body:
Dan Grey (dangrey at gmail.com) [050713 23:33]:
> On 13/07/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > A lot of people think the AC should be delivering punishment. The important
> > thing, though, is what does the project good.

> I do. And I'd see that as doing the project good. Maybe if more people
> knew they weren't going to get away with trouble-making, they may be
> more reluctant to do it.

The aim is what's good for the project. A year's ban indicates
*considerable* displeasure, after all. But lesser restrictions seem to work
better at keeping an editor around and editing and not sockpuppeting.
Punishment is a tool in our armoury, not the purpose of the exercise.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: ilooy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Zlatiborian Wikipedia: request for comments

body:
2005/7/13, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> Jay, unfortunately chances are there will be no Ladino or Chinook
> Jargon Wikipedias until such time as they reach a level of support
> similar to that enjoyed by the Scots Wikipedia proposal or the Cebuano
> Wikipedia proposal.
>

Ah, I can see, Mark,
that you said "unfortunately",
and this I take to mean that
fortunately we have an established
procedure according to the page
on meta which states that if there
are five people that plan to support
the wiki then it should be set up.
Especially if the language is a
natural tongue and it has an ISO
tag. Well, both cases are good
to go on Ladino. So fortunately
it seems the case for foot-dragging
would be moot concerning Ladino.

It should have its sub-domain and
it should enjoy a good presence
among the other languages in
Wikisphere if we are to set up
guidelines and these are to be
followed, "que no"?

With regards always,
Jay B.
en:User:ILVI
ilooy.gaon at gmail.com


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Jay, by "unfortunately", I meant that I would like as much as you
would to see a Wikipedia in Ladino and Chinook Jargon.

The same, however, cannot be said for everybody -- most people here
believe in a strict system of checks and balances to make sure that we
don't create new Wikipedias excessively.

There is no specific policy. Theoretically - and this is theoretically
-- you could request a constructed language spoken by only one person,
with no supporters for its creation, and even a statement that "Oh I
just want it to exist, I'll never actually use it", and it would still
be possible (in an alternate reality where the developers are entirely
devoid of the proper decision-making skills, of course) for it to be
created. It would not, technically, be against policy.

It would also not be against policy to have a request for a Wikipedia
denied, where it had 3000 signatures in support of its creation, no
opposition, an ISO code, millions of speakers, and a couple of hundred
people committed to working on it.

However, keep in mind that these are both extremes, and neither is
likely to ever actually happen. What they are there to demonstrate is
that right now there __are no regulations__. If somebody told you
there is a policy of 5 supporters, they are wrong. It is a *proposed*
policy.

There are no concrete requirements. It seems to be entirely at the
discretion of developers. And they, in turn, seem to be swayed by
whether or not it is controversial, how much support it enjoys, and
how likely it is that it will be active.

Tim Starling has proposed that it be a decision of the board, but so
far it doesn't seem to be a real problem -- we haven't not created
Wikipedias where people were nearly banging our doors down (Scots,
Kapampangan, Cebuano, and V?ro are possible examples), and we haven't
created any Wikipedias that aren't active (note that this applies only
from the period of the creation of the Friulian Wikipedia, forward;
the previous round of creation saw Sicilian, Anglo-Saxon, and Gothic;
though the former two are quite active, and the latter has quite a bit
of Gothic text, the Gothic Wikipedia is essentially inactive, although
it occasionally grows in fits and starts).

I hate to say it, but Ladino is simply not a case of people banging
our doors down, which seems to be the standard now. No native speaker
has requested it. You are the only one to have manifested on the
mailinglist. Only one article exists on the test Wikipedia. None of
the additional votes of support were from within the Wikimedia
community, and it certainly can't be verified whether they're real
people.

Again, I would like to iterate: I want the Ladino Wikipedia to be
created this very instant. I would not mind whether it was active or
not, or how many supporters there were, or whether there were any
native speakers. This sort of stuff doesn't worry me. But, it worries
others, and they are the majority, and the majority is, in some way or
another, in control here.

You have judged, based on the fact that you joined amid my posts about
the Low Saxon Wikipedia, that I am an enemy of new Wikipedias, that I
do not want them to be created.

In fact, I am despised for my annoying persistance for just the
opposite. Among the languages for which I have (often incessantly)
advocated are, Gothic, Old English, V?ro, Amis, Old Greek, Old Norse,
Cantonese, Shanghainese, a separate Traditional Chinese Wikipedia, and
Wikipedias in a huge list of other languages. This is appreciated by
some, but by far the reaction is one of just the opinion I described
above.

This community has set the bar very high. The reason appears to be
that it used to be much lower -- subdomains were created at anybody's
request, on a whim. And we ended up with aa: (Afar), kk: (Kazakh), tg:
(Tajik), and scores of other Wikipedias which are at best inactive and
at worst completely empty. The Nauruan Wikipedia was in a mysterious
conlang for a while. This was remedied -- sort of. Since there are
still no Nauruans, it is now maintained by a group of people who are
interested in Nauruan but don't actually know the language -- their
entire knowledge is based on flipping back and forth in an outdated
grammar book, using an old orthography, although they will assure you
it is entirely up-to-date and correct. How many of them have been to
Nauru? 0. Most are Europeans, including "Cars en Travel", aka "Belgian
man", aka a number of other things, and "Cvddawguiasdmpss" (not sure
of his exact username, but it looks a bit like that and probably
starts with a C and ends with an S), the former of whom is, no
surprise, Belgian, and the latter who is a Swissman with a German
background, apparently of the city of Basel.

And, since we still have no Nauruans, they continue this. But now that
it is in a semi-real Nauruan, there's not much anybody can do (when it
was in a Romance conlang rather than even pseudo, semi-Nauruan, people
were outraged, but they were calmed largely by the so-called
"fixing").

The Dzongkha Wikipedia used to be in a false language. The mainpage
was moved to "Gilst Ooli", which as far as I can tell means nothing in
any language. Perhaps it's similar to the content I wrote at Test-wiki
about Hilary Clinton, Ben Affleck, and others, in a humourous (if you
look close enough, that is), pseudo-language that was really just
keyboard smashing with the occasional planned insertion of content
intended to make it hilarious to a small subset of the population of
the world. Sadly, I am not able to retrieve it now, but I wish for the
world that I were. But that is off-topic. The Dzongkha Wikipedia
mainpage had text in some bizzare text, probably a pseudo-language of
structured, careful construction but with no actual meaning attached
to words (like mine at test-wiki).

This, too, shocked the public. I wish I'd never reported it -- that
seems to be what sparked a great deal of the fire beneath the
collective ass of the community.

You are welcome to search the archives of this mailinglist for the
original discussions regarding this.

Also, having come in ?n the middle of the Low Saxon
discussion/argument/fight/war, you would probably be surprised to
hear: Netherlands Low Saxon is the first Wikipedia in a natural
language I have explicitly opposed, since forever. When much of the
rest of the community doubted, I enthusiastically supported new
Wikipedias in Cantonese, Shanghainese, Old English, Gothic, Sicilian,
Friulian, and droves of others.

Mark

On 13/07/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/7/13, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > Jay, unfortunately chances are there will be no Ladino or Chinook
> > Jargon Wikipedias until such time as they reach a level of support
> > similar to that enjoyed by the Scots Wikipedia proposal or the Cebuano
> > Wikipedia proposal.
> >
>
>
> Ah, I can see, Mark,
> that you said "unfortunately",
> and this I take to mean that
> fortunately we have an established
> procedure according to the page
> on meta which states that if there
> are five people that plan to support
> the wiki then it should be set up.
> Especially if the language is a
> natural tongue and it has an ISO
> tag. Well, both cases are good
> to go on Ladino. So fortunately
> it seems the case for foot-dragging
> would be moot concerning Ladino.
>
> It should have its sub-domain and
> it should enjoy a good presence
> among the other languages in
> Wikisphere if we are to set up
> guidelines and these are to be
> followed, "que no"?
>
> With regards always,
> Jay B.
> en:User:ILVI
> ilooy.gaon at gmail.com
>

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: initial letter case in glottonyms

body:
Ros, I am all for the creation of a Lushootseed Wikipedia.

And, in the past, I have encouraged theoretical discussions relating
to the community dynamics of possible future Wikipedias in
lesser-spoken languages (Hopi was an example I used, with about 4000
speakers, more than Lushootseed).

However -- and this is a big however -- this message is so
theoretical, so probably irrelevant, that it surprises even me.

Discussion of community dynamics, and general language issues that may
be faced in the future is one thing. But, discussion of a specific
like this, when you haven't even requested the creation of a
Lushootseed Wikipedia, is patently absurd. (or, should I say,
patschent-ly absurd! Ahahaha! NOT funny... -,,-' ). The discussion of
even this change in interwiki links is a new thing, and no changes
have yet been made.

As they say on Mars, let's cross that bridge when we come to it...

Mark

On 14/07/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> To date there does not appear to be a Lushootseed (Puget Sound Salish)
> Wikipedia, but if such ever comes to be, the question will arise whether
> language names should have their first letters underlined: Lushootseed does
> not use capital letters ? its standard orthography is a variety of North
> Americanist IPA ? but the first letters of the names of persons are often
> underlined. (Sentence-initial letters are not underlined, however. In
> English (which is the first written language of virtually all Lushootseed
> speakers/readers) both sentence initials and name initials are capitalized.
> In Lushootseed in my experience language names in text are not underlined,
> but it remains an open question how the community feels about lists
> (bulleted, semi-coloned or whatever).
>
> Haruo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>

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


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improving ArbCom's lot medium-term

body:
Alot of brilliant comments in this thread. A few of the best:

Perhaps cases could be decided only by the arbitrators who "sign on"
to be part of that particular case.

Actually I think that some of those we might imagine to be bad would,
if they were elected, get down to work and a lot of imagined trouble
might not happen at all.

Serious problem users tend to get shown the door (then the alley outside,
then the garbage bins opposite) in reasonably short order. It's the
knottier conflicts that are the lengthy and painful ones.

my advice is to work on preventitive medicine, rather than relying on
surgery and euthenasia. Or, to be more clear, find a working mediation
/ rewards for good behaviour system.

Jack (Sam Spade)


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Odd

body:
On 7/14/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
>
> > On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all
> > > > edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor"
> > > > Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this
> > > > until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am.
> > > > I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot
> > > > cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
> > > >
> > > > Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any
> > > > edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit,
> > > > so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular
> > > > sort of crackpot.
> > > >
> > > > What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely
> > > > Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of
> > > > one particular editor?
> > > >
> > > Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning
> > > LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a
> > > number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not
> > > in their favor.
> > >
> > > And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting
> > > their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam
> > > Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
> >
> > They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant.
> > What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
> >
> > > I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people
> > > were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much
> > > support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered
> > > that editor might be.
> >
> > I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to
> > me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration
> > to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
>
> It appears that you are reading my response as a defense of Carr --
> which was not my intent, & your misunderstanding was likely due to how
> I expressed myself. So let me explain further.

Huh? How could I see it being a defence of Adam? I didn't. I
interpreted it as an attempt to provide background on Larouche and
Wikipedia. I don't really want to get involved in any of that; an
issue so heavily polarised about which I know little promises nothing
but grief. I'll stick to things I know about, thank'ee!

In fact I took pains to conceal the identity of the editor until you
mentioned his name.

> It's apparent from your posts that you want Adam Carr censured for his
> incivility. And it is apparent from the responses to your posts that
> his incivility is widely acknowledged -- & likely makes any accusation
> you make of him suspect.

I don't want Adam censured for his "incivility". I'd like him to
accept that his "end justifies the means" attitude is
counter-productive in this community. But that's beside the point.

> And there is a further point that has emerged from the submissions to
> this list: let's make the job of the ArbCom *simpler*. In other words,
> instead of finding hard cases where a plausible argument can be made
> to defend his behavior, find a clear case of Carr acting incivilly --
> like a bully to a newbie, say -- that is not defensible.
>
> And to be honest, while the language in the above sample you provide
> comes close to the line, not only does it not cross that line it is
> something that I can fully imagine any editor saying to a troublemaker
> in a moment of frustration. And I've seen worse said to people who
> sound eager to wind up before the ArbCom.

I think you are barking up the wrong path here. Adam's language isn't
the issue. There's no secret agenda here. I say what I mean and mean
what I say.

> [snip]
> >
> > I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's
> > statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for
> > attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating
> > that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own
> > resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has
> > his own wikisupport network in place.
>
> I didn't get the same message, & suicide is a matter that I've
> unfortunately have had too much experience with.

Look at in WP terms. He deleted his User and Talk pages, pages where
he put pictures and material important to him, and replaced them with
a stark boldface message. That in itself should make anyone's ears
prick up, let alone the content of his message, where he threatens
wikisuicide unless something happens. Anyway, I saw it as something
that needed discussion, which is why I brought it up here.

Other Wikipedians gave warnings that he was reaching a crisis point.
Ambi said a few weeks ago that one more crisis might push him out.

> > If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I
> > venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their
> > recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any
> > further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the
> > footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
>
> One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is in the effect conflicts have on
> its volunteers. (No one seems to have studied this angle, so what I
> am about to write is largely based on my unrepresentative sample of
> experience.) It seems that every editor eventually encounters a major
> struggle over content, which usually results in one of two responses:
> either the editor develops an extremely thick skin to further criticism
> & a very short temper with other people, or retreats off to work on
> one of the 90+% of articles that attract little attention due to
> their obscure or esoteric nature. In either case, the editor begins
> a gradual process of consciously isolating her/himself from the rest
> of Wikipedia -- which means that they are less likely to intervene &
> help resolve conflicts sucessfully elsewhere on Wikipedia. (This
> point was made to me some months ago in almost these exact words when
> I posted a note about a potential troublemaker on the admin bulletin
> board, & I suspect that this admin is not the only one who does not
> want to get involved in conflicts unless there is a clear "bad" guy &
> a clear "good" guy.)
>
> And by isolating oneself here on Wikipedia, one loses out on the
> positive reinforcement that should come from working with other
> people for a common good. We have very few mechanisms on Wikipedia
> to break through this isolation, either intentional or accidental,
> & when some are used -- Barnstars & FAC nominations for example --
> too often they also produce jealousy amongst other contributors,
> who then begin to suspect that there is a cabal -- or at the least
> a gang of cool kids who tell each other just how hip they are --
> that they are not part of.
>
> I have no good solution for this problem -- although I feel
> Wikimeetups are a good step. I'm not even certain whether this is
> a problem for more than a few people on Wikipedia -- which is why
> I mentioned that this is an issue worth some attention from the
> appropriate experts. Even though this would be a distraction from
> our goal of creating an encyclopedia.

Mmmm. I haven't experienced the same personal response to a very
bitter struggle over content, but I suspect I'm more of a Labrador to
other peoples' terriers. Very hard to light my fuse, but neither will
I slope off and do something else if I see something out of place.

Wikimeetups have to be a good thing. Personal contact helps build a
sense of shared community. One of the great joys of my recent life has
been meeting other members of the same on-line community, and it has
been a thrill to meet in person some of the people behind the
screen-names.

I haven't been involved in any local WP meetups and I'm not sure if
there are any. Did WP use Meetup.com to organise gatherings, and if so
what was the response to Meetup's recent "shoot itself in the foot"
request for fees from organisers? On BookCrossing.com there was a mass
exodus, largely to Yahoo.

But gatherings are pretty much a local thing, and again I'm the
exception rather than the rule in that I'll happily hop on a jet and
fly to the other side of the world to meet fellow BookCrossers. Funds
permitting.

There are local community-based WP pages where group projects are
raised and implemented, and they look like fun. Hard to forcibly
integrate people into community activities if they don't want to be
integrated, however.

And I made the point that Adam had his own wikisupport network, so it
doesn't seem that he was in any way isolated or withdrawn. Just
stressed.

A long time ago I learnt a little of leadership, and one of the few
things I remember from those Army courses was that there were three
levels of need that needed to be satisfied.

1. Task needs. Things like fighting a battle, reacting to a natural
disaster, or writing an encyclopaedia.
2. Group maintenance needs. Having a party, an offsite, wearing the
same uniforms, bonding activities.
3. Individual needs. Whatever the individual sees as important.
Personal or family relationships, completing a course of study, buying
a new car - whatever.

The wise leader balances all these needs and the result should be a
group of happy individuals committed to success in the tasks it is
set. But give any one type of need an overwhelming priority and things
fall apart. If the focus is always on the task, then people become
stressed and burn out. You can't keep on fighting battle after battle
without relief ands stay sane, but neither can you put individual
needs above all else otherwise the result is anarchy and important
tasks don't get done.

Wikipedia is an important project, but it's performed by volunteers.
We can't expect unpaid volunteers to burn themselves out by devoting
ourselves single-mindedly to the task. But neither can we let every
individual editor have their own way and edit what they want how they
want, because then we get edit wars and conflict.

There has to be a balance and to my mind the group maintenance
activities are lacking or not promoted highly enough. Where are the
t-shirts, the meeting noticeboard, the group challenges and goals?

And where is the community support for editors who go off the rails?
Phil's Wikimediation page looks like a good idea to me.

Again, I don't have the answers, but recognising the problem is a good
start, and I think that we should be paying more attention to folk
like Phil who are motivated enough to actually do something.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal to modify / supplement request: request for Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, and Achterhooks Wikipedias.

body:
Servien,

I hate to say it but I am getting contradictory information from you and Heiko.

In fact, I am getting contradictory information from the various
things you write yourself.

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/nds-nl/Nedersaksisch ,
under "Dialekten", the classification:

de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen,
Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.)
de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).

Out of these, Grunningen, Drenthe, Stellingwarven, Overyssel, and
Twente are, as I know, all spoken in the Netherlands. (using your
names for the languages)

Yet, in this page you wrote yourself, the classification implies that
Twente is further from Grunningen, than Schleswig-Holstein LS is from
Stellingwarven? This is where your argument falls apart into
inconsistency.

So, Grunningen, Drenthe, and Stellingwarven (varieties in the
Netherlands) are closer to "Nedersaksen" and "Sleeswyk-Holstein", two
varieties in Germany, than they are to Twente (another variety in the
netherlands)???

