from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:28:14 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>We can then have a section where the theorists have a
>relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying
>to tell them what they believe.  A further section would give the
>critics an equally free reign.  The article would not really reach
>conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.

Sorry, but this is a recipe for he-said-she-said and original
research.  Sometimes it works, more often you get articles like
Aetherometry where we are in the vanguard of debunking something that
nobody else takes seriously enough to give time to.

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trial of Harry Dexter White

body:
This is nice, but before I start reading a 80-pages-thesis, I would
greatly appreciate an explanation why I should do this (i.e. why you
posted this links on wikien-l and whether they are in any way related
to Wikipedia)
Michael

On 12/13/06, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6H382o49RFkJ:etd-db.uno.edu/theses/available/etd-12092004-104621/unrestricted/2004_ma_adams_tom.pdf+%22eduard+mark%<http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6H382o49RFkJ:etd-db.uno.edu/theses/available/etd-12092004-104621/unrestricted/2004_ma_adams_tom.pdf+%22eduard+mark%22%2B%22san+fransisco%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2>
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6H382o49RFkJ:etd-db.uno.edu/theses/available/etd-12092004-104621/unrestricted/2004_ma_adams_tom.pdf+%22eduard+mark%22%2B%22san+fransisco%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
> 22%2B%22san+fransisco%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2<http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6H382o49RFkJ:etd-db.uno.edu/theses/available/etd-12092004-104621/unrestricted/2004_ma_adams_tom.pdf+%22eduard+mark%22%2B%22san+fransisco%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the projects

body:
On 12/13/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Soufron is no longer the Chief Legal Officer.  He has no role at this time.
>
Okay. And what about the Legal department and the juriwiki-l? Are they
abandoned too?

> Legal is my responsibility (General Counsel) and will be receiving more
> attention in the future.  My other current job is, shall we say, demanding.
>
This is clear (and probably the cause why the positions "General
Counsel" and "Executive Director" are going to be assigned to two
different people somewhen in the future)
Michael
> -Brad
>
> Michael Bimmler wrote:
> > On 12/13/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 1. Legal counselling.
> >>
> >> Some projects (mainly Commons and Wikisource) need more input about
> >> copyright issues from knowledgeable persons. I have asked twice to
> >> juriwiki-l specific issues for Wikisource without receiving an answer,
> >> even an acknowledgement that my request was received. Another concrete
> >> example: Commons and Wikisource would benefit most from a cross table
> >> about copyright rules, which countries use "most favourable rule apply",
> >> etc.
> >>
> >>
> > I really wonder about the status of the following bodies or positions:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_department Is / was this ever
> > official? If yes, is it the appropriate point of contact?
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lead_Legal_Coordinator (Soufron) Is
> > this still an active position? If yes, how is it related to the
> > General Counsel? Who is the appropriate contact for project legal
> > issues? Jean-Baptiste Soufron or Brad?
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Juriwiki_mailing_list Is this
> > mailinglist active (i.e. are there discussions going on at the
> > moment)? Should it still be contacted?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 2. Helping small projects. It seems that some projects have a difficult
> >> start. Indian languages projects are my first examples. I will go to
> >> India in January, and I would like to use this opportunity to recruit
> >> new contributors. The Foundation could help coordinate this kind of
> >> recruitement.
> >>
> >>
> > Isn't this in the domain of Special Projects Committee resp. its
> > 'language' subcommitee?
> > >From http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_subcommittees/New_languages
> >
> > The Wikipedia Foundation Special projects language subcommittee is in
> > charge of (...) supporting and coordinating new projects to optimize
> > their success.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Yann
> >> --
> >> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> >> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> >> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> >> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Biblioth?que libre
> >> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
 friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Houston, TX, eh? Wasn't Enviroknot from Houston?
>

I'm make a joke about most of the GNAA being from Houston following
Hurricane Katrina, but...

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061213/bd42abd1/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] "One intermediate revision not shown."

body:
On 12/13/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you look at the subversion log? In any case, either Ilmari
> Karonen or Simetrical added it (as far as I can remember, I could be
> wrong).

Wasn't me, it was Ilmari.  Bug 5485, r18194.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>Attorneys are  barred from giving legal advice unless they represent you
>by the rules of
>professional conduct.  This one is kind of problematic.  They can,
>however, publish guidelines of sorts.
>
If they started giving out straight answers to the public nobody would
need to go to court.  It wouldn't do to be overrun by starving lawyers.

>>2. Helping small projects. It seems that some projects have a difficult
>>start. Indian languages projects are my first examples. I will go to
>>India in January, and I would like to use this opportunity to recruit
>>new contributors. The Foundation could help coordinate this kind of
>>recruitement.
>>
>>
>I have someone working on Sanskrit already, but not hindi.   Someone
>needs to get a good hindi project going.
>
Raven and the coyotes would be proud to see that real Indians are
working on the languages of India. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I honestly thought the words "selling out" were invoked in a
> deliberate attempt to be inflammatory, as that's the only reason I'd
> use them.  I guess I misunderstood, sorry.
>
In the sentence I used the phrase "sell out", I did put a smiley at
the end.  I dunno, reading it over again it wasn't meant to be
inflammatory, and that actual sentence was meant to be humorous more
than anything ("if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent
amount doing so").

Anyway, apology accepted, and since I could have phrased things more
nicely I apologize for that.

> I don't understand how we could be commited to free content yet
> opposed to certain groups from making free use of the free content or
> identifying and promoting its free source. I guess I don't understand
> your position at all.
>
I don't have a problem with Google using the free content in Google
Earth.  I'd like to say hey, if you use the free content then
everything you package with it has to be free as well, but the GFDL
almost surely doesn't say that, so it's irrelevant.

What I was specifically commenting on was the use of the Wikipedia
logo.  While you could argue that the logo should be free for anyone
to use to identify Wikipedia content, that's not the reality of the
situation.  So the logo is more than just an identifier, it's a stamp
of approval, and I don't think Google Earth deserves Wikipedia's stamp
of approval.  When there was a similar discussion regarding Answers
Corporation I think the best argument against the partnership was
based on the fact that the One-Click Answers software was proprietary
and therefore not worthy of the Wikipedia name.  At the time I still
supported giving Answers a trial period while it became more clear
whether or not anyone was interested in creating an open source
competitor, but in hindsight even that was probably a mistake as it
fails the "if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent amount
doing so" test.

Other than the logo, if all Google is doing is downloading the exact
same dumps that are available to everyone else, then I don't have any
problem with that part.  Google is most likely in violation of the
GFDL for various reasons, some of which were already mentioned (like
having no history section), but so is pretty much everyone else, so
that part I've avoided discussing (the next version of the GFDL will
fix many of these issues anyway, and if the GNU Wiki License ever gets
implemented it might solve all of them).

Finally, you say that Google is "identifying and promoting [the] free
source" of the content.  But to that I'd say Wikipedia isn't the
source of the content, the individual authors are, and Google isn't
identifying or promoting us at all.  To quote you: "The foundation
does not own the copyright to the content of Wikipedia, the editors
do, the foundation did not create this encyclopedia the editors did,
this project could continue without the foundation but not without the
editors."

> It seems I often can't figure you out and I feel bad about that.
> Perhaps we could meet in person sometime? Your choice of food or drink on me.
>
As far as not being able to figure me out, that's my fault I'm sure,
since it's something I hear over and over again.  I'll let you know
about the meetup thing I guess.

And thanks for all the images you've contributed under a free license.
 Most of them are way better than anything I've ever done.

