subject: [Wikitech-l] no Thumb-Nails shown

body:
Problem solved!
I manually cleared the cache of my browser => :-)

Thanks, MB

Martin Baumann schrieb:

> Hi,
>
> I posted the same question already in the Mediawiki-Mailing group. But
> it seems that
> nobody has an idea.
> So here is my problem:
>
> I want to show thumbnails of my images. What I do:
> * first upload an image
> * to show the thumbnail enter [[Image:myPic.jpg|thumb|alternative text]]
> Thats all, isn't it?
> But no thumbnail is shown, only a frame an 'alternative text' and the
> enlarge link!
> No picture at all!
>
> I thought that it could be a configuration problem.
> In LocalSettings.php I have the following block:
>
> ## To enable image uploads, make sure the 'images' directory
> ## is writable, then uncomment this:
> $wgEnableUploads = true;
> $wgUseImageResize = true;
> $wgUseImageMagick = true;
> $wgImageMagickConvertCommand = "/usr/segment/bin/convert";
>
> When I enter '/usr/segment/bin/convert' on the webserver I get the
> following:
>
> bash-3.1$ /usr/segment/bin/convert
> Version: ImageMagick 6.1.8 01/18/05 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
> Copyright: Copyright (C) 1999-2005 ImageMagick Studio LLC
> ...
>
> This seems to me to be correct. So I guess it is no configuration
> problem.
>
>
> Any idea?
> Can this be a PHP safe mode problem? Because I had some problems
> activating image uploads.
> I must run MediaWiki as cgi module. But I get no safe mode restriction
> error or something like this.
> Also the subdirectories in 'images' are existing and 777.
>
> Thanks, MB
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Aerik

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Try #2: Idea for learning spam filter

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at ...> writes:
>
> Sounds great to me.
>
> See extensions/ConfirmEdit in CVS for my half-done captcha system; it's got a
> little thingy for extracting added URLs from an edit.
>
Brion, thanks! - I checked our your code, and I believe it's takes care of all
the functionality except posting the urls and a timestamp into something.  For
the sake of simplicity, I'm think of just appending it to a text file - sound
okay to you?  And I'd really love to test it on a large wiki to get a nice BIG
dataset rather quickly - like on EN... is this the right place to get something
like that approved?

And Michael Keppler <Michael.Keppler at ...> writes:
>
> ????????? ??????? schrieb:
> > Image edit war about link. Or text of article was deleted by vandal,
> > and someone want to revert change, but in text were links.
>
> To avoid that you could store the pairs of (article, embedded url) from
> changed articles with URLs, not only the plain URLs.
> With the list of URLs you can then avoid the mass spamming of a single
> URL into thousands of articles (as described before), but with the list
> of pairs from changed articles with their URLs you can then override
> this decision and allow adding/deleting an URL from an article, where
> that same URL has been added/deleted/edited in the same article during
> the last 24 hours (or whatever time span is used for the black list
> algorithm).
>
Beautiful suggestion Michael, and that would allow for a finer analysis of
behaviour too.  So we'd collect three data points, the url, the wiki page being
edited, and the datetime.  After a short while, say a week, I'd compile the data
into a histogram (might have to do one histogram per time period, haven't
finished thinking about this) showing the frequency of urls appearing in
*different* articles in a time period, and then start seeing how many of the
urls that appear frequently were spam (easy enough - look at the page itself).

Best Regards,
Aerik


list: wikien-l

from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with crap deletion nominations

body:
> Nothing wrong with the idea perse, but who decides what is crap?

Tony, of course. Get with the program ;)

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Meta templates and Qif on :en

body:
On 1/22/06, Omegatron <9ybf94w02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> Obviously it would be better if this functionality was present in the
> Mediawiki itself, but until it is, what makes these templates so bad?

There's nothing that can be done with these advanced templates that
can't be done just as easily and with a significantly lower entry
level for editing with single-level, uncomplicated templates.

Which, in answer to your question, is how templates were meant to be
played with.

--
Sam


from_name: geni

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

body:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Unless you were writing hastily without thinking, what you appear to be
> saying here is that you regard yourself as a problem.
>
>
> - d.

There are 1000s of editors on wikipedia. The odds of me liking and
getting on with all of them are pretty much zero. However process (and
a reasonably common goal) means that I don't have to like someone to
work with them. Once we move outside process personal opinion about a
person matters a lot. Do you trust the person? Do you really honestly
deep down belive they are acting in good faith?

--
geni


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 1/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Sure, Tony can grant other rights to people outside the GFDL.  But,
> according to the GFDL, if anyone actually exercises those rights the
> GFDL itself is automatically revoked.
>
> IOW, according to the GFDL, you can use one license or the other - you
> can't use both (so to call the GFDL a "non-exclusive license" deserves
> some caveats).

Are you sure this is the correct reading of the GFDL?  I see it as
meaning that you cannot take a GFDL'd document and relicense it.  NOT
that the original author cannot release their own original work under
multiple licenses.

-Matt


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Michael Laudahn

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] This is a 'first-timer' - should I havemissunderstood
	somehting then please have mercy for me

body:
In case there are anglo-saxon readers: Koll has done it again

It's just a mixture of polemics and pretzel logic - like I called it,
'german fuzzy logic'.

He has withdrawn the preposterous 'paranoia' allegation. That was real
quick. Simultaneously, he's trying to replace it with a lighter kind of
accusation, called 'querulantentum' (I leave it up to you if you find a
suitable translation for that in english - my suspicion is, this is just
another kind of german invention to try and muzzle uncomfortable messengers
by giving them a name a court can find useful to abuse. Weren't nazi courts
actively thriving on this notion ('querulantentum')? A smiley won't help
damping this new insult of his.

He remains inflexible in the real issue, though. His tactics are to try and
divert your attention from the fact that I gave all the pertinent
information in my english-language messages. In other words, there is no
need to read the german part of my website. Just trust that what I state is
true information, then go from there. Do I give any reason to believe that I
were not telling the truth?

It is the german type of 'governance logic' at de.wikipedia.org that this
case is about. And it should be easily understandable through my original
message already. Otherwise, let me know what else you'd like to know or have
explained.

In case Koll still hasn't comprehended it: I am not interested in the kind
of statements he has delivered so far. Is someone else? Then, at least I
would prefer not to hear from him again.


from_name: dominik.bach at web.de

subject: [Wikitech-l] Confusing Interwiki Links

body:
With increasing multilingualism in wikipedia, it is becoming harder to
find the interwiki link one is looking for in a list of dozens of languages.

I see two possibilities to solve this issue.

- English is the reference language for most topics. Therefore, English
interwiki links could be emphasized, typed bold or shown at the
beginning of the interwiki list.

- interwiki links could be customized. Nobody speaks all languages that
could possibly be linked. Every user could customize the set of
languages he is interested in in the preferences section. Then all other
links could be hidden for this user.

Looking forward to hear your opinion.
Dominik


body:
Garage bands among others are now speedy-able.

-Matt


body:
Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd?  As opposed to
speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge).

-Matt

On 1/22/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on your numbers, a three month shut down would mean a backlog of some
> 1800 articles that would have to be dealt with in some other way.  You may
> think this is insignificant enough to dismiss and ignore, I don't.
>
> On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Rob (gamaliel8 at gmail.com) [060123 10:04]:
> > > On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > > > months.
> >
> > > Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really
> > don't
> > > want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for
> > Bob's
> > > Muffler Shop.
> >
> > Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
> > sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
> > trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
> > unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
> > behaviour.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It looks like he got off on the wrong foot on this.  Discretion is not
> been a prominent criterion for elevation to admin status.

Right.  Admins are selected on their ability to be popular, not on
their ability to be discreet.  This is similar to the reason why we
don't let all admins have CheckUser rights.

Kelly


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

body:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060121 07:05]:
>
> > Ok now it we've got it reframed so it is not such an obvious attempt
> > to push inclusionism
>
>
> Presumably this is an example of your grasp of good faith.

If the user is an inclusionist it is hardly imposible that they may
propose policies that support their position. The original proposal
did fairly clearly favor the inclusionist position. It is hardly
ilogical to conclude that the intial proposal was in part meant to
forward the inclusionist position. The regular anti deletionist
sentiments expressed on this list renforces this conclusion.

There is a significant differece between AGF and stop thinking.

>
>
> > Anyway if you want to try and go forward with this you need to start
> > discussing this on wikipedia as soon as posible.~~~~
>
>
> wikien-l is part of the official Wikipedia infrastructure, whether you like
> that fact for the present discussion or not.
>
>
> - d.

