body:
Youre absolutely right. But saying its only in the
realm of philosophy contradicts the NPOV view. Again,
there is no one realm for this discussion --its
political, religious, ethicial, social, etc. Thus, the
only thing (regardless of the neat heirarchies of
classical philosophy) is the basic association between
the arbitrary concept of the "fetus" and the accepted
concept of "human." With that out of the way, the rest
can be relegated to POV1, POV2, etc. Claiming that its
not clear, or that there is no possible general
agreement is not truly NPOV.

SV
Thanks, everyone

--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> steve v wrote:
>
> >--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >Well, "personhood" in this case is a kind of
> misnomer
> >for "humanity." Hence debates regarding the
> humanity
> >of the fetus are also included even though, yes,
> >"personhood" is a social (hence, legal) definition,
> >and humanity is a universal (and coincidentally,
> >biological) definition.
> >
> >SV
> >
> >
> >
> You say that "personhood" is a social/legal
> definition, but I don't
> think that's the best way to describe it in this
> context. When you talk
> about things like moral obligation, and what we are
> morally obligated to
> and what we aren't, you are using a philosophical
> definition of
> "person". And in that sense, it seems clear to me
> that a fetus is not a
> person.
>
> It's coincedental that I'm in the middle of a
> rewrite of [[Categorical
> imperative]] because I can give you an example of a
> view of an eminent
> moral philosopher on this very issue, that is, the
> view of Immanuel
> Kant: "Beings whose existence depends, not on our
> will, but on nature,
> have none the less, if they are non-rational beings,
> only a relative
> value as means and are consequently called /things/.
> Rational beings, on
> the other hand, are called /persons/ because their
> nature already marks
> them out as ends in themselves--that is, as
> something which ought not be
> used merely as a means--and consequently imposes to
> that extent a limit
> on arbitrary treatment of them."
>
> Kant was talking mainly about animals in the above
> passage, but the it
> works just as well for the unborn. His conclusion
> (the argument is
> around 90 pages long) more or less boils down to
> this: The only
> objective basis for moral obligation comes from
> respect of the
> autonomously rational powers of a person. If you
> aren't rational, you're
> not a person, and therefore you exist only as a
> means to some other end.
> So feelings of moral obligation to /things/ must be
> tied up with some
> subjective considerations, like your personal
> feelings about the matter.
> It's not different from being sentimental about a
> family heirloom, or
> crying when a beatiful work of art is destroyed.
> It's a sense of loss,
> but it has no moral content, because it is not a
> person. So Kant would
> be another person who agrees that an unborn fetus a
> part of a woman's
> body, not a person, and not a thing to which anyone
> is morally obligated
> in any way.
>
> Whether you agree with this argument or not isn't my
> point: What I'm
> pointing out here is that this is a moral problem,
> and is therefore more
> in the realm of philosophy than of law.  If you want
> to support the
> notion that we are morally obligated to non-persons
> because they have
> human DNA, or because they might some day become a
> person, you're going
> to have to come up with a rational and binding
> philosophical argument to
> that effect that isn't based on anyone's feelings.
>
> And yes, it would be intensely POV to make the jump
> from (human tissue)
> -> (person) -> (moral obligation). As I understand
> it, the consensus
> among moral philosophers these days is that such a
> jump would be ridiculous.
>
> - Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Brainstrorming at Kennisnet

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Hello
>
>>
>> Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet would be willing to pay
>> for access to statistical content. Kennisnet, the portal organisation
>> it is, cannot fulfil such a request. There was however a discussion
>> on how such data would be best hosted. Localisation and versioning
>> were discussed. When you have statistical content, you want to know
>> the date and the source of the content. ???????, ?????
>> and ????????? have the same statistics it makes little sense to store
>> this in many projects. Consequently the possibilities that Wikidata
>> offer for this type of information and the possibilities that the
>> Ultimate Wiktionary offer for localisation need to be considered.
>> Kennisnet might consider helping with the creation of the
>> infrastructure for such a project.
>
>
> And in that same email I said that I would be utterly against such a
> nightmare scenario of hosting those data at one place. It is yet
> another project need to tend to while all problems with commons, a
> much less farreaching similar approach, haven't been settled yet. Also
> I am just being shown the reason that if I never get access to people
> of kennisnet my ideas basically get fucked by the messenger.
>
> It is really reassuring that kennisnet actually answers a mail I send
> (NOT!) might this have something to do with Gerard telling them not to?
>
> Walter/Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Alphax

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Verify feature

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Salvatore Ingala wrote:
> Hi! I've added to MediaWiki a feature which could be an alternative to page
> protection: the verify feature. I've added to the sysops' bar a
> 'verify'/'unverify' button: 'verify' sets the current revision as
> 'verified'. When there is a 'verified' revision, users can still edit the
> page, but new revisions are not shown until a sysops verifies it again (of
> course, even new revisions can be accessed though the history, and the
> verified one, if any, is in bold).
> 'Unverify', of course, removes the protection.
>
> I think this would be a very good alternative to page protection against
> vandals.
> I would like to heard what do you think of it.
>
>

Sounds good :) The first place where it should be applied is to images -
for copyright reasons more than anything else.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6DgI/RxM5Ph0xhMRA6eDAJ95QGyx6MG+ZpxshfFYTdcn2LOruwCfVwf9
D+9Idr2zQxYZQgmuP2BBiIY=
=wsg+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Hello
>
>>
>> Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet would be willing to pay
>> for access to statistical content. Kennisnet, the portal organisation
>> it is, cannot fulfil such a request. There was however a discussion
>> on how such data would be best hosted. Localisation and versioning
>> were discussed. When you have statistical content, you want to know
>> the date and the source of the content. ???????, ?????
>> and ????????? have the same statistics it makes little sense to store
>> this in many projects. Consequently the possibilities that Wikidata
>> offer for this type of information and the possibilities that the
>> Ultimate Wiktionary offer for localisation need to be considered.
>> Kennisnet might consider helping with the creation of the
>> infrastructure for such a project.
>
>
> And in that same email I said that I would be utterly against such a
> nightmare scenario of hosting those data at one place. It is yet
> another project need to tend to while all problems with commons, a
> much less farreaching similar approach, haven't been settled yet. Also
> I am just being shown the reason that if I never get access to people
> of kennisnet my ideas basically get fucked by the messenger.
>
> It is really reassuring that kennisnet actually answers a mail I send
> (NOT!) might this have something to do with Gerard telling them not to?

How can you ever only think about something like that? Please, before
making such assumptions use your grey cells.

People who talk like you in public to miscredit others just are ...
better not to say otherwise I'd reach the same level you have and I
definitely won't.

If you have a problem with Gerard or someone else I'd kindly invite you
to do this privately and not in public mailing lists.

You are not only miscrediting Gerard (who gives practially all the time
he has to the wikimedia projects), but publicly also Kennisnet (an
organisation that really does a lot for education and is an example of
how the world should think)  and all contributors of the Wikimedia
projects (and I am one of those).

Another thing I would kindly ask you is to reconsider the language you
use - certain terms are not appropriate for public. You could have
written "basically get not considered as they should" - not everyone is
used to a certain "style".

I am upset, really upset.

Best wishes,

Sabine Cretella

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Wikitech-l] pl.wikimedia.org

body:
I wanted to ask for creation of pl.wikimedia.org, a Wiki which would
help the Poles to organize the work of the Polish local chapter.
Basicly, it would serve the same purpose as nl.wikimedia.org.

--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


list: wikien-l

from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
>From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
>Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
>Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
>life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
>"human rights" and societal "personhood" status?

Of course it is.  Whether or not a fetus is "human", or at what point it
becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion debate.  Stating the
anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the antithesis of NPOV.

Jay.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Officially protesting against GerardM being the
	contactperson withregards to kennisnet

body:
Did you ever hear about conditions in contracts? about written and oral
agreements? do you know why normally agreements or things to do are
being comunicated by writing and not orally?

So if you said something within a chat and a chat is saying and not
writing don't wonder if people don't remember all of your words
considering the kind of language and espression you are used to use.

Please just shut up now and if you have requests make them in a written
mail and with a clean language.

Otherwise no-one will ever read your mails anymore I suppose.

I just had a glance at your last e-mail-opera - the only thing you are
trying to do is to miscredit and not to figure out things - a behaviour
that is not ammissible to me (and maybe also to others).

And don't make me go further - my mails can even be more kind than this one.

Now fist of all I want

a) an excuse to all contributors of the wikimedia projects

an then it is considerable that

b) you send in a "clean and gentle" mail about what you think and want
(and I mean this)

c) without any aggressive tone

d) you go and learn what the word discussion means

Otherwise: consider your mails not to be read anymore (there's a nice
function in any e-mail softare - so called filters and a neat place for
undesired mails: the trash-bin)

I suppose I understood the why of such a behaviour - and this has
nothing to do with the projects itself, but with ego.

What I found out is that you are a stweard, right? (as you can see, I do
my homework) and as such this behaviour is really something unbelievable
and unforgivable.

