from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
G'day Ben,

> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>>Ben wrote:
>>>I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not
>>>seeing it.  How is it offensive?  All of the Christians I personally
>>>know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying,
>>>but not offensive.
>>
>>Mocking the cross?  You can't see what's wrong with that?
>
> I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.

Oh, bravo.  No, you're not out to offend *anyone*.  You don't see how
any of this could *possibly* be offensive.  For Pete's sake!

I have some respect for your intelligence (more, it seems, than you have
for mine, or that of anyone else who has complained at you), so I can
only assume you're engaging in yet more immature trolling.  Consider
this my own special brand of AGF.

> And I didn't "mock" it, I just rotated the canvas ninety degrees thrice.

And a drawing of Mohammed with the caption "You Muslims think you're so
great, well how do you like this?" isn't mocking, either ... it's just a
few lines on a page.  It's funny how, if you break something down in
*just* the right way, you can say whatever you want and give it the ring
of truth.

> That's the problem with this religious stuff.  It's entirely subjective
> and inappropriate for use as, say, a deletion criteria.  Which is
> exactly what some people are trying to use it for.

I don't see what that has to do with you and Greg vandalising a page on
Wikipedia.  If it had been anyone else, they'd have been (at the very
least) given a short block and a ding around the ear.  But you spread
your hands and say "what's all the shouting about?  It's not like I did
anything *wrong*."

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/337 - Release Date: 11/05/2006


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reporting/dealing with whitewashing/smearing

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>
> How does one editor notify other editors that there may be a salaried
> employee of X editing the article about X or about X's enemy in a
> whitewash/smear way? It's not exactly vandalism...

Of course it is vandalism, if it's a deliberate act to reduce the quality
of this encyclopedia.

--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] What. The. Fuck??!?

body:
G'day Dan,

[top-posting isn't offensive, but it *is* annoying ...]

> Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive
> as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm
> sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed
> Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and
> disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous
> and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".

Context is king.  We have an article about the cartoons incident because
it's notable, and in the article it's only sensible that we'd have an
image (or at least a link to an image) of the cartoons.  We would not,
however, be at all impressed if someone created a userbox with a drawing
of Mohammed, particularly if the userbox's creator went on to make
offensive statements about Muslims.

Likewise, an article about Satanism or the Cross of St Peter would
probably include an upside-down cross.  Indeed, if Cyde founded a
religion tomorrow which featured as its major symbol a rotating
crucifix, and it one day became notable ... including that image would
be acceptable as a matter of course.

When writing articles, editorial concerns trump personal feelings (NPOV,
yes?).  When vandalising userboxen, use some fucking common sense.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/337 - Release Date: 11/05/2006


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Shinjiman

subject: [Wikitech-l]The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical to	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at ...> writes:

>
> Shinjiman wrote:
> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="XXX" lang="XXX">
> >
> > The lang (and xml:lang) attribute defined at the HTML tag in some language
is
> > not correct and it's supposed to not making this value identical to
> > $wgContLanguageCode.
>
> Incorrect; it *is* supposed to be the value of $wgContLanguageCode, as by
> definition $wgContLanguageCode is the RFC 3066 language code for the
language of
> the wiki's content.
>
> A reasonable case might be made that when variant display conversion is
engaged,
> the lang attribute should be overridden.
>

Please note that the original purpose/goal of the Language Converter is to
changing the page(article, project page, portal, etc.)'s content *only* (For
example: [?????] in Chinese and also [standardize?standardize] in
English). Seems Brion is not understanding the original purpose/goal of this,
and he said the to change the lang attribute in the HTML tag. (However I've
wondering is that have any PHP functions that can change the lang attribute in
the HTML tag that already set by the output of both OutputPage.php and
SkinTemplate.php).

> > For example there's no such language tag called "simple",
>
> Indeed there's not; that would be "en".
>
> Note that $wgContLanguageCode is not the same as the *domain name* or
*interwiki
> identifier*. These are separate issues.

As this, we still don't have any values that defines the lang attribute in the
HTML tag, but currently defined by the $wgContLanguageCode. However, if Brion
(or any developers having the shell access) changed the $wgContLanguageCode
from "simple" into "en" in the LocalSettings.php at simple, it can correct the
mislabelled tag. But this change is going to *break up* the user language
settings to using the English messages instead of Simple English messages, for
anonymous visitors and newly registered users. (See
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allmessages for the diffs between the
original English messages and Simple English messages, and currently none of
LanguageSimple.php / MessagesSimple.php are defined in the MediaWiki package).

As far as I know the value "simple" is *not* either the domain name or the
interwiki identifier. However, the values (including "simple") that affecting
the $wgLanguagecode / $wgContLanguageCode is defined at the $wgLanguageNames
array in languages/Names.php.

>
> > according to ISO639, RFC1766, RFC3066 (R1,R2). Hence for my previous patch
> > that submitted to Bug:5790. The main purpose of the patch is adding a new
> > Language Tag Mapping against the user interface language which using the
> > incorrect language tag.
>
> That would be stupid and useless. Instead, use the correct code to begin
with.
>

Have you read my previous posts?
*http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-May/035546.html
*http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-May/035578.html

On the posts that I've mentioned, as there's some users that using the [zh-
tw/zh-hk] user interface language, but have the language variant *turned off*
[zh]. It is impossible to determining the new lang attribute by the language
variant. So by Brion's idea, to using the language variant to determine the
new lang attribute, it would rendered with Traditional Chinese texts, using
Simplified Chinese fonts (as the language variant perference is [zh]).
Therefore, That's why I say that using the language variant value is not
suitable for this case.

>Instead, use the correct code to begin with.

That's somehow I agree with this, seems the filenames in languages directory
and the values in languages/Names.php is not defined by either the latest ISO-
639-3 and IANA language tags. Hopfully there's maybe having some changes
regarding to this. :)

Hopfully this may make more sense regarding for this issue.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP
addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:

http://intelligentdesigns.net/Freedom_Tools

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l]The lang tag in <HTML> ain't	identicalto	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at ...> writes:

>
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Shinjiman wrote:
> >
> >> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="XXX" lang="XXX">
> >>
> >> The lang (and xml:lang) attribute defined at the HTML tag in some
language is
> >> not correct and it's supposed to not making this value identical to
> >> $wgContLanguageCode.
> >>
> >
> > Incorrect; it *is* supposed to be the value of $wgContLanguageCode, as by
> > definition $wgContLanguageCode is the RFC 3066 language code for the
language of
> > the wiki's content.
> >
> > A reasonable case might be made that when variant display conversion is
engaged,
> > the lang attribute should be overridden.
> >
> >
> >> For example there's no such language tag called "simple",
> >>
> >
> > Indeed there's not; that would be "en".
> >
> > Note that $wgContLanguageCode is not the same as the *domain name* or
*interwiki
> > identifier*. These are separate issues.
> >
> >
> >> according to ISO639, RFC1766, RFC3066 (R1,R2). Hence for my previous
patch
> >> that submitted to Bug:5790. The main purpose of the patch is adding a new
> >> Language Tag Mapping against the user interface language which using the
> >> incorrect language tag.
> >>
> >
> > That would be stupid and useless. Instead, use the correct code to begin
with.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion  <at>  pobox.com)
> Hoi,
> The case for the simple wikipedia is indeed obvious. More problematic is
> when you want to link a wikipedia that uses a code that will never be
> accepted as a language code because it is considered a language family.
> Or a code that is used for another language. Or a language where the
> code is specific while the wikipedia uses it to indicate a larger
> language "continuum". Another issue is that language codes are retired;
> this leads to a different interpretation of the meaning of the ku, fa
> and several others (this is part of ISO-639-3)
>
> Having meaningful links between the Wikimedia codes for interwikil inks
> and language codes is not trivial. For WiktionaryZ we are going to
> standardise on ISO-639-3 and have CLEAR codes that identify languages
> that are not recognised at present. One consequence is, that the Babel
> templates will be the ISO-639-3 codes as well.
>
> RFC 3066 indicates to be reserving tags for subsequent revisions of the
> ISO-639 code. ISO-639-3 clearly states that the codes will not be
> recycled. It also says that this principle will be maintained for any
> future revisions of the code. It is therefore safe to use ISO-639-3.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>

For this, I think you maybe have some ideas about the language tags attribute
mapping, which was previously posted in Bugzilla:5790
(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5790). I've made a flow chart
(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=1704&action=view) how to
determine the lang attribute to render the texts using the correct font. And
also would you like to see my proposed patches for this
(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=1705&action=view and
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=1706&action=view) is that have
any problems that Brion pointed out those stuffs added are consider to making
unsafe to the cache (At this case Brion didn't says *how* it would affecting
the cache.) Would you have any opinions regarding to my proposed design, or is
there have any problems by running the code? (For this one I've done the test
on my local wiki, but haven't got the idea *how* the cache would be affected,
which is pointed out by Brion). :)

thanks and regards
Shinjiman


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Baidupedia (the downside to free content?)

