subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

body:
On 20 Jan 2006, at 23:42, Stan Shebs wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>
>>> Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article?
>>> Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled
>>> "The famous photograph".
>>
>>
>> Yes, but these few real uses are swamped by the rubbish ones.
>
> If it's a matter of principle, then there are no "real uses" that
> are acceptable, no exceptions possible.

I am perfectly happy with genuine fair use. However we have no
procedures to enforce it for images so we have perhaps a few hundred
fair uses of images and tens of thousands that are not. Its better
to delete them all and perhaps start again with a better procedure.
After all deleting them doesnt matter as they are easily available from
the copyright holders.

>>
>> We dont have to illustrate everything. You can take photos of the
>> stars at film openings, or prints on the walk of fame, there are
>> lots of free photos out there.
>
> "Prints on the walk of fame"? Exactly how does that clue people
> in about Darth Vader's menacing appearance, or how Yoda and
> Obi-wan are made-up to imitate the Campbellian archetype? If
> pictures are just decorative, then why not just eliminate all
> of them? (And yes, I know there are those on the far end of
> the sigma curve who think that's a great idea.)

The sixteen non free pictures in the Darth Vadar article dont
illustrate this very well either. Yes, some things are not
going to be well illustrated in a free encyclopaedia compared
to otehrs. Live with it.

>>
>> 99.99% of the images labelled as fair use are not. 99.99% of the
>> fair use text is. A few errors either way are not important to
>> the goal of making a free encyclopaedia. The lies and blatent
>> copyright violation in the images is.
>
> If it's a matter of principle, then no fair-use quotes are acceptable,
> ever. If it's a 99.99% issue, then you're saying you accept the
> basic principle that fair use is allowable in an otherwise-free
> encyclopedia, and we're just talking about doing a better job of
> enforcing policy. Which is it?

As discussed elsewhere, quotes are generally quite clear with respect
to legality, fair dealing. They are small parts of works. Images are
in themselves complete works.

>> I too can find a handful of fair use images. But I have yet to see
>> something in say [[Category:Promotional images]] that is actually
>> a promotional image (and there is really no justification for us
>> having real promos anyway as we dont accept permission images). Its
>> a blanket copyvio category. There are thousands of them, and more
>> added every day.
>
> The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily
> complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to
> get any complaints about the *images* in them. When WPians have sent
> email asking about images, the response is always "sure, use it all
> you like". So in the big project of tightening up fair use, I put
> basic sorting, policy clarification, and response time at the top,
> then clearing out photos copyrighted by photographers and news
> organizations, and only then am I going to worry about clarifying
> the status of celebrity headshots. Like every other big WP project,
> it doesn't work to declare failure because not everything can be
> fixed in one day.

Sorry are pictures of celebrities not "copyrighted by photographers and
news organizations"? Those were only an example where the entire
category is bogus as almost none are publicity photos in the sense
that the category claims.

Like "The use of a small number of low-resolution Pok?mon images to
illustrate articles about the subjects of the images in question on
the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United
States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, is believed to fall
under the fair use clause of United States copyright law"

For large values of small.

Justinc


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] FYI: www.wikipedia.de does not longer redirect to
	de.wikipedia.org on a temporary basis

body:
Matt R wrote:
> --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Guettarda wrote:
>>
>>>While I don't know a whole lot about the law, and even less about German
>>>law, I find this baffling.  If it were a minor I could see there being some
>>>logic, if it was a living person I could see some sort of "defamation"
>>
>>issue
>>
>>>(although that would be stretching it).  I don't understand what the issue
>>>is here ("we don't want our family's good name sullied by linking it with
>>>him"???), and I most certainly don't understand what the legal grounds are
>>>for requiring the name to be removed.
>>>
>>
>>Nor I. Information wants to be free...
>
>
> And, weirdly enough, apparently members of the Chaos Computer Club are "deeply
> involved in the case" *against* de Wikipedia. If anyone is going to argue
> "information wants to be free", it's going to be hackers, right?
>

If he was still alive I might be a little more understanding of their
case, but this is just silly... the Law really is *a* ass.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060121/e78dc72a/attachment.pgp


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 00:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> On 1/20/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>>
>> Working for Camden Council does not mean your company deserves an
>> entry on wikipedia.
>
> Now this is precisely the kind of statement that I find problematic on
> Wikipedia.  Camden is a major London borough--the NHS trust and the
> British multinational oil company BP, who are also customers who have
> used this company's product for major operations involving decisions
> on the commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, are also major
> concerns.  That this company produces a product that was entrusted by
> all three (and these three chosen at random from a dozen or so) counts
> for rather a lot.  It is not to be written off by  facile, thoughtless
> statements such as the above.

Ah you have expanded the detail, made more of a justification of
notability.
Once you add "hundereds of millions of pounds", add that these were only
a few of the customers.

Typical example of the article that as a stub doesnt appear notable but
when expanded seems obviously reasonable.

Maybe an {{inprogress}} tag would be usefulo for people making stubs
that
they want to do bit by bit.

Justinc


body:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 00:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> Sometimes de: is held up as a counterexample of how one doesn't
>> really need copyrighted images, but I'll hazard a guess that many
>> de: readers "sneak over" via interwiki to look at the forbidden
>> pictures on en:. (I notice de: sometimes "launders" images in
>> legally-dubious ways, such as taking a photograph of a Yoda doll,
>> or somebody wearing a Darth Vader Halloween costume.)
>
> I'm sure that a Darth Vader Halloween costume would be copyright
> protected.

Unlikely under US law I believe. No worse than photographing a
statue, say.

There are some on commons.

Justinc


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On 1/21/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> Ah you have expanded the detail, made more of a justification of
> notability.

Well in my earlier email I did also mention BP Upstream. They used the
product, as an experiment, to manage the bid processs for the Claire
Oilfield.  Of course this kind of thing gets expanded piecemeal, but
only because I seem to be encountering, at every single step of the
way, people who aren't prepared to do any research,and so must be
spoon-fed information to stop them veering off into a deletion
proposal justified by their ignorance and failure to investigate.


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/21/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> A complaint from the actual copyright holder of a picture in a
> person's bio?

No they are unlikely to notice. Big institutions for the most part.

>There seems to be plenty of third parties concerned
> about copyvios, but not actual photographers saying "hey, that's
> mine and not legitimate here!" Between purportedly having thousands
> of copyvios and being a top-20(?) website, you'd think we'd be
> getting a hundred image takedown notices each week. (Or maybe we
> are and it's not being publicized?)
>
> Stan
>

You can google for text. It is a bit harder to do that for images.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

body:
On 1/21/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> If that is impossible then why are so many voting to delete articles?
Huh?

> Besides, the proposal is to have them prove that a positive did not
> occur within a limited (but extendable) timeframe.

No it wasn't

>Sortof how the
> Americans failed to prove that there is weapons of mass destruction in
> Iraq, but managed to prove that they couldn't find any during
> 200304-200601.

Huh?

--
geni


body:
On 1/21/06, Jake Nelson <duskwave at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > No they are unlikely to notice. Big institutions for the most part.
>
> That's actually untrue- for the big institutions especially, they often
> have staff whose primary duty is finding examples of their images being
> used in infringing fashions. Getty Images is somewhat infamous for
> seemingly doing nothing but.
>
> -- Jake Nelson

Haven't had  Getty on my case yet (I assume they would go straigt to
the foundation) but I've recived complaints from the simthsonain and
the granger collection (I'm still waiting for AP to catch on when that
happens we are in trouble). Compalints from individuals are less
common.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On 1/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
> >ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
> >and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
> >instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
> >subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
> >effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
>
>
> Jumping into VFD discussions with a reference to this email?

Yes, excellent idea.  I've closed the AfD on Seth Ravin with a
citation to this thread and started a dialog on the talk page.

There does seem to be substantial agreement that a chap whom the WSJ
quoted extensively in an article that was primarily about his
company's grabbing of a lucrative contract for the Georgia State
Pension scheme from Oracle/Peoplesoft is not quite as negligible as
some people seemed to think.  But some people suggest that, really,
the company he was with (which he has since left) is the more notable
for that.

Well in that case we probably need to discuss things.  But it's
probably a good idea to remove the "ticking clock of bloodlust"
element from the discussion, hence my decision to close the AfD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Ravin_2

(though I expect that by now you may have to guddle through the
history and whatnot--this kind of bold action tends to attract equally
bold reactions, blocks, page protects, fanfares, tickertape parade,
etc).


from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious
	proposal to fix it

body:
On 1/21/06 1:10 AM, "Bryan Derksen" <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> The sorts of articles you're talking about above (hoaxes,
> thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements) are the sort that
> are _obviously bad_, and so under Mr. Nelson's preferences would still
> get deleted.

Except such things are not nearly always "obviously bad." It takes a
deliberative process, at least one that is semi-deliberative, such as AfD,
to make the determination in many cases - unless, that is, you would like to
give admins more speedy deletion leeway - which probably *would* result in
more good articles being deleted, because there simply wouldn't be nearly as
many eyes falling upon them - and Nelson's statement would be true.