I fail to see the relivance for this. Recent experence suggests that
for practical purposes disscusing something on wikien-I is not the
same as discussing it on wikipedia.

--
geni


from_name: Rob

body:
Based on your numbers, a three month shut down would mean a backlog of some
1800 articles that would have to be dealt with in some other way.  You may
think this is insignificant enough to dismiss and ignore, I don't.

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Rob (gamaliel8 at gmail.com) [060123 10:04]:
> > On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > > months.
>
> > Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really
> don't
> > want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for
> Bob's
> > Muffler Shop.
>
> Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
> sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
> trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
> unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
> behaviour.


from_name: Jim Laurino

subject:
[Wikitech-l] no Thumb-Nails shown (wican: addressed to exclusive
	sender for this address)

in_reply_to:
<43D3BEE8.6010008@web.de> (from
	+wican+jimlaur+acdd33d27b.mailsgetlost#web.de@spamgourmet.com
	on Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:40 -0500)

body:
On 2006.01.22 12:20, Martin Baumann - mailsgetlost at web.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I posted the same question already in the Mediawiki-Mailing group. But it
> seems that
> nobody has an idea.
> So here is my problem:
>
> I want to show thumbnails of my images. What I do:
> * first upload an image
> * to show the thumbnail enter [[Image:myPic.jpg|thumb|alternative text]]
> Thats all, isn't it?
> But no thumbnail is shown, only a frame an 'alternative text' and the
> enlarge link!
> No picture at all!

...

> Any idea?

I think it may need the size argument, at least the first time.

[[Image:my-pic.png|thumb|200px|alternative text]]

That is something to try.

Hope that helps.

Jim
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
On 1/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd rather have Kappa, a deletionist and a mergist decide.
>
> Mgm

I'd rather leave it to the community to decide.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: Amgine

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikinews: IOTM Jan 2006 - Danny O'Brien of the
 Electronic Frontier Foundation

body:
Hi!

Wikinews will be hosting a second Interview of the Month
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month),  2000
UTC on 23 January 2006, Danny O'Brien
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_O%27Brien) of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) will be
interviewed live in IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikinews), and you are
invited to attend and be a part of the action.

Danny O'Brien is the "Coordinator of Activism" at the EFF, which he came
to from a technology journalism career. He helped found the Open Rights
Group, amongst other digital and online rights activisms.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a U.S. ngo, with staff  also in
Canada and the United Kingdom, focused on free speech rights in a
digital world. Focused on defending those rights as they are related to
technology, and educating the press, public, and policymakers about the
issues, EFF has taken a number of actions which put the spotlight on the
project recently: Sony BMG's CD protection issue, cracking the US
government's programme to have laser printers put tracking information
on every document they print, and publishing the Legal Guide for
Bloggers. They're also in the advocacy and lobby industry, and are
closely watching Broadcast Flag legislation in the US capitol which is
scheduled for debate on 24 January.

The Wikinews Interview of the Month is a program to give citizen
journalists the opportunity to be involved in interviews with news
makers. Research and questions are developed by everyone who wishes to
take part both before the interview (for this interview, you can get
involved at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month/January_2006_EFF)
and during the interview. As the interview progresses, questions may be
passed to the moderators who will try to squeeze in as many questions as
possible.

Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is produced in 19
languages.

Amgine


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago meetup

body:
I'd like to try to set up another Chicago meetup.  This time, I'm
leaning toward the wi-fi enabled Panera at 1700 Sherman in Evanston.
This is like right next to the Davis stop on the Purple Line so those
of you who don't have cars can still get there, plus being in the
north suburbs is a bit more accessible for our northsiders, which seem
to be the majority of our Wikipedians in Chicago.

No date is set yet; I'm going to be traveling in February on business
so I need to wait until I know when I'll be around.

Interested parties please contact me directly.

Kelly


from_name: Jay Converse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
I don't know if this will help the discussion at all, but unless I'm missing
something, the admin list isn't even listed with all the other
mailinglists.  Can the public archives really be a big deal if you can't
just accidentally stumble upon them?

On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Hermione1980 wrote:
>
> >--- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If ever admitted to any mailing list for
> >>administrators only I will
> >>publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.
> >>I will not
> >>tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
> >>
> >>
> >Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
> >list contents, too. Don't they have their own mailing
> >list and IRC channel? The point of having an
> >admins-only list, as I see it, is to have a place for
> >discussion that's not interrupted by "omg I was
> >blocked out of policy!" Besides, if the archives are
> >posted publicly (which has been discussed on this
> >thread already, if I'm not mistaken), there's really
> >not any less transparency.
> >
> The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis.
> They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of
> individual Wikipedians.  It would not surprise me to hear that in those
> heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to
> whether their own statements are defamatory.
>
> This list does in fact get frequent complaints from someone who was
> blocked, but most of those threads don't last long.  When an eMail from
> a person that I don't know begins with "I was blocked ..." I have no
> problem finding the delete key on my keyboard.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>
> Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom which
> claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all comment from
> outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been
> causing
> real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
> outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively driving
> away outside experts, etc.
>
> Here is a suggestion: good faith is not enough when the good-faith actions
> are stupidly destructive. Incivility on *FD = 24 hour ban from all *FD
> pages and deletion of comment. Sufficiently crap nomination = 1 month ban
> from all *FD pages.
>
> Ideas?
>
>
> - d.

Nothing wrong with the idea perse, but who decides what is crap?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Merkey libels Wikipedians

body:
Daniel Brandt at least doesn't, I believe, list deliberately malicious
info about people; while his "Hive Mind" page is thoughtlessly
compiled and contains numerous false and misleading statements, I
think he truly believes them to be correct.

Mr. Merkey, though, appears to be a pure and utter nut.

-Matt


from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Wikitech-l] Confusing Interwiki Links

body:
On 1/22/06, dominik.bach at web.de <dominik.bach at web.de> wrote:
>
> With increasing multilingualism in wikipedia, it is becoming harder to
> find the interwiki link one is looking for in a list of dozens of
> languages.
>
> I see two possibilities to solve this issue.
>
> - English is the reference language for most topics. Therefore, English
> interwiki links could be emphasized, typed bold or shown at the
> beginning of the interwiki list.
>
> - interwiki links could be customized. Nobody speaks all languages that
> could possibly be linked. Every user could customize the set of
> languages he is interested in in the preferences section. Then all other
> links could be hidden for this user.
>
> Looking forward to hear your opinion.
>

Add the following into your user CSS (e.g. [[User:Dominik/monobook.css]]):

.interwiki-en { font-weight: bold }
.interwiki-ca,
.interwiki-bs,
.interwiki-ko { display: none }

(of course, customize the language codes according to your wishes)

HTH,

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


body:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060123 06:03]:
>
> > I fail to see the relivance for this. Recent experence suggests that
> > for practical purposes disscusing something on wikien-I is not the
> > same as discussing it on wikipedia.
>
>
> Recent experience suggests Jimbo announces stuff here and important issues
> get discussed and decided here, thus making it a useful part of one's
> reading. Else why are you here?
>
>
> - d.

Again irrelivant. If you want something discussed it is better to do
it on the main wikipedia site. Recent experence shows this.

--
geni


body:
An interesting idea but the research needed to study every single AfD
case, read the discussion and make an informed decision to keep or delete
is far far beyond what a single person can accomplish. We need lots of
experienced people doing that job. Which is exactly the system we
currently have.

I very much encourage David, Tony, Phil and anyone else concerned with the
decisions and discussions at AfD, to participate in the discussions and/or
close nominations. They don't need any special powers beyond those of
normal admins. If you bring up a good case for keeping an article, AfD
will keep the article most of the time. I'd say the biggest problem with
AfD is the labels thrown around - "vanity", "non-notable", "ad" etc. -
nasty to read for the subjects of the articles. Blanking the discussions
after they're done will help a lot.

Regards,
Haukur

> On Jan 22, 2006, at 2:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>> I'm sure everyone would hate my opinions equally.
>
> Which would probably be an excellent indicator of success.
>
> The suggestion is not insincere - if deletion is going to be brought
> back under the control of the guiding principles under which the site
> is run, there is going to have to be some oversight. You suffer from
> A) Having raised most of the issues we are trying to correct, B)
> Intense sanity, and C) Being strikingly moderate on the deletionism/
> inclusionism scale. it seems to me exactly what the page needs.
>
> It may not be what your job or wife need, but you should have thought
> of that before you demonstrated sanity.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I'd rather have Kappa, a deletionist and a mergist decide.

Mgm

On 1/22/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
>
> > Nothing wrong with the idea perse, but who decides what is crap?
>
> Tony, of course. Get with the program ;)
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially
> every action you take can be looked at later?