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> I think people seem to be missing the point.  Sure, Baidu might be in
> technical violation of the GFDL, in which case pretty much every
> fork/mirror in the world is in technical violation of it.  I was more
> focussed on the fact that "entries on Baidupedia, the service from
> Nasdaq-listed Baidu.com launched last month, are censored by the
> Chinese Government".

Indeed.

> This is especially horrible because the real
> Wikipedia *isn't accessible in China* to the average internet user who
> doesn't jump through a bunch of technical hoops.

Actually it was accessible for the average user until a day and a half ago,
via wikipedia.cnblog.org, a proxy which was even listed in some of the
search engines, including Baidu itself. The launch of this Wikipedia fork
seems to have coincided with a crackdown on various firewall evasion techniques.

-- Tim Starling


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Whether or not a grossly censored Baidupedia is better than nothing, I
> don't know.  Depends, I suppose, how censored it is, but I get the
> impression that the censorship is much tighter than say the censorship
> of Google.  From what I know of the situation I'd guess a censored
> version of Wikipedia is worse than nothing, because at least with
> nothing more people will go through the technical hoops to get around
> the firewall.
>
> If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
> Wikipedia to the masses in China (no client-side setup required), I'd
> love to help.  Maybe some sort of network of distributed servers
> providing https access through dynamically rotating IP addresses.

I don't think there's any solution left which will work without client
configuration, except for a number of loopholes that the Chinese Government
hasn't gotten around to closing yet. The foremost among these is our own SSL
gateway:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/zh/wiki/

There are various unblocked HTTP proxies, although all unencrypted traffic
is sampled, so any popular proxy will be rapidly blocked.

Traffic within China isn't subject to the Great Firewall, which is why a
proxy like wikipedia.cnblog.org worked. More proxies like that could be set
up, but our recent experience suggests that the Government is watching for
such things, and you can fully expect a knock on your door if you set one up.

Periodically changing the IPs returned by a specific DNS entry almost
certainly won't work. They have the ability to poll DNS.

So that leaves client configuration. The Tor network is still not blocked,
but that might be only a matter of time. And the downside is that it has no
system for dealing with abuse.

Having numerous SSL tunnel servers would be useful, along the lines of
Anthony's suggestion. However, you need to have some way to distribute the
server IPs to the users without letting the Government find them out. I
can't think of any way to do this with a public protocol without leading to
a very high rate of compromise of IP addresses, assuming the authorities are
on the ball. A simple HTTPS gateway like secure.wikimedia.org could be
compromised automatically by simply connecting to it and downloading the
index page.

We can go on exploiting known holes in the firewall for the time being, but
it will certainly become increasingly difficult for people inside China to
access Wikipedia, especially for those who are non-technical or not
especially motivated.

If Baidupedia does take off, I hope they will license locally generated
content under GFDL, to allow for a continuing exchange of content between
Wikipedia and Baidupedia.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] OT (was Re: Are these userbox templates NPOV?)

body:
On 5/12/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > Now these
> > activities are eerily reminiscent of what Nazi S.S Guards did to Jews
> > in concentration camps. Admittedly, the Nazi atrocities occured on a
> > much larger scale but the pain and humiliation suffered by the victims
> > is the same.
>
> The Nazis attempted to exterminate or enslave everyone of non-German
> descent living in Europe. It's not even the same thing and it makes
> you look like a hyperbolic, irrational fanatic for saying so. I don't
> support the Administration's policies, but the best way to oppose the
> administration is by making rational arguments against their
> policies--not by making bad comparisons to the Nazis.

Either way, comparisons have been made to Nazis. You know the rule.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock help

body:
On 5/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> I'm aware of that, but the point is that the user (usually) isn't. It is
> non-obvious that putting the stuff back in can be viewed as "undoing
> someone else's changes". It is far more obvious to refer to the removal
> as "undoing changes". An admin who doesn't see this, shouldn't be
> blocking people.

Ah, fair point.

Steve


body:
Brion Vibber <brion at ...> writes:

>
> Shinjiman wrote:
> > Please note that the original purpose/goal of the Language Converter is to
> > changing the page(article, project page, portal, etc.)'s content *only*
(For
> > example: [?????] in Chinese and also [standardize?standardize] in
> > English). Seems Brion is not understanding the original purpose/goal of
this,
>
> I understand it just fine. I have no idea how it relates to what you're
> proposing, which appears to be something totally unrelated trying to snag the
> user-agent's Accept-Language string (?!??!!?)
>
> > As this, we still don't have any values that defines the lang attribute in
the
> > HTML tag, but currently defined by the $wgContLanguageCode. However, if
Brion
> > (or any developers having the shell access) changed the
$wgContLanguageCode
> > from "simple" into "en" in the LocalSettings.php at simple, it can correct
the
> > mislabelled tag. But this change is going to *break up* the user language
> > settings to using the English messages instead of Simple English messages,
>
> No it won't. There is no "simple English" language, it's just English. The
> defined user interface messages on the wiki will be shown when English is
selected.
>
> > On the posts that I've mentioned, as there's some users that using the [zh-
> > tw/zh-hk] user interface language, but have the language variant *turned
off*
> > [zh]. It is impossible to determining the new lang attribute by the
language
> > variant.
>
> I don't understand what this means. Can you explain it?
>
> If you mean, "some people haven't selected a language variant", then in that
> case we cannot assign anything more specific than "zh" to that page display.
>

Yes, that's what I said in this issue, for my perferences, I've use the
Traditional Chinese user interface, and having the language variant disabled
[i.e. the language variant is set to zh]. And it is not "some people *haven't*
selected a language variant", however it is likely to said that "they have
*disabled* the language variant". That's the problem happens as your
suggestion that using the language varient to determine the lang attribute.

I've concerned for the problem above, it shows that there is not possible to
determine the lang attribute by using the language variant value.

Hence, I've trying to write a method to determine the lang attribute by *both*
user interface language value and $wgContLanguageCode. (It's the same design
as the submitted function in Bug:5790, I would like to explain these
procedures in sentenses.) (And it has been mentioned *in your Point Of View*,
this code is writtened totally difficult that you wanted.)

Firstly, we need to check is the $wgContLanguageCode is on the change list, if
it is *not*, returns the $wgContLanguageCode value. (This is determined by the
first array $wgDispLangNeedChanges)

If the language code *is* on the change list, do the following procedures:

- If the key is found in the correctto list, returns the value which
associated to the key (Defined in the second array $wgDispLangChangeTo)

For logged on users
-------------------
- A method that can get the lang attribute is trying to get a language code
value by User Interface perferences for logged in users.

For anonymous visitors
----------------------
- Then for anonymous visitors, it need to know which font character sets
should be used (Simplified Chinese fonts / Traditional Chinese fonts)
determine by the HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE only if the browser *supports and
enabled* this function.
- If the method determining the lang attribute *fails*, it will use the
$wgContLanguageCode for final fallback.

