T1 and pure common sense is now
on DRV because some process wonks are pointing out T1 doesn't apply
outside template-space. (Which is, if you think about, blatant
wikilawyering, since now anyone can just create the most offensive,
polemical and divisive template ever in userspace and have all his
buddies transclude it on their userpages.) I mentioned I had speedied
the userbox on the Admins' noticeboard, and two other admins expressed
agreement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW_deleted

Maybe Jimbo should clarify how literally he wants T1 interpreted and
whether userboxen in userspace are subject to this sort of thing.

John


from_name: David Boothroyd

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes and Mackensen

body:
The userbox war seems to have claimed a tragic casualty in Mackensen
who has blanked his user and user talk pages and resigned from the
ArbCom. I hope his decision can be reversed.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


from_name: STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first, and
then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better
solutions to the problem. But while we discuss things,
could you please tell your admins to stop removing the
userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping
their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because if
they remove the userboxes, then there's little point
in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to the
so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Death Phoenix wrote:
> > Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree
> would have the authority
> > behind it. A great many people disagreed with
> Jimbo's actions in the
> > pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still
> carried the weight of his
> > ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of
> whether people agreed with
> > his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt
> with very quickly.
>
> Who disagreed with my actions?  I know there was
> some quite justified
> quibbling on minor points, but the *temporary* and
> yet *swift* action to
> put a stop to what was a very bad situation, and to
> make it clear to
> people that we should stop and discuss this whole
> thing rather than
> having manic wheel wars about it, is as far as I
> know near universally
> supported.
>
> Some people say I act with too much power, some say
> I need to act with
> more.  Old timers will tell you that this is normal.
>  I act slowly and
> as little as possible, trying hard to push people on
> all sides to
> recognize that among those of us who are here to
> build the greatest
> encyclopedia in history and give it away for free,
> we can always find a
> peaceful way to move forward in harmony.  Noisy
> harmony *g* but harmony.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> --
>
#######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture
> and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a
> free world         #
>
#######################################################################
> > _______________________________________________
> 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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Non-Compliant Direct-Loader of Vietnamese Wikipedia

body:
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> The other day the Vietnamese Wikipedia community found a
> Vietnamese-language search engine, Viet99 <http://www.viet99.com/wiki/>,
> that is direct-loading the entirety of vi:, as evidenced by the
> up-to-datednesss of
> <http://www.viet99.com/wiki/?title=Special:Recentchanges> -- compare to
> <http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges>.
>
> The website uses <http://www.vacilando.org/index.php?x=7065>, a
> direct-loading PHP script. The author of that script maintains a
> poorly-behaved Wikipedia mirror at
> <http://www.vacilando.org/index.php?title=Main_Page>. Unlike the
> Vacilando mirror, though, Viet99 removes the script-provided references
> to GFDL and slap on their own Google-provided advertising and copyright
> statement: "Copyright 2005, Viet99. All rights reserved." They did keep
> the part of the script that provides an edit link back to the real wiki,
> but that's about it. Viet99 doesn't make it clear that the Wikipedia
> content isn't actually their own work, and they make no effort to
> explain what Wikipedia is; the only explanation is what we added at the
> bottom of our main page to make sure that no Viet99 users get
> misinformed about Wikipedia.
>
> My understanding is that this is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use
> and the GFDL, and that they should be blocked. We could find no contact
> information on their website, and a whois search revealed (presumably)
> their host, A Theory <http://a-theory.com/>. I posted a message to IRC
> and this mailing list the day we found out about this issue, but the IRC
> message got ignored (probably the wrong time of day), and my previous
> e-mail never made it through to the list.
>
> Please consider blocking this direct-loader, because it's just adding to
> Wikimedia's bandwidth for Viet99's own profit.
>

On behalf of the Vietnamese Wikipedia community, thanks to whoever
blocked Viet99 for us; it's much appreciated! We're discussing a
possible WikiProject to hunt for non-compliant mirrors of the Vietnamese
wikis; I'll mail the list once the project takes off.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
Ben Emmel wrote:

>I think that this is becoming the only viable solution. However, the
>userboxen supporters are also the loudest in shouting "Cabal, Cabal!!", and
>hearkening for the ruin of Jimbo. Just today did I see a userbox comparing
>him to something out of 1984. In short, they deny everything that Jimbo does
>for the good of Wikipedia.
>
>These users greatly lose fact of basic Wikipedia principles: that we are
>here to build an encyclopedia, that you don't have a right to edit, and
>don't have an automatic right to "free speech". Truly, we have a sort of
>Wiki-"generation gap." I don't see an end to these issues any time soon.
>
>
Certainly not when we have former admins proposing the oustre of Jimbo
([[User:Karmafist/manifesto]]) and his replacement with an "elected
executive" whose powers would be limited to managing the servers and
basically all the crap Jimbo does now, minus any involvement with
Wikipedia. The newbie disconnect is growing, and people who should know
better are exacerbating it.

John


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-21

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 268 of 285 tests (94.04%) FAILED!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Some people say I act with too much power, some say I need to act with
>more.  Old timers will tell you that this is normal.  I act slowly and
>as little as possible, trying hard to push people on all sides to
>recognize that among those of us who are here to build the greatest
>encyclopedia in history and give it away for free, we can always find a
>peaceful way to move forward in harmony.  Noisy harmony *g* but harmony.
>
Noisy harmony can often be like a brass band that has more brass than
band. :-)

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Computing with Variables

body:
Heinz wrote:
> How is it possible to do simple computing with Variables?
>
> I would like to to things like "{{currentday}}+1"
>
> thx. Heinz

I had to do something similar with the Vietnamese Wikipedia's weekly
featured article template
<http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti%C3%AAu_b%E1%BA%A3n:B%C3%A0i_vi%E1%BA%BFt_ch%E1%BB%8Dn_l%E1%BB%8Dc>.
We used the {{CURRENTWEEK}} variable but I wanted an
automatically-generated list of previous weeks' articles, so I used the
switch template <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Switch> to map
every week to a previous week, then every week to two weeks before, etc.
It's verbose, but it works.

With days, it's slightly more complicated, because each month has a
different number of days, but if you're using that code to call a
particular template or link to some page, then you can use a redirect
from February 31 to March 2, for example, to call the correct template.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: rknvcpx at hushmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] A recent exchange with Jason Gastrich

body:
Pardon my English; it is not my first language, nor do I speak it
often while not online.

While browsing Wikipedia recently, I stumbled across the
controversy regarding the editing of Jason Gastrich and his
organization. I am not a Wikipedia editor, but I use Wikipedia as a
tool for research. As one of my online ventures is SEO, I prefer
the format of Wikipedia for finding information quickly, rather
than the often irrelevant Google results. Thus, you could say that
I am a minor stakeholder in Wikipedia itself. As a person in need
of quick access to information, attacks on Wikipedia concern me,
but what I read about this recent conflict disturbed me enough to
comment on this issue.