Anthony


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] quick question: different policies for different
	namespaces?

body:
If a questioner doesn't mind, answering a question by original research on
the reference desk is fine, and while it would be helpful to be verifiable,
it's not required. In this case what you're looking for is mentioned in the
policies you're talking about. They say they apply to articles specifically.

Mgm

On 12/13/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Can someone remind me where it's stated how our policies are
> applied differently for different namespaces, and how many of
> those differences there are?  I'm pretty sure the rules for talk
> pages are different, but are there also significant differences
> between "project" pages and the main namespace (i.e. ns:0)?
>
> (I ask because I'm becoming embroiled in a delightful -- not! --
> tempest-in-a-teapot over proposed sweeping new policies for the
> Reference Desks, and one of the sticking points seems to be the
> extent to which core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V should be
> applied there.  But I mention this only for information; I'm not
> trying to extend the RD debate to this mailing list.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Finding out what to take photos of

body:
Surely you can have AutoWikiBrowser slug through a list of articles that
link to Camebridge and also have a structure-stub tag or Buildings in
Camebridge category to them? Then there's [[WP:RI]] too. Is there a
Camebridge WikiProject?

Mgm

On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Take me as an example. I live in [[Cambridge]]. I'm not particularly
> > interested in sight-seeing or architecture, so I know little about the
> > sights and buildings in this city. However, I would be happy to take
> > (free-license) pictures of something in this city and upload them to
> > Commons (indeed I have already done so for some of the Colleges). The
> > problem (for Commons/Wikipedia) is that I don't know, and don't have
> > much interest or motivation in researching, what sights or buildings
> > exist in this city that don't already have a free picture on
> > Commons/Wikipedia.
>
> I suffer from this too.. We have lists, but they aren't really
> effective.  I tried making a list of articles for things near me which
> don't have pictures.. but our category system makes doing so
> difficult.
>
> Sometimes I visit some place and think "surely we have a picture of
> X".. only to later find out that we don't .. or that it's "fair use"
> .. or that it's just a very poor picture and that I could take one
> which is much better.
>
> Or the reverse happens.. I'll be out in the woods and think "surely we
> don't have good pictures of trail markers" and spend an hour building
> a exhaustive collection only to find that the subject is
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_blazing well covered].
>
> To an extent I think that we'll only be able to solve this by putting
> up a good lightweight (wap perhaps) interface to our lists of needed
> images so people can reasonably query them while in the field.
>
> [snip]
> > So, in summary: Commons or Wikipedia needs an organised index or
> > catalogue of things that don't have a free picture. Ideally, there
> > should be somewhere I can click to list the things in Cambridge that
> > don't have a picture.
>
> The prerequisite is correctly identifying things in Cambridge... which
> is currently non-trivial because of semantic drift in our categories
> and a lack of geocoding.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
Anthony wrote:
> So the logo is more than just an identifier,

(Is it?  I don't see it that way, though I can't speak for others.)

> it's a stamp of approval, and I don't think Google Earth deserves
> Wikipedia's stamp of approval.

Does Wikipedia deserve Google's?


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 13/12/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Hey!  When did that new placeholder message get added to an otherwise
> empty (and therefore otherwise potentially misleading) diff listing?
> Very nice touch!

Why don't you look at the subversion log? In any case, either Ilmari
Karonen or Simetrical added it (as far as I can remember, I could be
wrong).

Rob Church


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Problem with {{contradicting}}

body:
I think the {{contradicting}} template is problematic because it doesn't
require the user to specify what the supposed contradiction is. Some
people seem to add it as if it was an intrinsic property of the subject,
rather than a request to fix something. When I removed it with the
comment "Please don't add the contradiction tag without giving your
reasons on the Talk page, otherwise I won't know what to fix in the
article", it was simply added back in with the edit summary "who keeps
removing that template?".

Timwi


from_name: Aerik Sylvan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections (again)

body:
Okay, I've got some better numbers (and a better method of building the
category intersections table from an existing database).

I build a table with 2.6 million records, all the pages from the snapshot I
had.  It's 90% populated with categories (this will make more sense in a
minute) and I'm still getting good results from intersections queries.  For
instance:

Showing rows 0 - 1 (2 total, Query took 0.3459 sec) SQL query: SELECT *
FROM `pageindex`
WHERE MATCH (catlist
)
AGAINST ( '+Living_People +People_from_Maine +1956_births'
IN BOOLEAN
MODE
)
LIMIT 0 , 30

(which has two results, btw, Cynthia McFadden and David Kelley).

This takes consistently a third of a second.  Not bad.  And that's for
2.6million rows.  I think we should restrict it to just current
articles in the
main namespace, but that's my opinion.

I figured out a better way to populate the table, too:

UPDATE pageindex,categorylinks SET pageindex.catlist=CONCAT_WS(' ',
pageindex.catlist,categorylinks.cl_to) WHERE (
pageindex.pageid=categorylinks.cl_from AND INSTR(pageindex.catlist,
categorylinks.cl_to) =0)

You have to run this query for a number of times equal to the greatest
number of distinct categories a page has.  Most pages have less than 7, but
a few apparently have outrageous numbers.  After doing a lot of searching
around for a solution to concatenating multiple rows into one value, I think
this is pretty good.

Aerik


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-14

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
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: 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 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: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Passed 452 of 471 tests (95.97%)... FAILED!


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
On 14 Dec 2006 at 12:10, "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com>
wrote:

> And more to the point, they could have done this without asking,
> except for the use of the logo. Instead they were willing to negotiate
> use of the logo, and have made an effort to be compliant like other
> mirrors, following our own instructions for mirrors.

And as far as I can tell, there is no exclusive license involved in
this project, so it's not a "sellout"; nothing in this deal blocks
the future use of Wikipedia data as part of other geographical
projects of other companies and organizations, including ones of a
less proprietary nature, or the negotiation of such groups to get
similar rights to use the logo.

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


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
On 14/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

>  I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software.  Make it
> a point to *not* support Google Earth.  That's worth more in my
> opinion.

Perhaps a more pragmatic point: Google Earth came up to us and said
"hey, we'd like to do XYZ, do you object?" (or something along those
lines) This isn't us thinking "hey, be nice to do something like this,
let's pick Google as a partner" - it's a project approaching us, with
an idea they want to implement, for cooperation. Big conceptual
difference, to my mind at least, from us deciding to support one or
the other.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Anthere

body:
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
>
>
>>1. Legal counselling.
>>
>>Some projects (mainly Commons and Wikisource) need more input about
>>copyright issues from knowledgeable persons. I have asked twice to
>>juriwiki-l specific issues for Wikisource without receiving an answer,
>>even an acknowledgement that my request was received. Another concrete
>>example: Commons and Wikisource would benefit most from a cross table
>>about copyright rules, which countries use "most favourable rule apply",
>>etc.
>>
>
> I really wonder about the status of the following bodies or positions:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_department Is / was this ever
> official? If yes, is it the appropriate point of contact?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lead_Legal_Coordinator (Soufron) Is
> this still an active position? If yes, how is it related to the
> General Counsel? Who is the appropriate contact for project legal
> issues? Jean-Baptiste Soufron or Brad?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Juriwiki_mailing_list Is this
> mailinglist active (i.e. are there discussions going on at the
> moment)? Should it still be contacted?

To answer very generally on whether all that information is still
relevant and updated.

I'd say that to a very large extent, most of the information about the
Foundation, located on meta, is outdated. Most of the information on the
Foundation site is correct.