- Finally do the language tag changes as some font character sets supports
incorrectly, for example, zh-hk and zh-mo is assigned to use the Simplified
Chinese fonts, we need to fix this into zh-hant or something like that as zh-
hant is assigned to using the Traditional Chinese fonts charsets. If the key
that cannot found in the array, it returns the value $wgContLanguageCode for
final fallback. (This is defined in the third array $wgDispLangChanges)

This code would not affects the return value of lang attribute which the
$wgContLanguageCode value is *outside* of the lang attribute change list
(which is defined in the first array, for example, en, de, fr, ja, ko, etc.,
i.e. the return value of lang attribute is the same as $wgContLanguageCode)

I think that it win't have problems in my design. However, I did not get *how*
this design affects the cache as you've mentioned before. As the best I've
done is trying to make a design as good as possible, and solving the problem
more effective. :)


body:
Mark Williamson <node.ue at ...> writes:

>
> No, it's not right to use "zh-hant" for zh-min-nan. That Wikipedia is
> written in Latin letters, some are special diacritics that don't show
> up in most Traditional Chinese fonts. This was an issue before -- when
> it said "zh-min-nan" in the tag, it caused the text to display wrong
> in some browsers. I'm not sure what tag is used at present, though.
>
> Mark
>

As this problem, I can remove/change the key from those arrays to addressing
this issue, and having the value zh-min-nan itself or en (latin character
sets) returned if the zh-min-nan is set to $wgContLanguageCode value. :)

Man


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

Prasad J stated for the record:

> Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair,
> I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the
> International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider)
> oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent
> people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated
> upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.Again,
> let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an
> elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will
> be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing
> the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean
> Government oppresses its people.The Chinese government is receiving
> some flak from the international community as a result of these
> policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are
> their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier
> statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the
> law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to
> abetting a crime.

And there you have a wonderful summary of the difference in attitudes
often seen between Americans and those who did not build their country
on the violent overthrow of established government.  I, in apparent
contrast to Prasad, believe that whenever any form of government --
whether elected or not -- becomes destructive of its people's
unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
 sean at epoptic.com | learn from this. --Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEZfYEMAt1wyd9d+URArEQAJwPpS56HzdScjuhJcETegKj9HKkvACeK2OT
pCx/wxSEpDSVwM8Vu0WK+UE=
=aU+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP
> > addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:
> >
> > http://intelligentdesigns.net/Freedom_Tools
>
> That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the
> censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/
> think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong,
> but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their
> country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.
>
> Timwi

A group of people got together and decided to oppress another group of
people.  Just because the former group is large and powerful and calls
itself a country doesn't negate the fact that I have a right and to
some extent a duty to assist that oppressed group.

As for the legality of the situation, I'm not going to attempt a
guess.  For my own personal situation I take some comfort in the fact
that the group of people who got together to oppress the group of
which I'm a member tend to respect our freedom of speech.  But YMMV.

"In capitalism, people exploit people.  In communism, it's the other
way around."

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:57:05 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >It might be an indication that it's not as "pointless" an issue to some
> >people as it is to you and/or possibly Jimbo. Which in turn means that
> >neither you nor Jimbo should think you know for definite that it is
> >truly objectively pointless.
>
> I don't know.  I always remember at times like this whose ball it is
> we're playing with.
>
> Guy (JzG)

The ball of the individuals who donated to the foundation.

Anthony


from_name: Essjay

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> A nice little extension to do this would also be quite trivial...
>
I'd like to hear more about this. We've been talking recently about how
best to do welcoming on Wikiquote, and I had proposed a bot; if it can
be done with an extension, all the better.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380605121140m68050055p5788e01dcb316cc0@mail.gmail.com>
	<e42lfu$k13$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380605121209j4cd61ef8m8dbcccd76e28a48d@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90605121643s297d0c8cvf8a806abb3ceb5fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<lp7b62d4qphva3kq2o5bvpjqdahiao052d@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:43:44 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >That edit says that "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" are
> >CSD candidates.  The current version says "Templates designed for user
> >pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions,
> >or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which
> >are otherwise divisive or inflammatory."
>
> Because some people have to be beaten vigorously with a cluebat before
> they realise that their userboxes are divisive - as far as some people
> are concerned an opinion which is shared by all "right-thinking"
> people can't possibly be divisive.
>
> Guy (JzG)

The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.  In fact,
after looking further, someone on that page made the claim that Jimbo
has explicitly stated that it's *not* an edict from above.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > I can't even find out where this CSD "was decreed from above" in the
> > first place.
> >
> > I think I've been misled.
> >
>
> No, you haven't been misled.  It is an accepted part of policy,
> confirmed by Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee.

So is Jimbo making secret decrees, or do you have evidence of this
decree?  Either is possible IMO.

Anthony


from_name: Prasad J

body:
The last e-mail was supposed to be sent to FastFission as a personal
reply to an e-mail he sent me. I mistaken sent it to the mailing-list.
Sorry about that.


body:
On 5/13/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/05/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
> > > Wikipedia to the masses in China...
> >
> > DVDs dropped from propaganda planes?
>
> Er, sorry; when did Wikipedia add "freedom fighting" to its list of goals?
>
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it doesn't have goals.  "The
goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open
content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those
projects to the public free of charge."  So arguably it fits.

But the "we" I was referring to wasn't all Wikipedians (I'm not even
sure I consider myself a Wikipedian), and it certainly wasn't members
of Wikimedia (I definitely don't consider myself a Wikimedian).  I was
referring to myself and anyone else who's interested in "get[ting] the
real Wikipedia to the masses in China..."  Sorry if my terminology
confused you.


body:
On 5/13/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Timwi, encouraging Chinese citizens to break the laws of
> their country is probably not the right thing to do, even though such
> forms of censorship seem unfair. Also, what if the Chinese authorities
> manage to track down those who break their censorship laws? Let us not
> forget what the government does to  "dissidents" in China. And what is
> the press gets hold of this? The issue of Wikipedia and Chinese
> Government censorship has been in the news. If we start encouraging
> Chinese Wikipedians to break the law, it will only mean bad publicity
> for the Foundation.

I'm not sure we should be *encouraging* Chinese citizens to break any
laws, but I'm fully behind supporting those that choose to do so.

As for bad publicity for the Foundation, I'm not a member of the
Foundation and never made any claim to speak for them (not that I
accept that it would be bad publicity, mind you).  I do feel that this
discussion is "beyond the scope of this mailing list" though.  If
you'd prefer to send any responses to me off-list, please do so.
Another place you can reach me is at
http://jnanabase.org/index.php/User_talk:Anthony, although I don't log
on there as often as I used to.

Anthony


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] You got mail...

body:
See http://abk24.livejournal.com/6260.html, pretty much routine now,
when an astroturfing article gets removed we see a flood of brand new
or anonymous users coming along to AfD and DRV because of our
"censorship" and our violation of their "right" to promote their pet
crank in the encyclopaedia.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:57:05 +0100, you wrote:

>It might be an indication that it's not as "pointless" an issue to some
>people as it is to you and/or possibly Jimbo. Which in turn means that
>neither you nor Jimbo should think you know for definite that it is
>truly objectively pointless.

I don't know.  I always remember at times like this whose ball it is
we're playing with.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:43:44 -0400, you wrote:

>That edit says that "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" are
>CSD candidates.  The current version says "Templates designed for user
>pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions,
>or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which
>are otherwise divisive or inflammatory."

Because some people have to be beaten vigorously with a cluebat before
they realise that their userboxes are divisive - as far as some people
are concerned an opinion which is shared by all "right-thinking"
people can't possibly be divisive.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Guettarda

subject:
[WikiEN-l] BBC radio refer listeners to the wikipedia entry on
	the doosra

body:
On 5/13/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >Who or what is Aggers?
> > >
> > > A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home
> > > Service, m'lud.
> >
> > And who are "The Beatles"?
>
> Oh, that just reeks of <s>US</s> UK centric POV. Don't assume that
> just because you <s>Americans</s> Brits know all about someone then
> the rest of the world will too. Don't force your culture on me man!

Except cricket.  That's more than culture, it's life.  All Americans (and
other similarly deprived poor souls) should have cricket forced onto them.
Makes them better people


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
> Wikipedia to the masses in China...

DVDs dropped from propaganda planes?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: William Allen Simpson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is "Wikipedian:" category space possible?

body:
Background:

Over on en, the userboxen wars have started up again.  Some undergrad
calling himself User:Cyde, with a punny tag Cyde Weys, cajoled his way
into admin status by promising to stop his disruptive activity there, and
nearly the first edit of his first hour as admin began deleting a userbox.

He'd recently speedied others such as "Template:User infidel", and been
rebuffed after a week of deletion review.  The past couple of days he's
been edit warring on "Template:User Christian", making it a page long with
a sideways cross, then a spinning cross, and that really stoked the flames.

Because he lied about his intent (to gain privileges), and has been so
disruptive, he probably should be desysopped, but the process for that
seems to be rare and undocumented.

