from_name: Zoney

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Controversial articles (was Writing about sexual
	topics responsibly is not censorship)

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa Knott
<theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> >  these always were unsuitable to minors.
>
> Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit it, including those
> people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is not suitable for
> minors and will be banned from schools soon enough anyway in the same
> way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
>
> Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should cater for adults.
>
> Theresa

I wouldn't like to see some Wikipedians give up on imposing some sort
of respectability though. It'd be nice to have some sort of standards.
I don't care whether people choose to call that censorship or not. OK
many Wikipedians perhaps believe in complete unrestricted freedom in
what gets put on Wikipedia (although I think most have specific topics
they have "views" on), but we can't ignore that Wikipedia should cater
to at least a reasonable section of the "mainstream". I think people
will realise that there are articles on Wikipedia at the moment that
don't remotely live up to a standard acceptable to an appreciable
"mainstream" segment.

If people continue to insist on no "good taste" standards, people will
stop visiting Wikipedia, and it will just become a world-wide
distributed hobby.

As it is, image vandalism (yes that is not our doing, but it's damn
near an unacceptable problem with some of the stuff that's been put
up) and content issues would make me think twice about recommending
friends or family to visit Wikipedia (particularly those who aren't my
peers/contemporaries).

Zoney

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


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ben Brockert

subject: [Wikitech-l] rel="nofollow"

body:
nofollow only affects the rank Google gives to the site that is linked
to; it  does not have the same function as a bots.txt or <meta
name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow, noarchive" />. The spider
will still spider the links.

Another reason to not use it on active wikis.

Ben

On Tuesday, February 15, 2005, at 05:30  PM, admin Yellowikis wrote:

> An external link that I added to Wikipedia was indexed by Google
> overnight - even with the  "rel=nofollow" tag.
>
> Is it possible that the Google spider is following the 'urlexpansion'
> text?
>
>
> Notes:
> Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yellowikis
>
> source code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam:
>
> External link added feb 14 05
> ...
Yellowikis lists Oxfam's  href="http://www.yellowikis.org/wiki/index.php/Oxfam" class='external'
> title=
> "http://www.yellowikis.org/wiki/index.php/Oxfam"
> rel="nofollow">Contact details 'urlexpansion'> (http://www.yellowikis.org/wiki/index.php/
> Oxfam)
...
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Advice about an abusive editor?

body:
Some time ago I criticized user:Xed on his/her talk page for insulting a
notable wikipedian without justification.

Xed responded on my talk page with "Fuck off you little shit" -- you can
see the brief exchange that ensued here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein#Small_mind

Now, normally I reach a point where I am able just to ignore such
irritants.  But when someone stops writing on my talk page, and e-mails me
directly, I kinda feel they have crossed a line.  I just received this e-mail:

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:46:13 GMT
>X-Authentication-Warning: tingxi.wikimedia.org: apache set sender to
>wiki at wikimedia.org using -f
>To: Slrubenstein <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
>Subject: Cunt
>From: Xed <xed2507 at yahoo.co.uk>
>X-Mailer: MediaWiki interuser e-mailer
>X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.2.0, Antispam-Data:
>2005.2.15.12 (pm8)
>X-PMX-Information: http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/email/filtering/
>X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0,
>__CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
>__SANE_MSGID 0'
>
>It's interesting to read here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
>that "North Americans generally find the word more offensive than the
>British and Australians; in Britain, unlike in America, "cunt" can be used
>as a jovial term of endearment in specific contexts"
>As someone quotes on my talk page, "Thank God it was the convicts and not
>the puritans".
>What a sycophantic cunt your are.
>Love,Xed

I'd appreciate it if someone would either calm me down, or suggest what
kind of disciplinary actions may be appropriate at this point.

Thanks,

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Marcus Kazmierczak

subject: [Wikitech-l] External Authentication - Hacking IP Address

body:
We are currently using a single sign on system
which sets the HTTP_AUTH variable via an Apache
plugin.  I have a requirement to tie this into
the MediaWiki tool.  Plus I need to have auto
login, since the users all must be authenticated
before accessing the wiki tool.

After trying unsuccessfully to use the AuthPlugin.php
piece, I came up with a hack which appears to work.
The hack is replacing the IP address piece with the
username.

The change is in the includes/Setup.php file, by
changing the _SERVER["REMOTE_ADDR"] to _SERVER['HTTP_AUTH']

Any reason why this won't work? My test bed everything
seems cool.  Also is there a way to do an auto login so
this shows up when they first hit the initial page?

Thanks,

-Marcus


from_name: Robert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Sterling Newbury keeps removing huge chunks of an
	article without any discussion

body:
On the article [[The Age of Enlightenment]], Sterling
Newbury keeps removing a huge chunk of the article, and
refuses to engage in any discussion.  This has been going
on for months, and now I can only throw up my hands and
describe this as vandalism.

I have stated that I am willing to work with him, that I am
willing to keep an open mind, and that I am willing to take
his sources into account.  But he refuses any and all
discussion, and offers no sources.  He just keeps removing
a huge chunk of the article...and the section he removes is
rather mundane.  It is a short statement of beliefs that
various enlightenment thinkers believe, one found in many
textbooks on this subject.

Should I start a RFC on him?  It is literaly impossible to
reason with someone who refuses to discuss the issue, and
offers no facts or sources.

Robert (RK)

=====
I?m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it?s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
On the article [[The Age of Enlightenment]], Sterling
Newbury keeps removing a huge chunk of the article, and
refuses to engage in any discussion.  This has been going
on for months, and now I can only throw up my hands and
describe this as vandalism.

I have stated that I am willing to work with him, that I am
willing to keep an open mind, and that I am willing to take
his sources into account.  But he refuses any and all
discussion, and offers no sources.  He just keeps removing
a huge chunk of the article...and the section he removes is
rather mundane.  It is a short statement of beliefs that
various enlightenment thinkers believe, one found in many
textbooks on this subject.

Should I start a RFC on him?  It is literaly impossible to
reason with someone who refuses to discuss the issue, and
offers no facts or sources.

Robert (RK)

=====
I?m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it?s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject: top posting (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user)

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Nicholas Knight (nknight at runawaynet.com) [050216 11:58]:
>
>>the Epopt of Boskone wrote:
>
>
>>>+-------------+
>>>| Do Not Feed |
>>>|  the Troll  |
>>>+-------------+
>>>      ||
>>>     _||_
>
>
>
>>Who is this guy, and can someone please block him?
>
>
>
> [[user:The Epopt]], and no.

And of the list's policy on personal attacks?


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Please vote for Bug 550;
	to block assholes and give write acces to good users

body:
We all know the problem. A anonymous user does something stupid and gets
blocked.

Users in some countrys and ISP's have all there own personal ip so there is no
problem. But many have a dynamic ipadress and some are even obligated to use
the proxy of the there ISP.

Some Wikipedias are blocking proxys because the could be used for abuse because
the are open proxys.

In all those situations you have many good users who do not have write access,
anonynous or not. If you dot have write access it is not easy to ask to be
unblocked. The dutch wikipedia has a webbased contact form but there is always
a waiting period befor a responds can be given.

Who knows how many users have give up and left the project because of this.

The problem is that the system of blocking is extremely crude. Blocking
thousands of ipadress is not the solution. Changing the software so the
blocking can be more precise is a solution or at least a big chunk of it.

To change the software you need to know what you are doing. Ofcourse the
present system developers have to much work to adress this now otherwise the
whould have done it.

At the end of februari there will be the FOSDEM event in Brussels where the
Wikimedia foundation will be present. That is a open source developers
conference. There is hope there will be found there new volontiers to work on
MediaWiki. Maybe then there will be time work on things like bug 550

Bug 550 is a BugZilla request for the creation of a system where registerd
users who share a blocked ipadress can still edit.

And also that you can specify of it is allowed to created a new account when
you use that blocked ipadress.

You can "vote" for a bug. The idea is that a bug that gets many votes is
important for the users and gets because of this a higher priority.

Of it is usefull or not, if you do not have the knowledge to write this
function it is all you can do. And it give you the feeling you have done
something.

How to vote;
- 1) go to http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org
- 2) A: log in
     B: Create Account -> enter your emailadress and you name (not a
username!) - follow instrictions and log in

- 3) go to http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550 or enter in the
box "Go to bug" 550 and "go".
- 4) read this page
- 5) if like this idea click on "Vote for this bug"
- 6) You should see the listing of bug 550 under the heading "MediaWiki". You
have a box whit a 0 inside. You have 1000 points. Enter a number and click
on "change my votes"
- 7) you have done some good today or at least you have that feeling. Thank
you.

Greetings,
Walter


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:04:30 -0500, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
> > Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> >
> >> The thing is Nicholas, you're argument that you shouldn't have to jump
> >> through hoops to not see the image is just as valid for those who wish
> >> not to jump through hoops to see the image. And you're the one wanting
> >
> >
> > How do you decide you _want_ to see the image before knowing what the
> > image is about? Someone going to [[Autofellatio]] may have no idea what
> > it's about, but once they know, may be quite sure they do _not_ want to
> > see a photograph of it. If the image is unconditionally inlined, you've
> > removed that choice from them.
>
> That argument runs both ways, I'm afraid.

I don't understand. How does it run both ways?

Theresa


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Chad Perrin wrote

> Actually, I just type quickly (typically close to 100wpm), and my
> computer beeps when new email arrives.

Enough said.  Have the last word if you want.

Charles


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Marcus Kazmierczak wrote:
> We are currently using a single sign on system
> which sets the HTTP_AUTH variable via an Apache
> plugin.  I have a requirement to tie this into
> the MediaWiki tool.  Plus I need to have auto
> login, since the users all must be authenticated
> before accessing the wiki tool.
>
> After trying unsuccessfully to use the AuthPlugin.php
> piece, I came up with a hack which appears to work.

I'd rather you suggest necessary changes to AuthPlugin so we can support
this cleanly. Adding a callback hook for authentication checks when no
session is open would likely be appropriate. This would probably be
called from User::loadFromSession() in place of calling the default User
constructor.

> The change is in the includes/Setup.php file, by
> changing the _SERVER["REMOTE_ADDR"] to _SERVER['HTTP_AUTH']

This would simply cause an unauthenticated user's edits to be recorded
with their name in place of their IP address, but without any connection
to their user account.

Watchlist and preferences would not work, and on creating an account by
the same name, any edits with the original name would be obscured in
Special:Contributions (as would any later edits done when not explicitly
logged in through the wiki). A user with sysop privileges would for
instance still have to separately log in to use them, as would any user
have to log in to rename pages, mark edits as minor, or if
$wgWhitelistEdit is on to edit anything.

This may also cause oddities if recording of IP addresses of user edits
in the recentchanges table is enabled.

Can you confirm these problems, or have you worked around them somehow?

-- 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/20050215/57109e1b/attachment.pgp>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Rich Holton

subject: >>: Re: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
Could we perhaps come up with some temporary work-arounds for Waerth
until something more can be done?

For instance, would one of the anonymizer services help? If he went
through one of those, would he still show up as a open proxy? Are
anonymized IP's accepted if there is no vandalism?

Also, don't we allow signed-in users access even from a banned IP?
Couldn't something like this be implemented?

Finally, perhaps a letter from the Wikimedia Foundation to the open
proxy provider would carry more weight than one from a single user.

Rich Holton
(en.wikipedia:User:Rholton)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>
>Some time ago I criticized user:Xed on his/her talk page for insulting a
>notable wikipedian without justification.
>
>Xed responded on my talk page with "Fuck off you little shit" -- you can
>see the brief exchange that ensued here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein#Small_mind
...
>>What a sycophantic cunt your are.
>>Love,Xed

I see that when he gratuitously referred to me today as a  "rogue admin" on
RK's talk page
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARK&diff=10300260&oldid=10299782]
I was getting off easy.

Jay.


from_name: John Lee

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Nicholas Knight said:
>
>
>>Because instead of letting the user choose to see the image by clicking
>> one link, you require them to disable ALL images, then reenable ALL
>>images, in order to see that one image.
>>
>>
>
>The precise arrangements depend on the browser design.  I believe the
>experience you describe pertained to some of the earlier browsers, such as
>NCSA Mosaic.  Good modern browsers allow a lot of fine control.
>
>
>
This is *precisely* the kind of crap I talked about in my earlier email!
We are still presuming that our reading audience overlaps a lot with our
technically-inclined editors! While Firefox is used a lot more on
Wikipedia than the web on average, IE is still the browser used by most.
Show me where IE allows for fine tuning. "Good modern browsers allow
fine control" is no fucking excuse. You guys have been talking about
convenience for the user, and users should not have to switch browsers
just to view our content without fear. As a matter of fact, even Firefox
(I'm using the 20050212 nightly build) does not allow for fine-tuning by
default. AdBlock solves the problem, but I shouldn't have to install an
extension, let alone another web browser, just to view a website and be
at ease.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [WikiEN-l] dates

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:42:29 +0200, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> Please tell me what date format do you consider "official policy" in Wikipedia
> and why? What is the most culturally neutral format?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29

[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]

The following are allowed:

[[February 17]]
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
[[17 February]]
[[17 February]] [[1958]]
[[1958]]-[[02-17]]
[[1958-02-17]]

These all show up in the same manner as the parser recognises them and
changes them to the format specified in your preferences (I don't know
the default).


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Nicholas Knight said:
>
>
>>Inlining the image removes no less control from the user.
>>
>>
>
>On the contrary, it gives the user complete control over whether the image
>appears with the text or not, or if the user views the image on its own
>separate from the text.  Linking takes away that control and only gives
>the user the option of viewing the image separately from the text or not
>at all.
>
>
So that's the issue, apparently. I think I've figured this out (I think
somebody else already suggested before, but I don't know who or where):
The link will be a Javascript link that changes the display: CSS value
of the image in the document from "none" to the value permitting it to
be shown. Another option would be to provide two stylesheets for the
document; one displaying images marked as potentially offensive, and
another hiding them. The hiding one would be default unless otherwise
set by the user. The problem is the latter choice probably won't work
with IE while the former won't work with most text-only browsers,
*really* old browsers and users who have intentionally disabled Javascript.

We have two choices: If the user doesn't have Javascript, the link goes
directly to the image as it does now. Or... the link will link to the
display.phtml page we usually see for special pages (i.e. contributions,
but it's basically the script that does the job of displaying almost all
pages, the short URLs being a facade) with a GET argument telling the
server "display all images, regardless of their having been marked
offensive or not". This will require more work on the code, but it will
really solve all the problems without having to be institution or user
specific. And we can still give users the choice of viewing all pages
with offensive image hiding off.

All solutions will require some additions to Wikimarkup (it's either
that or force people to resort to external link syntax). But still, I
really prefer them to user- or group-specific censoring. I never liked
that; it's too icky for me, with a lot of margin for error. I haven't
seen how such a system would work.

John Lee
([[Iser:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:23:41 -0500, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:

> Perhaps the problem is that you haven't effectively explained why the
> suggestions you've been given aren't useful.

As if that wasn't clear from the onset. It was to me. Basically, he
was being told, "Change the policy of some big firm you are a little
customer to, because Wikipedia isn't going to change its policy."

> > It is better for me to quit wikipedia and you are to blame.
>
> I disagree with that, even though you weren't talking to me.  Keep in
> mind that you can get more done by being nice than by offending the very
> people you're asking for help.

Maybe being nice is also better than offending the very people you are
supposed to be helping. I found David's posts at least as offending as
Waerth's reaction to them.

Andre Engels


subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads
	in	Wikipedia?)

body:
NSK wrote:

>On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:08, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>
>>Uhhm... {{sofixit}}...
>>
>>
>
>You could fix it very easily if:
>
>- You make Wikipedia more attractive for experts, academics, scientists
>- You make sure no article gets forgotten by encouraging people to concentrate
>on their own articles, instead of editing here and there in the whole wiki
>- You allow these people to put their names and biographies in the articles
>they write
>- You help these people collect some donations from their readership.
>Wikimedia Foundation collects some donations for the servers, but it could
>also give some of it to the editors, too.
>- You make the articles to have versions, and have a "frozen" (protected)
>article in the mainspace, so that new contributions (which may be vandalism
>or whatever) go to an "under construction" version.
>
>In our projects, such as http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org
>(now being migrated to better software), we are trying to find ways to
>implement these ideas. You can read some preliminary analysis for our IT wiki
>at http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Help:Editing_process
>
>
>
The first, of course. The second, maybe. Depends on how well it jives
with [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]. The third, hell will freeze
over before we do that. The fourth, there's a slight chance, but I doubt
we could work out the logistics even if we wanted to. The fifth, the
community is still deciding on that.

John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: geni

body:
> I still think you're grossly mischaracterizing the inline option.
> Inlining does not force the browser to download the image, or to display
> it even if it does.  The browser issues a HTTP GET and obtains the HTML of
> a page and renders that page.  This may or may not involve the browser
> issuing more HTTP GETs in order to obtain the binary of the images
> referred to in IMG tags embedded in the HTML.  It's entirely under the
> control of the browser and thus, subject to browser design and selection,
> under the control of the user.
> So users *already* have the option of downloading only those images that
> they want to see.  In the worst case they can run lynx in a cmd window
> (Windows) or xterm (MacOS, BSD, Linux).
> In addition, users can control their stylesheets (either by the on-site
> override or using their browser controls) and use this to suppress image
> display.
> You may say "until", I say that what you propose is available to our users
> *now*.
> "Oh but it's too complicated", I hear you say. "Our users are Moms and
> Dads, not geeks."  Well people will say precisely the same thing when you
> have your on-site image controls.  Even a straightforward "reload without
> images" button on the top nav will be too complicated for some people; as
> for selecting whether they want to see objectionable images or not, it
> will have to be hidden away in some page in special: and it will be every
> bit as hideous as anything in the much maligned Internet Exploder.  What's
> more, its behavior will change over time, probably at a fairly rapid rate
> as category hierarchies are changed and the feature evolves.

But how do I know there is an image there in advance?  Strangly no
matter how much I mess around with my browser it does not appear to
have a setting for "don't display images of sex acts, shocksites and
graphic injuries". I can't block an image until I see it. Btw it's not
just mums and dads who will have I problem there are bits of your post
I don't understand.

--
geni


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently
>> strongly about it to feel offended.
>
>
> Because I'm sick and tired of corporations and other people attempting
> to control how I see the world and attempting to replace it with some
> kind of Disney World. Much the same practice is taking place on our
> televisions screens with regard to war. People have no idea about the
> realities of war because unfathomable efforts are made to ensure they
> get a Disneyfied version of events.
>
> I don't want to live in Disney World, I want to live on Earth with all
> the pain and diversity that entails. I don't see the human body as a
> vessel of sin and shame. I don't have issues with the human body and
> what it is capable of. Treating this image differently by in-lining by
> default is a statement in itself along these lines. Creating a
> solution that caters to individuals and institutions skirts around
> this issue by leaving it up to the user to decide.
>
>> The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented,
>> which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do not.
>
>
> What solution is that?
>
> Christiaan

The majority of users don't want to have decide. It's one of the reasons
why software like Firefox came about - to remove bloat and give users
what they want. Interface bloat gives users extreme control over the
software, but at the cost of confusing people and irritating them. You
are still given a choice of clicking on the link (which should
appropriately describe what you're in for and what the image is about)
or not, and if my suggestion(s) in one of the other emails I sent to the
list are implemented, you will have the choice of viewing the image
inline as well.

I agree a technical solution is required, but until we have one, linking
is better than offending a substantial number of our readers. It's the
psychology of the thing - if people don't have full-blown images thrust
in their face, they naturally assume it's safe. It doesn't make sense,
but from my experience, the appearance of being clean is the best middle
ground between having no potentially offensive images at all and shoving
it in readers' faces.

Until we can have an option of viewing the same document with or without
potentially offensive images, we *must* err on the side of caution and
provide a link. It's the same as not directly linking to Goatse but
giving users' an option to visit the site if they *really* want to. Why
should this be any different? Is not directly linking to Goatse
attempting to control how you see the world?

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: nas ral

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is there a secret ban against RK?

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK#Final_decision

?

Robert wrote:

>I have been back on Wikipedia for two days, and already two
>people are trying to throw me off again.  RickK has tried,
>and now Zero has just written me:
>
>
>
>>You are violating the AC ruling that "RK is banned from
>>editing articles directly or indirectly related to
>>Judaism for one year".  You had better stop before
>>someone starts applying the prescribed penalties.
>>
>>
>
>What the hell is Zero talking about?  I have never heard of
>any such ban.  Are there secret bans now, bans made without
>informing the person being banned?!
>
>I do not know any people working on the Judaism articles
>who are asking for such a thing. In fact, I have worked
>quite well with dozens of other people on dozens of
>Judaism-related articles, even people who have points of
>view that are quite the opposite of my own.
>
>This includes working both on the Wikipedia, and private
>conversations in e-mail with others to work disagreements
>out - and such conversations have always ended up being
>successful.  (Isn't that part of our goal?)  Is someone
>trying to deny this, and present it as if the opposite were
>true?
>
>It seems that my self-perceived enemies are out to create
>serious arguments where they do not actually exist.
>Shouldn't people deal with the real flamewars that require
>real intervention?
>
>In any case, a point of policy: If admins are creating
>secret bans without informing the person being banned, then
>they are obviously guilty of not following their own rules,
>and are also guilty of trying to entrap users.  This kind
>of action should automatically make any such secret
>decisions null and void, and is grounds for someone asking
>for disciplinary action against them.
>
>Frankly, after working so hard in good faith I expected
>better behaviour from others here.
>
>I shall continue editing in good faith on all sorts of
>articles, in accord with all Wikipedia policy, just like
>anyone else, unless I find out that there is some sort of
>secret ban.  In that case, a whole new can of worms will be
>opened.  I am seriously distressed that I have have to
>initiate a Request for Comment on the actions on Admins.
>But given recent news, it appears that a number of Admins
>think that Wikipedia rules do not apply to them, and that
>concerns me.
>
>And it should concern you as well.
>
>Robert (RK)
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
>http://my.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in
	Wikipedia?)

body:
> >>That and the meltdown of another similar math project.
> >
> >
> > which is?
>
> MathWorld
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/faq.html#shutdown
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/erics_commentary.html

It's up now, though, so what's the problem?


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
--- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
...
> It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists,
> especially
> ones who are as ruthless as these.

Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
I agree that we shouldn't be displaying links to the beheadings. We've
done it in around six articles. One of the websites we give the URL
for (though not as a live link) is the ogrish site, which also shows
young women having sex with horses. The fact that we have to crawl
into the gutter to find these videos ought to tell us something. I
wish we'd show more maturity as a community when it comes to stuff
like this.

Sarah

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:56:11 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> I agree also with what you said about Nick Berg in another post.
> I know that it was debated at length here, but the decision to have
> and retain that graphic photo of his severed head and links to sites
> showing his murder is something I label a disgrace.


from_name: sannse

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Controversial articles (was Writing about sexual	topics
	responsibly is not censorship)

body:
Zoney wrote:

> I wouldn't like to see some Wikipedians give up on imposing some sort
> of respectability though. It'd be nice to have some sort of standards.
> I don't care whether people choose to call that censorship or not. OK
> many Wikipedians perhaps believe in complete unrestricted freedom in
> what gets put on Wikipedia (although I think most have specific topics
> they have "views" on), but we can't ignore that Wikipedia should cater
> to at least a reasonable section of the "mainstream". I think people
> will realise that there are articles on Wikipedia at the moment that
> don't remotely live up to a standard acceptable to an appreciable
> "mainstream" segment.
>
> If people continue to insist on no "good taste" standards, people will
> stop visiting Wikipedia, and it will just become a world-wide
> distributed hobby.
>
> As it is, image vandalism (yes that is not our doing, but it's damn
> near an unacceptable problem with some of the stuff that's been put
> up) and content issues would make me think twice about recommending
> friends or family to visit Wikipedia (particularly those who aren't my
> peers/contemporaries).

I've marked several messages in this thread for reply, but really Zoney
here and John Lee have said it all much better than I could.  I
completely agree with their points.

I desperately want Wikipedia to be a project with a reputation for good
content - if it becomes effectively a shock site it won't be that any
more.  I would say a vast majority of readers* would not expect to see
the most explicit of images - even on articles dealing with the subject
(goatse on [[goatse]] being the much used example).  What this is about
for me is expectation - how can someone know to turn off images if they
are not expecting this apparently reputable encyclopaedia to show such
images?  And why should anyone need to turn off images to use an
encyclopaedia?

There is a level at which I see the points some are making here, and
some with views different from mine who's opinions I respect - and I
have moved my own boundaries in response to that.  But there is also a
level at which I can't, and extreme views that I have no understanding
or respect for.  I truly hope that these views won't carry the day.

I've written more than I intended - I think this thread has mostly
deteriorated beyond usefulness and all I really intended to say was the
first paragraph here.  Frankly I would love to wash my hands of the
whole subject and go back to updating the Grammy Awards - but I care too
much about this project to not state my views on this very important
subject.

--sannse

*74% of statistics are made up on the spot

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/05


body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:55:55 +0800, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>>NSK wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:08, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uhhm... {{sofixit}}...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You could fix it very easily if:
>>>
>>>- You make Wikipedia more attractive for experts, academics, scientists
>>>- You make sure no article gets forgotten by encouraging people to concentrate
>>>on their own articles, instead of editing here and there in the whole wiki
>>>- You allow these people to put their names and biographies in the articles
>>>they write
>>>- You help these people collect some donations from their readership.
>>>Wikimedia Foundation collects some donations for the servers, but it could
>>>also give some of it to the editors, too.
>>>- You make the articles to have versions, and have a "frozen" (protected)
>>>article in the mainspace, so that new contributions (which may be vandalism
>>>or whatever) go to an "under construction" version.
>>>
>>>In our projects, such as http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org
>>>(now being migrated to better software), we are trying to find ways to
>>>implement these ideas. You can read some preliminary analysis for our IT wiki
>>>at http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Help:Editing_process
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The first, of course. The second, maybe. Depends on how well it jives
>>with [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]. The third, hell will freeze
>>over before we do that.
>>
>>
>
>Which is a pity, because it means we willfully go against the GNU/FDL.
>
>
>
Signing people's names on articles? You've got to be kidding me. They
get the history and their own user page already, and that's enough. We
don't need to be cluttering our articles with this.

John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])


body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

> Allow me to present an edited version, prepared for the purpose of
> supporting the opposing view:
>
> "How do you decide you _don't want_ to see the image before knowing what
> the image is about? Someone going to [[Autofellatio]] may have no idea
> what it's about, but once they know, may be quite sure they _do_ want to
> see a photograph of it. If the image is removed from the page, you've
> removed that choice from them."

What a beautifully written argument for linking the image rather than
showing it inline.  I agree with you completely.

--sannse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/05


body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:53:31 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> And what default do you use for non-logged-in Users?  Don't allow them to see any images with tags until they log in?  That's discriminatory.

But what an incentive to log on.

"creating an account only takes a few minutes and has many advantages
(Including access to  nudity, violence, and other offensive/juicy
images"

We'd have kids creating accounts in droves ;-)

Theresa


body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:06:40 -0800 (PST), Puddl Duk <puddlduk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa Knott
> > <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M
> > <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> > > >  these always were unsuitable to minors.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit
> > it, including those
> > > people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is
> > not suitable for
> > > minors and will be banned from schools soon enough
> > anyway in the same
> > > way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should
> > cater for adults.
> > >
> > > Theresa
> >
>
> 1) Just because preditors may edit wikipedia doesn't
> mean we lack editorial control.

But it does make wikipedia as unsafe as a chatroom for children.

> 2) Removing children from the argument doesn't really
> change it. Many adults don't want to run into some of
> this content in an encyclopedia.

I have no argument with that. All i'm saying is leave the kiddies out of it.

Theresa


subject: [Wikitech-l] fy language file

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:25:54 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > I have changed the name of the category namespace in the Frisian
> > language file; could it be made live? What else do I need to do?
>
> Looks like you changed the category namespace's name. This must not be
> made live until a compatibility use for the old name has been added.

The old name was a mistake. fy: is not using the category mechanism,
the reason being that the namespace name is wrong.

> You've also corrupted the file by adding a UTF-8 byte order mark at the
> start of the file, which can break some HTTP output. Take that out.

I didn't. Maybe my editor did.

> Note too that we're no longer making any changes to 1.3 other than
> security fixes, and none of our wikis are still running it. You should
> revert the change from REL1_3 and commit fixed changes in HEAD and
> REL1_4 instead.
>
> > Also, there is a wish to change the User: namespace from 'Br?ker' to
> > 'Meidogger'. However, for this they want the old name to remain as an
> > alternative (like the English names are currently alternatives on all
> > wikis). How would that be done?
>
> See for example getNsIndex() in LanguageFr.php; you'd add extra checks
> there for the alternate names.

Ok, I made another try...

Andre Engels


subject:
[WikiEN-l] We should not not abide by personal and secret
	decisions

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is really sick.  Not only were bans supposedly made
> against me by four people (out of nine admins, originally),
> but they were kept secret.  No one told me.  This is, by
> definition, entrapment.
>
> Obviously, we have an out of control system in which two
> people with an axe to grind can get someone banned for a
> year.  Worse, they did so on th every articles on which I
> and others have the most success CO-OPERATING.  Josiah,
> JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about
> Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these
> Judaism articles.
>
> It was an outside user who does NOT edit on these articles,
> Simonides, who was trying to get me banned for personal
> reasons.  He also tried to get others banned as well, and
> gummed up a number of people in RFCs for months.
>
> So someome is trying to ban me from editing articles,
> whilst in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. There is
> not a single example of this happening to anyone else,
> period.
>
> To put it bluntly, they are making up rules to apply to a
> single person that have never been applied to anyone else
> in the same situation.  That is not Wikipedia policy; that
> is a gross violation of Admin authority, it is a personal
> attack, and has no legitimacy.
>
> My record of practical cooperation with others on the
> various Judaism articles is just as good as anyone else,
> and this attempt by Simonides and his friends and
> sockpuppets to ban me is being done out of spite.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism
>
> If someone persists in threatening me with this "ban", then
> I will have no choice but to report this gross violation of
> Admin authority as a personal attack, and issue a RFC
> against such people.
>
> Robert (RK)

An Arbcom ruling is binding. Any admin who tries to enforce an arbcom
ruling is not violating admin authority. I am not familiar with you
case Robert, but _if_ the ruling was unfair then i would advise you to
appeal. Drop a note on the requests for arbitration page explaining
the circumstances, and why you think the descision was unfair and I
for one will take a look.

Theresa
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] We may not have a policy for only one user

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:27:09 -0800 (PST), Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again, let me stress that it is a gross violation of Sysop
> and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one
> person, and to no one else.

But it is within the Arbitration committee's power to do exactly that.
You have had an arbitration ruling against you.

 By definition, when Wikipedia
> Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their
> own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are
> not binding.

That is not true becasue it's not the admin who ruled but the arbitrators.

You feel you ban was uncalled for. So appeal against it.

Theresa


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Is there a secret ban against RK?

body:
Rk, I regret to tell you, but this is entirely true. I put the link on
your talk page.

I understand quite well the origin of the confusion.

The arbitration decision was taken on the 14th.
Robert was immediately blocked, without any information of the AC
decision. There was no notification, and no time for him to organise his
page and talk pages.

I was contacted by RK when this occurred.
I proposed to give him 24 hours to set his things proper, which he refused.

I also mentionned on the ml I thought hardly polite not to notify a user
the decision of the AC when he is banned.

After I complained, RK was finally notified (on the 15th) of the AC
decision, but unfortunately, he was only notified of the 4 months ban.
Nothing more. Part of the decision was not offered.

Later (on the 16th), RK was notified of the banning decision in more
details. Here, the second part of the ban was explained, but I suppose
RK only read the first arbitration decision and was already gone on the
16th.

I think we should not hold against someone, the fact of not knowing a
decision, when it is notified in such a disastrous manner.

Sorry to be blunt here.

Anthere

PS : Robert, now that you know, please respect this decision.

Robert a ?crit:
> I have been back on Wikipedia for two days, and already two
> people are trying to throw me off again.  RickK has tried,
> and now Zero has just written me:
>
>
>>You are violating the AC ruling that "RK is banned from
>>editing articles directly or indirectly related to
>>Judaism for one year".  You had better stop before
>>someone starts applying the prescribed penalties.
>
>
> What the hell is Zero talking about?  I have never heard of
> any such ban.  Are there secret bans now, bans made without
> informing the person being banned?!
>
> I do not know any people working on the Judaism articles
> who are asking for such a thing. In fact, I have worked
> quite well with dozens of other people on dozens of
> Judaism-related articles, even people who have points of
> view that are quite the opposite of my own.
>
> This includes working both on the Wikipedia, and private
> conversations in e-mail with others to work disagreements
> out - and such conversations have always ended up being
> successful.  (Isn't that part of our goal?)  Is someone
> trying to deny this, and present it as if the opposite were
> true?
>
> It seems that my self-perceived enemies are out to create
> serious arguments where they do not actually exist.
> Shouldn't people deal with the real flamewars that require
> real intervention?
>
> In any case, a point of policy: If admins are creating
> secret bans without informing the person being banned, then
> they are obviously guilty of not following their own rules,
> and are also guilty of trying to entrap users.  This kind
> of action should automatically make any such secret
> decisions null and void, and is grounds for someone asking
> for disciplinary action against them.
>
> Frankly, after working so hard in good faith I expected
> better behaviour from others here.
>
> I shall continue editing in good faith on all sorts of
> articles, in accord with all Wikipedia policy, just like
> anyone else, unless I find out that there is some sort of
> secret ban.  In that case, a whole new can of worms will be
> opened.  I am seriously distressed that I have have to
> initiate a Request for Comment on the actions on Admins.
> But given recent news, it appears that a number of Admins
> think that Wikipedia rules do not apply to them, and that
> concerns me.
>
> And it should concern you as well.
>
> Robert (RK)
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> > If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly
> > murderous, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Essentially, what you're saying appears to be:  "The hammer and sickle
> > is okay because it has been sensationalized differently."  That
> > roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
> >
> > If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika.  If the
> > swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer
> > and sickle is as well.  Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or
> > to neither.  I'll respect either decision.  Just don't try to pretend
> > that one is okay and the other is not.
>
> Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to
> it?  In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither.
> The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing.  It's what people do
> with them that makes the difference.
>
> In the same way money is intrinsically worthless.  A dollar bill has
> value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
>

Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer
discussing  a wikipedia related issue.

Theresa


from_name: NSK

subject: [WikiEN-l] dates

body:
In the Drupal development mailing list there is a discussion about date
formats. Somebody suggested the ISO YYYY-MM-DD (or YYYY/MM/DD) format and
most developers seem to like the idea. For example, it was proposed that
2005/11/27 is much better than 27/11/2005.

Although I personally use dates like DD/Feb/YYYY (i.e. the month being a name
not a number) on my site, and I believe this format is better, I would like
to introduce this argumentation (with the French meaning of the word) here.

Please tell me what date format do you consider "official policy" in Wikipedia
and why? What is the most culturally neutral format?

--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 20:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> picture of oneself in Nazi regalia says a lot more than a page full of
> words.

...and a user ban says a lot more.