There is no "official" legal department and no legal officer. The Lad
legal coordinator is no more an active position. The coordinator is
Brad, our General Counsel. However, there are several jurists or lawyers
helping us on various issues. The contact to use is Brad. If he does not
answer, complain to the board :-)

The juriwiki list still exist. Though not very active.

Aphaia comments on press issues may receive very similar feedback. Meta
pages are mostly outdated. The most valid pages are those about the
committees and those about the chapters.

Now, about the *good* question: why not updating them ?
Well, lack of time certainly. But mostly, lack of clarity on the matter.
This is part of a more general issue, the current organisation is not so
good, we need to change it, we brainstormed on it already, but did not
come to an agreeemnt (yet).

This is definitly something to work on. It is on the todo, once even
more urgent issues are fixed.

Ant


from_name: Gurch

body:
Actually it already has one, though for some reason whoever implemented
decided it to make it a named parameter.

{{contradict|about=the colour of the sky}} will work.

Stan Shebs wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>> I think the {{contradicting}} template is problematic because it
>> doesn't require the user to specify what the supposed contradiction
>> is. Some people seem to add it as if it was an intrinsic property of
>> the subject, rather than a request to fix something. When I removed it
>> with the comment "Please don't add the contradiction tag without
>> giving your reasons on the Talk page, otherwise I won't know what to
>> fix in the article", it was simply added back in with the edit summary
>> "who keeps removing that template?".
>>
>Just add a parameter with an appropriately snarky default...

>Stan

_______________________________________________
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: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] [Foundation wiki] Fundraising related update

body:
Hello there,
On behalf of Jd, who would care for fundraising related translation
(but regretfully offline now), I ask you help translation &
localization of several pages on the Foundation.

* Translation
 Requests are already submitted on meta:TR. Give a look [[m:TR]] and
help your language translation. They are also the board expansion
related update.
* Localization
  As reported, the more currencies you can use on PayPal than before.
If your favorite & local currency is included, it would be nice to
feature it on your language Fundraising page, like
[[Wikimedia:Sponzorstv?]] in Czeck which put the Czeck currency on the
top of the list.
  The currencies accepted on PayPal are: Australian Dollar (AUD),
Canadian Dollar (CAD), Swiss Franc (CHF), Czech Koruna (CZK), Danish
Krone (DKK), Euro (EUR), Pound Sterling (GBP), Hong Kong Dollar (HKD),
Hungarian Forint (HUF), Yen (JPY), Norwegian Krone (NOK), New Zealand
Dollar (NZD), Polish Zloty (PLN), Singapore Dollar (SGD), Swedish
Krona (SEK), U.S. Dollar (USD); Please give a look to your own
language page, and examine if this information is already placed on
that page.
 With plenty of templates, you may feel at ease to draft your new
version on meta. You may found it at [[m:Translation
requests/WMF/Fundraising pages]].
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF/Fundraising_pages

Cheers,

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
I think the list has been busy enough over the past two days without that
sort of thing. :)

-Gurch

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> Hey, let's try and set a new list record for most consecutive repetitions
of the list footer trailing at the bottom of an insufficiently-trimmed
top-posted reply!

<excess footers snipped>


from_name: Jim Schuler

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/13/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> Hey, let's try and set a new list record for most consecutive
> repetitions of the list footer trailing at the bottom of an
> insufficiently-trimmed top-posted reply!

Have any other trifling gripes?  Feel free to let me know.  Seems to me
content is of more value than form.

> --
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
No.

-Gurch

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> Hey, let's try and set a new list record for most consecutive
> repetitions of the list footer trailing at the bottom of an
> insufficiently-trimmed top-posted reply!
>

Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?

--
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


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Adding user_editcount field

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

I'm finally going ahead and adding a user_editcount field to the user table.

This is primarily meant to be used in heuristic checks such as:
* ability to set an edit count trigger for 'autoconfirmed' user group
* SUL migration primary account determination

As of r18325 the field is simply added, and incremented on edit (with
lazy initialization). It's not yet used to read anything, but I wanted
to slip it in there before we do database updates for other recently
added fields (recentchanges rc_old_len/rc_new_len fields) to avoid
having to do an extra master switch on the live machines.

Since people looooove their edit counts and there's toolserver crud for
it anyway, we may give in and allow this value to be displayed
somewhere. Sigh. :P

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFgVEjwRnhpk1wk44RAuuhAKCyBajEKSUD+tGAVCbs79Fuv+yC1QCgp8D8
wdN8/Y/ts34tLByWLNw4MB4=
=WKLR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: commons-l

from_name: Eugene Zelenko

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Hi!

> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>
> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>
> ---
> Pat Gunn

It's great news, but some restrictions apply :-( See
http://nma.redhost24-001.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=50&lang=en
for details. So, no blind copy, please.

With best regards,
Eugene.


body:
On 12/14/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Soufron is no longer the Chief Legal Officer.  He has no role at this time.
> >
> Okay. And what about the Legal department and the juriwiki-l? Are they
> abandoned too?

Similar questions come from me:
- Is Press department active? We can say it was replaced with Press
subcommittee?
- Is Press Officer vacant? (It may be a silly question, since recently
I wrote so with my hand on meta)
- And how about other "Officers"? Which is vacant and filled? Or
replaced with a certain committee's chair? Wait, we have heard
Officers had joined Frankfurtertagung?

Even among us who are stick on meta & this list, information is in a
mess. Refactoring will be nice, if transparency and recruiting new
staff from the community is our real concerns.

The reason I ask those is we find still such descriptions on meta; in
this week I found "Elian is the Press Officer" "Press Officers role is
to care for Jimbo's interview" ... Perhaps it would be practical to ta
{{historical}} to all department pages? Oh wait, "technical
department" and its Officers seem to be active (and only?)

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


body:
email seems not to have gone through...

resend

Yann Forget wrote:
 > Hi,
 >
 > I think that there are several areas where the projects would benefit
 > from a more proactive help from the Foundation. I will speak about
two here:
 >
 > 1. Legal counselling.
 >
 > Some projects (mainly Commons and Wikisource) need more input about
 > copyright issues from knowledgeable persons. I have asked twice to
 > juriwiki-l specific issues for Wikisource without receiving an answer,
 > even an acknowledgement that my request was received. Another concrete
 > example: Commons and Wikisource would benefit most from a cross table
 > about copyright rules, which countries use "most favourable rule apply",
 > etc.

For various reasons, which are controversial, some consider the
Foundation should not give such advice. As such, your requests will
probably not meet answers.

 > 2. Helping small projects. It seems that some projects have a difficult
 > start. Indian languages projects are my first examples. I will go to
 > India in January, and I would like to use this opportunity to recruit
 > new contributors. The Foundation could help coordinate this kind of
 > recruitement.

Why not. Practically speaking, how do you think the Foundation could
help ? What do you mean by "coordination" here ? Example of things we
could do ?

Ant

 > Best regards,
 >
 > Yann


from_name: Nojhan

body:
Le Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:54:11 +0100, Anthere a ?crit:
>  > 1. Legal counselling.
>  >
>  > Some projects (mainly Commons and Wikisource) need more input about
>  > copyright issues from knowledgeable persons. I have asked twice to
>  > juriwiki-l specific issues for Wikisource without receiving an answer,
>  > even an acknowledgement that my request was received. Another concrete
>  > example: Commons and Wikisource would benefit most from a cross table
>  > about copyright rules, which countries use "most favourable rule apply",
>  > etc.
>
> For various reasons, which are controversial, some consider the
> Foundation should not give such advice. As such, your requests will
> probably not meet answers.

This is annoying, explaining clearly the main legal issues would benefit to
the project.