Best wishes,

Sabine Cretella

(and please note: I do not sign this mail with "Sabine" as usually - and
I don't use "ciao" - this means this mail has a very definite meaning)

Walter van Kalken wrote:

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
steve v wrote:

>--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>Well, "personhood" in this case is a kind of misnomer
>for "humanity." Hence debates regarding the humanity
>of the fetus are also included even though, yes,
>"personhood" is a social (hence, legal) definition,
>and humanity is a universal (and coincidentally,
>biological) definition.
>
>SV
>
>
>
You say that "personhood" is a social/legal definition, but I don't
think that's the best way to describe it in this context. When you talk
about things like moral obligation, and what we are morally obligated to
and what we aren't, you are using a philosophical definition of
"person". And in that sense, it seems clear to me that a fetus is not a
person.

It's coincedental that I'm in the middle of a rewrite of [[Categorical
imperative]] because I can give you an example of a view of an eminent
moral philosopher on this very issue, that is, the view of Immanuel
Kant: "Beings whose existence depends, not on our will, but on nature,
have none the less, if they are non-rational beings, only a relative
value as means and are consequently called /things/. Rational beings, on
the other hand, are called /persons/ because their nature already marks
them out as ends in themselves--that is, as something which ought not be
used merely as a means--and consequently imposes to that extent a limit
on arbitrary treatment of them."

Kant was talking mainly about animals in the above passage, but the it
works just as well for the unborn. His conclusion (the argument is
around 90 pages long) more or less boils down to this: The only
objective basis for moral obligation comes from respect of the
autonomously rational powers of a person. If you aren't rational, you're
not a person, and therefore you exist only as a means to some other end.
So feelings of moral obligation to /things/ must be tied up with some
subjective considerations, like your personal feelings about the matter.
It's not different from being sentimental about a family heirloom, or
crying when a beatiful work of art is destroyed. It's a sense of loss,
but it has no moral content, because it is not a person. So Kant would
be another person who agrees that an unborn fetus a part of a woman's
body, not a person, and not a thing to which anyone is morally obligated
in any way.

Whether you agree with this argument or not isn't my point: What I'm
pointing out here is that this is a moral problem, and is therefore more
in the realm of philosophy than of law.  If you want to support the
notion that we are morally obligated to non-persons because they have
human DNA, or because they might some day become a person, you're going
to have to come up with a rational and binding philosophical argument to
that effect that isn't based on anyone's feelings.

And yes, it would be intensely POV to make the jump from (human tissue)
-> (person) -> (moral obligation). As I understand it, the consensus
among moral philosophers these days is that such a jump would be ridiculous.

- Ryan


from_name: SJ

subject:
Wikis in education (was: Re: [Foundation-l] Brainstrorming at
	Kennisnet

body:
> The breadth was amazing: from general school use to class and
> project-specific use to social integration issues. Among those, I'd say the
> most frequent uses where attempts to foster collaborative behavior among
> younger students, so it wasn't so much about wiki contents. Rather, wikis
> were used as a tool for developing social skills.

Lovely.

"Building blocks and sandcastles: predecessors to the wiki?"

SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Some words on localisation and wikidata

body:
What is being proposed on that is not so "far away" then one might
think. There are at least two official projects in that direction (even
more if you search for it - there are also some minor ones by single
persons).

1) University of Limerick, Ireland - I may not talk about this as it is
in its beginnings and the creator of the project asked me not to talk
about it for the moment.
2) A commercial project that sees the realisation of such a database in
approx 5 year's time then marekting it and selling it to translator's
(great - our the transator's category has every year less income due to
the market and we shall spend more and more every year due to the
"necessities" of the customers) - more about this in clientside news
(Global Intelligence Newsletter) - sorry I don't have the url here at
the moment.

These projects are similar and different at the same time - but they
have one common goal: creation of a data repository for
localisation/translation.

Wikidata already allows to create this - we already have the tools
others are still working on - it is more than just a valid project.

I presume the university will have a look at wikidata as soon as it is
possible and if it is favourable we should consider co-operation between
all these interested parties - of course the commercial side will not be
too fond of this developments.

xml, tmx and tbx play a huge role in this as well - but sorry, it would
go too far to explain all these interactions here right now. If you want
to read more about this please refer to http://www.lisa.org

Ciao, Sabine

p.s. Martin, please correct me if there's something wrong in here.

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Lapsed Pacifist

subject: [WikiEN-l] 72-hour block

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20050728/2424dee0/attachment.diff


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of Meta discussion: "Proposed policy
 for wiki closure".

body:
Just a couple words to explain what shocked me most in the whole story.

For the record, I do not support this proposal at all and indicated so
in the talk page.

HOWEVER, I find shocking that
* there was a vote to close the debate (and indeed the discussion was
closed, so no one is allowed to discuss it anymore or to add new arguments)
* there were comments saying the proposal page should be deleted and
even the author sent to a bad place.

Remember, we here rely on consensus. Consensus does not mean all jumping
on somebody's back when we do not agree with him, to the point of
negating his ideas in simply deleting them. This is called "majority
point of view".

Consensus means respecting other people opinions, respecting other
people proposals and simply giving arguments and opinions to say whether
you support or not a proposal.

When someone has an idea you do not agree with, simply say it and when
it is obvious no one agrees with it, then we can move on to something
else without a big noisy mess.

But rejecting debate and even proposing to delete someone else ideas is
just simply NOT what I think Wikipedia process should be. It is just
censorship. It is being simply scared by ideas different from
mainstream, even if it is obvious they will not be adopted. Bad, simply
very bad.

I find some good things resulting from this proposal. Node for example,
reminded us of the team watching over small wikis vandalism. If only for
this reminder, there was good in doing this proposal. And this is proof
debate is good.

Ant

David Gerard a ?crit:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wiki_closure
> : written by Toytoy from the Chinese Wikipedia.
>
>
> I think the talk page has pretty much established that this proposal is not
> only dead in the water, but severely strains assumptions of good faith.
> The page in question should be kept as an example of trying to use spurious
> policy as a bludgeon. And any future policy proposals from Toytoy should be
> watched very closely indeed.
>
>
> - d.


from_name: Phroziac

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of Meta discussion: "Proposed
	policy for wiki closure".

body:
Don't the Klingons need an encyclopedia? Seriously though, I don't
support this. Artificial or not, a language is a language, and, just
about all of those wikis will probably get up to standard eventually.

But, there is a place for it. If after a sebstantial amount of time (a
few years maybe), a wiki doesn't launch, I think it should be
considered failed and gradually phased out, with plenty of time for
people to notice what's happening and possibly make it work out (They
might not have even known about the wiki, even if they speak that
language!), and to download dumps of the database. Wikicities does
host a few wiki encyclopedias for languages that Wikipedia didn't
want.

But, before that process starts, the wiki should be publicised. Maybe
mention it in some sort of announcement, like "XYZ language Wikipedia
has existed for 3 years and still has 6 articles. Please help to
contribute to this Wikipedia, if you know XYZ language. Without more
support, the Inactive wiki closure process will begin in X months.".
Also, if the language is a common'ish language, then the wiki should
not be closed -- it will eventually take off. The wiki closure process
should be very rare.

On 7/28/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Let all the pretty flowers bloom" Toytoy.
>
> I think Mao said something like that once.
>
> The way I see Wikipedia is just one Encyclopedia with many language
> versions. To deny other languages on the basis of not enough members
> contributing, or not enough fast growth is to deny a voice to the few
> who when added up all together make up a big part of this encyclopedic
> project.
>
> Let all the pretty flowers bloom, it adds to the beauty of the garden,
> to take these away makes it look like a bed of silk flowers, pretty to
> look at from a distance, but up close the spirit is dead. Let the
> minor languages coexist with the others, each language brings a shade
> of color, and especially, there's beauty of expression and culture
> that can only be expressed in one's own mother tongue.
>
> Jay B.
> en:User:ILVI
> 14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
>
> ---------------------
>
> Apology, but you obviously did not read what I wrote. Please read it again.
>
> I also totally support all the language wikipedias blooming and never asked for any to be closed (but for a bunch of minor artificial languages admitedly which I think could belong somewhere in our projects, but NOT as encyclopedias)...
>
> ...but for me an encyclopedia is a flower... and a person is a flower as well.
>
> If you let only flowers of a unique color, of a unique size and of a unique flowering period bloom, then you get a very beautiful but also very flat and boring flower bed during one month, and a carpet of crushed and drying petals the rest of the year.
>
> When the color of a flower is not pleasant to your eye, you could just avoid having on in your garden, or avoid looking at it. But destroying it is just not a good solution.
>
> And what I observed on meta was exactly that : the proposal did not please, it could have been left aside without caring, without giving it any more attention. What I object to is that the proposal was "closed", not to be discussed any more by *anyone*, threatened to be *deleted*, and the author treated like a *paria*. This reminds me of 1984. Unique thought and careful removal of people faces on pictures. To avoid anyone disturbing the perfection of a consensual flower bed.
>
> I do not put glyphosate in my garden to remove all weeds.
>
> anthere
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
signature


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
He didn't get a free pass. He got a second chance and blew it. I
would have never have got after him if he just went back to editing.