--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
geni said:
>
> But how do I know there is an image there in advance?  Strangly no
> matter how much I mess around with my browser it does not appear to
> have a setting for "don't display images of sex acts, shocksites and
> graphic injuries". I can't block an image until I see it. Btw it's not
> just mums and dads who will have I problem there are bits of your post
> I don't understand.
>
Gosh.  I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  You know there is objectionable
material on Wikipedia because, of course, you have read the content
disclaimer linked from every page.  Being adverse to seeing nasty stuff,
you click the button on your browser that turns images on or off whenever
you think you're likely to meet something you won't like (the only
internal links to [[Autofellatio]], for instance, are pretty clearly
labeled as to its sexual nature).  You click it again whenever you want.
Meanwhile if you see the text from the alt tag of an image you can read it
and then right mouse button and load that image if you want.  This is
precisely the procedure I use if I am browsing in an area of Wikipedia
that is likely to trigger my rather virulent phobia.  It works a treat.


body:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> sannse wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chad Perrin wrote:
>>
>>> Allow me to present an edited version, prepared for the purpose of
>>> supporting the opposing view:
>>>
>>> "How do you decide you _don't want_ to see the image before knowing
>>> what the image is about? Someone going to [[Autofellatio]] may have
>>> no idea what it's about, but once they know, may be quite sure they
>>> _do_ want to see a photograph of it. If the image is removed from the
>>> page, you've removed that choice from them."
>>
>>
>>
>> What a beautifully written argument for linking the image rather than
>> showing it inline.  I agree with you completely.
>
>
> Intentionally misinterpreting my point is hardly a valid argument.

It is when your point makes mine so well - this way we allow people to
make an informed choice, rather than forcing the image on them.  Your
rephrasing makes that point just as well as the original version

--sannse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/05


subject: [Wikitech-l] fy language file

body:
> Please revert your checkin on the REL1_3 branch, and remove the initial
> byte order mark from the files on REL1_4 and HEAD.

It seems that the latter had already been done by someone else.

Andre Engels


from_name: Bill Konrad

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony, David, and Christiaan

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> geni said:
>> Why should I have to that? Why don't you create a devetted snapshot of
>> wikipedia with certian entries debowdlerized if thought necessary?
>
> Because that would require all of our editors to bowdlerize all of their
> edits for an audience of schoolchildren instead of adults.

I think we are talking about at most a small fraction of 1% of the content
on Wikipedia that might need some sort of special treatment. It's a bit of a
broad exageration to claim ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL of their
edits.

BTW, I quite agree with the sentiments that James W. Rosenzweig has quite
eloquently expressed.

Bkonrad


body:
I wrote:

> BTW, I quite agree with the sentiments that James W. Rosenzweig has quite
> eloquently expressed.

I think my vocabulary needs to undergo a "quite"ectomy. My apologies.

Bkonrad


body:
> Gosh.  I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  You know there is objectionable
> material on Wikipedia because, of course, you have read the content
> disclaimer linked from every page.

Nope I've never read it and I'm fairly regular user. There is a whole
market based around the fact that people don't read disclaimers
(psychic readings are for entertainment perposes only etc). However
haveing read it it appears that the general disclaimer does not cover
objectionable material for that I have to follow a further link. So if
a read a disclaimer (which quite clearly not everyone does) then
follow another link to yet another dissclaimer I then get a warning.
Presumerbly good enough for legal cover but I prefer to deal with what
really happens.

> Being adverse to seeing nasty stuff,
> you click the button on your browser that turns images on or off whenever
> you think you're likely to meet something you won't like (the only
> internal links to [[Autofellatio]], for instance, are pretty clearly
> labeled as to its sexual nature).

The problem with this is that it would rather lower my effectiveness
on RC patrol that is also  4 clicks.

There is also the issue of external links. While I haven't looked into
the issue with regards to Autofellatio I know that one of the reasons
the goatse article is so popular is that it does not contain the
image. There are plenty of places where I can find out what
Autofellatio is with acompyaning pictures (and proabably full colour
vidios if I should want them) where can I find articles on
Autofellatio without images?

--
geni


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>John Lee said:
>
>
>>We are still presuming that our reading audience overlaps a lot
>>with our  technically-inclined editors!
>>
>>
>
>Not really.  Browser operation requires no technical skills beyond the
>ability to use a mouse.
>
>
I'd love to see you say that to the people who pour into Mozillazine for
tech support everyday. Browser operation is simple? True in theory, but
in practice....

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
On 15 Feb 2005, at 11:08 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>> I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel
>>> sufficiently strongly about it to feel offended.
>> Because I'm sick and tired of corporations and other people
>> attempting to control how I see the world and attempting to replace
>> it with some kind of Disney World. Much the same practice is taking
>> place on our televisions screens with regard to war. People have no
>> idea about the realities of war because unfathomable efforts are made
>> to ensure they get a Disneyfied version of events.
>
> The situations are not even comparable. Linking to an image gives a
> user a clear, visible, and easily made choice. Presenting a user with
> a canned news broadcast with no other options does not give a user a
> choice.

Unfortunately you're talking past me. It appears you're not that
interested in knowing why I feel sufficiently strongly about it but
would rather attempt to invalidate my point of view.

>> I don't want to live in Disney World, I want to live on Earth with
>> all the pain and diversity that entails. I don't see the human body
>> as a vessel of sin and shame. I don't have issues with the human body
>> and what it is capable of. Treating this image differently by
>> in-lining by default is a statement in itself along these lines.
>> Creating a solution that caters to individuals and institutions
>> skirts around this issue by leaving it up to the user to decide.
>
> Linking to the image IS a solution, it's just not the best one we can
> reasonably come up with.

Again, you're still talking past me. Linking to the image takes away my
choice to read articles without having hidden content. It would not be
a solution, it would be a problem.

>>> The solution has been "created" already. It has not been
>>> implemented, which will require someone with PHP skills. You may
>>> have them. I do not.
>> What solution is that?
>
> Tag controversial images, preferably into a couple categories (nudity,
> blood/gore, could probably think of one or two other good ones). Let
> the user set a preference for their defaults (maybe give them a toggle
> they can hit at will while browsing to turn all on/off), and then let
> them easily select single controversial images to display. There are
> several options for the last part, Javascript being the easiest, and
> it can be combined with a server-side mechanism for those that have
> disabled or lack Javascript support.
>
> Absent strange coding in the affected areas of MediaWiki, none of this
> should be particularly difficult to implement for someone with the
> neccessary skills.

I thought by "created" you meant someone had already written the code.
Anyway, at least we can agree to a solution. So maybe we should start a
page somewhere to nut this idea out.

Christiaan


from_name: Rick

body:
I suggest you send an email to abuse at ohiou.edu and suggest that they cut off his email account for sending offensive emails.

RickK

"steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:

Some time ago I criticized user:Xed on his/her talk page for insulting a
notable wikipedian without justification.

Xed responded on my talk page with "Fuck off you little shit" -- you can
see the brief exchange that ensued here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein#Small_mind

Now, normally I reach a point where I am able just to ignore such
irritants. But when someone stops writing on my talk page, and e-mails me
directly, I kinda feel they have crossed a line. I just received this e-mail:

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:46:13 GMT
>X-Authentication-Warning: tingxi.wikimedia.org: apache set sender to
>wiki at wikimedia.org using -f
>To: Slrubenstein
>Subject: Cunt
>From: Xed
>X-Mailer: MediaWiki interuser e-mailer
>X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.2.0, Antispam-Data:
>2005.2.15.12 (pm8)
>X-PMX-Information: http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/email/filtering/
>X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0,
>__CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
>__SANE_MSGID 0'
>
>It's interesting to read here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
>that "North Americans generally find the word more offensive than the
>British and Australians; in Britain, unlike in America, "cunt" can be used
>as a jovial term of endearment in specific contexts"
>As someone quotes on my talk page, "Thank God it was the convicts and not
>the puritans".
>What a sycophantic cunt your are.
>Love,Xed

I'd appreciate it if someone would either calm me down, or suggest what
kind of disciplinary actions may be appropriate at this point.

Thanks,

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: We should not not abide by personal and secret
	decisions

body:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:40:00 +1100, csherlock at ljh.com.au
<csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:
> Theresa Knott wrote:
> >
> > An Arbcom ruling is binding. Any admin who tries to enforce an arbcom
> > ruling is not violating admin authority. I am not familiar with you
> > case Robert, but _if_ the ruling was unfair then i would advise you to
> > appeal. Drop a note on the requests for arbitration page explaining
> > the circumstances, and why you think the descision was unfair and I
> > for one will take a look.
> >
> > Theresa
> >
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if RK is blocked, how is he going
> to do that?
>
> TBSDY

He isn't blocked. His three month block has come to an end. It's his
ban on editing jewish related articles that he feels is unfair.

Theresa


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Nicholas Knight said:
>
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nicholas Knight said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Because instead of letting the user choose to see the image by
>>>>clicking
>>>>one link, you require them to disable ALL images, then reenable ALL
>>>>images, in order to see that one image.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The precise arrangements depend on the browser design.  I believe the
>>>experience you describe pertained to some of the earlier browsers,
>>>such as NCSA Mosaic.  Good modern browsers allow a lot of fine
>>>control.
>>>
>>>
>>The experience I describe pertains to Firefox, the only browser I make
>>meaningful use of, and which had its 1.0 release late last year.
>>
>>
>
>I also use the current production version of Firefox, and for me switching
>images on and off is a single mouseclick or a single shortcut key.  It may
>be that you are not making the best use of your browser's available
>controls.
>
>
>
Until you can show me support from a plain vanilla install without any
add-ons, I must disagree with your assessment of Firefox. Blocking all
images from the Wikimedia image server is not a good solution.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


body:
I wish I could figure out why I have to top post on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have.  I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me.  My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.

RickK

Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
NSK wrote:
> Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?

No, and it probably doesn't support such, since top posting is Bad and
Annoying and the KMail developers know what they're doing.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 The all-new My Yahoo! ? What will yours do?


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Andre Engels (andreengels at gmail.com) [050216 01:33]:
>
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:35:02 +0700, Walter van Kalken
>><walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Well it was nice for the 2 or 3 hours I was able to do something. I am
>>>blocked yet again op Japanese wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Does anyone have to say anything about this? Or should I just start to
>>collect Japanese IP-addresses to block them on nl: to get a reaction?
>>
>>
>
>
>If the ISP in question really is running an open proxy server, then Walter
>needs to bring it to their attention that this is leaving an abuse-machine
>wide open, just as if it were an open email relay being used by spammers.
>
>
>
>
This is not my responsibility. Wikipedia is an open project and it
should be open for anyone.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again


body:
I'm sorry, my mistake.  That was YOUR provider, not his.

RickK

Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
I suggest you send an email to abuse at ohiou.edu and suggest that they cut off his email account for sending offensive emails.

RickK

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


body:
NSK said:
> Wouldn't it be better to top-post?
In my opinion it's best to just quote what you're replying to.


from_name: Nicholas Knight

body:
Rick wrote:
> I wish I could figure out why I have to top post on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have.  I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me.  My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.

The one setting you might want to double check is under "General
Preferences", "Composing E-mails", "Mode". If it's not set to "Compose
messages as plain text", try setting it to that.


body:
geni said:
>> Gosh.  I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  You know there is objectionable
>> material on Wikipedia because, of course, you have read the content
>> disclaimer linked from every page.
>
> Nope I've never read it and I'm fairly regular user.

Then your objections are not my problem.  The web is not a playpen.


from_name: Marcus Kazmierczak

body:
Tom, that sounds like exactly what I am looking for.
I'm very interested in the patch if you could make it
available.

Depending on how the user/lookup table works, I
could tie that to an environment variable set by
Apache which stores the username.

A modification also to the AuthPlugin.php page can
use that username to query a database which stores
real name, e-mail address, etc...


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK, naughty pictures, and how better to flame me

body:
James Rosenzweig said:
>
> And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to
> introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class
> project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are
> displayed inline.  Too many questions to have to
> answer to administrators (real-life school ones)
> about.  Again, you can call us censorious or
> narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I
> want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that
> way.

I think that's pretty much what I'd expect from any responsible
schoolteacher.    In my opinion we should just stick it into "What
Wikipedia is not".  Wikipedia is not a classroom-friendly environment.


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Advice about an abusive editor?

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote

> I'd appreciate it if someone would either calm me down, or suggest what
> kind of disciplinary actions may be appropriate at this point.

The guy managed to be irritating while _supporting_ me for the ArbCom
elections.  One small step from being a 'gadfly' to hiding under bridges
waiting for the Billy Goats Gruff, I'd say.  Save your anger for those of
greater stature, if you can.

Charles


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
>
>Unfortunately, open proxies in this manner constitute a public problem on
>the Internet. Wikipedia blocks them on sight because they are primarily
>used for abuse.
>
>If you HAVE to use that proxy if you want to use that ISP, at this stage
>it's up to you to get them to run their systems competently.
>
>
>
If they constituted a problem on all wikipedia's they were blocked on
all wiki's it is clear you do not know the situation in other countries.
The provider will laugh. If I cancel my contract I have to pay 150
dollars and loose my 20% discount on my telephone lines. I do not have
this kind of money. This is food for 3 weeks for me!!! Japanese
wikipedia should not block them. I am not a vandal. I wrote over 500
articles on nl. I started nl.wikinews partly. I contributed articles in
other languages and you give me this bull??????

Walter van Kalken


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:51:46 +1100, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> sannse (sannse at tiscali.co.uk) [050216 04:13]:

> >  Waerth is an excellent contributor, active in foundation
> > issues as well as local issues, it's a real shame to see him distressed
> > by this problem.
>
> He also left an abusive note on my en: talk page. Apparently he considers
> me personally responsible for the policy on ja:. I'm not inclined to
> attempt rational explanation with the abusive.

He got blocked. He complained. He got unblocked and got blocked again.
He complained again. He got unblocked again. He got blocked again. He
complained at this list. No reaction. He complained and got unblocked
and got blocked and complained and got unblocked and complained
and....

And then you come and you tell him it's all his own fault for not
having told some big corporation that they did wrong. I have become
abusive over less than that.

Andre Engels


body:
Just killfile xed2507 at yahoo.co.uk

No more irritation

Ahh that feels good no?

Theresa

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:43:06 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
<rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> Some time ago I criticized user:Xed on his/her talk page for insulting a
> notable wikipedian without justification.
>
> Xed responded on my talk page with "Fuck off you little shit" -- you can
> see the brief exchange that ensued here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein#Small_mind
>
> Now, normally I reach a point where I am able just to ignore such
> irritants.  But when someone stops writing on my talk page, and e-mails me
> directly, I kinda feel they have crossed a line.  I just received this e-mail:
>
> >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
> >Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:46:13 GMT
> >X-Authentication-Warning: tingxi.wikimedia.org: apache set sender to
> >wiki at wikimedia.org using -f
> >To: Slrubenstein <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
> >Subject: Cunt
> >From: Xed <xed2507 at yahoo.co.uk>
> >X-Mailer: MediaWiki interuser e-mailer
> >X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.2.0, Antispam-Data:
> >2005.2.15.12 (pm8)
> >X-PMX-Information: http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/email/filtering/
> >X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0,
> >__CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
> >__SANE_MSGID 0'
> >
> >It's interesting to read here:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
> >that "North Americans generally find the word more offensive than the
> >British and Australians; in Britain, unlike in America, "cunt" can be used
> >as a jovial term of endearment in specific contexts"
> >As someone quotes on my talk page, "Thank God it was the convicts and not
> >the puritans".
> >What a sycophantic cunt your are.
> >Love,Xed
>
> I'd appreciate it if someone would either calm me down, or suggest what
> kind of disciplinary actions may be appropriate at this point.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:00:43 -0000, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> steven l. rubenstein wrote
>
> > I'd appreciate it if someone would either calm me down, or suggest what
> > kind of disciplinary actions may be appropriate at this point.
>
> The guy managed to be irritating while _supporting_ me for the ArbCom
> elections.  One small step from being a 'gadfly' to hiding under bridges
> waiting for the Billy Goats Gruff, I'd say.  Save your anger for those of
> greater stature, if you can.
>
> Charles

I am sure that his opposition of my AC candidacy strengthened my
support.  If he  turns up to a london wikimeet I intend to buy him a
drink (assuming he's old enough to drink that it, which let's face it
is unlikely)

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


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body: Ypu really are an ignorant DICKHEAD aren't you??


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Nicholas Knight (nknight at runawaynet.com) [050215 16:55]:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:

> >It really doesn't take long to click a "show me pictures" button, agree
> >not to blame Wikipedia if you see something you find unpleasant, and then
> >get on with your life.  And it isn't as if our editors need to see
> >pictures in order to edit the pages.

> And who are you, by the way, to tell people they can just get on with
> their lives? Do you have some sort of proof that no one will be
> permanently affected by such an image?

You appear not to be talking about the image that was there, but about some
visual version of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World rather than the
actual photo. Please try to be a little less hyperbolic.

- d.


body:
On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:36 pm, James Rosenzweig wrote:

> If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of
> sexual acts, then I  won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to
> stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to
> (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a
> high school).

If they're bright I'm sure they'll make their own way here.

Christiaan


body:
Thanks for making me see that you really do not give a fuck and do not
understand the situation in other countries than your own!
It is better for me to quit wikipedia and you are to blame.

Waerth


body:
Wouldn't it be better to top-post, so that we won't be required to downscroll
pages of text just to read a paragraph? (alternatively, wouldn't it be better
to quote just a line or two?)

Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?

--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 22:53, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Theresa Knott wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
wrote:
> >>Chad Perrin wrote:
> >>[snip]


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>I'm really
>not convinced that signing articles is an in-demand idea, let alone a good one.
>
>
Don't worry, if anybody tries to push it you can always threaten to lift
the ban on Gzornenplatz (uh, I mean Wik), who spent some time following
[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] around removing all of his
signatures that he put in non-displaying comments.

I agree that there's not much call for signing articles on a
collaborative project when a detailed history function is available.
Wikipedia is not a vanity press. The only thing that could justify it is
when it's a way of taking responsibility for the content (as opposed to
credit). For example, that's why I've adopted a practice of having
signed articles on The Wikipedia Signpost, since it's effectively
original reporting. But for encyclopedia articles, having an author take
responsibility would be a pathetic stand-in for what we really need,
which is more and better references so that information can properly be
traced to its source. Plus we have a well-warranted policy against
allowing original research in the encyclopedia.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
NSK (nsk2 at wikinerds.org) [050215 23:34]:
> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 14:26, slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> > the Nazis, so that edit amounted to vandalism, as did changing the
> > "wars against Jews" on [[Jew]] to the "wars caused by Jews." Admins

> This is typical trolling-vandalism behaviour. I am sure all experienced
> wikipedians can recognise this behaviour and I hope we all agree that this is
> a banable offence.

I've just blocked it "trolling account, no good edits".

- d.


from_name: geni

body:
> Then your objections are not my problem.  The web is not a playpen.

Oh it is if you a suficently warped sense of humor.

--
geni


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] [Foundation Site] Update and need of translators

body:
Before the foundraising, I propose to update the foundation wiki,
http://wikimediafoudation.org.
I tried to update some pages like "Main page", "Our Projects" and
other pages I could update with assistance of some editors and
traslators.
Until now, besides En, main page was updated in four languages pages
(DE, FR, JA, PL).
Here I am grateful for our friend translators.

But we need much more assistance, more translators.

Here is the current situation of major pages:
Home - De En Es Fi Fr It Ja Ko Pl Pt Zh
About Wikimedia - En Fi Fr It Ja Ko Zh-
Our Projects - En Fr It Ja Nl Pt Zh
Fundraising - Ar Bg Cs De En Es Fi Fr He It Ja Ko Nl Pl Pt Sv Zh

And of course other language translations are welcome.

Now there are language barriers and lack of information for us, most of pages
on the wmf site remain still not updated. And I expect many visitors
of the wmf site,
not only donors but also genuine visitors enjoy browsing the wmf site.
In my personal view, it were sad only one page is avalable in tongues
I can understand ...

Some of them was not edited  since last September and I feel strongly
they need to be
renewed: it is a bit clumsy "the latest news" ended in the last
September. And I found
almost every page should be a bit outdated (it is a self-criticism
rather than blame. I am
 an wmf site editor and left pages too for a long time).

I recommend and ask you to check the main page in your language(s) of
the wmf site.
Particularly the language which has their own donation page.
It would be nicer and more frinedly, if we can provide the visitors
at least three other pages: Main Page, About and Our Projects. (Any
suggestions?)

If you would like to join us, please consider to give a look on meta,
Translation requests/WMF. URL is:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF#Home

The close inforamtion of update are available on that page. If you
have a question,
please ask it on its talk, #wikimedia or my talk.

Your assistance will be appliciated. See you again on meta. ;-)

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Stephen Forrest

body:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:03:22 +0100, Marco Krohn <marco.krohn at web.de> wrote:

> http://planetmath.org is far from being "blown away" by Wikipedia (IMVHO)

Agreed.  This is perhaps one situation where article ownership makes a
bit more sense.  (Which is not to say I advocate anything like this
for Wikipedia anywhere.)

Nevertheless,  I find PlanetMath frustrating at times.   A few issues
which are general to these sorts of ownership-oriented encyclopedias:
*Ownership can create long lagtimes between edits
*It's often more tedious to explain to someone what's wrong than to
correct it yourself, plus you have the 'appeal to  a human' factor to
get over.
*If I'm writing an article which covers topic Foo, but I notice it's
been half-covered in another article, what do I do?  I could ask the
owner to remove the stuff about Foo and point at my article, but that
could get personal.

The big area where I think PlanetMath has Wikipedia beat right now is
support for math symbols and text.  (I'm sure this has been expressed
elsewhere.).  The LaTeX support in MediaWiki is highly useful, but it
needs to be more seamless, particularly for inline math.

A sign of this is that writers are constantly resorting regular
textual italics and superscripts/subscripts for inline text because it
looks better than using inline LaTeX.  This is  less than optimal
because the fonts don't match (and this can be a big problem in math).

Finally, a scheme like PlanetMath's classification by AMS grouping,
probably done through the category system, would be nice to have.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] What the heck is going on?

body:
I MOVEd [[Alan Dante Ameche]] to [[Alan Ameche]].  When I go to Recent Changes, it doesn't show any changes.  I click Refresh, I do a Control-F5, I reboot, and Recent Changes still isn't changed.  I go to [[Alan Ameche]], and it shows that it is redirecting to itself.  I go to [[Alan Dante Ameche]], and it shows that my MOVE hasn't taken place.  I edit the page to cut the information and paste it into the [[Alan Ameche]] article, and the edit page shows that the MOVE has taken place.

Is the database corrupted?

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


body:
--- Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> > I wish I could figure out why I have to top post
> on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo
> account I have.  I have compared all of the settings
> between the two accounts, but this is the only one
> that does this to me.  My sister also has a Yahoo
> account that requires her to top post.
>
> The one setting you might want to double check is
> under "General
> Preferences", "Composing E-mails", "Mode". If it's
> not set to "Compose
> messages as plain text", try setting it to that.

Woah!  That worked!  After all these years!

Thanks, Nicholas.

RickK

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


body:
--- Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> > I wish I could figure out why I have to top post
> on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo
> account I have.  I have compared all of the settings
> between the two accounts, but this is the only one
> that does this to me.  My sister also has a Yahoo
> account that requires her to top post.
> >
>
> "Requires"?  Can't you just scroll to the bottom and
> use the carriage
> return to add blank lines for bottom-posting?
>
> --
> Chad

Well, until Nicholas showed me how to fix it, no,
because my comments would be preceded by a greater
than sign and blended in to the other person's
comments, and there was no way to fix it.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Zigger

subject:
[Wikitech-l] LocalSettings.php file not being created. Connection
	failed.

body:
Howdy,

The most likely cause is that the MySQL database server has not been
running because of the way that the servers were started.  That would
also explain why there is no log from the database server.

The command-line "start.bat w mysql" should start the database server
- that's the final parameter on the command-line.  You may want to
create a "startall.bat" file containing that line in the same folder
as the supplied start.bat  The supplied stop.bat shuts down both
Apache & MySQL.

To see if MySQL is running, run the Windows Task Manager, and look for
a process called "mysqld-opt.exe".

Alternatively, from the command-line run:
  netstat.exe -n -p tcp -a|find ":3306"
If netstat shows a line with "LISTENING", it is running.

Apache can be used on the same machine as IIS, but as only one
web-server can use port :80 at a time, you need to change the Apache
port from :80 to e.g. :81 (in httpd.conf) and then use initial URLs
like http://localhost:81/a/ and http://localhost:81/wi/

-- Zigger

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:28 +0000, Alison Russell
<alisonrussellireland at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Installing Wiki on a Stick, so following the document
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_on_a_stick
>
> Installed 1.4beta6 instead of 1.3.10 because of empty page being
> displayed(bug #736 in v1.3.x) instead of a 1.3 install success page and
> localSettings.php file not being written. Got an error when I hit the
> Install! button for v1.4beta6 which I copied below:
> ...
>     * MySQL error 2003: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'localhost' (10061)
> ...


from_name: admin Yellowikis

subject: [Wikitech-l] rel="nofollow"

body:
An external link that I added to Wikipedia was indexed by Google
overnight - even with the  "rel=nofollow" tag.

Is it possible that the Google spider is following the 'urlexpansion' text?

Notes:
Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yellowikis

source code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam:

External link added feb 14 05
...
Yellowikis lists Oxfam's Contact details (http://www.yellowikis.org/wiki/index.php/Oxfam)
...


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
James Rosenzweig said:
> Part of the vision Jimbo often shares is
> the idea of sending Wikipedia to poor schools in
> developing nations -- I'd hate to think we were
> abandoning that dream.

I don't see why he should.  We've been discussing ways in which Wikipedia
material could be made classroom-friendly over the past day or two.
But key to this would be, in my opinion, uncoupling the goods train from
the engine.  Effectively create a vetted snapshot of Wikipedia, all set to
last safe version, with certain entries bowdlerized if thought necessary.


body:
> I don't see why he should.  We've been discussing ways in which Wikipedia
> material could be made classroom-friendly over the past day or two.
> But key to this would be, in my opinion, uncoupling the goods train from
> the engine.  Effectively create a vetted snapshot of Wikipedia, all set to
> last safe version, with certain entries bowdlerized if thought necessary.

Why should I have to that? Why don't you create a devetted snapshot of
wikipedia with certian entries debowdlerized if thought necessary?

--
geni


body:
geni said:
>> I don't see why he should.  We've been discussing ways in which
>> Wikipedia material could be made classroom-friendly over the past day
>> or two. But key to this would be, in my opinion, uncoupling the goods
>> train from the engine.  Effectively create a vetted snapshot of
>> Wikipedia, all set to last safe version, with certain entries
>> bowdlerized if thought necessary.
>
> Why should I have to that? Why don't you create a devetted snapshot of
> wikipedia with certian entries debowdlerized if thought necessary?

Because that would require all of our editors to bowdlerize all of their
edits for an audience of schoolchildren instead of adults.


body:
Matt R (matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk) [050216 00:51]:
>  --- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> > John Lee said:

> > > We are still presuming that our reading audience overlaps a lot
> > > with our  technically-inclined editors!