As it is today, AfD is far from perfect but it results in these borderline
and questionable articles (is it a hoax? Is it fluff or really something
good) getting eyeballs. It doesn't always work, but I'm waiting for someone
to come up with a better way to do it and so far everyone's just said "it
doesn't work" in 11 different ways.

-FCYTravis


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 01:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> Yes, excellent idea.  I've closed the AfD on Seth Ravin with a
> citation to this thread and started a dialog on the talk page.

Well I have marked his picture as {{nosource}} for a start. Yet another
gratuitous copyrighted "promo" image.

Justinc


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal
	to fix it

body:
> Yes, because Lord knows those evil deletionists must be PUNISHED!
> Drilled into the ground, pounded into dust, made never to return.

Yes please. Although I know that Wikipedia has a little more moderate
stance so lifetime bannings is OK for me. The "deletionists" are doing
more harm than any other type of troll or spammer.

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
On 1/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
The discussion should not proceed to deletion until those
> > proposing deletion have diligently investigated all alternatives. *NO
> > ONUS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THOSE OPPOSING DELETION*.  It should be  for
> > those proposing that the article, category, article template or other
> > encyclopedia component, should be deleted, to show by due diligence
> > that the item cannot be reorganised in a fruitful manner.
>
> You appear to be asking them to prove a negative. That is generaly
> considered to be imposible (outside maths).

If that is impossible then why are so many voting to delete articles?
Besides, the proposal is to have them prove that a positive did not
occur within a limited (but extendable) timeframe. Sortof how the
Americans failed to prove that there is weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, but managed to prove that they couldn't find any during
200304-200601.

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
On 1/21/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
>
> I would vehemently disagree, especially when among those ten articles
> are hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements and
> other such content that has the effect of actively making Wikipedia a
> *worse* and *less authoritative* source of information.
>

Why should anyone consider Wikipedia to be authoritative?  It's
written by amateurs.  But I agree that we should get rid of tripe.
BUt we should discuss it properly.  Jimbo is right, there is far, far
too much emphasis on deletion.

Bad articles can be identified and improved, or if there's nothing
good about them they can be deleted.  But there should be more
emphasis on improvement.  There should be fewer AfD listings carried
to term.  We should encourage editors to seek innovative solutions,
and not fetishize the deletion process.  So often these days it seems
like a fairground ride--once the journey starts you have to keep your
hands inside the car, and mustn't tamper with the deletion proposal.
Why on earth not? If an article looks like an obvious redirect
candidate, then do it and thank you for saving us five days worth of
debate about deletion.  Any further discussion can continue on the
discussion page.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On 1/21/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 21 Jan 2006, at 01:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >
> > Yes, excellent idea.  I've closed the AfD on Seth Ravin with a
> > citation to this thread and started a dialog on the talk page.
>
> Well I have marked his picture as {{nosource}} for a start. Yet another
> gratuitous copyrighted "promo" image.
>

If it's a promo, I believe it may be fair use, but of course you're
right to mark it if it wasn't already marked with some licence.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious	proposal to
	fix it

body:
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
> On 1/20/06 11:27 PM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
>>
>>> I would vehemently disagree, especially when among those ten articles
>>> are hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements and
>>> other such content that has the effect of actively making Wikipedia a
>>> *worse* and *less authoritative* source of information.
>>>
>> Since absolutely nobody is arguing to keep the kind of article you
>> describe you are saved from you self-imposed obligation of vehemently
>> disagreeing.
>>
>
> And we are saved from falling to the [[false dilemma]] [[strawman]] raised
> by Mr. Nelson, that somehow you cannot rid Wikipedia of patently bad
> articles without deleting good ones.
>
No he didn't. I quote Mr. Nelson:

> If I were to set my spam filters to mark nearly everything as spam,
> I'd lose messages that matter. Maybe not a lot, maybe it works most of
> the time... but I'd lose some. Whereas if I set things so that
> messages are only marked as spam if they absolutely are, I can get 0
> real messages junked and only a few dozen bad ones slip through.

He's using an analogy here, but basically what he's saying about article
deletion is "if we only delete articles as 'bad' when they absolutely
are, we lose 0 good articles and only a few dozen bad articles slip
through." The sorts of articles you're talking about above (hoaxes,
thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements) are the sort that
are _obviously bad_, and so under Mr. Nelson's preferences would still
get deleted.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Foundation-l] More news from Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
Before Jovana sends (in Monday) our weekly digest about events related
to Wikimedia SCG chapter, I want to say/ask a few things:

- I think that lists Foundation, Wikipedia, Wikinews and email to the
Board are good places for such informations. If someone thinks that
some list(s)/email(s) should be excluded/included, please, tell us
that.

- In the last 7-10 days we had a lot of contacts with media, one
rostrum (I think that our dictionaries made correct translation :)
this is some kind of lecturer with debate after that) as well as our
regular meetings at Sunday with a lot of new people who are interested
in developing Wikipedia (in general, Serbian, but others, too) and
software for conversion (improvement of Zhengzhu's Chinese and Serbian
version and possibility to implement it not only for Serbian version
of MediaWiki, but, also for some others with similar needs).

- Thanks to Dragan Ambrozic, our vice president and professional in
event making, we have a lot contacts with media. I am surprised with
the number of journalists who contacted our PR Jovana and me. In
Friday we had 26 new registered users. I looked relations between
registered users and users with more then 10 edits and when 26 users
register accounts it means that we would have 3 Wikipedians more; if
we continue with such progression, we would have 100 new users per
month, very soon (to compare: the best month before was August 2005
with 26 new users; also, approximation for December 2005 was that we
would have 203 users at all!).

- People outside of the project like our idea very much, many of them
are willing to help in different ways. (Finally, we have the article
about Jimbo ;) ) And I can say that I am very happy because of recent
development: people who are not my close friends are calling me by
phone and they are saying "I heard about Wikipedia in the news!".

- It also should be noted that Wikimedia SCG is the first free
knowledge organization in Serbia and Montenegro. There are no such
organization in Serbia. And in this moment we are covering the hole
space related to free knowledge. (There are some organization which
promote open content, BUT they are doing that only because it is the
new way for getting money from sponsors.)


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] More news from Serbia and Montenegro chapter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

body:
On 1/21/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> The reason many people treat the current deletion process as having
> urgency is the same reason we get flak for stuff like the Seigenthaler
> article.

I don't think that is true, really I don't.  Look at AfD for 20 Jan.

I notice, by the way, that we got 208 listings today, up from a
measured average of 112 in the period July-to-September.  I thought
AfD would throttle back before it reached the 200-listings barrier,
but I was wrong.

So what do we have?

A guy who thinks that an article about an atoll should be merged with
another.  Why is this on Afd?

An alleged copyright infringement in English where the alleged source
contains only Chinese as far as I can tell. I'm closing this AfD and
querying the decision to mark as a copyright infringement

This isn't a promising start.  No, AfD is filling up with stuff that
would be better dealt with by thought and discussion.  Not shouty
"delete this please because I can't make head or tail of it!" notices.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

body:
On 1/19/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think
> we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However,
> that's not licence to wholly ignore it,

Welll, I'd say that it's a very good reason to use your noggin and
reverse its most egregiously borked decisions. Something that you may
have noticed some of us are quite adept at doing.  Looks like Jimmy
Wales took a leaf from our book! :)


from_name: JEFFREY KAUFFMAN

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quick follow up to my Wyss post

body:
First of all, I want to thank Mark for IMing me and telling me not to stress.

I am sure this all seems patently ridiculous to many of you, but, as I stated in an email to some of the Administrators, I have spent 20 years of my life attempting to rectify print and other media inaccuracies about Frances Farmer, and my only vested interest in the Wikipedia article is one of accuracy.

I want to say that evidently Wyss has gone back and reworded some of the information she cribbed from my web article "Shedding Light on Shadowland," I assume in an attempt to make it seem less plagiarized.  That is fine and I will let that issue rest for the time being.

There is one funny (for me, anyway) punchline.  Wyss reverted one of my corrections, citing an American Atheist article as her source.  Ready for it?:  the American Atheist article (which does contain some minor errors of fact, including the one Wyss is repeating) uses my research extensively, quotes me throughout and indeed features a whole additional article largely devoted to me and my research.  The American Atheist article was written by my friend Conrad Goeringer.

So here is Wyss, insisting I am not Jeff Kauffman and not the author of "Shedding Light on Shadowland," reverting my absolutely verifiable corrections (I will happily provide source material to anyone who asks) to incorrect version while citing an article that uses my research to begin with!

OK, I think I've vented enough now.

