from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Outstanding patches?

body:
On Monday 02 August 2004 03:46, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > Anyway, here is one small bugfix, which I haven't submitted before.
> > Difference engine sometimes inserts ISO-8859-1 non-breaking space in the
> > output which on UTF-8 wikis appear as a square or question mark in some
> > browsers (for example, see
> > http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA
> >%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0_
> >%D1%86%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0&diff=4374&oldid=4309 ). It changes the ISO
> > NBSP into the entity which is seen properly regardless of the site's
> > encoding.
>
> Ah, thanks!

Nothing :)

> I've committed and installed a slight variation: I used the numeric
>   rather than   since   seems to be problematic in pure
> XHTML mode in some browsers (Safari at least). (Only a few of the named
> character entities are actually defined by raw XML.) It won't make a
> difference on the Wikimedia installations since we're using the
> text/html mode.

Should then each   be converted to  ?

config/index.php:1
extensions/BoardVote/BoardVote.php:3
includes/Article.php:4
includes/DifferenceEngine.php:3
includes/Parser.php:4
includes/Skin.php:10
includes/SpecialAsksql.php:1
includes/SpecialBlockip.php:1
includes/SpecialEmailuser.php:1
includes/SpecialIpblocklist.php:1
includes/SpecialLockdb.php:1
includes/SpecialMakesysop.php:2
includes/SpecialMovepage.php:1
includes/SpecialUnlockdb.php:1
includes/SpecialUpload.php:1
includes/SpecialUserlogin.php:3
includes/Tokenizer.php:1
includes/Parser.php1:4
languages/Language.php:2
languages/LanguageAr.php:2
languages/LanguageBg.php:3
languages/LanguageBn.php:1
languages/LanguageCs.php:1
languages/LanguageCy.php:1
languages/LanguageDa.php:1
languages/LanguageDe.php:2
languages/LanguageEt.php:1
languages/LanguageFa.php:1
languages/LanguageFi.php:1
languages/LanguageFr.php:3
languages/LanguageFy.php:1
languages/LanguageGa.php:1
languages/LanguageHu.php:1
languages/LanguageIa.php:1
languages/LanguageIt.php:1
languages/LanguageKo.php:1
languages/LanguageMs.php:1
languages/LanguageNl.php:1
languages/LanguagePt.php:1
languages/LanguageRo.php:1
languages/LanguageRu.php:1
languages/LanguageSc.php:1
languages/LanguageSk.php:1
languages/LanguageSq.php:1
languages/LanguageSr.php:1
languages/LanguageSv.php:1
languages/LanguageTa.php:1
languages/LanguageTh.php:1
math/lexer.mll:4
math/texutil.ml:3
templates/xhtml_slim.pt:2


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I've looked at this. At times Jayjg makes some good points like for example,
"The tendency to fill the page with lengthy quotes is bad form; positions
should be summarized, and links provided." Also he seems to have almost
infinite patience with RK.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] A problem in one of our articles with Jayjg
>
> See this article:
> [[Relationship between segments of Judaism]]


from_name: Sj

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Hi, Hephaestos.

I don't think this is right at all; I see a lot of room for common
sense, and acting to limit disruption, damage,
etc. is always a good thing.

But don't be surprised if others censure you for doing
what is not clearly common sense to them, and try not to
let it sting too much.

--:-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
+sj+

----- Original Message -----
From: John Robinson <john at freeq.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:20:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

So let me see if I have this straight.

As long as a user holds strictly to written policy, he/she may cause
as much disruption, damage and hell as possible, and community
consensus on a matter is secondary to ill-thought-out and often
unenforced legalistic jargon.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

-Hephaestos


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Greetings

body:
:-)
Do not forget to join #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net :-)

Eric Pierce a ?crit:
> Hello all! I've finally decided to become a developer,
> so I've taken the necessary first step of lurking
> around on the mailing list. Not sure yet how much I'll
> be able to contribute; I figure I'll brush up on PHP,
> get the needed things installed and configured on my
> boxen, and go from there. I'm looking forward to
> participating.
>
> Eric


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where are all the trolls?

body:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:02:26 -0400, Mark Pellegrini
<mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Plato wrote: "I don't see trolling to be a problem, I see users that act like vigilantes to
> be a problem. I've seen some users that claimed to be "free-thinkers" but banned
> people without a hearing from the Arb. committee."
>
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that every block requires an arbcom
> hearing. The arbcom should be for settling longstanding disputes between (legitimate)
> users, not as the de-facto jury for getting rid of every trouble maker - that is what we have
> admins for.
> --Mark

Agreed.  It is important for the AC not to be overwhelmed by lengthy
disputes involving new users, or users that have never been trusted
members of the community.

If an admin is truly acting as a vigilante, other admins are free
(even enrouraged) to counteract their efforts.

+sj+


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Send in the academics

body:
Hi Tomos!  Your second idea is lovely.  I also would love to recommend
a number of interested academics as commenter of some sort -- as long
as their comments would be guaranteed some respect, and would not be
edited and changed by others.  We could set this up as a separate site
eternal to WP, but it would make more sense to have it integrated with
the existing project...

I wouldn't even encourage such academics to contribute themselves; it
is far more respectful of their time to accept commentary and have
other editors integrate those comments, cope with resulting flame wars
and philosophical disagreements, etc.

> 3) I am an academic my self, but I have to admit that I am a bit hesitant to recommend
> some Wikipedias to some of my colleagues. It is because of trolling, flaming, edit war,
> and and other wild behaviors that are not for newcomers if they expect warm and respectable

-- :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
+sj+


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking without a reason, considered unreasonable

body:
Down with gum-flappers!

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:17:02 -0700, Poor, Edmund W <edmund.w.poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Let's sum it up and stop flapping our gums:
>
> 1. When you block a user, try to explain why. The best explanation
> would be to cite the appropriate section of the Wikipedia:Blocking
> policy.
>
> * Example: "being a dastardly villain, see blocking policy #86"
<
> What could be more clear or simple?

"citing appropriate section" is rather onerous.   I hope that a
sensible explanation, not limited to a one-word epithet, for example,
"repeatedly moving user pages to article namespace", would suffice.

>sj>

# ...you should say "I unblocked Snidely Whiplash because you forgot
to cite the (being a dastardly villain) section of the blocking
policy."
= What do you mean? I mentioned "section 54"!
# Dastardly villainy is section 86; 54 is treacherous knavery.
= Who cares?? Snidely needed to be blocked, so why did you unblock him?
# By all means reblock him then, but cite the appropriate policy
number.  Imagine what would happen if everyone cited the wrong policy
number.  That would be like having no policy at all, wouldn't it?
= *&$^%*@&%($~#&
# Well, I never!


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: unfair blocking

body:
Rick wrote:

> Since I was involved in the redirecting and reverting, I was not
> allowed to protect the page, much as I would have liked to.

So ask somebody else to do it, then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
You've made requests there before, so I know you know how to find it.
Protecting the page would have been far better than escalating the
dispute straight to blocking, which is a pretty extreme solution.

--Michael Snow


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Website

body:
I would love to see a simple "pick your language" portal, a la
http://www.easyjet.com/ .  Then /wiki/en/Home or /wiki/de/Home,
perhaps.
Or even /en/Home and /de/Home, as long as that allows for non-wiki pages
to neatly fall into the directory structure.

~sj~

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:38:25 +0200, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> What structure was decided regarding languages?
> What will be the home page in French f.e.?
> How are done links to other languages?
>
> > En fait, Angel a ?t? plus rapide que moi.
>
> Yes. ;o)
>
>
>
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
  :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
+sj+


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] nice article about encarta and Gary Alt

body:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/181656_msftnotebook12.html

[...]
"The Web itself is another source of competition. With free online
information sources becoming more pervasive and comprehensive, Encarta
could face an increasingly tougher task in appealing to consumers. One
competitor is Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia with articles and
information compiled by volunteer contributors.

"Clearly it's difficult to sell something in a shrink-wrapped box if
something far superior is available for free on the Web," said Wikipedia
founder Jimmy Wales, predicting that it will become "harder and harder"
for Encarta to find an audience.

But Alt and others at Microsoft point out that free online sites don't
offer the same consistency and reliability, and attention to user's
needs, as Encarta does. At the same time, Encarta provides a safer
environment than the Web does for student research."


body:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:44:13 -0700, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Sj wrote:
> > I would love to see a simple "pick your language" portal, a la
> > http://www.easyjet.com/ .
>
> Ugh, flags. No thanks.