I'd skipped the userbox wars the previous time around because at about
the same time, a couple of folks started turning all abbreviation pages
(encyclopedic) into disambiguation pages (explicitly not encyclopedic),
deleting/redirecting the categories and templates without any prior
discussion.  Don't know what it is about the winter holiday break giving
a few folks too much time on their hands.  (heavy sigh)

Technical:
Anyway, over at Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion, today folks are
proposing making a clean demarck between user space categories and
"encyclopedic" categories. Seems reasonable to me.  Dunno whether it will
make some folks happier, but is worth a try.

Surely it's just a tag of some kind, but categories require some software
support.  Is it possible to add a second group of category space labeled
"Wikipedian:"?

For example, "Wikipedian:Politicians" instead of the current
* "Category:Wikipedian politicians", previously known as
* "Category:Wikipedians who have run for public office"

Pointers to code would be appreciated.


subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
While I'm thinking about it (and surely this must have been proposed
before and I'm not using the correct search term), some incentive to
decorate user pages could be curbed by not indexing it in the search
engines.  That is, add nofollow to the html in User and User talk.

I'm actually a bit disgruntled that Google places such a high priority on
Wikipedia that my (fairly sparse) User page recently became the top entry,
rather than the more useful entries about my security work.  So, for
professionals, nofollow would be a boon.

Pointers to code would be appreciated.


body:
On 5/13/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure we should be *encouraging* Chinese citizens to break any
> > laws, but I'm fully behind supporting those that choose to do so.
> >
> > As for bad publicity for the Foundation, I'm not a member of the
> > Foundation and never made any claim to speak for them (not that I
> > accept that it would be bad publicity, mind you).  I do feel that this
> > discussion is "beyond the scope of this mailing list" though.  If
> > you'd prefer to send any responses to me off-list, please do so.
> > Another place you can reach me is at
> > http://jnanabase.org/index.php/User_talk:Anthony, although I don't log
> > on there as often as I used to.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list
> Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within
> the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the
> Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I,
> personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that
> these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for
> legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal
> affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be
> entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.

I don't feel that even a majority of individuals in a particular
geographic location have the right to oppress other individuals (which
is not to say that I believe a majority of individuals in China *do*
agree with this particular oppression).  And yes, putting people in
jail for speaking out truths which others want to suppress qualifies
as oppression in my opinion.

The fact that I live in a different geographic location than these
others is not in my opinion relevant, except to the extent that it
means that I am most likely out of the reach of the oppressors in
question.  I am a citizen of the universe.  All else has been thrust
upon me without my consent.

Anthony


from_name: Rob

body:
On 5/13/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list
> Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within
> the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the
> Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I,
> personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that
> these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for
> legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal
> affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be
> entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
>

Were the US government to put into place certain policies "protecting" its
citizens from certain information on the Internet, no doubt you'd start
complaining about jackbooted thugs and the like.  I don't particularly care
what you think about the US government, but I don't think the Chinese
government should escape similar condemnation because of an accident of
geography.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:35:30 +0100, you wrote:

>> You are way behind the curve here, this has been discussed to death.
>Forgive me for not reading absolutely every edit to absolutely every
>page in the Wikipedia namespace, the Wikipedia talk namespace, the
>Template talk namespace, and whatever else.

And there was me thinking that it was pretty much unavoidable on the
mailing list and in Project space for at least a month.

>The templates do not provide any additional possibility of proclamation
>that plain text on the user page wouldn't already provide. Since you
>agree that the declaration of a point of view on a user page is not in
>itself wrong, it logically follows that the mere fact that the templates
>proclaim a point of view does not make them wrong.

Some of them were blatant trolling, of course.  Others are informative
but irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopaedia.

>It is highly doubtful that any significant amounts of server resources
>are at stake. It is even more doubtful that the load would be
>significantly increased compared to the current situation which already
>allows a significant number of humorous (and therefore irrelevant)
>userboxes. Either way, a proper analysis of the consumption of server
>resources has not been made.

Nor does it need to be since the benefit to the encyclopaedia is zero
and the cost non-zero.

>> a poor precedent to imply that such declarations are
>> officially sanctioned by including them in template space.

>There is nothing about the templates that makes them any more
>"officially sanctioned" than text on a user page on a
>Wikimedia-controlled server already is.

So you say.  Others disagree.  A Template space userbox which is
listed in a directory of userboxen appeared to many to imply precisely
that: "official" support for divisive userboxen.

>> Some of them were patently inflammatory, and those were removed first
>> and fastest.  Others included unfree images, a problem in itself.

>These are separate issues that I am not contesting. A proclamation of
>any belief is possible without breaching any of those two requirements
>(not being inflammatory and not using non-free images).

It's a separate issue right up to the point that someone has to make a
judgment call about *your* particular userbox.  Some felt that the
endlessly protracted decisions on each individual userbox (is it
divisive to say that you accept or reject Ayn Rand's philosophy?) were
an even worse use of time and resources.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical to
	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> No it won't. There is no "simple English" language, it's just English.

Are you making that assertion, brion, in the limited context of
"languages that Mediawiki supports"?

Cause, y'know:

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

(and, on reading the disambig page, I guess I was really remembering
Special English), but... could you expand, one more sentence?

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

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

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
Hi!

>Sort of -- people will accuse us of being pro-government and/or
>pro-Soviet if we support Narkamauka over Tarashkievitsa.
And they will accuse us of being pro-western if we do the opposite. It's a
conflict, whatever you do, someone will cry you help the opposite party.

>About half of Belarusan bloggers use Tarashkievitsa; svaboda.org and a
>couple of newspapers are written in it...
And... how many people is this? I quite doubt you get even close to the 9
million mark :) It's very difficult to judge a distribution from this, since
most bielorussian speakers have no access to the internet whatsoever...

>You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other
>Wikipedias do it.
@ pms we do it, too, even if there IS a recognized standard since the end of
the 18th century, which is used for the interface. Anyway, it's normal for
endangered languages to have a numer of "experimental" ortographies, which
are supposed to make the use of the language easier. I never noticed a
positive result from any of them, so I simply stick to the standard, but
that's not a reason for us to ban someone else's creativity.

It's different when (as it in lumbaart), you actually speak of different
dialects of the same language. Here I suppose the only criteria is to ensure
mutual intelligibility. As long as everyone can use the wiki, then it's
okay, when differences among the dialects are too big, it makes little sense
to speak of dialects. They actually are separated languages and should be
treated as such. It does not seem to be the case in bielorussian, though.
Here it's mostly a political game, that mostly mirrors what is happening in
the country.

>I do agree that if they really want it, we should give them a chance.
It makes little sense to start an internal conflict or to override the
admins. Yes, there should be two wikis, and the official code should be
assigned to those who use an official standard, no matter what is their
political position. Other scripts may simply use their own names, since they
have definite names. Then it will be the people to choose what version is
more suitable for them to use.

B?rto


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Guettarda wrote:

> All Americans (and
> other similarly deprived poor souls) should have cricket forced onto them.

I'll thank you not to force-feed me cricket. We have plenty already, and
they can be interesting to listen to (unless you're trying to go to
sleep), but I have no interest in eating them.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>	<4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>

body:
>>The templates do not provide any additional possibility of proclamation
>>that plain text on the user page wouldn't already provide. Since you
>>agree that the declaration of a point of view on a user page is not in
>>itself wrong, it logically follows that the mere fact that the templates
>>proclaim a point of view does not make them wrong.
>
> Some of them were blatant trolling, of course.  Others are informative
> but irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopaedia.

They are no more irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopedia
than most userpages already are (take mine, for example). Yet nobody
calls for the deletion of those userpages on the grounds that they are
"divisive" or "inflammatory".

>>It is highly doubtful that any significant amounts of server resources
>>are at stake. It is even more doubtful that the load would be
>>significantly increased compared to the current situation which already
>>allows a significant number of humorous (and therefore irrelevant)
>>userboxes. Either way, a proper analysis of the consumption of server
>>resources has not been made.
>
> Nor does it need to be since the benefit to the encyclopaedia is zero
> and the cost non-zero.

It is doubtful that the cost is greater than that of having userpages.
Quite to the contrary, using categories and "What Links Here", the
userboxes produce semi-automatic organisation and structure. This
reduces cost.

>>There is nothing about the templates that makes them any more
>>"officially sanctioned" than text on a user page on a
>>Wikimedia-controlled server already is.
>
> So you say.  Others disagree.  A Template space userbox which is
> listed in a directory of userboxen appeared to many to imply precisely
> that: "official" support for divisive userboxen.