As an outside observer who isn't a party to the conflict, I feel
that my input on this matter can be valuable to the process as a
whole.

I recently spoke with Mr. Gastrich via AOL Instant Messenger, so
that I might try and get another opinion on the basis of the
dispute. Before doing so, I spent approximately one hour reading
various Wikipedia pages related to the matter, as well as some of
Mr. Gastrich's own pages concerning himself and his organization.
The readings were two days ago, while my conversation occured
approximately one hour before this E-Mail was sent.

I shall reproduce the conversation below, as both a source for my
analysis, and as a curiosity to those who have a significant stake
in the ongoing dispute. The conversation is as follows:

Alexi: Why do you feel the need to turn Wikipedia into a warzone
through biased editing, all the while falsely championing your own
ego?
MrJasonGastrich: have we met?
Alexi: No, I'm not a Wikipedia editor even, but I'm incredibly
disturbed by the whole situation.
Alexi: Pardon my bad english.
MrJasonGastrich: Feel free to introduce yourself and maybe we can
chat.  You obviously don't now me, but how or why do you think you
know me?
Alexi: Well, I became aware of the whole incident while I was on
Wikipedia reading RFCs related to HTTP caching implementations, and
stumbled upon the RFC concerning your conduct. Out of curiosity, I
decided to read it, and was disturbed by the level of agenda
pushing that several parties were throwing into the whole
situation. While I don't have the time to contribute to Wikipedia
myself (I'm a full time webmaster), I am a little discontent at the
notion of people using Wikipedia to wage ideological battles. As an
ex-Usenet junkie, I realize that heated debate can be interesting
and invigorating, but don't feel that Wikipedia is the place for
it.
MrJasonGastrich: I understand.  Nice to meet you.
Alexi: Perhaps you could use the openess afforded by the GFDL to
fork the Wikipedia entries which you want to, and set up your own
Wiki using the freely available MediaWiki software.
MrJasonGastrich: I've considered it and you aren't the first to
suggest it, but I don't think I'll do it.
Alexi: Why has this been made into a confrontational issue? You've
lost a lot of credibility, between the sockpuppets and the overly
inflated claims of being a professional webmaster. What is it going
to take to end this conflict?
Alexi: If you really want my opinion, I'll give it to you.
MrJasonGastrich: Why is this any of your business?  Your distorted
summation of the facts is offensive.
Alexi: It is my business because Wikipedia is a resource for all
the world, and is supposed to be neutral. Your organization has
been working to destroy that neutrality. Wikipedia is much like
Jerusalem - unless it can be held by people of differing
persuasions, in peace, then in-fighting will completely destroy it.
MrJasonGastrich: I disagree with your opinion about my organization
and I believe you need to take a much closer look at the facts
before judging me as you are.
Alexi: As an outside observer, I did look at situation before
making an accusation. While what you do may be welcome in Christian
circles (I don't know, I'm not a Christian), Wikipedia is not the
place for it. Perception is key, and even if what you feel you do
is right, the very idea that so many others perceive it as wrong
can only hurt your mission of faith.
MrJasonGastrich: Since you've launched attacks at me, without all
the facts and without even introducing yourself, you've lost all
credibility with me.
Alexi: If you think I am attacking you, then you need to re-
evaluate your whole view of the world. If I chose to attack, which
I didn't, I would have entered this chat hell bent on degrading
your character with only you as the audience, as opposed to trying
to initiate a mature discussion between adults with the intent of
finding a mutually beneficial solution. As for credibility, you
ought not to cast stones, unless you truly have no credibility
issues yourself. The fact that you call yourself a professional
webmaster yet obviously don't act like it would not sit well with
many others, but I at least chose to give you the benefit of the
doubt.
Alexi: What I see here is not someone who is spreading the word of
Christ through love, but someone subconsciously rejecting their
former self through a hyperimplementation of that activity's polar
opposite. Maybe you ought to conduct a bit of soul searching and
try to really understand why you chose the path you did, and what
drives to you interact with others in the way you do.

Initially, I approached Mr. Gastrich from the perspective of an
outside observer, who happened to be discontented with Mr
Gastrich's use of Wikipedia as a channel to evangelize through.
Despite the long and documented history of policy abuses by Mr.
Gastrich, as well as my own experience as a webmaster, specifically
concerning the fact that Mr. Gastrich paints himself as an Internet
professional despite my belief to the contrary, I did not seek to
engage him in an ad hominem debate, but rather, try and find a
solution beneficial to both parties.

In the course of a less than five kilobyte conversation, Mr.
Gastrich managed to convince me of his malicious editing practices.
In his fourth message to me, he completely denied the idea that
everyone who seeks the open exchange of information has at least
some stake in Wikipedia. By making an attack against my very reason
for initiating the conversation, which I spelled out to him
clearly, he was attempting to discredit my entire position based on
my lack of involvement in the dispute. Not only is this a very
immature tactic, but also is clearly indicitave of bias, as he felt
threatened by an outside opinion of the matter.

By his fifth reply to me, Mr. Gastrich had already become
needlessly defensive, and resorted to the commonplace tactic of
accusing another party of not knowing the facts, without citing
specific examples of flawed statements.

By his sixth reply to me, Mr. Gastrich had already become incivil,
and had adopted a defensive position, with intent to marginalize
any statement I made.

The way I see this situation is this: were Mr. Gastrich acting with
good intentions, he would have no need to become as defensive as he
did, both within the framework of Wikipedia, and in external
conversations, such as this one. Such defensiveness is not a tactic
employed by those acting with good faith, but rather, demonstrates
a strong desire to engage all others in heated and incivil debate.
As an outside observer, I have thought about this quite a bit, and
have come to the conclusion that Mr. Gastrich is acting not as a
representative of his faith, with the intention to spread his
beliefs to others, but rather, uses his faith and the propogation
of it in a self-supporting fashion.

Mr. Gastrich's unchristian past, as evidenced by his own admission
and conversion testimonial, leads me to believe that this new found
faith is less about faith than it is a rejection of his past. By
adopting such an aggressive stance, Mr. Gastrich is using
Christianity as a tool for his own internal struggles, and as a way
to prove to himself that he no longer wishes to lead the lifestyle
that he did. His edits attempting to dishonestly raise the
credibility of his education, as well as his vastly overstated
claims of webmastering ability lend further credence to this
personality assessment. Upon inspection of any of his websites, or
his online resume (before he took the page down), Mr. Gastrich
comes across as a deceptive individual, with a strong narcissistic
personality, and a strong desire to prove himself to others.