It would be nice if someone would restore my editing privliges and ask Wyss to stop making her completely unfounded allegations that I somehow "cloned" her User ID.  I'm sure it is easily provable by ISP numbers or whatever is used that I did not clone her User ID, nor make any harrassing commments to her.  All I ever did was ask her to fact-check her information before posting it.


body:
On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> > Tony has been arguing that the deletion process is borked. That, I think
> > we can all agree on, even if we disagree on how it's broken. However,
> > that's not licence to wholly ignore it,
>
>
> Welll, I'd say that it's a very good reason to use your noggin and
> reverse its most egregiously borked decisions. Something that you may
> have noticed some of us are quite adept at doing.  Looks like Jimmy
> Wales took a leaf from our book! :)

Not really. Your recent record only looks good compared to your out of
process deletion record.

--
geni


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject:
[WikiEN-l] FYI: www.wikipedia.de does not longer redirect
	tode.wikipedia.org on a temporary basis

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt R

> > Nor I. Information wants to be free...
>
> And, weirdly enough, apparently members of the Chaos Computer
> Club are "deeply involved in the case" *against* de
> Wikipedia. If anyone is going to argue "information wants to
> be free", it's going to be hackers, right?

So long as it's not their information...

This IWTBF thing is little more than a slogan. To a hacker/cracker,
Wikipedia is merely another target.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: John Barry

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] New Email address,
	as an alternative to "jackbarry99@Gmail.com".

body:
Happy NewYear,

I'm updating my address book. Please take a moment to update
your latest contact information. Your information is stored in
my personal address book and will not be shared with anyone
else. Plaxo is free, if you'd like to give it a try......ALSO:
Note my new, second Email address......
also: Let me know if you want an occasional newsletter about
Bay Area real estate trends...

Click the following link to correct or confirm your information: https://www.plaxo.com/edit_contact_info?r=8590299426-115709391--477438479

Name:
Job Title:
Company:
Work E-mail: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Work Phone:
Work Fax:
Work Address Line 1:
Work Address Line 2:
Work City, State, Zip:
Mobile Phone:

Home E-mail:
Home Phone:
Home Fax:
Home Address Line 1:
Home Address Line 2:
Home City, State, Zip:
Birthday:

P.S. I've included my Plaxo card below so that you have my current information.  I've also attached a copy as a vCard.

 +-----------------
 | John Barry
 | jackbarry99 at Gmail.com
 | Realtor
 |
 | JackBarryRealtors.com
 | 1627 Tenth Ave
 | San Francisco,Ca.94122
 | work: 415 564 0225
 | mobile: 415 235 7897
 | web: www.jackbarryrealtors.com
 +-------------------------------------

____________________________________________________________
This message was sent to you by jackbarry99 at gmail.com
via Plaxo.

To opt out: https://www.plaxo.com/opt_out?r=8590299426-115709391--477438479

Plaxo's Privacy Policy: http://www.plaxo.com/support/privacy


from_name: Bentong Isles

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Change namespace names for Cebuano WP

body:
Hi all.

This is in reference to the Cebuano Wikipedia
(ceb.wp).

I would like to ask first of all, if it is possible to
change the namespace name "Wikipedia" into
"Wikipedya", as I noticed that some sites are doing
this. We have also been doing this "unofficially"; our
newcomer page, for example, is
[[:ceb:Wikipedya:Maayong pag-abot, higala!]] and not
[[:ceb:Wikipedia:Maayong pag-abot, higala!]]. But the
namespaces as known to the mediawiki software does not
reflect the namespaces as used by the community.

And if this possible, how can we contact a developer
to do this for us?

Thanks all.

--Bentong Isles
[[:ceb:User:Bentong Isles]]

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
On 1/21/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
> Again, I point out that there are 15,000+ articles piled up on the Cleanup
> queue. I am *not* just going to tag an article "Cleanup" and let it sit
> there for six months. That is *not* a solution.

I'm not going near cleanup while some people are trying their very
best to use "process" as an excuse to get rid of quite a lot of
perfectly good articles.

One of my first experiences on Wikipedia was the tail end of an AfD
where the article had originally said:

"Nicholas Humphrey was born in England in 1943. He received his Ph. D.
in Psychology from Cambridge University in 1968. Dr. Humphrey
currently holds a School Professorship at the London School of
Economics as well as a half-time Professorship at the New School for
Social Research in New York."

What shocked me was that the nominator obviously hadn't even bothered
to do any research at all.  He did not recognise that the subject of
the article was Nicholas Humphrey, the prominent evolutionary
psychologist.  To delete this would be like saying "oh Carl Sagan,
some guy who used a telescope.  Delete."


from_name: STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

subject: [WikiEN-l] I was blocked for an unexisting policy

body:
I posted this 4 days ago, which is why I sent three
different emails. The auto-reply said that I should
give it 12-hours, which I first did, and then I tried
again. I still don't agree with the ruling. In my
eyes, I didn't break any existing Wiki rules, and I
don't like when admins start to interpret the rules
and enforce them; and I also don't think that I should
have to justify something that did not break the
rules. But whatever. I know you guys will never
understand.

--- Sam Spade
<samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a pretty clear case on
> non-encyclopedic disruption.
> The disruption policy is intentionally vague. There
> is no possible way
> they could have thought up all the ways a person
> might disrupt our
> project. Heck, if they listed all the different ways
> people have
> historically disrupted our project, it would be so
> long and useless a
> list as to be disruptive itself.
>
> My first thought was for you to ad the image in
> question to a page
> where it might be apropriate, but that is probably
> not a good idea at
> this point either. Having been involved in a few
> scrapes regarding
> images others prefered not to see, my advice is to
> find something
> elese to do.
>
> You seem interested in Romanian history. Would you
> perhaps be able to help out w
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneliu_Zelea_Codreanu#Legacy
>
> ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sam Spade
>
> On 1/21/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
> <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know being blocked is annoying and may well make
> you angry, but please
> > don't spam the mailing list with 3 the same
> messages. One will do just as
> > well.
> >
> > Could you explain why you posted the image on your
> userpage to begin with. I
> > don't see how the image of another user is
> relevant to a page about you and
> > your work.
> >
> > Mgm
> >
> >
> > On 1/17/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
> <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been blocked for displaying a photo on my
> > > userpage. The photo in question was of another
> user
> > > and was in "good standard". I was given an
> ultimatum
> > > to remove the photo or be blocked.
> > >
> > > I argued that I had the right to display the
> photo on
> > > my userpage and that there was nothing in the
> policy
> > > that disallowed me from doing so. I also argued
> that
> > > the user in question agreed to release the photo
> under
> > > GDU at the time when they uploaded the photo.
> > >
> > > FeloniousMonk blocked me for 24-hours for
> harassment
> > > and disruption. I don't see how I did any of
> that by
> > > having the photo displayed on my userpage.
> Nowhere in
> > > your policy does it say that we can disrupt by
> having
> > > a photo in "good standing" displayed on our
> userpage.
> > > I would like to know whether I am in the wrong,
> and if
> > > so, why; and I would like to be unblocked. Thank
> you.
> > >
> > > Anittas.
> > >
> > > Related link:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Warning
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

geni stated for the record:
> On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The only time when process should take priority over common sense is
>>when dealing with the laws of physics.
>
> Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you
> are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us
> to get along.
>
> --
> geni

If this discussion is an example of how well "process" allows us to get
along, "process" isn't doing a very good job.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0kx7MAt1wyd9d+URAuHbAJ9oIC9/HRjSerrV/Cj49NHmO6hU4ACdEvia
yeL72VPG3xo37uwwulBHqKQ=
=RBHM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation in 3RR to block

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Cleared_as_filed
(active until archived)

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 1/18/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
>The user that reported the 3RR has in fact made identical reverts with
>no attempt to update the text. Cleary, the report was made to frustrate the
>situation.
>
>Could you back that up with some links/diffs?
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


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

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>geni stated for the record:
>>
>>>On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only time when process should take priority over common sense is
>>>>when dealing with the laws of physics.
>>>
>>>Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you
>>>are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us
>>>to get along.
>>>
>>>--
>>>geni
>>
>>If this discussion is an example of how well "process" allows us to get
>>along, "process" isn't doing a very good job.
>
> Really? Would you rather all issues were solved by admins sluging it
> out through wheel wars?
>
>
> --
> geni

I'm sorry; the connection you are trying to make between what I wrote
and your sky-falling false dichotomy is not a working connection.
Please check your logic and try again, or ask your operator for assistance.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0lY2MAt1wyd9d+URArLgAJ9r5Y4frrsj3Z39wbL77w0Qyz6n0wCdEfbk
ihO0F2d2CwWlrMnGIj8xqBA=
=YO5s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry; the connection you are trying to make between what I wrote
>>and your sky-falling false dichotomy is not a working connection.
>>Please check your logic and try again, or ask your operator for assistance.
>>
>
>
> Yuo stated that process wasn't letting us get on very well. The
> alturnative is worse.
>
>
> --
> geni

The alternative to not getting along well is getting along better.  Why
do you think that is worse?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0lukMAt1wyd9d+URAseUAJ4kQlCQ+iYNSlbYoh8+55b1fJoslQCfb47u
+LWwJlzq16EHo4bDKzhpf8Y=
=5H5h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 1/21/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I question whether AfD can be considered "deliberative" at this point.
>  I think a deliberative process is obliged to listen to arguments
> presented and make a decision based on them, and the evidence that AfD
> does so is somewhat lacking.