For example, we have several peoples involved in negociations
for importing digitized documents into WikiSource or Commons. Those
peoples are often asking for advices on how to convince entitled to allow
such a distribution...

I can understand that the fundation does not wish to take an active part
in such negociations, but advices should be an acceptable way to help
contributors, imho.

--
Nojhan


body:
On 14/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you look at the subversion log? In any case, either Ilmari
> > Karonen or Simetrical added it (as far as I can remember, I could be
> > wrong).
>
> Wasn't me, it was Ilmari.  Bug 5485, r18194.

Like a creature of the night, he slips silently through forbidden
doors, whips out his most powerful laptop, makes devious and evil
changes to the source code while cackling like a witch of old...and
then, when you least expect it...

...HE COMMITS.

I mean, er, nice one. :)

Rob Church


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

references:
<8448DB0E-94EF-41C4-A955-3E4929BC9872@waterwiki.info>	<457EFDF2.5030905@KillerChihuahua.com>	<BFED0585-0D94-43FA-B5BB-5E22A12B5104@waterwiki.info>	<lo0un252neiq4cchotk8qkd0ob78976qug@4ax.com>	<457F5066.7030507@gmail.com>	<picvn2htapil2hktq8a2qftpns7uk09g4m@4ax.com>	<38a7bf7c0612130123k34e5ad32l4aff73e249bc001f@mail.gmail.com>	<4580625E.4060203@telus.net>
	<d9v0o25f6upqovmngpl6d7gh0upeirjloo@4ax.com>
	<4580E5B4.9050001@telus.net>

body:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>There is certainly a strong
>element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that.  That can
>be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.

You have a mechanism for this?  In my experience both sides will rush
to Wikipedia every time their preferred expert drops some new pearl of
wisdom, in an attempt to make their side the more compelling overall
within the argument.

>It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking
>theories.  Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV
>bandwagon.  I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but
>we currently do not have an article about it.

Yes, exactly that.  We deleted Aetherometry after endless arguments
because the theory itself was unpublished and lacked any independent
discussion.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Top posting poll; was Re:  MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
<alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?

Yes... and insufficient trimming too (very annoying for digest
readers).  These are among a number of e-mail formatting problems
that are widespread.

I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
problems and issues:

http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html

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


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the
	projects

body:
--- David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:

> Yann Forget wrote:
>
> >For my practical use, is a photograph taken in
> India in 1908 by a Indian
> >photographer is public domain in USA (first
> published in India)? and if
> >it is taken in 1920? in 1945? and if the
> photographer is American (first
> >published in USA)? and if the photographer is from
> a third country,
> >England, for example? (Indian copyright law is
> "public domain 60 years
> >after publication" for photographs and sound
> recordings).
> >
> Two major problems here:
> * In many cases, copyright questions may be resolved
> only on a
> case-by-case basis. For instance, in many countries,
> copyright only
> protects "works of the mind" with no exhaustive and
> clear definition of
> what a work of the mind is, and it is possible that
> certain technical
> photographs are not works of the mind that can be
> protected by
> copyright. However, deciding whether this is the
> case for a particular
> photograph will entail examining details related to
> the photographic
> process, and thus no clear-cut global answer can be
> provided.
>
> * In many cases, what we intend to do simply has not
> been tested in
> court. People often mistakenly believe that there
> are things that are
> "legal" vs things that are "prohibited" and thus
> that lawyers can tell
> us which is which. In reality, there are things
> clearly legal, those
> clearly illegal, and things in between for which a
> lawyer may only give
> some kind of educated guess of whether that would
> fly in court (which in
> turn depends on how well we argue our case in
> court).
>
> Both of this clash with the expectations of many of
> our users and
> admins, that is, to get black and white "yes / no"
> answers to legal queries.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't believe you understand how useful it would be
to just have some one say "That particular case is
unknown.  The most similar case to this is Foobar."
Even if there were a table of questions that people
have asked in the past with yes/no/unknown and no
futher advice would be extremely helpful.  I think it
a false expectation of yours that we are expecting
clearcut answers.  Really we have been mucking through
copyright questions as best we can for some time; we
are all well aware there are often not answers only
arguments.  Just being able to eliminate some
arguments as invalid would be very helpful.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
--- Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org> wrote:

> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the
> foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects?
> Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other
> projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should
> it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent
> credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to
> other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>

I think you underestimate the superiority of our
format when suggesting we are merely duplicating the
work of others.   Wiki's are truly powerful and
capable of really surpassing what is currently being
done by others.

I definately like the idea of acknowledging works
based of the work of other projects.  Currently at
Wikisource, Project Gutenburg is usually linked as the
source on the Talk page when it is the source.  The
same is generally true of any source for the text.  In
some cases links are given to places that have scans
online especially as they go through proofreading.  I
would like to see a way of  acknowledging Librox.org
when we attach audio files from there.  Maybe we could
use a different "speaker symbol" in those cases.
However I don't want to have a distracting meta-data
attached to the text off of the talk page.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


from_name: Pat Gunn

subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
In case anybody missed it,
Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml

I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
(or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.

A thought:
If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
like Project Gutenberg's works.

---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org
"Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether
what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt.
Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law."
	-- Linus Torvalds


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Westboro_Baptist_Church

body:
I think it was more of a tongue-in-cheek statement than something that would
go along the lines of "I am going to find Fred Phelps and murder his
family..."

But nonetheless it's something we don't want to have on our talk page as
public record.

On 12/13/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Tragic Romance wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know who to write to about this, but user "Wahkeenah" makes a
> death threat against the members of "Westboro Baptist Church" at the bottom
> of this page:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church&oldid=94081545
> >
> > I'm just an editor; I have no association with that user or that church.
>
> Thanks for removing this. I am forwarding to the appropriate list.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Tim
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Biblioth?que libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l]  Top posting poll; was Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
 > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
 > > I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
 > > problems and issues:
 > >
 > > http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
 >
 > Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said
 > I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message
 > had all three.

Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the
information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at
the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a
blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view
the message source.  The MIME-parsing library I use follows the
standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line,
meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead.  Delete
the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it
should work.

--
Dan


from_name: Parker Peters

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
	friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
On 12/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
>
> evidences?
>
> --
> geni
> _____________

There's a funny thing about your statement: I've given evidence many times.
I've given evidence privately to Jimbo, I've given public evidence on the
list.

The response to my public evidence on the list has been to "moderate" me,
probably because I came too close to exposing someone who those with the
power to "moderate" didn't want exposed.

I have written a serious rebuttal to Itaqallah's newest false claim that he
was somehow reverting an edit that was unsupported by the sources given,
which has been sent to both Jimbo and Luna and is awaiting forwarding since
my messages are taking WAY too long in the moderation queue.

Did you also miss my analysis of FayssalF/Svest's deliberate misreading of
RunedChozo's block log, earlier in this thread? I can certainly cut/paste it
to you privately if you wish.

Parker


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
Timwi wrote:
> I've just had an idea.
>
> One of the "problems" cited for "replaceable" fair-use images is that
> they give the (false) impression that an image is no longer needed for
> the relevant article, right?
>
> Well, maybe it would make sense to mark nonfree images in the article
> somehow. A red border, perhaps.
>
I've had the same thought, but there are lots of unreplaceable nonfree
images. I'm sure the art types would be freaked out if paintings by
recent artists all had red borders around them - especially for some
modern works where it might not be clear whether the red border was part
of the painting or not. :-)

It would however, be spiffy if an image tagged as replaceable had all
its article uses marked visibly. Right now people are doing it manually.