> > Not really.  Browser operation requires no technical skills beyond the
> > ability to use a mouse.

> After having spent many long hours trying to explain some very basic computing
> concepts to my parents, I'm going to have to disagree.

I plan to get mine a Mac Mini as absolutely soon as is feasible.

"Tell him to get an iMac. It's a computer for stu-- for mommies and
daddies."

- d.


body:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport at bluebottle.com) [050216 01:13]:
> NSK said:

> > Have you ever wondered why I rarely edit at Wikipedia?
> > it's  because I know that nobody will know that an article or paragraph
> > was written  by me.

> Good grief, is that what it's all about?

I am well known to have an ego comparable to a medium-size US city and I am
fine with being able to say "I wrote most of that article" or "I wrote
about half of that one" and being able to point at the history. I'm really
not convinced that signing articles is an in-demand idea, let alone a good
one.

- d.


from_name: Arkady Rose

subject: top posting (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user)

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> NSK wrote:
>
>> Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in
>> topposting?
>
>
> No, and it probably doesn't support such, since top posting is Bad and
> Annoying and the KMail developers know what they're doing.

A: Yes.
>  > Q: Are you sure?
>  >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>  >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

;-)

-a

--
Imagination is just intelligence having fun.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005


body:
Stirling Newberry (stirling.newberry at xigenics.net) [050216 01:22]:
> On Feb 15, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >NSK said:

> >>Have you ever wondered why I rarely edit at Wikipedia?
> >>it's  because I know that nobody will know that an article or
> >>paragraph
> >>was written  by me.

> >Good grief, is that what it's all about?

> In my course of recruiting for wikipedia, this is a statement made by
> several academics. The nature of wikipedia as a "people's encyclopedia"
> stops them.
> Now this is a serious question - people will work for free but not for
> nothing - and part of what will help wikipedia grow is finding ways of
> giving people the ability to get "something" for their work,
> particularly in the writing community, that is the body of editors who
> make large contributions.

I use my full name (rather than a net handle) on Wikipedia because it seems
more proper, and also the credit clearly then goes to ME ME ME ME ME.
Have they seen the history pages? It's usually clear which two or three
editors are primarily responsible for an article text.

> However, "credit" of other kinds could given, one which did not attach
> "ownership" to a particular article. Wikipedia should look into ways to
> recognize its creative contributors, without attaching personal credit
> or ownership over articles.

I picture a future version of Mediawiki in which the history of particular
sentences is visible.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
Andre Engels (andreengels at gmail.com) [050216 01:33]:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:35:02 +0700, Walter van Kalken
> <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:

> > Well it was nice for the 2 or 3 hours I was able to do something. I am
> > blocked yet again op Japanese wikipedia.

> Does anyone have to say anything about this? Or should I just start to
> collect Japanese IP-addresses to block them on nl: to get a reaction?

If the ISP in question really is running an open proxy server, then Walter
needs to bring it to their attention that this is leaving an abuse-machine
wide open, just as if it were an open email relay being used by spammers.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
NSK wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to top-post, so that we won't be required to downscroll
> pages of text just to read a paragraph? (alternatively, wouldn't it be better
> to quote just a line or two?)
>
> Anyone knows how to make KMail display my signature properly in topposting?
>

I (typically) bottom-post because top-posting is counterintuitive for
purposes of following the thread of a conversation.  I cut out quoted
text that is unlikely to be necessary for recalling context of a
statement.  I tend to err on the conservative side for cutting quoted
text, however.  Scrolling down while reading strikes me as less
problematic than reading, then scrolling down if context is needed, then
scrolling back up again while reading, sometimes with scrolling down if
one of the intermediary posts is longer than a single screen in length.

It reverses the conventional order of reading.
How is it confusing?
It's confusing to read.
Why is it a bad idea to top-post?

--
Chad

(PS:  I think KMail automatically sticks the signature at the top if you
have preferences set for top posting -- if I recall correctly, KMail
allows that sort of preference tweaking.  To post your signature at the
bottom while top posting, I think you'll have to set preferences for
bottom posting, then scroll back to the top to type your reply.)


body:
NSK wrote:

> I hope that all list participants see that I asked a simple question and I
> received a very damaging accusation from this user.
>

Not to be too blunt, but . . .
If that's the case, perhaps you should take his advice and not respond
to him.

--
Chad


body:
Rick wrote:
> I wish I could figure out why I have to top post on this Yahoo account, but not on another Yahoo account I have.  I have compared all of the settings between the two accounts, but this is the only one that does this to me.  My sister also has a Yahoo account that requires her to top post.
>

"Requires"?  Can't you just scroll to the bottom and use the carriage
return to add blank lines for bottom-posting?

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made
>>> to it?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Some years ago, when I was working in the administration of pensions for
> a large insurance company someone answered the application question,
> "Are you single, married, widowed or divorced?" in exactly the same
> way.  :-)
>

It's one of the hazards of being a code geek, a pun enthusiast, AND a
logician.

I flatter myself by using the term "logician", of course.

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:

> Ultimately we agree.  A person killed in a hate crime is no more or less
> dead than one killed in the course of a bank robbery.
>
> The lack of malevolence is a strong argument in favour of
> decriminalizing euthanasia.

We agree there, too.  It's not a violation of a person's right, as far
as I'm concerned.

>
>>>>> And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the
>>>>> US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons.  It
>>>> would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement.  No specific
>>> individual is being attacked.
>>
>>
>> circumstantial ad hominem (as distinct from the more commonly
>> recognized argumentum ad hominem):  the logically fallacious use, as
>> an argument, of unflattering comparisons between disreputable or
>> otherwise disliked figures with other participants in a debate, often
>> achieved by implication rather than explicit statements
>>
>> All "ad hominem" means is "to the person", in essence.  An "argumentum
>> ad hominem" or "ad hominem argument" is an argument that references
>> the person, rather than the opposing argument.  A "circumstantial ad
>> hominem" is an implication of the person circumstantially with some
>> subject of discourse, in this case mass-murdering tyrannical regimes.
>>
>> The reference to the US had no value in proving the repugnance of the
>> swastika in relation to other symbols, though it was an effective
>> implication of unflattering comparisons of American participants in
>> the debate to certain widely-loathed 20th century tyrants and their
>> governments.
>
>
> While I can readily recognize that there is such a phenomenon as
> "circumstantial ad hominem", I still can't see how it applies to the
> present circumstances.  While the disreputable figures may have been
> very well identified, it strains the imagination to attempt to identify
> which participants were being thus compared.  Any participant who so
> imagines himself to be the subject of such comparisons by virtue of that
> simple statement could very well be the victim of his own paranoid
> imagination.

On the other hand, I don't see why it's such a stretch to believe that
the complete non-sequitur comparison of "the US" to the mass-murdering
regimes of Stalin and other tyrannical dictators might be meant to cast
aspersions on American participants in the discussion, particularly if
they're known to be Americans (of which I'm not positive, admittedly).

I issue a conditional apology, here, though:  If the statement was meant
innocently, and a plausible explanation is offered for what it WAS meant
to convey, I retract my statement.  I should point out, thought, that
I'm still not coming up with any alternative intended meanings.

>
> The reference to the US may reflect upon the leadership of the US, whose
> stars and stripes are viewed by some with equal repugnance.  But to the
> best of my knowledge the members of that leadership are not participants
> in our debate, and none of us living outside of the United States has
> suggested that our American participants should be held responsible for
> the excesses of their government.

No mention was made of leadership or symbolism: only to "the US".
Whereas preceding discussion was confined to references to particular
oppressive regimes, the statement about "the US" effectively encompasses
all (roughly) 220 years of US history.  Perhaps that was an oversight.

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> The United States manipulates symbols when it requires schoolchildren
>> to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
>
>
> Per multiple Supreme Court decisions, no one can be required to recide
> the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether or not peer pressure causes unwilling
> recitation is another matter.

I don't think that actually addresses the point brought up.

--
Chad


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
Walter van Kalken (walter at vankalken.net) [050216 02:09]:
> David Gerard wrote:

> >If the ISP in question really is running an open proxy server, then Walter
> >needs to bring it to their attention that this is leaving an abuse-machine
> >wide open, just as if it were an open email relay being used by spammers.

> This is not my responsibility. Wikipedia is an open project and it
> should be open for anyone.

Unfortunately, open proxies in this manner constitute a public problem on
the Internet. Wikipedia blocks them on sight because they are primarily
used for abuse.

If you HAVE to use that proxy if you want to use that ISP, at this stage
it's up to you to get them to run their systems competently.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again


body:
Rick wrote:
> --- Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
>>"Requires"?  Can't you just scroll to the bottom and
>>use the carriage
>>return to add blank lines for bottom-posting?
>>
>
> Well, until Nicholas showed me how to fix it, no,
> because my comments would be preceded by a greater
> than sign and blended in to the other person's
> comments, and there was no way to fix it.
>

Wow.  Things have changed since the last time I used a Yahoo account.

I'm glad you got it sorted out.

--
Chad