In my assessment, Mr. Gastrich has quite a bit of insecurity within
his personality, and is unlikely to change his behavior as the
result of any external forces. When faced with the possibility of
mediation within the framework of Wikipedia, Mr. Gastrich rejected
the spirit of the idea, and never once showed any evidence that
comprimise would be a possibility. When I suggested that he fork
current Wikipedia articles on his own server, so that he and his
organization may edit them as he so desires, he quickly dismissed
the idea as being without merit, even though, by his admission,
others before me had suggested the same idea. With regard to this
idea Mr. Gastrich exhibits an irrational set of behaviors; even
though, by his own admission, he is technically inclined, and
understands how to reach an online audience, as well as believes in
the power of the Internet to reach that audience, he chooses to
reject the idea of using a Wiki installation on his own server as
an extention of his meager online minstries. Instead, he has chosen
to fixate his energies on Wikipedia, Usenet, and other mediums,
for, in my opinion, the ability to confront others in a vocal and
incivil manner.

I hope this external perspective helps, and that this controversy
is resolved swiftly, so that Wikipedia can continue its mission of
providing a neutral perspective to the world.

Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required
http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480

Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail
https://www.hushssl.com?l=485


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Computing with Variables

body:
Heinz wrote:
> How is it possible to do simple computing with Variables?

It's not, unless you want to hack the parser yourself.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


body:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Zulo Oscar Mike Golf!


from_name: Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes and Mackensen

body:
Looks like Mackensen is still with us ... about a three hour wiki break:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mackensen&diff=40485477&oldid=40314200

...but looks like a little streessed out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&diff=prev&oldid=40502599

Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
zzyzx11 at hotmail.com

>The userbox war seems to have claimed a tragic casualty in Mackensen
>who has blanked his user and user talk pages and resigned from the
>ArbCom. I hope his decision can be reversed.
>--
>David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
>david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
>dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes and Mackensen

body:
He hasn't left.   He experienced the usual project-space induced brain
implosion and resigned from the Arbitration Committee.  The other
fourteen victims are still struggling with the straining straps but I
think we have them well under control.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:

> STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
>
> >I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first,
> and
> >then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better
> >solutions to the problem. But while we discuss
> things,
> >could you please tell your admins to stop removing
> the
> >userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping
> >their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because
> if
> >they remove the userboxes, then there's little
> point
> >in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to
> the
> >so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
> >
> >
> Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere.
> It's not like Jimbo
> knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this.
> (If you're not
> referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't
> know.)

I think that Kelly Martin deleted a userbox that said:
"This user supports the reunification of [[Romania]]
and [[Moldova]]." People had to re-add the userbox by
themselves. As for those who have been blocked, see
this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2.80.9D

That guy was blocked for 24-hours for disruption. What
disruption is that, I ask myself? I see no disruption.

>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:

> STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
>
> >--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things
> first,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>and
> >>
> >>
> >>>then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better
> >>>solutions to the problem. But while we discuss
> >>>
> >>>
> >>things,
> >>
> >>
> >>>could you please tell your admins to stop
> removing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>
> >>>userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping
> >>>their userboxes, and for discussing things?
> Because
> >>>
> >>>
> >>if
> >>
> >>
> >>>they remove the userboxes, then there's little
> >>>
> >>>
> >>point
> >>
> >>
> >>>in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>
> >>>so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere.
> >>It's not like Jimbo
> >>knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing
> this.
> >>(If you're not
> >>referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't
> >>know.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think that Kelly Martin deleted a userbox that
> said:
> >"This user supports the reunification of
> [[Romania]]
> >and [[Moldova]]." People had to re-add the userbox
> by
> >themselves.
> >
> That is a polemical userbox (at least, that's what
> is argued by a number
> of admins; I don't count myself as one of them, but
> I don't care whether
> these userboxes stay or go).
>
> > As for those who have been blocked, see
> >this discussion:
> >
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2.80.9D
> >
> >That guy was blocked for 24-hours for disruption.
> What
> >disruption is that, I ask myself? I see no
> disruption.
> >
> >
> Ask Kelly. Don't go behind her back to the mailing
> list. If she blocks
> you too, then come here.

I did ask her on her talkpage. Others have also asked
her. She didn't reply there; instead, she replied
here, saying the same thing: that he was being
disruptive.

>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speaking of free speech

body:
Agreed, accepted, now let's run like the wind away from this bad
conversation topic!

Steve

On 2/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >On 2/20/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hence why this repellent man is being prosecuted in Vienna, not London.
> >>
> >>I wonder if he could be hammered for "glorification of terrorism"?
> >>
> >>I suppose some nit-picker will say the Holocaust wasn't "terrorism"...
> >>
> >>
> >Because he gave an "illegal" speech in Austria, not the UK.
> >
> >I don't think the holocaust would be considered terrorism, since it
> >was authorised by the state.
> >
> The term was first applied by Edmund Burke in relation to the Reign of
> Terror during the French Revolution.  That was very much authorized by
> the state, such as it was.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Heinz

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Google Maps extension.

body:
Dschwen schrieb:
> Since the old extension seems dormant/not working, and I didn't know about it
> when I started mine :-), here is a new one:
>
> http://www.schwen.de/wiki/GMap
>
> This extension lets you embed an arbitrary amount of fully interactive Google
> Maps objects into your wikipages. The mapcontrols appear when you move the
> mouse over the map, and disappear when you leave it. A helper widget is
> available wich outputs current coordinates and zoom-level on click, making it
> easy to choose a map locaton to display.
>
> It currently works in Konqueror and Firefox (Windows and Linux). I'm not so
> sure about IE, maybe someone can point me in the right direction. I plan on
> adding markers. If you remember my dynamap extension, it is undergoing a
> complete rewrite.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
Nice Work

there are errors in IE "mycontrol0 ist undefiniert" (mycontrol0 is
undefined" I dont get a map.

Heinz


subject: [Wikitech-l] Computing with Variables

body:
How is it possible to do simple computing with Variables?

I would like to to things like "{{currentday}}+1"

thx. Heinz


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] I propose adding a community namespace

body:
I wrote:
> >The irony here is that you guys have spammed this
> >thread with off topic comment about spam.

Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Lighten up already!
> Guy (JzG)

Yeah, I didnt intend to sound like I was picking on
Ilya.

S

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


body:
--- Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:

> Ok, so now we can get into how this would work (or
> not) - AFAIK, we
> already have a namespace for community pages.  That
> is, pages used by
> the people writing the encyclopedia(the community)
> to discuss, plan,
> organize, etc.  It's called the Wikipedia namespace.
>  And we have a way
> to handle categories that are part of this namespace
> - they are
> children of Category:Wikipedia administration.  We
> don't specifically
> divide the template namespace this way, although we
> could.
>
> So I'm not sure what the difference would be between
> what I described
> above, and the proposed "Community" namespace.
> Please explain this
> difference further.

Its not my necessary for me to explain how things
would work. Inventors arent builders, and builders
arent promoters. Cooperative arenas dont work well if
their purpose is presupposed. All we need to do is
define the boundaries. Maybe that would be easier to
deal with in Community space. But what do I know.