It's at least a little bit more deliberative than speedy deletion, I feel.

-Matt


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 1/21/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
> Except such things are not nearly always "obviously bad." It takes a
> deliberative process, at least one that is semi-deliberative, such as AfD,

I question whether AfD can be considered "deliberative" at this point.
 I think a deliberative process is obliged to listen to arguments
presented and make a decision based on them, and the evidence that AfD
does so is somewhat lacking.

Kelly


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
John Lee wrote:

> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>> People who quite honestly couldn't give a Royal Flying Rat's Arse if
>> what they are doing is harmful, so long as they "purge crap" from the
>> encyclopedia.
>
> What's wrong with purging crap from the encyclopaedia? Nothing wrong
> there. And as for "don't care if what they are doing is harmful", I
> challenge you to name me anyone who you think seriously holds that
> philosophy.

The problem isn't with purging crap from the encyclopedia. It's that
some people have very poor judgment in terms of what constitutes
"purging crap", or they're in such a tearing hurry to purge the crap
that they fail to exercise their normally good judgment about whether
something is actually crap.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching

body:
The precedent is clear: a "priveleged expert" (a) can libel his critics as
being complicit in murder, i.e., a lynching
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=34950836&oldid=34254772
+

whereas (b) citing verifiable sources is construed by the good ol' boy
network as "personal attacks".

Fred said:

"I more or less agree with you on the Venona material"

Fred:

Do you have any sources to support Cberlet original research POV?  Please
give him a hand if so.

Nobs01

On 1/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's pretty clear that he doesn't mean a lynching in a literal sense, so
> it
> doesn't count as libel under any interpretation.
>
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fair use images on user pages and enforcement

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We are already not allowed to have photos of the Louvre and other
>>>buildings in France. This is the price we pay for Free content; if you
>>>want to excercise Free Speech, use Tor or Freenet...
>>>
>>>
>>This seems like an extreme point of view.
>>
>>
>That we aren't allowed photos of the Louvre? IIRC they were deleted from
>Commons some months ago, because fr: uses Commons, meaning that
>potentially copyvio pictures were viewable on a site targeted to the
>juridstiction where the copyvio was taking place.
>
I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were
pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license their
pictures as they see fit.  In case you don't know it the Louvre is more
than 70 years old.  Quit inventing ridiculous laws.

>That if you want to exercise Free Speech, don't use Wikipedia? You
>should read [[WP:NOT]] some time.
>
What the hell has this got to do with it?  Your Free Speech crusade is
not relevant.

Ec


body:
Actually, I did try to explain, but the admin told me
not to be cute. I said that I liked the photo and that
it fitted in my page. The light-yellow colours gave me
peace of mind.

--- Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The absence of a rule directly forbidding your
> precise action does not
> necessarily give you free reign to do it.  In this
> case, you are unwilling
> to explain why you have a picture of another user on
> your user page and
> unwilling to explain how this is not harrassment of
> a user you are in a
> dispute with, so you really haven't given the
> blocking admin another way of
> dealing with this situation.
>
>
> On 1/21/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
> <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I posted this 4 days ago, which is why I sent
> three
> > different emails. The auto-reply said that I
> should
> > give it 12-hours, which I first did, and then I
> tried
> > again. I still don't agree with the ruling. In my
> > eyes, I didn't break any existing Wiki rules, and
> I
> > don't like when admins start to interpret the
> rules
> > and enforce them; and I also don't think that I
> should
> > have to justify something that did not break the
> > rules. But whatever. I know you guys will never
> > understand.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Notability meta-guidelines

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ones with atomic number >103. Whether they exist or not is a grey area.
>>>They can generally be "made to exist" for short periods of time. I'm not
>>>sure whether it's fair to include an element just because it *has* been
>>>made to exist (for a millionth of a second) and exclude another because
>>>they couldn't decide whether made it exist or not. Anyway, scientific
>>>theories have a place in Wikipedia, right or wrong - provided they have
>>>been published in reputable journals.
>>>
>>>Question: Are there any "reputable" sources that publish articles about
>>>Pok?mon characters?
>>>
>>>
>>When we move from "notable" to "reputable" we are just replacing one
>>subjective criterion with another.  Not only that, we are making a
>>decision for the reader that he should be making himself.  We can cite a
>>dubious publication; we can even have an article about it since it at
>>least does exist.  If the publication devotes itself entirely to Pok?mon
>>fancruft or KKK rants it's fair for us to say that in our article about
>>it.  It's then up to the reader to determine how reputable it really is.
>>
>>
>Alright, so in boderline cases, simply keep anything with verifiable
>references and deleted anything without as violating [[WP:NOR]].
>[[WP:NOT]] a replacement for common sense, which a lot of our editors
>seem to be severely lacking in.
>
That would be a good place to start from.

Ec


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>>On 1/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not 100% sure of the logic either, but articles get turfed for being
>>>
>>>"vanity" all the time. Even, as we have seen recently, when they are
>>>written by people unknown to the subject.
>>>
>>>Actually now that I think about it, maybe a subject *does* get false
>>>notability from being on Wikipedia. If I searched for Bob's garage band
>>>and found nothing but a crufty geocities website, that would be one
>>>thing. If I found a fully-fledged Wikipedia article, I would think
>>>something completely different about them. I would think they were more
>>>notable than they really were.
>>>
>>>
>>What if the Wikipedia article said that they weren't notable?
>>
>>What exactly does notable mean, anyway?
>>
>>
>Has some feature that distinguishes the subject from all members of the
>same set in some non-trivial manner.
>
That sounds good.  Describing and providing a verifiable source for this
distinction should be sufficient evidence of the subject's notability.

Ec


body:
On 1/21/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, I did try to explain, but the admin told me
> not to be cute. I said that I liked the photo and that
> it fitted in my page. The light-yellow colours gave me
> peace of mind.

Anittas: This is exactly what got you a ban and will get you more if
you continue.

You are displaying an image of User:Node_ue on your page because you
know that it pisses him off.  As you were told on Wikipedia, don't be
disingenuous.  Don't make any more bullshit claims about why you're
putting it there and keeping it there.  Wikipedia is not a game of
rules.  Rules-lawyering about 'well, you can't PROVE I mean it to be
disrupting or uncivil ...' doesn't fly, because we all know you're
full of it.

Even if it were possible that you weren't doing it originally to piss
him off - which would be a lie - you have now been informed,
repeatedly, that keeping the image there pisses him off. No excuses.

-Matt


subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious	proposal
	to	fix it

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/06 11:27 PM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would vehemently disagree, especially when among those ten articles
>>>> are hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements and
>>>> other such content that has the effect of actively making Wikipedia a
>>>> *worse* and *less authoritative* source of information.
>>>
>>> Since absolutely nobody is arguing to keep the kind of article you
>>> describe you are saved from you self-imposed obligation of vehemently
>>> disagreeing.
>>
>> And we are saved from falling to the [[false dilemma]] [[strawman]]
>> raised
>> by Mr. Nelson, that somehow you cannot rid Wikipedia of patently bad
>> articles without deleting good ones.
>
> No he didn't. I quote Mr. Nelson:
>
>> If I were to set my spam filters to mark nearly everything as spam,
>> I'd lose messages that matter. Maybe not a lot, maybe it works most
>> of the time... but I'd lose some. Whereas if I set things so that
>> messages are only marked as spam if they absolutely are, I can get 0
>> real messages junked and only a few dozen bad ones slip through.
>
> He's using an analogy here, but basically what he's saying about
> article deletion is "if we only delete articles as 'bad' when they
> absolutely are, we lose 0 good articles and only a few dozen bad
> articles slip through." The sorts of articles you're talking about
> above (hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements)
> are the sort that are _obviously bad_, and so under Mr. Nelson's
> preferences would still get deleted.