So which is it now? I thought you said there was a clear difference
between Dutch Low Saxon and German Low Saxon... now you've
contradicted yourself.

Coincidentally, your classification appears with that I've found
elsewhere on the internet -- most of the Low Saxon varieties spoken in
the Netherlands are relatively close to Oostfreesk which is a variety
in Germany, yet other varieties in the Netherlands (in your list, only
Twents, but it differs in other lists) is more different?

Please, help us to reconcile your classification with your statements.

Also, how do you explain for the websites I linked you to? They use
such terms as "drentse taol" rather than "drentse streektaol" or
"drentse dialekt"... nobody says "spellingswyse" like you do on your
test-mainpage, they all used different terms... it's suspicious.

And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native
language?? It either is, or it isn't. Why did you say on the babel
templates that it wasn't, and then later now that it was when it suits
you? (native speakers have some greater degree of credibility)

This is all very confusing, more than it appeared on the surface, and
it appears that while there may be some linguistic issues at the
existing nds.wiki, the most major issues are with your request, due to
your contradictory statements on the mailinglist vs the test-wiki, and
the contradiction of the websites, and you changing your mind about
which is your native language.

You say you want Wikipedias created for different language boundaries,
not national boundaries. This is not how it appears on the surface,
and when I dug deeper it appears this way too -- your dividing line is
even more arbitrary than I thought at first.

Heiko makes a distinction of spelling, not seeming to have realised
yet that orthographic conversion is a full possibility although I
tried to explain it (last time, Heiko thought I was talking about
converting German spelling to ANS... which would serve no purpose here
at all), yet does not seem to have much to say about the extreme
dialect differences you cite that change between the countries rapidly
rather than using it as an arbitrary dividing line like Ron said (he
is a real native speaker, and doesn't change his mind about it), and
as the evidence points (twents is closer related to Southwest Low
Saxon languages in Germany, than other Low Saxon varieties in
Netherlands?? this doesn't fit your argument, yet it comes from your
own hand).

I found evidence for great dialect differences, but uniform
differences: just as shockingly different between Drents and
Stellingwarven as between Drents and Oostfreesk.

But, it is indicated by Heiko that there is greater unity in dialect
with mostly differences in spelling; and it is indicated by you that
the varieties in the Netherlands are all the same, and they are all
very different from the varieties in Germany.

You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in
this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of? I'm not sure Guaka can,
Wouter has told us he can't, Heiko and Slomox are out because
regardless of how well they can speak it, they speak a German variety
so they won't be able to contribute... which leaves for now one
potential contributor, you, to a language which may be more languages
or may be part of a bigger language.

Mark

On 14/07/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark and Heiko,
>
> As explained it's not just a issue of spelling, and this cannot be
> solved with a converter, it's an issue of vocabulary, spelling and
> influence from Dutch and German.
>
> As I said, I am bilingual meaning I am both native Dutch and Veluws,
> so there's your native speaker! (I put Dutch as native because I speak
> it with people who aren't Veluws and one hears it more often in the
> media unlike Veluws) Still not clear to you after so many messages?
> (I'll change from 'nds3' uutstekende kennis to 'nds' moerstaol...)
>
> As for the dialects, there will be an article on the spelling system
> for the different dialects, as used on the mainpage now
> (http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Servien/Veurpagina) this is a
> generally used writing system, with some minor deviations as in kyk'ng
> is spelled as kyken for the clearity of the text, and instead of Z a S
> is used, and in some dialects the use I'J/IE/IEJ or Y, this is now
> fixed to Y.
>
> As for the clearity between the dialects, that's not really a problem,
> as most dialects look quite similar, with some exceptions, like
> Grunnings uses: AIN BOER... Stellingwarvs, Veluws, Sallaands etc. use
> 'N BOER (for example on the German-NDS Wikipedia the word Boer isn't
> used/doesn't exist)
>
> The dialect websites are indeed a language: Nedersaksisch
> (Dutch-Nedersaksisch that is: see: http://www.streektaal.net <
> Nedersaksisch; these dialects are all in the Netherlands, not one is
> in Germany, they're in Veluws [not up to date at the moment, new
> version has been sent], Grunnings, Drents and Stellingwarvs, all they
> use a different writing system [all Dutch-based] but with a fixed
> writing system it will be no problem... even now it's not a problem,
> but with titles it will be easier).
>
> Servien
>
>
> 2005/7/14, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > On 13/07/05, Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > > > After much thought, I have had a change-of-heart regarding separate
> > > > Wikipedias for Low Saxon.
> > > That is a surprise.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > HOWEVER, I still believe it is wrong to divide on national borders.
> > > > From what I can tell, Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dreents, Tweants, and
> > > > Achterhooks are all different enough from one another to warrant
> > > > separate Wikipedias.
> > > The national border is a border of spelling.
> >
> > Servien claims that the national border is entirely based on
> > vocabulary. If it is, however, based as you say on spelling, then it
> > can easily be remedied by a converter between Netherlands and Germany
> > spelling, similar to the converter used at the Chinese and now the
> > Serbian Wikipedias (similar converters are tested for Kashmiri, Low
> > Saxon, and even English right now).
> >
> > > > Sample:
> > > >
> > > > Stellingwarfs: Et doempien hadde zien nust in et waegenhokke. Op een
> > > > keer weren beide oolden uutvleugen. Ze hadden eten haelen wild veur de
> > > > jongen en hadden de jonkies hielendal allienig laoten.
> > > > Grunnegers: t Was ain van de schierste zummers sinds joaren. n Steltje
> > > > keudeldoemkes haren heur nust baauwd in de woagenschure stoef achter
> > > > de baanderdeure. Op n dag sluigen baaide ollen de vleugels uut. Ze
> > > > wollen veur de jongen wat te bikseln hoalen en luiten doarom de lutjen
> > > > hailendaal allind achter.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Well, these different texts are not direct translations of each other. There
> > > is a lot of paraphrasing in them.
> >
> > While this is certainly true, if one looks at individual words, you
> > can see apparent differences (the words for "[he] said", are one
> > example).
> >
> > I was unable to find a better sample; however it became rapidly clear
> > that they're different.
> >
> > > The main question here is: how different are theses 5 dialects of Low Saxon
> > > from each other from their own perspective. In other words: I think it is up
> > > to those people from this area to just tell us what they want. My guess is
> > > that they will feel that they can work together in one wikipedia. After all
> > > they did not ask for 5 new wikipedias, but just for one.
> >
> > Each of these websites refers to its dialect/language as a language.
> > Cf "drentsetaol", etc. The publishing of separate translations of both
> > religious (the Bible) and secular (Asterix) literature indicates that
> > there are indeed significant differences.
> >
> > In addition, there was only one requester for this Wikipedia. As far
> > as I know, none of the supporters speak Low Saxon, or if they do they
> > are not from the Netherlands (for example you and Slomox are from
> > Germany).
> >
> > I suspect that if people from the websites I linked in a previous
> > message were to see this discussion, they would jump on Servien's
> > message and request instead separate Wikipedias.
> >
> > And, unlike him, these organisations are founded and maintained by
> > native speakers, which as far as I know are a bit more abundant in the
> > Netherlands than in Germany (in the Netherlands, they are closer to
> > Dutch which is more closely related to Low Saxon than German is, so
> > some speak of "diglossia" rather than "bilingualism", similar to how
> > true Japanese dialects are strong still but the Okinawan language is
> > in poor health because it is not mutually understandable with Tokyo
> > Japanese).
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Current policy, so far, has been to wait for native speakers before
> > starting  a new Wikipedia. This is not a written policy, but it seems
> > to be the case as there was created Voro, Scots, Kapampangan, and
> > Cebuano Wikipedias, where native speakers were involved, but not
> > Sranang Tongo or Papiamentu, where there was a lot of support but no
> > native speakers.
> >
> > Best wishes;
> > Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>

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


from_name: Milos Rancic

body:
Person who asked Zlatiborian Wikipedia made an article "Zlatiborian
language" on English Wikipedia. It is a joke or the person is
local-nationalist. Zlatiborian speech is one of the basis of standard
Serbian and Croatian languages. So, there are no any differences. (It
is the same as someone wants to make Boston Wikipedia in the sense of
language.)

On 7/14/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/7/13, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > Jay, unfortunately chances are there will be no Ladino or Chinook
> > Jargon Wikipedias until such time as they reach a level of support
> > similar to that enjoyed by the Scots Wikipedia proposal or the Cebuano
> > Wikipedia proposal.
> >
>
>
> Ah, I can see, Mark,
> that you said "unfortunately",
> and this I take to mean that
> fortunately we have an established
> procedure according to the page
> on meta which states that if there
> are five people that plan to support
> the wiki then it should be set up.
> Especially if the language is a
> natural tongue and it has an ISO
> tag. Well, both cases are good
> to go on Ladino. So fortunately
> it seems the case for foot-dragging
> would be moot concerning Ladino.
>
> It should have its sub-domain and
> it should enjoy a good presence
> among the other languages in
> Wikisphere if we are to set up
> guidelines and these are to be
> followed, "que no"?
>
> With regards always,
> Jay B.
> en:User:ILVI
> ilooy.gaon at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
> Hi everyone,
>
> > I hate to say it but I am getting contradictory information from you and
> > Heiko.
> >
> > In fact, I am getting contradictory information from the various
> > things you write yourself.
> Mark, it is no use arguing about all this with you any longer.