This is of course in the context of the excessively
long userbox discussion, so the "why" and "what for"
should be reasonably obvious.

SV

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >> You've missed the point.  On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
> > >You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile
> perhaps.
> >
> > Up to a point, Lord Copper.  *I* can hear the plonk as they land in
> > the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-)
>
> Ok, I mean the sense when someone says something trollish, and someone
> else replies "*plonk*". The entire point is to tell the world that
> you're now killfiling them. Or so I gather. :)
>

Yeah, it's an abbreviation for "You're a troll, I am now killfiling you."
:-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Computing with Variables

body:
Minh Nguyen schrieb:
> Heinz wrote:
>> How is it possible to do simple computing with Variables?
>>
>> I would like to to things like "{{currentday}}+1"
>>
>> thx. Heinz
>
> I had to do something similar with the Vietnamese Wikipedia's weekly
> featured article template
> <http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti%C3%AAu_b%E1%BA%A3n:B%C3%A0i_vi%E1%BA%BFt_ch%E1%BB%8Dn_l%E1%BB%8Dc>.
> We used the {{CURRENTWEEK}} variable but I wanted an
> automatically-generated list of previous weeks' articles, so I used the
> switch template <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Switch> to map
> every week to a previous week, then every week to two weeks before, etc.
> It's verbose, but it works.
>
> With days, it's slightly more complicated, because each month has a
> different number of days, but if you're using that code to call a
> particular template or link to some page, then you can use a redirect
> from February 31 to March 2, for example, to call the correct template.
>
Your Idea was my first intention too. But you're rigtht it is quite
complicates, at least when you want to do it together with month and year.

Heinz


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Userboxes: An indecent proposal.

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

>"A modest proposal" has been overused as the title of an essay. Much as
>"X considered harmful".

You know, you're right.

"Userboxes: A modest proposal considered harmful."

Which I think about sums them up.

- d.


body:
Alphax wrote:

>They demonstrate and encourage groupthink. Groupthink is BAD. Wikipedia
>is *NOT* Livejournal, Myspace, or anything other than an encyclopedia.

    http://static.rocknerd.org/david/du-664.png

(I do NOT release that image under the GFDL)

- d.


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [WikiEN-l] A.J. Jacob's The Know It All, the EB and WP

body:
?06.02.21.tu | reading encyclopedias

I am reading A.J. Jacob's The Know It All, his diary of his musings while
reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica. And, ironically enough, it's given me
a new way to enjoy the Wikipedia. When I want to learn more, I can type the
word searches "claque" into my PDA and learn that canned laughter precedes
the TV, and then learn of the odd yakuza sokaiya: "Sokaiya are a form of
specialized racketeer unique to Japan, and often associated with the
yakuza. They typically prey on shareholders' meetings, disrupting them (and
causing the company a great loss of face) until their demands are met."

If I wanted to make this into work, I could also compare the Wikipedia
entries and Encyclopaedia Britannica entries, maybe even improve any
deficiencies in the Wikipedia, but I'd rather just enjoy myself for now.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A fictional proposal

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting
>Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to
>say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather,
>that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really
>prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.

This turns out to be factually incorrect: the userbox issue didn't
blow up until the "Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia" specifically tried
to use userboxes to do an end-run around the NPOV policy. Then it was
on.

- d.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] File format policy

in_reply_to:
<2ed171fb0602141651r5eb829f8re4d2c22a4b5a6679@mail.gmail.com>;
	from andrew.lih@gmail.com on Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:51:38AM +0800

body:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:51:38AM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
> This is certainly true, and they've recognized the value of a smooth
> user experience.

We all know that he who gives up a little essential liberty for safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety ...

But what then, must we think of one who gives up a little
essential liberty for a -smoooooooth user experience-.

	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] File format policy


subject: [Foundation-l] File format policy

body:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:58:06PM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
> Much of this could be solved if there was a obvious "How to play this"
> button for each "Ogg" file to the Commons:Media help" but I don't see
> one.
>
> If there is a "two click" way to get to the software, I'm not aware of
> it. But it would be nice to make it obvious somewhere.
>

{{sofixit}} It must be possible to make a template or a message to
go with ogg files, so that no one else need repeat your experience,
mustn't it?

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


subject: [Foundation-l] File format policy


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> This turns out to be factually incorrect: the userbox issue didn't
> blow up until the "Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia" specifically tried
> to use userboxes to do an end-run around the NPOV policy. Then it was
> on.
>
>
> - d.

Not to any serios degree. Well within our normal limits for dealing
with organised attempts at POV pushing. The new year event appears to
be the key factor in radicaliseing people.

--
geni


body:
geni wrote:

>Not to any serios degree. Well within our normal limits for dealing
>with organised attempts at POV pushing. The new year event appears to
>be the key factor in radicaliseing people.

Oddly, my sympathies with people hitting the roof over their copyright
violations being removed are best expressed by
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Boohoo .

Perhaps I've missed some important point about how said people are the
future of encyclopedia production. I'd welcome detailed explanation,
in small words with pictures.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] The next chapter of new-ish users edit warring over
	policy pages ([[WP:3RR]])

body:
All,

A couple of users have begun edit warring to remove some text in [[WP:3RR]],
namely:

 * "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It
does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a
previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little
as a few words, or in some cases, just one word."; and   * The portion of
the policy that stipulates that partial reverts count as much as whole
reverts.
Others' input is appreciated.

K


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

subject:
[Foundation-l] Fight for Freedom of Geographic Data - how can
 Wikimedia help?

body:
Jakob Voss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is an oportunity - no: necessity - for active lobbying for Free
>  Knowledge in the European Union. The Proposed European Commission
> Directive on European Spatial Data Infrastucture (INSPIRE) is
> endangered to put more intellectual property rights on geographica
> data in the European union.
>
> See http://publicgeodata.org/WhatIsInspire and
> http://space.frot.org/docs/inspire_directive.html
>
> Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters and Wikipedians obvoiously
> should be interested in changing the European Directive to free
> Geographic Data.
[cut]
> Any suggestions? I'm still searching for an occasion and easy example
> [2] to convince your grandma, get into the media etc.

I will look into this and possibly try to contact the right people here
in Poland. Since we already have one win in this field, maybe we could
follow up on that. Who knows, maybe we'll all have a chance to say
"Thank you Poland" once again. ;)

And yes, simple and convincing examples would be a huge help. Perhaps we
could work on those on meta?