The argument is irrelevant (because, as I already pointed out, it
equally applies to userpages, a list of which can be created on
[[Special:Allpages]]). It is the typical kind of argument people come up
with hastily when they're just looking for something to corroborate
their theory or to further their goal.

>> A proclamation of any belief is possible without breaching any of
>> those two requirements (not being inflammatory and not using
>> non-free images).
>
> It's a separate issue right up to the point that someone has to make a
> judgment call about *your* particular userbox.  Some felt that the
> endlessly protracted decisions on each individual userbox (is it
> divisive to say that you accept or reject Ayn Rand's philosophy?) were
> an even worse use of time and resources.

It is odd that, instead of precluding those "endlessly protracted"
discussions, you think you are solving the problem by instead forbidding
certain userboxes entirely, while it is plainly obvious that this
controversial prohibition causes a lot more discussion. There is nothing
wrong with a userbox stating "This user accepts Ayn Rand's philosophy"
-- there is, rather, something wrong with someone going "OMG this
userbox is divisive, it must go!!" So prohibit the latter.

Timwi


body:
On 5/13/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair,
> I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the
> International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider)
> oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent
> people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated
> upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.

>From your description the UN doesn't seem like it *is* dealing with
the situation.  Maybe the International Human Rights Commission is,
but if so they obviously can't solve the problem alone.

> Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an
> elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will
> be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing
> the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean
> Government oppresses its people.

Again let me note that the fact that the Government of China is
elected does not make one bit of difference in my opinion.  Even the
majority of people living in a geographic location does not have the
right to oppress.

> The Chinese government is receiving
> some flak from the international community as a result of these
> policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are
> their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier
> statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the
> law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to
> abetting a crime.
>
Sure, it's abetting a crime, pretty much by definition.  However, it
is my opinion that abetting such a crime as spreading truthful
information is perfectly just.  In fact, I consider it my duty to abet
this crime.

> PS,Rob:I'm from India, not the U.S so I'm not sure about how the
> American Government handles privacy issues.

The US government is itself funding people to "help Chinese users
access blocked sites."  So the very government which claims me as a
citizen is abetting a crime.

"This isn't the first time that Anonymizer has looked for ways to beat
Chinese censors. A couple of years ago, the company was hired by the
Voice of America (VoA) to develop software to help Chinese users
access blocked sites. Anonymizer is now working with the VoA on a
similar project for Internet users in Iran."

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125303,00.asp

"The Voice of America (VOA) is the official international broadcasting
service of the Government of the United States. "

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

Anthony


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP
> addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:
>
> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Freedom_Tools

That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the
censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/
think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong,
but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their
country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.

Timwi


body:
On 5/13/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Prasad J wrote:
> > Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an
> > elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will
> > be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing
> > the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean
> > Government oppresses its people.
>
> Elected? In what sense? It's a one-party system, the CPC doesn't tolerate
> any serious opposition. Maybe you should read:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
>
Also see [[Elections in the People's Republic of China]].  The second
paragraph is especially relevant.  (Not that I think that democracy
permits oppression anyway.)

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
> > above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.  In fact,
> > after looking further, someone on that page made the claim that Jimbo
> > has explicitly stated that it's *not* an edict from above.
> >
>
> I don't think that's a correct statement.  In the event that it is, I
> suggest that you examine finding of fact 2 in the Tony Sidaway
> arbitration.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway#The_T1_speedy_deletion_criterion_and_Crotalus_horridus
>
Just a few messages up I commented on this.  1) "Templates that are
divisive and inflammatory" is not equivalent to "Templates designed
for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical
convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues".  In fact, I
believe the former is obviously a CSD, while the latter should not be.
 However, I now see these two CSDs have been split.  2) Jimbo's
comment was " 	At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill
about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a
community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try
to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that
already exist."  That seems to me to be a statement which explicitly
states he is *not* making an edict.

> This probably won't satisfy you because you don't recognise Jimbo's
> authority or the Arbitration Committee's authority.  However that is
> not a problem for those of us who do.

Well, it's still important to know whether or not this *is* an edict,
even if the fact that it is is not necessarily conclusive.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
> > above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.  In fact,
> > after looking further, someone on that page made the claim that Jimbo
> > has explicitly stated that it's *not* an edict from above.
> >
>
> I don't think that's a correct statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=42052192&oldid=41965817

"Removed. Jimbo has clarified that he did not impose this by edict.
The criterion is subjective and better applied with discussion at TfD
than by solitary admins. See talk page."

Now, whether or not Haukurth's statement is correct is another
question, but someone *did claim* that Jimbo said it is not an edict.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380605121140m68050055p5788e01dcb316cc0@mail.gmail.com>
	<e42lfu$k13$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380605121209j4cd61ef8m8dbcccd76e28a48d@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90605121216w48affd69gd4da589434b748d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<eecbb0630605121608o5453b438ha4e892ac12d3faaf@mail.gmail.com>
	<e437ch$8dr$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<hn7b621npcksmnqhl1ufifba464nur6vmk@4ax.com>
	<71cd4dd90605130601j730841edqe7aca8ffaf3a994@mail.gmail.com>
	<qasb62d1jscl8sjc6hmkimt8tcqv79pjre@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:01:11 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >> I don't know.  I always remember at times like this whose ball it is
> >> we're playing with.
>
> >The ball of the individuals who donated to the foundation.
>
> That would be me, then.  And I choose to defer to Jimbo, since his
> understanding of the nature of his idea is likely to be better than
> mine.

You're not the only donator though.  And the default position is for
the deference to be to the board, not to Jimbo.

Anthony


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy to deal with new policies

body:
geni wrote:

>On 5/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>4. If a process exists, it must be followed because it's a process.
>>
>>
>However much of wikipedia process exists for a reason. Please respect
>that reason and understand the people who came up with probably put a
>fair bit of thought into its desighn
>
This sounds like respect for intelligent design.  Quantity of thought
should not be viewed as superior to quality of thought.  Imputing
reasons as a foundation for a process is not enough.

>>2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process grows like
>>bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is
>>important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
>>
>>
>Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The
>broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and
>contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a
>solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the
>anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex
>to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy
>aproved).
>
In a backhanded way I would agree.  Generating enough policies and
processes can result in "everything being permitted", and in allowing
the Grand Inquistor to have free reign.

>>3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal with them. You
>>can't Taylorise clue.
>>
>>
>However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and
>uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.
>
Oh the antinomious faith of the software student as he bows before the
graven image of HAL9000!

For those of us with less faith:  when you define a grey area it is no
longer grey, but out of self-defence it begets new grey areas

>>4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win at wikinomic.
>>This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
>>
>>
>I find they are generaly writen by well meaning people. The trick is
>squashing the idea without squashing the person.
>
Does this imply that nomic players are no well-meaning?  To be sure we
don't want to squash the person, but even with an idea if you approach
it with the preconception that it must be squashed it leaves little room
for change.

>>Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must be kept strictly
>>under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
>>A PROCESS FOR THAT.
>>
>>
>So would you support protecting all policy pages (have you seen the
>edit rate on CSD?)?
>
Unprotecting them all would be a better option.  Process should reflect
the stone in David's sling rather than the spike in Goliath's club.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380605121140m68050055p5788e01dcb316cc0@mail.gmail.com>
	<e42lfu$k13$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380605121209j4cd61ef8m8dbcccd76e28a48d@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90605121643s297d0c8cvf8a806abb3ceb5fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<lp7b62d4qphva3kq2o5bvpjqdahiao052d@4ax.com>
	<71cd4dd90605130604q505f15b9s7042481a4cfc6b3e@mail.gmail.com>
	<rcsb62h56276ln0sseuv7lmslkercpdie4@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:04:47 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
> >above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.
>
> Like I said, you are well behind the curve here.  See the archives of
> this list, the proceedings of ArbCom around January and any one of a
> hundred other places around the project, like the userbox debates
> subsection of DRV.  It was discussed to death, which probably explains
> why nobody is over keen to rehash the argument right now.
>
I've done quite a bit of research on this, and I haven't seen a single edict.

> But let me ask you a question: why should it be a problem having
> userboxes spread by copy & paste or by subst from userspace, rather
> than provided through template space?
>
Hasn't this been discussed to death?