Fred

On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Jtkiefer wrote:

>
>
>>> And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
>>>
>>> --Jimbo
>>>
>>>
>
> If it comes down to being neccessary yes, though I prefer to assume
> good faith even though assume good faith may apply slightly less if
> at all in this now since Plautus has shown that assuming good faith
> just gives him a free pass to misbehave.
>
> -Jtkiefer
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
> Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the
> year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out
> of order?  As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's
> banning duration is self-imposed.

I would oppose such a move. Most people who get
banned are probably young and immature. Give them
a year to grow up. And if they need another year
when they come back then give them that too :)

Regards,
Haukur


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Officially protesting against GerardM being
 thecontactperson withregards to kennisnet

body:
Ola, cool down both of you.

We like and respect both of you, and Gerard as well.

Now, Sabine. As long as a discussion occurs privately, you may not know
there was ever private discussion. It is only when such discussions
occur publicly that everyone suddenly discovers things (and complain
things should be discussed privately first).

Fact is that these discussions have occured privately, then
semi-privately on irc.
Fact is that other people than Waerth have complained about Gerard being
often a bit overbearing, but are not willing to say it aloud.
Fact is it is not only about Kennisnet, but also about the Dutch
association.

On the other hand, it is most unfortunately frequent that those being
very very bold are also very very criticized by others... for being
bold, for going to quickly etc... Some people are bold and quick, but
often take no time to listen to others and act in a consensual way.
Others are more hesitant, slow, more respectful, but listen more than
they act, so do far less.
We need all types. If only the first bold type, wikipedia would be a
battlefield. If only the second type, few things would get done. So it
might be good that we have Gerard being bold (and sometimes upsetting
people) and Waerth being openly critical of Gerard actions.

The only things that really is important, is that all voices are heard
in the end... and currently, as an observer of the past months, I fear
it is not so clear that all voices were heard and all opinions taken
into account.

Waerth is part of our community, just as is Gerard or you, or other
dissenters. I do not think we should say to anyone part of the community
  to shut up. Maybe to talk differently, maybe to act differently, but
not to shut up.

And in any cases, distress is obvious, I do not think we should dismiss
it. And I say this not only because of Waerth email (as usual, very
impetuous as Waerth always is), but also because of other voices I have
heard (less impetuous, but critical as well).

I have unfortunately no idea what we could do at this point... :-(
Maybe talking about it publicly if people have the willingness to do so
? (without fear)

Ciao to both of you.

ant

Walter van Kalken a ?crit:
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
>> Did you ever hear about conditions in contracts? about written and
>> oral agreements? do you know why normally agreements
>
>
> ..... skip .....
>
>> words considering the kind of language and espression you are used to use.
>
>
> You have never really had to deal with gerard extensively in him
> representing your project. I am not the only one with these feelings. I
> am the only one currently opening about it.
>
>> Please just shut up now and if you have requests make them in a
>> written mail and with a clean language.
>
>
> Demands? this is plain xxxx (censored words) . All communications I had
> sofar with you Sabine are through mail so I do not see how that would
> change it is not as if I talked with you on IRC or something else.
>
>> Otherwise no-one will ever read your mails anymore I suppose.
>
>
> That would only make the situation more difficult wouldn't it? My
> situation and feeling would be unanswered which would mean it wouldn't
> be solved, which would mean I would get more pissed off. These emails
> would have never been send in the first place if Gerard would have
> communicated, I have quite a couple of editors on nl: who feel the same,
> Gerard doesn't communicate. If I was the only one .... I would be a
> fool, but I am not.
>
>> I just had a glance at your last e-mail-opera - the only thing you are
>> trying to do is to miscredit and not to figure out things - a
>> behaviour that is not ammissible to me (and maybe also to others).
>
>
> Not to figure out things? I have been trying to do that for months and
> if the subject in question is either not answering or talking around the
> subject in order to try and avoid having to give an answer it is
> becoming really difficult isn't it.
>
>> And don't make me go further - my mails can even be more kind than
>> this one.
>
>
> Be my guest.
>
>> Now fist of all I want
>>
>> a) an excuse to all contributors of the wikimedia projects
>
>
> I am sorry? You want me to publicly humiliate myself because you and
> Gerard share the same ideas and work together intimately?
>
>> an then it is considerable that
>>
>> b) you send in a "clean and gentle" mail about what you think and want
>> (and I mean this)
>
>
> It was send, I do not like mangling my words, I say them straight as I
> think.
>
>> c) without any aggressive tone
>
>
> My mails are never meant aggressively.
>
>>
>> d) you go and learn what the word discussion means
>
>
> I know what it means, part of it involves the other party actually
> answering your questions.
>
>> Otherwise: consider your mails not to be read anymore (there's a nice
>> function in any e-mail softare - so called filters and a neat place
>> for undesired mails: the trash-bin)
>
>
> I could become sarcastic here.
>
>> I suppose I understood the why of such a behaviour - and this has
>> nothing to do with the projects itself, but with ego.
>
>
> Great psychological insight, any more descriptions of my character?
>
>> What I found out is that you are a stweard, right? (as you can see, I
>> do my homework) and as such this behaviour is really something
>> unbelievable and unforgivable.
>
>
> Yes and you are on Italian wiktionary mainly. A steward is a technical
> function only. It is not a representative function. I am not abusing it
> in away, nor am I refusing to fullfill anyone's request. The function
> description of being a steward doesn't say anywhere about me having to
> be politically correct nor to have to forfeit my own opinion. If you do
> not want a person who says what he beliefs in and stands by it, than
> simply do not vote for me.
>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Sabine Cretella
>>
>> (and please note: I do not sign this mail with "Sabine" as usually -
>> and I don't use "ciao" - this means this mail has a very definite
>> meaning)
>
>
> Well have a good day to
>
> Walter/Waerth


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
"Life" in this context can be easily (or purposefully) to be
interpretted as something other than "biological life". To say that a
fetus is "a human life" is not the same thing for most people as
saying, "a fetus is made of living human cells." The latter is NPOV,
the former represents a specific POV ("a fetus is a person") and needs
to be *attributed* as such. If you mean it only in the strict
biological definition of life (one which does not conform necessarily
to legal, ethical, or intuitive definitions of "a human life"), it
needs to be carefully worded to reflect that, because "a human life"
is generally interpretted to mean something else.

FF

On 7/27/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
>
> User:Meelar and I are having a friendly dispute over
> how NPOV should be interpreted for the issue of "Fetus
> personhood" (no article yet), beginning on the talk
> pages of Talk:Pro-life and continuing at
> Talk:Reproductive rights. (Sorry no links -- FFox
> users can just selectlinks> rightclick> search - I
> love how google finds WP:WP links easy these days too
> :))
>
> Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
>
> I say its not, while Meelar feels that because
> pro-choice advocates have disputed the human status of
> a fetus, its therefore POV to say a human fetus is
> human. This may be a simplistic reference of his NPOV
> interpretation, (more on the talk pages) but my
> general point is that just because PC says "its not
> so" doesnt mean "its not so" just as with the FES
> claim of the earth being "flat." AIUI PC has largely
> avoided "human rights" for fetuses, by simply claiming
> they arent human, or bypassing the question through
> lesser "social rights" issues such as privacy. There
> is no "human right" to kill another human being.
>
> SV
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
I have to agree with Jimmy, but, I've only been a wikipedian for
around a month, so I haven't been here the last time it happened.

On 7/28/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the
> > year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out
> > of order?  As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's
> > banning duration is self-imposed.
>
> And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the
year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out
of order?  As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's
banning duration is self-imposed.

Sam

On 7/28/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [050728 22:16]:
>
> > He isn't just back. He's back doing a lot of crap. Check out
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19773597
> > I think maybe another year without a lot of fuss is probably what we
> > need to do.
> > I have blocked him for 48 hours based on the quoted edit. I will
> > reopen the case today and put a year's ban up for a vote.
>
>
> I was going to say "we should maybe wait for a case to be brought", but
> then I read the quoted edit. At this stage I'll declare YUO AR A ROUGE ARB
> and probably agree with you entirely.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
>>And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)
>>
>>--Jimbo
>>
>>

If it comes down to being neccessary yes, though I prefer to assume good
faith even though assume good faith may apply slightly less if at all in
this now since Plautus has shown that assuming good faith just gives him
a free pass to misbehave.

-Jtkiefer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
> That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to
> relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view
> source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
> much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
> think it's a bug in the software and go report it.

Seconded. Actually I think the whole idea of
automatically resetting the ban if the user
"attempts" to edit is silly. "Ooh! You thought
you were going to be clever and edit even though
we've told you you can't? Let's see who has the
last laugh, sucker!"

It reminds me of the time I got accused of having
a sockpuppet on a mailing list because I changed
the name in the "From" field but used the same
e-mail address. ("You clever hacker! You thought
you'd fool us by changing your name but I can
see that the e-mail address is the same!")