I think it's really Travis that was raising the strawman argument with
his comment.  The hoaxes and other deletion criteria that he raises
receive very little dispute.  Notability, which he does not mention, is
probably more disputed than all the other criteria put together.  Using
arguments that are easily accepted for the listed criteria, and making
them apply analogically to another criterion is a logical fallacy.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation in 3RR to block

body:
Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley , deleted
my entry that I linked to below. This makes it very hard to make my
case. The 3RR page states at the top it is about discussion of 3RR
violations. Not that I intended it this way, but I should be able to
report a admin who has violated the 3RR but the admin's instance to
inact the block unequally or otherwise not by policy. Connolley tells me
to discuss it on the talk page of the article, but I highly doubt that
this issue belongs on the talk page of the article. I doubt it belongs
this on the talk page of AN/3RR since that is about operation of the
board. I've posted the entry below and cleaned it up a bit for this mail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=36094101&oldid=36093594

=== [[User:Cleared as filed]] ===
[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR}}. {{3RRV|Cleared as
filed}}:

Reported by: — -Dzonatas 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*This is to hopefully make it more clear to what the dispute is about.
The topic states this is the place to report violations of the 3RR. I
believe that covers those who make reverts and those the implement the
block on those that revert. There are ways for wikipedians to violate
the 3RR and for admins to further violate the 3RR, and there a ways for
the admin to violate the 3RR without the violation on the reported
wikipedian.
* Reference (above, in case this gets archived):
** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Dzonatas]]
** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:R.Koot]]
* It is obvious that under the entries for Dzonatas that the reverts are
not [[Wikipedia:revert|identical reverts]]. However, [[User:Cleared as
filed]] still blocked Dzonatas.
* It is obvious that under R.Koot that admins are technical to point out
identical reverts and when reverts don't exactly fit within 24 hours as
a means not to block. However, why was this technicality of identical
reverts not addressed under entries of Dzonatas? I've seen instances
where admin will not block because the reverts are not identical. I have
seen admins block when the four reverts don't exactly fit within 24
hours (as policy notes). However, I have not seen admins block
non-identical reverts except until I have been block.
* I have called this violation on [[User:Cleared as filed]] on this
matter. It is not meant to be punitive. However, it is disruptive when
admins do not equally treat every wikipedians under the same
justification to block. We can not expect equal outcome, but we can
expect equal opportunity. The block limits the opportunities to edit
wikipedia overall. The solution would have been either to block both
Dzonatas and R.Koot, page protection, or realize that [[User:Cleared as
filed]] could have taken few a minutes to also realize that R.Koot made
identical reverts at the same time of R.Koot's report on Dzonatas and
notice that equal blocks is the correct implementation.
* I am done with this. I have wrote this in attempt to hopefully address
a concern that should be noted. -Dzonatas 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

-----

Connolley claims that I also made 4 reverts. I disagree, and discuss
that issue previously with Cleared as Filed. At the same time I
discussed it with Cleared as Filed, I noted that that R.Koot made 4
reverts and passed along links (the same ones under the entry on the
AN/3RR for R.Koot). Cleared as Filed stated a lack of time to review the
matter but unblocked me, but also stated the if indeed the R.Koot did
make 4 reverts then R.Koot should be blocked. Connolley states that
R.Koot made 4 reverts previously, and wasn't going to implement a block
anyways.

Forgive me if this sounds like a wine or a bicker, but it really isn't
intended that way. I know admins deal with the daily grim, and I really
hope that this is seen in a different light. It is hard since blocks on
3RR become so mainstream. When a users wants to responder like in my
case, they have already have been processed and flush way down the river.

I've reviewed the block logs and found that Cleared as filed's block on
me is a pretty unique action for the admin. One thing to note is that
you won't find a message that where either Cleared as filed or R.Koot
has warned me about any revert before notice to AN/3RR.

Have I made my concern clear? Do we just let this go as business as
usual and not care about any injustice done to me or anyone else in this
like manner? Wikipedia has grown fast, and I'm sure that 3RR method has
been very effective. However, doesn't this instance present a perfect
case that perhaps traditional 3RR implementation may need a watchful
eye? Aren't regular wikipedians allowed to report admins that have not
correctly followed policy on 3RR on the noticeboard itself? I know we
have this mail-list, but such topic could easily be organized under the
same 3RR board.

Thank you for your time,
Jonathan

Jonathan wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Cleared_as_filed
> (active until archived)
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
>> The user that reported the 3RR has in fact made identical reverts with
>> no attempt to update the text. Cleary, the report was made to
>> frustrate the
>> situation.
>>
>> Could you back that up with some links/diffs?
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion reform ideas - experimental cleanup tag

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>Before I list an article at AfD I usually leave a message on its talk page
>asking for verification of the information. If nothing turns up I proceed
>with an AfD nomination.
>
>I've now made a template to accomplish the same goal, it reads like this:
>
>- - - - -
>'''Article name''' needs your help to stay in Wikipedia.
>
>In order for an article to remain in the encyclopedia it must be possible
>to verify all the information in it using reputable publications. You can
>help by providing citations about the topic in sources like published
>books, newspapers or reputable websites. If no-one is able to provide
>verification soon the article may be nominated for deletion.
>
>If you need help to verify the information try contacting the helpdesk.
>- - - - -
>
>The template tries to be friendly, helpful and urgent at the same time. If
>an article has been tagged like that for a while without anything
>happening and I can't find decent verification myself then I'll proceed
>with an AfD nomination.
>
>The thing is here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Needs-verification
>
>Rename/reword/TfD/use/criticize or mutilate at will.
>
It looks like a positive step.  Can the same (or a similar) notice be
added to the contributor's talk page?  New users may not yet be familiar
with the article talk page, but they may respond to a "You have new
messages" notice.

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I know being blocked is annoying and may well make you angry, but please
don't spam the mailing list with 3 the same messages. One will do just as
well.

Could you explain why you posted the image on your userpage to begin with. I
don't see how the image of another user is relevant to a page about you and
your work.

Mgm

On 1/17/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have been blocked for displaying a photo on my
> userpage. The photo in question was of another user
> and was in "good standard". I was given an ultimatum
> to remove the photo or be blocked.
>
> I argued that I had the right to display the photo on
> my userpage and that there was nothing in the policy
> that disallowed me from doing so. I also argued that
> the user in question agreed to release the photo under
> GDU at the time when they uploaded the photo.
>
> FeloniousMonk blocked me for 24-hours for harassment
> and disruption. I don't see how I did any of that by
> having the photo displayed on my userpage. Nowhere in
> your policy does it say that we can disrupt by having
> a photo in "good standing" displayed on our userpage.
> I would like to know whether I am in the wrong, and if
> so, why; and I would like to be unblocked. Thank you.
>
> Anittas.
>
> Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Warning
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR, a proposed update

body:
> If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the
>   users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions
> the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the
> specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button,
> the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other
> pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific
> page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.

Most admins will not block unless the person has been warned of the 3rr.  I
have often seen people continue to revert after being warned.  Allowing
someone in that situation to simply press a button and go on makes the prior
warning toothless - they have just been given that opportunity and have
chosen to disregard it.

On the other hand, many admins who block are willing to unblock if the
person who was blocked emails them, apologises, and promises to stay away
from the article.  With 600+ admins, it's actually TOO easy to shop around
for someone to unblock you.

As it stands right now, the system allows people to do what you are asking
for.  However, instead of having to convince a button that it was pressed,
you have to convince a real person that you mean well and did not intend to
break the 3rr.  I find the current system much better.

Ian (Guettarda)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Could an Administrator please look into this conflict?

body:
THIS IS A REPEAT MESSAGE, I AM HOPING THE NEW HEADER WILL GET IT SOME ATTENTION.  THANK YOU.

I posted earlier about this brouhaha, but evidently because I had not yet subscribed, the message is in limbo.  So there may be another one coming on this situation.  I would truly appreciate some feedback from those who are more acclimatized to Wikipedia.  The summary:

I was contacted over a year ago by an author who was working on the Frances Farmer article for Wikipedia.  He had linked my web article "Shedding Light on Shadowland" and recognized I had a certain expertise in this subject.  He invited me to come to Wikipedia and begin revising/correcting the Farmer article (as well as others that linked to it), which I happily did.  Prior to this, I had never even heard of Wikipedia (sad, but true).  Over the past year, I have pretty much completely rewritten the article, adding a lot of salient information and correcting a lot of misinformation in the article, trying at all times to keep it completely factual, non-sensationalized and as free of POV as possible.  I should state here for the record that my Farmer research has received worldwide attention and served as source material for several books and newspaper articles, as well as documentaries on both NPR and A&E Biography.  So I feel, hopefully rightfully, that I know whereof I speak on this subject.

About two days ago a user named Wyss started making wholesale edits to the article, which in and of itself doesn't bother me at all--if you look at the edit history I have let many a revision pass if it contains factual information.  However, several of Wyss' edits contained outright factual errors.  I don't want to pester you with details, but if you go into the edit history, you will see my first fledgling attempts to correct them.

I then posted to her Talk page (evidently incorrectly, as I did it at the top and didn't sign it, which completely set her off), asking her please to fact-check her material before posting it.  She then posted vaguely threatening messages to my Talk page, including such sinister sounding lines as "I don't know what you're up to" and "I'm watching this page."  She then reverted her edits back to the incorrect version.  She also denied she had made any errors.  I ultimately provided her with a URL of her edit history, describing the errors she had made, and hopefully showing her that she had indeed made them.

When I posted this to her Talk page, she, actually quite laughably, posted to my Talk page calling me a "bonehead."  She then, rather incredibly, spent the next several hours denying she had called me a "bonehead."  (I know, it's ridiculous, but it gets better or worse, depending on how you look at it).

So anyway she has continued to edit, adding completely wrong information repeatedly.  She also began wholesale copying of my copyrighted article "Shedding Light on Shadowland," which I, again, posted to her talk page about, warning her that she was pushing the limits of Fair Use and that she was facing possible legal action if she continued quoting my research without citing it.