That's not what I meant... and there's a lot more not to like about it
than flags (bright orange?? bordered buttons?).   However, it doen't
include navbars in the portal, and manages to fit seven languages onto
a screen, unlike our own portals (all of which, btw, are EN-centric;
cf. http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page and
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_portal).

--  :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
+sj+


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might
praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.

It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel
that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual
description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are
not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps
to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better
understand why people oppose Kerry's election.

I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who
like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any
names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it
naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which
Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.

The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?"  because that
assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article
is that it is biased.

The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?"  This is assuming good
faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically
good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in
a fair presentation of the facts.

--Jimbo


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia in the news

body:
Rick wrote:

>  This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs
>  SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:

I took a glance through the John Kerry article and thought it was
pretty good. I'm no expert on Kerry's background, so of course it is
possible that there are errors I didn't detect, but on the whole it
seemed to be a balanced assessment of the man and his career. The
Bush people may find it shocking that Kerry spent some time in France
as a youth and had a friend who became a leader of the Green Party,
but people who aren't totally dumbass Republicans will probably greet
that kind of revelation with big yawns.

I thought the description of his time in Vietnam was particularly
good. It gave a detailed but matter-of-fact description of the
battles in which he fought and the injuries that he experienced. The
article doesn't seem to be trying to build him up as a hero (which is
his campaign has been doing) or trash him for not having been injured
more severely (which is what the dumbass Republicans have been trying
to do).

I did sense some spottiness in the article's reporting on his career
in the U.S. Senate, but this didn't seem to stem from any particular
POV.

--Sheldon Rampton


from_name: N.T. Riche

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
I agree with jimbo here, I read some parts of the Kerry article and it appears to me that it does adhere to wiki's policy of NPOV, as it should! :o)

"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might
praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.

It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel
that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual
description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are
not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps
to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better
understand why people oppose Kerry's election.

I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who
like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any
names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it
naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which
Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.

The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?" because that
assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article
is that it is biased.

The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?" This is assuming good
faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically
good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in
a fair presentation of the facts.

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040803/5536f08b/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Patent nonsense proposal

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Yes.  Geeks find it difficult to conceive how amazingly unobvious much
> of this stuff is.  Help files and FAQs only manage to make the situation
> worse.  They invariably answer all the wrong questions.

It occurred to me while wreading this that Pete's idea is brilliant,
the idea of us offering to host ogg-decoder software plugins and
whatever like that.

We have great skills in explaining complex topics to interested
users -- that's what we do, after all, and we're pretty good at it as
encyclopedists.  It seems likely to me that our ogg pages (the meta
pages to help people install the software) could be very professional
and user-friendly, and can be updated quickly using the wiki miracle
to reflect the real needs of real users.

So if the ogg pages on the net are unofficial and all scary looking,
we can actually help out a great deal with that problem, while also
helping to resolve our own dilemma (i.e. our concerns about
inconveniencing users in our quest to evangelize for freedom).

--Jimbo


body:
No rick, NO. Jimbo and the Arb commitee make policy not the indivdual sysop.

Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:Requiring a sysop to do something which they were not required to do before is making policy.  This is my last posting on this topic.

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
They are not making policy.

(They are so!)

They are not!

(Are so!)

etc.

--- Rick wrote:

> I repeat. Where in the arbitration committee
> charter are they authorized to make policy?
>
> RickK
>
> "Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
> What could be more clear or simple?
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!>
_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish._______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040803/ebb7cda4/attachment.htm


body:
Delirium wrote:
> I don't think that's true.  Debian's legal team is pretty conservative
> (read: paranoid) on these matters, and Debian currently includes
> mp3-playback software in the main distribution (package 'xmms', among
> others).  Mp3-encoding software is not part of Debian due to patent
> issues, but playback software is, so it seems their legal team has
> determined there aren't any problems with playback.

I think this is relevant, but not necessarily definitive.  Even if
playback is legal, but encoding is not legal, there's still a huge
problem, just not *as* huge.

I favor a careful cost/benefit analysis, except of course there is no
mathematical way to actually measure the costs and benefits.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [bhorrocks@npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery images
	on Wikipedia website]

body:
It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
preposterous.  Shall we research this carefully?

----- Forwarded message from Bernard Horrocks <bhorrocks at npg.org.uk> -----

From: "Bernard Horrocks" <bhorrocks at npg.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:23:33 +0100
To: <jwales at bomis.com>
Subject: National Portrait Gallery images on Wikipedia website

Dear Sir,

We notice you have a number of images on your website (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare;   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark ) which are of portraits in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

As we do not appear to have licensed copies of these portraits for use on your website, we wondered whether you would let us know the source from which you obtained the reproductions.

All photographs, scans, text and other material on the National Portrait Gallery's website are protected by international copyright laws.  Unauthorised reproduction of such content may be an infringement of such laws.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard Horrocks

Copyright Officer

National Portrait Gallery  St Martin's Place  London WC2H OHE

Direct T +44 (0) 20 7312 2442  F +44 (0) 20 7312 2464  www.npg.org.uk <http://www.npg.org.uk/>

click here <http://www.patronmailuk.com/bnmailweb/PatronSetup?oid=29>  to register for the Gallery's e-newsletter

This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- End forwarded message -----


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [bhorrocks@npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery
	images on Wikipedia website]


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
>How am I supposed to find a "compromise solution" when the other person
refuses to discuss it?

RickK

Try sending an email, before taking an extreme step?  (Blocking for a story
simply about title changes and redirects _is_ an extreme step; you allege
POV editing also.  This may be annoying, but blocking?)

Charles


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] ping times to machines on secondary switch

body:
Shaihulud and me investigated the recent load balancing weirdness a bit
and came across some slow ping times to machines on the secondary
switch. Two averages of 250 pings from suda, run at the same time:

maurus: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.138/2.063/25.486/4.660 ms
coronelli: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.125/0.328/2.023/0.213 ms

More samples between various hosts also showed that the really slow ping
times only occur between machines on the first switch and the newer ones
on the secondary one (all hanging on a single port on the primary
switch).

The load balancing is based on icp response times, so a network
congestion can temporarily override it. I'm not sure if the GigE switch
is already ordered, if not i'd recommend to order it as soon as
possible.
--
Gabriel Wicke


body:
Yann Forget a ?crit:
> Hi Anthere,
>
> Le Tuesday 03 August 2004 13:51, Anthere a ?crit :
>
>>http://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Home
>>
>>Is the address of the new foundation website.
>>
>>It is currently totally a work in progress. Angela has been working on a
>>nice html home page, so it look good later on, but it is not in place yet.
>>I set a new menu yesterday and put some pages already.
>>We need your help to participate :-) If you feel like it, you are most
>>welcome :-)
>>
>>For now, only loggued-in user can work on it, and only sysop can create
>>an accout.
>>
>>If you wish an account to update or improve the pages, please ask Angela
>>for the next weeks. We reserve the right to refuse access, but we wish
>>to give it pretty liberally :-) Any access given by Angela will be okay
>>by me while I am away.
>>
>>Some areas will be restricted later on (for example financial reports
>>will be protected) and editable only by sysop. For now, nothing is
>>protected.
>>
>>We need your help so that this site appears decent. Thanks in advance :-)
>>
>>ant
>
>
> I would like to help translate the foundation web site into French and to be
> member of the Press Team.
>
> Yann

Ton login est Yann. Envoi toi un nouveau mot de passe.

ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
Rick wrote:
> Since I was involved in the redirecting and reverting, I was not
>allowed to protect the page, much as I would have liked to.

I detect an anomaly or contradiction in our policies.  An admin is not
allowed to get into a fight with a user over the content of a page and
then protect the page, but the admin *is* allowed to block that user
after having fought with them?

I offer no solution to this; I just pose it as a problem.

In a case like this, what I would have advised Rick to do is just make
a little note, either to himself, or in a public place (perhaps we
need a standard public place for such things), in effect saying:
"Something weird going on _here_ and _here_, check it out in 24
hours."

Then, 24 hours later, simply delete the duplicate page and be done
with it.

This has the same effect on the site in 24 hours, but it also relieves
Rick of the need to fight with a user who is plainly doing something
goofy.

The old saying "Don't feed the trolls" is very apt in these
situations.  Someone who is behaving in this fashion is very likely
acting, Rick, just to get a rise out of you.  Deprive them of that
gift.  Let them be stupid, and then just revert it all 24 hours later.

This will save you a lot of grief, and it will remove from them the
joy of getting into a fight.  They live for that, remember.