Regards,
Haukur


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Officially protesting against GerardM being
	thecontactperson withregards to kennisnet

body:
> Ola, cool down both of you.

I am quite calm now - working high voltage conversion faciliteis (don't
know if the translation in EN is correct ... but I have to keep calm to
do this kind of work)

>
> We like and respect both of you, and Gerard as well.

I know that :-)

>
> Now, Sabine. As long as a discussion occurs privately, you may not
> know there was ever private discussion. It is only when such
> discussions occur publicly that everyone suddenly discovers things
> (and complain things should be discussed privately first).
>
> Fact is that these discussions have occured privately, then
> semi-privately on irc.
> Fact is that other people than Waerth have complained about Gerard
> being often a bit overbearing, but are not willing to say it aloud.
> Fact is it is not only about Kennisnet, but also about the Dutch
> association.

I know that as well - I read quite a lot, but really don't have time to
answer publicly - I do this only when it comes to projects where I am
involved and spent time in them

>
> On the other hand, it is most unfortunately frequent that those being
> very very bold are also very very criticized by others... for being
> bold, for going to quickly etc... Some people are bold and quick, but
> often take no time to listen to others and act in a consensual way.
> Others are more hesitant, slow, more respectful, but listen more than
> they act, so do far less.
> We need all types. If only the first bold type, wikipedia would be a
> battlefield. If only the second type, few things would get done. So it
> might be good that we have Gerard being bold (and sometimes upsetting
> people) and Waerth being openly critical of Gerard actions.
>
> The only things that really is important, is that all voices are heard
> in the end... and currently, as an observer of the past months, I fear
> it is not so clear that all voices were heard and all opinions taken
> into account.
>
> Waerth is part of our community, just as is Gerard or you, or other
> dissenters. I do not think we should say to anyone part of the
> community  to shut up. Maybe to talk differently, maybe to act
> differently, but not to shut up.

The thing I don't accept is first throw in a few lines accusing and then
afterwards telling what it is about.

>
> And in any cases, distress is obvious, I do not think we should
> dismiss it. And I say this not only because of Waerth email (as usual,
> very impetuous as Waerth always is), but also because of other voices
> I have heard (less impetuous, but critical as well).
>
> I have unfortunately no idea what we could do at this point... :-(
> Maybe talking about it publicly if people have the willingness to do
> so ? (without fear)

See, the thing is, we have been talking about UW, tbx phrases etc. in
Wiktionary for almost a year now - just some days ago I went back and
had a look at "when UW" started in our minds, when we started to talk to
people to share contents and to simplify things - it was the 31st of
August 2004 - I also wrote in my blog about this.

I wrote quite a lot about UW just like Gerard does - what I know is that
he asks many even one by one and even outside wiktionary and wikipedia
about their opinion - where I told him "you will need to stop at a
certain point" since nothing is perfect he said that things need to be
as perfect as possible for a good startup and was writing mails and
talking to I don't know how many people one by one - not only through
the lists since mails sent to the list often don't seem to be read. It
also happened to me more than just once.

A translator's community is involved with UW - these people don't have
the time and are not willing to subscribe to further lists. Me being
active in UW and for now mainly seen on the Italian wiktionary even if I
often do things in the background nobody knows of (see the letter to the
Pope etc. - btw. it seems as if the answere is there :-)) in mainly the
Italian translator list's and in OmegaT and some other OpenSource
projects I receive over 500 e-mails a day. So I often must choose and
often I choose to talk to single people where I know they will give me
feedback instead of writing to a list where people do not seem to be
interested. That's all.

Consider this: after mails I wrote about Ultimate Wiktionary where I
also mentioned with who I am co-operating people that now show interest
don't even know who is in the project. It doesn't matter if I am
mentioned or not, otherwise I would make more buzz about that on lists
(really most Italian translators know that I am the one to talk to about
that in Italian ... they read my mails and I receive their feedback :-)

When I tell Gerard that I would just go ahead instead of discussing
points that lead to no-where he instead tells me that those people are
important for him. He wants to talk to them as even after some
apparently useless mails there could be an important point to consider
and to make our work more perfect - all too often he is right. And then
someone comes and tells things that are completely different even says
that he makes things in a hidden way or influences an organisation on
what to answer or not - this is simply not true since all the
information about the idea of UW (at the beginning these writings are
about wiktionary - the name UW came about later no) is there - it can be
found on meta and in discussion lists, in beer parlours and additionally
to that in many many single e-mails that cost hours and hours to write
just to have "that one opinion".

I have been working with Gerard for almost a year on that now - and God
knows how many hours we spent considering every single category that
could be interested (and often we have very different opinions), asking
them, finding out how and how not to do things. I am the interface
mainly to one user group of UW - translators - Gerard cares about most
of the others.

I would never be aggressive publicly - but what I read was simply too
much - I am told that I never worked together with Gerard and so I could
not know what kind of person he is - I did - nearly every day - and I
know him as a person that knows very well what to do and in particular
when to do it - he listens carefully to others and considers at the same
time all the information he already has in mind - that's where decisions
come out. Then he writes the articles, blogs, mails etc. where he
presents all the information he gathered and combined - and these are
the points where to start from. If we re-consider what already has been
done only since someone did not show up at the beginning, we will never
reach te goal. Ultimate Wiktionary is a dream for many of us - it has
been dreamt thousands of times in linguist's and translator's lifes.

Kennisnet: they are among the most important partners for us - they are
doing what all organisations should do - imagine all schools of the
world contributing only one article in whatever project a day ...
normally these contributions of pupils are then reviewed by their
teachers, so they have a generally good quality. I myself used some
articles of wikipedia in German lessons - they can be used - the
difficulty is to choose the right ones. My two pupils that will be back
in autumn will read many articles this year and study the terminology
they hopefully will find on wiktionary. We need organisations like
Kennisnet - they allow teachers to say: let's do similar things ... and
this brings potential editors and of course many many users. These today
very young users one day are grown up - and they will take our dream
pojects to success.

See we are at a turning point - and as always when there's a turning
point at the beginning there are only some supporters and many critics.
This really doesn't matter since it is normal. Time is due for changes.
You can see the "wind of changes" in so many things. And localisation in
a globalised world is the basics for communication. If it is being
stopped here, well, it really doesn't matter since then it will be
someone else to do it. The thing is: it will happen, there's no doubt -
the question is only: are we going to be part of it or not.

I still underline: taking a private or semi private discussion here in
such a way is not the appropriate way. There was no reason for an
aggression like that. There could have been a simple mail that stating
the situation and the considerations to that.

And now I am going back to the electrical current ... and if in approx.
half a year's time Sardegna will be without electrical current you will
know whose fault it is :-)

I'll read the other mails I did not answer up to now hopefully this
evenings if my two earthquakes allow it.

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikitech-l] the old Nupedia- and Wikipedia-logos

body:
I'd like to do some screenshots at web.archive.org. Is it possible to store the
old Nupedia-logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NupediaLogo.jpg) at
http://www.nupedia.com/nup4c5.jpg and the old Wikipedia-logo
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_logo_Nupedia.jpg) at
* http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.jpg
* http://deutsche.wikipedia.com/wiki.jpg
* http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.jpg
so the copys at web.archive.org look like in the old days?

Kurt

--
"Reading the Wikipedia is not a substitute for first aid training."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_resuscitation

Kurt Jansson, Wiener Str. 7, 10999 Berlin, http://www.jansson.de/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Zachary Harden wrote:
> The user in question already had put his RFC page up for deletion. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
>

And Lo, It Was Speedily Kept!

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6Gz7/RxM5Ph0xhMRA+45AJ0UsvTqT/GK64XvyHflmOWknTxw3gCfRDrO
ouQI7IL1rGkew/lj5awofVg=
=K8TT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
On 7/28/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't like the view
> source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
> much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
> think it's a bug in the software and go report it.

At the moment, if a blocked user clicks on edit, their block timer
would be reset.  This is just to avoid that happening, something
probably even more confusing.

Cheers,
Sam


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
steve v wrote:

>Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to
>be an article.
>
Certainly.  There have been entire /books/ written on the issue of fetal
personhood.  There's more than enough material to write an article about
it summarizing all the points of view.

-Mark


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Hello

>
> Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet would be willing to pay for
> access to statistical content. Kennisnet, the portal organisation it
> is, cannot fulfil such a request. There was however a discussion on
> how such data would be best hosted. Localisation and versioning were
> discussed. When you have statistical content, you want to know the
> date and the source of the content. ???????, ????? and
> ????????? have the same statistics it makes little sense to store this
> in many projects. Consequently the possibilities that Wikidata offer
> for this type of information and the possibilities that the Ultimate
> Wiktionary offer for localisation need to be considered. Kennisnet
> might consider helping with the creation of the infrastructure for
> such a project.

And in that same email I said that I would be utterly against such a
nightmare scenario of hosting those data at one place. It is yet another
project need to tend to while all problems with commons, a much less
farreaching similar approach, haven't been settled yet. Also I am just
being shown the reason that if I never get access to people of kennisnet
my ideas basically get fucked by the messenger.