Does this mean that you have no logical explanations anymore?

> > Also, how do you explain for the websites I linked you to? They use
> > such terms as "drentse taol" rather than "drentse streektaol" or
> > "drentse dialekt"... nobody says "spellingswyse" like you do on your
> > test-mainpage, they all used different terms... it's suspicious.
> Mark, I am fed up with trying to explain things to you.

So you don't respond to it. Just say you're fed up. That works well.

> > And, why do you change your mind now about Low Saxon being your native
> > language?? It either is, or it isn't.
> He made perfectly clear how he sees himself. Please read it again.

In his e-mails, he did. Yet, he makes clear through babel templates
that it is not his mother-tongue. This is confusing, and
self-contradictory.

> > Heiko makes a distinction of spelling, not seeming to have realised
> > yet that orthographic conversion is a full possibility although I
> > tried to explain it ...
> Mark, we are not interested in such a converter. Again: the difference is
> spelling AND vocabulary. When editing nds.wikipedia.org I do not want to be
> limited by having to worry about side effects of your converter. Finding the
> right words for nds.wikipedia.org is difficult enough. We have spent quite
> some time on finding words where most dictionaries fail. (E.g. what is
> "jungle"
> in Platt, or "abbot"? It took us quite some time to sort that out.)
> So please, please stop talking about your converter. This might work for
> converting
> azerbaijani from cyrillic to latin, but not for us. (As the saying goes:
> "Which part of NO don't you understand.")

Perhaps the part of "no" where you thought I was talking about
converting from Ron's orthography to German orthography? At what point
did you actually understand what I was offering? That is the part of
"no" I didn't understand. Like, "Would you like a banana?" -- "No, I
would not like an elephant"; "No, I said a BANANA" -- "I already said,
I don't want a banana!".

And, you said, and I quote (text in parenthesis is mine):

(> > HOWEVER, I still believe it is wrong to divide on national borders.
> > From what I can tell, Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dreents, Tweants, and
> > Achterhooks are all different enough from one another to warrant
> > separate Wikipedias.)
> The national border is a border of spelling.

Now, can you honestly tell me that is not confusing? You said in the
newest e-mail that it is of spelling and vocabulary, yet in one from
nearly a day ago you said exactly "The national border is a border of
spelling"??

> > You may have gotten 5 supporters, but how many of them can write in
> > this "Dutch Low Saxon" language you speak of?
> 5 is five. period. Servien wants to go on and we back him up. And I am very
> much curious to find out what the community will look like that will form
> from this seed. I really want to know, and I want to see this started soon.

So, if I request a new Wikipedia in Drents, and I find 5 people to
support me, no matter what their credentials, it should be created
right away? Do you wonder why the Sranang Tongo and Papiamentu
Wikipedias have not been created?? Perhaps it is because there are
still outlying issues with them...?

> Perhaps the main point in all this discussion with you has not been
> mentioned before. you do not even come from
> the Low Saxon language area. It is OUR language, not YOURS, and how many or
> how few wikipedias we want for our Low Saxon
> language is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and whether or not nds-nl.wikipedia.org
> will be created is not up to you to decide. This is my final word.

Oh, so it is your language, but your native language is Hochdeutsch?
This is just fabulous. So, if I learn to speak perfect patentplatt
(don't tell me it isn't patentplatt, I forwarded you accusations from
Jonny Meinbohm, and put on the list accusations from Ron hahn, both of
whom are, unlike you, native speakers), it suddenly becomes my
language? Interesting. In fact, my great-great-grandparents spoke
Platt natively... so it must be my language, then??

 > So here again is my official request: please create nds-nl.wikipedia.org, or
> is this the wrong place
> to ask for this? If so, please tell me whom to ask.

It isn't that simple. You don't just request a Wikipedia, and then
suddenly it is created. Look at how long ago the Scots Wikipedia was
first requested; it was created only a week or two ago. It didn't have
any issues regarding it, either.

An Extremaduran Wikipedia looked promising -- support from native
speakers (which doesn't exist here; even if Servien is a native
speaker, he is only 1, in the last 4 Wikipedias to be created, there
were at least 2 potential contributors, and often as much as 5),
language-promotion organisations (none here), and the like. Yet, there
were some questions about the status of Extremaduran: is it a
language, or a dialect? These concerns were very, very short, no long
discussions. And yet, it was never created, and interest gradually
waned.

Cantonese, for which I advocated, was supported by well over 5 people,
many of them native speakers. And yet, due to the fact that nobody
ever reached agreement, it has not been created.

When there are no disputes, it usually takes a long time for it to be
created anyways. When there are outstanding issues, it takes even
longer.

I would like to remind you that I hold no official position with the
Wikimedia Foundation.

However, the whole idea was submitted to the list, and as a member of
this list and of the community, I have the right to argue against it.
This does not mean that it will not be created, although it is likely
to be created substantially later if the dispute is not resolved,
which you certainly have not tried to do ("I am tired of explaining
things to you" -- Boris Lohnzweiger provided such a nice,
point-by-point response to me... why can't others do that? why do you
just repeat yourselves over and over? "oh right whatever, but it's
still separate"?)

You did not address any of the individual arguments in my last
message, most important among them:

a) Servien's e-mails say that there is a clear line between
Netherlands (Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dr?ents, Tweants, and
Achterhooks) and German (Oostfreesk, Nordnedersassisch, Westphaelsch,
etc. etc. etc.) varieties of Platt/Low Saxon. This is fine. ...until,
he writes an article in his test-wikipedia which categorises:

de noordelike groep (Sleeswyk-Holstein, Nedersaksen, Grunningen,
Drenthe, Stellingwarven, and Overyssel.)
de suudwestelike groep (Westfaolen, Twente, Sallaand, Gelderland).

Now, I'm sure you know the countries for these: Schleswig-Holstein is
in Germany, Saxony is in Germany, Grunnegers is in the Netherlands,
Dr?ents is Netherlands, Stellingwarfs is Netherlands, and Overyssel is
Netherlands.

And, Westphalia is in Germany, Tweants is spoken in the Netherlands,
Sallands in the Netherlands, and Veluws in the Netherlands.

So, both of his principal divisions of Low Saxon include varieties
from both countries. This is the primary contradiction here, and I
would like to see someone explain it -- it has not been explained
before, because I only noticed it today (he created the article
yesterday, I think).

b) Regardless of what you think, there is a tradition of separate
literature in Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dr?ents, Tweants,
Achterhooks, Sallands, and Veluws -- the Bible, first of all; the
Asterix comics also.

And then, there is the fact that each one of those websites I linked
to refers to each one as a language -- Drentsetoal, not
Drentse-streektoal or Drentse-dialekt.

c) Although important, this is probably not directly related to the
issue of nds-nl: Someone searching for a word for "abbot" is surely
not a native speaker; I imagine most native speakers would know
"jungle" too.

Both Jonny Meinbohm and Ron Hahn have testified that nds.wiki is
written in Patentplatt, in fact I sent you the text of a ballad Ron
wrote to tease Jonny about it. The ballad is of course in Patentplatt,
the translation to real Platt he provided later (I didn't send that
part to you, though I offered to if you wanted it) is quite
enlightening.

So, let's see credentials here: I am not a native speaker. My command
of Low Saxon can be said to be between nds-0 and nds-1. You are not a
native speaker. You claim nds-3. Slomox is not a native speaker. He
does not give a proficiency level, although my guess would be nds-3.

Ron Hahn and Jonny Meinbohm are both native speakers, and they have
both said that it is written in Patentplatt. It's very strange that
you ignore the opinions of these people. If I were writing a Wikipedia
in a language that wasn't my native language, I would listen very
closely to what native speakers had to say.

Mark


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
"David Gerard"  wrote rather tesily (and who can really blame him?):
> Polls are evil and stupid and tend in practice on en: to be used to force
> through stupid ideas in the hope no-one will notice the poll. For further
> evidence, check:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_locations
> Apparently started by some new users and sent under the radar. Go help
> kill
> some of these stupid ideas.

To be fair, there is some mileage in confirming that almost all metadata
labels should be placed on the Talk Page, and being able to point to a
decision could come in handy later. I'm noting several people whose opinions
I have come to respect (Angela and Raul654 most prominently) taking part in
the discussion and so far I think I'm agreeing with them mostly.

It is obvious upon reading (unless I've massively misunderstood) that
certain parties think that metadata is so important that it should be
prominently displayed in the article itself. This includes whether a given
article comes under the aegis of any particular WikiProject, which IMNSHO is
verging on the insane.

With a bit of luck, this attempt can be made to back-fire completely, and
these (in some case extremely ugly) labels can be safely relocated to the
appropriate Talk Pages where they can be happy and productive. Maybe they
could even be made pretty, although holding of breath is probably
contraindicated.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
> It is obvious upon reading (unless I've massively misunderstood) that
> certain parties think that metadata is so important that it should be
> prominently displayed in the article itself. This includes whether a given
> article comes under the aegis of any particular WikiProject, which IMNSHO
> is verging on the insane.

I just noticed this poll because David called
our attention to it but I happen to lean towards
the other side. I see no reason to shield casual
readers from exhortations to help with the project.

Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too
big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a
slightly prettified version of them in the article
namespace where they are much more likely to be seen
and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Ros’ Haruo

body:
Mark,
 If one (or more: xwEl?ucid and dxwlilap and skajEt might each want one ;-)
) ever comes to be, I'll do my best to support it, but you're right, I have
not requested one. My plate is full enough just being a good
Esperantist-WPan and a boosterette for the Wawa WP, which is crawling
towards life. But as long as language-name capitalization issues were on the
table I thought some here might find it of interest to consider a variant
case. I fully agree it is not a bridge that needs crossing.
 Haruo
 On 7/14/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ros, I am all for the creation of a Lushootseed Wikipedia.
>
> And, in the past, I have encouraged theoretical discussions relating
> to the community dynamics of possible future Wikipedias in
> lesser-spoken languages (Hopi was an example I used, with about 4000
> speakers, more than Lushootseed).
>
> However -- and this is a big however -- this message is so
> theoretical, so probably irrelevant, that it surprises even me.
>
> Discussion of community dynamics, and general language issues that may
> be faced in the future is one thing. But, discussion of a specific
> like this, when you haven't even requested the creation of a
> Lushootseed Wikipedia, is patently absurd. (or, should I say,
> patschent-ly absurd! Ahahaha! NOT funny... -,,-' ). The discussion of
> even this change in interwiki links is a new thing, and no changes
> have yet been made.
>
> As they say on Mars, let's cross that bridge when we come to it...
>
> Mark
>
> On 14/07/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > To date there does not appear to be a Lushootseed (Puget Sound Salish)
> > Wikipedia, but if such ever comes to be, the question will arise whether
> > language names should have their first letters underlined: Lushootseed
> does
> > not use capital letters ? its standard orthography is a variety of North
> > Americanist IPA ? but the first letters of the names of persons are
> often
> > underlined. (Sentence-initial letters are not underlined, however. In
> > English (which is the first written language of virtually all
> Lushootseed
> > speakers/readers) both sentence initials and name initials are
> capitalized.
> > In Lushootseed in my experience language names in text are not
> underlined,
> > but it remains an open question how the community feels about lists
> > (bulleted, semi-coloned or whatever).
> >
> > Haruo
> --
> Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
> www.lernu.net <http://www.lernu.net>
> Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Lane, Ryan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits

body:
Check /etc/php.ini, and the php.conf file under apache's configuration to
make sure you are allowing larger uploads as well.

V/r,

Ryan Lane
NAVOCEANO

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stanislav Traykov
> Sent:	Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:31 AM
> To:	wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject:	[Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to set up a wiki accepting large file uploads (up to 50MB)
> but for some reason I can't upload anything larger than ~8MB: after I
> click the upload button it waits a few seconds and just displays the
> empty upload form again. Does this sound like a MediaWiki problem? I'd
> be grateful for any hints..
>
> Apache config: LimitRequestBody 0 (=unlimited)
> php.ini: upload_max_filesize = 50M
> LocalSettings.php: $wgUploadSizeWarning = 52428800
>
> Thanks,
> Stanislav Traykov
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits

body:
Err, ignore that part. Did you restart apache?

V/r,

Ryan Lane

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lane, Ryan
> Sent:	Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:40 AM
> To:	'Wikimedia developers'
> Subject:	RE: [Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits
>
> Check /etc/php.ini, and the php.conf file under apache's configuration to
> make sure you are allowing larger uploads as well.
>
> V/r,
>
> Ryan Lane
> NAVOCEANO
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> > [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stanislav Traykov
> > Sent:	Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:31 AM
> > To:	wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > Subject:	[Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to set up a wiki accepting large file uploads (up to 50MB)
> > but for some reason I can't upload anything larger than ~8MB: after I
> > click the upload button it waits a few seconds and just displays the
> > empty upload form again. Does this sound like a MediaWiki problem? I'd
> > be grateful for any hints..
> >
> > Apache config: LimitRequestBody 0 (=unlimited)
> > php.ini: upload_max_filesize = 50M
> > LocalSettings.php: $wgUploadSizeWarning = 52428800
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stanislav Traykov
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running the asylum)

body:
I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.

Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse admin powers, and
it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to 30%, but a lot of the
objections were irrelevant in my opinion.

I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look it up ;-) but Erik
(user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to neutral. I have been
reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should take matters into my
own hands.

Any objections?

Ed Poor
Bureaucrat


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
--- Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too
> big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a
> slightly prettified version of them in the article
> namespace where they are much more likely to be seen
> and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.

Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia
content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so
this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as
possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.

-- mav

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


from_name: Pat Carr

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.
>
> Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse
> admin powers, and
> it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to
> 30%, but a lot of the
> objections were irrelevant in my opinion.
>
> I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look
> it up ;-) but Erik
> (user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to
> neutral. I have been
> reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should
> take matters into my
> own hands.
>
> Any objections?

Yes, I believe there were 29 of them (including mine).

Carbonite

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: David Iberri

subject: [Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits

body:
On 7/14/05, Stanislav Traykov <st at gmuf.com> wrote:
> php.ini: upload_max_filesize = 50M

Make sure your post_max_size is greater than upload_max_filesize.

    http://docs.php.net/en/ini.html#ini.post-max-size

Cheers,
David Iberri


from_name: Nyenyec N

subject: [WikiEN-l] U.S. copyright law and European servers

body:
This is somewhat related to the ongoing "fair use" discussion.

AFAIK, there are Wikipedia servers in Paris and Amsterdam.

Is it OK for Wikipedia to use an image under U.S. copyright law based
on "fair use" and the given image is hosted on French or Dutch server
and is served to French or Dutch clients but is copyrighted under
French or Dutch law?
Isn't that a copyright violation?

(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in
the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)

Wouldn't this be a problem as more and more servers are installed in
an increasing number of countries?

Thanks,
nyenyec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Allowing blocked users to edit their own talk page,
	done

body:
> Anyone willing to defend this should go to
> http://tinyurl.com/8bxwp , because it's heading for a quick demise.
>
> -- Tim Starling

By my count, it's 8 support vs. only 3 oppose. Looks like it's here to
stay.

See also: [[Wikipedia:New features]]

Ed Poor
Developer Emeritus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Running the asylum?

body:
> And then there are the people who oppose because (a) he knows
> too much about the subjects about which he edits, and now (b)
> because...
>
>  "Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible
> conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too"
>
> When did being an "active contributor" make you ineligible to
> be an admin?  Here I was thinking this project was about
> writing an encyclopaedia.  Am I going crazy, or has the world
> gone nuts?

Ian, you are right on both counts. There's nothing wrong with an admin
being knowledgeable or active. (By the way, I left a note on your talk
page on the same matter.)

Uncle Ed


from_name: Andrew Venier

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.
>
>Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse admin powers, and
>it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to 30%, but a lot of the
>objections were irrelevant in my opinion.
>
>I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look it up ;-) but Erik
>(user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to neutral. I have been
>reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should take matters into my
>own hands.
>
>Any objections?
>
>Ed Poor
>Bureaucrat
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
I would request a Bureaucrat who was not so closely involved (i.e. one
who did not edit war and deface other comments in this discussion) make
the decision on this particular RFA.


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 7/14/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.
>
> Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse admin powers, and
> it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to 30%, but a lot of the
> objections were irrelevant in my opinion.
>
> I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look it up ;-) but Erik
> (user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to neutral. I have been
> reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should take matters into my
> own hands.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Ed Poor
> Bureaucrat

Yes.

He's currently on revert probation from the Arbitration Committee.  If
that's "irrelevant" and not a significant objection, I don't think
there are any valid significant objections to anything anywhere on
Wikipedia.

If the revert probation is unfair or incorrect, he should petition to
have that removed first.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
By that logic, we should also de-admin Everyking?

-Snowspinner

On Jul 14, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Michael Turley wrote:

> On 7/14/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.
>>
>> Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse admin powers,
>> and
>> it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to 30%, but a lot
>> of the
>> objections were irrelevant in my opinion.
>>
>> I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look it up ;-) but
>> Erik
>> (user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to neutral. I have
>> been
>> reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should take matters
>> into my
>> own hands.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Ed Poor
>> Bureaucrat
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> He's currently on revert probation from the Arbitration Committee.  If
> that's "irrelevant" and not a significant objection, I don't think
> there are any valid significant objections to anything anywhere on
> Wikipedia.
>
> If the revert probation is unfair or incorrect, he should petition to
> have that removed first.
>
> --
> Michael Turley
> User:Unfocused
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] Case sensitivity on Afrikaans Wiktionary

body:
A request by nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf
<http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Jcwf>  has been posted on the
en:Beer parlour to have first letter case sensitivity on the inactive
Afrikaans Wiktionary.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
On 7/14/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too
> > big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a
> > slightly prettified version of them in the article
> > namespace where they are much more likely to be seen
> > and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
>
> Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia
> content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so
> this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as
> possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.
>
> -- mav

"Ugly" has nothing to do with it.  Readers deserve to know our the
weaknesses present in our articles in the most open and direct way
possible; at the top of the articles in question.   These templates
are every bit as relevant to readers as they are to editors.

This is one way that I can see Wikipedia being '''far superior''' than
any other encyclopedia ever written.