--
Cheers,
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski


body:
On 2/21/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Of course, but within reason. That's like saying DRV could undelete a
> copyvio -- Jimbo wouldn't like either action.
>

It could certainly undelete something listed as a copyvio. However If
we look at how the regulars at DR commonly vote I think we agree such
an outcome is unlikely.
> Judges clarify and interprete law -- they don't amend it. Jimbo just has
> to say "By 'template' I mean anything created for the purpose of being
> transcluded", or something to that effect. Typically this isn't
> necessary because of IAR and all that crap, but this userboxen debate
> will need Jimbo to step in eventually. His occasional pronouncements
> aren't working, and T1 isn't working well either.
>

Of course it isn't working well since it is an abuse of CSD. The
userboxen debate will burn itself quite happily as soon as people stop
trying to use dramatic gestures to finish it. Currently we appear to
have a situation where both sides are acting like third rate edit
warriors

--
geni


body:
On 2/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
> >Not to any serios degree. Well within our normal limits for dealing
> >with organised attempts at POV pushing. The new year event appears to
> >be the key factor in radicaliseing people.
>
>
> Oddly, my sympathies with people hitting the roof over their copyright
> violations being removed are best expressed by
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Boohoo .
>

But people don't. I've killed quite a colection of userpage copyvios.
Most people are understanding.

> Perhaps I've missed some important point about how said people are the
> future of encyclopedia production. I'd welcome detailed explanation,
> in small words with pictures.
>
>
> - d.

Ok you have a user breaking copyright policy. You explain to them
which part of policy they are breaking and if they ask why they we
have this policy. They then remove the image. You now have a user that
understands at least part of our copyright policy and understands that
being polite and civil is the way we do things on wikipedia. Get it
right and they may even help you deal with further copyvios. Most
people want to be good editors. It is better to help them be good
editors rather than trying to bludgen them into being good editors.

--
geni


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Probably SOLVED: MW1.5: When do magic words bind in
	transclusion?

in_reply_to:
<20060220155258.A11607@cgi.jachomes.com>;
	from "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> on Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at
	03:52:58PM -0500

body:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:52:58PM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>   When a template containing
>   {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} is subst'ed in a page,
>   the name of the latter page is put in the wikitext, and similarly for
>   other variables.
>
> which is precisely what I need: when someone creates a B which
> transcludes A, B will contain it's own name as part of the edit link.
>
> But it doesn't appear to be working.  The created B instead includes
> the uninterpreted {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} .
>
> This is in 1.5.3.  That help page doesn't say 1.6-only as some do; is
> this a 1.6-only behavior anyway?  Or am I missing something else?

As RedACE pointed out on IRC, it's <includeonly> that's version
specific, and while it's supposed to require 1.6, I'm told it will
probably work on 1.5.6, which we'll upgrade to tonight.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	A: No.
	Q: Should I include quotations after my message body?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Computing with Variables

in_reply_to:
<dtehap$m4h$2@sea.gmane.org>;
	from Heinz <h-j.luecking@t-online.de> on Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at
	09:02:19AM +0100

body:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:02:19AM +0100, Heinz wrote:
> How is it possible to do simple computing with Variables?
>
> I would like to to things like "{{currentday}}+1"

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Calc

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	A: No.
	Q: Should I include quotations after my message body?


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject:
[Foundation-l] Fight for Freedom of Geographic Data - how can
	Wikimedia help?

body:
?ukasz Garczewski wrote:

>> There is an oportunity - no: necessity - for active lobbying for Free
>> Knowledge in the European Union. The Proposed European Commission
>> Directive on European Spatial Data Infrastucture (INSPIRE) is
>> endangered to put more intellectual property rights on geographica
>> data in the European union.
>>
>> See http://publicgeodata.org/WhatIsInspire and
>> http://space.frot.org/docs/inspire_directive.html
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters and Wikipedians obvoiously
>> should be interested in changing the European Directive to free
>> Geographic Data.
> [cut]
>> Any suggestions? I'm still searching for an occasion and easy example
>> [2] to convince your grandma, get into the media etc.
>
> I will look into this and possibly try to contact the right people here
> in Poland. Since we already have one win in this field, maybe we could
> follow up on that. Who knows, maybe we'll all have a chance to say
> "Thank you Poland" once again. ;)

Thank you for following this. We should use the popularity of Wikimedia
to get more attention to this in the public, parliament and/or where the
important people are but I don't know how. I press release "Wikimedia
criticises Inspire" is missing a specific occasion. But Wikimedia and
Wikipedians are mostly busy with other stuff. Maybe Stefan K?hn
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Stefan_K%C3%BChn
is interested to help and/or can give you more contact - he is doing a
PhD in cartography and is very active in the German Wikipedia with
Geodata (see link below).

> And yes, simple and convincing examples would be a huge help. Perhaps we
> could work on those on meta?

Jo Walsh can probably give us hints where to do lobbying with which
arguments (hi Jo, are you reading this?). I hope that he has some good
examples. We can also show what is possible with free geodata and Wikipedia:

http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index_en.htm

Images are always more convincing.

Greetings,
Jakob


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:08:56 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>The irony here is that you guys have spammed this
>thread with off topic comment about spam.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:46:30 -0800, you wrote:

>If you look at RC, new articles, etc, you'll see thousands of editors
>working away. A great many of them are just rambling on about their
>boring high schools and deservedly-obscure garage bands (or adding
>userboxes), and there are quite a few who never go on to do anything
>more substantive. So we have plenty of participants, just not enough
>of the kind that add much value to the project.

I think there is a need to engage more with the newbies, to be more
creative in how we welcome them, for example pointing those who are
writing about their high school club to the Schools project where they
will find an unending source of to-do waiting for them.  Of course,
since many of them are motivated primarily by a desire to document
their high school club this may not be productive.  But it might be.

Userfying instead of speedying (except for blatant copyvios, and I
don't include copy & paste from their own website here) is also more
welcoming.

The downside of that is that I now spend a lot of my time on the
project doing those things and not writing articles myself.  I'm not
an especially good editor, so it's no loss, but it does feel good
sometimes to just shut the door on that crap and do something else.  I
might start using my old account for main-space edits...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:09:12 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>If you want to 'skip' someone, just do it. There's no
>need to hold an announcement about it, just to try to
>embarrass them

You've missed the point.  On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
it's attention they crave.  On Wikipedia you let people know they are
not doing themselves any favours, because you want people to
contribute and be productive members of the community.  The longer I
am around Wikipedia the more I find myself discarding replies
unsubmitted, because escalation is not the way to go.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Jonathan

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The next chapter of new-ish users edit warring over
 policy pages ([[WP:3RR]])

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 2/21/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wait until they breach 3RR and then block them for a couple of hours
>>>to cool off.
>>>
>>>
>>If they're successful in changing policy, then they won't be able to be
>>blocked. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Sneaky POV-pushers that we are, we revert their edits and *then* block
>them.  Hah!
>
Hah! That is what I have seen others do often to get people blocked and
change an article to their consensus!  Wait... how did you know how to
do that?

I'm surprised it was even called an edit-war. Perhaps, everybody who
joined in actually became a part of that edit-war, and everybody should
be blocked. Hah!