It is really reassuring that kennisnet actually answers a mail I send
(NOT!) might this have something to do with Gerard telling them not to?

Walter/Waerth


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
Maybe these discussions should take place on the talk page of the article?

- Ryan

Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>I agree with the general idea but there
>are some details where I think your proposal
>goes further than is practical. Take this:
>
>"Try to avoid jargon - but where it is particularly relevant or where it
>is necessary, explain all jargon clearly on the article page - a link to
>another article is not enough."
>
>Taking 'jargon' to mean 'technical terms' I
>think this is not always practical. Is 'chromosome'
>a technical term? How about 'nucleotide'? I don't
>think it's practical to explain those terms in
>every single molecular biology page where they
>are used. If someone who doesn't understand these
>terms is reading the [[Polymerase Chain Reaction]]
>page chances are she won't understand the context
>anyway - even if the terms were briefly explained.
>
>Redundant explanations make a page cluttered.
>Short explanations are often imprecise to the
>point of being wrong or not helpful. And one of
>the great advantage of reading Wikipedia (online)
>is the ability to click on technical terms for
>more information.
>
>Technical terms are (usually) not just a method
>for ivory tower academics to keep the commoner
>out. They're a necessary component of the foundation
>of knowledge in their respective disciplines.
>
>It's just not practical to explain everything
>from first principles in every single article.
>
>Regards,
>Haukur
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
On 7/28/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In considering these topics, I'd say
>
> * the human life within a body...

Thanks for that. A well-considered, almost lyrical summary. From a
woman's point of view on a topic where far too many men don't have a
clue.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
I am hereby officially protesting against GerardM being the
contactperson with regards to kennisnet. He is manipulative, changes
your own words, the words you wrote or said yourself. He never listens
to others ideas.

> Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet

I never send a mail to kennisnet with regards to this I asked you in IRC!

> would be willing to pay for access to statistical content.

Not correct. My full question was:

Many statistics bureaus give their data away for free partially or
wholly, some ask a fee for the rest of their data mostly small. Would it
be possible especially with regards to data for third world countries
which isn't really obtainable without someone paying for it to get them
to buy some of that data for us.

> Kennisnet, the portal organisation it is, cannot fulfil such a request.

Because you hated the idea when I first proposed it, you told me it was
a bad idea and you didn't want to ask me in the first place so I do not
believe that you actually defended it or argued in favour of it. So I am
thinking you used my idea to launch your own. which is under here, which
everyone we spoke to about hates but only you like.

> There was however a discussion on how such data would be best hosted.
> Localisation and versioning were discussed. When you have statistical
> content, you want to know the date and the source of the content. ??
> ?????, ????? and ????????? have the same statistics it makes
> little sense to store this in many projects. Consequently the
> possibilities that Wikidata offer for this type of information and the
> possibilities that the Ultimate Wiktionary offer for localisation need
> to be considered. Kennisnet might consider helping with the creation
> of the infrastructure for such a project.

Cool we have a database BUT NO DATA TO HOST IN IT ..... sounds like a
great idea. The reason for the discrepacies between the projects are
simple. As I pointed out on nl: I use for the countries I maintain the
data from the statistical organizations, the official sources. On other
wikipedia's they use unofficial estimates by sites such as
citypopulation.de which are more often than not way off in respect to
the official data, ever wondered why the Dutch wikipedia has a province
more for Cambodia than all other wikipedia's? Because it is there and it
was formed recently according to the statistical data, but try to say it
on en: and it gets deleted. Now I do not feel that doing this in one
central place will help. We will only get estimates which is a totally
wrong thing, I rather have the data per wikipedia seperately so I can at
least make sure the data as we have it on nl: is right. I have no time
to go in heated arguments with a bunch of teenagers on en: who also
happen to have found wikidata. Centralization is good, but not for
everything. Yet another project would only harm wikimedia. As we get
spread out to much especially a project that is overlapping with other
projects.

Now for the end, as long as Gerard is not being questioned about his
role with regards to kennisnet, nor the foundation is giving some
opening as to what gerards actual mandates are I am against any further
collaberation between the Dutch languaged wikimedia projects and Kennisnet.

Waerth/Walter van Kalken


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Brainstrorming at Kennisnet (Sabine)

body:
Sabine,

>
> How can you ever only think about something like that? Please, before
> making such assumptions use your grey cells.

I am using them I have had to think a year and communicate with gerard
for a year to come to this conclusion.

>
> People who talk like you in public to miscredit others just are ...
> better not to say otherwise I'd reach the same level you have and I
> definitely won't.

Well I have the guts to do it in public and not behing his back. I am
doing it where he can see it in front of his eyes.

> If you have a problem with Gerard or someone else I'd kindly invite
> you to do this privately and not in public mailing lists.

I have discussed it privately for about 6 months, through IRC, Skype and
mail and he simply never listens. Not to me nor to anyone else. In the
beginning I thought I might be stupid or an idiot, untill I noticed many
others having the same feelings. The difference is they say it around
his back, I have been telling it to him in the open or privately with
him. Now it has reached a boiling point as far as I am concerned and I
am at a point that I will not accept the way Gerard works anymore.

> Another thing I would kindly ask you is to reconsider the language you
> use - certain terms are not appropriate for public. You could have
> written "basically get not considered as they should" - not everyone
> is used to a certain "style".

Like everything I do I write the way I am. I have no reason to hide who
I am, or how I think, or to hide my intentions. I have always been
straight and what I say is what I think. I do not hide my thoughts
behind politically correct phrasemongering.

> I am upset, really upset.
>
So am I but we are upset both for different reasons.

Waerth/Walter


from_name: ilooy

body:
Hi Ant,
My apologies as well,
I don't think we're reading
each others messages fully
before replying... I agree that
censoring someone for an
opinion that isn't shared by
a large group is nothing that
Wikipedia should be involved
in. I'm always for POV on
articles and I encourate user
Toytoy, to whom my message
was mostly directed, to state
his opinions on any discussion
in Meta or any language 'pedia.

I do not welcome the closing
of existing wikis on the value
judgements he argues for in
the meta page. I don't think
they are valid enough and I
find them to be shortsighted
as regards different cultures.
But I defend his right to state
what he thinks and propose
what he wishes.

I'm supporting the establishment
and the continued support of wikis
which present different cultural
insights by means of expression
in different languages. That would
include the constructed languages
such as Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua,
Interlingue and Volapuk. They have
enough supporters out there to
warrant an ISO code and I think
this is enough to convince me that
they'd eventually bloom to show
their colors. You can tell what seems
important in a wiki by the amount of
articles on some subjects, and in
looking at the differences in language
wikis this is very interesting to me,
and perhaps others.

The Latin Wiki, of which I was one
of the first users, and designed the
first HomePage and Logos, is written
in a "dead" language, but it has blossomed
and it enjoys a lot of traffic lately. The
Galego wiki is another example, I also
had a hand in getting that wiki going at
first. And so I'm looking ahead at what
they could be in the future.

You sent me to look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
and of course I appreciate the illustration
but I admit that I wouldn't support the
use of a wiki-herbicide or user-herbicide
either. So I agree and I appreciate the
illustration, it also taught me a new term.

Killing the good along with the bad isn't
just. Of course. It reminds me of Abraham
arguing with God about the destruction of
the righteous along with the unrighteous.

But that of course was not why I added
my message to this thread. And please
Ant, please know that I've always
appreciated your insight and respect
your right, as well as anyone else's
right to express opinions.

I hope I haven't further misunderstood
any message in this thread and
I hope I was able to clear up any
misunderstanding I might have
myself caused in this regard.

With sincere greetings,
Jay B.

2005/7/28, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
> Apology, but you obviously did not read what I wrote. Please read it again.
>
> I also totally support all the language wikipedias blooming and never asked for any to be closed (but for a bunch of minor artificial languages admitedly which I think could belong somewhere in our projects, but NOT as encyclopedias)...
>
> ...but for me an encyclopedia is a flower... and a person is a flower as well.
>
> If you let only flowers of a unique color, of a unique size and of a unique flowering period bloom, then you get a very beautiful but also very flat and boring flower bed during one month, and a carpet of crushed and drying petals the rest of the year.
>
> When the color of a flower is not pleasant to your eye, you could just avoid having on in your garden, or avoid looking at it. But destroying it is just not a good solution.
>
> And what I observed on meta was exactly that : the proposal did not please, it could have been left aside without caring, without giving it any more attention. What I object to is that the proposal was "closed", not to be discussed any more by *anyone*, threatened to be *deleted*, and the author treated like a *paria*. This reminds me of 1984. Unique thought and careful removal of people faces on pictures. To avoid anyone disturbing the perfection of a consensual flower bed.
>
> I do not put glyphosate in my garden to remove all weeds.
>
> anthere


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
>From: Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>I've created a page, called Readers First, at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Readers_First .
>The idea is to outline to editors what the problem is and to give
>suggestions as to how to
>eliminate it.

