from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Proposed decision]] also cites WP:COI (may have been on my mind more).

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image thumbnail (re)generation etc

references:
<d20d84ea0611072035s391f6080l95c30bec89e30521@mail.gmail.com>
	<eirtip$o1l$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d20d84ea0611080001u73f449calb12ded55a4b5e698@mail.gmail.com>
	<eisuj0$brn$1@sea.gmane.org> <eitj7f$830$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<eiu45d$nno$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d20d84ea0611090606y4bf92cc4y90751ed016107729@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Another one is

(576x768, 32 KB)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Per_Stig_M%C3%B8ller.jpg

(note that the current image page thumb is not the right file, it is
an old thumb from a deleted version of this file.)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Per_Stig_M%C3%B8ller.jpg&w=450
shows the right one, but I can't get it to update on the image page...
or any of the other wrong thumbs, for that matter.

Brianna


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sourcing popular culture items

body:
> jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
>> The fact that we can say "nn-bio" on someone who was on a well-known
>> television show is scary to me.
>>
> Yeah, I know what you mean, I'm practically trembling with fear. I've
> been on *several* well-known television shows, and nobody thinks I'm
> notable either! (Admittedly, the shows were news programs getting the
> reactions of passersby :-) but hey, why should that be an obstacle! I
> WAS ON TV! ZOMG!!)

Hey, hey, I was on TV, too!

I was an actor in the extremely notable television soap opera "Search
For Tomorrow," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_For_Tomorrow.

You see, there was a tradition that the annual Christmas show was
kinescoped[1] so that it could be aired on Christmas Day without
performers having to work on that day. The storyline took some sort
of departure from the main stream of the show; I believe it was set
in the homes of various characters, who received Christmas day visits
from other characters. The format was designed to allow the creation
of numerous one-time-only bit parts, and various people who worked on
the show had the opportunity of having their friends or kids get
written into the show and play a part.

I had two lines:

a) "Daddy, Daddy, it's _my_ turn to play with the toy train."

b) "Goodbye! Goodbye! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas."

I delivered them superbly.

My dad had to drive me in to New York at 6 a.m. in the morning the
day they were kinescoping the show.

The turkey shown in on the dining-room table in the show was not a
prop, or at any rate I suppose it _was_ a prop but it what I mean is
that it was a real, edible turkey, and I got to eat some of it. I got
to watch them using an "RP" (rear projection) setup to film actors
apparently driving in a car with filmed moving scenery behind them. I
also got to keep the toy train (but I wasn't terribly thrilled with
this as it was a spring wound train, not electric).

I was at the set the whole day. I believe I had to be enrolled in a
union. I know for sure that I earned something like $80 for the day's
work and my parent had to file an income tax return for me, which at
the time was unusual for a kid, so that they could get the
withholding back. The withholding was substantial, incidentally,
because contrary to popular impression the income tax rates then were
_vastly_ higher than they are today.

After this stellar success, I took a long break from the acting
profession to deepen my knowledge and understanding of my craft,
which was to culminate in 2002 when I landed the plum role of Max in
a local church production of "The Sound of Music" (and knocked 'em
dead with my rendition of "How Can Love Survive?")

So, when do I get my Wikipedia article?

[1] The fact that the show was "kinescoped," rather than "taped,"
together with the age of my character as deduced from my lines and
from my disdain of a spring wound train, should enable a shrewd
reader to estimate the year of the show and my age to within a decade
or so.


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

>
> I was an actor in the extremely notable television soap opera "Search
> For Tomorrow," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_For_Tomorrow.
>
> So, when do I get my Wikipedia article?

I was going to go ahead and add you to [[List of bit parts in Search
for Tomorrow]], but there aren't enough of the parent articles in
place. I don't have the expertise to fix that, sadly, but I'd suggest
that anyone who wanted to add you to the article should probably
first get a cast section of the main article together, then work on
the spin-off of bit parts in which you could be added. I don't see
enough verifiable information to destub you, or else I'd just write
your article outright.

-Phil


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF AUTO
	BLOCK PLACED BY ZimZalaBim]

body:
Puppy wrote

> Subject: [WikiEN-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF AUTO BLOCK
>  PLACED BY ZimZalaBim]
>
> I was checking my emails before starting on a very busy day - I don't
> have time to puzzle this out but hopefully someone (or several someones)
> on this list will - thanks in advance.

You can see what this concerns on [[Wikipedia:Admininstrators Noticeboard]].

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sourcing "popular culture" items

body:
On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version
> that had the copyvio problems.
>
> Second of all, and I can promise you that this is an experience that
> anybody who has ever taught a writing course can verify, when it
> comes to identifying plagiarism, you know first, and then you go back
> and find proof.

If you llok at the deletion log I found the source.

> There are various things about plagiarized writing
> that just stick out. In the case of the Jeli Mateo article, in its
> old version, here are the two that I look at and go "Ah, plagiarism"
>
> "A towering beauty at 5'8, Jeli never fails to make heads turn."
>
> Clearly a POV paragraph, but more to the point, it seems out of
> context. The writer of that sentence has some sort of perspective
> that is not the same as Wikipedia's. The sentence assumes some sort
> of proximity to Mateo such that the observation of heads turning is
> possible.
>
> "What does she want to prove in Idol? That she's beauty, brains and
> talent all in one package."
>
> The present tense here throws. Yes, the sentence was added the day
> before her elimination, but even still, the tone of the sentence
> sounds like it's intended for an ephemeral context. The "beauty,
> brains and talent all in one package" line is also clearly a
> promotional slogan.
>
> These are more than enough to label it "probable" copyvio, and
> frankly, even if the paragraph weren't a POV puff piece, I'd remove
> the paragraph on probable cause even if I couldn't Google the phrases.
>
> -Phil

On wikipedia other reasons would be:

Lack of wikification.

Flows. Even our best writers tend to produce well polished sentances
of strung together factoids. Most of our writers are not that good.
Wikipedia style tend to priorities presenting information over haveing
a flowing narative. This tends not to be the case with stuff from
elsewhere

Waffle. Wikipedians tend to pad out word counts with trivia rather than Waffle.

Pics that are just too good. While there are a few very good pics
taken by wikipedians for the most part high quality pics of recent
events means problems. And if the editor has uploaded a questionable
pic it worth cheacking the article.

Ultimately though it comes to to experence to a extent.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Block

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> I did not say that.  The point is, it is NOT verifiable.  It is
>>> likely a
>>> copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from
>>> reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
>>>
>> 1) Are third party sources required here? The classic definition of
>> NOR said that primary sources could be used so long as they were not
>> used for "novel" claims. Surely the basics of this article are thus
>> verifiable via the primary source of the show: her status as a
>> contestant, when she lost, and a good chunk of her bio were all no
>> doubt covered.
>
> Perhaps, although caution is warranted here.  The bios of people on such
> shows are PR puffery at its worst.  Only the most basic facts can be
> considered true, I think.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe is a good article about the
> phenomena with respect to wrestling, where the intermingling of reality
> and storyline is well known.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_McGee is a friend of mine, and her
> story should set off alarm bells for anyone writing about "reality
> television".  The mixing of fact and fiction is substantial in these
> shows, and generally speaking, the websites of such shows should be
> regarded in much the same way as websites of fictional shows.  The
> people appearing on the shows are characters in a storyline.
>

Jimmy, I might be misreading you here, so I've kept all the above for
context rather than snipping and missing a facet.  Apologies.

Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes against the grain of
the verifiability policy.  We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the
puff, are we?  We simply present information as it is presented in the
source.  For example, in the instance of Irene McGee, my understanding
is that you can't edit it to remove inaccuracies which have been
sourced.   You have to balance it with sources which show the other
side.  I appreciate there's a grey area with balancing, you don't cite
one source which lists a DOB as 1926 if 100 lists it as 1976.

So I'm not sure how we go about with articles such as these.  Like you,
I guess I'd lean towards listing for deletion.  It pains me that too
many times people paint the afd process as a bad thing.  I think it can
be an important process that should generate a good discussion about an
article and whether it should exist.  Perhaps we need to refocus debates
and base them on the merits of the article, rather than the strict
application of a formula.  It annoys me to see people argue over the
meaning of [[WP:WEB]] #3 footnote b, even though I wrote it, because in
helping to draft the page I was always pushing the idea that the page
itself wasn't a tool for deletion but a guide for inclusion.

People should not be looking at notability guidance and deleting on the
basis, they should be for new editors who are considering creating an
article.  And a deletion debate shouldn't focus on the specific clause
of a notability guidance, it should centre on the merits of the article.
  People shouldn't be stating that it fails such and such a clause, they
should be saying, look, I'm not happy that the sources this article
cites are strong enough to build an article to the required standard...
blah blah blah.  I mean, me and Phil lock horns now and again but at
least Phil debates the point and fights the corner, and I hope he would
concede the same of me.  What we need is the ability to write guidance
which tells people that discussion is the best solution, and to keep
discussing until an agreeable solution is found.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 09/11/06


list: commons-l

from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

body:
"bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Friday, November 10, 2006 7:49 AM:

> [...] They get a
> deletion notice on their commons talk page - which is quite useless,
> as they're not coming back there for at least a year,  if they ever
> come back. However if a message was left at their home wiki, the image
> would be saved.  However its totally unrealistic for CM's to track
> them down against everything listed at [[special:sitematrix]]. perhaps
> a bot is needed or something like that, but I think it would go a long
> way to having more contributors trust commons.

We at de.wp started emailing "our nld-uploaders" with A FEW basic links and
the opportunity to solve the problem via e-mail. Any useful emails are
forwared to the OTRS after improving the image description.

The result: Some people change the descriptions of the pictures by
themselves and some do it via email. The best reply ratio is found when we
mention that the image was requested for deletion.

Maybe this can be optimized by using a bot (as long as the emails are not
caught in every spam blocker).

Of course this can only work, if they either specify there home-wiki or
their email adress. Maybe we can force them someone to do at least one of
these things when they register ...

Best regards,

Flo


body:
Hello,

While thinking about categories/galleries again lately (it really
never goes away), I came up with some broad definitions of the types
of users that the Commons serves, how they have different needs and
responsibilities, and how we can maybe use this kind of thinking to
identify  priorities for future directions.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pfctdayelise/Principles
If anyone feels up for some high-level thinking, I welcome comments,
additions or criticism here or on the talk page. In particular, are
there other types of users that are useful to define, who are they and
why? Is any of my reasoning illogical? Are there other conclusions
I've missed?

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mailman runner restarted

body:
Mailing lists weren't delivering mail for a few hours today, as the
Mailman runner daemon didn't start up due to a stale lock file after
goeje was rebooted.

Direct human aliases and OTRS would not have been affected.

Backed-up mail is going through now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Is there a Foundation preferred license?

body:
On 11/8/06, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Does the Foundation have any preference for a particular open
> content license, eg GFDL ?

<snip>

I have to say, and perhaps echoing Nicholas' comment, that I
continually feel bewildered by what particular licences mean, and how
to choose between them. On this very question (ie Luke's), we will
possibly continue to debate for a while longer as to what is more
appropriate for specific projects and purposes. The debate has just
been reopened on the English Wikiversity's Colloquium, for example.

One thing that surprises me is that we have no definitive information
(as far as I can see), available *on-wiki*, that details what licences
are good for specific purposes (ie types of content, project
orientation). Meta is quite bare on this front, it saddens me to say.
We have some decent information on the projects, eg en:WP:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft> and en:WB:
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Source> (and there may very well be
better material on other language projects) - but there is quite
little on actually answering the questions that many of us are likely
to have (eg "What does the GFDL really mean?; "How do I know what
licence to use?"; and "What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of changing the licence for our project?").

This prompts me to propose that we make that space, that we provide
this info, and support this debate (without having to trawl through
the archives of this list again, or continually bring up the same
subject). The recent discussion on Wikiversity prompted me to set up a
page on Wikiversity where we could collate some good, thorough info
and also to provide for  actual learning about the subject:
<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free_content>. It would be lovely if
this was to develop into a space for the Wikimedia community - a
learning community around free content and licencing. There is hardly
anything there for the moment - pure potential - but it is ripe for
use. And please note that I am not asking that this discussion and all
other information move wholesale to that page - but rather that we
strengthen and deepen this information and discussion with content
across all projects, for all curious contributors, present and future.

Thanks,

Cormac


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> So you're pushing bad grammar.
>
> Ec

While I will accept it is not ideal grammar in US English I'm yet to
see a legit argument that it is a problem in British English.

--
geni


body:
Steve Block wrote

> Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes against the grain of
> the verifiability policy.  We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the
> puff, are we?  We simply present information as it is presented in the
> source.

Nothing (except NPOV, I guess) ranks higher than some sort of good taste about what to include. We're always selective in quoting.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
> Reminds me of the classic quote - "In the future, everyone will have an
> WP article for 15 minutes, then it goes to AfD."
>
> Stan

I'm currently querying the speedying under A7 of [[Matt Long]], star of a US TV show in 2004/5, and in a couple of 2006 and 2007 films. Notice the sag in the CV? Let your public prominence drop for even nine months, and it seems WP will give you the bum's rush.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> You don't know how relieved I am to hear that.  Some of the scariest
> words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
> contestants are inherently notable".

It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


references:
<20061109150251.TYXS644.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>	<45535D2B.8000507@wikia.com>
	<s6t9l21ign9uukduaodse9q7ptinfqjnpe@4ax.com>
	<4554F97E.1050601@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<meu9l2pcmoegvujqjrk1odddruepjd29jd@4ax.com>

body:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>>> You don't know how relieved I am to hear that.  Some of the scariest
>>> words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
>>> contestants are inherently notable".
>
>> It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
>
> In my view you are.  The contestant is not notable, their performance
> in the reality show may have been.

May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with
ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"

To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.

1) Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
information of general interest on a topic.
2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody
is willing and capable of fixing.
3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that
furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.

We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got
deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a
topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete
it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to
get into a fight on these things, protect blank.

No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >


from_name: James Hare

references:
<20061109150251.TYXS644.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
	<45535D2B.8000507@wikia.com>
	<s6t9l21ign9uukduaodse9q7ptinfqjnpe@4ax.com>
	<4554F97E.1050601@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<meu9l2pcmoegvujqjrk1odddruepjd29jd@4ax.com>
	<05AE7FDA-0EA0-4DE4-9E4E-31D3DAD347BF@gmail.com>

body:
That's a good idea, Phil -- it allows us to be a supercomprehensive
encyclowhatnot while it permits us to get rid of crap.

On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> > <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You don't know how relieved I am to hear that.  Some of the scariest
> >>> words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
> >>> contestants are inherently notable".
> >
> >> It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
> >
> > In my view you are.  The contestant is not notable, their performance
> > in the reality show may have been.
>
> May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with
> ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
>
> To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
>
> 1) Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
> information of general interest on a topic.
> 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
> no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody
> is willing and capable of fixing.
> 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
> no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that
> furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
>
> We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got
> deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a
> topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete
> it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to
> get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
>
> No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
>
> Best,
> Phil Sandifer
> sandifer at english.ufl.edu
>
> You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
> boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Liz Kim

subject: [Wikitech-l] safari problem

body:
It's <fusion.gat.com/~kimny>
However, It is not the content that is not showing up correctly.
It is the URL.
When I do [http:/~kimny LINKNAME]
Safari is the only browser which fails to take me to the correct site.
It takes me to: http://~kimny
Thanks for you help!!

On 11/10/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Liz Kim" wrote:
> >I am having problems with Safari.
> >
> > In my localsettings, $wgUrlProtocols has been set to
> > 'http:|http:\/\/|https:\/\/|ftp:\/\/|irc:\/\/|gopher:\/\/|mailto:'.
> > In order to get relative external links to work. (for example:
> > [http:../../mypage/ MyHTML Page])
> >
> > I just discovered that this does not work on safari...
> > It works just fine on firefox, camino, ie, netscape...
>
> Please post what html is being rendered for that wikicode (see page
> source).
> If it's valid xhtml, then it's a safari bug. If it's invalid, then we
> should
> solve it
> / see if it was solved (and thus give you the solution)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject: [Wikitech-l] Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
> logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
> of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
>
> There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
> announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
> admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
>
> If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
> days.

Time to change now? Or are there any reasons against I havn't read?

Raymond.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061110/791208ab/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Proposed decision]] also cites WP:COI (may have been on my mind more).
>
This is a backwards approach.  Citing an ephemeral policy in the course
of an arbitration does not ipso facto create validity for the policy.

Ec


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> Steve Block wrote
>
>> Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes against the grain of
>> the verifiability policy.  We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the
>> puff, are we?  We simply present information as it is presented in the
>> source.
>
> Nothing (except NPOV, I guess) ranks higher than some sort of good taste about what to include. We're always selective in quoting.

That's not the point I was making, sorry but you've taken me out of
context.  I was attempting to point out that we can't edit articles
because the information may not be true.  We edit the articles because
the sources don't reflect it.  If source a actually alleges b did c, we
cite it even if it isn't true, unless some other reason prevents it.  My
understanding was that we didn't remove it based on the fact we didn't
believe it to be true.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 09/11/06


body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:

>On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>This is an overreaction.  While there may be some basis for suspecting
>>that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the
>>article is a bit of a stretch.  There is not much information in the
>>article to start with.  It is a stub, but that is more an argument for
>>the proposed merge than outright deletion.  How can you say that
>>something is "likely a copyvio"?  Either it's prima facie a copyvio or
>>it's not.
>>
>>
>First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version
>that had the copyvio problems.
>
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the
current version.  It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.  If
anyone but Jimbo had written this way it would have been treated as
trolling.  He even said, "(I would delete it now, but I want people to
take a quick look at it first)", but the picture was already gone.  It
was reloaded but not linked from the new article.  The leader of
Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
raise when they are completely factual.  So when he irresponsibly uses
data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
current the results are bound to be chaotic.

Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact
remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.

Ec


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Sexual harassment in Wikipedia

body:
Thank you for letting us share the issue, THD.
I am sorry to hear a Wikipedian was so badly suffered; nice to hear
you acted promptly and properly.

On 11/9/06, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Everyone,
>
> Yesterday, one guy registered an offensive username, "Rape XXX" (XXX is a
> female wikipedian's name in real life, but I want to kept the victim
> anonymous here) in Chinese Wikipedia, and this guy left a message on the
> female's user talk page: "You are in my sexual fantasy. Are you a virgin?" I
> was furious about this guy's action and sexual harassment speech. I have
> blocked this id forever, and I also suggested the female user to report to
> police office.

Right suggestion imo. In addition it would be helpful to suggest her
to share this incident with whom she knows well and trusts in her real
life. If ideally, before she goes to the official.

> I want to know is there any policy on this issue?

We have no global policy against improper user name nor harassment
including sexual if I recall correctly. On many projects, including
English and Japanese Wikipedia, there is however zero tolerance toward
such behaviors. And sysops are considered to block offensive user name
account without any precedent discussion, usually based on a written
policy.

> In this
> kind of situation, will the Foundation cooperate with different countries'
> police authority, and reveal the user log record to the authority?

> Thanks.
>
> THD
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
lars wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>
>>This a good point, and one the board should think long and hard about.
>>I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that "money" received the
>>largest value under "opportunities" during the SWOT exercise.
>
>
> Please don't over-interpret the report from that SWOT exercise.
> Money was not given "the largest value", it was the term mentioned
> by most of the participants.  That only means it is the least
> original idea, one that everybody can think of.  Really original
> ideas, such as "Wikipedia can change the way humans breath oxygen"
> would only be mentioned by very few participants, and could be
> completely wrong, or could be completely revolutionary.  The most
> interesting and important aspects are probably somewhere at the
> middle of this scale, between radical and trivial.
>
>
>>That said, I think there is a lot that could be done by the
>>foundation, if only the foundation had more money.
>
>
> No, I don't agree.  This is the trap I'm warning against.  You are
> about to fall into it.  Rather than paying more programmers, we
> should think of ways that more programmers can be stimulated to
> contribute for free.

By the way, we should also think of ways that more editors can be
stimulated to help on OTRS for free.

We have a need for people to help on press inquiries as well.

We apparently also lack help for writing press releases.

Volunteers welcome. And ideas to stimulate them as well ;)

Ant

  Today that can be quite difficult, because
> only very few have access to the centralized running server.  Two
> important methods are already in place: Anybody can download a
> database dump and analyze it on their own computers and develop
> new services such as those running on the German Toolserver.  And
> since Mediawiki is free software, many develop their own plugins
> for special functions.  These are examples of distributed software
> development that don't require money to run through the WMF.
> Instead of collecting more money, we should think about how we can
> achieve even more without involving money.
>
> Also the Knams proxy in Amsterdam is paid for by an external
> organization (Kennisnet), and that saves the WMF a lot of money.
> Why not ask for similar proxies inside the USA, rather than
> collecting more money to buy more servers.
>
>
>>But...then Wikimedia doesn't get to spend that money...
>
>
> There is a lot of money in the world that the WMF doesn't spend.
> I just had breakfast for money that I spent, without passing
> through the WMF.
>
>
>>Why should Wikimedia be concerned over whether or not someone is
>>silent?  I don't have a problem acknowledging *every* contribution.
>>If every donor wants acknowledgement, then we should give it to them.
>
>
> Of course.  What I'm against is that special treatment should be
> given to people who want to make things more complicated.
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


from_name: Jesse Martin

subject: [Foundation-l] Multiwiki administration IRC channel

body:
Hello,

I've registered #wikimedia-admin for Wikimedia administrators to
discuss and coordinate administration. There are currently
administrators active in the channel from all Wikimedia projects
except Wikispecies. The channel allows administrators to discuss and
coordinate interwiki countervandalism, discuss proposals and changes
affecting administration on all projects, notify administrators of
unnoticed vandalism on a particular project, and otherwise just chat
with the wider administrative community.

Access is by invitation; users granted access are automatically
allowed in without any need for further invitations (the channel has
the +L mode, thanks to a Freenode staffer). Any channel user can
temporarily invite other users, but only Shanel, Slowking Man, and
myself (at the moment) can give permanent access. If you're an
administrator on any Wikimedia project and would like access, ask in
#wikimedia or #wikipedia-en-admins, or contact [[m:User:Pathoschild]]
or [[w:User:Shanel]].

Yours cordially,
Jesse Martin
([[m:User:Pathoschild]])


references:
<20061109150251.TYXS644.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
	<45535D2B.8000507@wikia.com>
	<s6t9l21ign9uukduaodse9q7ptinfqjnpe@4ax.com>
	<4554F97E.1050601@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<meu9l2pcmoegvujqjrk1odddruepjd29jd@4ax.com>
	<05AE7FDA-0EA0-4DE4-9E4E-31D3DAD347BF@gmail.com>
	<sr6al25tegbden2q7pcg36gsvqvufpa60d@4ax.com>

body:
Perhaps we can make a page where we document the idea of
if-good-keep-if-can-be-good-fix-otherwise-delete.

On 11/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:23:05 -0500, Phil Sandifer
> <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> In my view you are.  The contestant is not notable, their performance
> >> in the reality show may have been.
>
> >May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with
> >ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
> >
> >To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
> >
> >1) Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
> >information of general interest on a topic.
> >2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
> >no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody
> >is willing and capable of fixing.
> >3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
> >no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that
> >furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
> >
> >We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got
> >deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a
> >topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete
> >it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to
> >get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
> >
> >No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
>
> I completely agree.  I tried to change [[WP:N]] and its sub guidelines
> to include the fundamental basis for gauging inclusion - can we verify
> that the content is factually correct and neutrally stated from
> credible sources - but was shouted down.
>
> For me, notable is a shorthand for something that has enough critical
> attention to allow coverage within policy.  As a sideline, individuals
> whose public exposure is limited to a single event should normally, in
> my view, be covered under that event, because otherwise we have "John
> Doe ran for mayor of New York in 2006 on an independent ticket and
> polled 200 votes on a platform of higher taxes for all.  He was last
> heard of selling insurance in New Jersey", which is no kind of a
> biography.  A cobweb, in oldspeak.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea

body:
On 11/10/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> By the way, we should also think of ways that more editors can be
> stimulated to help on OTRS for free.
>
> We have a need for people to help on press inquiries as well.
>
> We apparently also lack help for writing press releases.
>
> Volunteers welcome. And ideas to stimulate them as well ;)
>
>
> Ant
>

Try makeing the requirements clear so that the people with the skills
you want can find out.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising idea


body:
On 10/11/06, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's some of my thoughts, as someone who you would call a  contributor:
>
> Contributors who make a mistake: Often time someone comes from some
> random wiki (most likely wikipedia en) and uploads an image. They make
> a mistake - no source, no license, unclear licensing terms etc. The
> image is perfectly usable by commons, but no one knows it. They get a
> deletion notice on their commons talk page - which is quite useless,
> as they're not coming back there for at least a year,  if they ever
> come back. However if a message was left at their home wiki, the image
> would be saved.  However its totally unrealistic for CM's to track
> them down against everything listed at [[special:sitematrix]]. perhaps
> a bot is needed or something like that, but I think it would go a long
> way to having more contributors trust commons.

Waiting... for.. SingleUserLogin...
:/

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login_specifications says "a
final push to implement this is underway"... in mid-July.
Well. I personally feel that getting information out of developers is
like wringing water from a stone, and I have no feeling that any of
the problems of Commons are anything like a priority, ever, for the
developers. Look at the single most useful tool on Commons -
CheckUsage. Is it part of MediaWiki? No. Or the extremely useful, but
not so important, Gallery tool. Is it part of MediaWiki? No. Or how
about CommonsTicker? Also no.

There is talk recently about "rewriting the whole backend for images",
which might allow image renaming/moving... or it might be something
like SUL, and I look forward to hearing about it in 2009.
The category limitations are probably the most restrictive, for simple
day to day requirements. (Most images don't need to be renamed.) Our
mulitlingual support is ultimately pretty poor, when we have to
require categories to be in English because category redirects don't
work, or there is no way to alias a category. Let alone
plural/singular, capitalisation, common name/Latin name for species is
still a big problem.

> Default search: yes, something, anything/random monkeys picking
> results. Improvement is vastly needed in this area. Any thoughts on a
> keyword based system based on semantic mediawiki? (assuming I read the
> page on semantic mediawiki right). That way, I think you could do much
> better searching - I think you could do combo searches with it - all
> yellow things + alll bird things = all yellow birds.

There are two problems.
One is the technical thing of how we index descriptive information about files.
The second is how we encourage/enforce people to actually DO this.
Contributors (and I say this in my capital C meaning) are typically
focused on their page at hand in another wiki. So to them it is
immediately obvious what the purpose of this file is, and how it is
useful. They're not at all concerned about making sure other people
will be able to use it, first and foremost by being able to *find* it.
People often make comments, when they see their Gallery for the first
time, like "Oh, that's wrong, I /know/ that file's not an orphan."
They know because they inserted it in a Wikipedia article elsewhere.
It is still an orphan on Commons, which is precisely the problem for
anyone else who the file might be relevant to.

cheers,
Brianna


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation

body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 11/8/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Now, as a reminder, WP:COI says:
>>
>>* * * * *
>>If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
>>
>>   1. *avoid editing* articles related to your organization or its
>>   competitors;
>>   2. *avoid participating* in deletion
>>discussions<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_processes>about
>>articles related to your organization or its competitors;
>>
>>
>Am I the only one who thinks point #2 is ridiculously stupid?  I think
>it's a great thing to hear from an officer of an organization when
>considering whether or not to delete an article about the
>organization.
>
>Does this carry over to people too?  Should Angela not have
>participated in the discussion over whether or not to delete the
>article on her?  Or is there something in particular about
>organizations here, that I'm not thinking of?
>
Asking someone to "avoid" participating does not imply disallowing that
participation.  It only warns them that this sometimes leads to
conflicts.  If Angela participates in a discussion about deleting an
article about her why should anyone object.  Her wiki work has made her
notable, but the final decision on this is not hers.  I have no reason
to believe that her comments will be other than within the bounds of
acceptable editing.  What would be a conflict of interest would be for
her to exercise her influence with the highest levels of WMF as the
basis for either including or excluding an article about her.

I think that a significant segment of our editors are woefully ignorant
about corporations.  This is not surprising given either the academic or
proletarian experiences of so many editors.  If we were to survey our
editors to determine how many owned corporate stock of any sort I
suspect that the proportion would be very low.  Even a determined
leftist should have a basic understanding of corporations before he
starts commenting on them.  The Wall Street Journal has been published
since 1889, but I wonder whether those who comment about the notability
of a corporation have ever bothered to check whether anything has been
written there about it.  Basic information about any public
corporations, its address, its products and its directors is certainly
useful, but how much of that do we have?

Ec


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>
>
>>I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page
>>in case it was deleted or edited or something:
>>
>>----
>>'''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as
>>'''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first
>>season.
>>...
>>
>>
>{{nn-bio}}, in the English speaking world anyway. What speakers of
>Filipino think of her is entirely up to them, and should have nothing to
>do with what we think of her. Unless they can come up with something
>better than "Aww she so cute"...
>
That comment is pure anglo-chauvinism.  English is very common among
Philippinos, and some of the Philippine Idol contestents apparently do
sing in English.  To suggest that notability is a function of one's
nationality or language is ofensive.

Ec


from_name: Tim Starling

references:
<d20d84ea0611072035s391f6080l95c30bec89e30521@mail.gmail.com>	<eirtip$o1l$1@sea.gmane.org>	<d20d84ea0611080001u73f449calb12ded55a4b5e698@mail.gmail.com>	<eisuj0$brn$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<eitj7f$830$1@sea.gmane.org>	<eiu45d$nno$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d20d84ea0611090606y4bf92cc4y90751ed016107729@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> On 09/11/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> If there is no image, MW assumes there is no cache, which previously (before
>> the error page caching problem) was a fair assumption. So thumb.php does not
>> purge the cache when it is generating a new image. You have to generate the
>> new thumbnail with thumb.php, then run action=purge, which will clear the
>> caches for the thumbnail files which now exist, then generate the thumbnail
>> again by viewing the page.
>
> OK, so how exactly do we purge thumbnails other than the one for the
> image page? If we put the offending thumbs on the talk page, for
> example, and run action=purge on the talk page, does it have the
> desired effect?

action=purge on the image description page has the additional effect of
deleting all existing thumbnails for that image, and sending purge requests
to the squids for those thumbnails. It's a special case for image
description pages, action=purge for any other page purges only the HTML cache.

So to answer your question directly: purge the image description page, that
will purge all existing thumbnails of that image. Putting the thumbs on the
talk page and purging that will do nothing.

> Could we please have more information about any limits set by the
> software that might cause thumbnail generation to fail? From
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2888  there are comments
> about a "runtime memory limit", "12.5 Mpixel hard limit for PNG
> images", problems with "PNGs and progressive JPGs". Of course, I would
> prefer that thumbnails don't fail, but while they do, the next best is
> to have specific advice to give users to solve this problem. They tend
> to get rather agitated when they upload files and they don't appear to
> be there.

The limits are:
* 12.5 Mpixel for the source image, for raster images other than JPEGs (e.g.
PNGs)
* 100MB memory limit (ulimit -v)
* 100MB maximum created file size (ulimit -f)
* 180 seconds of CPU time (ulimit -t)

Anything that makes ImageMagick crash will, of course, not be rendered.

The file size limit was added recently because some requests were causing
ImageMagick to write out many gigabytes of temporary files, filling up the
local apache hard drives and causing a DoS.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opinions of commentators

body:
One of the common problems in articles related to current events
seems to slip between the cracks of the main policies like V, RS and
NPOV.  If I'm wrong and there are policy or guideline pages already,
please tell me where to look.

The problem is as follows.  Whenever a controversial event happens,
there are (literally) hundreds of journalists and commentators having
their say about it in hundreds of places.  What happens next is that
some editor, or group of like-minded editors, starts adding extracts
from these commentaries one after another until the article has pages
of quotations all saying more or less the same thing.  These extracts
may individually satisfy the requirements of V and RS, so they can't
be deleted on those grounds.  There is also a straightforward way to
fix the NPOV problem, namely to add a long list of similar extracts
from commentaries giving the other point of view.  But that just
makes the article look even more horrible.

So I think there should be a policy that can be used to keep
quoted commentaries within reasonable bounds.  It would say that
common threads of opinion should be succinctly summarised with
citation of some examples - say what the choir is singing but don't
try to quote each of the members of the choir.

Actually I don't have a precise idea in my head how such a policy
would be worded.  I only know that there is a problem that needs
addressing.

Zero.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Oxford Style Manual:  "Though common in speech it is still substandard
> usage, and should be avoided in formal writing: Necessity may in time
> establish 'they' as an accepted non-gender-specific singular pronoun in
> English, but this has yet to happen."

It is yet to happen in the US. There is no shortage of evidence of
it's use in British English and even more so in Australian english.

> Good writers will avoid imposing one form or the other, and look for
> alternatives.  Had you read further in paragraph 5.204 you would have
> seen, "What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender
> neutrality.  There are many ways to achieve such language, but it takes
> though and often some hard work"
>
> Ec

And while the grammer fantics continue to play their games those of us
who understand that langaue is a tool will continue to use the
singular they.
--
geni


body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>
>>>You don't know how relieved I am to hear that.  Some of the scariest
>>>words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
>>>contestants are inherently notable".
>>>
>>>
>>It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
>>
>>
>In my view you are.  The contestant is not notable, their performance
>in the reality show may have been.
>
There is a distinction to be made in the "Idol" shows where an inherent
notability could be ascribed to the "Top 12".  They certainly
distinguish themselves from the hordes who make fools of themselves in
the auditions.  Being able to reach the Top 12 requires a certain effort
in developing skills that is not there for contestants in most other
reality shows.

Ec


body:
On 11/10/06, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well if they have an email listed, It is (I assume) fairly easy to
> email them. However sometimes, If Commonsticker lists an image
> deleted, I go look and investigate it, Figure out who uploaded it.
> Then I look at their talk page. - it usually has only a deletion
> notice, and nothing else. I notice that the user page link is blue -
> look at that, it says basicly "I'm never going to be back here again -
> goto wikipedia to talk to me". If we were able to make a bot that saw
> that (yes I know this is more or less impossible), and put a notice on
> the wiki that pointed to, it would go a long way to getting users to
> listen/hear. ~~~~
>
> -user:Bawolff
>

could set up welcome notices which include asking people to provide a
link to thier home project in a certian format.

--
geni


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:54:03 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>This is someone who *lost* on Philippine Idol, the Philippines version
>of "Pop Idol" or "American Idol".  The entire bio has no references, the
>photo is almost certainly a copyvio (I would delete it now, but I want
>people to take a quick look at it first).  "Greenarcher" claims to have
>created it, but unless he is the official photographer for the show,
>this seems quite unlikely.

You don't know how relieved I am to hear that.  Some of the scariest
words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
contestants are inherently notable".

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


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>
> Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the
> fact
> remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.

No... the copyvio revisions were deleted from the edit history
yesterday. That was not an old version Jimbo was talking about, but
the current and now-deleted one.

-Phil


references:
<20061109150251.TYXS644.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>	<45535D2B.8000507@wikia.com>
	<s6t9l21ign9uukduaodse9q7ptinfqjnpe@4ax.com>
	<4554F97E.1050601@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>> You don't know how relieved I am to hear that.  Some of the scariest
>> words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality
>> contestants are inherently notable".

>It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.

In my view you are.  The contestant is not notable, their performance
in the reality show may have been.

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


from_name: bawolff

body:
Well if they have an email listed, It is (I assume) fairly easy to
email them. However sometimes, If Commonsticker lists an image
deleted, I go look and investigate it, Figure out who uploaded it.
Then I look at their talk page. - it usually has only a deletion
notice, and nothing else. I notice that the user page link is blue -
look at that, it says basicly "I'm never going to be back here again -
goto wikipedia to talk to me". If we were able to make a bot that saw
that (yes I know this is more or less impossible), and put a notice on
the wiki that pointed to, it would go a long way to getting users to
listen/hear. ~~~~

-user:Bawolff

On 11/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Florian Straub wrote:
> > "bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Friday, November 10, 2006 7:49 AM:
> >
> >> [...] They get a
> >> deletion notice on their commons talk page - which is quite useless,
> >> as they're not coming back there for at least a year,  if they ever
> >> come back. However if a message was left at their home wiki, the image
> >> would be saved.  However its totally unrealistic for CM's to track
> >> them down against everything listed at [[special:sitematrix]]. perhaps
> >> a bot is needed or something like that, but I think it would go a long
> >> way to having more contributors trust commons.
> >
> > We at de.wp started emailing "our nld-uploaders" with A FEW basic links and
> > the opportunity to solve the problem via e-mail. Any useful emails are
> > forwared to the OTRS after improving the image description.
> >
> > The result: Some people change the descriptions of the pictures by
> > themselves and some do it via email. The best reply ratio is found when we
> > mention that the image was requested for deletion.
> >
> > Maybe this can be optimized by using a bot (as long as the emails are not
> > caught in every spam blocker).
> >
> > Of course this can only work, if they either specify there home-wiki or
> > their email adress. Maybe we can force them someone to do at least one of
> > these things when they register ...
> >
>
> I think "require valid email before allowing uploads" is one of those
> proposals which everyone but the people with the power to make it happen
> thought was a good idea.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
>


body:
On 11/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/06, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well if they have an email listed, It is (I assume) fairly easy to
> > email them. However sometimes, If Commonsticker lists an image
> > deleted, I go look and investigate it, Figure out who uploaded it.
> > Then I look at their talk page. - it usually has only a deletion
> > notice, and nothing else. I notice that the user page link is blue -
> > look at that, it says basicly "I'm never going to be back here again -
> > goto wikipedia to talk to me". If we were able to make a bot that saw
> > that (yes I know this is more or less impossible), and put a notice on
> > the wiki that pointed to, it would go a long way to getting users to
> > listen/hear. ~~~~
> >
> > -user:Bawolff
> >
>
>
> could set up welcome notices which include asking people to provide a
> link to thier home project in a certian format.
>
> --
> geni
>

That could work, Just using a template e.g.
{{redirMesg|fr:Wikipedia:user talk:foo}}, or maybe getting them to do
a #Redirect[[fr:wikipedia:user talk:foo]] could work also, as
eventhough it wouldn't technically redirect (I assume) that would be
easy for a bot to pick out+many users already do that. Actually what
someone said previously about enabling talk messages emailing by
default would be a good solution as well imho (As its really just
flicking a switch) but that goes back to them having an email.

-bawolff


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/10/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> > could set up welcome notices which include asking people to provide a
> > link to thier home project in a certian format.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> Won't work. You find there's no user page, probably a new user on commons,
> and you don't even have babel templates. If they don't read their talk page,
> they won't also read that they are asked to provide their project.
> This restrictions (like providing an email) were talked to add as
> restrictions to create the account. Otherwise, they're quite useless.
>

How about adding somthing to [[MediaWiki:Signupend]] makeing the request then?

--
geni


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] safari problem

body:
"Liz Kim" wrote:
>I am having problems with Safari.
>
> In my localsettings, $wgUrlProtocols has been set to
> 'http:|http:\/\/|https:\/\/|ftp:\/\/|irc:\/\/|gopher:\/\/|mailto:'.
> In order to get relative external links to work. (for example:
> [http:../../mypage/ MyHTML Page])
>
> I just discovered that this does not work on safari...
> It works just fine on firefox, camino, ie, netscape...

Please post what html is being rendered for that wikicode (see page source).
If it's valid xhtml, then it's a safari bug. If it's invalid, then we should
solve it
/ see if it was solved (and thus give you the solution)


body:
> could set up welcome notices which include asking people to provide a
> link to thier home project in a certian format.
>
> --
> geni

Won't work. You find there's no user page, probably a new user on commons,
and you don't even have babel templates. If they don't read their talk page,
they won't also read that they are asked to provide their project.
This restrictions (like providing an email) were talked to add as
restrictions to create the account. Otherwise, they're quite useless.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-11-11

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

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 422 of 439 tests (96.13%) FAILED!


body:
"Anthony" wrote:
> Turning on email notification when you get a message on your talk page
> would be a good solution in the mean time.  In fact, for some people
> (like myself) who don't check their Wikipedia talk page that much
> either, it might even be a better solution.
>
> I believe this email notification has already been coded up.  What
> would be the problems with turning it on?  Can someone be specific
> here and answer exactly why it hasn't been turned on?  How many
> additional servers would be needed to support it?
>
> Anthony

I guess the problem of email notification could be a lot of emails being
sent.
But email notification wouldn't be necessary. When the Single User Login
gets implemented, it'd be easy to have a second "You have new messages"
text.
Someone edits your user talk: The newmessages bit is sent on that wiki and
a newmessages counter is incremented on the central user table.
When you're at a wiki you can get two messages: "You have new messages
on this wiki" or "You have new messages on another wiki" (counter != 0)
The second wouldn't show if the first is shown and the count is 1 (most
messages will be received and sent on its main wiki). When he sees his local
talk page, if the local newmessages flag was set, the global counter is
decremented (better make sure it never gets negative numbers...).

The link of "new messages anywhere else" would send you to a page similar
to the CheckUsage, where the full wikis are checked for your user to see if
you have a new message there (there can be multiple matches). That would
be the only case where it's ?(n)


from_name: Matthias

body:
Platonides wrote:
> I guess the problem of email notification could be a lot of emails being
> sent.
>
There are actually not that many messages to be sent: Yesterday there
were 246 changes on user talk pages. Some of them were edited several
times, some were edited by the users themselves. So it might be about
150 messages - a surprisingly low number, I think.
> But email notification wouldn't be necessary. When the Single User Login
> gets implemented, it'd be easy to have a second "You have new messages"
> text.
>
But compared to single user login (SUL), email notification is ready to
use (according to Enotif on meta). Who knows when SUL is going to be
implemented? Until then it is useful to reach users of other Wikipedias
that only come to commons only to upload an image every once in a while.

Cheers
Matthias

user:matt314

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061111/6cc57d32/attachment.htm


references:
<20061109150251.TYXS644.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>	<45535D2B.8000507@wikia.com>
	<s6t9l21ign9uukduaodse9q7ptinfqjnpe@4ax.com>
	<4554F97E.1050601@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<meu9l2pcmoegvujqjrk1odddruepjd29jd@4ax.com>
	<05AE7FDA-0EA0-4DE4-9E4E-31D3DAD347BF@gmail.com>

body:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:23:05 -0500, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>> In my view you are.  The contestant is not notable, their performance
>> in the reality show may have been.

>May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with
>ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
>
>To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
>
>1) Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
>information of general interest on a topic.
>2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
>no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody
>is willing and capable of fixing.
>3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or
>no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that
>furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
>
>We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got
>deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a
>topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete
>it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to
>get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
>
>No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.

I completely agree.  I tried to change [[WP:N]] and its sub guidelines
to include the fundamental basis for gauging inclusion - can we verify
that the content is factually correct and neutrally stated from
credible sources - but was shouted down.

For me, notable is a shorthand for something that has enough critical
attention to allow coverage within policy.  As a sideline, individuals
whose public exposure is limited to a single event should normally, in
my view, be covered under that event, because otherwise we have "John
Doe ran for mayor of New York in 2006 on an independent ticket and
polled 200 votes on a platform of higher taxes for all.  He was last
heard of selling insurance in New Jersey", which is no kind of a
biography.  A cobweb, in oldspeak.

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


body:
On 11/11/06, Jesse Martin <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've registered #wikimedia-admin for Wikimedia administrators to
> discuss and coordinate administration. There are currently
> administrators active in the channel from all Wikimedia projects
> except Wikispecies. The channel allows administrators to discuss and
> coordinate interwiki countervandalism, discuss proposals and changes
> affecting administration on all projects, notify administrators of
> unnoticed vandalism on a particular project, and otherwise just chat
> with the wider administrative community.
>

I've already got that it's called #wikipedia or #wikimedia.

--
geni


from_name: Robth

subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation

body:
On 11/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Oxford Style Manual:  "Though common in speech it is still substandard
> > usage, and should be avoided in formal writing: Necessity may in time
> > establish 'they' as an accepted non-gender-specific singular pronoun in
> > English, but this has yet to happen."
>
> It is yet to happen in the US. There is no shortage of evidence of
> it's use in British English and even more so in Australian english.
>
> > Good writers will avoid imposing one form or the other, and look for
> > alternatives.  Had you read further in paragraph 5.204 you would have
> > seen, "What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender
> > neutrality.  There are many ways to achieve such language, but it takes
> > though and often some hard work"
> >
> > Ec
>
> And while the grammer fantics continue to play their games those of us
> who understand that langaue is a tool will continue to use the
> singular they.
> --
> geni

"Many words that are now unused will be rekindled,
Many fade now well-regarded, if Usage wills it so,
To whom the laws, rules, and control of language belong."
                                        --Horace, ars poetica, 70-72

My favorite lines to quote in these kinds of squabbles.

--
Robth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Anthony wrote:
> I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page
> in case it was deleted or edited or something:
>
> ----
> '''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as
> '''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first
> season.
>
> She is a lounge singer by profession doing part-time modeling and
> hosting as side jobs after her schooling in [[University of Asia and
> the Pacific]].
>
> Some of her musical influences include [[Ray Charles]], [[Diana
> Krall]], and [[Michael Bolton]] among others.
> ----
>
> Reading this and reading your analysis it seems to me that you are
> talking about a completely different article.
>

{{nn-bio}}, in the English speaking world anyway. What speakers of
Filipino think of her is entirely up to them, and should have nothing to
do with what we think of her. Unless they can come up with something
better than "Aww she so cute"...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061111/14e1344b/attachment.pgp


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Faxri T.Karimli

subject: [Wikipedia-l] hi

body:
in your language list dont exists gagauz language, i think it is trouble problem. in this language of Moldova speak about 200 000 population, mostly form Gagauzia Autonomous Region

---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is
> capable of exercising it.  We have a lot of people who can too easily
> jump to conclusions.

Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project
community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this
is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is
localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an
in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local
policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most
trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project
level.

Perhaps it should also be a requirement that users who have the
technical permission to use these tools disclose their identity to the
WMF, so we have someone to deal with in case of abuse.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 11/10/06, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> They get a
>> deletion notice on their commons talk page - which is quite useless,
>> as they're not coming back there for at least a year,  if they ever
>> come back. However if a message was left at their home wiki, the image
>> would be saved.  However its totally unrealistic for CM's to track
>> them down against everything listed at [[special:sitematrix]]. perhaps
>> a bot is needed or something like that, but I think it would go a long
>> way to having more contributors trust commons.
>>
> Turning on email notification when you get a message on your talk page
> would be a good solution in the mean time.  In fact, for some people
> (like myself) who don't check their Wikipedia talk page that much
> either, it might even be a better solution.
>
> I believe this email notification has already been coded up.  What
> would be the problems with turning it on?  Can someone be specific
> here and answer exactly why it hasn't been turned on?  How many
> additional servers would be needed to support it?
>
> It seems like a big enough problem that it's worth solving.
>

It's enabled on meta. Then again, meta doesn't get it's own server to
index searches...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061111/b9aaf211/attachment.pgp


body:
Florian Straub wrote:
> "bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Friday, November 10, 2006 7:49 AM:
>
>> [...] They get a
>> deletion notice on their commons talk page - which is quite useless,
>> as they're not coming back there for at least a year,  if they ever
>> come back. However if a message was left at their home wiki, the image
>> would be saved.  However its totally unrealistic for CM's to track
>> them down against everything listed at [[special:sitematrix]]. perhaps
>> a bot is needed or something like that, but I think it would go a long
>> way to having more contributors trust commons.
>
> We at de.wp started emailing "our nld-uploaders" with A FEW basic links and
> the opportunity to solve the problem via e-mail. Any useful emails are
> forwared to the OTRS after improving the image description.
>
> The result: Some people change the descriptions of the pictures by
> themselves and some do it via email. The best reply ratio is found when we
> mention that the image was requested for deletion.
>
> Maybe this can be optimized by using a bot (as long as the emails are not
> caught in every spam blocker).
>
> Of course this can only work, if they either specify there home-wiki or
> their email adress. Maybe we can force them someone to do at least one of
> these things when they register ...
>

I think "require valid email before allowing uploads" is one of those
proposals which everyone but the people with the power to make it happen
thought was a good idea.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061111/e63a976c/attachment.pgp


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> The limits are:
>> * 12.5 Mpixel for the source image, for raster images other than JPEGs (e.g.
>> PNGs)
>> * 100MB memory limit (ulimit -v)
>> * 100MB maximum created file size (ulimit -f)
>> * 180 seconds of CPU time (ulimit -t)
>
> It should be noted that in normal case jpegs are scaled incrementally
> and use very little memory. This only happens if you are very careful
> with the convert commandline, so "at home" testing may not be
> indicative of Mediawiki results.

As long as they are non-progressive. Progressive JPEGs can use huge amounts
of memory, because in that case, libjpeg builds a full coefficient table
before it starts scaling. IIRC, this was the case that inspired the file
size limit.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 11/10/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony" wrote:
> > Turning on email notification when you get a message on your talk page
> > would be a good solution in the mean time.  In fact, for some people
> > (like myself) who don't check their Wikipedia talk page that much
> > either, it might even be a better solution.
> >
> > I believe this email notification has already been coded up.  What
> > would be the problems with turning it on?  Can someone be specific
> > here and answer exactly why it hasn't been turned on?  How many
> > additional servers would be needed to support it?
> >
> > Anthony
>
> I guess the problem of email notification could be a lot of emails being
> sent.
> But email notification wouldn't be necessary. When the Single User Login
> gets implemented, it'd be easy to have a second "You have new messages"
> text.

Email notification is done *today*.  Someone just has to flip the
switch.  Single user login has been talked about literally for years,
and still isn't done.

If the only problem with flipping the switch is that "a lot of emails
[will be] sent", then someone should probably do it.  That's why I was
hoping someone could be specific.  How many additional servers would
it take to support it?  Or are there problems that throwing servers at
a solution will not fix?

> Someone edits your user talk: The newmessages bit is sent on that wiki and
> a newmessages counter is incremented on the central user table.
> When you're at a wiki you can get two messages: "You have new messages
> on this wiki" or "You have new messages on another wiki" (counter != 0)
> The second wouldn't show if the first is shown and the count is 1 (most
> messages will be received and sent on its main wiki). When he sees his local
> talk page, if the local newmessages flag was set, the global counter is
> decremented (better make sure it never gets negative numbers...).
>
> The link of "new messages anywhere else" would send you to a page similar
> to the CheckUsage, where the full wikis are checked for your user to see if
> you have a new message there (there can be multiple matches). That would
> be the only case where it's ?(n)
>
Yes, this doesn't even require single login to implement.  All it
needs is some way to link up the accounts.

But it isn't here, whereas email notification is.

Anthony


body:
Brion, Tim,

We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification
of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons.  Can one of
you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other
reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?

---

On 11/11/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, I made a bug request that Commons get email notification (
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7870 ). I also notice
> there is an open request to enable it on basically all the wikis (
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5505  - well, if they do
> it for the "major wikis", I don't understand why they wouldn't do it
> for all).
>
"Brion made statistics last year, and even in en-wiki, there were only
1.500 user-talk-page changes per day, about 80% of it were foreign
changes, which would trigger exactly one e-mail. Thus about 1.200
e-mails per day for en-wiki" (from the earlier bug request)

That was in April, and I don't see any reply as to why it hasn't been
turned on.  I'm gonna BCC Brion and Tim Starling.  Hopefully one of
them can respond.

Anthony


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Arbitrators exempt from WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING?

body:
Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a
dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know
the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try
to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise
you are  being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or
whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to
stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such
language isn't considered rude.

As far as being incompetent... I don't know what to say. I'm not
familiar with the particular case, and I don't wish to get involved
really, but from the way you described it, it certainly seems contrary
to policy. Whether or not you are incompetent is entirely irrelevant.
Users should engage in civil structured debate with one another and
provide sources to back up each point as neessary.

Ideally, the second person should be entirely absent from such
discussions. There is no need to refer to the other person(s) with
whom you are debating, since you are debating the topic and arguing
each point on its own merits, NOT arguing against the person by their
particular attributes.

Having said that, I would like to reiterate that I am not familiar
with this case.

I would also like to say that people in positions of authority within
the structure of Wikimedia are allowed to get away with a lot of crap.
Usually, though, they earn it by doing lots of good stuff so that
people are willing to give them a bit of leeway.

In a RFA vote, it was once said by a bureaucrat that my reason for
opposing was invalid and that my vote could be discounted. That in and
of itself is not concerning, but said person also basically called me
an idiot. He did apologise eventually, but he (and many others in
positions of power) still have the same hostile and disrespectful
approach.

However, Wikipedia in general does tend to attract the more socially
inept of society, for reasons that probably don't need to be stated
explicitly. Take a look at the Wikipedia facebook, do these look like
people who would have been the "popular kids" in high school?
No, looking at it I get the image that we are all a bunch of societal
rejects. Wikipedia has more men than women, (I believe) more liberals
than conservatives... and we tend to attract people who are very
passionate about their areas of interest, and if you have ever been in
a nerd argument, you know how seemingly ridiculous topics (viz Gdansk
vs Danzig) can make for very heated arguments which can break down
into shouting matches. The same thing sometimes happens in academia.
Adults can get even nastier when they're arguing about their "serious"
topics than teenagers can when they're arguing about their hobbies.

Mark

On 11/11/06, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> Must Arbitrators abide by WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING, or are they exempt
> during an arbitration case?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil
>
> 1. I am embroiled in an arbitration case in which one of the editors
> has been cited of being uncivil against me (with evidence provided),
> using Ad hominems such being "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance",
> advised me not to "be a dick", etc.
>
> An Arbitrator has disagreed (no problem), but has then commented that
> it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade", which may Oxford
> English Dictionary defines as:
>
>         "to call things by their real names, without any euphemism or
> mincing of matters; to use plain or blunt language; to be
> straightforward to the verge of rudeness."
>
> To me this reads as if the Arbitrator is justifying the language,
> because it is considered accurate.
>
>
> 2. The same editor is citing as using "strong negative language"
> against living people (cf. WP:LIVING), and the same Arbitrator has
> made the same comment.
>
> 3. The same Arbitrator has also noted that "I do not believe Ian
> Tresman's deserve good faith"
>
>
> It does seem to me that if editors can not use such language at any
> time, then Arbitrators should be setting an example, otherwise
> editors will loose faith in the Arbitration process.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


body:
Thanks for the explanation.

Now, on a more productive note, I say we start CC Idol, an online
search for the best English language singer who releases all of
his/her works under a free content license.  Sure, an article about it
will be deleted as non-notable freecontentcruft, but that shouldn't
stop us from doing it.

Yeah, yeah, it's probably never going to happen...  I'm certainly not
going to do the singing...

Anthony

On 11/11/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> > What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the
> > current version.  It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
>
> >From the deletion log:
>
> * 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Jeli
> Mateo" (1 revisions restored: undelete non copyvio material)
> * 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Jeli
> Mateo" (g12 much taken from or derived from
> http://starmometer.com/2006/09/20/jellica-jelli-marie-mateo-philippine-idol-top-12/)
>
> Those deleted revisions, leaving out the post-Jimbo ones, were:
>
> #  13:38, 1 November 2006 . . 202.81.173.73 (Talk | block)
> # 22:37, 17 October 2006 . . Lectricky (Talk | contribs | block) (stub update)
> # 12:23, 13 October 2006 . . 125.60.185.149 (Talk | block)
> # 08:31, 30 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.114 (Talk | block)
> # 15:36, 29 September 2006 . . The Green Archer (Talk | contribs | block)
> # 14:49, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
> # 14:32, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
> # 13:38, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
> # 13:34, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
>
> So, yes, plenty of material was added after the 17th and was posted at
> the time of the original message.
>
> >  So when he irresponsibly uses
> > data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
> > current the results are bound to be chaotic.
> >
> > Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact
> > remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
>
> ...no, the fact remains that it wasn't, it just looks like it was.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 11/11/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a
> dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know
> the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try
> to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise
> you are  being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or
> whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to
> stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such
> language isn't considered rude.
>
> As far as being incompetent... I don't know what to say. I'm not
> familiar with the particular case, and I don't wish to get involved
> really, but from the way you described it, it certainly seems contrary
> to policy. Whether or not you are incompetent is entirely irrelevant.
> Users should engage in civil structured debate with one another and
> provide sources to back up each point as neessary.
>
> Ideally, the second person should be entirely absent from such
> discussions. There is no need to refer to the other person(s) with
> whom you are debating, since you are debating the topic and arguing
> each point on its own merits, NOT arguing against the person by their
> particular attributes.
>
> Having said that, I would like to reiterate that I am not familiar
> with this case.
>
> I would also like to say that people in positions of authority within
> the structure of Wikimedia are allowed to get away with a lot of crap.
> Usually, though, they earn it by doing lots of good stuff so that
> people are willing to give them a bit of leeway.
>
> In a RFA vote, it was once said by a bureaucrat that my reason for
> opposing was invalid and that my vote could be discounted. That in and
> of itself is not concerning, but said person also basically called me
> an idiot. He did apologise eventually, but he (and many others in
> positions of power) still have the same hostile and disrespectful
> approach.
>
> However, Wikipedia in general does tend to attract the more socially
> inept of society, for reasons that probably don't need to be stated
> explicitly. Take a look at the Wikipedia facebook, do these look like
> people who would have been the "popular kids" in high school?
> No, looking at it I get the image that we are all a bunch of societal
> rejects. Wikipedia has more men than women, (I believe) more liberals
> than conservatives... and we tend to attract people who are very
> passionate about their areas of interest, and if you have ever been in
> a nerd argument, you know how seemingly ridiculous topics (viz Gdansk
> vs Danzig) can make for very heated arguments which can break down
> into shouting matches. The same thing sometimes happens in academia.
> Adults can get even nastier when they're arguing about their "serious"
> topics than teenagers can when they're arguing about their hobbies.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/11/06, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > Must Arbitrators abide by WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING, or are they exempt
> > during an arbitration case?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil
> >
> > 1. I am embroiled in an arbitration case in which one of the editors
> > has been cited of being uncivil against me (with evidence provided),
> > using Ad hominems such being "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance",
> > advised me not to "be a dick", etc.
> >
> > An Arbitrator has disagreed (no problem), but has then commented that
> > it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade", which may Oxford
> > English Dictionary defines as:
> >
> >         "to call things by their real names, without any euphemism or
> > mincing of matters; to use plain or blunt language; to be
> > straightforward to the verge of rudeness."
> >
> > To me this reads as if the Arbitrator is justifying the language,
> > because it is considered accurate.
> >
> >
> > 2. The same editor is citing as using "strong negative language"
> > against living people (cf. WP:LIVING), and the same Arbitrator has
> > made the same comment.
> >
> > 3. The same Arbitrator has also noted that "I do not believe Ian
> > Tresman's deserve good faith"
> >
> >
> > It does seem to me that if editors can not use such language at any
> > time, then Arbitrators should be setting an example, otherwise
> > editors will loose faith in the Arbitration process.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Tresman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>

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


body:
Reading over my last e-mail, I get the feeling that it was a bit more
anti-establishment than was intended.

Yes, some people in positions of authority are perhaps a bit too blunt
or confrontational. Nobody's perfect. But they also have lots of
responsibilities that they do take care of. It's not as if there are
"perfect" people standing by just waiting to replace them. You take
what you can get. Wikipedia is all-volunteer. As long as they aren't
complete asshats, people who can do a good job are trusted with power
here in spite of their shortcomings. Bad behaviour on the part of
authority figures is only reprimanded when it is bad enough that it
interferes with the progress of the project in general. You may not
like it if an arbiter essentially insulted you, but really, how
important is that in the scheme of things? By whinging, you are not
helping your case. Wikipedia does not appreciate whinging, no matter
how valid it is, because we get so much whinging that is, well,
invalid.

Mark

On 11/11/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a
> dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know
> the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try
> to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise
> you are  being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or
> whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to
> stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such
> language isn't considered rude.
>
> As far as being incompetent... I don't know what to say. I'm not
> familiar with the particular case, and I don't wish to get involved
> really, but from the way you described it, it certainly seems contrary
> to policy. Whether or not you are incompetent is entirely irrelevant.
> Users should engage in civil structured debate with one another and
> provide sources to back up each point as neessary.
>
> Ideally, the second person should be entirely absent from such
> discussions. There is no need to refer to the other person(s) with
> whom you are debating, since you are debating the topic and arguing
> each point on its own merits, NOT arguing against the person by their
> particular attributes.
>
> Having said that, I would like to reiterate that I am not familiar
> with this case.
>
> I would also like to say that people in positions of authority within
> the structure of Wikimedia are allowed to get away with a lot of crap.
> Usually, though, they earn it by doing lots of good stuff so that
> people are willing to give them a bit of leeway.
>
> In a RFA vote, it was once said by a bureaucrat that my reason for
> opposing was invalid and that my vote could be discounted. That in and
> of itself is not concerning, but said person also basically called me
> an idiot. He did apologise eventually, but he (and many others in
> positions of power) still have the same hostile and disrespectful
> approach.
>
> However, Wikipedia in general does tend to attract the more socially
> inept of society, for reasons that probably don't need to be stated
> explicitly. Take a look at the Wikipedia facebook, do these look like
> people who would have been the "popular kids" in high school?
> No, looking at it I get the image that we are all a bunch of societal
> rejects. Wikipedia has more men than women, (I believe) more liberals
> than conservatives... and we tend to attract people who are very
> passionate about their areas of interest, and if you have ever been in
> a nerd argument, you know how seemingly ridiculous topics (viz Gdansk
> vs Danzig) can make for very heated arguments which can break down
> into shouting matches. The same thing sometimes happens in academia.
> Adults can get even nastier when they're arguing about their "serious"
> topics than teenagers can when they're arguing about their hobbies.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/11/06, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > Must Arbitrators abide by WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING, or are they exempt
> > during an arbitration case?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil
> >
> > 1. I am embroiled in an arbitration case in which one of the editors
> > has been cited of being uncivil against me (with evidence provided),
> > using Ad hominems such being "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance",
> > advised me not to "be a dick", etc.
> >
> > An Arbitrator has disagreed (no problem), but has then commented that
> > it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade", which may Oxford
> > English Dictionary defines as:
> >
> >         "to call things by their real names, without any euphemism or
> > mincing of matters; to use plain or blunt language; to be
> > straightforward to the verge of rudeness."
> >
> > To me this reads as if the Arbitrator is justifying the language,
> > because it is considered accurate.
> >
> >
> > 2. The same editor is citing as using "strong negative language"
> > against living people (cf. WP:LIVING), and the same Arbitrator has
> > made the same comment.
> >
> > 3. The same Arbitrator has also noted that "I do not believe Ian
> > Tresman's deserve good faith"
> >
> >
> > It does seem to me that if editors can not use such language at any
> > time, then Arbitrators should be setting an example, otherwise
> > editors will loose faith in the Arbitration process.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Tresman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>

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


subject: [Commons-l]  Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

body:
Perhaps have some sort of optional field in the registration form,
that says: I come from this wiki project. and if they fill it out, a
bot will copy automatic deletion notices over there too. If they come
to commons:special:userlogin/create_account (or whatever the link is)
from another wiki well logged in, this part of the form can be passed
with get arguments e.g
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=user:enwiki

of course single user login is a better solution, but I see that
happening a long time form now (If it ever happens)
-bawolff

On 11/10/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> > could set up welcome notices which include asking people to provide a
> > link to thier home project in a certian format.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> Won't work. You find there's no user page, probably a new user on commons,
> and you don't even have babel templates. If they don't read their talk page,
> they won't also read that they are asked to provide their project.
> This restrictions (like providing an email) were talked to add as
> restrictions to create the account. Otherwise, they're quite useless.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>