--Jimbo


body:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 21:49 +0200, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
> Shaihulud and me investigated the recent load balancing weirdness a bit
> and came across some slow ping times to machines on the secondary
> switch. Two averages of 250 pings from suda, run at the same time:
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^
s/suda/zwinger/g
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
>This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs
SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm

RickK

Embroiders what it cites from WP.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
blankfaze wrote:
> Just for the record, in case anyone gives a crap, I fully support Rick
> here.

I do too.  I would have acted differently, but we need not shed a tear
over a user who is behaving in this fashion.

I support Rick but advise a different course of action, one which I
think will be more effective in combatting people like this.

Wiki means quick, I guess, but sometimes slow is faster.

--Jimbo


body:
Mathias Schindler wrote, quoting a published article:
> But Alt and others at Microsoft point out that free online sites don't
> offer the same consistency and reliability, and attention to user's
> needs, as Encarta does. At the same time, Encarta provides a safer
> environment than the Web does for student research."

My NPOV instincts lead me to want to edit this from "point out" to
"claim".  "point out" implies that their claims are true.

--Jimbo


body:
Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Home
>>
>>Is the address of the new foundation website.
>
>
> I'm confused. In the meeting we decided to have it at wikimediafoundation.org.
> That will happen when the website goes live, right? If this is the plan, then I
> support that, but your post was not clear on this point.

You are correct. We agreed that the adress would be wikimediafoundation,
in particular for domain names issues. I must remember we have to
contact the current owner. Would you perhaps do it Mav ? Tell us if you
do or do not please.

I suppose that once the www.wikimedia.org will be a little bit more
organised and MOSTLY when it will support the fundraising page, we will
remove the current site at wikimediafoundation.org and move the other one.

Till then, we'll have to have two sites in order to support the
fundraising page :-)

> Full HTML support is also still needed. Until then I really can't work on
> donation pages for that website.

I agree.

>>Some areas will be restricted later on (for example financial reports
>>will be protected) and editable only by sysop. For now, nothing is
>>protected.
>
>
> If the whole website will be HTML-enabled, then page protection alone will not
> be enough to ensure security. That is unless only protected pages will support
> full HTML.

I did not remembered that subtility. Well, if protecting ALL pages
requiring HTML is required for security, we could protect all of them I
guess.

Which pages do you think will require HTML ?

ant


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [bhorrocks@npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery
 images on Wikipedia website]

body:
All the more reason for us to get the new upload form up and running, so
that people have to say what the source for an image is up front,
instead of us chasing them down after the fact to find out where they
got it. What are we waiting for at this point?

--Michael Snow

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
>preposterous.  Shall we research this carefully?
>
>----- Forwarded message from Bernard Horrocks <bhorrocks at npg.org.uk> -----
>
>From: "Bernard Horrocks" <bhorrocks at npg.org.uk>
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:23:33 +0100
>To: <jwales at bomis.com>
>Subject: National Portrait Gallery images on Wikipedia website
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>We notice you have a number of images on your website (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare;   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark ) which are of portraits in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>
>
>As we do not appear to have licensed copies of these portraits for use on your website, we wondered whether you would let us know the source from which you obtained the reproductions.
>
>
>
>All photographs, scans, text and other material on the National Portrait Gallery's website are protected by international copyright laws.  Unauthorised reproduction of such content may be an infringement of such laws.
>
>
>
>I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
>
>
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bernard Horrocks
>
>Copyright Officer
>
>National Portrait Gallery  St Martin's Place  London WC2H OHE
>
>
>
>Direct T +44 (0) 20 7312 2442  F +44 (0) 20 7312 2464  www.npg.org.uk <http://www.npg.org.uk/>
>
>click here <http://www.patronmailuk.com/bnmailweb/PatronSetup?oid=29>  to register for the Gallery's e-newsletter
>
>
>
>This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>

>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040803/9afd26b2/attachment.htm


body:
Anthere a ?crit:
>
>
> Yann Forget a ?crit:
>
>> Hi Anthere,
>>
>> Le Tuesday 03 August 2004 13:51, Anthere a ?crit :
>>
>>> http://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Home
>>>
>>> Is the address of the new foundation website.
>>>
>>> It is currently totally a work in progress. Angela has been working on a
>>> nice html home page, so it look good later on, but it is not in place
>>> yet.
>>> I set a new menu yesterday and put some pages already.
>>> We need your help to participate :-) If you feel like it, you are most
>>> welcome :-)
>>>
>>> For now, only loggued-in user can work on it, and only sysop can create
>>> an accout.
>>>
>>> If you wish an account to update or improve the pages, please ask Angela
>>> for the next weeks. We reserve the right to refuse access, but we wish
>>> to give it pretty liberally :-) Any access given by Angela will be okay
>>> by me while I am away.
>>>
>>> Some areas will be restricted later on (for example financial reports
>>> will be protected) and editable only by sysop. For now, nothing is
>>> protected.
>>>
>>> We need your help so that this site appears decent. Thanks in advance :-)
>>>
>>> ant
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to help translate the foundation web site into French and
>> to be member of the Press Team.
>>
>> Yann
>
>
> Ton login est Yann. Envoi toi un nouveau mot de passe.
>
> an
> t

En fait, Angel a ?t? plus rapide que moi.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Martin Harper wrote:
> Previously we ruled that Wik must not revert without giving a valid
> reason. In this case, we may rule that certain admins must not block
> without giving a valid reason.

> I am curious as to why people would object to the latter ruling on a
> matter of principle, when I did not hear similar objections in the
> earlier case of Wik. Perhaps someone could explain the difference to
> me?

If a particular ruling purports to make a new rule for all sysops,
including those who are not parties to a dispute, then it is a type of
rulemaking which exceeds the existing powers of the arbitration
committee.

If a particular ruling restricts a particular sysop, based on
particular findings in a particular case, then this does not exceed
the existing powers of the arbitration committee.

It is my position, though, that the language in the proposed ruling
doesn't change anything at all.  It says that if no reason is given,
then any sysop may revert the block.  But that's already true.  In
fact, it's true that any sysop can revert *any* block for *any* reason
at all (or for no reason).

If there's any hint of a policy change there, it is the implicit
suggestion about the converse.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
"Ask yourself is THIS the person you want as President of these United
States [...] ?  Do we want this man who is so clearly influenced by
Europeans as our Commander-in-Chief, especially at such a time as
this? "

priceless.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
>
> http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
>
> RickK
>
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
>
>
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] new upload form

body:
The Bostonians nearly threw my tea in the harbor about the new upload
form. :-) When do we expect it to go live?

--Jimbo

----- Forwarded message from Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> -----

From: Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:00:22 -0700
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [bhorrocks at npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery
 images on Wikipedia website]

All the more reason for us to get the new upload form up and running, so
that people have to say what the source for an image is up front,
instead of us chasing them down after the fact to find out where they
got it. What are we waiting for at this point?

--Michael Snow

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
>preposterous.  Shall we research this carefully?
>
>----- Forwarded message from Bernard Horrocks <bhorrocks at npg.org.uk> -----
>
>From: "Bernard Horrocks" <bhorrocks at npg.org.uk>
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:23:33 +0100
>To: <jwales at bomis.com>
>Subject: National Portrait Gallery images on Wikipedia website
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>We notice you have a number of images on your website (e.g.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare;
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark ) which are of portraits in
>the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London.<?xml:namespace
>prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>
>
>As we do not appear to have licensed copies of these portraits for use on
>your website, we wondered whether you would let us know the source from
>which you obtained the reproductions.
>
>
>
>All photographs, scans, text and other material on the National Portrait
>Gallery's website are protected by international copyright laws.
>Unauthorised reproduction of such content may be an infringement of such
>laws.
>
>
>
>I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
>
>
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bernard Horrocks
>
>Copyright Officer
>
>National Portrait Gallery  St Martin's Place  London WC2H OHE
>
>
>
>Direct T +44 (0) 20 7312 2442  F +44 (0) 20 7312 2464  www.npg.org.uk
><http://www.npg.org.uk/>
>click here <http://www.patronmailuk.com/bnmailweb/PatronSetup?oid=29>  to
>register for the Gallery's e-newsletter
>
>
>
>This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the attention of the
>addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
>permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
>and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>

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

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

----- End forwarded message -----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Obnoxious art galleries...

body:
The simple solution is that we need to find as many nicely printed art
books from the PD era, and do some mass scanning and uploading,
documenting carefully the sources.