In case people still think I was making stuff up when I suggested that
included in this "Put the readers first" campaign was the idea of removing
BCE/CE, I simply note today that jguk has used this exact argument today in
a Talk: page in order to support the use of BC/AD instead of BCE/CE.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElam&diff=19807258&oldid=19806133]

Jay.


body:
2005/7/28, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com>:
> [...]
> But, before that process starts, the wiki should be publicised. Maybe
> mention it in some sort of announcement, like "XYZ language Wikipedia
> has existed for 3 years and still has 6 articles. Please help to
> contribute to this Wikipedia, if you know XYZ language. Without more
> support, the Inactive wiki closure process will begin in X months.".
> Also, if the language is a common'ish language, then the wiki should
> not be closed -- it will eventually take off. The wiki closure process
> should be very rare.

Thanks Phroziac,
you helped me look at the issue
a bit differently, and maybe the
term closure wouldn't have to mean
'deletion'. It could be put on a
probation basis (how that reminds
me of Animal House, but...) if it
could be that after a year or so of
no relevant activity, which would
include article submission, instead
of vandalism attacks, let's say...
it could be put on non-edit status
until there were requests to have
it re-opened. So it would remain
as a visitable site, but not editable
after a year of non-activity, thereafter
requests for it to open could put it
back online.

When I think of deletion of the
minor language wikis it just gives
me the willeys. Hibernation would
definitely be more appropriate and
palatable concerning these minor
language versions of Wikipedia.

With regards,
Jay B.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Officially protesting against GerardM being
	thecontactperson withregards to kennisnet

body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:

> Did you ever hear about conditions in contracts? about written and
> oral agreements? do you know why normally agreements

..... skip .....

> words considering the kind of language and espression you are used to
> use.

You have never really had to deal with gerard extensively in him
representing your project. I am not the only one with these feelings. I
am the only one currently opening about it.

> Please just shut up now and if you have requests make them in a
> written mail and with a clean language.

Demands? this is plain xxxx (censored words) . All communications I had
sofar with you Sabine are through mail so I do not see how that would
change it is not as if I talked with you on IRC or something else.

> Otherwise no-one will ever read your mails anymore I suppose.

That would only make the situation more difficult wouldn't it? My
situation and feeling would be unanswered which would mean it wouldn't
be solved, which would mean I would get more pissed off. These emails
would have never been send in the first place if Gerard would have
communicated, I have quite a couple of editors on nl: who feel the same,
Gerard doesn't communicate. If I was the only one .... I would be a
fool, but I am not.

> I just had a glance at your last e-mail-opera - the only thing you are
> trying to do is to miscredit and not to figure out things - a
> behaviour that is not ammissible to me (and maybe also to others).

Not to figure out things? I have been trying to do that for months and
if the subject in question is either not answering or talking around the
subject in order to try and avoid having to give an answer it is
becoming really difficult isn't it.

> And don't make me go further - my mails can even be more kind than
> this one.

Be my guest.

> Now fist of all I want
>
> a) an excuse to all contributors of the wikimedia projects

I am sorry? You want me to publicly humiliate myself because you and
Gerard share the same ideas and work together intimately?

> an then it is considerable that
>
> b) you send in a "clean and gentle" mail about what you think and want
> (and I mean this)

It was send, I do not like mangling my words, I say them straight as I
think.

> c) without any aggressive tone

My mails are never meant aggressively.

>
> d) you go and learn what the word discussion means

I know what it means, part of it involves the other party actually
answering your questions.

> Otherwise: consider your mails not to be read anymore (there's a nice
> function in any e-mail softare - so called filters and a neat place
> for undesired mails: the trash-bin)

I could become sarcastic here.

> I suppose I understood the why of such a behaviour - and this has
> nothing to do with the projects itself, but with ego.

Great psychological insight, any more descriptions of my character?

> What I found out is that you are a stweard, right? (as you can see, I
> do my homework) and as such this behaviour is really something
> unbelievable and unforgivable.

Yes and you are on Italian wiktionary mainly. A steward is a technical
function only. It is not a representative function. I am not abusing it
in away, nor am I refusing to fullfill anyone's request. The function
description of being a steward doesn't say anywhere about me having to
be politically correct nor to have to forfeit my own opinion. If you do
not want a person who says what he beliefs in and stands by it, than
simply do not vote for me.

> Best wishes,
>
> Sabine Cretella
>
> (and please note: I do not sign this mail with "Sabine" as usually -
> and I don't use "ciao" - this means this mail has a very definite
> meaning)

Well have a good day to

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> 'Human life' is also an odd term to use in this context since any cell from a
> human is by definition human life. 'Independent human life' is another thing
> altogether but in terms of gestation, would only include a viable fetus.
>

I think the term you are searching for is "organism".

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6JyW/RxM5Ph0xhMRAxMmAJ96bdGRCw/bBKs+fStT4kVe+smqagCglfdY
371pIa17O0Rw8DhIMZBRSJA=
=Iujd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
I think it should be more then a year, but other then that I have to
agree. Maybe two years.

By the way, are you typing these emails on a PDA or something? There
are very few words per line, which makes me have to scroll more. Not a
real big deal though.

On 7/28/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/7/28, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com>:
> > [...]
> > But, before that process starts, the wiki should be publicised. Maybe
> > mention it in some sort of announcement, like "XYZ language Wikipedia
> > has existed for 3 years and still has 6 articles. Please help to
> > contribute to this Wikipedia, if you know XYZ language. Without more
> > support, the Inactive wiki closure process will begin in X months.".
> > Also, if the language is a common'ish language, then the wiki should
> > not be closed -- it will eventually take off. The wiki closure process
> > should be very rare.
>
> Thanks Phroziac,
> you helped me look at the issue
> a bit differently, and maybe the
> term closure wouldn't have to mean
> 'deletion'. It could be put on a
> probation basis (how that reminds
> me of Animal House, but...) if it
> could be that after a year or so of
> no relevant activity, which would
> include article submission, instead
> of vandalism attacks, let's say...
> it could be put on non-edit status
> until there were requests to have
> it re-opened. So it would remain
> as a visitable site, but not editable
> after a year of non-activity, thereafter
> requests for it to open could put it
> back online.
>
> When I think of deletion of the
> minor language wikis it just gives
> me the willeys. Hibernation would
> definitely be more appropriate and
> palatable concerning these minor
> language versions of Wikipedia.
>
> With regards,
> Jay B.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
signature


from_name: Perki Pat

subject: [Wikitech-l] like $wgWhitelistRead but $wgBlacklistread

body:
I've wrote a little thing for mediawiki. I need an open wiki where an
anonymous user can read all pages but a few ones.

I've seen there is an array called $wgWhitelistRead where you can say
what pages can be viewed when an anonymous user can not view all pages.
Thus, this is exactle tne inverse I need.

I've made a patch for includes/Title.php, that allows to view all pages
to an anonymous user but the few ones called in $wgBlacklistRead.

(the patch is from mediawiki-1.4.5, but it's easy to port, I suppose)

The diff -u outputs, if anyone thinks it may be interesting:

--- /root/paquetes/mediawiki-1.4.5/includes/Title.php   2005-05-06
05:25:43.000000000 +0200
+++ ./includes/Title.php        2005-07-28 19:13:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -858,6 +858,14 @@
                 global $wgUser;

                 if( $wgUser->isAllowed('read') ) {
+                       global $wgBlacklistRead;
+
+                       /** some pages are explicitly disallowed */
+                       $name = $this->getPrefixedText();
+                       if( in_array( $name, $wgBlacklistRead ) ) {
+                               return false;
+                       }
+
                         return true;
                 } else {
                         global $wgWhitelistRead;

and includes/DefaultSettings.php:

--- /root/paquetes/mediawiki-1.4.5/includes/DefaultSettings.php
2005-06-03 16:51:06.000000000 +0200
+++ ./includes/DefaultSettings.php      2005-07-28 19:25:21.000000000 +0200
@@ -452,6 +452,7 @@

  $wgWhitelistEdit = false;   # true = user must login to edit.
  $wgWhitelistRead = false;      # Pages anonymous user may see, like: =
array ( "Main Page", "Special:Userlogin", "Wikipedia:Help");
+$wgBlacklistRead = false;      # Pages anonymous users shouldn't see
  $wgWhitelistAccount = array ( 'user' => 1, 'sysop' => 1, 'developer'
=> 1 );

  $wgAllowAnonymousMinor = false; # Allow anonymous users to mark
changes as 'minor'

Remember this is for mediawiki-1.4.5, and this is the first time I send
code to an open-source project


subject: [WikiEN-l] 72-hour block

body:
On 7/28/05, Lapsed Pacifist <lapsedpacifist at campus.ie> wrote:
> Hi. My user name is Lapsed Pacifist, and my IP is 159.134.233.225. I'm sorry to say I've been here before, the last time things were resolved amicably. I've been blocked for 3 days by Jtdirl, and I believe this administrator is in breach of Wikipedia policy as outlined on Wikipedia:Blocking policy, specifically: "blocks should not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits" and "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." I don't agree that my edits are disruptive, but even if this administrator does, my contentious entries are easily outnumbered by hundreds of others, and this administrator and I are currently disagreeing on different matters.