Perhaps one could generalize, so that, say, uses of an image in articles
other than the ones listed in "fairusein" would also be flagged visibly.
One truly sneaky way to "mark" would be to display a blank image and/or
give it a zero size, heh-heh-heh.

Stan


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
On 12/13/06, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there no way you can upload using your own commons login name?

I already thought about extending commonshelper so it accepts commons
user name and password. The upload bot could then use that for
uploading.

Of course, any user of the tool then would have to give this
information to my tools, without knowing what else I do with that (I
won't, of course, but short of the toolserver admins, noone can
actually confirm that).

OTOH, as long as I keep it optional, would such a mechanism be acceptable?

Magnus


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 14/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> >Paris is a [[type:=city]] in
> >[[located in::France]], with a population of
> >[[population:=1,000,000,000]].
> >
> I don't know about the "translation", but some of us are old enough to
> remember when articles were written in natural language.  Some
> task-oriented people become so focused on what they believe would be
> easy that they often forget that there's a real world out there where
> people don't speak markup.

So write the article in natural language, and bung in all the metadata
stuff at the end where the templates, inter-language links and other
markup goes. Inlining the sort of thing quoted above is pointless.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-article linkspamming

body:
I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after failing
to get their spam placed in an article itself. [[WP:SPAM]] does not have a
clearly formulated policy on this from what I can see.

For instance, [[User:Hoodia]] was especially egregious today, spamming the
[[Hoodia]] article, but also setting up a User talk page that consisted
entirely of spam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoodia&oldid=94315565

This case is obvious and common sense, but I have seen more subtle issues
recently, such as this editor listing her site
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ after her signature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStephen_Barrett&diff=93819056&oldid=93777864(scroll
to bottom)

Does this count as linkspam? It struck me and other editors as
inappropriate.

SEO spammers are going to want a working link from Wikipedia to improve
results, so I suppose <nowiki> is an option in many of these cases. As
another example, a longtime detractor of mine who was eventually blocked for
linkspamming still managed to spam links removed from various articles to
her bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com website via another editor's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alphachimp/Archive_7#PLEASE_REPLY_AND_EXPLAIN_YOUR_SELF

This is now archived and indexed on Google, effectively achieving the
desired result of a direct link from Wikipedia.

These phenomena seem like something we should address before it gets much
worse. I guess the most contentious one would be links to one's own sites on
one's User and User:Talk pages. I'm not sure how that line should be drawn.
A blanket ban would probably drive some editors away, and any policy would
probably have a lot of gray area regarding what's acceptable.

Jokestress


from_name: cohesion

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I don't know about the "translation", but some of us are old enough to
> remember when articles were written in natural language.  Some
> task-oriented people become so focused on what they believe would be
> easy that they often forget that there's a real world out there where
> people don't speak markup.
>
> Ec

I just have to see what people think about things like that
occasionally, but I am thankful for other views, and have no doubt
that if you let crazy tech-solutionists like me run amok wikipedia
would be worse for it. :)

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


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

Jared Williams wrote:
>> After doing a lot of searching
>> around for a solution to concatenating multiple rows into one
>> value, I think this is pretty good.
>
> MySQL has GROUP_CONCAT() if that's what your after.

That's unfortunately not available in MySQL 4.0, so keep that in mind.

We're still running 4.0 at Wikimedia.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFgaqGwRnhpk1wk44RAic+AKCHWM9v2vT65icQyx8fS58e24gC1gCePA4Z
SyO90uTYUVn/U1zRGoX89hE=
=/qTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Section redirection

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

Timwi wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> First it was section redirection, now it's an editcount field in the
>> database! What next, 40kV through the chair?
>
> Speaking of section redirection, I tried it yesterday and it didn't
> work. Is this live yet?

No, changes this week are not yet live pending database changes.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFgasPwRnhpk1wk44RAgNcAKCtB84KtZciCuiKgEs25W/+um4DvwCgzcdu
HFZujXAtgrEfy3rJXIO/oEI=
=GDEE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories (was: Hello)

body:
On 12/13/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> It is clear to me from all of the dialogue, that the issue of Categories and
> their use in Wikipedia is not only controversial, but also pretty much
> unresolved and unfocused.

Hehe, this really is a good welcome to wikipedia-policy thread! :D

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the
 projects

body:
"You took the words right out of my mouth."  Exactly.  For those who
want answers,
(a) it's complicated
(b) the answer is "it depends"
(c) there is no "right" answer
(d) if there is a "right" answer, it can be challenged
(e) no, we aren't going to represent you to fight about it.

This is a somewhat flip response, but it is the truth.

David Monniaux wrote:
> Yann Forget wrote:
>
>
>> For my practical use, is a photograph taken in India in 1908 by a Indian
>> photographer is public domain in USA (first published in India)? and if
>> it is taken in 1920? in 1945? and if the photographer is American (first
>> published in USA)? and if the photographer is from a third country,
>> England, for example? (Indian copyright law is "public domain 60 years
>> after publication" for photographs and sound recordings).
>>
>>
> Two major problems here:
> * In many cases, copyright questions may be resolved only on a
> case-by-case basis. For instance, in many countries, copyright only
> protects "works of the mind" with no exhaustive and clear definition of
> what a work of the mind is, and it is possible that certain technical
> photographs are not works of the mind that can be protected by
> copyright. However, deciding whether this is the case for a particular
> photograph will entail examining details related to the photographic
> process, and thus no clear-cut global answer can be provided.
>
> * In many cases, what we intend to do simply has not been tested in
> court. People often mistakenly believe that there are things that are
> "legal" vs things that are "prohibited" and thus that lawyers can tell
> us which is which. In reality, there are things clearly legal, those
> clearly illegal, and things in between for which a lawyer may only give
> some kind of educated guess of whether that would fly in court (which in
> turn depends on how well we argue our case in court).
>
> Both of this clash with the expectations of many of our users and
> admins, that is, to get black and white "yes / no" answers to legal queries.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 12/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> "You took the words right out of my mouth."  Exactly.  For those who
> want answers,
> (a) it's complicated
> (b) the answer is "it depends"
> (c) there is no "right" answer
> (d) if there is a "right" answer, it can be challenged
> (e) no, we aren't going to represent you to fight about it.
>
> This is a somewhat flip response, but it is the truth.

My first thought on the subject was:

It's also worthwhile to contemplate what happens to the foundation's
position with respect to the [[Online Copyright Infringement Liability
Limitation Act]] if it starts providing specific legal direction on
difficult areas of copyright to contributors.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
On 12/14/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> >  I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software.  Make it
> > a point to *not* support Google Earth.  That's worth more in my
> > opinion.
>
> Perhaps a more pragmatic point: Google Earth came up to us and said
> "hey, we'd like to do XYZ, do you object?" (or something along those
> lines) This isn't us thinking "hey, be nice to do something like this,
> let's pick Google as a partner" - it's a project approaching us, with
> an idea they want to implement, for cooperation. Big conceptual
> difference, to my mind at least, from us deciding to support one or
> the other.

And more to the point, they could have done this without asking,
except for the use of the logo. Instead they were willing to negotiate
use of the logo, and have made an effort to be compliant like other
mirrors, following our own instructions for mirrors.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> these people
> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

Just to interject a contrasting view here:

What they have released are modern editions.
These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.

You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
of the scores.

If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.