--Jimbo

Robert Graham Merkel wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:41:09AM +0000, wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org wrote:
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:38:28 -0700
> > From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
> > Subject: [Wikipedia-l] [bhorrocks at npg.org.uk: National Portrait
> > 	Gallery	images on Wikipedia website]
> > To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org, wikien-l at wikimedia.org
> > Message-ID: <20040804043828.GM23467 at wikia.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
> > preposterous.  Shall we research this carefully?
> >
>
> I don't know about UK law, but the National Gallery of Victoria
> in Australia (with the shared legal tradition I believe the copyright
> laws are similar) seems to believe that they own the rights to any
> photographs of the artworks they own, even if the artworks themselves
> are in the public domain.  You will note the copyright notice on
> this Australian website:
>
> http://www.artistsfootsteps.com/html/Artists_mccubbin.htm
>
> This is despite the fact that McCubbin died in 1917.
>
> I have been meaning to get around to making further enquiries into this
> in the Australian context, but haven't got around to it.  Given this
> enquiry, it just got moved up my priority list.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Robert Merkel
>                                      robert.merkel at benambra.org
>                                         http://benambra.org
>
> This is a non-story. Pakistan is our ally in the war against terrorism.
> They're the good guys. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the good guys are
> NOT WMD's.
> Now if it were learned that Saddam had access to designs for constructing
> paper airplanes, THAT would be front page news.
> --Beth, poster at http://atrios.blogspot.com, 31/1/2003, in response to
> low-prominence media reports of an Israeli national arrested for selling
> US nuclear technology to Pakistan.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Rick wrote:
> You're awfully naive, Jimbo.

Yes, I am.

Even so, I'd like to again repeat what I've been saying.  The proposed
ruling does nothing to change policy, because the fact it identifies
(that if there is no proper reason given for a block, the block may be
reversed) has been true basically forever.

If anything, the rule is suggesting that if a proper reason *is* given
for a block, then the person reverting better have a good reason for
it.  (The rule doesn't actually say that, but casual speaking often
implies things about converses that aren't literally said.)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Rick wrote:
> I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's
>responsibility to create policy.

I don't yet see what you think is new about this.

>And that is what they're doing.  Even if I got everything I wanted, I
>would still object.  But let me also say that I disagree with this
>option, because it's given Guanaco the ability to suddenly go wild and
>retroactively unblock EVERY SINGLE PERSON from the past whose reason
>for blocking doesn't match these unapproved criteria.

Guanaco, or any other sysop, has always had the ability to do this.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
>
> That's an awfully rude statement, Rick.

No, I don't think so.  I am naive and optimistic and trusting.  These
are good traits that can sometimes go bad.

Rick's a little heated up here, I guess, but really what interests me
is substantive discussions of policy and how it ought to change.  Rick
has brought up an issue of "meta policy", that is to say, can the
arbitration committee issue rulings that change policy?

It's not an easy question to answer, I think.  In general of course
the answer is "no" -- the community sets policy, and the arbcom
adjudicates disputes within the framework of policy.

But as with questions of whether judges in wider society can (or
should) change policy, it's not so easy often to draw the line between
"following the law" and "making the law".  This is particularly true
when there are issues of interpretation and application.

--Jimbo


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Le Tuesday 03 August 2004 22:02, Anthere a ?crit :

> http://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Home
>
> Is the address of the new foundation website.

What structure was decided regarding languages?
What will be the home page in French f.e.?
How are done links to other languages?

> En fait, Angel a ?t? plus rapide que moi.

Yes. ;o)

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Alas, that era predates high-quality color printing. Art galleries are
likely to be pretty zealous about protecting their sources of revenue,
not just the reproduction rights, but also as encouragement for
visitors to come and see the pictures in person, rather than getting
their fill online.

I wonder if they could be convinced to GFDL thumbnails, as a sort of
quasi-advertising. One might also exploit a little national chauvinism,
pointing out that the PD status of most US government images is causing
Wikipedia's historical imagery to be dominated by US pictures; for
instance, a bunch of Royal Navy ship pictures come from US archives,
can't imagine the Brits being particularly proud about that. :-)

Stan

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>The simple solution is that we need to find as many nicely printed art
>books from the PD era, and do some mass scanning and uploading,
>documenting carefully the sources.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:41:09AM +0000, wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org wrote:
>>
>>>Message: 8
>>>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:38:28 -0700
>>>From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
>>>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] [bhorrocks at npg.org.uk: National Portrait
>>>	Gallery	images on Wikipedia website]
>>>To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org, wikien-l at wikimedia.org
>>>Message-ID: <20040804043828.GM23467 at wikia.com>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>
>>>It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
>>>preposterous.  Shall we research this carefully?
>>>
>>>
>>I don't know about UK law, but the National Gallery of Victoria
>>in Australia (with the shared legal tradition I believe the copyright
>>laws are similar) seems to believe that they own the rights to any
>>photographs of the artworks they own, even if the artworks themselves
>>are in the public domain.  You will note the copyright notice on
>>this Australian website:
>>
>>http://www.artistsfootsteps.com/html/Artists_mccubbin.htm
>>
>>This is despite the fact that McCubbin died in 1917.
>>
>>I have been meaning to get around to making further enquiries into this
>>in the Australian context, but haven't got around to it.  Given this
>>enquiry, it just got moved up my priority list.
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                                           Robert Merkel
>>                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
>>                                        http://benambra.org
>>
>>This is a non-story. Pakistan is our ally in the war against terrorism.
>>They're the good guys. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the good guys are
>>NOT WMD's.
>>Now if it were learned that Saddam had access to designs for constructing
>>paper airplanes, THAT would be front page news.
>>--Beth, poster at http://atrios.blogspot.com, 31/1/2003, in response to
>>low-prominence media reports of an Israeli national arrested for selling
>>US nuclear technology to Pakistan.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Austin Hair

body:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:59:24PM -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> Mathias Schindler wrote, quoting a published article:
> > But Alt and others at Microsoft point out that free online sites don't
> > offer the same consistency and reliability, and attention to user's
> > needs, as Encarta does. At the same time, Encarta provides a safer
> > environment than the Web does for student research."
>
> My NPOV instincts lead me to want to edit this from "point out" to
> "claim".  "point out" implies that their claims are true.

Also present is the assertion "At the same time, Encarta provides a
safer environment than the Web does for student research," stated as if
it were an accepted fact.  Some would obviously dispute this.  :)

> --Jimbo

--
Austin D. Hair <austin at austinhair.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Callidus
http://www.austinhair.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040803/e83e9430/attachment.pgp


from_name: Emmanuel Engelhart

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bughunt!

body:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:47:28 +0200
Andreas Hoerstemeier <ahoerstemeier at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> > [ 962674 ] Broken images in templates
> >
> > This one too... by my last patch about | in tamplate parameters.
> Definitely not. Your last patch allows to use template with images a bit
> better by providing the full image syntax, yet it fails when the image
> tag is compiled at the template.
>
> Thus
> {{MyTemplate|image=[[Image:Me.jpg|Me]]}}
> works now, but
> {{MyTemplate|image=Me}}
> with the template having something like
> [[Image:{{{image}}}.jpg|{{{image}}}]]
> fails - it creates a link to the correct image description, but not to
> the image itself. However it may be related with a similar bug for links
> to articles (e.g. [[As_of_{{{as_of}}}|{{{as_of}}}]]), dunno if that one
> has a sourceforge bug ID.
>
> BTW: I think 963437 is closed as well, that was a duplicate with the one
> you fixed. If you could solve the above template bug as well you'll be
> my hero - that one together with the pipe problem are the ones I need to
> be able to use templates for several infoboxes.
>

Hi Andreas

Thx for the precisions.
I have no patch for this bug, but I identified the problem.

So Parser.php's guru, that's for you !

On  the line  1775 we  strip the  text, and  this text  will  never be
unstriped -> the picture url will stay false.

My solution was  to don't strip anymore, and I obtain  a good result ;
but i guess a black border effect....

Cordialy

Emmanuel

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les t?m?raires... croient qu'ils savent, les sages... savent qu'ils
croient.                                -- Jean Rostand "Ce que je crois"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Engelhart      ICQ UIN : 53388731   TEL (+49)(0)6.22.15.88.03.31


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
> I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's
> responsibility to create policy.

Previously we ruled that Wik must not revert without giving a valid reason. In this case,
we may rule that certain admins must not block without giving a valid reason.

I am curious as to why people would object to the latter ruling on a matter of principle,
when I did not hear similar objections in the earlier case of Wik. Perhaps someone
could explain the difference to me?

Thanks
-Martin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where are all the trolls?

body:
N.T. Riche wrote:
> I am not sure, but I seriously don't think trolling is a problem.

Just in case others don't know, Nick is User:Plato who is an express
advocate for trolling via his concept of the "red faction".  His user
page currently reads "To be a troll is not a shameful thing; we troll
for peace, justice, liberty, and righteousness!  Down with the cabal!
Down with those who oppose the people!  We will not stop until There
Is Not Cabal!!!!!!"

Nick has at least dropped his goal of "violent overthrow" of the
"Wiki-police state".

> I have a few question for Rick and Heph and others:
>
> What constitutes trolling?

I would say that your red faction page is a very good example.  That
most people just ignore it is a testament to the infinite patience and
goodwill of the community.

> If so should trolls be banned without a hearing?

I don't see that anyone has ever seriously suggested such a thing.  We
are well aware of many complex issues involved here.

> Could other users defend a troll without them being called a troll
>(Like I have)?

Isn't that pretty disingenuous?  I think the reason people call you a
troll is that you *are* a troll, a self-admitted one who seems to
delight in the concept of disruptive people organizing themselves.

> I don't see trolling to be a problem, I see users that act like
>vigilantes to be a problem. I've seen some users that claimed to be
>"free-thinkers" but banned people without a hearing from the
>Arb. committee. I've seen users that claimed to be Liberals, but where
>ultra-reactionary in banning practices and are no better than the
>people they criticize. Now I never once said they're was a "cabal" but
>what I am saying is that I believe in FREEDOM.

You never once said that there was a cabal?  That's just false, it
says "down with the cabal" and a ton of other stupid nonsense right
there on your user pages.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bughunt!

body:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:40:47 +0200
Emmanuel Engelhart <emmanuel at engelhart.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:47:28 +0200
> Andreas Hoerstemeier <ahoerstemeier at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> > > [ 962674 ] Broken images in templates
> > >
> > > This one too... by my last patch about | in tamplate parameters.
> > Definitely not. Your last patch allows to use template with images a bit
> > better by providing the full image syntax, yet it fails when the image
> > tag is compiled at the template.
> >
> > Thus
> > {{MyTemplate|image=[[Image:Me.jpg|Me]]}}
> > works now, but
> > {{MyTemplate|image=Me}}
> > with the template having something like
> > [[Image:{{{image}}}.jpg|{{{image}}}]]
> > fails - it creates a link to the correct image description, but not to
> > the image itself. However it may be related with a similar bug for links
> > to articles (e.g. [[As_of_{{{as_of}}}|{{{as_of}}}]]), dunno if that one
> > has a sourceforge bug ID.
> >
> > BTW: I think 963437 is closed as well, that was a duplicate with the one
> > you fixed. If you could solve the above template bug as well you'll be
> > my hero - that one together with the pipe problem are the ones I need to
> > be able to use templates for several infoboxes.
> >
>
> Hi Andreas
>
> Thx for the precisions.
> I have no patch for this bug, but I identified the problem.
>
> So Parser.php's guru, that's for you !
>
> On  the line  1775 we  strip the  text, and  this text  will  never be
> unstriped -> the picture url will stay false.
>
> My solution was  to don't strip anymore, and I obtain  a good result ;
> but i guess a black border effect....
>
> Cordialy
>
> Emmanuel
>

I propose replacing the Parser.php line 811 by "return $newline.$text;"
I don't understand why we need to call insertStripItem().

Emmanuel

> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Les t?m?raires... croient qu'ils savent, les sages... savent qu'ils
> croient.                                -- Jean Rostand "Ce que je crois"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Emmanuel Engelhart      ICQ UIN : 53388731   TEL (+49)(0)6.22.15.88.03.31
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bienheureux, les f?l?s, car ils laissent passer la lumi?re.
Michel Audiard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Engelhart      ICQ UIN : 53388731   TEL (+49)(0)6.22.15.88.03.31


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] new upload form

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> The Bostonians nearly threw my tea in the harbor about the new upload
> form. :-) When do we expect it to go live?

When someone codes it.

Patches are welcome.

-- 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/20040803/a986417c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: John Robinson

body:
Wrong Plato. At least in theory.

In theory, the community makes policy. Individual sysops enforce it
in short-term, no-brainer cases, the Arb committee enforces it in
more complicated cases, and Jimbo steps in and says "whoa" when any
of the above screw up royally.

Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of *any* of that going on in
practice. Just in theory.

-Hephaestos

>No rick, NO. Jimbo and the Arb commitee make policy not the indivdual sysop.
>
>Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Requiring a sysop to do something which they were not required to do
>before is making policy.  This is my last posting on this topic.
>
>RickK
>
>Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>They are not making policy.
>
>(They are so!)
>
>They are not!
>
>(Are so!)
>
>etc.
>
>--- Rick wrote:
>
>>  I repeat. Where in the arbitration committee
>>  charter are they authorized to make policy?
>>
>>  RickK
>>
>>  "Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
>>  What could be more clear or simple?
>>
>>
>>  ---------------------------------
>>  Do you Yahoo!?
>>  New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!>
>_______________________________________________
>>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>>  WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>  http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/ease.html>Yahoo!
>Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
>finish._______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/50x/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html>Yahoo!
>Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040804/01837c40/attachment.htm


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] World War II Wiki-reader

body:
> On a happier note, I've started work to produce a World War II Wiki-reader.
> You can read about it at [[Wikipedia:World War II wikireader]]

Sounds good!

> I'd just like to gripe that there are no good instructions anywhere for
> actually starting one - I had to ask people on the German Wikipedia for some
> help (and I then made the timeline you see on that page).

We do have [[Wikipedia:WikiReader]], which (if nothing else) gives some other
examples of how other people have gone about things. A "How to start a
WikiReader" page would certainly be useful, though.

> Volunteers are welcome! Since the other Wiki-reader projects seem to have
> stalled, I'd like to see if we can get this one out the door within the
> month (before I go back to grad school).

Well, the project for a WikiReader in Cryptography hasn't stalled (and let me
take this opportunity to plug it!); since the end of last month we've been
running an "Article of the Day" scheme to polish the content. We're taking a
little longer (planning to release in November) and are including around 70
articles. Project page is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Cryptography

Matt

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Timwi

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Debian's legal team is pretty conservative
> (read: paranoid) on these matters, and Debian currently includes
> mp3-playback software in the main distribution (package 'xmms', among
> others).  Mp3-encoding software is not part of Debian due to patent
> issues, but playback software is, so it seems their legal team has
> determined there aren't any problems with playback.

How recent is the distribution you're referring to? As evidenced by
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/openletter.html, the MP3 decoding patent
has only been enforced for less than two years now.


subject: [Wikitech-l] CVS HEAD on German wikipedia?

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> as some of you know, a company will release a snapshot of the German
> wikipedia on CD. They will use a dump from September 1, less than one
> month from now.
>
> We (de.wikipedia) would very much like to get the validation feature up
> and running ASAP, even though it is only in the early stages (but
> functional), so we can harvest WikiPower (tm) to sort out the junk, er,
> the "articles" that should rather not go on CD.
>
> Now for the scary part: Can we soon go live with what is CVS HEAD, or is
> there something utterly unstable in it?

CVS HEAD contains a number of experimental changes and exciting new
bugs. It's the development branch.

Anything that _needs_ to go live _now_ should be first carefully tested
and merged into the 1.3.0 release branch. If it's isolated reasonably
well it could perhaps be hacked into the live copy, but that's asking
for trouble.

-- 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/20040804/3d3598a8/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bughunt!

body:
Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> [ 967833 ] Only first five template inclusions work
>
> Patched by Jeluf

This is fixed in HEAD but not in REL1_3. JeLuF, is this a clean patch
that can be backported and installed live?

-- 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/20040804/3bb67075/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia in the news

body:
Rick wrote:

> This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs
> SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
>
> http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm

They can't even get English spelling and grammar right. I don't pay them
any credibility.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So much as I would like this site to be multilingual, I must say I
> disagree with you in this case Sj. What you suggest is interested for
> meta probably (but the flags), but The Foundation is american, and the
> language used is english, so it is really okay that the portal page is
> in english.

Anthere, you of all people should know that the foundation is global. The fact
that it is incorporated in the United States is not really relevant. Jimbo and
I have recently exchanged emails about this very topic and we want to form a
U.S. chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation in part to demonstrate this
distinction.

Thus a language-selection portal would be appropriate and expected for the
foundation website. Not having it right away is simply due to the lack of a
technically and aesthetically good implementation. A side benefit of creating
such a portal would be adapting it for use at www.wikipedia.org and other www
wikimedia project domains.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bughunt day 2

body:
We currently stand at 199 open bugs out of 1099. That's down 15 open
bugs from yesterday, right on track.