I don't try to game the system to not get blocked. However, I'm against
any block on any users. Understand the difference. It's open content,
but it is also a work in progress for an encyclopedia.

I fear that consensus on what is appropriate knowledge is easily
influenced by policies like this. The 3RR needs attention to avoid such,
as the likely-hood of a thwarted consensus is even implied in the
laughter above.

I'm just a wiki-peon that finds it hard to find those that want to help
create a neutral point of view. Instead, I find those that want to
compete for views.

Jonathan


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 2/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wait until they breach 3RR and then block them for a couple of hours
> to cool off.

If they're successful in changing policy, then they won't be able to be
blocked. ;-)

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote:

>> You've missed the point.  On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
>You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile perhaps.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.  *I* can hear the plonk as they land in
the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes

body:
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I think there is a need to engage more with the newbies, to be more
> creative in how we welcome them, for example pointing those who are
> writing about their high school club to the Schools project where they
> will find an unending source of to-do waiting for them.  Of course,
> since many of them are motivated primarily by a desire to document
> their high school club this may not be productive.  But it might be.

My first contribution to Wikipedia was a university club (not sure
it's notable, but it's so far evaded deletion), and an article on the
local pub where this club frequently met (eventually AfD'ed for
"nonsense" and non-notability). I like to think I"ve become a useful
wikipedian since then.

So yeah, anyone who wants to write about their high school club stands
at least some chance of being made useful.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> You've missed the point.  On usenet you silently plonk trolls because

You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile perhaps.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >> You've missed the point.  On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
> >You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile perhaps.
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper.  *I* can hear the plonk as they land in
> the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-)

Ok, I mean the sense when someone says something trollish, and someone
else replies "*plonk*". The entire point is to tell the world that
you're now killfiling them. Or so I gather. :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL - Have to mention only authors or Wikipedia too?

body:
Question:

According to GFDL, when useing a Wikipedia article, i have to mention
the authors.

Do i have to mention Wikipedia too?

thx. Heinz


body:
Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior.
But my question has a more legal background.

MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?

Heinz.

John Lee schrieb:
> Heinz wrote:
>
>> Question:
>>
>> According to GFDL, when useing a Wikipedia article, i have to mention
>> the authors.
>>
>> Do i have to mention Wikipedia too?
>>
>> thx. Heinz
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, that'd be a good idea. :) Check out
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia for more.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}}
> anathema does not strike me as a good idea.

That said, I'd rather read someone's beliefs and philosophy in their
own, considered words.

-Matt


from_name: Mathias Schindler

references:
<dtfbqn$k6v$1@sea.gmane.org> <43FB3373.6050703@gawab.com>
	<dtfcbl$m93$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Heinz wrote:
> Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior.
> But my question has a more legal background.
>
> MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?

If one author's name is "Wikipedia", you have to cite him or her as well
  for legal reasons. Other than that, you don't have to. If you refer to
"zitieren" in the German legal sense, you don't have to follow the GFDL
at all. However, zitieren is generally more restrictive than fair use.
Citing in the German legal sense would require to name the actual source
of the text: Wikipedia.

Mathias


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Time to finish this userbox war once and for all

body:
There are plenty of people who think that Wikipedia should never have any
expressions of political opinions etc., and that userboxes should never be
allowed under any circumstances. There are others that think that all
userboxes should be allowed.

It seems difficult to follow one of these two positions without losing  a
significant number of great contributors, so we need to come up with some
sort of compromise solution. This is mainly just a collation of various
suggestions, but I wondered what people think of it as a solution

1. The only userpage templates that are allowed in Template space are those
of direct relevance to the project - e.g. babel, {{userpage}},
{{WikimediaNoLicensing}} etc.
2. Userboxes cannot be 'transcluded' from user subpages - the only allowed
way to have a userbox is to copy the source code for it (this wouldn't
preclude Wikiproject Userboxes from having a list of boxen, all they would
have to do is have a list of code rather than a list of {{user userbox}}
template calls
3. Userboxes are not allowed to use images or categories. In fact all
'Wikipedians by...' categories (except Wikipedians by location and other
categories whose existence is of evident utility to the project) should be
deleted (can we add something to CSD to this effect, assuming there isn't
already?)

1 is fairly obvious - there is concern that having userboxes in the Template
space could give the impression that they are part of Wikipedia proper.

2 and 3 are meant to stop 'vote stuffing' - the other major gripe people
have with boxen. Fair use images in userboxes are already not allowed (since
they aren't fair use at all in  boxen), and allowing public domain/FDL
images would give us precisely the same vote-stuffing problems that we
currently have with categories

This would solve most of the complaints people have with userboxes (apart
from the people think that WP:NPOV applies to userpages, which is
objectively wrong) without stopping people from disclosing their particular
biases.

Incidentally, I think this should be accompanied by using a bot to replace
all instances of userboxes with the code (a bot or AWB could do this) so
that people don't end up with their userpage covered in redlinks

Cynical


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/06, Carl F?rstenberg <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The main problem is that the definition of polemical is rather vauge,
> and
> > that a couple of admins have exploit jimbo's words for their own agenda.
>
> You are aware, aren't you, that Jimbo at 18:01 UTC yesterday placed
> the following notice at the top of [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]]:
>
> "It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged
> at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will
> be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not
> recommended at this time."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs
>

[[Snake (The Simpsons)|Alright!]] A sign of things to come, I hope.


references:
<dtfbqn$k6v$1@sea.gmane.org> <43FB3373.6050703@gawab.com>
	<dtfcbl$m93$1@sea.gmane.org> <43FB367A.1040101@gawab.com>

body:
On 2/21/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors#License indicates a link
> back to the Wikipedia article /may/ suffice as "[acknowledging] the main
> authors". Generally the style used to *cite* Wikipedia (not copy its
> articles) just attributes the article to something like "Wikipedia
> contributors". I'm not familiar with the legal ramifications of the
> GFDL, and from the appearance of that page, neither are the fellows who
> write our policy on mirrors. :p Just err on the safe side and cite both.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need to list the 147
authors who worked on [Fred Smith] when you cite Wikipedia's article
on Fred Smith.

It depends very much whether you're talking about plagiarism or copyright.

Steve


body:
On 2/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends very much whether you're talking about plagiarism or copyright.

Or respecting the terms of the GFDL, which are probably harder to
enforce in practice.

Steve


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] The sad story of training material to learn Farsi

body:
> I am getting confused about you. You do seem not to get what I write
> about the application of the data that is relational in nature. That
> or you are in denial that what I write is feasible. Software is NOT a
> magic thing as long as you keep thinking along the lines of what is
> traditional. Software starts to get its own relevancy when you realise
> its potential and start to approach things differently because you CAN
> approach things differently.