At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
locked away.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


from_name: Mr Adequate

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Caricatures ,
	fair use photographs and illustratice comics

body:
On 12/1/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On the admin noticeboard there's discussion about a user who has created
> > illustrative comics, which basically illustrate the summary of an
> > article, an example can be see here,
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony-clifton-web-rev.JPG . I've made
> > the suggestion that maybe we could get the artist to create caricatures
> > of living people, and thus perhaps solve the problem of using
> > copyrighted images in articles of people simply to illustrate the person.
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/560 - Release Date: 30/11/06
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> You, sir, are brilliant!
> _______________________________________________
> 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 12/13/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Can someone remind me where it's stated how our policies are
> applied differently for different namespaces, and how many of
> those differences there are?

We don't allow fair use images anywhere but the mainspace. Other than
that I think most policies are much less relevant on project pages
etc. Clearly WP:NOR and WP:V wouldn't apply. I mean, we don't go
around tagging {{wikibreak}} with {{fact}} :D

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/14/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> The article was stubbed and OFFICEd, no doubt in response to
> complaints from the school or its alumni.  No problem with that, the
> history sows some, ahem, problematic content.  But well over a month
> ago I asked Danny if we could at least add {{unaccredited}}.  No
> response.

I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
Foundation on record.

I would say that careful addition of factual content would not be a problem.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/14/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> So write the article in natural language, and bung in all the metadata
> stuff at the end where the templates, inter-language links and other
> markup goes. Inlining the sort of thing quoted above is pointless.

Yes, my example is inline, but it of course works anywhere.

Also, people may want to look at this thread on wikitech-l right now
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-December/040402.html
Someone is working on a way to get category intersections, which would
be helpful probably.

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 12/14/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> It would however, be spiffy if an image tagged as replaceable had all
> its article uses marked visibly. Right now people are doing it manually.
>

Someone asked for this before, but more generally, geni maybe? I can't
remember. Anyway, if we could somehow mark in the article which images
were about to be deleted that would be super helpful. So, to make your
idea even more useful, if we could somehow give images a class based
on something in the image description page that would be great. We
could tag fair use images, but also replaceable ones, as well as
simple no source/no license type things. Ideally the visual would be
controlled by css based on image classes.

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
Timwi,

YES!!!!!! My cry wasn't in the wilderness after all. THANK YOU!!

Marc Riddell

> From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:43:34 +0000
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hello
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>> "No use for it" and "no help to anyone" are still different questions.
>> We need to distinguish between the content itself and how we organise
>> it.  Huge categories are subject to the law of diminishing returns.  If
>> a Google search gives you 1,000,000 hits it doesn't help anyone to go
>> through them all, so you develop strategies to seriously trim the results.
>
> You appear to be comparing Google search results with a Category page,
> which do not compare at all because Google search results are not
> organised and don't have subcategories.
>
> The current situation is something like this: Category X has no articles
> and 20 sub-categories, all the articles that "are an X" are in one of
> those sub-categories.
>
> The proposed change is: Category X contains all the articles that "are
> an X", while also containing the 20 sub-categories, listed prominently
> at the top of the page.
>
> I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that this is strictly an
> improvement, no matter how little. Someone who *really wants* the entire
> list of X'es can now have it, and someone who doesn't can still browse
> the sub-categories as before. Nothing has been taken away.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Top posting poll; was Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
> <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?

Mid-posting is the only way to go. :-)

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]

> Yes... and insufficient trimming too (very annoying for digest
> readers).  These are among a number of e-mail formatting problems
> that are widespread.
>
> I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
> problems and issues:
>
> http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
>
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
> problems and issues:
>
> http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html

Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said
I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message
had all three.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-article linkspamming

body:
A wrote:

> These phenomena seem like something we should address before it gets much
> worse. I guess the most contentious one would be links to one's own sites
> on
> one's User and User:Talk pages. I'm not sure how that line should be
> drawn.
> A blanket ban would probably drive some editors away, and any policy would
> probably have a lot of gray area regarding what's acceptable.

I'm sure that a pretty straightforward addition to WP:SPAM would be
relatively uncontroversial if brought up there.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
On 12/14/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Can someone remind me where it's stated how our policies are
> applied differently for different namespaces, and how many of
> those differences there are?  I'm pretty sure the rules for talk
> pages are different, but are there also significant differences
> between "project" pages and the main namespace (i.e. ns:0)?

[[Wikipedia:List of policies]] breaks it down quite nicely.

"Behavioural" policies apply to all behaviour, obviously. "Content and
style" policies apply to content, so everything in the main namespace,
and any content in the portal namespace, etc. Basically, if it's
content that we're presenting as part of the encyclopaedia, the
content policies apply to it.

The other categories are similarly self-explanatory.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: bbatsell

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:

> "Fork" is not the right word.  They own a domain extension in the
> TLD for
> Italia.  We would like it.  This use is absolutely not a WMF project.

Looking at the WHOIS data for wikipedia.it, the Organization it is
registered to is "Associazione Wikipedia Italia" (which translates,
roughly, to Wikipedia Italy Association).  The person listed as the
registrant is "Luca Venturini", who is also the registrant for
yepa.com.  In the United States at least, per The Fraudulent Online
Identity Sanctions Act, it is illegal to misrepresent any information
in WHOIS data; it would be interesting to find out whether a similar
law exists in Italy.  We also might have a case for [[UDRP]]; I'm not
sure if Wikimedia has ever attempted to gain control of any other
squatted domains.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061214/a720977e/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:

> "Fork" is not the right word.  They own a domain extension in the
> TLD for
> Italia.  We would like it.  This use is absolutely not a WMF project.

Looking at the WHOIS data for wikipedia.it, the Organization it is
registered to is "Associazione Wikipedia Italia" (which translates,
roughly, to Wikipedia Italy Association).  The person listed as the
registrant is "Luca Venturini", who is also the registrant for
yepa.com.  In the United States at least, per The Fraudulent Online
Identity Sanctions Act, it is illegal to misrepresent any information
in WHOIS data; it would be interesting to find out whether a similar
law exists in Italy.  We also might have a case for [[UDRP]]; I'm not
sure if Wikimedia has ever attempted to gain control of any other
squatted domains.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061214/a720977e/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:

> "Fork" is not the right word.  They own a domain extension in the
> TLD for
> Italia.  We would like it.  This use is absolutely not a WMF project.

Looking at the WHOIS data for wikipedia.it, the Organization it is
registered to is "Associazione Wikipedia Italia" (which translates,
roughly, to Wikipedia Italy Association).  The person listed as the
registrant is "Luca Venturini", who is also the registrant for
yepa.com.  In the United States at least, per The Fraudulent Online
Identity Sanctions Act, it is illegal to misrepresent any information
in WHOIS data; it would be interesting to find out whether a similar
law exists in Italy.  We also might have a case for [[UDRP]]; I'm not
sure if Wikimedia has ever attempted to gain control of any other
squatted domains.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061214/a720977e/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:

> "Fork" is not the right word.  They own a domain extension in the
> TLD for
> Italia.  We would like it.  This use is absolutely not a WMF project.

Looking at the WHOIS data for wikipedia.it, the Organization it is
registered to is "Associazione Wikipedia Italia" (which translates,
roughly, to Wikipedia Italy Association).  The person listed as the
registrant is "Luca Venturini", who is also the registrant for
yepa.com.  In the United States at least, per The Fraudulent Online
Identity Sanctions Act, it is illegal to misrepresent any information
in WHOIS data; it would be interesting to find out whether a similar
law exists in Italy.  We also might have a case for [[UDRP]]; I'm not
sure if Wikimedia has ever attempted to gain control of any other
squatted domains.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061214/a720977e/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Section redirection

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> First it was section redirection, now it's an editcount field in the
> database! What next, 40kV through the chair?