-- 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/20040804/e6f7627b/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: phase3/includes Parser.php,1.216,1.217

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> + 		$isRedirect = false ;
> + 		if ( trim ( substr ( $s , 0 , 10 ) ) == '#REDIRECT' ) $isRedirect = true ;

This needs to use the keywords so that translations of the "REDIRECT"
keyword work as well. Also, the REDIRECT thingie is not supposed to be
case-sensitive.

Timwi


from_name: Delirium

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Delirium wrote:
>
>> Debian's legal team is pretty conservative (read: paranoid) on these
>> matters, and Debian currently includes mp3-playback software in the
>> main distribution (package 'xmms', among others).  Mp3-encoding
>> software is not part of Debian due to patent issues, but playback
>> software is, so it seems their legal team has determined there aren't
>> any problems with playback.
>
>
> How recent is the distribution you're referring to? As evidenced by
> http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/openletter.html, the MP3 decoding
> patent has only been enforced for less than two years now.

It's quite recent: about 10 minutes old.  I just updated my system, and
the various MP3 playback things are all of course still in the official
repository.  Debian pulls things pretty aggressively when legal troubles
arise, and there's been a lot of discussion about MP3 but nothing's been
pulled.  I didn't follow the discussion, but there was quite a bit two
years ago when that Vorbis open letter came out, and I assume by the
lack of action over such a lengthy period of time that the discussion's
ended in favor of "no legal problems with MP3 playback".

-Mark


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] [bhorrocks@npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery

body:
To quoth the Copyright FAQ ([[Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ]]) that Jamesday and I
prepared:

Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it creates a new copyright
on the work. For instance, Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series is a
re-telling of the book of Mormon. The books in that series are copyrighted.

However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new
copyright to apply, as the court ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v Corel
Corporation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm).
The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous
works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public
domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational
CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement.
The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not
protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in
originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that
many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the
modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But
'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort,
does not qualify." [1]

--Mark


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [bhorrocks@npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery
	images on Wikipedia website]

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> All the more reason for us to get the new upload form up and running, so
> that people have to say what the source for an image is up front,
> instead of us chasing them down after the fact to find out where they
> got it. What are we waiting for at this point?

I'll just point out that people already have to say where they got their
images from. You people *are* deleting images without source
information, right?

-- 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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040804/303a8046/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [bhorrocks@npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery
	images on Wikipedia website]

body:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
> preposterous.  Shall we research this carefully?

IANAL

Exact reproductions of public domain portraits are not creative works and thus
not eligible for copyright protection in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources has long
said:
|Accurate photographs of paintings lack expressive content and are
|automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired
|(which it has in the US if it was published before 1923). All other copyright
| notices can safely be ignored.

Posts about this from Aug 2003 by Alex:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/006049.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/006019.html

Quote:

|See Bridgeman Art Library ltd. v. Corel Corp. SDNY (1999) 36 F. Supp.
|2d 191.
|
|You can read the case here:
|http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html
|Copyright of photographs of works that are in the public domain are not
|original enough to afford them protection under US copyright law, even when
|such works might be protected in other countries that afford greater
| protection than US law.

and

|The Bridgeman case was a British publisher; it is important to
|remember the national treatment principle in international copyright law.
|The regarguement in Bridgeman surrounded around the question of
|applying British law to infringement under US law.  It was put aside
|because the British case on which Bridgeman relied was no longer
|good law in the UK (it was an 1865 that said a photograph that was
|just a copy of something else was copyrightable because at that
|time it was not just "slavish copying" as it is now considered.

So I would say that their claim is bogus.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Sj wrote:
>
>> I would love to see a simple "pick your language" portal, a la
>> http://www.easyjet.com/ .
>
> Ugh, flags. No thanks.

Word.


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia in the news

body:
Jimbo wrote:

>I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who
>like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any
>names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it
>naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which
>Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.

For the record, I am not a Democratic activist. In 2000, I publicly
endorsed Ralph Nader's third-party campaign. (This time around, I
plan to vote for Kerry, but that doesn't make me a Democratic
activist any more than voting for Bush makes someone a Republican
activist.)

As for my use of the term "Republican dumbasses," it wasn't intended
to apply across the board to all Republicans. However, the person who
wrote the article for bushcountry.org (the article that mentioned
Wikipedia and thereby triggered this thread) deserves in my opinion
to be considered a dumbass. He's a dishonest dumbass because he
selectively presents information from the Wikipedia article to serve
his political agenda, interpolating his own editorial glosses in a
way that makes it sound as though his opinions have been taken from
Wikipedia. (If you simply read his dumbass article, for example, you
would come away with the false impression that Wikipedia says Kerry's
shooting of a Viet Cong soldier was either a war crime or a "sham.")
He's a racist dumbass because he uses the fact that Kerry had a
Jewish grandfather to insinuate that he isn't a true Catholic. He's a
provincial dumbass because he insinuates that there is something
sinister about having been born in France and because he thinks there
is something dangerous about being "influenced by Europeans." And
he's a narrow-minded dumbass because he insinuates that there is
something sinister about having a friend who is prominent in the
Green Party.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion.

--Sheldon Rampton


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: WFM : need fluent german :-)

body:
Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>.... I must remember we have to
>>contact the current owner. Would you perhaps do it Mav ? Tell us if you
>>do or do not please.
>
>
> I could, but they will likely want us to pay for the domain name.  I would
> prefer if somebody who speaks German fluently could conduct those negotiations.

Well, paying them for something they paid and could give us appears fair :-)

OKay, is there a german person willing to contact the owner of
http://www.wikimedia.com/ ?


body:
Well, neither image comes from their website; the images there are
significantly smaller. They were likely scanned from books, but neither
was listed with source information. Obviously the nearly 400-year-old
originals are going to be out of copyright, but the scans are from
reproductions, which may have a valid copyright even if it's
non-creative, depending on applicable law. <IANAL/>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anndenmk.JPG
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?search=ss&sText=anne+of+denmark&LinkID=mp00110&rNo=2&role=sit

This was uploaded by Isis, who has since left the project and asked that
most traces of her presence be erased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shakespeare.jpg
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?search=ss&sText=Shakespeare&LinkID=mp04051&rNo=0&role=sit

This was uploaded by Uri, who seems to be still around. I've left a note
on his talk page.

Both have uploaded other images from that era without attribution.

-- 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/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040804/185b6d4e/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Rick wrote:
>
>
>>Since I was involved in the redirecting and reverting, I was not
>>allowed to protect the page, much as I would have liked to.
>>
>>
>
>I detect an anomaly or contradiction in our policies.  An admin is not
>allowed to get into a fight with a user over the content of a page and
>then protect the page, but the admin *is* allowed to block that user
>after having fought with them?
>
>I offer no solution to this; I just pose it as a problem.
>
>
I didn't think we had such an anomaly.  It comes as quite a surprise to
me that a party to a dispute is supposedly allowed to ban his or her
opponent in the dispute.  Generally using sysop powers for personal
disputes is considered a misuse of power, for the exact same reasons
protecting a page is.  Similarly, arbitration committee members recuse
themselves from cases involving users with whom they've had disputes.
Certainly if there's enough of an involvement that protecting a page
would be inappropriate, banning the user would be highly inappropriate,
not to mention quite unseemly.

-Mark


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Food for thought (was: Wikipedia in the news)

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
> "Ask yourself is THIS the person you want as President of
> these United States [...] ?  Do we want this man who is so
> clearly influenced by Europeans as our Commander-in-Chief,
> especially at such a time as this? "
>
> priceless.

Let's not get sidetracked into a fascinating political discussion. We all have passionate feelings about the upcoming US presidential election.

For the next 90 days, could we please use the ENERGY from these discussions as stimulation to devote ourselves to write more accurate and more comprehensive articles about the candidates and issues?

Ed Poor
Unofficial Head Coach
Wikipedia Writers Guild


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Where are all the trolls?

body:
Actually I have said so. Folks who declare an intent to be disruptive will
reliably go on to be disruptive and damage will occur. There is no real need
to wait while they do their thing.

Fred

> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 23:09:17 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Where are all the trolls?
>
>> If so should trolls be banned without a hearing?
>
> I don't see that anyone has ever seriously suggested such a thing.  We
> are well aware of many complex issues involved here.


body:
I repeat: nothing in Fred's posts of the last week involving making
policy.

He was merely clarifying what already _is_ policy.