I wasn't even talking about your theories of relational data.  There may
be some truth to the butterfly effect, but I'm not about to leap into
the belief that every potential relationship of that sort can be
documented.  The only evidence that your proposals are feasible is your
own faith, and I don't believe in God.  The converse of what you state
is that if I depart from traditional lines of thinking then software can
be a magic thing; I am not about to worship that Satan.  Software cannot
and must not derive its relevancy from itself.  Climbing aboard a more
powerful vehicle simply because it is more poerful, and can take me
further faster is foolishly irresponsible, and if I take others
unknowingly with me unethical as well.

It is not our role as humans to adapt to software, but to adapt that
software to human needs.

> The things that I describe; linking to a DefinedMeaning and showing
> the translation associated with the language of the user interface is
> not rocker science. It is relatively trivial. It is not "magic" at
> all. Given the current functionality at http://wiktionaryz.org and the
> date Erik has given for a first editable version of this software,
> this software COULD be written by April time. We will do it, but it
> has to fit in with the greater scheme of things.

So do it!  If it's not rocket science, you should have no problem doing
it.  Your boasts about what it can do and when it will be available or
your vision of its connection with :"the greater scheme of things" all
point in the direction of vapourware.

> I am getting the feeling that you are being awkward because you can. I
> am loosing the feeling that you do not understand.. When you put
> lesson between "" like in your last mail you make it seem that it is
> not a lesson at all, that it has no quality. For your information the
> dead wood variety of these lessons have been used to teach /many
> /people Farsi.

I didn't really see it as a lesson at all, just as a list of
translations.  I'm sure that those who used the dead wood variety to
learn Farsi must have done so in a larger context rather than by viewing
that list in isolation.

> Your idea of using romanised script in order to teach Farsi is just
> that; an idea. Given the need for transcription and the huge problems
> associated with it, it is also a bad idea. Moreover given the subject
> it is not helpful and it is detracting. When you have a clue about the
> teaching done with this material, the discussions that have been done
> before, during and after the creation of this material on the Wiki
> your ideas might be relevant. The fact that you do not ask questions
> but only opinionate makes what you say also less relevant, certainly
> less interesting.

Ultimately language is independent of the script in which it is
written.  Iranians and Tadjikis use different scripts for this language,
but their spoken languages are mutually intelligible.  Japanese can be
written in several different scripts without any effect on oral/aural
intelligibility.  Any language could be romanized, but I would consider
cultural sensitivity before turning that into a broader suggestion that
goes beyond a simple learning tool.  You claim there has been discussion
on this before, but if I go to the Wikibooks page (which someone else
has just moved to Persian) there is no such discussion; nor is there at
the first lesson.  If your experience with using these materials for
teaching Farsi is so important and so successful perhaps you might point
to educational studies that support your POV.

So what's wrong with opinions? (There's a question for you.)  What makes
the opinions that you expressed so much more valid.  I ask questions
sometimes, and I simply question at other times.  I would expect nothing
less of students, whom I believe should always be critical of anything a
teacher sayus.

> At this moment you do yourself harm because you make me and others
> think less of you. The respect that I have for you makes me write
> this. I would think it sad when I find that I do not want to read what
> you have to say no more.

I don't say what I say for the simple purpose of being popular, and I am
not intimidated by your suggestion that others should think less of me
just because I choose to speak my mind.  There is no subject on this
list where I need to feel that I have anything to hide.

Ec


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature plea

body:
I'd like to make a plea for two features which I'm sure would be useful to
people in helping to work and improve Wikipedia articles.

The first is already implemented on WikiNews: DynamicPageList, which would let
you do things like list new additions to categories. This would be very useful
indeed.

   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DynamicPageList

Second, is there any chance we could have the occasional month of statistics
for page hits; perhaps once a year or something? We used to have these, but no
longer.      The immediatist in me would sometimes like to prioritise work on
articles according to their popularity.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Wait until they breach 3RR and then block them for a couple of hours
to cool off.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature plea

body:
On 2/21/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Second, is there any chance we could have the occasional month of statistics
> for page hits; perhaps once a year or something? We used to have these, but no
> longer.      The immediatist in me would sometimes like to prioritise work on
> articles according to their popularity.
>
> -- Matt

Not without some fairly signifincant reworking of our hardware layout.
The problem is most hits are handled by the apache servers so the
database servers don't even see them.
--
geni


body:
On 2/21/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wait until they breach 3RR and then block them for a couple of hours
> > to cool off.
>
>
> If they're successful in changing policy, then they won't be able to be
> blocked. ;-)
>

Sneaky POV-pushers that we are, we revert their edits and *then* block
them.  Hah!


from_name: Dschwen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Even newer Google Maps extension

body:
Version 0.2 of my Google Maps MediaWiki extension is out:
http://www.schwen.de/wiki/GMap

New features include:

* ability to define markers to appear on the map. The markers can have
annotation bubbles in which you can use wiki markup.
* ability to define polylines to appear on the map. A helper mode is available
which lets you create the markup (coordinates) for such a line using the
mouse.
* Documentation http://www.schwen.de/wiki/GMap/Docs

Now compatible with Konqueror, Firefox and IE (tested with IE6).
Check it out it is basically just one php file and you don't have to modify
any other mediawiki files except LocalSettings.php (and a tiny fix for IE vml
compatibility).
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 2/21/06, Heinz <h-j.luecking at t-online.de> wrote:
> Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior.
> But my question has a more legal background.
>
> MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?
>
> Heinz.

The name of the foundation is the "Wikimedia Foundation", not
"Wikipedia", so even if you consider the foundation to be a publisher
(I believe they take the position that they are not), the GFDL makes
no mention of citing the name of the website on which the document was
first published.  It does require that you "preserve the network
location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a
Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations
given in the Document for previous versions it was based on."  I
suppose one could interpret that to mean that you must preserve the
edit link, which would contain a url pointing to wikipedia.

The GFDL also requires that you give the authors and publisher.

It's all pretty hard to understand, because the Wikimedia Foundation
itself doesn't even follow the GFDL.

Anthony


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1, and application to userspace templates

body:
geni wrote:

>On 2/20/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW
>>
>>This template which I speedied under CSD T1 and pure common sense is now
>>on DRV because some process wonks are pointing out T1 doesn't apply
>>outside template-space. (Which is, if you think about, blatant
>>wikilawyering, since now anyone can just create the most offensive,
>>polemical and divisive template ever in userspace and have all his
>>buddies transclude it on their userpages.) I mentioned I had speedied
>>the userbox on the Admins' noticeboard, and two other admins expressed
>>agreement:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW_deleted
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wikipedia:Deletion_review could undelete it wherever it is.
>
>
Of course, but within reason. That's like saying DRV could undelete a
copyvio -- Jimbo wouldn't like either action.

>
>
>
>
>>Maybe Jimbo should clarify how literally he wants T1 interpreted and
>>whether userboxen in userspace are subject to this sort of thing.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>
>We could but I doubt he could come up with an answer that is short
>enough to fit on CSD and impossible to rule lawyer around.
>
>
Judges clarify and interprete law -- they don't amend it. Jimbo just has
to say "By 'template' I mean anything created for the purpose of being
transcluded", or something to that effect. Typically this isn't
necessary because of IAR and all that crap, but this userboxen debate
will need Jimbo to step in eventually. His occasional pronouncements
aren't working, and T1 isn't working well either.

I don't really care for political/ideological userboxen -- whether those
go or stay, I don't care. They /can/ be used for factionalism, but they
aren't necessarily so. But userboxen like the one currently on DRV that
exist *only* to promote factionalism definitely ought to go. Given the
choice between a T1 applicable only to stuff in the template namespace,
and a T1 applicable to anything transcluded but only applicable to
factionalist userboxen, I'd pick the latter.

John


from_name: Ben Emmel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06, Joshua Griisser <JDGRII8338 at ngcsu.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
> encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via
> [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
>
> As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now
> it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
>
> Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal
> fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are
> clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

You do realize that angry people call the office of Wikimedia very angry?
And that all sorts of people write in to the email addresses, which we then
have to deal with via OTRS clamoring for libel damages, article deletion,
and various sorts of things. This is just one way  that we can help/deal
with all these people, who frankly don't care for editing, and get Wikipedia
on its way. Trust Jimbo: if something important gets deleted, you'll hear
the community soon enough.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature plea

body:
--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/21/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Second, is there any chance we could have the occasional month of
> > statistics
> > for page hits; perhaps once a year or something? We used to have these, but
> > no longer.  The immediatist in me would sometimes like to prioritise work
> > on articles according to their popularity.

> Not without some fairly signifincant reworking of our hardware layout.
> The problem is most hits are handled by the apache servers so the
> database servers don't even see them.

Could we analyse a log from a single (Squid?) server?

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature plea

body:
Matt R wrote:
> I'd like to make a plea for two features which I'm sure would be useful to
> people in helping to work and improve Wikipedia articles.
>
> The first is already implemented on WikiNews: DynamicPageList, which would let
> you do things like list new additions to categories. This would be very useful
> indeed.
>
>    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DynamicPageList
>
> Second, is there any chance we could have the occasional month of statistics
> for page hits; perhaps once a year or something? We used to have these, but no
> longer.      The immediatist in me would sometimes like to prioritise work on
> articles according to their popularity.

wikitech-l at wikimedia.org is the more appropriate list for requests like
this.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

>I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first, and
>then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better
>solutions to the problem. But while we discuss things,
>could you please tell your admins to stop removing the
>userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping
>their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because if
>they remove the userboxes, then there's little point
>in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to the
>so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
>
>
Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like Jimbo
knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this. (If you're not
referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't know.)

John


from_name: Joshua Griisser

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.

As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.

Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an
> article on
> > Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun
> of
> > his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of
> we're
> > just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
> > purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally
> tended to
> > be.
> >
>
> The article has not tended to do that.
>
> > In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than
> we
> > have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on
> people
> > generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If
> people
> > do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come
> up
> > fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other
> antisocial
> > behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly
> > verifiable through reliable sources.
> >
>
> [[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion
> of well know.
>
> >  We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a
> > negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are
> > applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be
> vigilant
> > about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a
> reliable
> > source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
> >
>
> Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]].
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. Our editorial standards
should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to
inflicy more problems on the article subject.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, Carl F?rstenberg <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> The main problem is that the definition of polemical is rather vauge, and
> that a couple of admins have exploit jimbo's words for their own agenda.

You are aware, aren't you, that Jimbo at 18:01 UTC yesterday placed
the following notice at the top of [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]]:

"It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged
at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will
be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not
recommended at this time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Joshua Griisser wrote:

>I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
>
>
I'm very confused by this one.  I wrote a one-sentence, factual,
verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from
memory):

---
'''Brian Peppers''' is the subject of an [[internet fad]] due to his
unusual appearance in a police [[mug shot]] photograph.

==References==
* [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]] (snopes.com).
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp "Who's a Pepper?"].
Accessed February 17, 2006.
---

I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic.  What's
more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet
culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.

There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to
appear within the next year.  If one of them mentions Brian Peppers,
will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?

I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that
is clearly not the case here.  Are we going to delete [[Star Wars kid]]
if his family complains, too?  After all, he too is famous against his
own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the
internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph
was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in accordance
with state law).

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

>--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first,
>>>
>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better
>>>solutions to the problem. But while we discuss
>>>
>>>
>>things,
>>
>>
>>>could you please tell your admins to stop removing
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping
>>>their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because
>>>
>>>
>>if
>>
>>
>>>they remove the userboxes, then there's little
>>>
>>>
>>point
>>
>>
>>>in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere.
>>It's not like Jimbo
>>knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this.
>>(If you're not
>>referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't
>>know.)
>>
>>
>
>I think that Kelly Martin deleted a userbox that said:
>"This user supports the reunification of [[Romania]]
>and [[Moldova]]." People had to re-add the userbox by
>themselves.
>
That is a polemical userbox (at least, that's what is argued by a number
of admins; I don't count myself as one of them, but I don't care whether
these userboxes stay or go).

> As for those who have been blocked, see
>this discussion:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2.80.9D
>
>That guy was blocked for 24-hours for disruption. What
>disruption is that, I ask myself? I see no disruption.
>
>
Ask Kelly. Don't go behind her back to the mailing list. If she blocks
you too, then come here.

John


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
> > since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
> > stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
>
> Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered
> sex offender in Ohio.
>
> I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly
> not a "slam dunk" case.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's
a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person
with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not
inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable.
Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian
Peppers slips beneath our bar.

If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up
there.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Delirium wrote:

>I'm very confused by this one.  I wrote a one-sentence, factual,
>verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from
>memory):
>
>
P.S.: The Wikimedia Foundation is now republishing a version of my
article in its entirety here:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040229.html

Better scour the mailing list archives too! =]

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]]
> through AFD

Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning
play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special.

On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on
whether he never found love?
--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the
> free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much abuse, too
> much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by
> that tagline.
>
> I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are
> always welcome".
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse

Wouldn't that be a better tagline for Wikibooks? :P

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:

> [[Snake (The Simpsons)|Alright!]] A sign of things to come, I hope.

Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}}
anathema does not strike me as a good idea.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:

> But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced
> urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files.
>
> > If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up
> > there.
>
> But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Snopes has a lot of stuff that I don't think would populate the annals of
Wikipedia. And while the wishes of one don't determine the inclusion,
they're something that we should at least keep in mind.

Please realize that I'm not entirely sure on whether the article should be
kept or deleted. Obviously, we're going to wait for a year anyways.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of
> Wikipedia.  Time for a Scouring of the Shire.

You obviously don't mind breaking eggs to make an omlet.

Geoff