Speaking of section redirection, I tried it yesterday and it didn't
work. Is this live yet?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:13 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> Let me just start by saying that I am completely in favour of
> [[WP:OFFICE]] (I for one have no intention of paying the legal bills
> we would undoubtedly incur if we had no such system in place).
>
> But...
>
> Take for example Pacific Western University.  This is a verifiably
> unaccredited school, there are numerous credible reports in the press
> about people being disciplined after claiming its degrees, it is not
> in the accreditation database, it is listed in several sources as a
> diploma mill.  A university it ain't.
>
> Here's a typical example of external coverage:
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
> res=9B0DE1D81E30F937A15754C0A961948260
>
> Look up the "unaccredited correspondence school" in the press report
> and you get an article on what appears to be a legitimate school
> offering various degree programmes.  No mention of accreditation.
>
> The article was stubbed and OFFICEd, no doubt in response to
> complaints from the school or its alumni.  No problem with that, the
> history sows some, ahem, problematic content.  But well over a month
> ago I asked Danny if we could at least add {{unaccredited}}.  No
> response.
>
> Where is the mechanism for review and feedback in respect of OFFICEd
> pages?  I can't find any.  Should I be bold, ignore all rules and add
> {{subst:unaccredited}} in the lead, as I have done for every other
> unaccredited school article I've found being whitewashed by its
> students?  Right now we provide a directory entry for an institution
> multiply identified as a diploma mill, which makes no mention
> whatsoever even of the trivially verifiable fact of its being
> unaccredited.  Doesn't look good, does it?

The procedures w.r.t. [[WP:OFFICE]] should be more fully fleshed
out.  But looking at what we do have in this case, in particular the
[[WP:OFFICE]] template, the text says this: "This page is currently
under the scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation Office and is
protected. **If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all
changes and additions on the talk page first.** Do not remove
protection from this article unless you are authorized by the
Wikimedia Foundation to do so."

 From that, I think it's fair for administrators to edit the page as
long as the changes are factual and discussed on the talk page first,
which I assume are monitored at least partly by Danny or someone else
at the Foundation, who could throw the axe down on an edit that might
affect the Foundation legally.

My $0.02.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061214/96e76248/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Gianluigi Gamba <gigamb at tin.it> wrote:
> "www.wikipedia.it" is currently owned by a person that has no
> relationship neither with Wikimedia Italia nor with the community of
> it.wiki users.
> Up to now, the attempts to establish a contact in order to have the
> domain back ended up in silence.
> Until yesterday the link pointed to a webmail login page (the same you
> can currently see at "www.wikinews.it").

Wikinews too?

Gee.. they just happened to coincidently come up with all these names
on their own....


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
"Fork" is not the right word.  They own a domain extension in the TLD for
Italia.  We would like it.  This use is absolutely not a WMF project.

On 12/14/06, Michiel Sikma <michiel at thingmajig.org> wrote:
>
>
> On December 14, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
>
> > I just heard (and saw), that when going to wikipedia.it, there is now
> > a grey banner at the head, stating "hosted by yepa and a link to
> > http://wikipedia.it/disclaimer.html".
>
> This is terrible. It's a blatant misuse of the Wikipedia brand, which
> stands for free and neutral information without conditions. It does
> not stand for advertisements. This big banner is an advertisement and
> therefore an endorsement. How can anybody trust the information in
> the Italian Wikipedia to be neutral if it has a big commercial label
> on it?
>
> > I wonder a bit, whether this has
> > been discussed with italian wikipedia community and whether WMF is all
> > right with this (after all this is probably the way through which most
> > italians access itwiki, rather than via it.wikipedia.org)
>
> Hmm. So when going to it.wikipedia.org, there is no banner. Yet, when
> going to www.wikipedia.it, there is. So that means that
> www.wikipedia.it is really a fork of the Italian Wikipedia, except
> with that one extra banner added to the top? I'm not sure whether it
> is, but that would be a misuse of the Wikipedia brand, I recon, since
> our logo and name cannot simply be used by whoever wants to use it.
>
> I really do want some more information on this, because I personally
> am adamantly against things like this and feel that the Foundation
> also would be, as it directly contradicts the essence of Wikipedia.
>
> Michiel Sikma
> michiel at thingmajig.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-article linkspamming

body:
I think I agree with your breakdown...

Spam is spam.  Linking to your own sites from your own personal user and
user talk pages is fine and common practice.  Putting an eternal link in
your sig is an abomination from an aesthetic perspective if nothing else. :)

Deletion of spammy urls from pages, and indeed deletion of whole pages
in some cases, are always a good idea.  And blocking people who do such
things is a good idea too.

A wrote:
> I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
> article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after failing
> to get their spam placed in an article itself. [[WP:SPAM]] does not have a
> clearly formulated policy on this from what I can see.
>
> For instance, [[User:Hoodia]] was especially egregious today, spamming the
> [[Hoodia]] article, but also setting up a User talk page that consisted
> entirely of spam:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoodia&oldid=94315565
>
> This case is obvious and common sense, but I have seen more subtle issues
> recently, such as this editor listing her site
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ after her signature:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStephen_Barrett&diff=93819056&oldid=93777864(scroll
> to bottom)
>
> Does this count as linkspam? It struck me and other editors as
> inappropriate.
>
> SEO spammers are going to want a working link from Wikipedia to improve
> results, so I suppose <nowiki> is an option in many of these cases. As
> another example, a longtime detractor of mine who was eventually blocked for
> linkspamming still managed to spam links removed from various articles to
> her bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com website via another editor's talk page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alphachimp/Archive_7#PLEASE_REPLY_AND_EXPLAIN_YOUR_SELF
>
> This is now archived and indexed on Google, effectively achieving the
> desired result of a direct link from Wikipedia.
>
> These phenomena seem like something we should address before it gets much
> worse. I guess the most contentious one would be links to one's own sites on
> one's User and User:Talk pages. I'm not sure how that line should be drawn.
> A blanket ban would probably drive some editors away, and any policy would
> probably have a lot of gray area regarding what's acceptable.
>
> Jokestress
> _______________________________________________
> 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: gwern branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
On 12/14/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> I've just had an idea.
>
> One of the "problems" cited for "replaceable" fair-use images is that
> they give the (false) impression that an image is no longer needed for
> the relevant article, right?
>
> Well, maybe it would make sense to mark nonfree images in the article
> somehow. A red border, perhaps.
>
> I know the following suggestion requires extra coding, but I imagine it
> would be possible to have a tag on the image description page (which, in
> the case of the English Wikipedia, would be transcluded through some of
> the copyright-status templates), which would cause the image thumbnails
> in articles to have an extra CSS class specifier. Then extra styling can
> be added for that CSS class specifier, e.g. red border or background. Or
> it can be neutral by default but still enable CSS wizards to add
> something to their own user CSS.
>
> Discuss. :)
>
> Timwi

One crude way to do this would be to put each
replaceable/in-danger-of-deletion image into a tiny infobox or frame,
which has a colored border. You could probably do that via bot
already, since you would just be adding stuff around the existing
correct image link syntax, and not trying to modify Mediawiki or the
link.

--Gwern


from_name: Nojhan

body:
Le Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:35:58 +1100, Brianna Laugher a ?crit:
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.

Its not.

They claim that the materials should be used only for educational purpose.

Though such an assertion seems excessive (it is just a digitization of
public-domain work), I dont think that anybody will want to conduct legal
pursuit to correct it.

Am I wrong ?

