body:
Would it really make everyone happy?

No.

There would still be people whinging endlessly that it should be
closed and/or deleted.

Mark

On 03/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that simple ignoring of this project would make it disappear in a
> one-two year time.
>
> What the you do not get is that there is one simple solution: move mo to
> mo-cyr. And everyone gets happy.
>
> Is this so difficult?
>
> On 7/2/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > You do not get it.
> >
> > It is an annoyance. One of the points made is that the Moldovan
> > wikipedia is just trolling. Consider what makes a troll thrive;
> > attention. The more attention that you give it, ANY attention the more
> > it will get entrenched. There is this saying: "I do not care what they
> > say about me as long as they write my name correctly", all this
> > attention makes the mo.wikipedia "relevant". If it is not relevant,
> > refrain from giving it attention and at some time it will just
> > evaporate. If it does not, it cannot be considered trolling and you are
> > plain wrong.
> >
> > The best thing for you to do: shut up. Ignore this project. Everybody
> > will be happier and maybe you will be proven to be right.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> >
> > Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > > I would have to object to the position taken by people who can make a
> > > difference.
> > >
> > > IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me. I do not
> > > want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all this
> > junk.
> > >
> > > I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an issue. I
> >
> > > agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an unimportant
> > > Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire community. If
> > this
> > > issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all possible
> >
> > > Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and Moldovan
> > > Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a problem.
> > >
> > > Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty war that
> > I
> > > personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for those
> > who
> > > can make a difference to just ignore?
> > >
> > > Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create
> > confusion
> > > and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free
> > encyclopedia
> > > of the highest possible quality"?
> > >
> > > Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to take and
> >
> > > implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and
> > impossible
> > > arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and all over
> > > the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests to do is
> > use
> > > common sense to decide on this issue.
> > >
> > > It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by stewards
> > and
> > > bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.
> > >
> > > But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance to
> > adopt. I
> > > still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop
> > deliberately
> > > ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not cease
> > > re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an entire
> > > country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million persons)
> > are
> > > incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me - if no
> > one
> > > else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a two-three
> > months
> > > time.
> > >
> > > If you managed to read till this point, thank you.
> > >
> > > Liviu
> > >
> > > On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jacky PB wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
> > >>>
> > >> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved would
> > mean
> > >> wasting
> > >> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something unimportant.
> > The
> > >> safest
> > >> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same as we do
> > >> with
> > >> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
> > >>
> > >> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Liviu
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Viral swarming teenage vanity spam

body:
--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs
> inculsionist battles.

Dont crap on my soapbox, kid.

No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV
guides not only how articles are written, but what
constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who
understand what NPOV means will understand what an
encyclopedia is.

To say its just inclusion or disinclusion is to ignore
the fact that the rationale for either must be NPOV,
ie. encyclopedicality... ness. Otherwise Wikipedia
becomes just a wiki and not a 'Pedia.
Doesnt it?

S

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?

Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.

However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against
yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
necessary and making everyone stop caring.

Mark

On 03/07/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> more than 6 months old.
>
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
>
> My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> than the one I followed.
>
> Yours,
> :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
  But a modicum of incidental chit-chat
> aside from any greater purpose does not seem to be out of bounds
> with what I observe on a day-to-day basis on this List.

It does to me, can you take this to the wiki please rather than this
mailing list. Cheers

Theresa


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 7/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>(snips)
> > No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV
> > guides not only how articles are written, but what
> > constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who
> > understand what NPOV means will understand what an
> > encyclopedia is.
> >
>
> Doubtful. Historicaly most  encyclopedias have not been NPOV.

Historicaly going back a ways; fairly neutral POV has been the
standard in the last 50 years or longer.  I think it's reasonable to
claim that NPOV is part of modern encyclopedic, as modern readers
should be familiar with.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal for Wikipedia in European Portuguese

body:
James Hare wrote:

>The only reason why I can see two different Portuguese wikis is because the
>two (majority) versions -- European Portuguese and Brazillian Portuguese --
>are very different. Are they?
>
>On 7/2/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry for my English. Recently, a newbie from Portuguese Wikipedia has
>>proposed on meta a vote to create Wikipedia in european portuguese. He
>>don't
>>talked about it with any editor from pt:Wikipedia and that proposal has
>>discovered by me, accidentally. I send a note in Village Pump from
>>pt:wikipedia. More than 30 editors has voted against that proposal.
>>Unconsoled with this, he was suspended that voting and is imposing to, in
>>a
>>new vote about it, only europeans speakers can vote on it.
>>
>>Is all ok to the current rules for request a new language?
>>
>>
>>
As a fluent portuguese speaker, I have no idea why a vote of this nature
must be restricted to only those who come from a certain country or
continent.  I am, however, opposed to this idea, as well as the earlier
Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia proposal that also failed.  To me this
sounds like somebody trying to establish rules that would make his pet
project work, when there is strong opposition to the idea.  I'll put
more of my thoughts on the new language poll page to keep down bandwidth.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
On 7/3/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> over the past six months.  But a modicum of incidental chit-chat
> aside from any greater purpose does not seem to be out of bounds
> with what I observe on a day-to-day basis on this List.

Parting shots at the community you're disenchanted with is not
"incidental chit chat".

> It is clear that some folks are desperately seeking any sort of excuse
> they can cook up not to listen to the kinds of responsible feedback that
> I am hardly alone in providing.  This is understandable in human terms --

You haven't provided any useful "responsible feedback". Instead,
criticisms, accusations of rot in the system that appear to be
unfounded, etc etc.

> bad news, even if accurate, especially when accurate, is never welcome --
> but it will not serve either the WP effort, nor any future effort of
> its kind, to ignore the lessons of actual experience.

This discussion is definitely not serving the WP effort.

> The bear-baiting and messenger-killing tactics --
> that some people will resort to in order to keep
> from having to consider any kind of critical analyis --

No, we like critical analysis, and we do a lot of it on this list.
We're seasoned navel-gazers, and proud of it. You've had your chance
to join in, but it's just not working out.

> are quite familiar as a rule:  A defender of the faith
> spews a flaming mass of pure invective into the forum,
> and the mildest response on the part of the invectee
> is then condemned as being off-topic.  Very typical,
> but hardly to the greater purpose.

Ok, can we move on now? Thanks.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It sucks that they have to write an email, but
> > it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest
> > their block if they are, well, blocked.
>
> Am I missing something vital?  Why does it "suck" that they have to
> write an email?  The technology is well enough established, it's
> hardly rocket science.

There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a
hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag.

Steve


from_name: Eric Skoglund

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It sucks that they have to write an email, but
> > > > it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to
> contest
> > > > their block if they are, well, blocked.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something vital?  Why does it "suck" that they have to
> > > write an email?  The technology is well enough established, it's
> > > hardly rocket science.
> >
> > There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a
> > hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag.
>
> You're kidding, surely. What's the "privacy" concern with sending an
> email?  That people will know how to communicate with you? That way
> lies madness.

I presume the problem is with people who are scared to reveal their real
name. They have two very easy options: (1) get over it, or (2) get a free
webmail account which identifies as their SN.

~ESkog


subject: [Foundation-l] Offering Wikibooks content for sale

body:
This is an idea that has been kicked around, and I want to congratulate
one of the Wikibooks contributors by being bold and actually getting a
print version of Wikibooks content available for purchase from an
"on-line" store.  It can be found right now at:

http://www.lulu.com/content/346504

While I admire the effort that this user has put forth to get this put
together, I am concerned that it might affect the tax-exempt status,
especially as this link is found on a Wikimedia website and openly
"advertising" that this content is available for sale.  Please see this
page for an example:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior

This is some outstanding content that has been fermenting on Wikibooks
now for over a year and a half, and is really the first fruits of the
Wikijunior sub-project on Wikibooks.  This user is also not trying to
make any profit from the sale of this, and is really doing this just as
a public service and going through Lulu Press simply because they are
available.

I am posting this to the wider Wikimedia Foundation List because I think
some guidelines should be developed regarding "official" links on
project pages for commercial content of this nature, and to what extent
the use of the name "Wikimedia Foundation" can be on such content.  I'm
also hoping that the legal list will get wind of this and offer a little
bit of input as well in terms of how far can we go before we start to
tread on the non-profit status of the WMF.

Frankly, I'd like to encourage efforts like this, as it really can be
beneficial to spread Wikimedia content beyond the close circle of
internet users we currently have.  Wikibooks in particular is moving
strongly in this direction, as we already have a couple dozen PDF files
for Wikibooks that are nearing at least major proofreading stages rather
than content building.  It seems logical that an on-line bookstore is
going to happen in one form or another with this content, and many other
users are going to be doing this.  Links of this nature should remain
relatively low-key and non-intrusive if you are trying to actually read
the content

The question I pose then is should we push the genie back into the
bottle and stop this kind of linking, or should we as a community
encourage further commercial publication?

Should we allow commercial publication, but not allow links on project
pages to commercial resources of this nature?  Be real careful here, as
it does have implications for other Wikimedia projects as well,
including Wikipedia "1.0" suggestions.  The GFDL does allow commercial
publication, so the real point is if project pages can be used as links.

Should there be some sort of formal organization, even if just on a
local project level, that should control the content that is published
in this manner?  Or should it just be done on an ad-hoc basis as
individual users feel motivated?  This is mainly to see how commercial
links are used on Wikimedia project pages, not that any other person can
set up their own website and advertise they have published Wikimedia
content but not have links on project pages.  A more formal organization
can help do things like coordinate ISBN numbers and make sure that
profits can be plowed back into the project.

 From my understanding of non-profit laws in the USA (IANAL), as long as
we can show a need for the money that is legitimate (staff salaries,
equipment costs, reasonable travel expenses, etc.) fundraisers of this
nature aren't really too much of a problem.  Indeed several non-profit
groups have on-line bookstores just for this purpose.  Assuming a
runaway success with this sort of sale of content, we would have to do
direct fundraisers less often.  I don't think too many people on this
list would complain about that.  The only real problem might be apparent
endorsement of a commercial enterprise.

There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Offering Wikibooks content for sale


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Minor syntax change

body:
Triple crosspost, I suggest following up to wikitech-l only.

As part of a change to improve the parsing speed for double-brace entities,
I'm changing the syntax of a few unusual function-like constructs, to make
them more like the other parser functions (unless anyone can think of a good
reason not to).

We currently have a number of statistics variables which accept an optional
"raw mode" suffix. This suppresses language-dependent number formatting.
They are:

{{NUMBEROFPAGES|R}}
{{NUMBEROFUSERS|R}}
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES|R}}
{{NUMBEROFFILES|R}}
{{NUMBEROFADMINS|R}}

This will be changed to:

{{NUMBEROFPAGES:R}}
{{NUMBEROFUSERS:R}}
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}
{{NUMBEROFFILES:R}}
{{NUMBEROFADMINS:R}}

This brings them into line with parser functions such as {{localurl:}}, and
thus allows them to take advantage of the new more efficient handling of
such constructs that I have just implemented.

The non-raw syntax, e.g. {{NUMBEROFPAGES}}, will stay the same.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] trust of administrators (was: page move vandalism
	restrictions not working)

body:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 01:40:03PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The selection mechanism has been proposed for revision numerous times,
> with extensive polling, but it is as it is.
>
> It would probably be better to return to the original Wales dictum,
> "This should be no big deal".
>
> Then, we would only know that administrators aren't new, and have some
> acculturation, but not "trust" in a security sense.

This *is* an important point, folks: Schneier just ran a column a month
or so ago about "presumed credentials": assuming the UPS guy *is*, just
because he's wearing a brown outfit with a logo on it.

The piece was about Improv Everywhere's 'Mission: Best Buy', and it's at:

	http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/people_trusting.html

The lessons Bruce draws from it are probably good things to ponder over
on the topic of 'what's an administrator?"

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: TSO1D From Wikpedia

subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.

  I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.

Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
  Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?

Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.

However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against
yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
necessary and making everyone stop caring.

Mark

On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> more than 6 months old.
>
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
>
> My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> than the one I followed.
>
> Yours,
> :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

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


from_name: James Hare

body:
Yes, dialect forks are just a waste of space, bandwidth and time, unless the
dialects vary greatly (such as Cantonese and Mandarin).

On 7/3/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:
>
> >The only reason why I can see two different Portuguese wikis is because
> the
> >two (majority) versions -- European Portuguese and Brazillian Portuguese
> --
> >are very different. Are they?
> >
> >On 7/2/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sorry for my English. Recently, a newbie from Portuguese Wikipedia has
> >>proposed on meta a vote to create Wikipedia in european portuguese. He
> >>don't
> >>talked about it with any editor from pt:Wikipedia and that proposal has
> >>discovered by me, accidentally. I send a note in Village Pump from
> >>pt:wikipedia. More than 30 editors has voted against that proposal.
> >>Unconsoled with this, he was suspended that voting and is imposing to,
> in
> >>a
> >>new vote about it, only europeans speakers can vote on it.
> >>
> >>Is all ok to the current rules for request a new language?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> As a fluent portuguese speaker, I have no idea why a vote of this nature
> must be restricted to only those who come from a certain country or
> continent.  I am, however, opposed to this idea, as well as the earlier
> Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia proposal that also failed.  To me this
> sounds like somebody trying to establish rules that would make his pet
> project work, when there is strong opposition to the idea.  I'll put
> more of my thoughts on the new language poll page to keep down bandwidth.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: xaosflux

subject: [Wikitech-l] Newuser Blacklist

body:
What would be required to have a MediWiki page of regex expressions that
could be used to prevent the creation of new user accounts matching the
pattern?

xaosflux
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xaosflux


body:
Where have you received the error message?

>From your wiki box, can you access the smtp server manually?  (e.g. telnet
mail.server.local 25)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mei Wu" <mwu.mailbox at gmail.com>
To: <mediawiki-l at wikimedia.org>
Cc: <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:25 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Microsoft Exchange Server and Mediawiki

> Hi all,
>
> I installed Mediawiki in a company intranet behind a proxy server. The
> smtp server the company is
> using is a Microsoft Exchange Server. My problem is that I don't know
> how I can specify this Microsoft Exchange Server to send my mail. I
> specified the address of the Exchange server in the php.ini but I got
> the error message that the connection failed.
>
> I also tried to use the internal Microsoft smtp server (IIS 5) on the
> local machine. But it also did not connect to the destination mail
> server.
>
> I would appreciate any help how to configure the smtp server in my case.
>
> Mei
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It sucks that they have to write an email, but
> > > it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest
> > > their block if they are, well, blocked.
> >
> > Am I missing something vital?  Why does it "suck" that they have to
> > write an email?  The technology is well enough established, it's
> > hardly rocket science.
>
> There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a
> hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag.

You're kidding, surely. What's the "privacy" concern with sending an
email?  That people will know how to communicate with you? That way
lies madness.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.

Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.

Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.

Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal
the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.

And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed?
I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the
content elsewhere, etc.

Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody
paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.

Mark

On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia <tso1d at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
>
>   I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
>
> Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>   Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
>
> Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
>
> However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against
> yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
> necessary and making everyone stop caring.
>
> Mark
>
> On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> > interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> > more than 6 months old.
> >
> >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
> >
> > My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> > than the one I followed.
> >
> > Yours,
> > :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>  __________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
G'day Conrad,

> * Mark Gallagher wrote:
>> G'day Conrad,
>
> Hello Mark.
>
>> Of course, we don't know the full story.  It could be the editor
>> was an obnoxious so-and-so who'd been cutting a swathe through
>> Wikipedia, vandalising and POV-pushing, and when he seemed to be
>> about to re-write our article on New World Order to make all those
>> loony right-wing Americans seem less loony, the camel gave one hell
>> of a scream as it felt its long-suffering back finally break.  Or
>> perhaps not.
>
> As I said, the user had never been blocked or 'in trouble' before.
> Nearly all of those defending the admin action actually cited bad
> behaviour by OTHER people as 'justification' for blocking. 'They are
> all disruptive POV pushers so we should block them indefinitely' sort
> of thing - with NO evidence of this being true of the person actually
>  blocked being presented... or apparently needed in the eyes of far
> too many.

Well, that's not good.

>> Now, it's obvious to anyone that refusing to accept criticism,
>> refusing to change in the face of clear evidence that we're wrong,
>> etc., is a terrible way to conduct our affairs.  It's not quite so
>> obvious that pointing to unspecified inappropriate behaviour and
>> the unnamed admins who encourage it and saying "tut, tut" without
>> making any effort to do anything about the problem is also pretty
>> terrible.
>
> Perhaps it could be noted that there are OTHER (less 'terrible')
> reasons for describing issues without 'naming names'... such as
> focusing on a general problem rather than specific individuals,
> attempting not to bias ongoing discussion by leaving the individual
> name out of it, and/or presenting a scenario without names to get an
> evaluation based on the scenario itself without any preconceptions
> based on the names attached.

You're focusing on the idea of "naming names".  That's not what I meant
the focus to be.  Sorry if I was unclear.

What I meant was, this handwavey "oh, oh, there's a problem, a terrible
problem," without giving more details or (seemingly) doing anything to
help fix it is Not Good.  It's like that old joke --- you can't trust
the Church to fight evil, because if the Devil were vanquished and all
men led sinless and happy lives, they'd be out of a job.  If all admins
behaved blamelessly, then some of our critics would be out of a job ...

> And... weren't you the one who, when I DID specifically object to the
>  actions of someone by name, told me that such public confrontations
> are counterproductive and it would be better to keep the matter
> private? It seems almost as if objections are ALWAYS wrong, no matter
> how presented.

No-o ... not exactly.  I pointed out that, instead of damning all sysops
to the end of time on the basis of the behaviour of one admin, you could
instead take the matter up with the lady in question, and stand at least
a decent change of fixing the problem ...

Oh, there was another interaction: when you stated publicly on AN/I that
anyone who closed an xfD on some basis other than a strict numerical
count must be acting in bad faith.  But there, my objection was not to
the public naming and shaming of the "bad faith" admin concerned, but to
the sheer cluelessness of the statement.  Since I trust you're no longer
making statements like *that* (certainly I've not seen any, particularly
on this list), we can assume that particular problem won't crop up again.

Lookit, I can accept that you're doing what you think is the Right Thing
to improve the behaviour on admins on Wikipedia (I didn't believe that,
earlier, hence at least part of my aggression here).  But I think your
approach is doomed to fail.  If there's a problem admin who can be dealt
with privately, deal with them privately.  If the problem's so big ---
or it's a group thing --- that they need to be dealt with publicly, deal
with them publicly.  Denunciations from the sideline aren't much use.
It's the equivalent to people on the list muttering to each other about
how terrible AfD or RfA or whatever is, without ever trying to educate
the specific people causing problems.

>> I see.  Do you have a link?
>
> As you insist;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO
>
>> And what did you do about it?  Did you say "no, this is not
>> appropriate. This was plain-jane edit warring, and should be
>> treated as such. Admins should never use their admin powers in an
>> edit war, nor should they call non-vandalism edits 'vandalism' to
>> justify a block."
>
> Um... yes?
>
> Did you seriously think there was any question of that? If so, I
> think you need to consider the possibility that you do not understand
> me at all;

I did, and I think you may be right about that.  My apologies.

<snip links and suchlike/>

> In response to your analysis I would propose at least two more
> 'groups' - those who challenge the admin community as a whole to
> confront the perceived double-standards, and those who respond with
> some rather nasty comments and assumptions instead of considering
> that they might have a point.
>
> Or perhaps those aren't "groups" so much as individuals. :]

I'll cop to the "assumptions" bit.  I have made certain assumptions
about you --- and some of them are wrong.  But I *have* considered that
you may have a point --- and said so, during the last exchange we had on
the list (though I didn't say so when you were posting silly things to
AN/I, because the point you had there was actually the wrong end of the
stick).

You *do* have a point ... sometimes.  I think, however, that viewing
yourself as one who "challenge[s] the admin community as a whole to
confront the perceived double-standards" is what we generally refer to
as "looking through rose-coloured glasses".  If your comments are, in
fact, meant to challenge the admin community to do anything at all, they
need to be quite a bit clearer.  The impression you're giving in your
denunciations is not the (much better) impression you give in this email.

Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
--- Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if you subtract the newbies, it's fairly
> obvious that there is no
> consensus to delete.

No consensus? What's consensus?

> I think the page should be kept
> for now, but this
> is a special case of WP:MEME where the meme is still
> very young and
> it's hard to determine how ephemeral it will be.

Special cases are subject to editorial axeing by the
Editorial Qabal.

> There's nothing wrong with doing another AfD two or
> three months from
> now.

Patience is only a virtue, nothing more.

> In the case of [[Brian Peppers]], Jimmy tried
> an article creation
> moratorium as an alternative approach. Peppers,
> however, is another
> special case where human dignity is concerned.

Dignity is not on everyones mind. Again, its just one
of those "virtues."

You mentioned the Brian Peppers article, which an
editor apparently dispatched with appropriately. I
think the Qabal should follow this example of NPOV
pushing.

> I see no harm in
> keeping a verifiable, limited page about [[Eon8]]
> for the time being.
> I am very wary of viral marketing crap, but this
> seems to be a
> harmless experiment without a clear commercial
> motive.

"Verifiability" would appear to be limited to 1) its a
site, and 2) that "Mike" runs it. The Wikinews article
called it "mysterious," and quoted its stated
"purpose" as "to determine the reactions of the
internet public to lack of information." This pissed
me off enough to write to the Wikien Qabal. Its a joke
site, with a claimed "purpose", who's real purpose
appears to have been to gain legitimacy by memeing WP.

> Applying our existing policies seems more important
> to me than keeping
> the encyclopedia free of "trivial" content. With 1.2
> million articles,
> including a page dedicated to anthropomorphized
> operating systems
> ([[List of OS-tans]]) and an entire category of
> lists of fictional
> animals, that strikes me as a rather quixotic
> enterprise.

Quixotic? I'm nothing but Quixotic.

-S

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


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
>most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it
>using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
>Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
>content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
>in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
>publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
>arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
>Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the
>Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After considerable
>discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the books
>online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
>*not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get a
>considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand the  Wikijunior
>project.
>
>This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting unilaterally
>on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications of
>what  they are doing.
>
>Danny
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
I have reviewed this website and it appears to violate the Wikimedia
Foundation's trademark rights. I don't think the content is an issue,
but the use of the Wikimedia Foundations trademarks and trading on the
goodwill of the Foundation seems to impinge on its rights. We are also
publishing College Level textbooks in Cherokee from Wikipedia content,
however, we are not selling the textbooks, we are paying for the
printings ourselves and donating the books to the Cherokee Nation
language immersion programs and donating them to our schools of
information technology.

Jeff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.

  I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?

Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
  The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.

Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.

Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.

Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal
the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.

And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed?
I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the
content elsewhere, etc.

Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody
paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.

Mark

On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
> In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
>
> I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
>
> Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
>
> However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against
> yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
> necessary and making everyone stop caring.
>
> Mark
>
> On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> > interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> > more than 6 months old.
> >
> >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
> >
> > My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> > than the one I followed.
> >
> > Yours,
> > :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.


body:
The major difference here between this bookstore and the Wikimedia Caf?Press
store is that the latter is, if I'm correct, in the name of Wikimedia.
Perhaps if we found a way to transfer control to Wikimedia.

On 7/3/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> This is an idea that has been kicked around, and I want to congratulate
> one of the Wikibooks contributors by being bold and actually getting a
> print version of Wikibooks content available for purchase from an
> "on-line" store.  It can be found right now at:
>
> http://www.lulu.com/content/346504
>
> While I admire the effort that this user has put forth to get this put
> together, I am concerned that it might affect the tax-exempt status,
> especially as this link is found on a Wikimedia website and openly
> "advertising" that this content is available for sale.  Please see this
> page for an example:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior
>
> This is some outstanding content that has been fermenting on Wikibooks
> now for over a year and a half, and is really the first fruits of the
> Wikijunior sub-project on Wikibooks.  This user is also not trying to
> make any profit from the sale of this, and is really doing this just as
> a public service and going through Lulu Press simply because they are
> available.
>
> I am posting this to the wider Wikimedia Foundation List because I think
> some guidelines should be developed regarding "official" links on
> project pages for commercial content of this nature, and to what extent
> the use of the name "Wikimedia Foundation" can be on such content.  I'm
> also hoping that the legal list will get wind of this and offer a little
> bit of input as well in terms of how far can we go before we start to
> tread on the non-profit status of the WMF.
>
> Frankly, I'd like to encourage efforts like this, as it really can be
> beneficial to spread Wikimedia content beyond the close circle of
> internet users we currently have.  Wikibooks in particular is moving
> strongly in this direction, as we already have a couple dozen PDF files
> for Wikibooks that are nearing at least major proofreading stages rather
> than content building.  It seems logical that an on-line bookstore is
> going to happen in one form or another with this content, and many other
> users are going to be doing this.  Links of this nature should remain
> relatively low-key and non-intrusive if you are trying to actually read
> the content
>
> The question I pose then is should we push the genie back into the
> bottle and stop this kind of linking, or should we as a community
> encourage further commercial publication?
>
> Should we allow commercial publication, but not allow links on project
> pages to commercial resources of this nature?  Be real careful here, as
> it does have implications for other Wikimedia projects as well,
> including Wikipedia "1.0" suggestions.  The GFDL does allow commercial
> publication, so the real point is if project pages can be used as links.
>
> Should there be some sort of formal organization, even if just on a
> local project level, that should control the content that is published
> in this manner?  Or should it just be done on an ad-hoc basis as
> individual users feel motivated?  This is mainly to see how commercial
> links are used on Wikimedia project pages, not that any other person can
> set up their own website and advertise they have published Wikimedia
> content but not have links on project pages.  A more formal organization
> can help do things like coordinate ISBN numbers and make sure that
> profits can be plowed back into the project.
>
> From my understanding of non-profit laws in the USA (IANAL), as long as
> we can show a need for the money that is legitimate (staff salaries,
> equipment costs, reasonable travel expenses, etc.) fundraisers of this
> nature aren't really too much of a problem.  Indeed several non-profit
> groups have on-line bookstores just for this purpose.  Assuming a
> runaway success with this sort of sale of content, we would have to do
> direct fundraisers less often.  I don't think too many people on this
> list would complain about that.  The only real problem might be apparent
> endorsement of a commercial enterprise.
>
> There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
> would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
> kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
> trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
G'day mboverload,

[I'm not even going to bother fixing the top-posting on this one, so
'bye-'bye context.  Please, Dan Tobias posted a link explaining this.]

> Just to expand:  They don't need to mirror the Wikipedia: content.  All they
> have to do is link back to the actual site.  TaDa - problem fixed.

Once again, I think you've missed the point.  We want Wikipedia to be as
accessible as possible.  This means:

a) We *want* to be mirrored
    We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  For that purpose,
    everything we write is licensed under the GFDL.  All our work is
    *explicitly* available to anyone who wants to take it, provided they
    abide by the rules set out in the GFDL.  In addition, much of the
    revenue that pays for servers and so on comes from mirrors like
    answers.com who kick back some of their income (even though they
    don't have to) as a "thank you" to us for providing free-as-in-speech
    content.  What, you thought our donations were enough to pay for
    *everything*?  Our mirrors owe us.  And we owe *them*.  We can't just
    dismiss them.

b) We cannot assume our readers are using Wikipedia itself
    We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  That means we
    encourage people to re-use our work.  We don't want to limit that by
    deliberately making life difficult for re-users.

c) We cannot assume our readers are connected to the Internet
    We're producing a free-content encyclopaedia.  The result, Wikipedia,
    is *not* a website: it's an encyclopaedia that happens to be written
    in hypertext and hosted on the Web.  The content would not stop being
    our content if it were not used in the context of our website.  We're
    taking advantage of the semantic and formatting opportunities
    available through HTML and CSS, but we don't need to be a website for
    that.  Wikipedia content needs to be able to stand alone as well as
    any other encyclopaedia's content could.

d) We cannot assume our readers are *capable* of connecting to the
    Internet
    Yes, even today, there are people living outside America, and unable
    to access the technological marvels y'all are privileged with.  It's
    even possible their circumstances differ wildly from what you expect.
    A version of Wikipedia on CD/DVD, for example, could make it a lot
    easier for certain users to access our content ...

e) We cannot even assume our readers are using a computer
    Wikipedia articles are printed all the time.  We're probably too big
    for our articles to be used in a traditional paper encyclopaedia, but
    there's no reason certain articles couldn't be placed in a book --- a
    hardcover "Best of Wikipedia" showcasing our featured articles, for
    example, would be rather nifty.  HTML is quite useful, but we should
    not write our content such that it can only be enjoyed on a computer.

--
"The theater management hears about our meeting and wants us to get
supplemental insurance that covers lightning-throwing death machines."
(Mike Daisey plans a monologue)


from_name: John Goes

subject: [Textbook-l] wikibooks and online universities

body:
>
>
>
> Thanks very much for this, John. I'm very happy you've "jumped in" to
> the discussion after just discovering it today :-)
>
> I think you're right in that Wikiversity is a bit vague and nebulous
> in its design, but many of us have been arguing that this is quite
> necessary thing for the creation of the project. A wiki-based centre
> of learning is a complex thing - unless we opt for a wiki-based
> repository of learning materials, which has been one of the more
> conservative options put forward. Once we decide to go for a more
> ambitious place where people can learn, it becomes more complicated,
> and, as you say, becomes flavoured by individual people's perceptions
> and expectations of what education is and how it is done. In allowing
> for a flexible project structure, I am hoping that individual people
> are able to pursue their own visions of what the best form of learning
> is for their subject and for themselves.
>
> As Michael says, there is really no point at this stage in going for
> an accredited university - it is well beyond our current resources,
> and possibly even the remit of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, we
> will be setting up a resource that accredited universities (or other
> centres of learning) can use in their own courses - and hopefully in
> the process gain some valuable contributors from their students or
> lecturers.
>
> It occurs to me to ask what you've seen of Wikiversity so far - have
> you seen it on Wikibooks or Meta? Have you seen the current proposal?
> (It's at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
> if you haven't.)
>
> I'm curious about your suggestions though - do you envisage a project
> where people write their dissertations on Wikiversity, with feedback
> from supervisors, or other students? How would you see it working
> exactly?
>
> Anyway, thanks for your input - it's always good to get a fresh
> perspective.
>
> Cheers,
> Cormac (User:Cormaggio)
>

The response that Wikiversity has no plans to become accredited at the
moment make sense.  Basically what I suggest is that private efforts to
organize internet-networked learning are a very good, maybe an inevitable
idea.  The idea of a wikiversity where anyone can get a college degree seems
to be an impossible task if it is to be done well.  A variety of approaches
must operate beside each other.

I personally don't envision wikiversity operating like a university, I
suppose my own opinion at this point is that wikimedia would play a much
greater role in terms of the content of said classes, rather than in
organizing them.

The idea that allowed me to stumble on wikiversity is an idea for a private
organization, non for profit or for-profit (whatever works) modelled on the
structure of Reed University.  Personally I see this as more promising in
the short term than other vehicles of accreditation, because if a university
would sponser the program, the student must create a serious piece of work
in order to get recognition, rather than passing some sort of standardized
test.  I am fairly young and have other ambitions, but if there was some
interest in such a possibility I would consider working toward it.  I myself
am strongly considering abandoning a four year university to study
independently in order to write a thesis that I can then try to "sell" the
thesis for a degree.

John Goes


from_name: Austin Hair

body:
On 7/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the
> foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus
> both the community and the foundation.  We should have been told first,
> there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a
> number of important factors.

I'm surprised that you would consider it a matter of anyone versus
anyone.  However misguided and ill-considered this may be, there's no
need to polarize the matter and try to set the community against a
presumably well-intentioned person?let's assume good faith.

Austin


subject:
[Foundation-l] Native Cherokee Langage XML Dumps posted for
	20060702 Wikipedia

body:
The Native Cherokee Language Translation Project has posted XML dumps
against enwiki 07-02-2006 at

ftp.wikigadugi.org/wiki

Please feel free to download and review. This translation is using
conjugation, and verb stem decomposition and reconstruction.
Translation runs are posted in Sequoyah Syllabary and text phonetics.

The www.wikigadugi.org website publishes the machine translation to the
general public.

cherokee-syntax-errors-<date>.txt.bz2  - words in Otali dialect not
mappable to the syllabary but displayed in text phonetics in the
translation
phwiki-<date>-pages-articles.xml - text phonetic translation
sylwiki-<date>-pages-articles.xml - Sequoyah Syllabary translation
untranslated-log-<date>.txt.bz2 - words not yet translated or mapped to
a thesaraus for their Cherokee equivalents

The Machine translation is a work in progress.

Jeff Merkey


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it
using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
arrangement for precisely these reasons.

Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the
Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After considerable
discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the books
online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
*not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get a
considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand the  Wikijunior
project.

This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting unilaterally
on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications of
what  they are doing.

Danny


body:
Do you see yourself getting involved in the ordeal? I mean, you ARE the
Wikimedia Office...r.

On 7/3/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
> most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only
> is it
> using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
> Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is
> attributing  the
> content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for
> any  copyvios
> in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print
> on  Demand
> publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided
> such  an
> arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
> Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the
> Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After
> considerable
> discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the
> books
> online and not take them to print. This is precisely what we said we will
> *not*  do, and it is timed perfectly to coincide with negotiations to get
> a
> considerably larger grant from that same foundation to expand
> the  Wikijunior
> project.
>
> This is not commendable. It is the bad result of people acting
> unilaterally
> on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications
> of
> what  they are doing.
>
> Danny
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Mei Wu

body:
Hi,

I am running a local Microsoft IIS 5 smtp server on the Windows XP
machine. In the php.ini, I have specified localhost as the smtp
server. When I go to the Wiki logon page, type my username and hit the
"Email password" button, I get the following error message:

Error sending mail: Failed to connect to localhost:25 [SMTP: Failed to
connect socket: An established connection was aborted by the software
in your host machine. (code: -1, response: )]

I don't know what the problem is. When I try to logon to the smtp
server using "telnet localhost 25", it does not work ("Connect
failed"). Thanks for your help.

Mei

On 7/3/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Where have you received the error message?
>
> >From your wiki box, can you access the smtp server manually?  (e.g. telnet
> mail.server.local 25)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mei Wu" <mwu.mailbox at gmail.com>
> To: <mediawiki-l at wikimedia.org>
> Cc: <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:25 AM
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Microsoft Exchange Server and Mediawiki
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I installed Mediawiki in a company intranet behind a proxy server. The
> > smtp server the company is
> > using is a Microsoft Exchange Server. My problem is that I don't know
> > how I can specify this Microsoft Exchange Server to send my mail. I
> > specified the address of the Exchange server in the php.ini but I got
> > the error message that the connection failed.
> >
> > I also tried to use the internal Microsoft smtp server (IIS 5) on the
> > local machine. But it also did not connect to the destination mail
> > server.
> >
> > I would appreciate any help how to configure the smtp server in my case.
> >
> > Mei
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Michael R. Irwin

body:
Anthony wrote:

> snip

>This paragraph is somewhat contradictory, but it does explicitly say
>that trademark law does not prevent giving Wikimedia credit for the
>work by name.
>
>Anthony
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

If my understanding of the FDL is correct, then the publisher must at
least provide a pointer back to the original authors and perhaps must
list all of the authors in the published materials somewhere.

What would the Wikimedia Foundation's reaction be if the material were
published without giving any credit to the Foundation or the original
authors?

regards,
lazyquasar


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that
> would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this
> kind of activity as well?  That would also involve the use of Wikimedia
> trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.

I have no particular stance on the overall issues here, other than some
broad general principles that I think would be widely accepted by almost
everyone.

However, in the short term, since this came as a complete surprise
without any information given to the broader community, I have removed
the link from wikibooks, and also asked lulu to pull the book
immediately (but perhaps temporarily).

The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the
foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus
both the community and the foundation.  We should have been told first,
there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a
number of important factors.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Offering Wikibooks content for sale


body:
Luiz Augusto wrote:
> Sorry for my English. Recently, a newbie from Portuguese Wikipedia has
> proposed on meta a vote to create Wikipedia in european portuguese. He don't
> talked about it with any editor from pt:Wikipedia and that proposal has
> discovered by me, accidentally. I send a note in Village Pump from
> pt:wikipedia. More than 30 editors has voted against that proposal.
> Unconsoled with this, he was suspended that voting and is imposing to, in a
> new vote about it, only europeans speakers can vote on it.

There will be no division of Portuguese into Brazilian and European
without a huge amount of broad based support from many diverse parties,
which as far as I am able to understand from past discussions, is just
not going to happen.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [Wikitech-l] page move vandalism restrictions not working

body:
On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Which doesn't work well during rapid moves.  Again, the proposal is to
> throttle pages moves to one per minute.  Not hard, the move is already
> logged per user, and gives time to respond in the cases of abuse.

I wouldn't be keen if this applied to *all* users. I've done around 50
page moves in maybe 5 minutes - and I'm not a vandal. Sometimes you
want to standardise the naming for a category. In my case, I was
renaming all the French rivers from like "Garonne" to "Garonne River".

Good detection and blocking tools, definitely. Imposing a random limit
on everyone because of one or two very new users carrying out
vandalism? Let's avoid it...

Steve


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 7/3/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Of all the books to come out of print-on-demand, this one is possibly the
> most problematic. I am certainly not a lawyer but, as I see it, not only is it
> using the name of the Foundation without the explicit permission of the
> Foundation (and hence, in violation of  our trademark), it is attributing  the
> content to the Foundation. This, in turn, could make us liable for any  copyvios
> in the book (text and images). Despite numerous requests from Print on  Demand
> publishers (including Lulu), the Foundation has consistently avoided such  an
> arrangement for precisely these reasons.
>
[[Wikibooks:Copyrights]] needs to be changed to reflect this.  It
currently states (among other things):

"You may use the same title as the Wikibooks book and/or module(s) but
trademark law prevents you from advertising the Wikibooks or Wikimedia
names without our written permission. This does not prevent you from
giving either Wikibooks or Wikimedia credit for the work by name; as a
matter of fact we very much appreciate all the credit we can get (this
is a separate issue from author credit; see below). But it does
legally prevent you from leading your readers to believe that your
version of our work is in fact an official Wikibooks or Wikimedia
publication."

This paragraph is somewhat contradictory, but it does explicitly say
that trademark law does not prevent giving Wikimedia credit for the
work by name.

Anthony


from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject: [Wikitech-l] Interwiki/transwiki imports mostly working now

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

Brion Vibber schrieb:
> I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and Special:Export:
>
> * Import updates categories etc
> * Imports are logged and reviewable in Special:Log/import
> * Imported pages also get a null edit in the history indicating the import and
> its source
> * Export is fixed up to allow fetching history for shorter pages, while still
> aborting to avoid bogging down the servers on longer pages (currently set to a
> cutoff of 100 edits)
> * Transwiki import allows selecting the import-with-history
>
>

Thanks for the new features.

But a question: Is it possible to enable the import-function inside a
wiki to duplicate an article?

This would be helpful for splitting articles into two articles with the
effect that the history is duplicated too and the GFDL is preserved in
both articles.

The other way is with a loop way over another wiki:

e.g.
- - deWP:test (transwiki) deWikt:test
- - deWikt:test (move) deWikt:new_test
- - deWikt:new_test (transwiki) deWP:new_test

But this way is not very elegant and the help of an deWikt-admin is needed.

Raymond.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEqYawp+qUcbEr56YRAk59AJsHSYMcqQQIzucwxkFiiJ01ALAUdgCgxKYW
IcgkU+OKaFZSFW7tEoNeoTQ=
=sySM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Wildrick Steele

body:
On 03/07/06, Raimond Spekking <raimond.spekking at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brion Vibber schrieb:
> > I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and
> Special:Export:
> >
> > * Import updates categories etc
> > * Imports are logged and reviewable in Special:Log/import
> > * Imported pages also get a null edit in the history indicating the
> import and
> > its source
> > * Export is fixed up to allow fetching history for shorter pages, while
> still
> > aborting to avoid bogging down the servers on longer pages (currently
> set to a
> > cutoff of 100 edits)
> > * Transwiki import allows selecting the import-with-history
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the new features.
>
> But a question: Is it possible to enable the import-function inside a
> wiki to duplicate an article?
>
> This would be helpful for splitting articles into two articles with the
> effect that the history is duplicated too and the GFDL is preserved in
> both articles.
>
> The other way is with a loop way over another wiki:
>
> e.g.
> - - deWP:test (transwiki) deWikt:test
> - - deWikt:test (move) deWikt:new_test
> - - deWikt:new_test (transwiki) deWP:new_test
>
> But this way is not very elegant and the help of an deWikt-admin is
> needed.
>
> Raymond.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEqYawp+qUcbEr56YRAk59AJsHSYMcqQQIzucwxkFiiJ01ALAUdgCgxKYW
> IcgkU+OKaFZSFW7tEoNeoTQ=
> =sySM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

At en.wiktionary, imports go now directly into our Transwiki: namespace.
Very useful. Less useful is that imports are restricted to sysops. Usually,
it is the Wikipedians who volunteer for doing the transwikis, so they should
actually have access to Special:Import, not the Wiktionary sysops.

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus


subject: [Wikitech-l] PDF Export with htmldoc

body:
Hi all,

I have htmldoc 1.8.21 running on Windows XP (compiled from source) and
I installed the Pdf Export extension from the Mediawiki page. Now,
when I hit the "Print as PDF" Button in the left toolbar, Acrobat
Reader opens and tells me that the "File does not begin with %pdf".
The php error log file shows the following error:

[03-Jul-2006 23:58:55] PHP Warning:  Cannot modify header information
- headers already sent in Unknown on line 0

The Apache log file did not produce an error message.

Does anybody has an idea what the problem might be? Thanks for your help.

Mei


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] List of soccer players

body:
Hi I am wondering if somewhere in the world there is a list of soccer
players with all their basic data around. Well: for now we need most of
all the ones playing in Italy and the ones of the several national
teams, but to keep things together it would be interesting to know if
there is such a kind of a database or simply spreadsheet table around.

Well: if you know about this, please let me know.

Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-04

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!

Passed 394 of 407 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Need suggestions for AJAX interface,
	language markup

body:
On 7/3/06, Kent Sandvik <sandvik at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I need a system for people reading wikimedia marked up language
> sentences so that the translated word or sentence in another wikimedia
> page will show up in another frame or window. If possible this should
> happen each time the mouse hovers over the link (like a popup), but
> clicking on the link is also OK.
>
> This does not need to be across all browsers, even if this is
> supported by Firefox/Safari it would be good enough.

Here's a suggestion: broaden your scope slightly and make it so that
when you pass the mouse over any linked word, it retrieves the first
paragraph of that article and displays it somewhere. Then, the
question of where to find that paragraph is just an option. In other
words, imagine you're on the French wikipedia and you see the
unfamiliar word "ch?teau".

There are three useful things that could happen:
* The first paragraph (or sentence) from the French wikipedia article
[[Ch?teau]] is retrieved: Un ch?teau est ? l'origine une construction
m?di?vale destin?e ? prot?ger le seigneur et ? symboliser son autorit?
au sein du fief.
* The English word interwiki linked from that article is retrieved: Castle
* The first paragraph from the English interwikied link is retrieved:
A castle (from the Latin castellum) is a structure that is fortified
for defence against an enemy and generally serves as a military
headquarters dominating the surrounding countryside[1].

Since interwiki links are always a little bit risky, I, as a user,
would prefer as much supporting text as possible to make sure that the
translated word really meant what I thought it meant...

Steve


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.

The status quo is the compromise.

If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own
instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly
what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.

Mark

On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia <tso1d at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
>
>   I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
>
> Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>   The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
>
> Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
>
> Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
>
> Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal
> the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
>
> And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed?
> I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the
> content elsewhere, etc.
>
> Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody
> paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
>
> Mark
>
> On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
> > In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
> >
> > I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
> >
> > Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
> >
> > Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
> >
> > However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against
> > yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
> > necessary and making everyone stop caring.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> > > interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> > > more than 6 months old.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
> > >
> > > My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> > > than the one I followed.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is over the top just for sheer lack of substance,
> and the fact that it passed an AFD with some help from
> a apparently clueness newbie contingent, unencumbered
> by any corrective measures for fostering founding
> philosophy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8_%282nd_nomination%29
>
> In the absence of any formal editorial prunership, I'd
> like to announce that the newly-formed
> Wikipedia:Editorial_Qabal is now hiring.
>
> Motto: "NPOV, what a novel concept".
>
> Stevertigo
> convicted NPOV pusher

Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs inculsionist battles.

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
Let me elaborate.

When there is clearly so much work still to be done on the Romanian
Wikipedia, why are you wasting your time trying to get a small
Wikipedia deleted?

All the time you have spent so far on this, is wasted, you could have
put it to much better use to do something constructive.

For example, why not take a page from
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Shortpages and make it better?
There are thousands of pages on the Romanian Wikipedia which need
attention and expansion.

Why not focus on making ro.wp a world-class encyclopaedia, instead of
wasting your time trying to destroy mo.wp?

It is best that we all work to create, when one of us works to
destroy, we are not gaining anything.

Mark

On 04/07/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
>
> The status quo is the compromise.
>
> If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own
> instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly
> what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
>
> Mark
>
> On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia <tso1d at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this is likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the argument that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece. Nevertheless, at this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a resolution reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically constitutes endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the partiality claimed by them.
> >
> >   I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to reopen the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you were to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic and have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be perfected to funciton adequately)?
> >
> > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
> >
> > Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
> >
> > Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
> >
> > Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal
> > the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
> >
> > And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed?
> > I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the
> > content elsewhere, etc.
> >
> > Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody
> > paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
> > > In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made, then what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate, whether in the past or the present.
> > >
> > > I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not acting the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others spent a great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated, but others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to act in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of respect for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the problem and find the best way to resolve it.
> > >
> > > Mark Williamson wrote:
> > > Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
> > >
> > > Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision was made.
> > >
> > > However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken against
> > > yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
> > > necessary and making everyone stop caring.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> > > > interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> > > > more than 6 months old.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
> > > >
> > > > My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> > > > than the one I followed.
> > > >
> > > > Yours,
> > > > :en:Dpotop, :ro:Dpotop
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> >  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs
> > inculsionist battles.
>
> Dont crap on my soapbox, kid.
>
> No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV
> guides not only how articles are written, but what
> constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who
> understand what NPOV means will understand what an
> encyclopedia is.
>

Doubtful. Historicaly most  encyclopedias have not been NPOV.

> To say its just inclusion or disinclusion is to ignore
> the fact that the rationale for either must be NPOV,
> ie. encyclopedicality... ness. Otherwise Wikipedia
> becomes just a wiki and not a 'Pedia.
> Doesnt it?
>
> S
>

Of course the problem here is that prior to wikipedia no one sat down
to work out solid defintion of what an  encyclopedia is.

NPOV does has a role to play of course. You use it along with the
verifabiltiy stuff. Non only should there be enough information to
write an article but enough to write an NPOV article. This does not
appear to be universialy accepted though.

--
geni


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Newuser Blacklist

body:
On 04/07/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> What would be required to have a MediWiki page of regex expressions that
> could be used to prevent the creation of new user accounts matching the
> pattern?

Someone to install the username blacklist extension.

Rob Church


from_name: James Hare

body:
O RLY?

I thought they were dialects of Chinese.

On 7/4/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Cantonese and Mandarin are BOTH languages according to ISO-639-3.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> James Hare wrote:
> > Yes, dialect forks are just a waste of space, bandwidth and time, unless
> the
> > dialects vary greatly (such as Cantonese and Mandarin).
> >
> > On 7/3/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >> James Hare wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The only reason why I can see two different Portuguese wikis is
> because
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> two (majority) versions -- European Portuguese and Brazillian
> Portuguese
> >>>
> >> --
> >>
> >>> are very different. Are they?
> >>>
> >>> On 7/2/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Sorry for my English. Recently, a newbie from Portuguese Wikipedia
> has
> >>>> proposed on meta a vote to create Wikipedia in european portuguese.
> He
> >>>> don't
> >>>> talked about it with any editor from pt:Wikipedia and that proposal
> has
> >>>> discovered by me, accidentally. I send a note in Village Pump from
> >>>> pt:wikipedia. More than 30 editors has voted against that proposal.
> >>>> Unconsoled with this, he was suspended that voting and is imposing
> to,
> >>>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>>> a
> >>>> new vote about it, only europeans speakers can vote on it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is all ok to the current rules for request a new language?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> As a fluent portuguese speaker, I have no idea why a vote of this
> nature
> >> must be restricted to only those who come from a certain country or
> >> continent.  I am, however, opposed to this idea, as well as the earlier
> >> Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia proposal that also failed.  To me this
> >> sounds like somebody trying to establish rules that would make his pet
> >> project work, when there is strong opposition to the idea.  I'll put
> >> more of my thoughts on the new language poll page to keep down
> bandwidth.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Scott Horning
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] Native Cherokee Langage XML Dumps posted
 for	20060702 Wikipedia

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:

>On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The Native Cherokee Language Translation Project has posted XML dumps
>>against enwiki 07-02-2006 at
>>
>>
>
>Hi Jeffrey,
>
>thanks for all your efforts here but I honestly fail to see the
>connection to Wikimedia Foundation related matters.
>
result |= (Wikipedia == Wikimedia);

>You might find more
>people interested in this on a Native Cherokee mailing list.
>
You mean I might find people who can read Cherokee.

>As the data
>is a machine translation from enwiki, the related mailing list might
>also be slightly more relevant to you posting.
>
I can certainly post there, and to be honest, I have not seen much
traffic on this list
and aside from folks asking for handouts from the Foundation, I haven't
seen much
in the way of useful dialouge on this list, with the exception of Danny,
Brad, and Mr.
Wales, so your suggestion of another list is certainly welcome.

>As you brought up the topic anyway, I would also suggest to stop calling
>the pages at http://www.wikigadugi.org/ a "Wikipedia". It might be a
>wiki based encyclopedia. However, this project is currently not part of
>the Wikipedia (which could be debated, nontheless).
>
>
>
Since Wikipedia has only 50 articles in Cherokee at chr.wikipedia.org,
and the translations are not only
wrong (University Students "Guessing" at word contruction), but terrible
in quality,
The only Cherokee Wikipedia (substantive one) is this one. Using the
Wikimedia Foundation name is one thing, which I have not done, but
calling Wikipedia's Content (which I did not alter other than
to translate) as "Wikipedia" is following the GFDL attribution
requirements since I cannot possibly
name all of the authors. This is particularly true since Wikimedia
publishes XML dumps with Wikipedia
references in not less than 774,231 places in the last dump alone and
with embedded icon logic in the dumps
to create links back to Wikipedia. If Wikimedia does not wants its dumps
used "as is" it should remove these
Wikipedia references from theXML dumps.

 From what I understand, Wikimedia's mission is to promote its content
for education and human enrichment.
Translating to Cherokee and creating textbooks seems to fit this model,
particularly since the content is being
targeted for our education programs. There are only 232,000 of my people
and of these only 5,000 are fluent
native speakers. This means our "community" which is the community I
serve, needs Wikipedia's entire content
for our programs and needs translations. I am unaware of any other
Native American Laguage Program involving
Wikipedia which has gotten this far. I have replicated Wikipedia in
English, Syllabary, and Phonetics -- without
anyones help.

Mr. Wales has stated he wishes the Cherokee People to write with their
own voice, unfortunately, the older TTY Cherokee
fonts do not map to the syllabary, so no one on any computer can edit
Cherokee on Wales site unless they feel like typing
in &XXXX format and trying to make sense of it. There are no editors for
non syllabary. My site allows
phonetic editng and the programs will convert to syllabary. There's
another problem with the Otali dialect no longer
mapping to the syllabary, so Wales Cherokee site is basically worthless
to our folks as a remote repository. That's why
the project has failed to date.

I have reviewed who you are and your role here, and I appreciate you
taking the time to address these issues. I am certainly
willing to listen to input and clarification, but I am not interested in
turf wars over who controls Wikipedia or Wikimedia. I am
here to complete an important task -- that's all.

Jeff

>Thanks and Greetings,
>Mathias
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>