This particular admin has a history of making inappropriate blocks,
especially as a weapon in edit wars in which he is involved.

The case of [[user:pwqn]] is before us. A long history of good edits,
he makes a perfectly reasonable edit to an article in which this admin
has sunk a lot of ego, and bingo, he's blocked for a month. No
warning, no consultation, no discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive35#Block_of_User:Pwqn

Although the block was speedily lifted, pwqn has not returned. This
admin made no apology and in fact would not admit that he had made any
error at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pwqn

Not too long ago, Jimbo was in this forum asking for links and diffs
showing abuse of admin powers. These were provided here, but no action
was taken.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

body:
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com) [050728 06:51]:

> Could be the people who use 'quote your sources' as a way to win arguments,
> rather than improve the encyclopedia?

Any crank can attach twenty spurious references with no effort at all. But
that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic in itself.

- d.


body:
On 7/28/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com) [050728 06:51]:
>
> > Could be the people who use 'quote your sources' as a way to win arguments,
> > rather than improve the encyclopedia?
>
> Any crank can attach twenty spurious references with no effort at all. But
> that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic in itself.

Odd you should mention this, David. One particular user attached ten
spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him up. But he
pretends they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_facto_head_of_state&diff=next&oldid=19747977

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Feature Requests

body:
On 26/07/05, johny why <johnwhy at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> 1.      "Feature Request" feature: I have had a very difficult time finding
> a "Feature Request" feature on Wikipedia. It should be easy to find. The
> "Feature Request" part of the "Bug Report" page doesn't seem to exist.

The bug tracker for MediaWiki (the wiki software) and also for "low
level" configuration/administration of the site is at
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org

In Bugzilla, a feature request is a bug with its "severity" marked as
"enhancement".

> 2.      "Page Change Alert" feature: I would like to receive an email alert
> when any pages I have marked for tracking are editing.

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Enotif for an extension to the
software (built directly into the software as of 1.5, I believe) that
does exactly this. However, I think there is some resistance to
turning this feature on for Wikimedia projects.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Media wiki coloring tabs

body:
Matt Mozer wrote:
> I am reposting my question since we upgraded media wiki to 1.4.7 and
> are still experiencing the same behavior.
>
> The internal wiki links in MediaWiki are either blue (click to view an
> existing article) or red (click to edit a new article). This coloring
> applies to the tabs at the top as well.
> We have a number of stub articles in our wiki that are showing their
> discussion tabs as red, even though the discussion does in fact exist.
>
> It is only happening on the articles tab (discussion is red in color
> when it is not new) but it doesn't happen for any other tabs.

Your Template:Stub includes this code:

{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:Talk:{{PAGENAME}}}}

this appears to poison the link cache by trying to look up a
non-namespaced page "Talk:IRS Enrolled Agent Exam"; the extra colon at
the start confuses it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050728/51fcb2a7/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
I agree with the general idea but there
are some details where I think your proposal
goes further than is practical. Take this:

"Try to avoid jargon - but where it is particularly relevant or where it
is necessary, explain all jargon clearly on the article page - a link to
another article is not enough."

Taking 'jargon' to mean 'technical terms' I
think this is not always practical. Is 'chromosome'
a technical term? How about 'nucleotide'? I don't
think it's practical to explain those terms in
every single molecular biology page where they
are used. If someone who doesn't understand these
terms is reading the [[Polymerase Chain Reaction]]
page chances are she won't understand the context
anyway - even if the terms were briefly explained.

Redundant explanations make a page cluttered.
Short explanations are often imprecise to the
point of being wrong or not helpful. And one of
the great advantage of reading Wikipedia (online)
is the ability to click on technical terms for
more information.

Technical terms are (usually) not just a method
for ivory tower academics to keep the commoner
out. They're a necessary component of the foundation
of knowledge in their respective disciplines.

It's just not practical to explain everything
from first principles in every single article.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
A few days ago I noted the problem that many articles which could be written for a wide audience, are written in too technical or complicated terms. I think someone mentioned the article on "Basalt" was a good example of an article which a general reader should be able to understand, but which is currently written in too complicated language for the average reader to understand.

I've created a page, called Readers First, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Readers_First . The idea is to outline to editors what the problem is and to give suggestions as to how to eliminate it. The aim being that, where those supporting the idea come across an article written in a way that can't be generally understood, Readers First is noted on the talk page, together with suggestions for improvement. I suppose I see it as a "train the editors" tool to try to make Wikipedia a better information resource for all. Of course, some, maybe most, will ignore it - but if we're to improve a lot of articles wholesale, we need to get buy-in from the major editors of those articles, rather than plough through Wikipedia slowly improving articles one by one.

I'd welcome constructive comments on the Readers First talk page.

Kind regards

Jon (jguk)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Borlaug feature pre-reporting; About about WP

body:
On 7/28/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> It wouldn't have to mean more work. The rotation could be done
> automatically with a random selection extension like the image at
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Featuredimage and the featured
> game on http://games.wikicities.com/
>
> Angela.

I hate to be the downer on this, but I'm a little bit surprised that
no one has asked the obvious question - what is the point of this?
We're currently producing about ten featured articles a week. That's
enough to keep up the current system and give Raul a little bit of
choice in order to keep an interesting mix of main page articles. If
we had two or three featured articles on the main page a day (which I
don't see as very necessary anyway), we'd have to substantially
increase our output of featured articles, or else we'd be having to
repeat already-featured articles in a matter of months.

-- ambi


body:
Gordon Mohr (@ Bitzi) wrote:

> FYI, the mechanism for patching the archived page to use contemporaneous
> embedded images relies on Javascript. Perhaps you have Javascript
> disabled in your browser, and merely need to reenable it to get the
> screenshots you need?

That does the trick. My ad blocker was the problem. Thanks!

Kurt


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Image deletion : policies and technology

references:
<742dfd06050708130249dac746@mail.gmail.com>
	<db8v2p$dlo$1@sea.gmane.org> <loom.20050715T224255-222@post.gmane.org>
	<dcbo9r$u9t$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 7/28/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Bovlb wrote:
> >
> > We could add some text to [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]] that links to the
> deletion
> > log and WP:VFD.
>
> But we can't, without changes to the software, display different text
> depending on whether there actually *was* a page that had been deleted
> recently. It's quite unprofessional to go, "This page *MAY* have been
> deleted... go check in the Deletion Log to see if that's the case!"
> Like, as if it was impossible to have the software check for you.
>
> Timwi

Even as a sysop you need to go to the history link it seems.

Pakaran


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
On 7/28/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:

> In case people still think I was making stuff up when I suggested that
> included in this "Put the readers first" campaign was the idea of removing
> BCE/CE, I simply note today that jguk has used this exact argument today in
> a Talk: page in order to support the use of BC/AD instead of BCE/CE.
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElam&diff=19807258&oldid=19806133]
>
> Jay.

Nevertheless, the proposal is genuine, well-intended (imho), and is (I
think) quite sensible.  Let's try debating the proposal, not Jon's
actions.

Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [050728 22:16]:

> He isn't just back. He's back doing a lot of crap. Check out
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19773597
> I think maybe another year without a lot of fuss is probably what we
> need to do.
> I have blocked him for 48 hours based on the quoted edit. I will
> reopen the case today and put a year's ban up for a vote.

I was going to say "we should maybe wait for a case to be brought", but
then I read the quoted edit. At this stage I'll declare YUO AR A ROUGE ARB
and probably agree with you entirely.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Fred Bauder wrote:
> Plautus satire is probably an older man. What you suggest is
> appropriate for younger users who get carried away. We should give 10
> year olds plenty of chances to get it right.
>

Proposal for a new policy:

1. User does something stupid -> User is warned.
2. User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
policy pages.
3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which
will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.

At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are
required. Namely:

* Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
their user_talk page)
* Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
&action=edit page will still reset the block

Possibly (or otherwise), I think something more drastic (but potentially
more beneficial) might be required if this doesn't/won't work:

Per-user, per-namespace, per-category blocking. Which means:

* User can be prevented from editing any pages in a particular namespace
(eg. articles);
* User can be prevented from editing any articles in a particular category

Now, tell me where and how to do these things in PHP (I'm fairly certain
I could do them in pseudocode), and they'll be implemented by Mediawiki
1.8  :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6OcE/RxM5Ph0xhMRA0QpAJ9QRZMOSwYXQlNzV6mTYwrOlCVR6wCeLQGv
TVOyTFpI38+/HgVK2NUla30=
=9CJs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Feature Requests

body:
johny why wrote:
>
> 1.	"Feature Request" feature: [...] It should be easy to find.

No way. We'd be swamped by the requests.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

body:
James Gibbon wrote:
> Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>That's 82%, which I call "most".
>
> I think that's 82% of the US specifically though, no?

It would help to read the thread that led up to the message you are
reply to before replying to it. It was specifically about Americans.

> For other Western countries the figure will be considerably lower.

Fortunately, yes.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Phroziac wrote:
> That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to
> relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view
> source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
> much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
> think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
>
> On 7/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Proposal for a new policy:
>>
>>1. User does something stupid -> User is warned.
>>2. User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
>>policy pages.
>>3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which
>>will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
>>
>>At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are
>>required. Namely:
>>
>>* Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
>>their user_talk page)
>>* Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
>>&action=edit page will still reset the block
<snip>

There are two problems I see at present. The first one is ignorance -
the "How was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to do that?" defence.
Yes, the user should probably be pointed to policy pages on the first
warning.

My present way of dealing with the clueless is:

if(!user.welcomed)
{
    assumeGoodFaith();
    welcomeUser();
}
else if(!user.warned)
{
    assumeGoodFaith();
    warnUser();
}
else
{
    warnUser();
}

The second problem has been outlined in a message just in...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6Ox//RxM5Ph0xhMRA26zAJ49I9kKHkD133h1po1JmQPl04ui6ACeO+lx
x/3M1I3oSfIItm1PkrmhDno=
=gJ0V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Bovlb wrote:
>
> We could add some text to [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]] that links to the deletion
> log and WP:VFD.

But we can't, without changes to the software, display different text
depending on whether there actually *was* a page that had been deleted
recently. It's quite unprofessional to go, "This page *MAY* have been
deleted... go check in the Deletion Log to see if that's the case!"
Like, as if it was impossible to have the software check for you.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 7/28/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't like the view
>>source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
>>much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
>>think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
>
>
> At the moment, if a blocked user clicks on edit, their block timer
> would be reset.  This is just to avoid that happening, something
> probably even more confusing.
>

Which is the second problem I alluded to ;)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6O07/RxM5Ph0xhMRA/4mAJ9PoYRXFmFmv9o2JmEOHXaiiSwO5wCdGttO
gCukjmVCS0PsUnmZqgOOjrs=
=b7li
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Anthere wrote:

>> and the continued support of wikis which present different cultural
>> insights by means of expression
>> in different languages. That would include the constructed languages
>> such as Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua,
>> Interlingue and Volapuk. They have enough supporters out there to
>> warrant an ISO code and I think
>> this is enough to convince me that they'd eventually bloom to show
>> their colors. You can tell what seems
>> important in a wiki by the amount of articles on some subjects, and
>> in looking at the differences in language
>> wikis this is very interesting to me, and perhaps others.
>
> I'm supporting the establishment
>
> True...
> Esperanto has many many supporters, so I think it is welcome amongst us.
> I am not so convinced for languages such as Klington. I do not think I
> would go as far as stopping it, but I would do nothing for it to develop.
> Also, some developers do not wish to spend too much time on a very
> small wiki, while there is so much work. I understand that. But why I
> would find very unfortunate that a real language, such as Wolof be not
> supported, I just will not mind if no one wants to help the Klington :-)

At Wiktionary I am constantly arguing about words in artificial
languages.  When they read about Wiktionary's ambition to  have all
words in all languages.  These range from someone's unique fantasies
about language to languages designed to accompany a work of fiction.
It's not a question of anyone trying to build whole wikis out of these
languages, but a battle on an article by article basis.  I sometimes
wonder that people have great difficulty separating the fantasy world
from the real world.

>> and of course I appreciate the illustration but I admit that I
>> wouldn't support the use of a wiki-herbicide or user-herbicide
>> either. So I agree and I appreciate the illustration, it also taught
>> me a new term.
>
> You sent me to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

That we still have Wikipedians who would use broad spectrum pesticides
to control vandalism is worrying.  It makes me wonder about how much
commitment they have to the spirit of openness, and even if they
understand it.  They seem to reflect the premise that every little
problem has a spectacular solution.  If you're having problems with
insects kill all the insects; if you want to bring prosperity build a
mega-project; if you want to stop terrorsism whip up entire populations
into paranoid frenzy.  If as a result we lose crops that are left
unpollinated, or farms that are flooded, or friendships become infested
with suspicions that is a small price to pay because what the leaders
hold dear will have been protected.

> Hmmm, right. I explain. I am in a middle of a project, which intent is
> to help farmers and their techniciens in their decision-making over
> herbicide uses on cereales. The people for who I am creating this
> application are ... a bit getting on my nerves :-)

Sometimes people in whose interest we work are the most problematic.  It
can be easier to deal with a reliable enemy than an erratic ally.

>> Killing the good along with the bad isn't
>> just. Of course. It reminds me of Abraham
>> arguing with God about the destruction of
>> the righteous along with the unrighteous.
>
Sounds like justification for collateral damage has been around for a
long time.

Ec


from_name: Anthere

body:
ilooy a ?crit:
> Hi Ant,
> My apologies as well,
> I don't think we're reading
> each others messages fully
> before replying...

Hi

Yeah, that happens, but your message was so very poetic, it was real
nice and flowery :-)

> I do not welcome the closing
> of existing wikis on the value
> judgements he argues for in
> the meta page. I don't think
> they are valid enough and I
> find them to be shortsighted
> as regards different cultures.
> But I defend his right to state
> what he thinks and propose
> what he wishes.

Nod

> I'm supporting the establishment
> and the continued support of wikis
> which present different cultural
> insights by means of expression
> in different languages. That would
> include the constructed languages
> such as Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua,
> Interlingue and Volapuk. They have
> enough supporters out there to
> warrant an ISO code and I think
> this is enough to convince me that
> they'd eventually bloom to show
> their colors. You can tell what seems
> important in a wiki by the amount of
> articles on some subjects, and in
> looking at the differences in language
> wikis this is very interesting to me,
> and perhaps others.

True...
Esperanto has many many supporters, so I think it is welcome amongst us.
I am not so convinced for languages such as Klington. I do not think I
would go as far as stopping it, but I would do nothing for it to develop.
Also, some developers do not wish to spend too much time on a very small
wiki, while there is so much work. I understand that. But why I would
find very unfortunate that a real language, such as Wolof be not
supported, I just will not mind if no one wants to help the Klington :-)

> The Latin Wiki, of which I was one
> of the first users, and designed the
> first HomePage and Logos, is written
> in a "dead" language, but it has blossomed
> and it enjoys a lot of traffic lately. The
> Galego wiki is another example, I also
> had a hand in getting that wiki going at
> first. And so I'm looking ahead at what
> they could be in the future.

Latin language is dead, but it hold some roots for many of us.

> You sent me to look up
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
> and of course I appreciate the illustration
> but I admit that I wouldn't support the
> use of a wiki-herbicide or user-herbicide
> either. So I agree and I appreciate the
> illustration, it also taught me a new term.

Hmmm, right. I explain. I am in a middle of a project, which intent is
to help farmers and their techniciens in their decision-making over
herbicide uses on cereales. The people for who I am creating this
application are ... a bit getting on my nerves :-)
Glyphosate (most known under his trade name, RoundUp, is sold by another
big commercial firm... and each time I want to tease them, I cite other
firms products.

RoundUp is the big reference for gardeners as well. It is very little
remanent fortunately, but it kills about everything around :-)

> Killing the good along with the bad isn't
> just. Of course. It reminds me of Abraham
> arguing with God about the destruction of
> the righteous along with the unrighteous.
>
> But that of course was not why I added
> my message to this thread. And please
> Ant, please know that I've always
> appreciated your insight and respect
> your right, as well as anyone else's
> right to express opinions.

I very much appreciate your civility and again your flowery message :-)
Thanks

Ant

> I hope I haven't further misunderstood
> any message in this thread and
> I hope I was able to clear up any
> misunderstanding I might have
> myself caused in this regard.
>
> With sincere greetings,
> Jay B.
>
>
> 2005/7/28, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
>
>>Apology, but you obviously did not read what I wrote. Please read it again.
>>
>>I also totally support all the language wikipedias blooming and never asked for any to be closed (but for a bunch of minor artificial languages admitedly which I think could belong somewhere in our projects, but NOT as encyclopedias)...
>>
>>...but for me an encyclopedia is a flower... and a person is a flower as well.
>>
>>If you let only flowers of a unique color, of a unique size and of a unique flowering period bloom, then you get a very beautiful but also very flat and boring flower bed during one month, and a carpet of crushed and drying petals the rest of the year.
>>
>>When the color of a flower is not pleasant to your eye, you could just avoid having on in your garden, or avoid looking at it. But destroying it is just not a good solution.
>>
>>And what I observed on meta was exactly that : the proposal did not please, it could have been left aside without caring, without giving it any more attention. What I object to is that the proposal was "closed", not to be discussed any more by *anyone*, threatened to be *deleted*, and the author treated like a *paria*. This reminds me of 1984. Unique thought and careful removal of people faces on pictures. To avoid anyone disturbing the perfection of a consensual flower bed.
>>
>>I do not put glyphosate in my garden to remove all weeds.
>>
>>anther
>
> e


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Notification of new Meta discussion and vote:
	"Sinitic linguistic policy"

body:
Hi all,

Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_Sinitic_linguistic_policy

I request that everybody vote.

Any comments may be made on the talkpage.

Thanks
Mark