This is where is gets incredible to me:  she then had me banned indefinitely for "making threats and harrassing."  Interestingly, the person who banned me then immediately went "inactive."

Now Wyss on both the Farmer talk page and her talk page is accusing me of having "cloned" her, whatever that means, and of harrassing her anonymously.  I have made NO anonymous edits to any article prior to my editing privileges being revoked, and I certainly do not have the Wiki-knowledge to clone someone's user page.  As Wyss herself took me to task for, I couldn't even post to her Talk page properly, and I have to struggle to make edits to Wikipedia.

I state for the record I am a near-50 year old husband and father who, quite by accident, ended up spending 20 years researching Frances Farmer and who gained a certain renown as a Farmer expert.  My web article has been read by tens of thousands of people and commented on by such notable people as Leonard Maltin and Washington Post reporter Jack El-Hai.

So here I am, "banned" from Wikipedia, still struggling to correct Wyss' incorrect edits (though I am "banned" I can still edit--maybe someone can explain that to me), while I also am suffering from what I personally consider to be her near-slanderous comments that I have "cloned" her and/or harrassed her.  She is also now claiming that I am not Jeffrey Kauffman and I did not write "Shedding Light on Shadowland."  Hopefully my email address is some proof for you, but I also refer you to my website:

http://jeffreykauffman.net/<about:blank>

I even posted to the Farmer Talk page what I believe has happened:  I am rather well-known in the Farmer fan community and I know for a fact there are several others who have been following Wyss' incorrect edits for the past few days.  These are all younger folk, the Cobain contingent as I call them, and they certainly have more Wiki-knowledge than I.  It is quite possible that Wyss is being targeted (wrongly, as I myself posted on the Talk page) by one of these people, but I again state it is *not* me who is doing this.

In the meantime, Wyss has just in the past 10 minutes added several more inaccuracies to the Farmer article, which, when I try to correct them (providing source material, as I always attempt to do), she immediately reverts back to her incorrect versions.  All the while insisting I'm not "me."

I would very much like someone to offer me a little help.  If I have done anything wrong, I apologize.  But I have worked for a very long time to make sure only the facts about this actress are published on Wikipedia, and it pains me greatly to see someone come along and destroy over 12 months' of very careful, considered work.

UPDATE AS OF 1/21

Wyss has drastically rewritten the most egregious copying from my article.

However, she is now once again making edits that are provably factually inaccurate.  Just go to the Edit summary and you will see whenever I try to edit in facts, including providing sources, she immediately reverts to the incorrect version.  At this point I have no wish to even have my old user ID editing privileges restored, but I wish someone could please stop Wyss from desecrating this article with misstatement after misstatement.  Thank you.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation in 3RR to block

body:
On 1/18/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
The user that reported the 3RR has in fact made identical reverts with
no attempt to update the text. Cleary, the report was made to frustrate the
situation.

Could you back that up with some links/diffs?


from_name: SP

subject: [WikiEN-l] Digital Universe: Encyclopedia of Earth

body:
Hello folks,

The licensing aspect will be interesting to follow. The site will have limited value unless it is free for commercial use by small not-for profits, independent consultants, and small for profits. These are the groups that can't afford to pay the fees/cost for copyrighted materials, especially a problem in fast moving areas of science and tech.

Sydney

Matt R wrote:

>While I knew that Digital Universe were planning an encyclopedia, I hadn't come
>across many details, so I thought I'd forward these links. Please hit me an the
>head and give me a pointer to where this has been discussed ad nauseum
>previously!
>
>As part of their "Earth Portal", DU are planning an "Encyclopedia of Earth":
>
>   http://stewards.manyone.net/hosted/portalpages/2707/eoe.html
>
>http://news.com.com/5208-1038-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=12490&messageID=101336&start=-1
>
>They plan to use two wikis; a Public wiki and a "Steward" wiki. The Public wiki
>will be editable by the public, but the Steward wiki will only be editable by
>approved experts.
>
>They're considering free licensing, there'll be overarching editorial decisions
>which apply to every article, no anonymous authorship, and the articles will be
>organised within a logical taxonomy developed by experts.
>
>-- Matt
>
>
>Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
>Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>
> On 21 Jan 2006, at 19:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were
>> pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license
>> their pictures as they see fit.  In case you don't know it the
>> Louvre is more than 70 years old.  Quit inventing ridiculous laws.
>
> The Pyramid at the Louvre is less than 70 years old and thats a
> problem in french law.

OK, I can see where that would apply to the pyramid, but it should not
apply to general photos of the Louvre itself.

Ec


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I would like to think that -- really I would -- but two years on the
>>ArbComm have turned me into a bitter, cynical, twisted shadow of my
>>former cheery, optimistic, happy-go-lucky self.
>>
>>Have nominations painlessly canceled, with no repercussions at all,
>>would make the deletionists /more/ likely to nominate stuff for
>>deletion, not less.
>>
>>- --
>>
>>
>
>If you look at the list of deletionists over at meta you will find
>most don't list much stuff for deletion.
>
>
>--
>geni
>
>
As an ironic note, the ADW secretary-general has recently been cursing
"those damn deletionists" on IRC, and I myself (as a member of the ADW)
often cast "keep" votes on AfDs. Most deletionists don't vote to delete
things out of spite (although there are always a few vocal bad apples).

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use images
	(was	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>On 1/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely.  Unfortunately, there are extreme views at both ends of this
>>spectrum.  The simple fact that publishing an image would somehow be in
>>the public interest is not enough to defeat someone's copyrights.  On
>>the other hand it is also simplistic to say that because there is a
>>subsisting copyright the image cannot be used at all.  "Fair use" is a
>>tool on the path to free use that can be used to great effect in the
>>right circumstances.  By rejecting it completely we also make it easier
>>for those favoring more restrictive copyrights because they can now take
>>the abandoned ground unopposed.
>>
>>
>I think in regards to Wikipedia policy there are two options:
>
>1. We reject all fair use images in favor of entirely "free" ones. One
>could read this as a retreat from copyright holders (as you imply
>above), or one could read this as the only genuine way to create truly
>free cultural products. Commons embraces this approach (with the
>latter reasoning), WP:En does not.
>2. We approach fair use reasonably, not being afraid of using it where
>we need to and with a philosophy of "least likelihood of anybody
>thinking they could sue us and win." This solution is not the
>*easiest* one -- it rests on subjective and often uninformed
>interpretations of an ambiguous part of U.S. copyright law -- and nor
>does it necessarily accomplish the primary goal of ultimate
>redistribution freedom (in fact most countries do not have statutes
>anywhere as lenient as the "fair use" provisions in U.S. copyright
>law), but it lends itself to producing a more "complete" and
>"professional-looking" encyclopedia. It also might mean that we are
>making some sort of stand about the limitations of copyrights, but I
>suspect this is only a secondary motivation or interpretation. In any
>event, this is the policy we current follow on WP:En.
>
It should be quite clear by now that I strongly support the second
option.  Still I would be more inclined to base it on a fair-minded
attitude in preference to one based on what could happen in a law suit.
Fair mindedness involves taking into account the rights of others.  A
person who claims fair use should indeed have some elementary
understanding of what he's talking about.  Ultimate redistribution
freedom can be a big problem, but putting too strict a definition on
that can lead to all sorts of dilemmas.  I know that most of our
discussions have focused on images, but the fair use law that applies to
images is the same one that applies to text, and for me disallowing all
fair use text would imply disallowing properly attributed quotes of
one-sentence length.  Purpose is key to one of the fair use texts, and
we have no way of controlling this in downstream users.  Perhaps we need
to assume that the downstream use will fail that test.  Is it the most
important of the four tests?  Since no one test alone is determinative,
can a usage which fails that test satill be fair use when it passes the
other tests?  Once we answer that in a US legal context, we will have a
better idea of how to approach that problem in relation to other countries.

We can't duck from the political motivation, but it must remain
secondary.  Before that can be a real motivation we need to be very
aware in the legal areana.

Ec


from_name: Sam Spade

body:
I think this is a pretty clear case on non-encyclopedic disruption.
The disruption policy is intentionally vague. There is no possible way
they could have thought up all the ways a person might disrupt our
project. Heck, if they listed all the different ways people have
historically disrupted our project, it would be so long and useless a
list as to be disruptive itself.

My first thought was for you to ad the image in question to a page
where it might be apropriate, but that is probably not a good idea at
this point either. Having been involved in a few scrapes regarding
images others prefered not to see, my advice is to find something
elese to do.

You seem interested in Romanian history. Would you perhaps be able to help out w

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneliu_Zelea_Codreanu#Legacy

?

Cheers,

Sam Spade

On 1/21/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know being blocked is annoying and may well make you angry, but please
> don't spam the mailing list with 3 the same messages. One will do just as
> well.
>
> Could you explain why you posted the image on your userpage to begin with. I
> don't see how the image of another user is relevant to a page about you and
> your work.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/17/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have been blocked for displaying a photo on my
> > userpage. The photo in question was of another user
> > and was in "good standard". I was given an ultimatum
> > to remove the photo or be blocked.
> >
> > I argued that I had the right to display the photo on
> > my userpage and that there was nothing in the policy
> > that disallowed me from doing so. I also argued that
> > the user in question agreed to release the photo under
> > GDU at the time when they uploaded the photo.
> >
> > FeloniousMonk blocked me for 24-hours for harassment
> > and disruption. I don't see how I did any of that by
> > having the photo displayed on my userpage. Nowhere in
> > your policy does it say that we can disrupt by having
> > a photo in "good standing" displayed on our userpage.
> > I would like to know whether I am in the wrong, and if
> > so, why; and I would like to be unblocked. Thank you.
> >
> > Anittas.
> >
> > Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Warning
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:35:17AM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
>
> On 21 Jan 2006, at 00:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> >On 1/20/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Working for Camden Council does not mean your company deserves an
> >>entry on wikipedia.
> >
> >Now this is precisely the kind of statement that I find problematic on
> >Wikipedia.  Camden is a major London borough--the NHS trust and the
> >British multinational oil company BP, who are also customers who have
> >used this company's product for major operations involving decisions
> >on the commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, are also major
> >concerns.  That this company produces a product that was entrusted by
> >all three (and these three chosen at random from a dozen or so) counts
> >for rather a lot.  It is not to be written off by  facile, thoughtless
> >statements such as the above.
>
> Ah you have expanded the detail, made more of a justification of
> notability.
> Once you add "hundereds of millions of pounds", add that these were only
> a few of the customers.
>
> Typical example of the article that as a stub doesnt appear notable but
> when expanded seems obviously reasonable.
>
> Maybe an {{inprogress}} tag would be usefulo for people making stubs
> that they want to do bit by bit.

That does seem a good idea.

I've been on this list ofr a few days but this is my first post.

Brian [[User:Bduke]]

>
> Justinc
>
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
         Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) b_duke at octa4.net.au
       Post: 626 Melbourne Rd, Spotswood, VIC, 3015, Australia
    Phone 03-93992847. http://members.iinet.net.au/~linden1/brian/
Honorary Researcher Fellow, Dept. of Medicinal Chemistry, Monash Univ.


from_name: Rob

body:
The absence of a rule directly forbidding your precise action does not
necessarily give you free reign to do it.  In this case, you are unwilling
to explain why you have a picture of another user on your user page and
unwilling to explain how this is not harrassment of a user you are in a
dispute with, so you really haven't given the blocking admin another way of
dealing with this situation.

On 1/21/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I posted this 4 days ago, which is why I sent three
> different emails. The auto-reply said that I should
> give it 12-hours, which I first did, and then I tried
> again. I still don't agree with the ruling. In my
> eyes, I didn't break any existing Wiki rules, and I
> don't like when admins start to interpret the rules
> and enforce them; and I also don't think that I should
> have to justify something that did not break the
> rules. But whatever. I know you guys will never
> understand.
>
>


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [WikiEN-l] Protect to Unprotected and Unprotect to Protected

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

The contents of [[MediaWiki:Unprotect]] will be changed from "Unprotect"
to "Protected" and [[MediaWiki:Protect]] from "Protect" to "Unprotected"
as per discussion in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change
"Unprotect" to "Change protection"]]. A copy of the conversation has
been posted at [[MediaWiki talk:Unprotect]] for posterity.

- --
 Edward Z. Yang      Personal: edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com
 SN:Ambush Commander Website: http://www.thewritingpot.com/
 GPGKey:0x869C48DA   http://www.thewritingpot.com/gpgpubkey.asc
 3FA8 E9A9 7385 B691 A6FC B3CB A933 BE7D 869C 48DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFD0oh8qTO+fYacSNoRAtnXAJ0Sd/vjnioT6oXi+qAYL0HXXwEMzQCeIvnc
nosUWpJwl/s085vqhnQAV1E=
=a4Ik
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal
	to fix it

body:
On 1/21/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
> Well, I am - attempting to wade through a few of these. There are 200
> articles with a cleanup tag from January, 2006 beginning with A-Bo. Anyone
> like to join me in trying to reduce that some? It's barely scratching the
> outer layer of the surface, but it's a start.
>

May do.  Last time I did this the cleanup task often involved simply
removing the tag from a perfectly acceptable article.

Consistent?  Not I!


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
Before I list an article at AfD I usually leave a message on its talk page
asking for verification of the information. If nothing turns up I proceed
with an AfD nomination.

I've now made a template to accomplish the same goal, it reads like this:

- - - - -
'''Article name''' needs your help to stay in Wikipedia.

In order for an article to remain in the encyclopedia it must be possible
to verify all the information in it using reputable publications. You can
help by providing citations about the topic in sources like published
books, newspapers or reputable websites. If no-one is able to provide
verification soon the article may be nominated for deletion.

If you need help to verify the information try contacting the helpdesk.
- - - - -

The template tries to be friendly, helpful and urgent at the same time. If
an article has been tagged like that for a while without anything
happening and I can't find decent verification myself then I'll proceed
with an AfD nomination.

The thing is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Needs-verification

Rename/reword/TfD/use/criticize or mutilate at will.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> "Out of process" -- that means "bad," right?
>
Not always. It means bad in the same way fair use means bad

> Does it matter what the result was?

Sure if you made what everyone agreed was the right descission.

--
geni


body:
On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The only time when process should take priority over common sense is
> when dealing with the laws of physics.
>

Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you
are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us
to get along.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR, a proposed update

body:
It's a nice idea, but what about people who repeatedly break the 3RR or do
it on more than one page. Those deserve to be blocked without a chance to
get unblocked and continue.

Anyone with a single offense should be able to discuss things with the
blocking admin after which the this admin can decide the review their
action. Only after such discussion has no effect should someone take it to
the list.

If someone makes a promise to an admin personally the admin knows about it
and can make sure the promise is uphold. If any block gets a button, there's
no way the now unblocked people can be kept in line.

Mgm

On 1/20/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
>
> In response to an earlier message I sent, "Cleared as filed" and me,
> Dzonatas, have discussed the issue somewhat. I've been unblocked early.
> There is a concern I still have that isn't directed at "Cleared as filed."
>
> I wrote the previous mail in haste, obviously. I only had a couple
> minutes to spare and wanted to take advantage of time that the block
> started.
>
> The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks
> under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either
> personal or political.
>
> I have many thought over many ideas in prevention, but I'll give just
> one that is do-able.
>
> If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the
> users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions
> the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the
> specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button,
> the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other
> pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific
> page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
>
> In the incidence with "Cleared as filed", I felt I was blocked
> inappropriately. Other users now use such block as means for character
> assassination. The above idea could allow an user to continue to talk on
> the discussion page, which would show that the 3RR is not punitive by
> default and prevent character assassination.
>
> In the same incidence, another user continued to show disruption by the
> use of tags to delete images that I have installed. The sources and
> copyright status of the images were obvious enough by guidelines;
> however, the user wanted to press the technicality of it. This user
> reported the block for which "Cleared as filed" instated. It would seem
> possible by this example that a user is able to game the system, get a
> user blocked, and add content under speedy deletion. This is why I sent
> the message in haste to report "Cleared as filed", as it would help make
> notice to not be so hasty to install a block and allow discussion.
>
> Obviously, not every admin has lots of time to investigate and often
> blocks on "the wrong version." This update would allow an admin to
> install a block and let the user to decide to unblock early if they
> agree to adhere to temporary terms, which is simply to not edit the
> specific article for a day. This continues to encourage discussion.
>
> Respectfully,
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
BTW, you took the right course of action by discussing things with an admin.
I'm just against any automated unblocking.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR, a proposed update

body:
On 1/20/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> In response to an earlier message I sent, "Cleared as filed" and me,
> Dzonatas, have discussed the issue somewhat. I've been unblocked early.
> There is a concern I still have that isn't directed at "Cleared as filed."
>
> I wrote the previous mail in haste, obviously. I only had a couple
> minutes to spare and wanted to take advantage of time that the block
> started.
>
> The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks
> under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either
> personal or political.
>

No one ever seriously accused me of that back when I inforced the 3RR.

> I have many thought over many ideas in prevention, but I'll give just
> one that is do-able.
>
> If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the
>   users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions
> the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the
> specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button,
> the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other
> pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific
> page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
>

I'm thinking no. A 24 hour block basicaly foreces the editor to sleep
before they can edit again.
> In the incidence with "Cleared as filed", I felt I was blocked
> inappropriately. Other users now use such block as means for character
> assassination. The above idea could allow an user to continue to talk on
> the discussion page, which would show that the 3RR is not punitive by
> default and prevent character assassination.
>

I've blocked everyone from anons to arbcom memebers under the 3RR. I
don't think anyone has ever been able to use it for character
assassination.

> In the same incidence, another user continued to show disruption by the
> use of tags to delete images that I have installed. The sources and
> copyright status of the images were obvious enough by guidelines;
> however, the user wanted to press the technicality of it. This user
> reported the block for which "Cleared as filed" instated. It would seem
> possible by this example that a user is able to game the system, get a
> user blocked, and add content under speedy deletion. This is why I sent
> the message in haste to report "Cleared as filed", as it would help make
> notice to not be so hasty to install a block and allow discussion.
>
> Obviously, not every admin has lots of time to investigate and often
> blocks on "the wrong version." This update would allow an admin to
> install a block and let the user to decide to unblock early if they
> agree to adhere to temporary terms, which is simply to not edit the
> specific article for a day. This continues to encourage discussion.
>
> Respectfully,
> Jonathan

The rule doesn't care like things such as the wrong version. The whole
point is thart you make no judement about who was right and who was
wrong.

--
geni


body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

>>Yes, because Lord knows those evil deletionists must be PUNISHED!
>>Drilled into the ground, pounded into dust, made never to return.
>>
>>
>
>Yes please. Although I know that Wikipedia has a little more moderate
>stance so lifetime bannings is OK for me. The "deletionists" are doing
>more harm than any other type of troll or spammer.
>
>--
>mvh Bj?rn
>
>
Define "deletionists", please.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Martin Baumann

subject: [Wikitech-l] renaming index.php to index.cgi

body:
I downloaded the latest version of mediawiki and did all configuring
again - now it works.

Thanks, MB

Rowan Collins schrieb:

>On 19/01/06, Martin Baumann <mailsgetlost at web.de> wrote:
>
>
>>But at the same time the design changed. The skin is 'MonoBook' but it
>>looks like 'Simple'. I have no idea where
>>this came from.
>>
>>
>
>Sounds like either the CSS files, or a reference to them, got
>changed/out of sync somewhere.
>
>First, make sure it's not a caching issue - get a page preview (so no
>internal caching) and do a "hard refresh" (hold down ctrl or shift
>while refreshing, depending on browser) to force your browser to
>reload everything.
>
>Second, have a look at what CSS files are mentionned in the HTML
>source of a page, and see if the paths being referred to are correct.
>Also try loading those exact URLs into a browser, to make sure those
>aren't suffering from redirection problems.
>
>--
>Rowan Collins BSc
>[IMSoP]
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

body:
On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni stated for the record:
> > On 1/21/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The only time when process should take priority over common sense is
> >>when dealing with the laws of physics.
> >
> > Or when dealing with a large number of people who don't know who you
> > are and have no real reason to trust your judgement. Process allows us
> > to get along.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> If this discussion is an example of how well "process" allows us to get
> along, "process" isn't doing a very good job.
>

Really? Would you rather all issues were solved by admins sluging it
out through wheel wars?

--
geni


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching

body:
The line in question is: "The criticism section is a small crumb given
the POV one-sided Venona posse lynching." Now I think this is pretty
far from actually implying any literal murder has taken place. I'm not
even sure whether the "posse" is supposed to be the Wikipedia editors
in question or the scholars in question.

In any event, this is no more "libel" than your own hysterical line
about "crusaders and jihadists," which I assume was probably not
actually a meant to be interpretted as anybody on Wikipedia actively
being members of the 15th century European invasion of the Holy Land
or active members of Islamic extremist movements.

FF

On 1/21/06, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The precedent is clear: a "priveleged expert" (a) can libel his critics as
> being complicit in murder, i.e., a lynching
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=34950836&oldid=34254772
> +
>
> whereas (b) citing verifiable sources is construed by the good ol' boy
> network as "personal attacks".
>
> Fred said:
>
> "I more or less agree with you on the Venona material"
>
> Fred:
>
> Do you have any sources to support Cberlet original research POV?  Please
> give him a hand if so.
>
> Nobs01
>
> On 1/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's pretty clear that he doesn't mean a lynching in a literal sense, so
> > it
> > doesn't count as libel under any interpretation.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 1/21/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would vehemently disagree, especially when among those ten articles
>>are hoaxes, thinly veiled attack pages, vanispamcruftvertisements and
>>other such content that has the effect of actively making Wikipedia a
>>*worse* and *less authoritative* source of information.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Why should anyone consider Wikipedia to be authoritative?  It's
>written by amateurs.  But I agree that we should get rid of tripe.
>BUt we should discuss it properly.  Jimbo is right, there is far, far
>too much emphasis on deletion.
>
>Bad articles can be identified and improved, or if there's nothing
>good about them they can be deleted.  But there should be more
>emphasis on improvement.  There should be fewer AfD listings carried
>to term.  We should encourage editors to seek innovative solutions,
>and not fetishize the deletion process.  So often these days it seems
>like a fairground ride--once the journey starts you have to keep your
>hands inside the car, and mustn't tamper with the deletion proposal.
>Why on earth not? If an article looks like an obvious redirect
>candidate, then do it and thank you for saving us five days worth of
>debate about deletion.  Any further discussion can continue on the
>discussion page.
>
>
 From someone in the trenches (I've been keeping [[WP:AFD/Old]] 100%
backlog free for a week) who has disagreed with Tony before, I have to
say that this is an excellent proposal. There's too much reliance on
closing admins to do the work. Instead of saying "* '''Redirect''' as
per Foo," why the hell not just redirect it?

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use images (was
	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
On 1/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Absolutely.  Unfortunately, there are extreme views at both ends of this
> spectrum.  The simple fact that publishing an image would somehow be in
> the public interest is not enough to defeat someone's copyrights.  On
> the other hand it is also simplistic to say that because there is a
> subsisting copyright the image cannot be used at all.  "Fair use" is a
> tool on the path to free use that can be used to great effect in the
> right circumstances.  By rejecting it completely we also make it easier
> for those favoring more restrictive copyrights because they can now take
> the abandoned ground unopposed.

I think in regards to Wikipedia policy there are two options:

1. We reject all fair use images in favor of entirely "free" ones. One
could read this as a retreat from copyright holders (as you imply
above), or one could read this as the only genuine way to create truly
free cultural products. Commons embraces this approach (with the
latter reasoning), WP:En does not.
2. We approach fair use reasonably, not being afraid of using it where
we need to and with a philosophy of "least likelihood of anybody
thinking they could sue us and win." This solution is not the
*easiest* one -- it rests on subjective and often uninformed
interpretations of an ambiguous part of U.S. copyright law -- and nor
does it necessarily accomplish the primary goal of ultimate
redistribution freedom (in fact most countries do not have statutes
anywhere as lenient as the "fair use" provisions in U.S. copyright
law), but it lends itself to producing a more "complete" and
"professional-looking" encyclopedia. It also might mean that we are
making some sort of stand about the limitations of copyrights, but I
suspect this is only a secondary motivation or interpretation. In any
event, this is the policy we current follow on WP:En.

FF


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 1/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually now that I think about it, maybe a subject *does* get false
> > notability from being on Wikipedia. If I searched for Bob's garage band
> > and found nothing but a crufty geocities website, that would be one
> > thing. If I found a fully-fledged Wikipedia article, I would think
> > something completely different about them. I would think they were more
> > notable than they really were.
> >
> What if the Wikipedia article said that they weren't notable?
>
I interpret those words as "there's no justifiable reason for this
article, please delete it". It's a confession by the author that this
subject does not deserve an article. That's how I've done it in the past,
& will continue to do so in the future. (In other words, I have seen it
done, & can't fathom the reasoning that goes into making that statement,
other than the author is either stupid or a troll.)

And I write that knowing, had I seen the exact same article without
those words, I would make a good faith effort to determine whether the
subject is notable.

> What exactly does notable mean, anyway?
>
That there is a reasonable expectation that someone actually might want
to read about the subject. That is why an article about a subspecies of
arthropods, or a mathematical topic, or a village in Outter Mongolia gets
the benefit of the doubt, but biographies, filks & fanfiction (amongst
other subjects) get rough justice. And I don't see any solution *except*
insisting that the original submitter explain why the subject might be
of interest to anyone.

For example, take the case of Ward Weaver (who does not yet have an article
in Wikipedia). If an article about him were to simply state that he was
the killer of two young girls, I'd be surprised if it *didn't* end up on
AfD. However, if the article explained some of the facts of this case --
that the disappearances & murders of the 2 girls was a local sensation,
the bizarre twists & turns in the case (which included his announcement
to the press that he was "the primary suspect", that local television
stations preempted all programming one Sunday to monitor the recovery of
the bodies of the girls, & that this case had chilling similarities to
the murder case that put Weaver's father on Death Row in California),
only a fanatical POV-pusher would nominate or argue for this article's
deletion.

(The reason I haven't written this article is that it requires more
research than I have time for to get the facts correct & verified. I
don't expect anyone who didn't personally witness the events around this
case to believe it actually happened, & isn't some hoax based on a bad
ripoff of a Law & Order episode.)

But I doubt that these arguments will matter to the partisans on
either side of the issue.

Geoff


body:
Do you expect anyone to take this seriously?

On 1/21/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, I did try to explain, but the admin told me
> not to be cute. I said that I liked the photo and that
> it fitted in my page. The light-yellow colours gave me
> peace of mind.
>
>