body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>>IIRC you were the one carrying on about childbirth being "punishment for
>>Eve's transgression"
>>
>>
>I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I was quoting the Genesis, which is one of
>the books of the Bible. I am not personally of the opinion that all women
>should suffer in childbirth because of Eve's transgression.
>
Quoting the Bible in a context about science has its pitfalls. :-)

>>Achnowledging a possible state where homeopathy might not work is
>>different the inflexible POV that it has already happened.  Your, "What
>>would it take for you to be convinced that..." attitude suggests
>>inflexibility.  There can be no consensus if you prejudge the result.
>>
>>
>I think we probably have somewhat different ways to think about things
>since I frequently fail to understand your paragraphs. You originally
>said:
>
>"Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos
>still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing."
>
>And I asked you what events would bring about this "turn-out-to-be" state.
>What debunking would be sufficient? What test failure would do?
>
When you begin from the premise that something must be "debunked" you
make an assumption that that is the inevitable goal of the discussion.
I have never claimed to have ever used homeopathy, and I really don't
know what I would do if the occasion ever arose.  Under those
circumstances it doesn't matter to me whether the tests would fail.  If
you show me conclusively that a particular homeopathic medicine is
ineffective it's still not rational to extrapolate that result to all
the other such medicines.  Neither am I ready to make the kind of study
that would satisfactorily bring me to a specific stand on either the
validity or invalidity of homeopathy.  I can imagine myself arguing in
the same way as I am now if your views were completely the opposite to
what they actually are.

It's not homeopathy that interests me; it's the rigorous application of
the scientific method no matter where it leads me.  The fact that a
"science", to use the term broadly, has not been proven does not mean
that it has been proven false.  The burden of proof remains with the
person who claims that it is valid.  The person who isists that
something is false manages to shif that burden to himself when it is not
necessary to do so.

>Conversely, I can easily outline circumstances in which I would accept
>homeopathy as valid. I consider it beyond the realm of the probable - but
>it could theoretically happen.
>
That statement is self contradictory.  To be meaningful it would require
invoking the concept of negative probability.  Perhaps you are not using
the term "probability" in a mathematical sense.

>Allow me to quote from Richard Feynman, he puts it better than I ever could.
>
>- - -
>Example. I'm in Las Vegas, suppose. And I meet a mind reader, or, let's
>say, a man who claims not to be a mind reader, but more technically
>speaking to have the ability of telekinesis, which means that he can
>influece the way things behave by pure thought. This fellow comes to me,
>and he says, "I will demonstrate this to you. We will stand at the
>roulette wheel and I will tell you ahead of time whether it is going to be
>black or red on every shot."
>
>I believe, say, before I begin, it doesn't make any difference what number
>you choose for this. I happen to be prejudiced against mind readers from
>experience in nature, in physics. I don't see, if I believe that man is
>made out of atoms and if I know all of the - most of the - ways atoms
>interact with each other, any direct way in which the machinations in the
>mind can affect the ball. So from other experience and general knowledge,
>I have a strong prejudice against mind readers. Million to one.
>
>Now we begin. The mind reader says it's going to be black. It's black. The
>mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Do I believe in mind
>readers? No. It could happen. The mind reader says it's going to be black.
>It's black. The mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Sweat.
>I'm about to learn something. This continues, let us suppose, for ten
>times. Now it's possible by chance that that happened ten times, but the
>odds are a thousand to one against it. Therefore, I now have to conclude
>that the odds that a mind reader is really doing it are a thousand to one
>that he's not a mind reader still, but it was a million to one before. But
>if I get ten more, you see, he'll convince me. Not quite. One must always
>allow for alternative theories. There is another theory that I should have
>mentioned before. As we went up to the roulette table, I must have thought
>in my mind of the possibility that there is collusion between the
>so-called mind reader and the people at the table. That's possible.
>
>...
>
>Now suppose that we go to another club, and it works, and another one and
>it works. I buy dice and it works. I take him home and I build a roulette
>wheel; it works. What do I conclude? I conclude he is a mind reader.
>- - -
>
>- From "This Unscientific Age", a lecture given in 1963. Here quoted from
>"The Meaning of It All", published by Penguin Books in 1999, pp. 68-70.
>
Apart from his harmless confusion between the different psychic
phenomena, I have no problem with this story.  He has made a
probabilistic determination that the person is a "mind reader"; he has
not proven it  (The actual phenomenon involved would likely be
precognition, or less likely psychokinesis.  There is no "mind reading"
unless the knowledge is gained from what someone else already knew
through normal means.  This error is harmless in these circumstances.)

>>Your link redirects me to an nih site on nucleic acids and the word
>>"placebo" does not appear there at all.
>>
>>
>Sorry, I had two PubMed links open - that one was something
>I was using for my M.S. thesis. My bad :) A Google search will
>reveal the page I intended to send you to.
>
Thanks, I may look for it.

>>If the data on the placebo effect is of such poor quality it
>>does not strike me as scientific to novertheless use it as a reference
>>standard.
>>
>>
>I think this article probably argues for more research
>into the placebo effect. If you search PubMed for the
>words "placebo effect" you will, however, find a
>reasonable amount of recent articles.
>
If that's their argument I support it.

>>How does the "effect in the placebo arm" differ from the "placebo effect"?
>>
>>
>Not having actually read the article I cannot say for sure.
>My guess is that they want to distinguish the *change* that
>occurs in the placebo arm of an experiment from the *effect*
>of the placebo they are given. That is to say a part of the
>placebo group may get better without it having anything to
>do with the placebo - they might have gotten better even
>without it.
>
The do-nothing group is yet another reference group, but IIRC placebo
groups often tend to do better if only because those receiving the
placebo believe that they are getting real medicine.  This gets us into
questions about the healing power of one's own mind.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] UW database stuff (nothing to do with Afrikaans)

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>
>
>>As the Dutch spelling will change in August 2006, we added
>>things like spelling authorities.
>>
>>
>
>Great, then you can introduce a new authority for every century of
>a language, so the 19th century Swedish can be told apart from
>20th century Swedish.  But how are spelling authorities different
>from languages?  Couldn't "19th century Swedish" and "Dutch after
>2006" be treated as languages of their own?
>
>
No, an authority is just that. When the Spelling is marked as
depreciated, you change the record in ValidSpelling. The reason for this
extra table is, that the word "paardenbloem" will be depreciated and the
older version of "paardebloem" is to be appreciated again. The Spelling
does give a date, that one is about when it was introduce. A spelling
authority is an organisation that decides on a specific spelling. The
NTU is such an organisation for the Dutch language, the change in 2006
follows the change of 1996.

As I said in a previous mail, this was created because I will have to
accomodate this change in a contemporary language. When 19th century
Swedish changed to a more modern version, the old spelling can be
depreciated by adding the ValidUntil in a ValidSpelling record. The old
spelling and the new Spelling are related by a Relation record.

>
>
>>So the design will be set for some time allowing us to learn
>>what it is we have. It will be changed when we know what to
>>change and why. The requirements for content will be minimal and
>>improvements will happen because of a collective effort.
>>
>>
>
>Have you started to populate the database yet?  What cycle span do
>you plan for between evaluations and redesigns?
>
At this moment I am working on the database design, Erik is working on
Wikidata and when he has finished his part, we will work on the
implementation as described on Meta. As to data, there are several many
that will be included into the Ultimate Wiktionary. The content of the
Wiktionaries is important among these. We have a wordlist in
Stellingwerfs of 18.865 waiting in the wings enough to rank it as the
sixth biggest Wiktionary. I have been informed that another version will
have some 20K+ articles .. We have some 222.930 correctly spelled Dutch
words that we may use (only spelling with hypenations). We have the
content of several glossaries and thesauri.

So at this stage questions on the database stuff  are very welcome. We
do not expect to start including data until somewhere September. But
when we do, it will be available for everybody to play with it.
Thanks,
    Gerard


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists

body:
Brian wrote:

> Short version: There is a huge battle going on in which VFDers on WP,
> WS, and Commons are pushing user-compiled lists from one project to
> another. In each case, they are saying the lists belong on one of the
> other 3 projects. Almost nobody is saying that these lists don't
> belong anywhere, but nobody can decide on where they belong. It also
> doesn't help that nobody on one project accepts the outcome of another
> project's VFD (an outcome which may have said to transwiki to this
> project) as a reason to keep it on this project.

*snip*

> Meanwhile, on Wikipedia, an Undelete request was instituted (by
> myself, I think) for the General Slocum list, but the majority are
> saying that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but on Commons or Wikisource.
>
> Summary: As Stevertigo said:  "Theres no sense in people batting this
> thing about. Clearly it belongs at source or [WP]... There needs to be
> some policy against batting things around."

As a regular at Wikibooks, we've battled with this issue a little bit
ourselves in regards to lists, but it has been mainly to push them back
to Wikipedia.  There has been some problems with Wikipedia articles
coming to Wikibooks as a fork (I've already thrown my $0.02 on that
issue) and in some cases throwing the articles back to Wikipedia.
 Sometimes a book module gets started that really should be a Wikipedia
article, and that does get transwikied.

In general the distinctions between each of the projects is not as
clearly defined as it should be, particularly in the case of new ideas
for content and where it should be placed.  Wikibooks in particular
seems to be a dumping ground from Meta when nobody can think of a place
to put a project idea (and the idea originator doesn't want to go to
Wikicities).  Projects like Wikijunior only add to this mess (not that
I'm opposed to Wikijunior being a part of Wikibooks at the moment).
 Wikipedia is getting so large now (and this is a good thing) that it is
attracting a number of people with some very original ideas (like the
lists) which don't seem to fit current structures.

The question I have is how do you resolve these kind of issues between
Wikimedia projects?  Embassies might be an option, but those were mainly
designed around the idea of acting between languages where content
disputes are much more easily dealt with.  Should the scope of them be
broadened?  How do you keep Wikipedia from overwhelming the much smaller
sister projects in these conflict resolutions?  I don't think every
issue like this should be put on Foundation-l for resolution. (but
thanks for bringing up the discussion, Brian)

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Chip Berlet

body:
Hi,

Yes, it's not generally considered proper to delete primary references and not cite as a reference an article that is essentially being translated.

I figure it is sometimes OK to reference other Wiki articles, unless there is a controversial claim that is disputed by other scholarly sources, then that needs to be mentioned.

Just my opinion

Chip Berlet (Cberlet)

________________________________

From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org on behalf of Haukur ?orgeirsson
Sent: Sat 7/30/2005 9:49 PM
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia

<<snip>>

But shouldn't the English Wikipedia be cited as
a reference? And shouldn't direct quotes, like the Old Norse
text in this article, be sourced to their origin?

<<snip>>

So, what do you reference pedants have to say
about all this? :)

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.5beta4 released

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

MediaWiki 1.5 beta 4 is a preview release of the new 1.5 release series.

== Changes since 1.5beta3 ==

* Fix talk page move handling
* (bug 2721) New language file for Vietnamese with the Vietnamese
~  number notation
* (bug 2749)   would appear as a literal in image galleries
~  for Cs, Fr, Fur, Pl and Sv
* (bug 787) external links being rendered when they only have one slash
* Fixed a missing typecast in Language::dateFormat() that would cause
~  some interesting errors with signitures.
* (bug 2764) Number format for Nds
* (bug 1553) Stop forcing lowercase in Monobook skin for German
~  language.
* (bug 1064) Implements Special:Unusedcategories
* (bug 2311) New language file for Macedonian
* Fix nohistory message on empty page history
* Fix fatal error in history when validation on
* Cleaned up email notification message formatting
* Finally fixed Special:Disambiguations that was broke since SCHEMA_WORK
* (bug 2761) fix capitalization of "i" in Turkish
* (bug 2789) memcached image metadata now cleared after deletion
* Add serialized version number to image metadata cache records
* (bug 2780) Fix thumbnail generation with GD for new image schema
* (bug 2791) Slovene numeric format
* (bug 655) Provide empty search form when searching for nothing
* Nynorsk numeric format fix
* (bug 2825) Fix regression in newtalk notifications for anons w/
~  enotif off
* (bug 2833) Fix bug in previous fix
* With $wgCapitalLinks off, accept off-by-first-letter-case in 'go'
~  match
* Optional parameters for [[Special:Listusers]]
* (bug 2832) [[Special:Listadmins]] redirects to
~  [[Special:Listusers/sysop]]
* (bug 785) Parser did not get out of <pre> with list elements
* Some shared upload fixes
* (bug 2768) section=new on nonexistent talk page does not add heading
* support preload= parameter for section=new
* show comment subject in preview when using section=new
* use comment form when creating a new talk page
* (bug 460) Properly handle <center> tags as a block.
* Undo inconsistent editing behavior change
* (bug 2835) Back out fix for bug 2802, caused regressions in category
~  sort
* PHP 4.1.2 compatibility fix: define floatval() equivalent if missing
* (bug 2901) Number format for Catalan
* Special:Allpages performance hacks: index memcached caching, removed
~  inverse checkbox, use friendlier relative offsets in index build
* Bring back "Chick" skin for mobile devices. It needs testing.
* Fix spelling of $wgForwardSearchUrl in DefaultSettings.php
* Specify USE INDEX on Allpages chunk queries, sometimes gets lost
~  due to bogus optimization
* (bug 275) Section duplication fix
* Remove unused use of undefined variable in UserMailer
* Fix notice on search index update due to non-array
* (bug 2885) Fix fatal errors and notices in PHP 5.1.0beta3
* (bug 2931) Fix additional notices on reference use in PHP 4.4.0
* (bug 2774) Add three new $wgHooks to LogPage which enable extensions
~  to add their own logtypes, see
~  extensions/Renameuser/SpecialRenameuser.php for an example of this.
* (bug 740) Messages from extensions now appear in Special:Allmessages
* (bug 2857) fixed parsing of lists in <pre> sections
* (bug 796) Trackback support
* Fix 1.5 regression: weird, backwards diff links on new pages in
~  enhanced RC are now suppressed as before.
* New skin: Simple
* "uselang" and "useskin" URL parameters can now be used in the URL when
~  viewing a page, to change the language and skin of a page
~  respectively.
* Skins can now be previewed in preferences
* (bug 2943) AuthPlugin::getCanonicalName() name canonicalization hook,
~  patch from robla
* Wrap revision insert & page update in a transaction, rollback on late
~  edit conflict.
* (bug 2953) 'other' didn't work in Special:Blockip when localized
* (bug 2958) Rollback and delete auto-summary should be in the project's
~  content language
* Removed useless protectreason message
* Spelling fix: $wgUrlProtcols -> $wgUrlProtocols
* Switch Moldovan local name to cyrillic
* Fix typo in undefined array index access prevention
* (bug 2947) Update namespaces for sr localization
* (bug 2952) Added Asturian language file with translated namespaces
* (bug 2676) Apply a protective transformation on editing input/output
~  for browsers that hit the Unicode blacklist. Patch by plugwash.
* (bug 2999) Fix encoding conversion of pl_title in upgrade1_5.php
* compressOld.php disabled, as it's known to be broken.

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=345894

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.5beta4.tar.gz?download

MD5 checksum: 3cc4509799b6fbc8bf877db74468fbae

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6+8AwRnhpk1wk44RAliwAJ97KnmmttOhioWRohUiM1S8hi+OQACgnN2T
b7+i4SqzGjmYX6yuOnm+PdA=
=Ddgb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] General News about Wikibooks

body:
This is more FYI if you havn't been frequenting Wikibooks for awhile

*** 10,000 Wikibooks modules for EN ***

The English Wikibooks has now passed over 10,000 book modules... which
also puts it in the top 50 wikis on the web (according to [[w:List of
largest wikis]]).  Far from a failure, Wikibooks is starting to pick up
some popularity and has a fairly healthy user population, including
vandals and other malcontents.  More publicity should happen about
passing this key milestone, but for now this is about all the publicity
that has happened so far.  Which brings up the next item of news:

** Wikibooks has a new bureaucrat **

User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status.  What
this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going to be
created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis.  You can debate if she
will be good at this, but then again that should have been done on the
Request for Admin Status page.  The previous bureaucrats have been on
haitus or away from Wikibooks on other projects, and it appears that Aya
is more dedicated to just Wikibooks specifically.  Wikibooks is growing,
and the ever present need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is
also growing.  Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working
hard in the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in
general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Alphax

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

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

Jack Lynch wrote:
> The arrogantly anti-theist bent of recent posts to this thread are
> quite unfortunate. I particularly take issue with the following:
>
> external,
> independently unverified polls, with unknown
> demographic factors and unknown questions, have
> expressed an overruling of both science consensus and
> WP-local consensus.
>
> Why is WP consensus not US general consensus? As
> people become more educated and involved in NPOV-based
> projects, the move toward rationality. NPOV requires
> at least a rational basis for article craftsmanship,
> which implies rationality in other areas.
>

This is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE Wikipedia, not Dubya's Yankeeville Wikipedia.

And don't you DARE call it Jesusland, you don't have a monopoly on God.

> IIRC, the typical MBTI for WPdians is quite different
> from the average majority. WP by default is
> represented by bookish, eristic types. PR crusades by
> any particular irrational POV, regardless of its
> representaion, is bound to fail, simply because
> belief=irrationality, hence not NPOV.
>

Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in
evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x
billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that
the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because
someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because
someone believes it*?

> That is exactly the sort of fact-dismissing POV pushing I have always
> combatted by use of books of reference, and basic logic. There is a
> reason why state-education fosters atheism, and it has nothing to do
> with facts or logic. In the US, according to a survey published in
> Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over
> 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as
> doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had
> not changed in 80 years. The majority of academics however... I
> shudder to think.
>

You seem to be scared about something here. Might I ask what?

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

iD8DBQFC64jJ/RxM5Ph0xhMRA+n8AJ9ZmW+56DVev7vc7VrtOj1EBanGLACeJy4L
IK5DumncxUqqDGTjgZSXziU=
=aBiW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of powers by admins as per usual: Tony Sidaway

body:
We have a situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Existentializer.2C_suspected_sock_of_Enviroknot

As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a
cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to
"prove" a point which cannot be made.

Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":

- An edit made to MoveOn.Org  regarding a Drudge Report document.
- A following exposive commentary back and forth with an equally
partisan writer from the other side.

- A revert edit on [[Jihad]] during a time when user
BrandonYusufToropov and a number of anonymous IP address sockpuppets
were in a revert war over some highly NPOV-violating content.

Tony Sidaway thinks this "proves" that Existentializer is Enviroknot.
However, this was Existentializer's ONLY edit to the article and
multiple editors were opposing the edits by a highly pro-Islam
anonymous IP. In the whole line, Existentializer makes only one edit,
although he (along with other editors) deals fiercely with the
POV-pushing BrandonYusufToropov on the talk page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/Arhive7).

It should be noted at this time that it is BrandonYusufToropov who
makes indiscriminate accusations of sockpuppetry at ANY editor who
contradicts him.

The WHOLE chain of edits:
# (cur) (last)  16:52, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (protected)
# (cur) (last) 16:25, 19 July 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by
EnviroFuck to last version by Existentializer)
# (cur) (last) 16:14, 19 July 2005 EnviroFuck (wrong on both
accusations i'll give you a third try)
# (cur) (last) 16:12, 19 July 2005 Existentializer (rv, and you've
surely violated 3RR now BYT. It's obvious it's you.)
# (cur) (last) 16:08, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (RV edits by
Enviroknot (has the hurricane hit yet?))
# (cur) (last) 16:04, 19 July 2005 212.247.200.185 (rv: I think that's
all the proof we need that the "anonymous" IP is really Brandon
YouSuck Islamist Toropov evading 3RR by dropping to IP.)
# (cur) (last) 15:58, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv edits by EnviroKnot)
# (cur) (last) 15:56, 19 July 2005 70.85.75.42 (rv islamist vandalism
to last relative compromise version by Gren. Go away Heraclius.)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv to NPOV version)
# (cur) (last) 13:29, 19 July 2005 Grenavitar (Zeno's link system was
more organized I think... -- but, Muhammad is a worthless link -- Zeno
-- you are not talking -- talking is good.)
# (cur) (last) 13:17, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv to version with
new links section and other edits)
# (cur) (last) 12:49, 19 July 2005 Ni-ju-Ichi (rv prior to edit
warrior bickering)
# (cur) (last) 12:09, 19 July 2005 83.73.161.47 (revert pov vandalism)
# (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version)
# (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version)
# (cur) (last) 08:04, 19 July 2005 62.243.243.31 (rv/v)
# (cur) (last) 05:39, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv: pov pushing by
zeno of elea)
# (cur) (last) 05:32, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv - vandalism by
anonymous user)
# (cur) (last) 05:26, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19
# (cur) (last) 05:14, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (?Philosophers of
Jihad Doctrine)

-The fact that Existentializer has also made GOOD EDITS is used as
evidence AGAINST him (what kind of fucking lunacy allows this to
stand?!!!!!)

-The user's reverting away from his own user page of an edit by a user
("EnviroFuck") who was reported to be a sockpuppet of the banned user
Yuber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision

I will also have to note at this time that User Ni-Ju-Ichi and user
Zeno of Elea have also been accused of being "Enviroknot", either by
anonymous IP sockpuppets (and wholly WITHOUT justification) or by
BrandonYusufToropov.

Despite this, Tony Sidaway took it upon himself to put in place an
eternal block upon Existentializer " pending a decision on whether he
is a sock of Enviroknot."

Tony Sidaway is VERY out of line doing this.

A. Nony Mouse


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV: Fetus personhood - fish for all the thanks

body:
> IIRC you were the one carrying on about childbirth being "punishment for
> Eve's transgression"

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I was quoting the Genesis, which is one of
the books of the Bible. I am not personally of the opinion that all women
should suffer in childbirth because of Eve's transgression.

> Achnowledging a possible state where homeopathy might not work is
> different the inflexible POV that it has already happened.  Your, "What
> would it take for you to be convinced that..." attitude suggests
> inflexibility.  There can be no consensus if you prejudge the result.

I think we probably have somewhat different ways to think about things
since I frequently fail to understand your paragraphs. You originally
said:

"Even if homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos
still have a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing."

And I asked you what events would bring about this "turn-out-to-be" state.
What debunking would be sufficient? What test failure would do?
Conversely, I can easily outline circumstances in which I would accept
homeopathy as valid. I consider it beyond the realm of the probable - but
it could theoretically happen. Allow me to quote from Richard Feynman, he
puts it better than I ever could.

- - -
Example. I'm in Las Vegas, suppose. And I meet a mind reader, or, let's
say, a man who claims not to be a mind reader, but more technically
speaking to have the ability of telekinesis, which means that he can
influece the way things behave by pure thought. This fellow comes to me,
and he says, "I will demonstrate this to you. We will stand at the
roulette wheel and I will tell you ahead of time whether it is going to be
black or red on every shot."

I believe, say, before I begin, it doesn't make any difference what number
you choose for this. I happen to be prejudiced against mind readers from
experience in nature, in physics. I don't see, if I believe that man is
made out of atoms and if I know all of the - most of the - ways atoms
interact with each other, any direct way in which the machinations in the
mind can affect the ball. So from other experience and general knowledge,
I have a strong prejudice against mind readers. Million to one.

Now we begin. The mind reader says it's going to be black. It's black. The
mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Do I believe in mind
readers? No. It could happen. The mind reader says it's going to be black.
It's black. The mind reader says it's going to be red. It's red. Sweat.
I'm about to learn something. This continues, let us suppose, for ten
times. Now it's possible by chance that that happened ten times, but the
odds are a thousand to one against it. Therefore, I now have to conclude
that the odds that a mind reader is really doing it are a thousand to one
that he's not a mind reader still, but it was a million to one before. But
if I get ten more, you see, he'll convince me. Not quite. One must always
allow for alternative theories. There is another theory that I should have
mentioned before. As we went up to the roulette table, I must have thought
in my mind of the possibility that there is collusion between the
so-called mind reader and the people at the table. That's possible.

...

Now suppose that we go to another club, and it works, and another one and
it works. I buy dice and it works. I take him home and I build a roulette
wheel; it works. What do I conclude? I conclude he is a mind reader.
- - -

- From "This Unscientific Age", a lecture given in 1963. Here quoted from
"The Meaning of It All", published by Penguin Books in 1999, pp. 68-70.

> Your link redirects me to an nih site on nucleic acids and the word
> "placebo" does not appear there at all.

Sorry, I had two PubMed links open - that one was something
I was using for my M.S. thesis. My bad :) A Google search will
reveal the page I intended to send you to.

> If the data on the placebo effect is of such poor quality it
> does not strike me as scientific to novertheless use it as a reference
> standard.

I think this article probably argues for more research
into the placebo effect. If you search PubMed for the
words "placebo effect" you will, however, find a
reasonable amount of recent articles.

> How does the "effect in the placebo arm" differ from the "placebo effect"?

Not having actually read the article I cannot say for sure.
My guess is that they want to distinguish the *change* that
occurs in the placebo arm of an experiment from the *effect*
of the placebo they are given. That is to say a part of the
placebo group may get better without it having anything to
do with the placebo - they might have gotten better even
without it.

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [Textbook-l] Re: General News about Wikibooks

body:
Anthere wrote:

>> User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status.
>> What this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going
>> to be created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis.  You can
>> debate if she will be good at this, but then again that should have
>> been done on the Request for Admin Status page.  The previous
>> bureaucrats have been on haitus or away from Wikibooks on other
>> projects, and it appears that Aya is more dedicated to just Wikibooks
>> specifically.  Wikibooks is growing, and the ever present need to
>> police what is happening on Wikibooks is also growing.  Thanks to all
>> of the administrators who have been working hard in the past to help
>> clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in general cleaning up
>> everything on Wikibooks.
>>
>
> Aya just put a comment on request for permission on meta to be
> informed how he could remove sysop power as he did not find how to do
> it yet on wikibooks.
>
> I read the above discussion... and must say I am a bit surprised you
> elected a bureaucrat who has obviously very little idea of what the
> various types of status can or can not do and very little idea how the
> request for permission system work.
>
> But well...
>
> In any cases, as a reminder, only stewards can desysop editors,
> bureaucrats can not, so Aya will not be able to do it.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anthere
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list

Aya has been put in mainly because there seems to be some neglect on the
part of the previous bureaucrats to recognize the nomination of
admins... and there seem to be a few new people who are capable of
becoming an admin right now.  The bar was set IMHO way too high, even to
the point that it didn't appear any more users were going to be granted
admin status.  Mainly this is a way for the active users of Wikibooks to
gain control and try to stop some of the vandalism that is going on...
together with some of the internal edit wars that seem to portray an old
guard vs. new blood attitude.  I hope that heals and we can continue to
promote Wikibooks.

As for removing admin status from problem admins, I guess this is going
to fall on the shoulders of stewards overall, and may require some minor
monitoring of complaints.  If it becomes too blatant and out of control
(I'm being banned due to internal politics and not because of vandalism
and policy violations) I'll scream on Foundation-l.  I don't think that
will ever happen, however.  There are a number of admins that seem to be
very inactive, and I guess policy issues regarding what to do with
inactive admins may take place.

Wikibooks is taking off into its own directions, with some people who
are specializing in primarily Wikibooks, and not necessarily Wikipedia.
 Too bad most of them are not subscribers to this list, however.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [WikiEN-l] Citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia

body:
Hi, list :)

So, here I am writing an article on a creature
from [[Norse mythology]], the primeval cow
[[Au?umbla]]. I start with quoting the relevant
primary source and then I say a few things
about the creature's name and its possible
anglicization. Often I call it quits at this
point and go to the next article but this time
I was interested in writing about parallels to
the primeval cow in other mythologies.

So I read up on Zoroastrian mythology, find a
scholarly article, a relevant primary source
in translation and I'm good to go.

But I also want to say a few words about [[Hathor]],
an Egyptian cow goddess. Unfortunately I'm far from
being an expert on Egyptian mythology and don't
have the knowledge to use the primary sources.
So I rely on secondary and tertiary sources. I fish
around a bit on the Internet but don't find anything
that looks especially reliable. The Wikipedia article
looks okay and has the information I want to use but
unfortunately it doesn't have any references listed.

So, I decide to, honestly, cite the Wikipedia article
on Hathor as my reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au%C3%B0umbla

Is this a faux pas? I don't see anyone else doing this.

- - -

Here's another Norse mythology article; [[Lofn]]. This
time I quoted the most important primary source, mentioned
the others, cited my four references and I was out. A short
article for a minor character about whom very little can be
said.

Today I noticed someone added a link to the Greek Wikipedia
article on Lofn. Out of curiosity I took a look. Apparently
someone basically translated my English article. I'm fine
with that, of course. Happy, in fact. What bothers me a bit
is that all the references are simply omitted.

You could argue that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Greek
article to translate the reference section since those probably
aren't the references the translator is working from. I'm fine
with that. But shouldn't the English Wikipedia be cited as
a reference? And shouldn't direct quotes, like the Old Norse
text in this article, be sourced to their origin?

So, what do you reference pedants have to say
about all this? :)

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] bit of tricky copyright question

body:
I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that I
would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for personal use
soley on the Wikipedia site, after seeing that it was copyrighted to the
Wikipedia foundation I emailed Jimbo asking for formal permission to use
the image as a part of the future work. I have not recieved any reply
and so I decided to continue assuming that since there are already other
works based off the Wikipedia logo on the site it would be ok and I
could deal with tagging later..  I have since uploaded the work and amd
wondering whether it is a copyright violation or not and if not what it
should be tagged since it doesn't seem to fall under any of the
licensing schemes.  BTW, the image can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darkwiki.jpg.

I've also been meaning to ask how the copyright on the Wikipedia logo
works since it seems to be a paradox of terms, especially since it has
been established that despite claims otherwise, see [[User:Pioneer-12]]
everything posted or uploaded to Wikipedia is automatically licensed
under the GFDL yet the logo appears to be exempt.

Thanks,

-Jtkiefer


body:
I apologize, I forgot that the logo is originally on commons so that
answers one of my questions, though I'd be interested in knowning
specifically how and why that is?

-Jtkiefer


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ros’ Haruo

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Bizarre vandalism at Cherokee Wikipedia by
	217.44.22.219

body:
I went to check on the state of my contributions to
chr.wikipedia.org<http://chr.wikipedia.org>this morning and found the
Main Page and 19 others have had their content
replaced with a Speedy Deletion notice accompanied, in many but not all
cases, by something along the lines of "Wrong language". Now it's true that
much of the content in the Cherokee (better, Tsalagi) Wikipedia has been in
English, and many of these pages doubtless needed culling, but to eliminate
the Main Page (part of which was in Tsalagi) or several others (e.g. Europe
??? <http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8E%A1%E1%8E%B6%E1%8F%86> and United
States Supreme Court<http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court>)
where the process of Tsalagisation was underway) strikes me as vandalistic.

I have reverted the main page (several of whose sections should probably be
eliminated and the rest fully tsalagised) and will look at restoring others
that may have hope.

I've been talking up Wikipedia in Tsalagi groups (e.g. Yahoo groups like
Tsalagi and AniTsalagi_Language) trying to get folks to give up their
Cherokee National fonts long enough to acquire Unicode so they can
participate here, and I have been in negotiation with the Seattle Public
Library to get them to add Cherokee Unicode fonts so I (and others) can
participate here from the public access terminals, and I'm sorry but
217.44.22.219 <http://217.44.22.219>'s approach here is costly. In
particular the speedy deletion of the Main Page of a Wikipedia that does
have content strikes me as reprehensible, and to do so without replying to
the disagreements voiced in the Talk Page is I don't know, what's a good
NPOV term?

Haruo = dzidzelalic @ chr:

--
Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/lang_tax.html ? http://lernu.net


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists

body:
Brian a ?crit:
> First off, my credentials:
>
> [[en:User:Brian0918]]
> Administrator
> 11,754 edits
>
> Short version: There is a huge battle going on in which VFDers on WP,
> WS, and Commons are pushing user-compiled lists from one project to
> another. In each case, they are saying the lists belong on one of the
> other 3 projects. Almost nobody is saying that these lists don't belong
> anywhere, but nobody can decide on where they belong. It also doesn't
> help that nobody on one project accepts the outcome of another project's
> VFD (an outcome which may have said to transwiki to this project) as a
> reason to keep it on this project.

This is an important point you raise.
 From another perspective, we also increasingly are confronted to
situation of editors jumping from one project to another, or one
language to another, while they are banned on the first and not (yet ?)
on the second. Some editors will then reject civil rights to this editor
(such as forbidding to an editor banned on the english wikipedia to vote
on meta), while others consider he should be given a chance as blocking
rules are different from one project to the next (for example, the
german wikipedia seems to block or unsysop editors much more easily than
the french wikipedia). There is an ongoing issue right now with an
editor of the dutch and english projects.

In short, we increasingly are confronted to this inter-projects
relationships, relying in local rules... as many issues fall in a sort
of grey area. What you report kinda of fall in the same area.

Do you think a sort of international committee, made of editors from
different projects and different languages could make these decisions on
behalf of all editors in these sorts of situation, per request of local
communities. Right now, it mostly ends up by request to Jimbo, Angela
and myself... and I'd say it is not the best solution. The only good
point of this solution is that usually our decision is well accepted by
(relieved) editors.

So, it would be interesting to see whether a sort of international court
would be acceptable to solve these kind of issues.

If so, how could it be organised ? How would it get members ?
(nomination, elections...) On which rules would it work ?

Suggestions ?

Anthere


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists


body:
Robert Scott Horning a ?crit:
> This is more FYI if you havn't been frequenting Wikibooks for awhile
>
>
> *** 10,000 Wikibooks modules for EN ***
>
> The English Wikibooks has now passed over 10,000 book modules... which
> also puts it in the top 50 wikis on the web (according to [[w:List of
> largest wikis]]).  Far from a failure, Wikibooks is starting to pick up
> some popularity and has a fairly healthy user population, including
> vandals and other malcontents.  More publicity should happen about
> passing this key milestone, but for now this is about all the publicity
> that has happened so far.  Which brings up the next item of news:
>
> ** Wikibooks has a new bureaucrat **
>
> User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status.  What
> this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going to be
> created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis.  You can debate if she
> will be good at this, but then again that should have been done on the
> Request for Admin Status page.  The previous bureaucrats have been on
> haitus or away from Wikibooks on other projects, and it appears that Aya
> is more dedicated to just Wikibooks specifically.  Wikibooks is growing,
> and the ever present need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is
> also growing.  Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working
> hard in the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in
> general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.
>

Aya just put a comment on request for permission on meta to be informed
how he could remove sysop power as he did not find how to do it yet on
wikibooks.

I read the above discussion... and must say I am a bit surprised you
elected a bureaucrat who has obviously very little idea of what the
various types of status can or can not do and very little idea how the
request for permission system work.

But well...

In any cases, as a reminder, only stewards can desysop editors,
bureaucrats can not, so Aya will not be able to do it.

Cheers

Anthere


subject: [Wikitech-l] YurikBot

body:
While we were discussing setting YurikBot bot flag on irc for YurikBot
accounts all over wikipedia , someone created a YurikBot account on
jawikipedia (according to Yurik, I can not read japanese)

It could OF COURSE just be a unexpected creation, but I fear it was
rather done on purpose.

I'd like that a check is run on who did this, and that this person is
politely ask to hand out the password to Yurik. Can someone help ?

Thanks

PS : I tried to use the check user, but it seems not to be working.

Anthere


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Jtkiefer wrote:

> I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that I
> would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for personal
> use soley on the Wikipedia site, after seeing that it was copyrighted
> to the Wikipedia foundation I emailed Jimbo asking for formal
> permission to use the image as a part of the future work. I have not
> recieved any reply and so I decided to continue assuming that since
> there are already other works based off the Wikipedia logo on the site
> it would be ok and I could deal with tagging later..  I have since
> uploaded the work and amd wondering whether it is a copyright
> violation or not and if not what it should be tagged since it doesn't
> seem to fall under any of the licensing schemes.  BTW, the image can
> be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darkwiki.jpg.

I think that "for personal use soley (sic!=solely?) on the Wikipedia
site" is key here.  As long as the use remains on the Wikipedia site it
can't possibly be a copyvio.

Ec


from_name: kelvSYC

body:
> ** Wikibooks has a new bureaucrat **
>
> User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status.
> What this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going
> to be created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis.  You can
> debate if she will be good at this, but then again that should have
> been done on the Request for Admin Status page.  The previous
> bureaucrats have been on haitus or away from Wikibooks on other
> projects, and it appears that Aya is more dedicated to just
> Wikibooks specifically.  Wikibooks is growing, and the ever present
> need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is also growing.
> Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working hard in
> the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in
> general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.

Although I strongly believe that you shouldn't nominate yourself for
bureaucratship, rather have someone else nominate you for the post,
it's a welcome move nonetheless.  [[User:Aya]] should be more
effective in implementing widespread sweeping changes to policy as well.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a dictionary

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

Some interesting things I've found in Google Alerts...

Hot for hookahs -
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050730/LIVING/50730001/1004
The Olympian - Olympia,WA,USA
... shishas or hubble-bubbles -- are traditional smoking devices
typically imported from the Middle East or Asia, according to online
dictionary Wikipedia. ...

I think they need to see [[WP:WIN]] :)

Films that did not mind their Fs and Bs -
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE420050728053420&Page=4&Title=Features+-+People+%26+Lifestyle&Topic=0
Newindpress - Chennai,India
LONDON: A new poll conducted by encyclopedia website Wikipedia suggests
that British film Nil By Mouth features the F-word more times than any
movie in history ...

Wikipedia conducted a poll? More likely that IMDB did...

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

iD8DBQFC7EOf/RxM5Ph0xhMRA/A2AJ9rW+qMdOy/ywJDPQhBMNR+RyvL4gCeNlpk
HgpNcoktz+BEJqLXlem3AW4=
=8d23
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: bit of tricky copyright question

body:
Hello

The logo is copyrighted by the Foundation, which mean you need a formal
authorisation for any use of your logo and it can not be considered a
derivative work under the GFDL.

In this cas, the question would essentially be "what do you intend to do
with the logo ?"

Anthere

PS : as for commons, it is correct the logo should not be there as it is
not a free logo... still... all logos are available on commons afaik.
I promise the Foundation will not sue Commons admins for letting the
logos there :-)

Jtkiefer a ?crit:
> I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that I
> would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for personal use
> soley on the Wikipedia site, after seeing that it was copyrighted to the
> Wikipedia foundation I emailed Jimbo asking for formal permission to use
> the image as a part of the future work. I have not recieved any reply
> and so I decided to continue assuming that since there are already other
> works based off the Wikipedia logo on the site it would be ok and I
> could deal with tagging later..  I have since uploaded the work and amd
> wondering whether it is a copyright violation or not and if not what it
> should be tagged since it doesn't seem to fall under any of the
> licensing schemes.  BTW, the image can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darkwiki.jpg.
>
>
> I've also been meaning to ask how the copyright on the Wikipedia logo
> works since it seems to be a paradox of terms, especially since it has
> been established that despite claims otherwise, see [[User:Pioneer-12]]
> everything posted or uploaded to Wikipedia is automatically licensed
> under the GFDL yet the logo appears to be exempt.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jtkiefer


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: YurikBot

body:
Anthere wrote:
> While we were discussing setting YurikBot bot flag on irc for YurikBot
> accounts all over wikipedia , someone created a YurikBot account on
> jawikipedia (according to Yurik, I can not read japanese)
>
> It could OF COURSE just be a unexpected creation, but I fear it was
> rather done on purpose.
>
> I'd like that a check is run on who did this, and that this person is
> politely ask to hand out the password to Yurik. Can someone help ?
>
> Thanks
>
> PS : I tried to use the check user, but it seems not to be working.
>

Just ask a bureaucrat to rename the account using Special:Renameuser,
then you can recreate it with a different password. I don't think
there's any need to find out who did it. It's just one of those silly
little things that bored kids do sometimes.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

body:
What is the solution for varied spellings which do not depend on an authority
such as color vs. colour in English? What about when certain aspects of
spelling are independent? colourise, colourize, colorize all exist in English,
colorise seems not to exist.

What about the other orthographical variations I mentioned in an earlier
post such as ASCII vs curved apostrophe in most languages or Hebrew
and Arabic with varying degrees of pointing?

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

On 7/30/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
> >Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>As the Dutch spelling will change in August 2006, we added
> >>things like spelling authorities.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Great, then you can introduce a new authority for every century of
> >a language, so the 19th century Swedish can be told apart from
> >20th century Swedish.  But how are spelling authorities different
> >from languages?  Couldn't "19th century Swedish" and "Dutch after
> >2006" be treated as languages of their own?
> >
> >
> No, an authority is just that. When the Spelling is marked as
> depreciated, you change the record in ValidSpelling. The reason for this
> extra table is, that the word "paardenbloem" will be depreciated and the
> older version of "paardebloem" is to be appreciated again. The Spelling
> does give a date, that one is about when it was introduce. A spelling
> authority is an organisation that decides on a specific spelling. The
> NTU is such an organisation for the Dutch language, the change in 2006
> follows the change of 1996.
>
> As I said in a previous mail, this was created because I will have to
> accomodate this change in a contemporary language. When 19th century
> Swedish changed to a more modern version, the old spelling can be
> depreciated by adding the ValidUntil in a ValidSpelling record. The old
> spelling and the new Spelling are related by a Relation record.
>
> >
> >
> >>So the design will be set for some time allowing us to learn
> >>what it is we have. It will be changed when we know what to
> >>change and why. The requirements for content will be minimal and
> >>improvements will happen because of a collective effort.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Have you started to populate the database yet?  What cycle span do
> >you plan for between evaluations and redesigns?
> >
> At this moment I am working on the database design, Erik is working on
> Wikidata and when he has finished his part, we will work on the
> implementation as described on Meta. As to data, there are several many
> that will be included into the Ultimate Wiktionary. The content of the
> Wiktionaries is important among these. We have a wordlist in
> Stellingwerfs of 18.865 waiting in the wings enough to rank it as the
> sixth biggest Wiktionary. I have been informed that another version will
> have some 20K+ articles .. We have some 222.930 correctly spelled Dutch
> words that we may use (only spelling with hypenations). We have the
> content of several glossaries and thesauri.
>
> So at this stage questions on the database stuff  are very welcome. We
> do not expect to start including data until somewhere September. But
> when we do, it will be available for everybody to play with it.
> Thanks,
>    Gerard
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: YurikBot

body:
Tim Starling a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> While we were discussing setting YurikBot bot flag on irc for YurikBot
>> accounts all over wikipedia , someone created a YurikBot account on
>> jawikipedia (according to Yurik, I can not read japanese)
>>
>> It could OF COURSE just be a unexpected creation, but I fear it was
>> rather done on purpose.
>>
>> I'd like that a check is run on who did this, and that this person is
>> politely ask to hand out the password to Yurik. Can someone help ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> PS : I tried to use the check user, but it seems not to be working.
>>
>
> Just ask a bureaucrat to rename the account using Special:Renameuser,
> then you can recreate it with a different password. I don't think
> there's any need to find out who did it. It's just one of those silly
> little things that bored kids do sometimes.
>
> -- Tim Starling

Interesting...
You mean a bureaucrat can actually anytime directly take any existing
account, move it to another account, and reattribute it to anyone else ?
Or any one take it without any more thought ?
Are not you a bit worried that this feature could not be a bit abused,
in particular in the perspective of the still wished for (but less and
less expected) single login feature ?

Was each project informed on this ? Do you know if some projects
developped rules about such a feature use ?
Imho, there is a big difference between renaming an account, and
renaming and freeing the old account. For example, it is not possible
for someone to take a yahoo email account, or to be assigned a phone
number before at least a certain time span.

~~~~


body:
Anthere wrote:

> The logo is copyrighted by the Foundation, which mean you need a
> formal authorisation for any use of your logo....

Just to play it safe I wanted to get authorization who would I get it from?

-Jtkiefer


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Jtkiefer wrote:
>
>> I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that
>> I would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for
>> personal use soley on the Wikipedia site, after seeing that it was
>> copyrighted to the Wikipedia foundation I emailed Jimbo asking for
>> formal permission to use the image as a part of the future work. I
>> have not recieved any reply and so I decided to continue assuming
>> that since there are already other works based off the Wikipedia logo
>> on the site it would be ok and I could deal with tagging later..  I
>> have since uploaded the work and amd wondering whether it is a
>> copyright violation or not and if not what it should be tagged since
>> it doesn't seem to fall under any of the licensing schemes.  BTW, the
>> image can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darkwiki.jpg.
>
>
> I think that "for personal use soley (sic!=solely?) on the Wikipedia
> site" is key here.  As long as the use remains on the Wikipedia site
> it can't possibly be a copyvio.
>
> Ec
>

I guess it wouldn't be a great idea for Wikipedia Foundation to sue
themselves for hosting copyrighted material.

-Jtkiefer


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Bizarre vandalism at Cherokee Wikipedia by
	217.44.22.219

body:
Angela says the Main Page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, but it is
(and remains so after my reversion) because I cannot access the notice to
remove it either on the edit page or at the category page. The notice is on
the Main Page under "Selected Anniversaries" (and I would agree that
"Selected Anniversaries" could use deletion?but not the main page, for
crying out loud. What concerns me is that if I went in now and edited, say
"Europe" (???) so that it was all (except the speedy deletion notice) in
Tsalagi and had several good sentences of content and a map or something, so
that it clearly was *not* a candidate for speedy deletion under the received
criteria, there's still no way I could remove the notice, so it would remain
a candidate for speedy deletion, and the process could result in the
elimination of a perfectly good Cherokee article. See my comments/venting at
http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions
 I apologize if my terming this "vandalism" is too extreme.
 Haruo = dzidzelalic
9 days till Indigenous Peoples Day!
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/lang_tax.html ? http://lernu.net


from_name: ilooy

subject:
[Foundation-l] WikiLists solution (was: Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists

body:
Hi all,
Why not create a separate wiki for Lists,
call it WikiLists and allow the archival of
all sorts of lists on whatever anyone wants
to make a list of, be it disaster victims,
Restaurants in the Chicago area, Languages
spoken in the Amazon jungle, who knows
what will be useful to someone else, and
the nice thing about it is that it could serve
as a reference for other wiki projects where
long lists aren't so welcomed ... I remember
running into a problem with vocab lists when
Wiktionary in English was first put online.
Lists are definitely useful to some people
and definitely good resources when you
might need such a thing on whatever subject
your interest is.

So WikiLists would be an excellent project
and would resolve the dispute. With interwiki
links one could very well take advantage of
a nice project like that I would think.

With sincere regards,
Jay B.

2005/7/30, Brian <brian0918 at gmail.com>:
> Short version: There is a huge battle going on in which VFDers on WP,
> WS, and Commons are pushing user-compiled lists from one project to
> another. In each case, they are saying the lists belong on one of the
> other 3 projects. Almost nobody is saying that these lists don't belong
> anywhere, but nobody can decide on where they belong. It also doesn't
> help that nobody on one project accepts the outcome of another project's
> VFD (an outcome which may have said to transwiki to this project) as a
> reason to keep it on this project.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Lists.Wikipedia.org (was: WikiLists solution

body:
The idea of a WikiList solution to the
Transwiki list struggle might also make
available a records lists a la Guiness
book of world records kind of thing.

http://lists.wikipedia.org
or its own domain at
http://www.wikilists.org
would be nice, (but the
dot com address
wikilists.com is already
taken).

With regards always,
Jay B.

2005/7/31, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
> Why not create a separate wiki for Lists,
> call it WikiLists and allow the archival of
> all sorts of lists on whatever anyone wants
> to make a list of [...]


from_name: Delirium

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>You could argue that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Greek
>article to translate the reference section since those probably
>aren't the references the translator is working from. I'm fine
>with that. But shouldn't the English Wikipedia be cited as
>a reference? And shouldn't direct quotes, like the Old Norse
>text in this article, be sourced to their origin?
>
>So, what do you reference pedants have to say
>about all this? :)
>
>
I can't find it at the moment, but there was a page on en: somewhere
giving some guidelines for this that seemed reasonable enough to me:

1) Note somewhere at the bottom "This article or an earlier version is
based on the English Wikipedia article [blah]." (Similar to the
"originally from EB 1911" notices.)

2) Put somewhere in the references section, or possibly in another
reference section after it, "The English Wikipedia version of this
article cited the following sources: [...]."

-Mark


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: YurikBot

body:
Anthere wrote:
>
>
> Tim Starling a ?crit:
>
>> Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> While we were discussing setting YurikBot bot flag on irc for
>>> YurikBot accounts all over wikipedia , someone created a YurikBot
>>> account on jawikipedia (according to Yurik, I can not read japanese)
>>>
>>> It could OF COURSE just be a unexpected creation, but I fear it was
>>> rather done on purpose.
>>>
>>> I'd like that a check is run on who did this, and that this person is
>>> politely ask to hand out the password to Yurik. Can someone help ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> PS : I tried to use the check user, but it seems not to be working.
>>>
>>
>> Just ask a bureaucrat to rename the account using Special:Renameuser,
>> then you can recreate it with a different password. I don't think
>> there's any need to find out who did it. It's just one of those silly
>> little things that bored kids do sometimes.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> Interesting...
> You mean a bureaucrat can actually anytime directly take any existing
> account, move it to another account, and reattribute it to anyone else ?
> Or any one take it without any more thought ?
> Are not you a bit worried that this feature could not be a bit abused,
> in particular in the perspective of the still wished for (but less and
> less expected) single login feature ?
>
> Was each project informed on this ? Do you know if some projects
> developped rules about such a feature use ?
> Imho, there is a big difference between renaming an account, and
> renaming and freeing the old account. For example, it is not possible
> for someone to take a yahoo email account, or to be assigned a phone
> number before at least a certain time span.

Developers have been doing account renames for years, to deal with
situations such as impersonation of a well-known user on a smaller wiki.
We've done so without the benefit of policy, we've simply had to use our
discretion. I think the situation is better now, at least bureaucrats
can be held accountable to the community (or to the Board) by revoking
their powers if necessary. Renames are logged, so I don't see any great
potential for abuse.

>
> ~~~~

~~~~


from_name: SJ

body:
Dont forget the recently created 'Featured Lists' page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_lists


body:
Angela wrote:

>On 7/31/05, kelvSYC <kelvsyc at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Although I strongly believe that you shouldn't nominate yourself for
>>bureaucratship, rather have someone else nominate you for the post,
>>it's a welcome move nonetheless.  [[User:Aya]] should be more
>>effective in implementing widespread sweeping changes to policy as well.
>>
>>
>
>Bureaucrats should have no more control over policy than any other
>user. Bureaucratship is just a technical access level that allows a
>user to make other admins. It should not be seen as a position of
>authority, and should not be used to justify "sweeping changes to
>policy" without the normal requirements of community consensus on
>those policies.
>
>Angela.
>
>
I'm going to defend Aya on this one, however.  There is an excellent
policy discussion page that has been put off Aya's user page, and there
has been quite a bit of discussion about it (or at least parts of it) in
the Staff Lounge.  This isn't a dictitorial change but rather an
implementation of user concensus.  The #1 issue that was resolved with
Aya becoming a bureaucrat was simply an effort to get more admins made.
 That capability is now present, but unfortunately it was more social
than technical in terms of getting it implemented.  As far as changing
policies, it is also an effort to protect and unprotect (or at least
edit from an admin capacity) the actual policy pages of Wikibooks.
 These are the "sweeping policy changes" that are most likely going to
be made, and certainly the changes will be made as a community
decision... as it should be.  Aya wants to get involved at that level,
and I say the job should be turned over for that area of Wikibooks.  It
is also easy to monitor if it gets out of hand in a real hurry.

In retrospect it would have been nice to have Aya be an admin for
awhile.  I was going to nominate Aya myself for adminship, but I was
also watching the fight over Geocachernemesis and try to see just was
going to happen to turn him into an admin before I put up the name for
Aya.  As far as how quickly things normally take to get resolved on
Wikibooks, the nomination and actual implementation of Aya to become a
bureaucrat was lightning fast... in some ways too fast for Wikibooks.
 Still, that was a fairly large general community support for
bureaucratship by regulars who monitor that page.... particularly since
it happened over the course of just a few days.  It wasn't as if Aya
demanded and got bureaucratship without any community support.

Time scale is precisely why there is a "Book of the Month" rather than
the "Book of the Week" on Wikibooks.  It just seems to take longer for
everybody to get their voices heard, and longer for a user to find their
way outside of a pet "project book" and to get involved in the community
in general.  Staff Lounge discussions last a couple of months as well
before they are archived.  That may change, but for now is the case.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Ros, this doesn't strike me as vandalism.

I've done similar things before, although not to the same degree (I
haven't nominated mainpages, or pages which were partly in the right
language).

However, even those parts of this which strike me as being a bit
extreme, I am sure were made in good faith.

I do think that most of the pages so labelled should indeed be purged,
but you are certainly right that some should not.

Cheers
Mark

On 31/07/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I went to check on the state of my contributions to
> chr.wikipedia.org<http://chr.wikipedia.org>this morning and found the
> Main Page and 19 others have had their content
> replaced with a Speedy Deletion notice accompanied, in many but not all
> cases, by something along the lines of "Wrong language". Now it's true that
> much of the content in the Cherokee (better, Tsalagi) Wikipedia has been in
> English, and many of these pages doubtless needed culling, but to eliminate
> the Main Page (part of which was in Tsalagi) or several others (e.g. Europe
> ??? <http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8E%A1%E1%8E%B6%E1%8F%86> and United
> States Supreme Court<http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court>)
> where the process of Tsalagisation was underway) strikes me as vandalistic.
>
> I have reverted the main page (several of whose sections should probably be
> eliminated and the rest fully tsalagised) and will look at restoring others
> that may have hope.
>
> I've been talking up Wikipedia in Tsalagi groups (e.g. Yahoo groups like
> Tsalagi and AniTsalagi_Language) trying to get folks to give up their
> Cherokee National fonts long enough to acquire Unicode so they can
> participate here, and I have been in negotiation with the Seattle Public
> Library to get them to add Cherokee Unicode fonts so I (and others) can
> participate here from the public access terminals, and I'm sorry but
> 217.44.22.219 <http://217.44.22.219>'s approach here is costly. In
> particular the speedy deletion of the Main Page of a Wikipedia that does
> have content strikes me as reprehensible, and to do so without replying to
> the disagreements voiced in the Talk Page is I don't know, what's a good
> NPOV term?
>
> Haruo = dzidzelalic @ chr:
>
>
> --
> Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
> http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/lang_tax.html ? http://lernu.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


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

Jtkiefer wrote:
> I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that I
> would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for personal use
> soley on the Wikipedia site, after seeing that it was copyrighted to the
> Wikipedia foundation I emailed Jimbo asking for formal permission to use
> the image as a part of the future work. I have not recieved any reply
> and so I decided to continue assuming that since there are already other
> works based off the Wikipedia logo on the site it would be ok and I
> could deal with tagging later..  I have since uploaded the work and amd
> wondering whether it is a copyright violation or not and if not what it
> should be tagged since it doesn't seem to fall under any of the
> licensing schemes.  BTW, the image can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darkwiki.jpg.
>

{{logo}} and {{GFDL}} according to [[Image:Wiki.png]]; however, the logo
is trademarked. {{commons:CopyrightByWikimedia}} if you can.

>
> I've also been meaning to ask how the copyright on the Wikipedia logo
> works since it seems to be a paradox of terms, especially since it has
> been established that despite claims otherwise, see [[User:Pioneer-12]]
> everything posted or uploaded to Wikipedia is automatically licensed
> under the GFDL yet the logo appears to be exempt.
>

This image is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. It is one of the
official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of
its projects. Notwithstanding any other statement on this page this
image has not been licensed under the GFDL.
? & ? All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc..

But I think {{logo}} is the safest bet.

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

iD8DBQFC7KCE/RxM5Ph0xhMRA4tNAKClOUGLS6EpjchHuS1z1OZcYjWc2gCeK8gw
hQA9Kyo38nup3jrh8vRivU8=
=JyzN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: edward molasses

subject: [Wikitech-l] adding special pages

body:
Hi everyone,

I would like to add a new special page and so I've been trying to setup the
BoardVote special page in my mediawiki installation as a test, but I haven't
been able to make it work. I've used the instructional page on MetaWiki
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Writing_a_new_special_page) but it appears
that there have been changes to how special pages are added to MediaWiki that
aren't on this page. From what I read I think that only one file is required
to add a special page and that it goes in the extensions directory.

I tried putting BoardVote.php
(http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/BoardVote/BoardVote.php?rev=1.3&only_with_tag=MAIN&view=markup)
in the extensions directory of my MediaWiki installation, but it still did
not show up in my Wiki's list of special pages.

Could anyone help me find what I'm doing wrong? Any help would be much
appreciated!

Thanks,
Andrew.


subject: [Foundation-l] document_all

body:
jwales at wikia.com wrote:
> Please read the important document.

...and that's why the mailing list strips attachments. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050731/bffabe6b/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] document_all

body:
jwales at wikia.com wrote:
> Please read the important document.

...and that's why the mailing list strips attachments. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050731/bffabe6b/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] document_all

body:
jwales at wikia.com wrote:
> Please read the important document.

...and that's why the mailing list strips attachments. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20050731/bffabe6b/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] document_all

body:
jwales at wikia.com wrote:
> Please read the important document.

...and that's why the mailing list strips attachments. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20050731/bffabe6b/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Phroziac

body:
Just wondering, what's troll like about A Nony Mouse? I didn't thing
anything of the name, but i do understand what it means now :)

On 7/31/05, David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Are you still here? Do you even edit Wikipedia? If yes, surely you have a
> username/IP you can sign with instead of the troll-like "A. Nony Mouse"? If
> no, why do you even care?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Nony Mouse" <mousyme at gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:01 AM
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of powers by admins as per usual: Tony Sidaway
>
>
> > We have a situation.
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Existentializer.2C_suspected_sock_of_Enviroknot
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a
> > cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to
> > "prove" a point which cannot be made.
> >
> > Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":
> >
> > - An edit made to MoveOn.Org  regarding a Drudge Report document.
> > - A following exposive commentary back and forth with an equally
> > partisan writer from the other side.
> >
> > - A revert edit on [[Jihad]] during a time when user
> > BrandonYusufToropov and a number of anonymous IP address sockpuppets
> > were in a revert war over some highly NPOV-violating content.
> >
> > Tony Sidaway thinks this "proves" that Existentializer is Enviroknot.
> > However, this was Existentializer's ONLY edit to the article and
> > multiple editors were opposing the edits by a highly pro-Islam
> > anonymous IP. In the whole line, Existentializer makes only one edit,
> > although he (along with other editors) deals fiercely with the
> > POV-pushing BrandonYusufToropov on the talk page
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/Arhive7).
> >
> > It should be noted at this time that it is BrandonYusufToropov who
> > makes indiscriminate accusations of sockpuppetry at ANY editor who
> > contradicts him.
> >
> > The WHOLE chain of edits:
> > # (cur) (last)  16:52, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (protected)
> > # (cur) (last) 16:25, 19 July 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by
> > EnviroFuck to last version by Existentializer)
> > # (cur) (last) 16:14, 19 July 2005 EnviroFuck (wrong on both
> > accusations i'll give you a third try)
> > # (cur) (last) 16:12, 19 July 2005 Existentializer (rv, and you've
> > surely violated 3RR now BYT. It's obvious it's you.)
> > # (cur) (last) 16:08, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (RV edits by
> > Enviroknot (has the hurricane hit yet?))
> > # (cur) (last) 16:04, 19 July 2005 212.247.200.185 (rv: I think that's
> > all the proof we need that the "anonymous" IP is really Brandon
> > YouSuck Islamist Toropov evading 3RR by dropping to IP.)
> > # (cur) (last) 15:58, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv edits by EnviroKnot)
> > # (cur) (last) 15:56, 19 July 2005 70.85.75.42 (rv islamist vandalism
> > to last relative compromise version by Gren. Go away Heraclius.)
> > # (cur) (last) 15:42, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv to NPOV version)
> > # (cur) (last) 13:29, 19 July 2005 Grenavitar (Zeno's link system was
> > more organized I think... -- but, Muhammad is a worthless link -- Zeno
> > -- you are not talking -- talking is good.)
> > # (cur) (last) 13:17, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv to version with
> > new links section and other edits)
> > # (cur) (last) 12:49, 19 July 2005 Ni-ju-Ichi (rv prior to edit
> > warrior bickering)
> > # (cur) (last) 12:09, 19 July 2005 83.73.161.47 (revert pov vandalism)
> > # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version)
> > # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version)
> > # (cur) (last) 08:04, 19 July 2005 62.243.243.31 (rv/v)
> > # (cur) (last) 05:39, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv: pov pushing by
> > zeno of elea)
> > # (cur) (last) 05:32, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv - vandalism by
> > anonymous user)
> > # (cur) (last) 05:26, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19
> > # (cur) (last) 05:14, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (?Philosophers of
> > Jihad Doctrine)
> >
> > -The fact that Existentializer has also made GOOD EDITS is used as
> > evidence AGAINST him (what kind of fucking lunacy allows this to
> > stand?!!!!!)
> >
> > -The user's reverting away from his own user page of an edit by a user
> > ("EnviroFuck") who was reported to be a sockpuppet of the banned user
> > Yuber:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision
> >
> > I will also have to note at this time that User Ni-Ju-Ichi and user
> > Zeno of Elea have also been accused of being "Enviroknot", either by
> > anonymous IP sockpuppets (and wholly WITHOUT justification) or by
> > BrandonYusufToropov.
> >
> > Despite this, Tony Sidaway took it upon himself to put in place an
> > eternal block upon Existentializer " pending a decision on whether he
> > is a sock of Enviroknot."
> >
> > Tony Sidaway is VERY out of line doing this.
> >
> > A. Nony Mouse
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: jwales at wikia.com

subject: [Foundation-l] document_all

body: Please read the important document.


subject: [Foundation-l] document_all

body: Please read the important document.


from_name: Angela

body:
On 7/31/05, kelvSYC <kelvsyc at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Although I strongly believe that you shouldn't nominate yourself for
> bureaucratship, rather have someone else nominate you for the post,
> it's a welcome move nonetheless.  [[User:Aya]] should be more
> effective in implementing widespread sweeping changes to policy as well.

Bureaucrats should have no more control over policy than any other
user. Bureaucratship is just a technical access level that allows a
user to make other admins. It should not be seen as a position of
authority, and should not be used to justify "sweeping changes to
policy" without the normal requirements of community consensus on
those policies.

Angela.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: YurikBot

body:
On 7/31/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You mean a bureaucrat can actually anytime directly take any existing
> account, move it to another account, and reattribute it to anyone else ?
[...]

> Was each project informed on this ?

Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikinews were informed of it.
Wikiquote and Wikisource don't have mailing lists, and I forgot about
the Commons (sorry). The help pages about changing username were
updated on meta, so hopefully even those not on mailing lists would
have some knowledge about the feature. This is going on the assumption
that members of those lists will translate the information there are
disseminate that within their own language projects.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-July/040905.html

> Do you know if some projects
> developped rules about such a feature use ?

I'm not aware of any such rules. On the English Wikipedia, it's
currently a judgement call of the few bureaucrats who are doing this
task. Until a problem arises, there isn't much call for a policy,
which is probably why the Steward policies still had the "draft" tag
on them until March of this year. :)

Angela.


body:
On 7/31/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I went to check on the state of my contributions to
> chr.wikipedia.org<http://chr.wikipedia.org>this morning and found the
> Main Page and 19 others have had their content
> replaced with a Speedy Deletion notice accompanied, in many but not all
> cases, by something along the lines of "Wrong language".

Of the ones I checked, all but the Main Page were in the wrong
language, so I don't see the tagging them of such as vandalism. The
Main Page itself obviously needs more work from people who can write
Cherokee, but it wasn't completely English, and not a candidate for
speedy deletion, so that may have been vandalism or just a bad faith
edit.