--
Nojhan


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> Hey, let's try and set a new list record for most consecutive
> repetitions of the list footer trailing at the bottom of an
> insufficiently-trimmed top-posted reply!
>

Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061214/dc411b5f/attachment.pgp


from_name: Mark Clements

subject:
[Wikitech-l] can I add parameters to hooks used by
	twoextensions(spellchecker and svn blame-like view)

body:
"Dave Grogan" <dgrogan at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:elpvs2$umj$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> Mark Clements wrote: JsoAwUIsXouq+1Nelnf3ueG/Ez6ZCGd0 at public.gmane.org
> > On 13/12/06, Dave Grogan
<dgrogan at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Track Changes needs ArticleSaveComplete to also pass $revisionId (id
of
> > > the newly-saved revision) and a flag that determines whether the
content
> > > of the article changed.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the article was never saved if the
content
> > hasn't changed, and therefore the hook wouldn't trigger in that
situation
> > anyway.
>
> No new revision is saved but the hook is run.  See Article.php, lines
> 1285-90 and 1359-63 in v1.8.2.

Is 'ArticleSave' also run?  If not, you could set a variable in ArticleSave
and check for it in ArticleSaveComplete.  If it _is_ run then that sounds
like an error.

> > Also, $revisionID should be available through the article object that is
> > already passed to the hook.  If not, then that is where it should be
added,
> > not as an extra hook parameter.
>
> A revisionID is available through the article object, but it is the id
> of the previously retrieved page, not the newly inserted one.  The id of
> the newly-inserted page is not passed to the hook in any of the current
> parameters, as far as I can tell (var_dumps and some ctrl-f-ing).
>

So does that mean that the $article passed to the function contains an
invalid state - i.e. current content but old revision ID?  Or is the whole
object the pre-save version of the page?  To be honest, both of those sound
like a mistake.

Either way, my point still stands - this should be fixed (in whatever way is
appropriate) by patching the Article class, not by adding an extra hook
parameter.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO and the
 ArbComm)

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Let each case be judged on its merits, in accordance with the
>> Clue-based principles on which the whole edifice is after all founded.
>
> The principles of Wikipedia are based upon Clue?  Well, then, I say
> it was Colonel Mustard in the ballroom with a candlestick.
>

I wish I was Parker Bros. Inc. Then, I'd have a clue.

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061214/056836c5/attachment.pgp


body:
> Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the
> information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at
> the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a
> blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view
> the message source.  The MIME-parsing library I use follows the
> standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line,
> meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead.  Delete
> the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it
> should work.

That fixed it - thanks!


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
To me it would be acceptable. And if it is a problem to anyone, they
can continue uploading manually :)

Bryan

On 12/14/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there no way you can upload using your own commons login name?
>
> I already thought about extending commonshelper so it accepts commons
> user name and password. The upload bot could then use that for
> uploading.
>
> Of course, any user of the tool then would have to give this
> information to my tools, without knowing what else I do with that (I
> won't, of course, but short of the toolserver admins, noone can
> actually confirm that).
>
> OTOH, as long as I keep it optional, would such a mechanism be acceptable?
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject:
[Wikitech-l] can I add parameters to hooks used by
 two	extensions (spellchecker and svn blame-like view)

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:12:46PM -0500, Dave Grogan wrote:
>> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>>
>>>  Technical derail: I'm curious: what is your list of colors for
>>> identifying contributors?  Specifically: *how deep is it*?  :-)
>>
>>  I believe it is 64 deep.
>
> That won't be enough.  :-)

I think one could use the binary [[van der Corput sequence]] to
construct an unlimited sequence of maximally distinct hues.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
On 12/14/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/13/06, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is there no way you can upload using your own commons login name?
> >
> > I already thought about extending commonshelper so it accepts commons
> > user name and password. The upload bot could then use that for
> > uploading.
> >
> > Of course, any user of the tool then would have to give this
> > information to my tools, without knowing what else I do with that (I
> > won't, of course, but short of the toolserver admins, noone can
> > actually confirm that).
> >
> > OTOH, as long as I keep it optional, would such a mechanism be acceptable?
>
> Is there any other toolserver tool that requests or uses user's passwords?
> I really dislike the idea. I don't think the convenience outweighs the
> possible security problems and I don't think we should keep putting
> bricks onto temporary solutions: obviously the function should be
> performed by MediaWiki. But then, we already rely on CheckUsage, so...
> sigh...

Well, your password is transmitted unencrypted to through the internet
every time you log into a Wikimedia project. So, there's already risk.
The *additional* risk is in trusting me. That's everyone's decision.

> Another possibility is that we ask for upload-from-url to be enabled
> on Commons. (I can't remember if it is an actual feature yet or just a
> mooted one.) Then CommonsHelper could be more or less single click,
> right?

Yes, it is an actual feature which has to be turned on by
the-one-whose-name-we-must-not-speak, or one of his minions ;-)

No, it won't fix that problem; upload-from-url only offers a different
source (web instead of your own PC); you'll still have to give a
username and password to the script, one way or another.

> It has been suggested that allowing upload-from-url will bring
> torrents of copyvios. Undoubtedly it will, but we get torrents of
> copyvios already. Upload-from-url should allow us to track the true
> origin of images much more easily (assuming that info is made
> available!). At the moment it is a lot of guesswork and hunches.

Yes, there might be more copyvios than now, but they'll be easier to
hunt down and exterminate, and if some "violators" use this instead of
the current upload, it would reduce overall stress on the admins,
IMHO.

Magnus


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.

evidences?

--
geni


from_name: Jim Schuler

body:
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
> <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
>
> Yes... and insufficient trimming too (very annoying for digest
> readers).  These are among a number of e-mail formatting problems
> that are widespread.
>
> I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
> problems and issues:
>
> http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
>
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Should being an insufferable nitpicker with too much time on one's hands be
grounds for modertation?  Definitely.  Alas, I haven't the time to create a
nitpicker's tool.

Now, do we have more serious issues to discuss?

> --
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


from_name: Husky

subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Unfortunately they don't seem to be free.

>From the license agreement (
http://nma.redhost24-001.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=50
):
"Wholesale downloading or reuse of the contents of this website is
prohibited under all circumstances, whether commercial or otherwise. The
works of Mozart should be considered in the public domain. Restrictions may,
however, apply to the scholarly edition as such, the graphic representation,
and the reproduction of images of source materials."

The works presented at the website are the editions from the Neue
Mozart-Ausgabe, published by B?renreiter-Verlag, which are not PD in any
way.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 12/14/06, Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org> wrote:
>
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
>
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>
> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>
> ---
> Pat Gunn
> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
> http://dachte.org
> "Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether
> what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt.
> Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law."
>         -- Linus Torvalds
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
On 12/14/06, Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org> wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml

These are the "scripts" only, right? Maybe we should get some
university music groups to play them so we can upload oggs and then
offer all of Mozarts works on commons as sound files.

Magnus


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Completely unreasonable block and behavior by
	admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I have no stake in this beyond the fact that it is clear to me that abuses
> are taking place. Please don't try to put words into my mouth.
>
> What I am stating is that whenever there is a possible appearance of
> conflict of interest, it should be avoided. The very same principle
> applies
> in journalism, in politics, and pretty much anywhere else as well.
>
> Parker

Ditto for possible appearances of bias.


body:
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> > > I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
> > > problems and issues:
> > >
> > > http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
> >
> > Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said
> > I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message
> > had all three.
>
> Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the
> information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at
> the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a
> blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view
> the message source.  The MIME-parsing library I use follows the
> standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line,
> meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead.  Delete
> the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it
> should work.
>
> --
> Dan

Oddly enough, the g-mail default is to top post.  How 'bout that?

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/