Does Encarta tell you that their [[Jerusalem]] article was revised and
reverted and distilled among many points of view, or do they present
just one, and assume you'll trust them because they're the authority
figure?

Does Encarta allow you to go through the revision history of articles
such as [[Ronald Reagan]] to look for subtle biases and outright
point-of-view imbalances?

Does Encarta tell you that they might not have enough references to be
giving a truly "authoritative" presentation on [[Antiretroviral
drugs]]?  (Picked at random from my watchlist... we actually could use
a few more cited references ourselves.)

Would Encarta acknowledge if they don't have a good photograph of
[[Basil Rathbone]]?

Wikipedia will always be far superior if we always acknowledge our
weaknesses in the most open way possible, not just because it inspires
more contributions, but because it is a more intellectually honest way
of presenting information.  While others hide behind the voice of
authority, we openly ask for help where we need it.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
> I would request a Bureaucrat who was not so closely involved (i.e. one
> who did not edit war and deface other comments in this discussion) make
> the decision on this particular RFA.

I could not agree more strongly.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
Wikipedia:Template madness equates to overall
Wikipedia:Article blight , and general wikimalaise.

With few exceptions, small templates should fit in the
sidebar like interwiki links, and likewise with those
annoying "redirected from" links.

Those technical limitations stickers are pretty
senseless and overused too: why advertise technical
limitations which arent really "limitations" anyway?
(FTTB, These can be split up by specific type of use,
and evaluated independently, but that will take some
work... )

S

--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too
> > big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a
> > slightly prettified version of them in the article
> > namespace where they are much more likely to be
> seen
> > and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
>
> Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to
> third party users of Wikipedia
> content. We also do not have a problem with
> attracting new editors as is so
> this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to
> keep things as clean as
> possible for the vast majority of our users -
> readers.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Servien Ilaino

body:
Hi Mark and Heiko,

As explained it's not just a issue of spelling, and this cannot be
solved with a converter, it's an issue of vocabulary, spelling and
influence from Dutch and German.

As I said, I am bilingual meaning I am both native Dutch and Veluws,
so there's your native speaker! (I put Dutch as native because I speak
it with people who aren't Veluws and one hears it more often in the
media unlike Veluws) Still not clear to you after so many messages?
(I'll change from 'nds3' uutstekende kennis to 'nds' moerstaol...)

As for the dialects, there will be an article on the spelling system
for the different dialects, as used on the mainpage now
(http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Servien/Veurpagina) this is a
generally used writing system, with some minor deviations as in kyk'ng
is spelled as kyken for the clearity of the text, and instead of Z a S
is used, and in some dialects the use I'J/IE/IEJ or Y, this is now
fixed to Y.

As for the clearity between the dialects, that's not really a problem,
as most dialects look quite similar, with some exceptions, like
Grunnings uses: AIN BOER... Stellingwarvs, Veluws, Sallaands etc. use
'N BOER (for example on the German-NDS Wikipedia the word Boer isn't
used/doesn't exist)

The dialect websites are indeed a language: Nedersaksisch
(Dutch-Nedersaksisch that is: see: http://www.streektaal.net <
Nedersaksisch; these dialects are all in the Netherlands, not one is
in Germany, they're in Veluws [not up to date at the moment, new
version has been sent], Grunnings, Drents and Stellingwarvs, all they
use a different writing system [all Dutch-based] but with a fixed
writing system it will be no problem... even now it's not a problem,
but with titles it will be easier).

Servien

2005/7/14, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> On 13/07/05, Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > > After much thought, I have had a change-of-heart regarding separate
> > > Wikipedias for Low Saxon.
> > That is a surprise.
> >
> > >
> > > HOWEVER, I still believe it is wrong to divide on national borders.
> > > From what I can tell, Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dreents, Tweants, and
> > > Achterhooks are all different enough from one another to warrant
> > > separate Wikipedias.
> > The national border is a border of spelling.
>
> Servien claims that the national border is entirely based on
> vocabulary. If it is, however, based as you say on spelling, then it
> can easily be remedied by a converter between Netherlands and Germany
> spelling, similar to the converter used at the Chinese and now the
> Serbian Wikipedias (similar converters are tested for Kashmiri, Low
> Saxon, and even English right now).
>
> > > Sample:
> > >
> > > Stellingwarfs: Et doempien hadde zien nust in et waegenhokke. Op een
> > > keer weren beide oolden uutvleugen. Ze hadden eten haelen wild veur de
> > > jongen en hadden de jonkies hielendal allienig laoten.
> > > Grunnegers: t Was ain van de schierste zummers sinds joaren. n Steltje
> > > keudeldoemkes haren heur nust baauwd in de woagenschure stoef achter
> > > de baanderdeure. Op n dag sluigen baaide ollen de vleugels uut. Ze
> > > wollen veur de jongen wat te bikseln hoalen en luiten doarom de lutjen
> > > hailendaal allind achter.
> > ...
> >
> > Well, these different texts are not direct translations of each other. There
> > is a lot of paraphrasing in them.
>
> While this is certainly true, if one looks at individual words, you
> can see apparent differences (the words for "[he] said", are one
> example).
>
> I was unable to find a better sample; however it became rapidly clear
> that they're different.
>
> > The main question here is: how different are theses 5 dialects of Low Saxon
> > from each other from their own perspective. In other words: I think it is up
> > to those people from this area to just tell us what they want. My guess is
> > that they will feel that they can work together in one wikipedia. After all
> > they did not ask for 5 new wikipedias, but just for one.
>
> Each of these websites refers to its dialect/language as a language.
> Cf "drentsetaol", etc. The publishing of separate translations of both
> religious (the Bible) and secular (Asterix) literature indicates that
> there are indeed significant differences.
>
> In addition, there was only one requester for this Wikipedia. As far
> as I know, none of the supporters speak Low Saxon, or if they do they
> are not from the Netherlands (for example you and Slomox are from
> Germany).
>
> I suspect that if people from the websites I linked in a previous
> message were to see this discussion, they would jump on Servien's
> message and request instead separate Wikipedias.
>
> And, unlike him, these organisations are founded and maintained by
> native speakers, which as far as I know are a bit more abundant in the
> Netherlands than in Germany (in the Netherlands, they are closer to
> Dutch which is more closely related to Low Saxon than German is, so
> some speak of "diglossia" rather than "bilingualism", similar to how
> true Japanese dialects are strong still but the Okinawan language is
> in poor health because it is not mutually understandable with Tokyo
> Japanese).
>
> ...
>
> Current policy, so far, has been to wait for native speakers before
> starting  a new Wikipedia. This is not a written policy, but it seems
> to be the case as there was created Voro, Scots, Kapampangan, and
> Cebuano Wikipedias, where native speakers were involved, but not
> Sranang Tongo or Papiamentu, where there was a lot of support but no
> native speakers.
>
> Best wishes;
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Nathaniel Krause

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of an
	image

body:
Below is the response I received from the proprietor of
http://4dw.net/royalark after I e-mailed him to ask for copyright
information on a picture that appeared on his website. The image in question
  (http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Arabia/hijaz-Ali.gif) is a photograph of
[[Ali bin Hussein]], who died in 1935, and thus I thought there was a good
chance the image might be in the public domain by now, especially since it
might well have been taken in the Middle East before the currently-existing
states there were even established.

From:	"Christopher J Buyers"
To:	"Nathaniel Krause"
CC:	jwales@
Subject:	Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:31:56 +0100

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I realise that it has now become standard practice for people like yourself
who post supposedly "original" articles on wikipedia to copy their materials
from my website at the Royal Ark, but please note:

You certainly may not use any materials from my website, without my
permission under any circumstances whatever.

Copyright infringement is property theft and intellectual rape. Are you a
thief and rapist? Read on...

The text and images on the website are copyrighted and protected by United
States and international copyright conventions.  Reproduction of ideas,
interpretations, words and graphics in any print or electronic form, except
for small portions for quotations and reviews, without the written
permission of the webmaster, is prohibited.   These rules are not the
exclusive concern of academics and the publishing industry; they are
universal ethics.
While a few graphics on the website might be clipart in the public domain,
it is safest to assume that they are not.  Users should go to clipart
archives to borrow such graphics.

Permission to reproduce major portions of text on other websites is normally
denied since this website is a living document and constantly subject to
updating and correction.  Authors and webmasters do not want uncontrolled
and uncorrected versions of their texts floating around the internet.
Linking to a text is the most acceptable option since it relieves the linker
of responsibility for the changing content of the master copy of the
document.

If you do not understand copyright and intellectual property law, apply a
simple rule of courtesy:  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
  If you can conceive of the hours, weeks, and years of research, skill and
education that can go into developing an idea, a text, an index, or a
graphic, you would doubtless not like to have somebody steal that work from
you and claim it as their own.  Copyright infringement is plagiarism.

    Plagiarism. n. the wrongful appropriation or purloining , and
publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the _expression of the ideas
(literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another. [Oxford English
Dictionary]

    Plagiarise.  vt., vi., to take and use as one's own the thoughts,
writings, or inventions of another.  [Oxford English Dictionary]      Due to
the ease of theft on the internet, international copyright laws are being
tightened.  The penalties for copyright infringement can be severe. For a
better understanding of copyright and related ethical issues, you may wish
to explore these links:

        Copyright Issues, by Cyndi Howells
        10 Myths About Copyright Explained, by Brad Templeton
        Intellectual Property Law
        U.S. Copyright and Genealogy, by Michael Goad.
        Restoring Ethics to Genealogy, by Barbara A. Brown.
        The Copyright Wizard
        Plagiarism, by Sharon Stoerger.