I do lots of things in relation to Wikipedia that you can't easily
look at.  Not everything that happens in Wikipedia takes place on the
wiki.

Kelly


body:
> Empowering David to look at a discussion and say "What the hell are
> you smoking," then to make a sane decision, on the other hand, does
> make sense.

Certainly. And he already has that power, I'd encourage him to use it.
Though if the objective is to build a friendlier, more polite AfD then
"what the hell are you smoking" might not be the best phrase :)

> Particularly when you figure he would mostly not look
> into uncontroversial things in the first place.

A lot of the deletions Tony and others have been raising issues about were
uncontroversial at the time they went through AfD. Nomination,
'''delete''', '''delete''', '''delete''' and it's gone.

Controversial things usually get kept the way the system is designed,
though I admit that there are exceptions.

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Puddl Duk wrote:
>
> > > > How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > >
> > > No we should try and keep things as open as posible.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> >
> > I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were
> public.
>
> Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private:
>
> 1. Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?"
> 2. ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done
> this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please."
>
> Reasons:
>
> * No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless.
> * People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private.
> * Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a
> troublemaker.
>
> I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public.
>
>
#wikipedia and #wikipedia-en technically serves that function, but I've
found that #wikipedia's more interested in what's on television (nothing
wrong with off-topic chat, but sometimes it'd be nice to get a quick answer
in there) and #wikipedia-en is kind of a barren deadzone.
#wikipedia-en-vandalism has been my most reliable source of help recently,
but very few regulars in there appear to be regulars in the other
channels...  Just a thought.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> There is no such list. We are discussing creating one.
>
> Fred

A-ha! I feel dumb now.  Thanks for that.

On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Right.  Admins are selected on their ability to be popular, not on
> their ability to be discreet.  This is similar to the reason why we
> don't let all admins have CheckUser rights.
>
> Kelly
>

How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially
every action you take can be looked at later?

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Superonis

subject: [Wikitech-l] Require Email Validation before login hack

body:
Hi,

Just want opinions if my hack is valid, secure, or if there are any
loop-holes you see, or if there are improvements you might suggest:

The objective is to require users to confirm their email addresses
before they can login.  This may be useful in intranet settings, not
public ones.

So, here's a psuedo-code step-by-step if you're interested.  I've
implemented it and it seems to work well.

Files to modify:
1. includes\SpecialUserlogin.php
A) function AddNewAccount()

The system will log you in automatically without confirming your email
address.  Add code here to refuse logins and force a $wgUser->logout() call.

Example:
if (!$u->isEmailConfirmed())
...show error message
...log user out

B) function processLogin()

The other step to cover is when the user tries a regular login by
clicking the login button.  Again, do the same check as you did in part
A, but remove the logout() since that is not necessary (user is not
logged in yet).

2. LocalSettings.php

Have the following:
   $wgGroupPermissions['*'    ]['createaccount']   = true;
   $wgGroupPermissions['*'    ]['read']            = false;
   $wgGroupPermissions['*'    ]['edit']            = false;

   $wgEmailAuthentication = true;

This requires users to log-in first before they can read or write.

3. index.php

We need to modify index.php because when a confirmation link is sent to
your email to verify your address, the system wants you to login first
in order to validate it!  But you can't since your login is now rejected
  after our modifications.

Look for this in index.php
if ( !is_null( $wgTitle ) && !$wgTitle->userCanRead())

This is what's preventing you from confirming your email address.  Your
email confirmation link is going to Special:Confirmemail.  Write a
function that parses your $_GET[title] for the string
Special:Confirmemail and returns true if it finds it.  You can stuff the
function somewhere to keep the code neat...I temporarily stuffed it in
localsettings.php.

Then add your function to the line:
if ( !is_null( $wgTitle ) && !$wgTitle->userCanRead() &&
!areYouConfirmingEmail())

That's all folks.  Hope it's correct, and useful, and bug free.
Comments, criticisms welcome.


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct
> of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy,
> may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example
> implementation that governs public and private assembly.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan
>

Then ofcourse there's that pesky [[Freedom of assembly]] basic
democratic right. If people don't have that, then they have way bigger
problems than userbox-disputes and foundation-issues.

I agree with Kelly, what you are saying is borderline trolling.

--Oskar Sigvardsson


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/23/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when
> essentially
> > every action you take can be looked at later?
> >
>
> There are other situations where discreetness may be called for.
> Direct emails for example.
>
>
That's true... I'm still kinda going down the line of thought that you can't
be selected for discreetness.  Unless every single person who votes for
someone at RfA has had to make some confidential dealings, how can that be
the basis upon which they were made an admin?

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] This is a 'first-timer' - should I have
	missunderstood somehti

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Hi,

as user of de.wikipedia and one of the people with the Str?bele page on
my watchlist I can only second Toms opinion.

Regards,

Till

>Hi,

>I've spent half an hour reading your website and such and honestly
>I think that you are some kind of paranoid.

>You are having a dispute with Roggen and Str?bele (who are both
>free in their decisions wether to take a mandate or not) which
>is of course interesting for you but which is not relevant enough
>for Wikipedia. We are not planning to deliver material and
>informations for a 300-pages diploma work on those two men but
>we are writing a encylopedia of general interest which means
>that we need to "ignore" informations that aren't interesting
>anymore in twenty or fifty years.

>ciao, tom

>PS: Es gibt keine deutsche Wikipedia, nur eine deutschsprachige.

>--
>http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
>http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
>http://verlag.tomk32.de/c/wrdigest

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

 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Hirschstra?e 5. 79100 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.
> >>
> >>
> >Somewhat...
> >
> >"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document
> >except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt
> >to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and
> >will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
> >parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
> >License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
> >parties remain in full compliance. "
> >
> >So anyone using your GFDLed work under another license would
> >apparetnly automatically have her rights under the GFDL terminated.
> >At least, if that clause is upheld.
> >
> I don't think that it applies in the case at hand.  We were talking
> about Tony's user page.  Assuming that what's on there was written
> solely by him, he still has the right as the original grantor of the
> licence to also grant rights to others that are different from the ones
> expressed in the GFDL.  Nobody else has the right to do that with Tony's
> text.
>
> Ec

Sure, Tony can grant other rights to people outside the GFDL.  But,
according to the GFDL, if anyone actually exercises those rights the
GFDL itself is automatically revoked.

IOW, according to the GFDL, you can use one license or the other - you
can't use both (so to call the GFDL a "non-exclusive license" deserves
some caveats).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
>
> This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
>
> You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
>
> That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
>
> People, get real.
>
> Danny

By the same token you don't tell 800 people. Anything that is too
secret to be in the public domain should not be told to 800 admins.
--
geni


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
> This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information,
> including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing
> more effectively with trolls and vandals.

It is not a good idea to have hundreds of people on a mailing list
intended for "confidential flow of information".

> You do not publicize weak points, so that people
> can take advantage of them.
>
> That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.

Wikipedia has been extremely open about its weak points from its very
beginning. Many of us think that is a good thing. Security through
obscurity may be a worse option in the long run.

Regards,
Haukur


body:
'as user of de.wikipedia and one of the people with the Str?bele page on
my watchlist I can only second Toms opinion.'

Sure - it indicates that you suffer from the same typically german problems
as your forerunner. You definitely carefully avoid to deal in detail with
my argument chain. You can mobilise many more dummies over there to repeat
your faulty conclusions, but that doesn't mean they were right. Mass doesn't
replace class.

This is the experience I habe been making with the german Wikipedia. And
I've mentioned that already. Just read the original message. Who - other
than german - wants to blame me for looking for international
support in this matter? From my worldwide experience (cf
http://worldimprover.net/EN/en8.html ), I would consider US americans to be
in the best position. Not just because of their history, but also because
Wikipedia is a US venture.

Can anyone among you hear me?

And once again: I really think we can from now on do without any more
comments from Germany, as long as they don't develop. I thought this was
clear already after my last message, but Till Westermayer proves that I was
mistaken.


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 1/22/06, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:
> > There's nothing that can be done with these advanced templates that
> > can't be done just as easily and with a significantly lower entry
> > level for editing with single-level, uncomplicated templates.
> >
> > Which, in answer to your question, is how templates were meant to be
> > played with.
>
> Totally wrong. BTW, the duty of prove is on your side. Ah, yes and
> if you fail you remove the template, I see.

Do you see me edit-warring over meta-templates?  No, because I know
it's pointless.  Nevertheless, I have been trying to create
semantically cleaner alternatives.  I think you have missed the fact
that these templates weren't created until well after the template
syntax (I believe they originated on en in April of last year).  If
the template syntax was intended to be used in this way, we would have
seen it before now.

> Shure yes. We have invented them solely because we intend to shock
> people with ugly stuff and because we are wanna-be coders.
> Ah yes, and because we want to create DOS attack vectors for the
> servers.
>
> Indeed we must be stupid. Strange, that we have not been banned
> yet.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

> Another silly one is "templates should be used sparingly". We have
> a concept that should not be used. Why? Not because of the concept,
> because some people make unproven claims about the implementation.
>
> Shure. Remove every template. They are not needed to create the wiki
> pages. We can also write html directly.

There must be some logical fallacy where you hyperbolise your
opponent's arguments in order to make him seem foolish.

> BTW I use my own html compiler for that task (for my non wiki pages).
> I'm shure you would do that by hand. Because your code is not meant to
> change, right?

I do, actually, because I think it's quite important that people can
understand my code.  Including myself.

> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Hmm, I didn't realise we were here.  Shall we get off the devs' list?

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] #wikipedia-en-admins

body:
I disagree with this assessment entirely.  I highly doubt the community
would support secret decision making.  A consensus would be immensely hard
to reach simply because you and 15 people go "Well we discussed this and we
have our reasons".  I highly doubt the community would stand for that at
all.

I see the channel as a way to quickly get help for administrative duties
that non-admins can't provide help on.  As a relatively new admin, I run
into new problems that I can't figure out myself on a semi-frequent basis.
It'd be nice to have the availability of a dedicated admin group to respond
in a much more immediate way than talk pages.  I personally happen to prefer
IRC correspondence to talk page correspondence for quick issues.

The one thing that'd immediately turn me off of the idea of this channel is
if it becomes clear that the person in charge of the inviting won't invite
you simply for being an admin.  There's a difference between a chat room and
a clique room.

On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is,
> i.e. secret and
> invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to
> its existence. To call a
> forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit 800
> but you exclude thousands of
> active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage newcomers
> and to assume good faith,
> but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the rest of
> the world, those 6 billion
> non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the discussions
> we wish to undertake.
>
> Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the
> formidable barriers against your
> potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How would
> you feel about having tens
> of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but refusing to
> enter into discussion with
> you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided in
> private?
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Untagged image help

body:
I've always wondered why there isn't a drop-down box to allow the image
uploader to select the copyright that they think fits best and then it
auto-inserts the template when the image info page is created.  Is there a
technical reason behind this?

On 1/22/06, Peta Holmes <holmespeta at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On English Wikipedia there is a list of untagged  images, it started at 38
> 000+, about 6000 of these have been tagged in  5 weeks; see
> [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]]. From the several hundred I  have tagged, 2/10
> can be speedied as orphaned fair use images; 7/10  have no source and/or no
> license information and most likely would only  be able to be used as fair
> use; ~1/10 is a logo, album cover or a gfdl  image without a template.
> Tagging these images is a big drain on  contributors time, especially if
> they aren't admins.
>
>   Technically all these images identified as untagged are speediable
> if  they are tagged as no license or no source, so on behalf of
> the  untagged images project I am looking for someone who could write a
> bot  to tag these all these images and notify the up loader.
>
>   There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of
> copyright  information provided for images, and  the incorrect
> copyright  information that is being added to images as a result of the
> license  drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded to Wikipedia
> to  be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the uploader to
> provide  copyright information after the image is uploaded?
>
>   --Peta
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos
> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
> whatever.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are 1000s of editors on wikipedia. The odds of me liking and
> getting on with all of them are pretty much zero. However process (and
> a reasonably common goal) means that I don't have to like someone to
> work with them. Once we move outside process personal opinion about a
> person matters a lot. Do you trust the person? Do you really honestly
> deep down belive they are acting in good faith?

Quite so.  And if we learn to assume good faith (and we don't need a
policy page to tell us *that* is a good idea), we should get along
fine.

--
Sam


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 1/22/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
>
> A lot of the deletions Tony and others have been raising issues about were
> uncontroversial at the time they went through AfD. Nomination,
> '''delete''', '''delete''', '''delete''' and it's gone.

Convincing proof that sometimes AFD gets it very, very wrong.

Second time through for my two unilateral undeletions, a more sensible
discussion, on present showing and a very different result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SuperOffice_%28second_nomination%29

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

I rescued both of these from a DRV discussion that was going *against*
my resurrection of the articles.  There is something very wrong with
DRV if it can't make this kind of sensible decision.


body:
On 1/22/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are 1000s of editors on wikipedia. The odds of me liking and
> > getting on with all of them are pretty much zero. However process (and
> > a reasonably common goal) means that I don't have to like someone to
> > work with them. Once we move outside process personal opinion about a
> > person matters a lot. Do you trust the person? Do you really honestly
> > deep down belive they are acting in good faith?
>
> Quite so.  And if we learn to assume good faith (and we don't need a
> policy page to tell us *that* is a good idea), we should get along
> fine.

Well said.  Process is not a substitute for assuming good faith, and
current behavior *within the process*, partly on AfD but *particularly
on DRV*, is actively destructive of the assumption.  Much of what
passes for discussion on DRV is little short of naked thuggery.


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

references:
<dr1el4$pda$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6b397ba40601221841w416f2da0j2b0229e9ff32fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<dr1go4$tk5$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> Try #wikipedia.

My personal experience of #wikipedia is that it tends to have a lot of
off-topic socialization, and on-topic discussion tends to be lost in
the scrolling.

#wikimedia and #wikipedia-en tend to be better.

Nathan aka Pakaran


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins on
> the English wikipedia.

No. Administrators should not act as a clique.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.

If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will
publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.  I will not
tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Merkey libels Wikipedians

body:
In case you haven't seen it, the infamous [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]
has brought back his (long-offline) site:

http://www.merkeylaw.com/

(Despite the "law" in the URL, he's not a lawyer, just a highly
litigious individual.)

The current incarnation of the site is full of vile libels against
various Wikipedians, including Jimbo... and also myself.  Various
accusations are made including claiming people to be terrorists,
pedophiles, stalkers, advocates of the violent overthrow of the
government, and so on.  In my own case, he accuses me of writing
death threats and soliciting violence and murder on Wikipedia, a
statement that's completely devoid of any semblance of truth.

And I thought [[Daniel Brandt]] and his "Hive Mind" page (which also
lists me, with false and misleading statements) was bad.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

body:
On 1/22/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Jay Converse wrote:
> > I disagree with this assessment entirely.  I highly doubt the community
> > would support secret decision making.  A consensus would be immensely
> hard
> > to reach simply because you and 15 people go "Well we discussed this and
> we
> > have our reasons".  I highly doubt the community would stand for that at
> > all.
>
> Here is the channel topic as it was for about 10 hours before I started
> writing my post:
>
> "English Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard, on IRC. Discussions are
> private and sometimes
> privileged. Do not repost without permission. If decisions are made as the
> result of discussions,
> the reasoning should be provided on-wiki."
>
> Clearly they do intend to make decisions. Decisions are an unavoidable
> outcome of on-topic
> discussion. We've seen decisions made on #wikipedia and introduced on to
> the wiki in this way, but I
> don't mind that because IRC conversation is faster and more productive
> than wiki-based chat, and the
> forum is non-exclusive.

 "If decisions are made as the result of discussions,
the reasoning should be provided on-wiki."  My point was not that decisions
will not be made in there.  My point is that without support from those who
are not there and actively participating in the discussion, an arbitrary
decision-making like that will go nowhere.  One chat session does not a
consensus make.

> I see the channel as a way to quickly get help for administrative duties
> > that non-admins can't provide help on.  As a relatively new admin, I run
> > into new problems that I can't figure out myself on a semi-frequent
> basis.
> > It'd be nice to have the availability of a dedicated admin group to
> respond
> > in a much more immediate way than talk pages.  I personally happen to
> prefer
> > IRC correspondence to talk page correspondence for quick issues.
>
> Try #wikipedia.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
>
I've given up on #wikipedia.  There's either off-topic chat or some heated
policy discussion going on, but every time I try to ask a question, out of
all 150+ people in there, I don't get a reply.  Maybe you have a different
experience, but I never seem to be listened to in there, and in fact, that
channel was a significant reason behind my wikibreak last year.  Nothing
like getting ignored to shoot your self-esteem in the face.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Merkey libels Wikipedians

body:
Daniel Brandt's page was worse, I think.  This guy's just whining and
spewing complete falsehoods.  I don't think it's even worth thinking about.