Copy and paste is more difficult than using templates.  If it's made
absolutely clear that the template rule does not apply to templates in
the user space, then I suppose that's an acceptable compromise.

Anthony


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
But you probably don't want to welcome EVERYBODY.  At least on major
wikipedias, there are a lot of account creations that make no edit (why do
they create those account is a mistery :s). So you probably prefer welcome
people that has made at least one edit.

"Essjay" :
> Claudi Meneghin wrote:
>> Hello,
>>   I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
>>   I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a
>> welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
>>   Many thanks.
>>
>>   Sincerely yours,
>>
>>   Claudi
> You could have a bot to scan the new user log and subst: a welcome
> template on the talk page of any account created. It'd be more complete
> than the email suggestion, given that every new user has a talk page,
> while not everybody supplies an email address.
>
> Essjay


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical
	to	$wgContLanguageCode

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> No it won't. There is no "simple English" language, it's just English.
>
> Are you making that assertion, brion, in the limited context of
> "languages that Mediawiki supports"?
>
> Cause, y'know:
>
> 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_english

Hey wow, that page agrees with me.

-- 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/wikitech-l/attachments/20060513/d6f51d92/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Andreas Vilén

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann <Heiko.Evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety,
> > > however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the
> > > alternative style. According to proponents of the official
> > > orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give
> > > that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
> > It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed
> > dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of
> > struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have
> > nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy
> > and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
>
> Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for
> example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings
> of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left
> instead of shouting louder.
>
> You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other
> Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and
> orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais,
> Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but
> they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
>
> The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien
> even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use
> different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are
> writing.
>
> The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed
> in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in
> the Breton Wikipedia.
> Mark

Cutting out the stuff I don't reply to. I just want to mention nnwiki
and nowiki, which are two Wikipedias for the two Norwegian
scripts/dialects/languages. They have existed for ages. Why can't we
do the same with other languages? It seems much more convenient than
to mix two different scripts in one Wikipedia.

/Andreas


body:
As I said, this thread is going way off topic from Wikipedia-related
issues. I don't want to invite trouble for carrying it any furhther.
Also, let me make it clear that I have nothing against Americans/the
U.S in general although I am against the war in Iraq and the abuse of
prisioners in Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay. I am also against the
war-mongering tactics used by some U.S Governemnts as a means to
control oil reserves.


from_name: Matthew Moyle

subject: [WikiEN-l] Discuss Blocked

body:
I have been blocked by "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" for "repeated
vandalism for several days". When I asked why(I don't believe I didn't
anything to briech Wikipedia code), he gave no response. When I checked how
long I would be blocked for I noticed "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" has
blocked many many users for the same accusation, I believe  "Can't sleep,
clown will eat me" has been blocking people as a joke. I am also blocked
from editing my own user page.

Mindwraith
203.213.7.130

_________________________________________________________________
Search for local singles online @ Lavalife - Click here
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D22141&_t=751140432&_r=emailtagline_may_search&_m=EXT


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
It's in bugzilla.

But I think the conclusion of the last discussion on this was that we
should enable no follow on all of enwiki like the others.

On 5/13/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I'm thinking about it (and surely this must have been proposed
> before and I'm not using the correct search term), some incentive to
> decorate user pages could be curbed by not indexing it in the search
> engines.  That is, add nofollow to the html in User and User talk.
>
> I'm actually a bit disgruntled that Google places such a high priority on
> Wikipedia that my (fairly sparse) User page recently became the top entry,
> rather than the more useful entries about my security work.  So, for
> professionals, nofollow would be a boon.
>
> Pointers to code would be appreciated.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Platonides wrote:
> "William Allen Simpson" wrote:
>> Technical:
>> Anyway, over at Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion, today folks are
>> proposing making a clean demarck between user space categories and
>> "encyclopedic" categories. Seems reasonable to me.  Dunno whether it will
>> make some folks happier, but is worth a try.
>>
>> Surely it's just a tag of some kind, but categories require some software
>> support.  Is it possible to add a second group of category space labeled
>> "Wikipedian:"?
>>
>> For example, "Wikipedian:Politicians" instead of the current
>> * "Category:Wikipedian politicians", previously known as
>> * "Category:Wikipedians who have run for public office"
>>
>> Pointers to code would be appreciated.
>
> Well, everything is possible. But not everything is going to happen.
> Categories are identified by namespace 14, and functionality is linked to
> it. Then "Category:" prefix is added to refer to it. This name can be
> changed, but then you're changing all the names referring to it.
>
Understood.  Not what I meant.

> The problem is that you want this duplicated. So it would all be copying and
> pasting chunks of code, while changing little bits. Not really difficult,
> but dirty.

Maybe the code can be generalized for cleanliness.

> Category special pages wouldn't work for the new one, neither.
>
Again, the code may be generalized.

> Maybe you could have Wikipedian: working as an alias for Category: but you
> could see it as Category:Politicians as well as Wikipedian:Politicians
>
No, that's not too useful.

> I don't thing that this could be a real solution for this.
>
"Pointers to code would be appreciated."  Where should I start looking?


from_name: Shinjiman

body:
So why I need to change that value at there to make the lang attribute is not
fixed by the $wgContLanguageCode value? It's a quite a long story to tell why
I proposed to doing this.

======================================================================

It's been seen that there are some discussions that have complained by other
users regarding the font rendering problem.
(http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88/%
E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF/%E5%AD%98%E6%A1%A3/2005%E5%B9%B412%E6%9C%
88#.E7.B9.81.E9.AB.94.E7.B6.B2.E9.A0.81.E8.83.BD.E5.90.A6.E6.94.B9.E6.88.90.E6.
96.B0.E7.B4.B0.E6.98.8E.E9.AB.94.EF.BC.9F (in Chinese, Translating the message
into English: "The readers in Taiwan and Hong Kong are commonly use the
MingLiu font to see the Chinese contents, and using MingLiu font is more
friendly to the readers from Taiwan and Hong Kong." (my additional note:
MingLiu is the Traditional Chinese system font that is used in Windows OS))).

And also something that request to add a character to the Conversion Table:
(http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E7%B9%81%E7%AE%80%E4%BD%93%E8%BD%AC%
E6%8D%A2%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82#-
.7Btw:.E8.A7.92.3Dhk:.E8.A7.92_.E2.89.A0_cn:.EF.A0.B3.7D- (in Chinese,
Translating the message into English: "The character ? is different to ?,
requesting that character to be added into the conversion table" (my
additional note: since both character ? in Traditional/Simplified Chinese
shares the same unicode number [U+89D2], There are only difference when using
Traditional Chenese and Simplified Chinese fonts.)))

======================================================================

So regarding to those complaints mentioned above, we would likely to see
where's the issue come from. And the user called ???(which is the original
bug submitter in bug 5790) has found out the following tag causes the font
problem:  while the lang attribute [zh] is determine as Simplified Chinese in
most browsers, so I had investigate which PHP file containing thost stuffs at
there.

As I examine the code in the beginning, I have to find out where is the issue
that happens, so I used the phase "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" fo find out
which file has containing this string.

While I've found out the  tag is in the OutputPage.php and Monobook.php,
it's likely that the lang attribute is fixed by the value $wgContLanguageCode.
So I would think that "how to make the lang attribute varies, *without
changing any values including the $wgContLanguageCode value*".

======================================================================

>From this point, I know that the functionallies for those two files and the
Language Converter:

OutputPage.php - the main part that *outputs* the  tag in the old skins.
Monobook.php - the main part that *outputs* the  tag in the new skins.
LanguageConverter - the Language Converter, this is used to change the text of
contents *only*.

As I think that the functionally of the LanguageConverter is to have changes
the text of contents only, and it does not changing any attributes defined in
HTML code. Also, I have considered to using the language variant value that
told by Brion, however it is quite impossible to determine the lang attribute
from the language variant. (in zh, there's 25 combinations that can be used.).
It's likely have problems while the user interface language is set to
Traditional Chinese [zh-tw/zh-hk] and the language variant has been turned off
[zh]. It would render the Traditional Chinese interface, using Simplified
Chinese font. According to this case it is quite obvious that we cannot use
the language variant to determining the lang attribute. And I think that it
would overdo the LanguageConverter if we adding that function into there. So I
think that if there's an alternate way to achieve the goal (to check *both*
user interface language and $wgContLanguageCode).