A final note of warning: Beware of web sites whose "copyright notice"
consists principally of a disclaimer to the effect that infringement on
their part is unintentional, and that they will consider negotiating with
challengers. They are, in effect, putting you on notice that they are
thieves, and consider themselves innocent until caught. Such lapses in
ethics call into question the reliability of any other information presented
on such web sites.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise fellow copyists on Wikipedia of
these facts.

Thank you

Christopher Buyers

----

From:	"Nathaniel Krause"
To:	"Christopher J Buyers"
Subject:	Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
Date:	 Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)

Mr. Buyers,

Well, thanks for getting back to me. Needless to say,
I was not very pleased with your response, in no small
part because you don't seem to have answered my
question very clearly. You say, "You certainly may not
use any materials from my website, without my
permission under any circumstances whatever," but this
is meaningless unless you actually own the copyright
on the picture in question. Do you? If you don't, who,
if anyone, does? That is what I was inquiring about in
my first e-mail.

Furthermore, if I wanted to steal materials from your
website in defiance of intellectual property laws, why
would I send you an e-mail telling you about it? It
was only because I have no desire to infringe on your
copyright that I contacted you in the first place.

You say, "If you can conceive of the hours, weeks, and
years of research, skill and education that can go
into developing an idea, a text, an index, or a
graphic, you would doubtless not like to have somebody
steal that work from you and claim it as their own."
What are you referring to here? Did you take this
picture of Sharif Ali bin Hussein, who died in 1935,
yourself? What are the countless hours that you spent
developing it? I do want to be clear that I am not
asking to use any text from your website, which I have
already linked to from the article.

The simple rule you suggest, "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you", is somewhat ironic,
because, in my case, and in the case of other
Wikipedia authors, we make the text we write and
photographs we take freely available to everyone.

You ask, "Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise
fellow copyists on Wikipedia of these facts", and I'm
happy to do so, although any Wikipedia editor who
knows what he's doing already knows it. I'm not sure
why this is our standard practice [here I made a typo;
I meant to say "why you think this is our standard
practice". Let's hope that didn't exacerbate the
problem. -NYK]. We sometimes have problems with
supposedly fair-use images, because fair use law is so
complicated, but we never use fair-use text, or anything
other than GFDL text, under any circumstances. In fact,
if you tell me which article is copied from Royal Ark,
I'll try to fix the problem myself.

Cheers,

Nat Krause

----

From:	"Christopher J Buyers"
To:	"Nathaniel Krause"
Subject:	Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:38:59 +0100

Piss-off.

You and your kind are nothing more than a bunch of thieves and plagiarisers.
I am in no mood to help you or co-operate with you one bit. I shall of
course, ensure the registration of your name for future reference by others.

Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not
escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the appropriate
steps in the near future.

----
----

I'm sending this to the list, first, because I wanted to keep my word and
remind my fellow Wikipedians not to blatantly violate somebody's copyright.
Second, because I wanted to warn you that Mr. Buyers' second e-mail appears
to let the cat out of the bag regarding the shadowy conspiracy that may be
plotting against Wikipedia as even as you read this. Sadly, we have not
escaped their notice. In case you see somebody coming toward you, especially
in the near future, who looks like he may be in a position to take
appropriate steps, be extra careful.

Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website
guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright
to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does. He just warns
me not to use it without elaboration. Considering his attitude, I'm not sure
I'd really believe him if he did claim to own it. On the other hand, I'm not
comfortable just assuming that it's public domain -- even if it doesn't
belong to Christopher J Buyers, there might be somebody else out there who
still has rights to it. [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] seems to imply that I should
tag it {{fairold}} and go ahead and use it, and it certainly appears to
count as "Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other
means". However, since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought
it would advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions.

Thanks,

Nat Krause (the eponymous user)


body:
On 7/14/05, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Michael Turley wrote
>
> >> I would request a Bureaucrat who was not so closely involved (i.e. one
> >> who did not edit war and deface other comments in this discussion) make
> >> the decision on this particular RFA.
>
> >I could not agree more strongly.
>
> The vote 70-30 for WMC shows he has many friends but has acquired enemies
> (together with those who either take the ArbCom ruling to be a blot, or who
> are chary of those who get foul of controversy on general grounds).
>
> Now it ramifies into distrust for a bureaucrat.  Bureaucrats are elected
> precisely on the grounds that they _are_ trusted.  So, it seems some people
> would want to qualify that.
>
> Forgive me, but this is polarizing, splitting stuff - and just what Wiki-en
> should rise above, on a politically-charged issue.
>
> There are a few possible resolutions of the RFA issue here.  I do feel
> strongly that it is important to speak out against the 'legalistic'
> attitude.  Wiki works mainly because the barrackroom lawyers are seen for
> what they are, and the community wills the constitution to be applied with
> as much regard for the assumption of good faith, for example, as for
> anything else.
>
> Charles

I want to trust a bureaucrat to judge when it is most appropriate for
them to recuse themselves from an issue.  If making that decision
involves accepting suggestions from the editing public, I certainly do
not fault him for that.  That is not questioning his good faith; it is
confirming it.

He asked specifically if this would be an issue.  I cannot demand
higher standards, but I will request them, especially when asked.  I
believe that this is a case where someone involved in an issue should
step aside to allow someone else to make the decision.  I believe that
one choice represents a higher standard than the other, and I
expressed that in reponse to a request.

I don't see where Ed being open about his decision making process, and
people responding to him are necessarily polarizing or divisive or
contrary to good faith in any way, as long as we're polite, civil, and
respectful of each other.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/skins/monobook main.css,1.45,1.46

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
<snip>
> Modified Files:
> 	main.css
> Log Message:
> * (bug 2001) Revert apparent accidental checkin of experimental changes
<snip>
> - /* for OpenId */
> - input#wpName {
> - 	/* FIXME : icon is not transparent */
> - 	background: url(openid-inputicon.gif) no-repeat;
> - 	background-position: 0 50%;
> - 	background-color : #FFFFFF;
> - 	color : #000000;
> - 	padding-left: 18px;
> - }

Oups sorry, I should use a different branch :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] "/execscriptdir/php.cgi" my eye!

body:
Greg Turner wrote:
> The question: where in the code is it getting the value
> "/execscriptdir/php.cgi" for every URL and where can I change it to
> "/wiki"?

That's what PHP and your web server are reporting. See config/index.php
for the exact variables it checks.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050714/c0c523c2/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jonathan Leybovich

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Oracle support

body:
It seems new datamodel scripts are required for each
back-end database.  Since it may not be possible to
have 1 script in generic SQL that will work across all
databases, has anyone considered maintaining the
datamodel through a UML tool and then using various
code-generator templates to generate appropriate SQL
DDL per-database?  One fringe-benefit of this approach
would be the ability to visualize the current
datamodel by exporting the UML digram into a graphic
file.

>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:18:00 +0100
> From: Kate <keturner at livejournal.com>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Oracle support
> To: mediawiki-l at mail.wikimedia.org,
> wikitech-l at mail.wikimedia.org
>
> hi,
>
> for those interested, i have begun adding support
> for Oracle database backend
> to 1.5, in a separate branch.  at present it's
> somewhat usable (editing
> mostly works), but many things are unimplemented or
> broken.  to check out a
> copy of the source:
>
>   >cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs at cvs.defau.lt:/root login
>     (press enter for password)
>   >cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs at cvs.defau.lt:/root co
> -rORACLE_WORK phase3
>
> there's no installer support, so you'll need to
> create a LocalSettings.php
> manually (easiest is to install it under MySQL and
> copy the file).  set
> $wgDBserver to any non-empty string, $wgDBtype to
> 'oracle' and $wgDBname to
> your Oracle SID.  run
> "@maintenance/oracle/tables.sql" from SQLPlus to
> import
> the table definitions.  to make a user into a sysop
> after installation:
>
>   SQL> CALL add_user_right('Username', 'sysop')
>   SQL> CALL add_user_right('Username', 'bureaucrat')
>
> please file bugs related to Oracle support in
> bugzilla, blocking #652.
>
> kate.
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


body:
On 7/14/05, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>  "Michael Turley" wrote
>
> >I want to trust a bureaucrat to judge when it is most appropriate for
> them to recuse themselves from an issue.
>
> Just do so, then.  Ed doesn't need any more data, in fact.  He can ask
> another bureaucrat to call this one, or he can do it himself.

Please don't cut single sentences out of the context of a coherent
whole paragraph of mine to find a point to object to.  You removed the
rest of my paragraph in which I illustrated that Ed confirmed that I
do, in fact, have the trustworthiness that I want.

> I don't think another straw poll is a good thing, at all.  I don't think
> qualifying  the bureaucrat status case-by-case is good, either.  My own
> feelings about Ed are that his avuncularity has slipped badly on this issue;
> but that has nothing to do with his capacity to decide the outcome. And  I
> don't think any amount of civility makes up for schisms.