On 1/22/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> In case you haven't seen it, the infamous [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]
> has brought back his (long-offline) site:
>
> http://www.merkeylaw.com/
>
> (Despite the "law" in the URL, he's not a lawyer, just a highly
> litigious individual.)
>
> The current incarnation of the site is full of vile libels against
> various Wikipedians, including Jimbo... and also myself.  Various
> accusations are made including claiming people to be terrorists,
> pedophiles, stalkers, advocates of the violent overthrow of the
> government, and so on.  In my own case, he accuses me of writing
> death threats and soliciting violence and murder on Wikipedia, a
> statement that's completely devoid of any semblance of truth.
>
> And I thought [[Daniel Brandt]] and his "Hive Mind" page (which also
> lists me, with false and misleading statements) was bad.
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

body:
"Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:cbffa3750601221038p465b18f1l7782de3f5f771267 at mail.gmail.com
> On 1/22/06, Omegatron
> <9ybf94w02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> Obviously it would be better if this functionality was present in the
>> Mediawiki itself, but until it is, what makes these templates so bad?
>
> There's nothing that can be done with these advanced templates that
> can't be done just as easily and with a significantly lower entry
> level for editing with single-level, uncomplicated templates.
>
> Which, in answer to your question, is how templates were meant to be
> played with.

Totally wrong. BTW, the duty of prove is on your side. Ah, yes and
if you fail you remove the template, I see.

Shure yes. We have invented them solely because we intend to shock
people with ugly stuff and because we are wanna-be coders.
Ah yes, and because we want to create DOS attack vectors for the
servers.

Indeed we must be stupid. Strange, that we have not been banned
yet.

Another silly one is "templates should be used sparingly". We have
a concept that should not be used. Why? Not because of the concept,
because some people make unproven claims about the implementation.

Shure. Remove every template. They are not needed to create the wiki
pages. We can also write html directly.

BTW I use my own html compiler for that task (for my non wiki pages).
I'm shure you would do that by hand. Because your code is not meant to
change, right?


from_name: John D. Mann

body:
Would love to see the full text/diff of your solution.  Sounds like it works
great, but would like to look into it further.

-John

> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Require Email Validation before login hack
> The objective is to require users to confirm their email addresses
> before they can login.  This may be useful in intranet settings, not
> public ones.
> So, here's a psuedo-code step-by-step if you're interested.  I've
> implemented it and it seems to work well.
> That's all folks.  Hope it's correct, and useful, and bug free.
> Comments, criticisms welcome.


body:
On 1/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd?  As opposed to
> > speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge).
>
> Quite.  There are a few unverifiables (real unverifiables, not the
> nonsense about announcements of licensing deals by two companies being
> unverifiable) and we could probably find an innovative alternative to
> AfD for those.
>
> I'm strongly in favor of giving this ago.  Many AfD articles are
> obvious merges or redirects and shouldn't ever see AfD at all.
>

That reminds me.  Why are people allowed to vote Merge or Redirect on AfD in
the first place?

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 <slytherinchaser49 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If ever admitted to any mailing list for
> > administrators only I will
> > publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.
> > I will not
> > tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
>
> Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
> list contents, too.

No.  some arbcom discussions need to be private.


from_name: Redvers @ the Wikipedia

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
>
> By the same token you don't tell 800 people.
> Anything that is too
> secret to be in the public domain should not be told
> to 800 admins.
> --
> geni

Geni is right - very little will be achieved by "going
private" in emails or IRC for Wikipedia admins.

The only thing that will happen is what happened at
dmoz: the admins retreated behind a firewall and
clubbed together for safety. Intermediate users, the
ones doing the real work, could no longer get
"promoted" to being an admin ("meta" as dmoz had it).

So the intermediate users trickled away. Unable to
even see what being an admin meant, they couldn't even
apply. Anyone who did was rounded upon. So they slowly
left and found other interweb hobbies.

That left the admins in their ivory tower and a
succession of new users who were either vandals or
needed cleaning up after.

So the admins spent their entire time booting people
and/or cleaning up. New stuff didn't get added. The
directory ossified.

Five years ago, dmoz had the headlines for being a
wonder of the internet. Now Wikipedia has them. Do we
really need to follow their path so completely that we
must repeat their mistakes?

We are a '''wiki''' after all. If people have an issue
with the 20% downside that the 80% upside allows,
there are other places to go. But they don't tend to
remain dynamic for long.

:"REDVERS"

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private:
>
> 1. Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?"
> 2. ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done
> this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please."
>
> Reasons:
>
> * No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless.
> * People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private.
> * Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a
> troublemaker.
>
> I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public.

We see those kind of posts all the time on AN/I

>
> As for the worry that an admin list might be abused to form a cabal to
> gain control of Wikipedia for its own nefarous ends -- I dunno what those
> would be, maybe enforce a political litmus test on articles or replace
> all uses of BC/AD with CE/BCE -- this could be accomplished right now
> with an offline, private mailing list.
>
> And if this hasn't been attempted yet, then I'm wrong in thinking that
> there are some people out there smarter than me.
>
> Geoff

Oh it's been tried. However sooner or latter someone finds out about
it and informs the community. Once that happens it can be isolated and
nutrilised. A bit harder to do with a formaly sanctioned list. The
contense of such a list could not be kept secret anyway so it would be
a misstake even to try.

--
geni


body:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  Assuming that what's on there was written
> solely by him, he still has the right as the original grantor of the
> licence to also grant rights to others that are different from the ones
> expressed in the GFDL.  Nobody else has the right to do that with Tony's
> text.

Quite. And the exception for that substantial part of my userpage
which is derived from the work of others is explicitly mentioned in
the disclaimer.


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
>We have a number of folks posting on wikien-l that are not only not
>administrators but quite tiresome. An admin-l list offers more
>opportunity of a genuine dialogue.

>Fred

Then ban them. Does anybody remember nupedia? It sounds like your
trying to re-create that, except w/o the experts...

Disenfranchising the majority is not going to make the wiki a better
place, nor is hiding yourselves away in an ivory tower. The role of
admiship is needs to be changed or removed, its a part of the problem,
not a solution. The wikipedia is supposedly built upon consensus,
rather than oligarchic values, altho I must say this
institutionalisation of cliques Kelly Martin lauds is really quite
ominous.

Sam Spade


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway (f.crdfa at gmail.com) [060123 10:13]:
> > On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 <slytherinchaser49 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > --- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If ever admitted to any mailing list for
> > > > administrators only I will
> > > > publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.
> > > > I will not
> > > > tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
>
> > > Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
> > > list contents, too.
>
> > No.  some arbcom discussions need to be private.
>
>
> What Danny needs is a list for matters of similar or greater consequence,
> e.g. discussions of legal consequence and so forth. You may have noticed
> how every time Jimbo coughs it's misquoted in newspapers around the world.
> Perhaps a list with all 800 admins isn't that list, but that's the sort of
> list he's talking about.
>
>
> - d.

Well perhaps all the new sub comittes will fill that role.

For dealing with the misquotes and trying to comuncate with the
comunity by press release problems we have the Communications
committee

--
geni


from_name: Jovana Milicevic

subject: [Foundation-l] Weekly digest from Wikimedia SCG

body:
First months of year 2006. were very succesful for Wikimedia SCG, especially
in media promotions.
First, at the last day of past year, in GNUzilla (electronic magazine
dedicated to free software) is published an article about Wikimedia SCG and
Wikipedia in serbian language.
Then at January 8, daily newspaper "Glas javnosti" published article "Free
competition-Wikipedia", comparing Wikipedia and Britanica, and Serbian
Wikipedia was mentioned.
January the 11th:
-Milos Rancic talked about the Wikipedia and Wikimedia at the channel two of
the Radio of Belgrade
January the 17th:
- Article about Wikipedia in daily newspaper Politika
- Jovana Milicevic talked about at the Art television
- On the Serbian television B92 site, in culture chapter, was placed the
news about Wikipedia promotion with comments
- The same promotion was announced on the site of the Belgrade
January the 18th:
- Milos Rancic talked on the radio B92
January the 19th:
- Platform about Wikipedia took place in Youth center Dom omladine
- Jovana's interviews were broadcasted on the radio Sajam and Radio of
Belgrade
- News about the platform published at the national television web site
January the 20th:
- Goran Obradovic speaked in the morning programe on the National television
- Jovana Milicevic speaked in the morining programe on the television
Metropolis
- Goran Obradovic and Nikola Smolenski talked for weekly newspapers Vreme,
and that interview will be published at Thursday 26th January
Wikimedia SCG meetings are taking place every Sunday in Youth center Dom
omladine Belgrade.

Jovana Milicevic


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Weekly digest from Wikimedia SCG

body:
First months of year 2006. were very succesful for Wikimedia SCG, especially
in media promotions.
First, at the last day of past year, in GNUzilla (electronic magazine
dedicated to free software) is published an article about Wikimedia SCG and
Wikipedia in serbian language.
Then at January 8, daily newspaper "Glas javnosti" published article "Free
competition-Wikipedia", comparing Wikipedia and Britanica, and Serbian
Wikipedia was mentioned.
January the 11th:
-Milos Rancic talked about the Wikipedia and Wikimedia at the channel two of
the Radio of Belgrade
January the 17th:
- Article about Wikipedia in daily newspaper Politika
- Jovana Milicevic talked about at the Art television
- On the Serbian television B92 site, in culture chapter, was placed the
news about Wikipedia promotion with comments
- The same promotion was announced on the site of the Belgrade
January the 18th:
- Milos Rancic talked on the radio B92
January the 19th:
- Platform about Wikipedia took place in Youth center Dom omladine
- Jovana's interviews were broadcasted on the radio Sajam and Radio of
Belgrade
- News about the platform published at the national television web site
January the 20th:
- Goran Obradovic speaked in the morning programe on the National television
- Jovana Milicevic speaked in the morining programe on the television
Metropolis
- Goran Obradovic and Nikola Smolenski talked for weekly newspapers Vreme,
and that interview will be published at Thursday 26th January
Wikimedia SCG meetings are taking place every Sunday in Youth center Dom
omladine Belgrade.
Jovana Milicevic


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

body:
> There is a federal district court case holding that under particular
> circumstances, a sculpture's copyright was dedicated to the public
> domain under a theory of general publication. But otherwise, a
> photograph of a sculpture is subject to the copyright of the sculpture.

Okay, that's good to know. But how do I determine the copyright of a
sculpture? This is the artist in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einar_J%C3%B3nsson

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Puddl Duk

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

body:
>
> I'm not going to use that part of the image. I'm going to try and cut
> it up for headshots
> --
> geni

try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles_retouched.jpg


body:
*crunch* Yummy statistics.

> [00:32]  <kim_register>     * 67.20% have been edited by less than 10
> distinct Users/IPs.

So, more than 30 percent of our articles have ten editors or more? Or am I
misunderstanding something?

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/23/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially
> every action you take can be looked at later?
>

There are other situations where discreetness may be called for.
Direct emails for example.

--
geni


body:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Rob (gamaliel8 at gmail.com) [060123 10:04]:
> > On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> > > months.
>
> > Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really don't
> > want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's
> > Muffler Shop.
>
>
> Straw man. Wikipedia runs 4000 new articles/day, 2000 of which are shot on
> sight; AFD is maybe 200 articles a day *nominated* at present, which is a
> trickle by comparison. It really will not make substantial difference
> unless people start nominating to make a point. Which is shooting
> behaviour.
>

You are channeling me!  Stop it!


body:
On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of those 200 per day, how many /should/ be on afd?  As opposed to
> speedyable or should have been dealt with another way (e.g. merge).

Quite.  There are a few unverifiables (real unverifiables, not the
nonsense about announcements of licensing deals by two companies being
unverifiable) and we could probably find an innovative alternative to
AfD for those.

I'm strongly in favor of giving this ago.  Many AfD articles are
obvious merges or redirects and shouldn't ever see AfD at all.


body:
On 1/23/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That reminds me.  Why are people allowed to vote Merge or Redirect on AfD in
> the first place?

So they can say "this article isn't likely to be much use on its own
but the information can be placed elsewhere or the name of the article
pertains to another one."


from_name: David Gerard

body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060122 04:05]:
> On 1/21/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:

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

> There are people on wikipedia that I really don't like. Process means
> that I can work with them.

Unless you were writing hastily without thinking, what you appear to be
saying here is that you regard yourself as a problem.

- d.


body:
Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom which
claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all comment from
outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been causing
real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively driving
away outside experts, etc.

Here is a suggestion: good faith is not enough when the good-faith actions
are stupidly destructive. Incivility on *FD = 24 hour ban from all *FD
pages and deletion of comment. Sufficiently crap nomination = 1 month ban
from all *FD pages.

Ideas?

- d.


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Quick Preview

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> I would like
> to have support from other developers to help improve it. It may be good
> to include this feature into MediaWiki software in the future.

There have been previous efforts to this end which are in various stages
of completion. The difficulty with integrating a JS-based live preview
into MediaWiki proper is that it requires developers to keep track of
two separate parsers written in different languages, and neither of
which is an actual parser.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | 0x147C722D


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

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

> Puddl Duk wrote:
> > I would support this idea as long as the mailing list
> archives were public.
>
> What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?

Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to stoke
outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard reporting of
Parliament. There are strict limits on who is eligible to speak, but none
whatsoever on who may listen to them, or read the published record.

Peter (Skyring)


body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060121 07:05]:

> Ok now it we've got it reframed so it is not such an obvious attempt
> to push inclusionism

Presumably this is an example of your grasp of good faith.

> Anyway if you want to try and go forward with this you need to start
> discussing this on wikipedia as soon as posible.~~~~

wikien-l is part of the official Wikipedia infrastructure, whether you like
that fact for the present discussion or not.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Enabling Interwiki

body:
If I'm not mistaken, all you have to do in order to link to, for example, a
Wikipedia page from another wiki is to use their Interwiki designator like
so:

[[w:link|Interwiki link]]

or Wikipedia: or whatever, am I correct?  I have tried several things, but
am unable to make this work.  It just links back to a page on my own server.
I'm thinking that I need to compile a list of all the Interwiki codes and
their matching URLs in order to enable this, but then I wonder why they are
included in the /maintenance/ directory as sql files.  Are we supposed to
commit this sql to our databases in order to use them, or is there more to
it and/or something completely different that I am missing?

Thanks,
John


body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060123 06:05]:
> On 1/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'd rather have Kappa, a deletionist and a mergist decide.

> I'd rather leave it to the community to decide.

Doing so is what got us into the present problems and hence just isn't
going to happen.

- d.


body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060123 06:03]:

> I fail to see the relivance for this. Recent experence suggests that
> for practical purposes disscusing something on wikien-I is not the
> same as discussing it on wikipedia.

Recent experience suggests Jimbo announces stuff here and important issues
get discussed and decided here, thus making it a useful part of one's
reading. Else why are you here?

- d.


body:
Snowspinner (Snowspinner at gmail.com) [060123 06:08]:

> How about David, an ardent deletionist, who is due for his more jobs
> after a year of excellent service to the arbcom?
> In fact, why don't we give David a title akin to Raul's on featured
> articles? Deletion Director. And give him broad authority to look
> into deletion cases and force sane results. However much one agrees
> with his claims about how systemically broken *FD is, I don't think
> anyone has seriously argued against his extreme sanity when it comes
> to, well, everything.

You hate me! You really hate me!

I'm sure everyone would hate my opinions equally.

Besides, since you are agreeing with me this obviously indicates cabalism.

Also, just to piss even more people off, I'll probably delegate large
chunks of the job to Tony.

- d.


body:
Snowspinner (Snowspinner at gmail.com) [060123 06:18]:

> It may not be what your job or wife need, but you should have thought
> of that before you demonstrated sanity.

I'm so adding that to my user page under "Jobs".

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

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

> Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and
> the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote
> or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The
> Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs
> public and private assembly.

It's only a website. Get a grip, man.

Pete, thinking that might be the problem


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] An article rescued simply by changing its subject

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

Tony Sidaway stated for the record:

> Seth Ravin was deleted a second time eventually.  I did a history
> undelete and started a rewrite that simply changed the subject to
> TomorrowNow, one of Mr Ravin's more notable companies.  I dropped more
> material than I added but augmented the article with enough references
> to make sure it makes [[WP:CORP]].  Then I moved the article over the
> deleted Seth Ravin article, undeleted the history to comply with GFDL,
> and hey presto, the article we would have had if someone had simply
> done this in the first place without all the fuss and bother of a
> deletion nomination, a deletion review and a second deletion
> nomination.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TomorrowNow

Yeah, sure, Tony, but you're being very inconsiderate here.  Think of
all the people who wouldn't have been able to go to sleep with that warm
glow of satisfaction that only comes from a day spent deleting other
people's work.

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

iD8DBQFD1OitMAt1wyd9d+URAifaAJ0aPH/fs528C9FPb14ig5nz61S85ACbBpMn
LRfnyzr7JehK0+7zGcyd0HU=
=IaIP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson (haukurth at hi.is) [060123 06:33]:

> An interesting idea but the research needed to study every single AfD
> case, read the discussion and make an informed decision to keep or delete
> is far far beyond what a single person can accomplish. We need lots of
> experienced people doing that job. Which is exactly the system we
> currently have.

Presumably this would only be questioned cases.

> I very much encourage David, Tony, Phil and anyone else concerned with the
> decisions and discussions at AfD, to participate in the discussions and/or
> close nominations.

I am not going to spend a substantial amount of my time exposing myself to
that many stupid articles in need of an urgent death.

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] #wikipedia-en-admins

body:
I would hope that the avenue to becoming an administrator remains
open and welcoming. Let's do what we can to ensure that happens.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Tim Starling wrote:

> The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with
> mode +is, i.e. secret and
> invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am
> opposed to its existence. To call a
> forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit
> 800 but you exclude thousands of
> active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage
> newcomers and to assume good faith,
> but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the
> rest of the world, those 6 billion
> non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the
> discussions we wish to undertake.
>
> Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the
> formidable barriers against your
> potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How
> would you feel about having tens
> of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but
> refusing to enter into discussion with
> you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided
> in private?
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >>Puddl Duk wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I would support this idea as long as the mailing list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>archives were public.
> >>
> >>What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
> >>
> >>
> >Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to
> >stoke outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard
> >reporting of Parliament. There are strict limits on who is
> eligible to
> >speak, but none whatsoever on who may listen to them, or
> read the published record.
> >
> That kind of availability is key to transparency and accountability.

That's my point.

> Nevertheless, I am confident that the reasewrship level would
> be just as stunningly high as it is for Hansard (or the
> Congressional Record in the US).

Oh, I agree fully! Debates on policy can be most nit-pickingly tiresome (to
use Fred's word) and I wouldn't expect WP to be any different.

But if we want editors to have an effective and informed vote at ArbCom
elections, then transparency is a must. Like Hansard (or the ConRec) this
protects not just the voting public, but the legislators themselves.
Otherwise, with such a large group, there are bound to be leaks, and some of
those leaks might be incorrect, or given out of context. Human nature being
what it is.

Is there any good argument for secret discussions?


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Merkey libels Wikipedians

body:
On 1/22/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> In case you haven't seen it, the infamous [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]
> has brought back his (long-offline) site:
>
> http://www.merkeylaw.com/
>
> (Despite the "law" in the URL, he's not a lawyer, just a highly
> litigious individual.)
>
>

Six grandchildren at 45?  Tsk, tsk.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Merkey libels Wikipedians

body:
On 1/22/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> In case you haven't seen it, the infamous [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]]
> has brought back his (long-offline) site:
>
> http://www.merkeylaw.com/
>
> (Despite the "law" in the URL, he's not a lawyer, just a highly
> litigious individual.)

So what is this LKML that he is talking about? "He posts death threats on
Wikipedia and LKML..."

Ian (Guettarda)


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 1/23/06, Jei <jei at cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> Interesting. What about pictures of people? - If I put makeup on my face
> and call it a work of art, and someone takes a picture of me in a public
> place, do my copyrights still apply? Or if I jog regularly and spend time
> shaping and trimming my body, does my unique physique retain it's
> copyrights in a similar photograph situation?

As with most things legal, the answer is probably 'it depends'.  Both
of those could probably win in court with a good enough lawyer, a poor
enough opposing lawyer, and a credulous jury.

-Matt


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Untagged image help

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>
> On 23 Jan 2006, at 02:02, Peta Holmes wrote:
>
>>   There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of
>> copyright  information provided for images, and  the incorrect
>> copyright  information that is being added to images as a result of
>> the license  drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded
>> to Wikipedia to  be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the
>> uploader to provide  copyright information after the image is  uploaded?
>
>
> Remove the norification requirement and just speedy all untagged images.

I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems
to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are
being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling
behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use
ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Untagged image help

body:
On 1/23/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems
> to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are
> being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling
> behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use
> ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there.

And at least a fair use claim requires some source information, even
if the fair use claim is shaky.

How many of the untagged images are old, prior to the requirement for
image tagging?

-Matt


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
"Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbffa3750601211232l4145f438le5ea3d2ef072f74f at mail.gmail.com...
On 1/21/06, Jama Poulsen <jama at debianlinux.net>
wrote:
[snip]
> > One could also say that the current Wiki syntax is too simple for many
> > editors.
> > Sure its much more complex than the 'standard' Wiki syntax, but I do see
> > a need for more dynamic page constructions and displays, and this
> > provides
> > a very interesting building block for that.
> Do you see the need?  I don't.  All I see is people wanting to use one
> template in all situations, where they could easily use multiple
> templates.

This is known as "template forking" and is regarded as evil.

It generally results in 17 different variants of a given template, with
minor differences between them, forcing an editor to work much harder to
discern which variant is appropriate for a given occasion.

Take for example the classic {{book reference}}. The simplest possible
instance is just the title of the book. This can later be embellished with
the name of the author, possibly with a link to an appropriate article.
Later additions can include the publisher and ISBN, to distinguish between
different editions and to enable a reader to find an actual copy.

If you fork this template (and this was actually done before the advent of
condition "tricksiness"), you have to use a different template every time
you incrementally improve the accuracy of your citation. Your choice can
even be affected by the order in which your embellishments are added!

Since accurate citation of sources is a key requirement for a good Wikipedia
article, making this any harder than necessary is not good.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Meta templates and Qif on :en

body:
"Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbffa3750601221340l43d41ab2nf050f04c8b0f9289 at mail.gmail.com...
On 1/22/06, Adrian Buehlmann
<adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Do you see me edit-warring over meta-templates?  No, because I know
> it's pointless.  Nevertheless, I have been trying to create
> semantically cleaner alternatives.  I think you have missed the fact
> that these templates weren't created until well after the template
> syntax (I believe they originated on en in April of last year).  If
> the template syntax was intended to be used in this way, we would have
> seen it before now.

This would be because the "default parameter" feature was not initially
available. This feature is the vital linchpin in the "conditional
tricksiness" which has caused all the argument.

Unfortunately it would appear that the "specification documentation" for
this particular feature is embedded in the brain of whoever added it in,
since the appropriate Help page on Meta was not produced until long after
the fact and provides no history or justification for its addition.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


body:
"Aerik Sylvan" <aerik at thesylvans.com> wrote in
message news:355a36af0601212140i7bd35f8ao2802c84c968935a4 at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> The idea is that the normal behaviour for a wiki is that it is very
> unlikely
> for an url to be referenced in an edit more than X times in 24 hours (I'll
> postulate twice, just for fun), but it is very common behaviour for a
> spammer.  Therefore, if one could ascertain (do some tests) that some
> large
> percentage (say 99.9%) of valid (non-spam) urls posted via edits occur
> less
> than X in 24 hours, you could put in a filter inconveniencing a very small
> percentage of users that would autmatically add those urls to a blacklist.

Would this be checking for identical URLs, or simply multiple URLs
referencing the same site?

Because I can think of one concrete example where I have been adding many
URLs: references to Placeopedia. Does the fact that I am using a small
template help?

Sometimes, you might have a WikiProject which is bringing their articles up
to a standard which includes adding references, and if this means that a
bunch of articles get similar URLs added in a short space of time, this
might trigger your filter.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

body:
"Tim Starling"
<t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in
message news:dr1el4$pda$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins has now been created, with mode +is,
> i.e. secret and
> invite-only. It currently has an access list of 64 people. I am opposed to
> its existence. To call a
> forum which admits 800 people "almost public" is bizarre. You admit 800
> but you exclude thousands of
> active contributors. Wikipedia has always attempted to encourage newcomers
> and to assume good faith,
> but it's a clear violation of that principle to assume that the rest of
> the world, those 6 billion
> non-administrators, have nothing useful to contribute to the discussions
> we wish to undertake.
>
> Imagine if you joined Wikipedia today. How would you feel about the
> formidable barriers against your
> potential contribution to Wikipedia's decision-making process? How would
> you feel about having tens
> of admins declaring new policy, stating their rationale but refusing to
> enter into discussion with
> you on equal terms, on the basis that it had already been decided in
> private?

I'm not happy for one basic reason: I can't get to IRC from behind this
firewall. So I have no way, even though I am an admin, of joining in with
this discussion. So if I were to do something which might be regarded as
controversial (unlikely but bear with me) I might find my activities
discussed and condemned in a forum to which I have no access.

Quite apart from that, I suspect that most of the conversation carries on in
a quite different time-zone, so I likely wouldn't actually be awake even I
had access.

There's no way of guaranteeing that logs of any pertinent conversations
would ever be made available to anyone, never mind the affected parties.

This channel might be useful in the event of a massive vandalism attack, for
coordinating efforts to repel boarders when the regular Wikipedia-based
channels of communication are clogged up, but for the normal course of
events, discussions should take place on Wikipedia where the appropriate
people can watch and take part.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
Danny wrote:
> Suggested time, anyone?

I suggest 10pm UTC. This is 9am in Melbourne, 11pm in Europe, 5pm US
east coast, 2pm US west coast. It's not ideal for Asia, but it's
always going to be 3am for someone. Perhaps we could rotate the
meeting time so the next one was more suitable for different people.

Geni wrote:
> Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an
> admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and
> createing cliques.

Why can't you get on IRC? Would it help if I added the en.admins
channel to the IRC web gateway at <http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/>?
Currently it is just used for the Arabic and Croatian channels.

Kelly Martin wrote:
> Obviously what is really required is an embassy between wikien and the
> Foundation.

This sounds like the Wikicouncil idea, but that received little support:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil

Angela


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] This is a 'first-timer' - should
	I	havemissunderstoodsomehting then please have mercy for me

body:
Michael Laudahn wrote:
>
> Would you believe it - another german 'fuzzy'

Sorry, but based simply on skimming your mails here, you sound like a
standard-issue internet crank.

I'm not surprised no one's taking you seriously, if the reaction to even
moderate doubt is to claim they're part of the elaborate nation-wide conspiracy
to muzzle you. (Perhaps I will now be accused of being an American sympathizer
of the German military-industrial complex?)

We've already got UseNet for this kind of behavior, please make use of it
instead of this list.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060123/5768056b/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Admin meeting

body:
"Angela" <beesley at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b722b800601221417v72bb1252i93dda612bafd4832 at mail.gmail.com...
> Danny wrote:
> > Suggested time, anyone?
> I suggest 10pm UTC. This is 9am in Melbourne, 11pm in Europe, 5pm US
> east coast, 2pm US west coast. It's not ideal for Asia, but it's
> always going to be 3am for someone. Perhaps we could rotate the
> meeting time so the next one was more suitable for different people.

I currently don't have internet access at weekends: Monday - Friday,
0730-1800 BST

So what about people like me?

> Geni wrote:
> > Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an
> > admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and
> > createing cliques.
> Why can't you get on IRC? Would it help if I added the en.admins
> channel to the IRC web gateway at <http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/>?
> Currently it is just used for the Arabic and Croatian channels.

That looks like a handy tool. Could it be used for *all* of the Wikipedia
channels?

I can't get to IRC because it's blocked by our firewall, so an HTTP solution
would be great.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: SCZenz

body:
I know I'm getting into this late, but I'm gonna start from the top anyway...

Why not reform WP:DRV into something everyone can live with?  We could
give it more authority to overrule AfD, based on things other than
process, for example.  If you want oversight of AfD nominations, by
all means put it there--but I don't think having a single person with
broad review powers is a good idea at all.

SCZenz

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom which
> claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all comment from
> outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been causing
> real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
> outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively driving
> away outside experts, etc.
>
> Here is a suggestion: good faith is not enough when the good-faith actions
> are stupidly destructive. Incivility on *FD = 24 hour ban from all *FD
> pages and deletion of comment. Sufficiently crap nomination = 1 month ban
> from all *FD pages.
>
> Ideas?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


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

body:
"Matt R" <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:20060121205704.96069.qmail at web25013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com...
> --- JEFFREY KAUFFMAN <jeffrey_kauffman at msn.com>
> wrote:
> > This is where is gets incredible to me:  she then had me banned
> > indefinitely for "making threats and harrassing."
> You were banned for making legal threats, which are not tolerated on
> Wikipedia;
> you said, "you and Wikipedia are about to hear from my attorney".
> Please don't waste our time.

Just out of interest, I note that the user in question is claiming that his
copyright has been violated.

So at what point does attempting to assert your copyright become "making a
legal threat"?

Should a copyright holder whisper very gently "you're violating my
copyright, but that's OK, we wouldn't want the lawyers involved"?

Having dropped this question into the thread, I am now going to attempt to
find out WTF this brouhaha is all about...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Rémi Kaupp

subject: [Wikitech-l] Quick Preview

body:
Hi Aoi,

You can have a look at the Live Preview created by User:Pilaf at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilaf/livepreview.js and its description
on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilaf/Live_Preview .

A updated version by Lupin can be seen at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_User_scripts/Scripts/livepreview.js

A+,
R?mi Kaupp

Le Lundi 23 Janvier 2006 09:34, Guillaume Blanchard a ?crit :
> Ivan Krstic wrote:
> > Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> >> I would like
> >> to have support from other developers to help improve it. It may be
> >> good to include this feature into MediaWiki software in the future.
> >
> > There have been previous efforts to this end which are in various
> > stages of completion. The difficulty with integrating a JS-based live
> > preview into MediaWiki proper is that it requires developers to keep
> > track of two separate parsers written in different languages, and
> > neither of which is an actual parser.
>
> Why the previous JS Quick Preview didn't still on the live site? Can you
> indicate me those scripts and/or theirs programmers?
> There was a project to use a XML intermediate format for parsing; any
> news about that?
> I don't think Quick Preview must be a carbon copy of the PHP parser. The
> goal is just to offer a readable version of the WikiSyntax code we are
> editing. Imho, fully support text styles, links and tables may be
> enough. Regards,
>
> Aoineko / Guillaume Blanchard


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with crap deletion nominations

body:
Rob (gamaliel8 at gmail.com) [060123 09:22]:

> Oh, this is a really bad idea. We don't need set up a special AfD Czar to
> smite people. Anyone who is "disruptive" on AfD can be dealt with using the
> methods we use to deal with people anywhere else on Wikipedia.

That's a nice idea, but so far "disruption" has been taken as "disagree
with the mob". Tony Sidaway even got a bogus blocking by Sjkakalle for an
undeletion. If you think that's all that's needed, you'll have to flesh out
the idea a bit more.

My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
months.

- d.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Seth Ravin was deleted a second time eventually.  I did a history
undelete and started a rewrite that simply changed the subject to
TomorrowNow, one of Mr Ravin's more notable companies.  I dropped more
material than I added but augmented the article with enough references
to make sure it makes [[WP:CORP]].  Then I moved the article over the
deleted Seth Ravin article, undeleted the history to comply with GFDL,
and hey presto, the article we would have had if someone had simply
done this in the first place without all the fuss and bother of a
deletion nomination, a deletion review and a second deletion
nomination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TomorrowNow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Untagged image help

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 1/23/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems
>>to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are
>>being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling
>>behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use
>>ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there.
>>
>
>And at least a fair use claim requires some source information, even
>if the fair use claim is shaky.
>
Some days I find that half or more of the images I look at with the
generic fair use tag are source-less - gets them a ticket on the
fast track to oblivion.

>
>How many of the untagged images are old, prior to the requirement for
>image tagging?
>
Not so many, less than 10% that I've seen - previous retroactive
image-tagging initiatives must have caught most of them. I see a
"bulge" around summer 2005, which I think is after the last big
tagging push and before uploading screen was reworded, or it could
just be clueless uploads by students on vacation.

Stan


from_name: Aerik Sylvan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Try #2: Idea for learning spam filter

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>Would this be checking for identical URLs, or simply multiple URLs
>referencing the same site?
>
>Because I can think of one concrete example where I have been adding many
>URLs: references to Placeopedia. Does the fact that I am using a small
>template help?

>Sometimes, you might have a WikiProject which is bringing their articles up

>to a standard which includes adding references, and if this means that a
>bunch of articles get similar URLs added in a short space of time, this
>might trigger your filter.

 Phil, just to be clear, at this point I'm proposing a feasibility analysis
- but you make some very good points/questions.  This would be for identical
urls posted to different pages.  The goal is to develop a filter that would
be able to block spammy behaviour, even if it's edits from multiple
users/IPs.  I think if you're posted a template, that would NOT trigger it
(there's a hole - a spammer could create a spam template?  but at least you
could quickly negate the effects by deleting the template... nothing's
perfect I guess), only multiple posts of the same URL.

I can't imagine where you'd have a project that would cause you to post the
exact same URL to a whole bunch of pages at once, but I'm sure it's
possible.  Maybe we'd only want to apply the filter against anonymous
edits.  Or, maybe triggering the filter would invoke Brion's captcha?  I'm
not trying to nail down the implementation at this point, just the
feasibility.  But this is a good discussion.

Thanks,
Aerik