You seem more exercised over the fact that someone is telling you what
to do, than over the question of whether the thing you're being told to
do is good or not. I can understand this sort of irritation. There's one
person I know who is a backseat driver; they can't navigate without
making nagging suggestions like, "Get in the right line now" and "Speed
up so you can make this light". It bugs me so much that sometimes I feel
an overwhelming impulse to balk -- just so I don't feel so darn
controlled.

Sorry if this is happening now on the list, for you, Rick. I don't mean
to put that kind of pressure on you, and I doubt that Fred wants to,
either.

Ed Poor

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Rick [mailto:giantsrick13 at yahoo.com]
	Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:49 PM
	To: English Wikipedia
	Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking without a reason, considered
unreasonable

	I repeat.  Where in the arbitration committee charter are they
authorized to make policy?

	RickK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040804/135e390c/attachment.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Apology to Rick (was: Phoenix dispute (was: unfair
	blocking))

body:
Rick,

You are right. I should not have made fun of your name. I'm sorry.

Ed Poor

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Rick [mailto:giantsrick13 at yahoo.com]
	Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:52 PM
	To: English Wikipedia
	Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Phoenix dispute (was: unfair blocking)

	Whatever happened to the policy of not attacking people on the
mailing list?  You, as the list administrator, are allowed to be the
only one to do so?  You keep chiding me for doing it, you might try
living up to it.

	Also, this person is not a newbie.

	Third, I was TRYING to be polite.  He kept ignoring me.

	RickK

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

		Rick,

		How could you have compromised with the stubborn Marine?

		First, please re-read [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the
newbies]].

		Second, stop being a "giant prick"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040804/623274df/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking without a reason, considered unreasonable

body:
Sj wrote:

> "citing appropriate section" is rather onerous.   I hope that a
> sensible explanation, not limited to a one-word epithet, for
> example, "repeatedly moving user pages to article namespace",
> would suffice.

Yes, of course. Mentioning the section number is redundant.

> # ...you should say "I unblocked Snidely Whiplash because you
> forgot to cite the (being a dastardly villain) section of the
> blocking policy." = What do you mean? I mentioned "section
> 54"! # Dastardly villainy is section 86; 54 is treacherous
> knavery. = Who cares?? Snidely needed to be blocked, so why
> did you unblock him? # By all means reblock him then, but
> cite the appropriate policy number.  Imagine what would
> happen if everyone cited the wrong policy number.  That would
> be like having no policy at all, wouldn't it? =
> *&$^%*@&%($~#& # Well, I never!

LOL! That is precisely the sort of talk page discussion that results. I
hope now that Fred and Maveric have claried the policy, we won't have so
much bickering (even if some us enjoy it ;-) any more.

Blocking guidelines:

1. Say WHY you're blocking the user (note: state a reason that anyone
with common sense would easily recognize as being official "blocking
policy")

2. If someone ELSE overlooks guideline #1, don't reverse their block
without letting them know (e.g., a nice note on their talk page).

Ed Poor


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] We might have been mentioned in a book - can anyone
	confirm this?

body:
Yes.  Prof. Malone interviewed me for the book and was kind enough to send me an autographed
copy when it came out.

We're also discussed in Dan Gillmor's new book.

Mathias Schindler wrote:

> How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away
>
> By HARVEY SCHACHTER
> Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - Page C3
>
> The Future of Work
>
> By Thomas Malone,
>
> Harvard Business School Press,
>
> 225 pages, $44.95
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040804/CABOOKS04/TPBusiness/General
>
>
> "Prof. Malone suggests three patterns will occur in the future:
>
> Loosening the hierarchy: When Google Inc. starts a major project, it
> doesn't create a huge new organization with lots of management layers,
> it sets up a few autonomous engineering teams and sets them loose. The
> Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia allows anybody to contribute to it, with
> no centralized quality control. "Its success so far shows that amazingly
> loose hierarchies can create impressively large and complex results,"
> Prof. Malone says."
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Henry H. Tan-Tenn

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: LanguageCs.php again

body:
Timwi wrote:

> $wgMonthAbbreviationsXX has been obsoleted. The month abbreviations are
> now regular messages (thanks loads to Jens Frank for that). If the date
> formats of your language never use the abbreviated month names, you're
> set. Otherwise, use the MediaWiki namespace to change them.

Awesome.  But this isn't yet live, is it?  I looked in
Template:All_system_messages.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>"Sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts" by those
>addicted to power is an awfully tenuous assumption

Perhaps, but I think that the majority of people by far are not
"addicted to power" and that a higher level of discourse is not only
desirable, but possible.

It would please me greatly to see our articles on Bush and Kerry
linked and praised by activists on both sides, because that would tell
me that we are likely doing our job well.

The is the essence of NPOV -- a fair presentation that all sides can
accept as a productive summary of the topic.  I think most people
appreciate that, even though the usual tendency in political discourse
is to be highly partisan.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Website

body:
So much as I would like this site to be multilingual, I must say I
disagree with you in this case Sj. What you suggest is interested for
meta probably (but the flags), but The Foundation is american, and the
language used is english, so it is really okay that the portal page is
in english.

I essentially wish that other languages are available for most, if not
all pages. And I wish that every reader see this is available.

But for an american foundation, it makes sense to give priority to
english language.

Btw, I do not think that all pages will be necessarily translated :-) so
  our solution should include that when a page is not available, then
there  is a switch back to english (or a "we are sorry" message on top,
with the english version below).

ant

Sj a ?crit:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:44:13 -0700, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>Sj wrote:
>>
>>>I would love to see a simple "pick your language" portal, a la
>>>http://www.easyjet.com/ .
>>
>>Ugh, flags. No thanks.
>
>
> That's not what I meant... and there's a lot more not to like about it
> than flags (bright orange?? bordered buttons?).   However, it doen't
> include navbars in the portal, and manages to fit seven languages onto
> a screen, unlike our own portals (all of which, btw, are EN-centric;
> cf. http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page and
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_portal).
>
> --  :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
> +sj+


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Where are all the trolls?

body:
On 3 Aug 2004, at 6:56 pm, N.T. Riche wrote:

> Now I never once said they're was a "cabal"

[[User:Plato/red_faction]]

> Hail to the Red Faction! If we are trolls; then, so be it! To be a
> troll is not a shameful thing; we troll for peace, justice, liberty,
> and righteousness! Down with the cabal! Down with those who oppose the
> people! We will not stop until There Is No Cabal!!!!!! *crowd goes
> wild*

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] British copyright law != American copyright law

body:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
> If I were Jimbo, I'd be tempted to deliberately perpetuate an American
> stereotype and tell the National Portrait Gallery to kiss our ass and
> sue if they dare...but I'd perhaps want to get a real legal opinion
> first.

It is tempting, of course, but there are some puzzling additional issues here.

One of our goals is to keep our content freely redistributable as
widely as possible.  One unsettled question is the degree to which we
are willing to alter our content to meet legal conditions which we
regard as unjust.

Clearly, if we got an email from North Korea saying that any portrayal
of their government in a negative light is illegal, and that anyone
who redistributes our content there will get in legal trouble, we will
just ignore it.  Altering the political neutrality of our content is
pretty much out of the question.

But it is less clear to me how we should draw the line when the issue
is relatively minor, and relatively content-neutral.  (To explain what
I mean by content neutral: if we did not have these particular images,
this would not introduce a major political or other bias in our
articles in the same way that a demanded change of text would.)

When the issue is U.S. law, our hands are more tied than in other
cases, but fortunately, in a wide range of cases it turns out that
U.S. law is better than other jurisdictions, particularly given the
fair use doctrine, the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions, etc.  (But see
my p.s. below.)

But I want people to be able to print books from Wikipedia content and
then hand them out in the tube in London at rush hour if they like, so
totally ignoring British law is not a viable option.

*We* are at no legal risk for hosting images that are public domain in
the U.S. but not public domain elsewhere.  But people who want to
redistribute do not have that luxury.

--Jimbo

p.s.  I would be interested in gathering examples of content that (a)
we ought to have in the encyclopedia on editorial grounds but that (b)
would not be legal for us to host in the United States.

To my knowledge, virtually all examples of content that is not legal
in the U.S., but which *is* legal elsewhere, are not really relevant
to our encyclopedic mission.  The age of consent for models in
pornographic pictures in the U.S. is 18 in the U.S., but lower in some
other countries, but we don't publish pornographic pictures so this is
irrelevant to us.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where are all the trolls?

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Actually I have said so. Folks who declare an intent to be disruptive will
> reliably go on to be disruptive and damage will occur. There is no real need
> to wait while they do their thing.

O.k., well I had a different meaning in mind for "without a hearing".  A temporary
ban on someone who is being disruptive should be followed by some kind of formal
hearing.

If I understood Nick correctly, he was raising the absurd strawman
argument that there is no middle ground between letting trolls do as
they please versus just getting rid of due process altogether.  Maybe
I misunderstood him, but he is a self-described troll out to disrupt
the site, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's going to
accuse people of things that they never advocated.

I remember when he was telling people in IRC that I had decided to
leave the project, for example.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

body:
To parallel the situation in the outside world, the term "precedent" may
be applicable.  There are frequent complaints in the news that judges
and the courts are making policy on a wide variety of subjects.  One
needs to remember that legislators tend to view issues from a more
theoretical and general point of view, while the judiciary must deal
with the real cases in front of them.  It can take a long time for the
politicians and rule makers to catch up with reality.  Meanwhile, I see
nothing wrong in having judicial precedents applied temporarily until
the rule makers can find time to deal with the problem.

Ec

Fred Bauder wrote:

>It is not our job, just an effect of deciding cases in a reasonable way.
>There is no way we can decide a case that does not "change" policy in that
>it points to what can be expected when a matter comes up again. Phrasing the
>decision in terms of all administrators when we only have 3 before us is
>simply to make explicit what would otherwise be implicit. This way because
>all the hullabaloo which I invited by bringing the matter to the mailing
>list many have participated in discussing the matter who otherwise would not
>have and we have all thought about the scope of arbitration decisions.
>
>Fred
>
>From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
>
>
>I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's responsibility to
>create policy.  And that is what they're doing.  Even if I got everything I
>wanted, I would still object.  But let me also say that I disagree with this
>option, because it's given Guanaco the ability to suddenly go wild and
>retroactively unblock EVERY SINGLE PERSON from the past whose reason for
>blocking doesn't match these unapproved criteria.
>
>RickK
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Patent nonsense proposal

body:
I wonder if anyone can find the Debian discussion/official decision
(do they publish official decisions on things like this?) on this.

I am generally glad to defer tough questions to outside organizations
who we can respect, because it saves us from having to argue about it.

Of course, Debian says that the GNU FDL is non-free, so obviously we can't
defer to them on everything.  However, they are still a respectable voice.

--Jimbo

Delirium wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
> >Delirium wrote:
> >
> >>Debian's legal team is pretty conservative (read: paranoid) on these
> >>matters, and Debian currently includes mp3-playback software in the
> >>main distribution (package 'xmms', among others).  Mp3-encoding
> >>software is not part of Debian due to patent issues, but playback
> >>software is, so it seems their legal team has determined there aren't
> >>any problems with playback.
> >
> >
> >How recent is the distribution you're referring to? As evidenced by
> >http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/openletter.html, the MP3 decoding
> >patent has only been enforced for less than two years now.
>
> It's quite recent: about 10 minutes old.  I just updated my system, and
> the various MP3 playback things are all of course still in the official
> repository.  Debian pulls things pretty aggressively when legal troubles
> arise, and there's been a lot of discussion about MP3 but nothing's been
> pulled.  I didn't follow the discussion, but there was quite a bit two
> years ago when that Vorbis open letter came out, and I assume by the
> lack of action over such a lengthy period of time that the discussion's
> ended in favor of "no legal problems with MP3 playback".
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] new upload form

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> >The Bostonians nearly threw my tea in the harbor about the new upload
> >form. :-) When do we expect it to go live?
>
> When someone codes it.
>
> Patches are welcome.

I was told in Boston that it's in CVS already but has not been made live.  Was
that report in error?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block #1

body:
On 3 Aug 2004, at 9:34 pm, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>> If Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is,
>> an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as
>> interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at
>> his discretion, block Anthony for a period of 24 hours,
>> _not_subject_to_the_normal_warnings_and_protections_afforded_other_use
>> rs. (my emphasis)
>
>>  Christiaan
>
> I agreed to this completely voluntarily.  Please, save your comments
> for when you know what you're talking about, not when you're a recent
> observer who knows virtually none of the facts.

If you agreed to it voluntarily then why are you questioning it with
"Fennec could have done something other than block me (such as speak to
me first)"?

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
Delirium wrote:
> I didn't think we had such an anomaly.  It comes as quite a surprise to
> me that a party to a dispute is supposedly allowed to ban his or her
> opponent in the dispute.  Generally using sysop powers for personal
> disputes is considered a misuse of power, for the exact same reasons
> protecting a page is.

Well, I agree with you completely, and it surprised me as well.

The reason I said it is that in this discussion, people seemed to be
accepting it as valid.  Rick said he couldn't protect the page because
he had been editing it.  But Rick did ban the user, and the
discussions of that banning centereed mainly on whether there was a
better way, not on whether there was inappropriateness due to Rick's
prior editing.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia in the news

body:
--- Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
wrote: (If you simply read his dumbass article, for
example, you would come away with the false impression
that Wikipedia says Kerry's shooting of a Viet Cong
soldier was either a war crime or a "sham.")

I didnt get this at all. I got from it that he read
the intro, which had a couple twists and turns; and
these twists and turns inspired him to try to match
the WP article's sophistication, by matching it with a
"sophistication" of his own. False impressions are a
part of politics, be they Elephantine, Donkeyesque, or
Herbiagist.

But on the subject of NPOV terms, "dumbass" IMHO, is
entirely unnecessary and only invites vitriolic
counters from the opposing view. David
wrote:"Understate; let the facts speak for
themselves." I am no Anglophile, but the English are
are an older culture which has many times over
reinvented the art of the tactful insult; we can
perhaps attribute the longevity of their culltures to
the artfulness of civility. Therefore, some suggested
neutral terms in place of "dumbass":

* "of aspiring intelligence"
* "gracefully incongruent
* "charming"
* "extremely irrational in the least"
* "unreasonable"
* "neither sane nor sound"
* "detrimental"
* "detritus-ish"
* "unprobable and unlikely"
* "sophisticated"
* "distasteful for rationality"
* "without logic or basis"
* "God-awful"
* "ludicrous"
* "counterintelligent"
* "jive-ass"

S

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
Rick wrote:

> This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs
> SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
> http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
> RickK

So the power-elite are all hypocritical psychopaths, what's new?

Christiaan


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> +         $isRedirect = false ;
>> +         if ( trim ( substr ( $s , 0 , 10 ) ) == '#REDIRECT' )
>> $isRedirect = true ;
>
>
> This needs to use the keywords so that translations of the "REDIRECT"
> keyword work as well. Also, the REDIRECT thingie is not supposed to be
> case-sensitive.
>
My, this has all become complicated since the old days ;-)

I'll fix it tonight.

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
blankfaze wrote:

>Just for the record, in case anyone gives a crap, I fully support Rick
>here.  The user was *extensively* warned for his disruptive behaviour.
> Yeah, the idea of exhausting all options before blocking is nice, but
>sometimes people are just hell-bent and unwilling to even discuss it,
>and need to be blocked for a bit so they can learn that we don't
>operate like that, and that it's better to discuss things than to make
>disruptive edits.
>
The problem is with the presumption of guilt.

This leaves no room for the possibility that the newbie may have a
better solution.  It presumes that the way something has always been
done must be the right way, or that the title and placement of articles
is set in stone.  Some people also need to learn that vigilante justice
is also a way in which we do not operate.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] A problem in one of our articles with Jayjg

body:
On 4 Aug 2004, at 1:27 am, Robert wrote:

> Bizarrely, Jayjg has reversed the sequence of events

There's a lot of that throughout history unfortunately. It's an
effective ploy.

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] fair locking (was unfair blocking)

body:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Let them be stupid, and then just revert it
> all 24 hours later. This will save you a lot of
grief.

Nope; the article will be incorrect or ususable for
the x amount of page hits that it gets that day and
night.

>*They live for that, remember.

Yes, *they "hate our freedom."

S

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Yann Forget wrote:
> > I suppose we can fix the "scary looking" part, but I don't think we can
> > make it official.
>
> What does official mean? It doesn't make sense here.
> We could provide the plug-in for our users. What needs to be "official"?

I agree with Yann.  If we make a nice professional page with clear
instructions, a page that looks trustworthy (because, being Wikipedia,
of course it *is* trustworthy), then that'll be official enough for
most users.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] unfair blocking

body:
Rick wrote:

>Since I was involved in the redirecting and reverting, I was not allowed to protect the page, much as I would have liked to.
>
The odd thing here is that this implies that protecting a page is a more
serious action than blocking a user.

That seems backwards to me.  If a page is protected the user is still
free to edit other articles.

Ec