So I put the function that determining the lang attribute into OutputPage.php
and Monobook.php, and I've tested on the local installation, the lang
attribute detection using *both* user interface language and $wgLanguageCode
is succeeded. However Brion said that that would affects the cache (no idea
*how* would the cache is affected).

So there's sonething I wanna to ask: If my design (I mean the lang attribute
detect function) don't have the problem, how to solve the cache issue that
Brion has been mentioned?
And if Brion's method (using the language varient to detect the lang
attribute) is used, how would we solving the problem in some cases (UI=zh-
tw,V=zh or UI=zh-hk,V=zh), and where we can put the code?

regards and thanks
Man

------------------------------------
A little test to testing the font rendering
Copy the stuffs into the text editor and save as a HTML file:

? ? ? ?

? ? ? ?

? ? ? ?

use a browser to test it. It shows that even have the same unicode character,
it would renders in different way (even I've tried in my Linux (FC5) and the
Linux machines in my school (which runs FC4), the character ? renders into
different word.)


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>	<4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 11:16:42 +0100, you wrote:

>> Some of them were blatant trolling, of course.  Others are informative
>> but irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopaedia.

>They are no more irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopedia
>than most userpages already are (take mine, for example). Yet nobody
>calls for the deletion of those userpages on the grounds that they are
>"divisive" or "inflammatory".

You miss the point: your userpage is not made available through a
mechanism which implies that it is officially sanctioned.

>>>It is highly doubtful that any significant amounts of server resources
>>>are at stake.

>> Nor does it need to be since the benefit to the encyclopaedia is zero
>> and the cost non-zero.

>It is doubtful that the cost is greater than that of having userpages.
>Quite to the contrary, using categories and "What Links Here", the
>userboxes produce semi-automatic organisation and structure. This
>reduces cost.

The cost is necessarily greater than the user pages, because the
templates are rendered within the user pages by transclusion.  Nobody
(that I know of) has prevented the creation of user categories, which
serve the limited practical benefit.  I see no encyclopaedic benefit
from being able to collect together all users who self-identify as,
say, pro-choice - and plenty of disbenefits given the way some editors
choose to use Wikipedia - but I don't discount the possibility that
user categories might serve some encyclopaedic purpose.

>>>There is nothing about the templates that makes them any more
>>>"officially sanctioned" than text on a user page on a
>>>Wikimedia-controlled server already is.

>> So you say.  Others disagree.  A Template space userbox which is
>> listed in a directory of userboxen appeared to many to imply precisely
>> that: "official" support for divisive userboxen.

>The argument is irrelevant (because, as I already pointed out, it
>equally applies to userpages, a list of which can be created on
>[[Special:Allpages]]). It is the typical kind of argument people come up
>with hastily when they're just looking for something to corroborate
>their theory or to further their goal.

And as I pointed out, not it doesn't apply *equally* to userpages. But
in the end this debate has already been had, and settled.  Which was
my original point.  I see no great benefit from rehashing it.

>It is odd that, instead of precluding those "endlessly protracted"
>discussions, you think you are solving the problem by instead forbidding
>certain userboxes entirely, while it is plainly obvious that this
>controversial prohibition causes a lot more discussion. There is nothing
>wrong with a userbox stating "This user accepts Ayn Rand's philosophy"
>-- there is, rather, something wrong with someone going "OMG this
>userbox is divisive, it must go!!" So prohibit the latter.

Look back a short way on the list and in the arbitration queue and so
on.  Trust me, the debates were massively disruptive.  Massively.  And
nobody is "forbidding" anything - only saying that it should not be
done through transclusion from Template space.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 11:22:25 +0100, you wrote:

>That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the
>censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/
>think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong,
>but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their
>country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.

Illegal, maybe, but in the case of suppression of information critical
of the government, definitely not immoral.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> I can't even find out where this CSD "was decreed from above" in the
> first place.
>
> I think I've been misled.
>

No, you haven't been misled.  It is an accepted part of policy,
confirmed by Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee.


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
On 13/05/06, Essjay <essjaywiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudi Meneghin wrote:
> > Hello,
> >   I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
> >   I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
> >   Many thanks.
> >
> >   Sincerely yours,
> >
> >   Claudi
> You could have a bot to scan the new user log and subst: a welcome
> template on the talk page of any account created. It'd be more complete
> than the email suggestion, given that every new user has a talk page,
> while not everybody supplies an email address.

A nice little extension to do this would also be quite trivial...

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 13/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:43:44 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >That edit says that "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" are
> > >CSD candidates.  The current version says "Templates designed for user
> > >pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions,
> > >or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which
> > >are otherwise divisive or inflammatory."
> >
> > Because some people have to be beaten vigorously with a cluebat before
> > they realise that their userboxes are divisive - as far as some people
> > are concerned an opinion which is shared by all "right-thinking"
> > people can't possibly be divisive.
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
>
> The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
> above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.  In fact,
> after looking further, someone on that page made the claim that Jimbo
> has explicitly stated that it's *not* an edict from above.

As far as I can remember, it was policy made by Jimbo around New
Year's 2006, when all hell broke loose in what some Septemberised
fools call the "Great Userbox Purge" or similar.

My memory is subject to being totally incorrect at times, however.
Perhaps we should just wait for Wales to comment on this himself,
unless someone can dig up the exact diff. when it was added by him, or
the wikien-l post where he "made it so" ?

Rob Church


body:
On 13/05/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real
> > Wikipedia to the masses in China...
>
> DVDs dropped from propaganda planes?

Er, sorry; when did Wikipedia add "freedom fighting" to its list of goals?

Rob Church


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokm?l are both official in
Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.

Mark

On 13/05/06, Andreas Vil?n <andreas.vilen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/05/06, Heiko Evermann <Heiko.Evermann at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > New articles are supposedly allowed to be written in either variety,
> > > > however the vast majority of existing articles are written in the
> > > > alternative style. According to proponents of the official
> > > > orthography, this makes it intimidating to newcomers, and they give
> > > > that as the reason why the Belarusan Wikipedia is so small still.
> > > It does not make much sense to mix. We have been very unhappy with mixed
> > > dialects in the Low Saxon wikipedia. After a lot of discussion and a lot of
> > > struggle agains a lone crusader (node_ue :) )we finally managed to have
> > > nds.wikipedia.org PLUS nds-nl.wikipedia.org. Now the western folks are happy
> > > and we are happy and both wikipedias are flowrishing.
> >
> > Not a lone crusader -- other people tried for unity as well, for
> > example User:Fidi, but they didn't know much about the inner workings
> > of Wikipedia and so when you silenced their voices, they simply left
> > instead of shouting louder.
> >
> > You may not think it makes much sense to mix, but plenty of other
> > Wikipedias do it. The Norman Wikipedia mixes dialects and
> > orthographies. I don't really agree with that, Jerriais, Dgernesiais,
> > Serquiais, and Contentiais should, in my view, have separate WPs, but
> > they seem to be making it work, so it can't be said to be undoable.
> >
> > The nds-nl Wikipedia mixes dialects and orthographies -- ask Servien
> > even. They don't use a single " Dutch Low Saxon" orthography, they use
> > different spelling systems depending on which dialect they are
> > writing.
> >
> > The Alemannic WP also mixes dialects, I think; orthographies are mixed
> > in the Lombard Wikipedia; orthographies are mixed (to an extent) in
> > the Breton Wikipedia.
> > Mark
>
>
> Cutting out the stuff I don't reply to. I just want to mention nnwiki
> and nowiki, which are two Wikipedias for the two Norwegian
> scripts/dialects/languages. They have existed for ages. Why can't we
> do the same with other languages? It seems much more convenient than
> to mix two different scripts in one Wikipedia.
>
> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Philip Welch

references:
<dfd0b40605111710h6db37280wc69d6cd4ee3233a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4463FDFE.2040309@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<dfd0b40605120809h7159a4e5reef69d1a333e83b@mail.gmail.com>
	<e438g0$91r$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<4465CF36.5010407@student.canberra.edu.au>

body:
On May 13, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:

>> Of course it is vandalism, if it's a deliberate act to reduce the
>> quality
>> of this encyclopedia.
>
> That's a dangerous definition.  Sooner or later, if we use that
> definition, we'll get people who write Pok?mon articles accused of
> "vandalism".

No, because the intent of writing Pokemon articles is not to reduce
the quality of the encyclopedia, whether or not it actually does so.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
There's no Zlatiborian language, but we have a test wiki in it.