The wiki only has one admin, Etse, who hasn't edited since last October.

Angela.


body:
Mark, you're right, my use of the word "vandalism" was hyperbolic,
occasioned by my irritation at finding pages that contained more Cherokee
now than they did a month ago deleted and replaced with the bald comment
"wrong language" and a speedy deletion notice that seemingly couldn't be
removed (Angela has since found out why I couldn't remove the notices,
apparently it was because the {{stub}} template had been replaced with a
{{delete}} notice itself! It was the effect of this replacement that
prompted me to cry not merely vandalism but "bizarre" vandalism)...

I quite agree that the articles that are simply copies of English articles,
in English, about topics not particularly central to Tsalagi cultural
reality (e.g. the Pakistani motif, or Sid Vicious), ought to be removed. A
special case, I think, is the Wilma Mankiller article, which is so far
mostly in English but is a topic as important to cover in a Cherokee general
encyclopedia as, say, Winston Churchill in an English one. I am hopeful that
in the next few weeks that article will be significantly improved as to
content and POV as well as degree of tsalagisation.

Haruo = dzidzelalic

On 7/31/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ros, this doesn't strike me as vandalism.
>
> I've done similar things before, although not to the same degree (I
> haven't nominated mainpages, or pages which were partly in the right
> language).
>
> However, even those parts of this which strike me as being a bit
> extreme, I am sure were made in good faith.
>
> I do think that most of the pages so labelled should indeed be purged,
> but you are certainly right that some should not.
>
> Cheers
> Mark
>
> On 31/07/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I went to check on the state of my contributions to
> > chr.wikipedia.org <http://chr.wikipedia.org><http://chr.wikipedia.org>this
> morning and found the
> > Main Page and 19 others have had their content
> > replaced with a Speedy Deletion notice accompanied, in many but not all
> > cases, by something along the lines of "Wrong language". Now it's true
> that
> > much of the content in the Cherokee (better, Tsalagi) Wikipedia has been
> in
> > English, and many of these pages doubtless needed culling, but to
> eliminate
> > the Main Page (part of which was in Tsalagi) or several others (e.g.
> Europe
> > ??? <http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8E%A1%E1%8E%B6%E1%8F%86> and
> United
> > States Supreme Court<http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki
> /United_States_Supreme_Court>)
> > where the process of Tsalagisation was underway) strikes me as
> vandalistic.?
>
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/lang_tax.html ? http://lernu.net


body:
On 7/31/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Why not create a separate wiki for Lists,
> call it WikiLists

There is no consensus on Wikipedia that a lot of the lists there
should not be there, so it would lead to a huge amount of duplication.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Votes+for+deletion%2FList&namespace=4>
for some recent examples.

Angela.


body:
On 7/31/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
> I have a bit of a tricky copyright question. Recently I decided that I
> would like to create a derivation of the Wikipedia logo for personal use
> soley on the Wikipedia site

It might be best for people to assume "fair use" when using modified
versions of the logo on Wikipedia rather than seeking formal
permission for them. In areas where it isn't likely to be fair use
(outside of Wikipedia), then you can seek permission by emailing
board-at-wikimedia.org for simple cases, or
juriwiki-l-at-wikimedia.org for cases where it is likely to need legal
review.

Angela.


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

body:
On 7/31/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> A. Nony Mouse (mousyme at gmail.com) [050801 08:42]:
>
> > We have a situation.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Existentializer.2C_suspected_sock_of_Enviroknot
>
>
> Not only are you and Existentializer Enviroknot, it was you both times on
> IRC today.

No, it wasn't.

> Either that or your bad luck in DHCP assignments is truly
> remarkable and suggests you should choose Vegas over Houston.

No idea what you mean by that.
>
> (I would not normally have let the preceding email through, but it did need
> the above stated. We can't edit emails in the queue, only accept, reject or
> discard them.)

Or send them back with nasty little notes attached, it seems.

You need to take a serious chill pill.

A. Nony Mouse


body:
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's symbolic of the fact that I
daren't give my real name, knowing the inevitable things David Gerard
would do to it if he knew it.

A. Nony Mouse

On 7/31/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering, what's troll like about A Nony Mouse? I didn't thing
> anything of the name, but i do understand what it means now :)
>


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists

body:
> Short version: There is a huge battle going on in which VFDers on WP,
> WS, and Commons are pushing user-compiled lists from one project to
> another. In each case, they are saying the lists belong on one of the
> other 3 projects. Almost nobody is saying that these lists don't belong
> anywhere, but nobody can decide on where they belong. It also doesn't
> help that nobody on one project accepts the outcome of another project's
> VFD (an outcome which may have said to transwiki to this project) as a
> reason to keep it on this project.

I'm reminded of Lewis Carroll's mouse:

"Mine is a long and sad tale!"

I wish you good luck finding a home for this.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: David 'DJ' Hedley

body:
Are you still here? Do you even edit Wikipedia? If yes, surely you have a
username/IP you can sign with instead of the troll-like "A. Nony Mouse"? If
no, why do you even care?
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Nony Mouse" <mousyme at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:01 AM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of powers by admins as per usual: Tony Sidaway

> We have a situation.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Existentializer.2C_suspected_sock_of_Enviroknot
>
> As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a
> cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to
> "prove" a point which cannot be made.
>
> Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":
>
> - An edit made to MoveOn.Org  regarding a Drudge Report document.
> - A following exposive commentary back and forth with an equally
> partisan writer from the other side.
>
> - A revert edit on [[Jihad]] during a time when user
> BrandonYusufToropov and a number of anonymous IP address sockpuppets
> were in a revert war over some highly NPOV-violating content.
>
> Tony Sidaway thinks this "proves" that Existentializer is Enviroknot.
> However, this was Existentializer's ONLY edit to the article and
> multiple editors were opposing the edits by a highly pro-Islam
> anonymous IP. In the whole line, Existentializer makes only one edit,
> although he (along with other editors) deals fiercely with the
> POV-pushing BrandonYusufToropov on the talk page
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/Arhive7).
>
> It should be noted at this time that it is BrandonYusufToropov who
> makes indiscriminate accusations of sockpuppetry at ANY editor who
> contradicts him.
>
> The WHOLE chain of edits:
> # (cur) (last)  16:52, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (protected)
> # (cur) (last) 16:25, 19 July 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by
> EnviroFuck to last version by Existentializer)
> # (cur) (last) 16:14, 19 July 2005 EnviroFuck (wrong on both
> accusations i'll give you a third try)
> # (cur) (last) 16:12, 19 July 2005 Existentializer (rv, and you've
> surely violated 3RR now BYT. It's obvious it's you.)
> # (cur) (last) 16:08, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (RV edits by
> Enviroknot (has the hurricane hit yet?))
> # (cur) (last) 16:04, 19 July 2005 212.247.200.185 (rv: I think that's
> all the proof we need that the "anonymous" IP is really Brandon
> YouSuck Islamist Toropov evading 3RR by dropping to IP.)
> # (cur) (last) 15:58, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv edits by EnviroKnot)
> # (cur) (last) 15:56, 19 July 2005 70.85.75.42 (rv islamist vandalism
> to last relative compromise version by Gren. Go away Heraclius.)
> # (cur) (last) 15:42, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv to NPOV version)
> # (cur) (last) 13:29, 19 July 2005 Grenavitar (Zeno's link system was
> more organized I think... -- but, Muhammad is a worthless link -- Zeno
> -- you are not talking -- talking is good.)
> # (cur) (last) 13:17, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv to version with
> new links section and other edits)
> # (cur) (last) 12:49, 19 July 2005 Ni-ju-Ichi (rv prior to edit
> warrior bickering)
> # (cur) (last) 12:09, 19 July 2005 83.73.161.47 (revert pov vandalism)
> # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version)
> # (cur) (last) 11:59, 19 July 2005 24.34.164.83 (revert to npov version)
> # (cur) (last) 08:04, 19 July 2005 62.243.243.31 (rv/v)
> # (cur) (last) 05:39, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19 (rv: pov pushing by
> zeno of elea)
> # (cur) (last) 05:32, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (rv - vandalism by
> anonymous user)
> # (cur) (last) 05:26, 19 July 2005 67.78.186.19
> # (cur) (last) 05:14, 19 July 2005 Zeno of Elea (?Philosophers of
> Jihad Doctrine)
>
> -The fact that Existentializer has also made GOOD EDITS is used as
> evidence AGAINST him (what kind of fucking lunacy allows this to
> stand?!!!!!)
>
> -The user's reverting away from his own user page of an edit by a user
> ("EnviroFuck") who was reported to be a sockpuppet of the banned user
> Yuber:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision
>
> I will also have to note at this time that User Ni-Ju-Ichi and user
> Zeno of Elea have also been accused of being "Enviroknot", either by
> anonymous IP sockpuppets (and wholly WITHOUT justification) or by
> BrandonYusufToropov.
>
> Despite this, Tony Sidaway took it upon himself to put in place an
> eternal block upon Existentializer " pending a decision on whether he
> is a sock of Enviroknot."
>
> Tony Sidaway is VERY out of line doing this.
>
> A. Nony Mouse
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 8/1/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> As far as changing
> policies, it is also an effort to protect and unprotect (or at least
> edit from an admin capacity) the actual policy pages of Wikibooks.

Why do the policy pages need to be protected?

Angela