Ed asked whether he should recuse himself by asking for objections.
You should not fault those who replied to his request in good faith.
A discussion of disagreements is to be commended, not condemned.
Civility and mutual respect are the difference between disagreement
and schism.  It seems to me we have simple disagreement and nothing
more.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Angela

body:
On 7/14/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> However, keep in mind that these are both extremes, and neither is
> likely to ever actually happen. What they are there to demonstrate is
> that right now there __are no regulations__. If somebody told you
> there is a policy of 5 supporters, they are wrong. It is a *proposed*
> policy.

The page might claim it is only proposed, but in practice, it's the
closest thing we have to a policy, so tends to be the one that is
followed. I'm not aware of any recently created wikis that have not
met this "proposed" policy. Policy is often derived from what actually
happens, so in my view, the 5 supporters rule is, or is becoming
through practice, the policy for creating new language Wikipedias.

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
--- Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> They have relevance to Wikipedians and prospective
> Wikipedians. I doubt they greatly annoy anyone else.
> Some of them could certainly do with a little
> prettifying, though.

Our primary audience is readers. They outnumber editors at least 50 to 1.
Keeping things nice and clean for them and targeting messages aimed at editors
to places where editors hang out (talk pages and edit screens) is the way to
go. The only exception I can see to this would be for really sub-standard
articles where the messages help to warn readers.

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia
>content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so
>this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as
>possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.
>
>
I agree with this---the less meta-pollution of the article space, the
better.  When I'm editing Wikipedia articles, I generally think "how
would this seem if it appeared in a printed version of Wikipedia?"  If
the answer is "really out of place", then it shouldn't be there, IMO.

-Mark


from_name: Heiko Evermann

subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal to modify / supplement request:=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_request_for_Stellingwarfs, _Grunnegers, _Dr=E8ents, _Tweants?= , and Achterhooks Wikipedias.

body:
Hi Servien,
> As for the clearity between the dialects, that's not really a problem,
> as most dialects look quite similar, with some exceptions, like
> Grunnings uses: AIN BOER... Stellingwarvs, Veluws, Sallaands etc. use
> 'N BOER (for example on the German-NDS Wikipedia the word Boer isn't
> used/doesn't exist)
Actually it is "Buur" or "Buer" on our side of the spelling border.

> The dialect websites are indeed a language: Nedersaksisch
> (Dutch-Nedersaksisch that is: see: http://www.streektaal.net <
> Nedersaksisch; these dialects are all in the Netherlands, not one is
> in Germany, they're in Veluws [not up to date at the moment, new
> version has been sent], Grunnings, Drents and Stellingwarvs, all they
> use a different writing system [all Dutch-based] but with a fixed
> writing system it will be no problem... even now it's not a problem,
> but with titles it will be easier).

To me this means:
1) You say you can go along together and you will be able to sort out
upcoming problems between Veluws, Grunnings, Drents and Stellingwarvs, and
one wikipedia is sufficient for all of you.
2) You are the native speaker that Mark keeps demanding.

OK, that means that there is no reason left not to create nds-nl.

I therefore again request the immediate creaton of nds-nl.wikipedia.org. We
have been discussing far too long and I really think it is time to go back
to work.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann

>
> Servien
>
>
> 2005/7/14, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > On 13/07/05, Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > > > After much thought, I have had a change-of-heart regarding separate
> > > > Wikipedias for Low Saxon.
> > > That is a surprise.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > HOWEVER, I still believe it is wrong to divide on national borders.
> > > > From what I can tell, Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Dreents, Tweants,
> and
> > > > Achterhooks are all different enough from one another to warrant
> > > > separate Wikipedias.
> > > The national border is a border of spelling.
> >
> > Servien claims that the national border is entirely based on
> > vocabulary. If it is, however, based as you say on spelling, then it
> > can easily be remedied by a converter between Netherlands and Germany
> > spelling, similar to the converter used at the Chinese and now the
> > Serbian Wikipedias (similar converters are tested for Kashmiri, Low
> > Saxon, and even English right now).
> >
> > > > Sample:
> > > >
> > > > Stellingwarfs: Et doempien hadde zien nust in et waegenhokke. Op een
> > > > keer weren beide oolden uutvleugen. Ze hadden eten haelen wild veur
> de
> > > > jongen en hadden de jonkies hielendal allienig laoten.
> > > > Grunnegers: t Was ain van de schierste zummers sinds joaren. n
> Steltje
> > > > keudeldoemkes haren heur nust baauwd in de woagenschure stoef achter
> > > > de baanderdeure. Op n dag sluigen baaide ollen de vleugels uut. Ze
> > > > wollen veur de jongen wat te bikseln hoalen en luiten doarom de
> lutjen
> > > > hailendaal allind achter.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Well, these different texts are not direct translations of each other.
> There
> > > is a lot of paraphrasing in them.
> >
> > While this is certainly true, if one looks at individual words, you
> > can see apparent differences (the words for "[he] said", are one
> > example).
> >
> > I was unable to find a better sample; however it became rapidly clear
> > that they're different.
> >
> > > The main question here is: how different are theses 5 dialects of Low
> Saxon
> > > from each other from their own perspective. In other words: I think it
> is up
> > > to those people from this area to just tell us what they want. My
> guess is
> > > that they will feel that they can work together in one wikipedia.
> After all
> > > they did not ask for 5 new wikipedias, but just for one.
> >
> > Each of these websites refers to its dialect/language as a language.
> > Cf "drentsetaol", etc. The publishing of separate translations of both
> > religious (the Bible) and secular (Asterix) literature indicates that
> > there are indeed significant differences.
> >
> > In addition, there was only one requester for this Wikipedia. As far
> > as I know, none of the supporters speak Low Saxon, or if they do they
> > are not from the Netherlands (for example you and Slomox are from
> > Germany).
> >
> > I suspect that if people from the websites I linked in a previous
> > message were to see this discussion, they would jump on Servien's
> > message and request instead separate Wikipedias.
> >
> > And, unlike him, these organisations are founded and maintained by
> > native speakers, which as far as I know are a bit more abundant in the
> > Netherlands than in Germany (in the Netherlands, they are closer to
> > Dutch which is more closely related to Low Saxon than German is, so
> > some speak of "diglossia" rather than "bilingualism", similar to how
> > true Japanese dialects are strong still but the Okinawan language is
> > in poor health because it is not mutually understandable with Tokyo
> > Japanese).
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Current policy, so far, has been to wait for native speakers before
> > starting  a new Wikipedia. This is not a written policy, but it seems
> > to be the case as there was created Voro, Scots, Kapampangan, and
> > Cebuano Wikipedias, where native speakers were involved, but not
> > Sranang Tongo or Papiamentu, where there was a lot of support but no
> > native speakers.
> >
> > Best wishes;
> > Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
GMX DSL = Maximale Leistung zum minimalen Preis!
2000 MB nur 2,99, Flatrate ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
--- Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia will always be far superior if we always acknowledge our
> weaknesses in the most open way possible, not just because it inspires
> more contributions, but because it is a more intellectually honest way
> of presenting information.  While others hide behind the voice of
> authority, we openly ask for help where we need it.

Avoiding self references except where needed is a valid goal becasue it makes
our content easier to use for third parties. We must balance the needs of
readers with recruitment and the needs of third party users. Using talk pages
for all but the most important meta data is the way to go.

Posting things like ToDo lists in the article itself or adding instruction
creep such as WikiProject tags hurts more than helps and makes our content less
usable to third parties.

We have talk pages, let's use them.

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


body:
On 7/14/05, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Michael Turley wrote
>
> >Civility and mutual respect are the difference between disagreement
> and schism.  It seems to me we have simple disagreement and nothing
> more.
>
> You think the G8 'disagreement' on global warning, all discussed no doubt in
> the most diplomatic of language, wasn't a schism?
>
> It is part of the theory of wikis that eventually they find an issue over
> which to shake themselves apart.  Hasn't happened for WP, touch wood.  If
> there is such an issue, it is not going to be the language, but the basic
> passionate incompatibilities, which fuel it.
>
> I'm actually quite concerned that this particular issue is not going to be
> easy to ring-fence.

Regarding schism, the G8 has serious policy disagreements.  That the
G8 is still together is evidence contrary to a schism.  Calling it a
schism is, in my opinion, hyperbole.

The same here.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: U.S. copyright law and European servers

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

On 7/14/05, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's people having their heads in the sand is what it is.
>
> The incorporation of "fair use" images in Wikipedia ensures that the
> encyclopaedia as a whole cannot straightforwardly be
> used/redistributed outside of the US.
>
> The grand theories of a free resource for all ring hollow with so much
> work required to create a redistribution of the encyclopaedia,
> omitting the non-GFDL images, but including all the great free licence
> ones that are there.
>

Which is why images are tagged. All one has to do is run an SQL query
to remove images that have pages tagged with non-free licenses. It's
not our fault that people are so anal about their copyrights.

- --Slowking Man

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC1u33CYNOh7qrRhoRAjgVAJwLoU6APSJ8m+6yIKVV6tAkrkBYeQCdGcWx
WL+o4ZzcGv+ZfoCr3Ytiauk=
=Nyh9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----