<zlatibor humour>The glorious Zlatiborians shall soon triumph over
their evil Serbian overlords and will be able to speak their beautiful
language and practice their magnificent culture freely once
again!</zlatibor humour>

On 13/05/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 12:25:47PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > >> No it won't. There is no "simple English" language, it's just English.
> > >
> > > Are you making that assertion, brion, in the limited context of
> > > "languages that Mediawiki supports"?
> > >
> > > Cause, y'know:
> > >
> > >     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_english
> >
> > Hey wow, that page agrees with me.
>
> If there's no Simple English language; how can we have a wikipedia in
> it?
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
> Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274
>
>      A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>      Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
>      A: Top-posting.
>      Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

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


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> I think you're wrong that Jimbo has any ultimate power over Wikipedia.
> Sure, if he wanted to ban someone he'd probably get away with it, but
> only if the community accepted it.

You might want to reread the banning policy and some recent Arbcom cases.
The view that Jimbo cannot ban people by fiat or dictate Wikipedia policy is
a minority one. Those who disagree can fork.

Maybe I come off as a Jimbo defender or that I enjoy the situation. In fact,
I don't have any feelings on it either way. He doesn't interfere with me
writing the encyclopedia, which is what I'm here to do.

And if it's such a pointless issue, then why does it have to be
> addressed in the first place?

Because people take it so seriously that they edit war, wheel war, and leave
the project over it, as incomprehenible to me as that is. It's as if the
result of this battle over userboxes will have any direct impact on the
quality of the articles. It won't. Whether userboxes stay or not, I really
wish we would all just let it go and write the fucking encyclopedia already.
The fact that some people spend so much time on the mailing list trying to
ensure that they get their way in this shitheap of an "issue" makes me
wonder what you are all really here to do.

Ryan


body:
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 12:25:47PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:08:24PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> >> No it won't. There is no "simple English" language, it's just English.
> >
> > Are you making that assertion, brion, in the limited context of
> > "languages that Mediawiki supports"?
> >
> > Cause, y'know:
> >
> > 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_english
>
> Hey wow, that page agrees with me.

If there's no Simple English language; how can we have a wikipedia in
it?

:-)

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

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

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


from_name: William Allen Simpson

body:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> "Pointers to code would be appreciated."  Where should I start looking?
>
After an hour or so looking, and discovering that the documentation at
MediaWiki is woefully incomplete, but eventually finding a fairly useful
page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorylinks_table, it seems that
"cl_to stores the name (excluding namespace prefix) of the desired category."

Without the namespace prefix, doesn't appear to be possible to have more
than one namespace worth of categories, or categories that are specific to
a single namespace.

Perhaps someday in the future, in conjunction with the unified username
project, the user namespace could have its own categories and templates.

In the meantime, I'll just remind the disputing folks that there is
currently no such thing as "encyclopedic" namespace and "non-encyclopedic"
namespace.  Categories and Templates apply to all namespaces.

Bits are bits are bits.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
The thing is, they're only different when you write them. You can't
"speak" in Narkamauka or Tarashkievitsa.

Mark

On 13/05/06, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought wikipedia was organised by languages, not by countries. The fact
> that only one is official does not mean that the other is not spoken. So, if
> the community wants 2 wikis, let them have 2; if they want to try to build a
> single one, let's support them on this. Personally, I don't speak either of
> the two, so I feel I'm not in a position to judge.
>
> Cruccone
>
> On 5/13/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The main difference is that Nynorsk and Bokm?l are both official in
> > Norway; only Narkamauka is official in Belarus.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Time 100 footage

body:
Amanda Congdon (rocketboom.com) was gracious enough to be our press
representative at the recent Time 100 party in New York.  She got a lot
of footage of the guests, which was quite a group of famous people,
probably at least 100 people at the party already have wikipedia
articles, many with no photos or fair use photos.

As a condition of being invited, I asked that she release her footage
and photos under a free license.

I do not know yet exactly how we will get this, but based on what I saw,
her team was mostly just doing filming, so it will probably be raw video
(I asked for the highest possible resolution, so that would be the raw
tape).  To get good screen caps, someone will have to take this raw
footage and import it into something and do captures or whatever.

My guess is that, due to the size of it all, we will get a tape rather
than a downloadable file.  I am looking for someone with good experience
with video to do something useful with it. :)

Please volunteer by emailing me directly.  Since I will probably just
have them mail a tape copy to you, you must be reliable and known to me,
because I don't want to have them mail the tape to someone who vanishes. :)

--Jimbo

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
> above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.  In fact,
> after looking further, someone on that page made the claim that Jimbo
> has explicitly stated that it's *not* an edict from above.
>

I don't think that's a correct statement.  In the event that it is, I
suggest that you examine finding of fact 2 in the Tony Sidaway
arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway#The_T1_speedy_deletion_criterion_and_Crotalus_horridus

This probably won't satisfy you because you don't recognise Jimbo's
authority or the Arbitration Committee's authority.  However that is
not a problem for those of us who do.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/13/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> There are good reasons why this list is dedicated to improving the English
> Wikipedia.  Rather than the world situation in general.
>
The list is dedicated to discussing issues related to the English
Wikipedia.  With that in mind, you're right, wikipedia-l would have
been a better list to use, as the issue of Chinese censorship concerns
the Wikipedia community as a whole, not just the English Wikipedia.

Anthony


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:01:11 -0400, you wrote:

>> I don't know.  I always remember at times like this whose ball it is
>> we're playing with.

>The ball of the individuals who donated to the foundation.

That would be me, then.  And I choose to defer to Jimbo, since his
understanding of the nature of his idea is likely to be better than
mine.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:04:47 -0400, you wrote:

>The point is, those of you claiming that this CSD is an edict from
>above have so far provided no evidence that it actually is.

Like I said, you are well behind the curve here.  See the archives of
this list, the proceedings of ArbCom around January and any one of a
hundred other places around the project, like the userbox debates
subsection of DRV.  It was discussed to death, which probably explains
why nobody is over keen to rehash the argument right now.

But let me ask you a question: why should it be a problem having
userboxes spread by copy & paste or by subst from userspace, rather
than provided through template space?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] You got mail...

body:
I've come across these "petitions" all across the net. No big
surprise. Perhaps votes casted by new users should be disregarded on
the basis that their accounts were created solely to oppose the
deletion of this article?


from_name: Rotem Liss

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
You can add it in MediaWiki:Welcomecreation (which is seen after the
registration), however I'm not sure everyone will notice it, especially
if your welcome message is long.

Claudi Meneghin wrote:

>Hello,
>  I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
>  I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
>  Many thanks.
>
>  Sincerely yours,
>
>  Claudi
>
>
>---------------------------------
> Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour retrouver directement vos services pr?f?r?s : v?rifiez vos nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches et suivez l'actualit? en temps r?el. Cliquez ici.
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

--
#define Name RotemLiss
#define Mail mailSTRUDELrotemlissDOTcom
#define Site www.rotemliss.com


body:
On 5/13/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> And I know about VoA-it's, quite frankly, just a propaganda tool.

I think it's more than that, but I'm not saying I agree with
everything the VoA does.

> If you think the U.S is trying to get Iranians to
> access blocked sites in the interest of "liberating" them, then you
> are mistaken. America most likely just wants the Iranian people to
> hear Mr.Bush talk about why "rogue states" like theirs should not
> possess "nucular technology".

"America" is not a single entity.  The Voice of America tends to be at
least somewhat independent from Bush and the top level government
executives.  The fact that they contracted with Anonymizer, Inc. only
serves to enhance that independence for this particular action.

> As I said, allowing Chinese users to break the law, is abbetment.

And I've agreed with this.

> And it's not the kind of abettment that's justified-the condition in China
> is very much liveable-they are not under some Nazi-like fascist regime.

I don't believe that conditions have to be unliveable in order to
justify facilitation of civil disobedience.

> Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping phones
> of citizens without legal consent?

I believe they did.

> If that was justified then so is the Chinese governments' policy.

I don't believe it was justified, of course.

Anthony


body:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:57:39 -0500, you wrote:

>Except cricket.  That's more than culture, it's life.  All Americans (and
>other similarly deprived poor souls) should have cricket forced onto them.
>Makes them better people

I always wonder how they can take seriously any game which takes less
than three days to reach a conclusion...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG