subject: [WikiEN-l] Clarify

body:
Hi,

On 2/4/06, - Essjay - <essjaywiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> The formatting in my last message was lost in transmission; I responded to
> two quotes from two different individuals (which I intended to be
> italicized). I'll have to be more careful with gmail in the future.

Just use > signs to indent with, as above. I'm using gmail too - this
works fine and is readable by pretty much every mail reader.

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of
hand.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think
> > this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the
> > creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking
> > paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their
> > own page.
>
> That *is* trolling, by definition.  I'm speedying it.
> _______________________________________________

With all the controversy around yourself regarding speedying userboxes, I
would really recommend you leave this to other people. No doubt someone will
use the fact you speedied it to justify a recreation. There's plenty of
people here who agree on this from what I've seen in the earlier mailing
list post on the subject.

Mgm


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] On protecting articles that are temporarily undeleted
	for the purpose of discussion

body:
Normally we're very parsimonious about protection. This comes from the
fact that Wikipedia's main strength is that articles can be edited,
and historically we have found this beneficial. I'm concerned about
what I see as officious protection of articles that have been
temporarily undeleted and are being actively edited, in good faith,
during the undeletion discussion. For instance, the article Patrick
Alexander (cartoonist), about a published cartoonist, was edited by
User:DollyD on 30 January after being undeleted during a DRV debate.
User:Splash than protected this article and covered it with a
template. DollyD's edits had added an external link and two paragraphs
about the cartoonist's history; it seems counter-productive to try to
prevent such productive edits, which might well have impacted people's
decisions on whether this article should have been deleted in the
first place.

Now I don't doubt that Splash believed that he was in some way
preventing some kind of harm being done to the article when he
protected it, but I cannot understand what possible form that harm
might have taken. Why was this done? Why are we preventing this wiki
from operating on articles during an undeletion discussion in which a
good faith undeletion request has been acted on for the purpose of
that discussion and an editor is actively improving it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#On_protecting_articles_that_are_temporarily_undeleted_for_the_purpose_of_discussion


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With all the controversy around yourself regarding speedying userboxes, I
> would really recommend you leave this to other people.

I'm an editor on Wikipedia. To leave things to other people is always
an option, but then there's always the possibility of doing it
oneself.  Don't you agree that we should try out best at all times to
improve the encyclopedia?

> No doubt someone will
> use the fact you speedied it to justify a recreation.

That would be a bad faith action.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Changing fair use tags

body:
On 2/5/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they
> assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct.  If the wording
> is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.

This is the precise reason the licensing templates on my userpage are
substituted (and that unnecessary template transclusion is, well,
unnecessary(

--
Sam


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> And look at what I just got on my talk page for deleting an attack template
> and recreating it blank:
>
>     Warning level 2; Blanking.
>
>     Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to
>     Template:User paedophile. It is considered vandalism. If you want to
>     experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ?BorgHunter ubx (talk)
>     23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
>
> Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful'
> ones. And give James F. a look for having invented them, something he is
> *very sorry for indeed*.
>
> (I replied pointing out that blanking is 'simple vandalism', but deleting
> and recreating blank is whoops, NOT LISTED! And that trolling userboxes
> aren't "Wikipedia content". I expressed my sincere hope also that this
> satisfied the urge to process sufficiently.)
>
>
> - d.

That last excuse won't work president is slightly against you. I also
seem to recall from debates about the three revert rule that how you
do things doesn't matter if the results are functionaly the same.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> That last excuse won't work president is slightly against you. I also
> seem to recall from debates about the three revert rule that how you
> do things doesn't matter if the results are functionaly the same.

And, oh boy, has that worked well.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful'
> ones.

We should do this.  Really we should.  For the sake of the
encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on
sight" status.  The community is torn in two by their very presence,
and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of
categories and templates in userspace would work now.  If I want to
say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.  The userbox is
a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous
consequences.


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
--- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/5/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful'
> > ones.
>
> We should do this.  Really we should.  For the sake of the
> encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on
> sight" status.  The community is torn in two by their very presence,
> and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of
> categories and templates in userspace would work now.  If I want to
> say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
> good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
> wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.

Perhaps the divisive userboxes could die, but (at least) the language boxes are
effective and useful for their purpose in a way that users adding themselves to
lists in obscure parts of the Wikipedia would not be. (Also, many people find
the use of templates to be very useful within userspace.)

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
> good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
> wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.

Except if I can't read the local language how am I meant to find the
wikiprojects

--
geni


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-06

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Image link to nonexistent file (bug 1850 - good)... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 262 of 281 tests (93.24%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/5/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the divisive userboxes could die, but (at least) the language boxes are
> effective and useful for their purpose in a way that users adding themselves to
> lists in obscure parts of the Wikipedia would not be. (Also, many people find
> the use of templates to be very useful within userspace.)
>

Oh I do agree.  Just trying to "think out of the box".

Actually my research results (the only research on this that I'm aware
of) suggest that there isn't a lot of this going on.  Of 230 editors,
chosen because their userpages were on my watchlist, who were still
active over the past two months, when I checked their userpages only
22 had political, polemical or religious userboxes. This comprises A
through E on my watchlist, and a random selection of active editors
from the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_Sidaway/Jimbo%27s_request#A


list: foundation-l

from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Foundation-l] Bigger Board, open Foundation membership

body:
I wanted to raise these two issues during the meeting, but I saw the
agenda was already pretty full, so I want to propose this here.

We want to have committee members, but we don't even have members of
the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia Poland has a secretary (that's me)
who takes note of every member in our association. I keep track of
everyone - people who are on the Board, who can give interviews, etc.
You could say we're pretty bureaucratic with that, but we're still
trying to stay transparent and open - I think we're doing a good job.

But back to the topic. I know Angela's busy already, so I have two
propositions - a bigger Board (currently proposed as an executive
community) and open Foundation membership.

I'm really, REALLY sorry to propose it, but we need to divide the
current Foundation in two halfs - a community one, and an
organizational one - one that will be part of the community and will
do everything possible to help the projects, and another one which'll
work on the promotion and distribution of our projects

I think this was the idea behind the communities. I support them, but
like I said - without Foundation members, it's hard to have community
members and manage them.

Basicly, that's all I wanted to say during the meeting. A bigger Board
of 7 or maybe even 9 people would be the best. An open membership for
anyone interested (under a small membership fee, I presume) would also
be a good start.

What's YOUR opinion on this?

--
Regards,
Dariusz Siedlecki


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] A novel policy interpretation

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>[[WP:AN]] currently contains this announcement:
>
>"The userbox Template:User pedophile [...] is a great way of
>identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I
>plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template.
>I've already blocked the only user to include this template [...]
>Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone
>has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off
>Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia
>Foundation would face if articles were being written by
>self-identified pedophiles."
>
>I can just tell this one's going to be a fun argument to watch.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
>
Oh God. I don't care for the userbox, but blocking these perverts, even
if they are perverts, is just wrong if they have not violated any of our
policies.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discussions for Adminship

body:
Ilya N. wrote:

>The problem, as I've explained before, is there may be one of the following
>situations:
>
>   - Vote tally is (20/0/0) and someone raises a very valid concern that
>   may make the person unsuitable for adminship.
>   - Someone raises a concern, vote tally becomes (0/20/0), and then it
>   turns out it was a sockpuppet doing it.
>
>We want people to only vote once they've gotten the whole picture after
>discussion.
>
>As an admin, I'd perfer having this instead of relying on a handful of
>encounters with said user, or having to research 20 users in-depth. As a
>bureaucrat, it makes it easier to tell whether or not to promote in
>borderline cases.
>
>Finally, I don't think we should use voting as the main medium for
>discussion.
>
>
>
I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our current
consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a
discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of
problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]]
where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is
effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages
people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors.
AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all
the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change
AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the
facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as
they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last
voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else
has noticed!"

I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our
consensus-determining mechanisms.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Sérgio Ribeiro

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Relaunch Chinese Wikinews poll?

body:
I guess that in the USA, cell phone companies are like a big evil vampire.
But by what I see I think that some cell phone companies in Europe, or at
least in Portugal, would help something like this for free. At least for
their clients, like a "CellPedia" free service.

Best regards,

On 2/6/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > Very true. You will remember the "Mobile Audio Wikipedia"
> > project that aims to bring Wikipedia articles (in spoken form)
> > to cell phones, for free (with support from governments,
> > corporations and foundations). This would be one way to improve
> > access for people who don't have access now, and fairly
> > uncontroversial. This is something which could be tackled by the
> > Special Projects committee, provided it is sufficiently open and
> > agile.
>
> I beg to disagree!  Asking money from foundations (money that
> could be used to help the poor, or other good purposes) and
> feeding this money into cell phone companies (which do nothing for
> free) should be *very* controversial.  We built the Internet to
> rid us from the evil phone companies, not as a way to feed them.
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Edit this page @ http://pt.wikipedia.org


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Committee Open Meeting Log

body:
The log of the open meeting on the Wikimedia Committees is online here:

http://scireview.de/wiki/com/channel.log

It was rather chaotic, given that there were about 70-80 people on the
channel, and many of them had very different opinions about how the
committees should function and even what their exact purpose is.

I hope the Board and the Committee Organizers will be able to provide
some further direction and clearer definitions in the coming weeks, and
that we will continue the discussion, as much as possible, on this list
and on Meta (e.g. the talk pages related to the committees).

I would like to once again thank Angela for setting up this meeting, as
it was the first chance for a large subset of the community to provide
input, and to get answers to questions.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and
>discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because
>their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like
>the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all
>those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the
>really stupid idea.
>
>I think we really, really need a Wiki Stupidity Patrol to go to really
>dumb discussions and attempt to inject sense into them.
>
It seems that any baby who sucked on that breast might get a mouthful of
silicone.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discussions for Adminship

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 2/5/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our current
>>consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a
>>discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of
>>problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]]
>>where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is
>>effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages
>>people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors.
>>AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all
>>the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change
>>AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the
>>facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as
>>they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last
>>voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else
>>has noticed!"
>>
>>I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our
>>consensus-determining mechanisms.
>>
>>John Lee
>>([[User:Johnleemk]])
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>FAC has a lot of the same problems. People oppose before things are fixed
>without coming back to change their vote. I'd be happy to see a x-day
>discussion implemented before voting starts, but at most that would require
>a change to the rules of RFA (which is requests for adminship - not votes
>for adminship). I don't see the need to make an entirely new page.
>
>If this idea was discussed before changing anything, I'm sure there'd be
>less opposition.
>
>Mgm
>
>
That's effectively nullified by people posting to user talk pages to
remind objectors that things have changed. This is a lot harder to
accomplish on RfA and AfD, where, due to the large number of people,
it's a logistical nightmare and an easy way to be labelled a
Wikilobbyist campaigner.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Very true. You will remember the "Mobile Audio Wikipedia"
> project that aims to bring Wikipedia articles (in spoken form)
> to cell phones, for free (with support from governments,
> corporations and foundations). This would be one way to improve
> access for people who don't have access now, and fairly
> uncontroversial. This is something which could be tackled by the
> Special Projects committee, provided it is sufficiently open and
> agile.

I beg to disagree!  Asking money from foundations (money that
could be used to help the poor, or other good purposes) and
feeding this money into cell phone companies (which do nothing for
free) should be *very* controversial.  We built the Internet to
rid us from the evil phone companies, not as a way to feed them.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>... stupidity is created by a massively parallel process.
>
Is that statement protected by copyright?

Ec


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of
> hand.

And in the aftermath of the absurd wheel war that went on tonight over
this stupid thing, I ended up temporarily desysopping 5 admins for wheel
warring over it.  I had never done this before, I had to make myself
sysop first to even do it.

Geez, what a night.

--Jimbo

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles
>>
>>What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and
>>discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because
>>their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like
>>the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all
>>those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the
>>really stupid idea.
>>
>>
>You think this is a stupid idea? You must like pedophiles...etc...
>
>How about a board called "The guardians of good taste" or something,
>who stomp on bad ideas like this?
>
Sounds like you would put Dilbert on  [[Index Librorum Prohibitorum]] :-)

Ec


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Discussion of Block against 69.39.68.109 by Hall
	Monitor

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

Alexis Bugnolo stated for the record:

> Hall Monitor seems to have blocked 69.39.68.109 for 48 hours for a 3RR violation
>
>   However this IP is used by a good number of Christian Net subscribers, who were not involved.
>
>   Also it seems that Hall Monitor has not checked back at 69.39.68.109's discussion page to hear his side.
>
>   As one who accesses the Net through Christian Net and who has been contacted by original the blocked individual, I am requesting this block be removed; as the individual has assured me that he has now read the Wikipedia guidless for edits, and misunderstood the expected and established policy by the board of editors which is overseeing edits, AND WILL not engage in what Wikipedia terms vandalism again.
>
>   Sincerely in Christ,
>
>   Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have unblocked this address.  Go and sin no more, 'cause I'm watching you.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Things are more like they are today
 sean at epoptic.org | than they ever have been before.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD517cMAt1wyd9d+URAuPnAJ9zw4G/nhiwnFVIogXp0amOdyJYLQCcCYRF
RiDP3Z7j+sxizEHHshJxyao=
=i6MT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangers to Children

body:
How much truth is there to this:

The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is
worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a
known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a
child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of
residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit
children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia
as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant
messenger screen name.

Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view
the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use
filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household
or school.

The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles;
statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex
online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number
can only skyrocket.

Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its
ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only
recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time
being.

Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php?
action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679

What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I
exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)

Fred


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Changing fair use tags

body:
On 2/5/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 2/5/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying that
> > > 1. there are instances of images with this template on them which are
> > > mistagged and that 2. people might think the tags are correct when
> > > they might not be.
> >
> > Yes, but also 3) this problem is becoming more and more widespread
> > among these types of image tags.
>
> Have any evidence? Most of these tags were revised three months ago as
> part of a general overhaul. The hope was that by improving the wording
> on the tags and making it more specific, it would be easier to spot
> inappropriately applied tags. Checking over all existing media is of
> course a much slower affair, but I think the goal was good. And I
> haven't seen any big changes of this sort for quite awhile, certainly
> not anything which deserves to be called "more and more widespread".
>
I don't have any presentable evidence, just that in general I've been
seeing more and more of this.  But you pretty much say it yourself -
most of these tags were revised three months ago as part of a general
overhaul.  I consider three months ago to be recent.

> > It's different because when the template changes it makes makes tens
> > or hundreds of tags incorrect all at once, as opposed to when an image
> > is simply mistagged, that affects only one image.
>
> So, are you arguing that we should never change image templates? Or
> that we should go through each one after each change to check if it is
> up to date? Give me a break. You want to organize people do to that,
> go for it, but it seems like a foolish way to approach this.
>
I don't see what's foolish about not changing image templates in ways
that will make them inaccurate.  But I'd love to hear an alternative
plan.

> Which is not to say that templates of this sort should be changed
> often or changed regularly. But these fair use templates have changed,
> what, once? At that was for a specific reason, which was discussed
> amongst editors both on the 'pedia and on the mailing list. And yeah,
> there will be some images for which the template no longer applies.
> And when we stumble across them, as good editors, we should change
> them. Same as anything else.
>
It's not the same as everything else.  You don't just go in and change
a few hundred articles to make them false, and then count on the fact
that good editors will stumble across the errors.  At least, I sure
hope you don't.

> > You're right that both are a problem.  The one of changing image tags
> > seems to be easier to resolve, though.  Don't change image tags except
> > for minor grammatical changes.  If you break that rule, at least go
> > through all the tags and remove the tag from the images where it no
> > longer applies.  If that's too much work, start a new tag instead of
> > changing the existing one.
>
> Well, in an ideal world we'd have hoards of people willing to do this.
> In reality we have only a handful. And there have been a number of
> re-cat projects. Anyway, if you really think this category should be
> gone over with a fine-toothed comb, there are ways to get this
> effected.
>
No, I don't think the proper solution is to go over the category with
a fine-toothed comb.  I think the proper solution, for this particular
case, is to revert the template so that it describes all the images,
not just some of them.

> > It is, of course, possible to define when a tag is supposed to be used
> > without rewriting the actual text of the tag.  Personally I'd suggest
> > that policy changes should not be enacted by changing the text of
> > templates, but that's just me.  Another possible solution would be to
> > remove the tag from the images where it no longer applies - a job
> > which most naturally would fall upon the person changing the tag.
>
> This was raised on this list and on multiple places on the 'pedia
> months ago when it was undertaken. Nobody voiced any real objections,
> and lots of people were supportive. I don't know where you were then
> but this wasn't something which was just done out of the blue and
> without any notification and deliberation. The goal was a re-haul of
> the fair use templates from their original forms ("This image is fair
> use") to something which would encourage better tagging and better
> understanding of fair use ("This image, when used in X and Y fashion,
> should be fair use"). Personally I think it has done a lot of work in
> getting people to better use fair use tags and helping people decide
> whether or not a given image is properly tagged.
>
Obviously I disagree.

> > It seems to me that the result is quite obviously a bad thing - lots
> > of images are mistagged.  I don't really understand how you can
> > suggest that there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> All I'm suggesting is that a unilateral dismissal of all change is
> foolish, and that not everything gets fixed overnight. And that there
> are actually places to discuss this thing if you are really trying to
> get things fixed, rather than just to complain.
>
Discussing this thing is exactly my purpose in sending these emails.
And I'm not suggesting unilateral dismissal of all change.  I'm saying
that changes which break things shouldn't be made unless the person
making the change is willing to fix the things that broke.

> > Probably.  But if a tag isn't correctly applied, what's the point of
> > having it in the first place?  Seriously, I'd rather have no tag at
> > all than have an incorrect one.  Image tags were originally
> > descriptive, not prescriptive, and frankly I see no reason that should
> > be changed.
>
> Because it wasn't working AT ALL originally. There is some backward
> implementation which needs to be done, but the newer tags are, I
> think, better on every level in moving forward.
>
> FF

Heh, well, we clearly disagree here.  I think the tags were working
before.  They helped to identify images which were promotional photos.
 And now I think they're broken, because they don't identify much of
anything without the reader doing research into when the tag was
added, etc.

"This is a copyrighted promotional photo. It is believed that the
copyright holder has granted permission for use in works like
Wikipedia or, in the alternative, it may be used under the fair use
provision of United States copyright law."  Short, simple, and to the
point.  Sure, you could have removed the part about fair use and
permission, as it was fairly useless, but the point of the tag was to
identify promotional photos, not to educate the public on how fair use
works.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Changing fair use tags

body:
On 2/5/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Second, it is not necessarily descriptive at all. Descriptive and
> misplaced tags are the sort of inaccurate things you are talking
> about. They make claims about the copyright status that may or may not
> be true. The sorts of tags I am talking about, when written well, are
> much more ambiguous. They discuss it in terms of conditions -- if
> condition Y is met, then X is probably fair use.
>
> When mistagged, they do not necessarily give incorrect information.
> They point out whether or not the current image is likely to be fair
> use or not. Sometimes it is not. Now the way to fix this, in my
> opinion, is to change the tag to say, "This image SHOULD be X type of
> media." Now, if it is wrong, it is wrong, but it is clear when it is
> wrong and nobody gets in a snit.
>

In the interest of trying to reach consensus, I'll boil everything
down to this.  "''This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photo
with a '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known source]]'''" was changed to
"This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photograph of a person
that is '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known]]''' to have come from a
media kit or similar source."

That wasn't a comment about copyright or fair use or anything of that
sort.  It was a comment on *what the image was*.  If people want to
add extraneous text to image tags about what may or may not qualify as
fair use under copyright law, let them waste their time.  But in this
instance a sentence describing the image itself was changed in a
significant way.

Anyway, I've made an attempt to clear up the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Promophoto&diff=38458425&oldid=37775814
 Let me know if this sufficiently addresses both your objection and
mine.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/6/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> We should do this.  Really we should.  For the sake of the
> encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on
> sight" status.  The community is torn in two by their very presence,
> and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of
> categories and templates in userspace would work now.  If I want to
> say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
> good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
> wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.  The userbox is
> a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous
> consequences.

Likewise, if I want to express that I'm a muslim-hating far-right
Christian fundamentalist, I'll just  create a wikiproject for that
purpose too...

I suspect that if the desire to express such things is there, taking
away a means to do it won't achieve much.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX
> YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message
> sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.

<whisper>actually it sorts ok in gmail</whisper>

Steve


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Changing fair use tags

body:
Guettarda wrote:
> On 2/5/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The point is that when someone uploads an image with a tag, they
>>assert that what the tag says AT THAT TIME is correct.  If the wording
>>is then changed, it in effect puts words in the mouth of the uploader.
>>
>
>
> I agree.  All of the templates should have warning text saying something
> like <!--- Do not make changes which alter the meaning of this text.  If you
> want to replace this tag with a more specific one, please create a new tag
> --->
>

Copyright is something where we can't afford to get it wrong. We need to
have all of the image tags permanantly protected to prevent this
happening again.

--
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: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060206/a69a723b/attachment.pgp


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic at gmail.com) [060206 09:08]:

> We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of
> hand.

The stupidity is created by a massively parallel process; it needs to be
dealt with by one too. Remember that our page hits went up 50% in January
alone.

A lot of it is newbies coming along and going through bad ideas that the
wiki's been through several times already; pointing out why things are a
bad idea seems to be what's missing. They REALLY DON'T KNOW THE IDEAS ARE
STUPID if someone doesn't tell them. (And often even if they do, but
anyway.)

- d.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/6/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> --- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/5/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the
> 'useful'
> > > ones.
> >
> > We should do this.  Really we should.  For the sake of the
> > encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on
> > sight" status.  The community is torn in two by their very presence,
> > and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of
> > categories and templates in userspace would work now.  If I want to
> > say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
> > good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
> > wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.
>
> Perhaps the divisive userboxes could die, but (at least) the language
> boxes are
> effective and useful for their purpose in a way that users adding
> themselves to
> lists in obscure parts of the Wikipedia would not be. (Also, many people
> find
> the use of templates to be very useful within userspace.)
>
> -- Matt
>
>
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

I totally agree with Matt here. The useful userboxes don't have to suffer
because some people like to create divisive ones and argue about them.
Babelboxes and boxes which show your abilities, computer settings and
geoprgraphical location are all quite useful and should be allowed to stay.

Mgm


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/6/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  If I want to
> > say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
> > good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
> > wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.  The userbox is
> > a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous
> > consequences.
>
> Likewise, if I want to express that I'm a muslim-hating far-right
> Christian fundamentalist, I'll just  create a wikiproject for that
> purpose too...
>
> I suspect that if the desire to express such things is there, taking
> away a means to do it won't achieve much.

Well, create the wikiproject and it would be deleted pretty quickly.
For some reason we've got a blind spot for the same opinion if it's
expressed in template space.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We should do this.  Really we should.  For the sake of the
> > encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on
> > sight" status.  The community is torn in two by their very presence,
> > and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of
> > categories and templates in userspace would work now.  If I want to
> > say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of
> > good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create
> > wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.  The userbox is
> > a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous
> > consequences.
>
> Likewise, if I want to express that I'm a muslim-hating far-right
> Christian fundamentalist, I'll just  create a wikiproject for that
> purpose too...
>
> I suspect that if the desire to express such things is there, taking
> away a means to do it won't achieve much.
>
> Steve

Technically speaking you could, but I would support an immediate blocking.
It would constitute baiting and refueling the fire over this debate, and
it's really not helpful to creating an encyclopedia to begin with.

Mgm


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
According to the block log, this block has since expired:

22:59, 3 February 2006 Hall
Monitor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hall_Monitor>blocked "
69.39.68.109<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:69.39.68.109&action=edit>(
contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.39.68.109>)"
with an expiry time of 48 hours (long term vandalism)

Ryan

On 2/5/06, Alexis Bugnolo <alexisbugnolo at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hall Monitor seems to have blocked 69.39.68.109 for 48 hours for a 3RR
> violation
>
> However this IP is used by a good number of Christian Net subscribers, who
> were not involved.
>
> Also it seems that Hall Monitor has not checked back at 69.39.68.109's
> discussion page to hear his side.
>
> As one who accesses the Net through Christian Net and who has been
> contacted by original the blocked individual, I am requesting this block be
> removed; as the individual has assured me that he has now read the Wikipedia
> guidless for edits, and misunderstood the expected and established policy by
> the board of editors which is overseeing edits, AND WILL not engage in what
> Wikipedia terms vandalism again.
>
> Sincerely in Christ,
>
> Br. Alexis Bugnolo
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Brings words and photos together (easily) with
> PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] use of "vandalism" as a political weapon

body:
On 2/6/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>  <daleyl at peak.org> wrote
>
> > to block a person for merely changing "activist" to "lethal activist" is
> > absurd and shows political bias.  I suggest that the two editors who did
> > this be demoted or chastized....
>
> Everyone has to be extremely careful in adding material to
> politically-sensitive articles.  Simply tagging on epithets to people is
> often unhelpful.  We are here to document things, not to come to conclusions
> for readers who can perfectly well do that themselves.  Cf. not calling
> Adolf Hitler a "murderous dictator".

On the other hand, the word "vandalism" is used way too often to
describe biased editing. Like the guy at [[Jack Abramoff]] who'd been
trying to scrub mention of his being an Orthodox Jew. It's not
vandalism, it's bias.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
Personal attacks may be removed. You are also violating assume good
faith. However, no warning is wrong, as is edit warring over it.

Fred

On Feb 6, 2006, at 8:25 AM, The Cunctator wrote:

> I don't think this rises to an ArbCom situation, but I'm not sure what
> the current mores are on Wikipedia. I put something relatively rude on
> my userpage (I put up a version of the "Counter Vandalism Unit"
> userbox with the text "The Cunctator is a non-member of the Retarded
> Fascism Unit").
>
> Drini removed the box without any warning or discussion.
>
> I put it back, asking him not to edit my page.
>
> Drini removed the box again without any warning or discussion.
>
> I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
> edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
> protected my userpage.
>
> Drini removed the box again without any warning.
>
> I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
> rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocks

body:
Please convince your brother to stop vandalizing, or you will continue to
get blocked.

On 2/3/06, BRIAN ROBERGE <b_roberge at msn.com> wrote:
>
> I got blocked and I live in an apartment with brother and he is a
> Wikipedia, but I like to say Wikipedia vandalizer. He is the one who got
> blocked we just share a computer,
> so could you guys unblock me please. Thank You.
>
> Truly, BDR_23
>
> February 3, 2006
>
> 3:52 PM
>
> My IP address is 24.118.74.124.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
And look at what I just got on my talk page for deleting an attack template
and recreating it blank:

    Warning level 2; Blanking.

    Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to
    Template:User paedophile. It is considered vandalism. If you want to
    experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ???BorgHunter ubx (talk)
    23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful'
ones. And give James F. a look for having invented them, something he is
*very sorry for indeed*.

(I replied pointing out that blanking is 'simple vandalism', but deleting
and recreating blank is whoops, NOT LISTED! And that trolling userboxes
aren't "Wikipedia content". I expressed my sincere hope also that this
satisfied the urge to process sufficiently.)

- d.


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangers to Children

body:
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some key points that come to mind:
> - It's not easy to get the ID of a user with a login name
> - Wikipedia actively discourages off topic discussion. Anyone asking
> for anyone's personal details or providing an email address would
> generally be told off, whatever the context.
> - Any nasty person would leave a huge electronic trail behind them
> publicly visible to basically anyone.
>
> Steve

Actually, the best way to avoid that would be to have a user name, since
then you would be anonymous, at least a month or two after your last edit.
Which reminds me - if the amount of time that IP addresses of logged in
users is kept is lengthened, my advice would be to announce that change

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
I don't think this rises to an ArbCom situation, but I'm not sure what
the current mores are on Wikipedia. I put something relatively rude on
my userpage (I put up a version of the "Counter Vandalism Unit"
userbox with the text "The Cunctator is a non-member of the Retarded
Fascism Unit").

Drini removed the box without any warning or discussion.

I put it back, asking him not to edit my page.

Drini removed the box again without any warning or discussion.

I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
protected my userpage.

Drini removed the box again without any warning.

I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis (was Here's an interesting
	one)

body:
[cc: to uncyclopedia-l - this was originally on wikien-l in a tedious
discussion of tedious deletion process]

Alphax wrote:

>Oh screw it. Let's make a new committee which will handle *all* deletion
>and undeletion requests, except speedies and copyvios. Let's call it,
>um, Uncyclopedia...

Heh. Since you bring it up, I'll give the list the comparable
experience of Uncyclopedia.

As far as we can work out (I stated these rules, other users seem to
like them a lot and Chronarion, the local God-King, endorses them),
the rules of Uncyclopedia are:

1. Be funny and not just stupid.
2. Don't be a dick.

- in that order. (i.e. you can be a bit of a dick in the interests of
Teh Funny, but if you want to make a hobby of it you'd better be the
funniest bastard on the wiki and prove it frequently.) The odd point
is that "Don't be a dick" is rule 2 rather than rule 1, but the nature
of humour frequently involves cruelty. c.f. [[Uncyclopedia:Useless
Gobshite of the Month]] and [[Uncyclopedia:VFP/Kakuns Place]].

You can see considerable discussion of these on the Village Dump -
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/DUMP . I wrote an expanded ruleset (which
you can see there) which Uncyclopedia:User:Famine has written a
slightly different version of. Which is good too, because beyond those
two rules everything else is commentary.

Uncyclopedia is a much smaller wiki than Wikipedia, and my greatest
fear is that it will become as process-bound. That would be a *really
bad thing*. We also have only 48 admins and they're added sorta slowly
by Chronarion-fiat.

The way deletion works on Uncyclopedia these days tends to be:

- if it's completely worthless, an admin can kill it on sight, a
regular user can add it to QVFD (Quick VFD) where it will likely be
killed.
- if it's *probably* completely worthless, anyone can put {{NRV}} (No
Redeeming Value) on it, where it has one week to be improved or it'll
get huffed (deleted) by a bot run by Carlb.
- only put it on VFD (which is as long-winded and tedious as
Wikipedia's) if it's really quite borderline, though improving the
article if possible would be a better idea.

NRV is the greatest idea ever seen on Uncyclopedia and it's doing its
job to make the wiki content better in a process-light manner. Our
article count isn't actually going through the roof and if you hit
'random page', you're less likely to hit obviously worthless crap.

I'm not sure any of this is applicable to Wikipedia, but we're trying
to learn from its mistakes ;-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
geni:

>Try thinking about people a second. People who are prepared to sit
>there day after day fighting off vandalism are a little different from
>others. Oh a lot of people go through a vandle fighting stage but they
>burn out on that. That means we need a constant stream of new
>recruites and ways to try and get the old hands stay on. CVU helps
>with both. We know from "internet wars" that there are a fair number
>of combat orentated internet users. CVU takes that and channels it
>into something useful.

*ahem* not that I have ever resembled that remark at all, or
frequently start my day with [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:AN]] over my morning
coffee, looking for the latest sources of trouble to deal with ...

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangers to Children

body:
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I exclude
fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)

Block anyone we see actively using talk pages to groom minors I guess.
Personally I've never seen evidence of this and I can't imagine that any
pedo would be dumb enough to do it in a public forum like that. I suppose
there is some marginal risk that a pervert will meet a child through
Wikipedia just by virtue of the fact that we are so highly trafficked and we
permit user communication through our site, but there isn't much else we can
do about it short of shutting the whole thing down. It's not our
responsibility to raise people's children, and parents should know what
their kids are doing on the internet.

I say ignore it.

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
And when I warned him about NPA for this edit summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&diff=prev&oldid=38468519

He removed my warning off his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Cunctator&diff=38471023&oldid=38468702

Figures.

Ryan

On 2/6/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think this rises to an ArbCom situation, but I'm not sure what
> > the current mores are on Wikipedia. I put something relatively rude on
> > my userpage (I put up a version of the "Counter Vandalism Unit"
> > userbox with the text "The Cunctator is a non-member of the Retarded
> > Fascism Unit").
> >
> > Drini removed the box without any warning or discussion.
> >
> > I put it back, asking him not to edit my page.
> >
> > Drini removed the box again without any warning or discussion.
> >
> > I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
> > edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
> > protected my userpage.
> >
> > Drini removed the box again without any warning.
> >
> > I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
> > rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> > homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
>
> I'm with Drini here.  Whatever your opinions, gratuitous incivility is
> not to be encouraged.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> 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] CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>As for the project itself, I don't see it adding "process"; it seems
>like a way to centralize certain resources and participation, which I
>don't think is negative in any way.

I think the CVU is a clear win for Wikipedia and holding back the
masses (and I do mean *masses*) of vandalism. Curps in particular has
done some amazing work with bot-based detection of vandalism, needed
to counter the bot-based vandalism that is fashionable amongst the
kiddies these days. You really would not believe the mountains of crap
the CVU holds back.

If the name is the real issue, I don't see anything wrong with calling
it "WikiProject Counter Vandalism Project", which after all is what it
is.

- d.


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
>Andrew Gray wrote:
>>On 03/02/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

>>>So what do you suggest we call it when someone blanks the featured
>>>article and overwrites it with "COCK COCK COCK COCK COCK FUCK ASS
>>>COCK GAY LOLWTFBBQ"?

>>"Uninventive"?

>I know! I know! It's a "cry for help", and the Foundation should
>offer free but non-judgmental therapy.

I love everyone, but the amount of Tough Love they need strikes me as
a waste of good hammers.

- d.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Chapters committee

body:
Dear all,

As of 4th February 2006, the board has approved the initial members of
the Chapters Committee. All details can be found here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters committee.

The chapters committee's primary function is to assist in the creation
of Wikimedia Chapters throughout the world (see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters) as well as assist
the existing Chapters in their day to day relationship with the
Wikimedia Foundation. Those goals and duties will be refined with
time.

Please feel free to ask any questions or give advice on the meta talk
page and add to our todo list.

Delphine

PS. to the translators mailing list. If you could translate this and
send it to your respective language mailing lists, this would be
grand. Thank you.
--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Chapters committee


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Chapters committee


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
> I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
> rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.

Frankly, I'm convinced that your personal crusade against the CVU has
never gone beyond the level of blatant trolling, either on this list
or on the wiki. If admins want to put a stop to it, that's their right.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parallel stupidity

body:
stevertigo wrote:

>With that said, it might be best to avoid using
>pejoratives to refer to people, David. Youre English;
>surely you can craft your concepts with a bit more
><wit. I of course am no stranger to the need for
>clarity, but if were going to take it to that level,
>then you're talking about a kind of overhaul of
>current WP structure and WP culture. Same canine
>complaining --different context.

I'm Australian, actually, so I tend to call a spade a fucking shovel
;-) But jeez. I can euphemise "this is jawdroppingly, mindbogglingly
stupid" and the people who will be offended by their stupid actions
being called "stupid" will only not be offended if it's so euphemised
they don't understand their action is being called "stupid." (And they
seem to have difficulty IME distinguishing between themselves and
someone noting evidence of grossly defective judgement on their part.)

However, I take your point.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Counter-Stupidity Unit (was Worst. Userbox. Ever.)

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>If you don't want to get involved, and I can appreciate that you have better
>things to do than be continually stamping out stupid little fires, why not
>get (say) half a dozen editors you trust to have sensible heads on their
>shoulders, point them in the direction of the stupid little problem and ask
>them to keep an eye on it. Pick a different half-dozen each time. Think of
>it as an unofficial jury duty. Solid, steady, experienced editors are going
>to do the right thing, quench the flames, monitor the situation and if
>things get out of hand, they will call for assistance from their own
>resources. In effect, they put the thing on their watchlists.

That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people less
inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
>>> I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions
>>> were
>>> rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
>>> homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
>>
>> Frankly, I'm convinced that your personal crusade against the CVU has
>> never gone beyond the level of blatant trolling, either on this list
>> or on the wiki. If admins want to put a stop to it, that's their
>> right.
>
> I'm surprised that you think that admins have the right to put a stop
> to the CVU.

By "it" I meant "your personal crusade", not "the CVU", although I
suspect you already knew that.

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


body:
> This is getting somewhere--now if we can come up with a positive,
> rather than negative name, we'd be perfect.
>
> Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> cabal").

So "campaign to slaughter all vandals" (CSAV) would be acceptable? :)

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


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangers to Children

body:
On 2/6/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind [[QuakeAID]] - and
> [[WikipediaClassAction.org]] - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT
> BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. HTH.

And who somehow doesn't see that his scorched-earth response to being
called a scammer proves that he IS one even better than our article on
his activities does.  No genuine charity would behave like that.

-Matt


body:
On 2/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >If you don't want to get involved, and I can appreciate that you have
> better
> >things to do than be continually stamping out stupid little fires, why
> not
> >get (say) half a dozen editors you trust to have sensible heads on their
> >shoulders, point them in the direction of the stupid little problem and
> ask
> >them to keep an eye on it. Pick a different half-dozen each time. Think
> of
> >it as an unofficial jury duty. Solid, steady, experienced editors are
> going
> >to do the right thing, quench the flames, monitor the situation and if
> >things get out of hand, they will call for assistance from their own
> >resources. In effect, they put the thing on their watchlists.
>
>
> That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people less
> inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel.
>
>
> - d.

:) Is blatant disregard for established policy also included in stupidity?

Mgm


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Chapters committee

body:
the url did not go through, sorry about that:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee is the correct one.

On 2/6/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As of 4th February 2006, the board has approved the initial members of
> the Chapters Committee. All details can be found here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters committee.
>
> The chapters committee's primary function is to assist in the creation
> of Wikimedia Chapters throughout the world (see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters) as well as assist
> the existing Chapters in their day to day relationship with the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Those goals and duties will be refined with
> time.
>
> Please feel free to ask any questions or give advice on the meta talk
> page and add to our todo list.
>
> Delphine
>
> PS. to the translators mailing list. If you could translate this and
> send it to your respective language mailing lists, this would be
> grand. Thank you.
> --
> ~notafish
>

--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Chapters committee


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Chapters committee


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Counter-Stupidity Unit (was Worst. Userbox. Ever.)

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard

>> That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people
>> less inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel.

>Don't ask people to do this. Tell them. I think that a lot of people who ask
>for power shouldn't have it. Where would we be if juries were made up of
>those who held their hands up to do it?

You underestimate my diplomatic powers when I try. "This user is a
_native_ speaker of _Bullshit_." We have ways of *asking nicely*.

However, anyone reading this who's been on Wikipedia more than six
months and is flabbergasted at the levels of STUPID surrounding the
entire {{user pedophile}} incident should consider themselves a hot
draft prospect ...

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WIKIPEDIA USER ZOE

body:
MGM wrote:
>On 2/3/06, asd asdh <chemancheche at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> ZOE IS A TERRORIST SYMPATHIER, BLOCKS AMERICAN PATRIOT FOR REPORTING
>> TERRORIST

>Exactly how did this message get through?

wikien-l is the official place for complaints listed on the block
message if you can't get through to the admin. So we probably have to
let at least the first of each of these through.

Consider it testament to some fine admin work ;-) Zoe has a powerful
distaste for wikien-l, but I pointed her at this one.

- d.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Chapters committee

body:
Hoi,
When I look at the list of people that make up the initial committee, I
am happy to see people from all over the world and I am particularly
pleased to see someone from India. If these are the early signs of an
Indian national or state chapter it would be truly sweet.

The point of the committees is that things do get done, so it is
important that people are willing to give it the room to do good. Given
that many people have reservations about the idea of committees, I hope
this first committee will set an example by having a "right" mix of
decisiveness and reflection.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Delphine M?nard wrote:
> the url did not go through, sorry about that:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee is the correct one.
>
> On 2/6/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As of 4th February 2006, the board has approved the initial members of
>> the Chapters Committee. All details can be found here:
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters committee.
>>
>> The chapters committee's primary function is to assist in the creation
>> of Wikimedia Chapters throughout the world (see
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters) as well as assist
>> the existing Chapters in their day to day relationship with the
>> Wikimedia Foundation. Those goals and duties will be refined with
>> time.
>>
>> Please feel free to ask any questions or give advice on the meta talk
>> page and add to our todo list.
>>
>> Delphine
>>
>> PS. to the translators mailing list. If you could translate this and
>> send it to your respective language mailing lists, this would be
>> grand. Thank you.
>> --
>> ~notafish
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ~notafish
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Chapters committee


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
"Sean Barrett" <sean at epoptic.org> wrote in
message news:43E677FA.2050006 at epoptic.com...
> David Gerard stated for the record:
>> Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think
>> this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the
>> creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking
>> paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their
>> own page.
> Would it violate WP:POINT if I included the box in my page, then
> permablocked the fool who tried to block me for including it?

Again for the record, and for the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of
anyone who has managed to avoid noticing the enormous ForestFire this
incident has caused, and assuming good faith on your part...

ObVious: Yes

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> ... stupidity is created by a massively parallel process.
>>>
>> Is that statement protected by copyright?
>
>
> Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX
> YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message
> sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
>

Sort by "order received" or view as threads?

But yeah, this is really bizzare...

--
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: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060206/bdd04a35/attachment.pgp


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Worst. Userbox. Ever.

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

> Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would
> think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal
> attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose
> of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of
> course* they would put it on their own page.
>
> Someone went "wtf" and killed it. Then someone else RECREATED
> it. Then it was put on TFD. Then someone else killed it. Then
> someone else recreated it *because it was in the process*.
>
> A sample of the depths of Wiki discussion can be found at:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles
>
> What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated
> and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the
> discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ...
> so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've
> formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think
> it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
>
> I think we really, really need a Wiki Stupidity Patrol to go
> to really dumb discussions and attempt to inject sense into them.

Actually, all of the above is kinda funny and kinda tragic. And much as I
admire you in volunteering to lead the Stupidity Patrol in their spiffy
uniforms, David, I think that you're just putting a bandaid on a major
problem. More work and an ongoing battle between the stupids and the
self-nominated non-stupids, which probably equates to just one set, if you
tot up the points of view of the participants. Very few people (apart from
me) will publicly admit to being publicly stupid.

The "major problem" is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if they are
stupid or ignorant or unable to see anyone else's view but their own.

The Wikimethod for getting rid of stupid or ignorant or malicious edits to
articles is that the edits pop up on the watchlists of people who know
better, and they fix the bad edits, hopefully in a patient and productive
manner and with due reference to sources.

On policy matters like this, perhaps the problem isn't that people won't
dive in to fix obvious stupidities, but that ordinary editors assume that
management is looking after it because that's what management is for, and
management doesn't want to get involved.

If you don't want to get involved, and I can appreciate that you have better
things to do than be continually stamping out stupid little fires, why not
get (say) half a dozen editors you trust to have sensible heads on their
shoulders, point them in the direction of the stupid little problem and ask
them to keep an eye on it. Pick a different half-dozen each time. Think of
it as an unofficial jury duty. Solid, steady, experienced editors are going
to do the right thing, quench the flames, monitor the situation and if
things get out of hand, they will call for assistance from their own
resources. In effect, they put the thing on their watchlists.

Maybe this amounts to the same thing as your Stupidity Patrol, but the
appearance of a posse of citizens using common sense arguments would work
better than some SWAT team who would inevitably lose patience and fall back
on their appointed authority.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> You underestimate my diplomatic powers when I try. "This user is a
> _native_ speaker of _Bullshit_." We have ways of *asking nicely*.
>
> However, anyone reading this who's been on Wikipedia more than six
> months and is flabbergasted at the levels of STUPID surrounding the
> entire {{user pedophile}} incident should consider themselves a hot
> draft prospect ...

I'm flabbergasted at the amount of stupid coming from all sides,
actually. I propose in future we use talk pages to discuss something
rather than block/delete/edit summaries.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: charles matthews

body:
 <daleyl at peak.org> wrote

> to block a person for merely changing "activist" to "lethal activist" is
> absurd and shows political bias.  I suggest that the two editors who did
> this be demoted or chastized....

Everyone has to be extremely careful in adding material to
politically-sensitive articles.  Simply tagging on epithets to people is
often unhelpful.  We are here to document things, not to come to conclusions
for readers who can perfectly well do that themselves.  Cf. not calling
Adolf Hitler a "murderous dictator".

Charles


body:
On 2/6/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
>
> > That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people
> > less inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel.
>
> Don't ask people to do this. Tell them. I think that a lot of people who
> ask
> for power shouldn't have it. Where would we be if juries were made up of
> those who held their hands up to do it?

If any such unit is created, I'd like Jimbo to appoint its intial members.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] WIKIPEDIA USER ZOE

body:
Exactly how did this message get through?

On 2/3/06, asd asdh <chemancheche at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ZOE IS A TERRORIST SYMPATHIER, BLOCKS AMERICAN PATRIOT FOR REPORTING
> TERRORIST
>
> ---------------------------------
> Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
> _______________________________________________
> 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] I'm not allowed to say you're attractive, but...

body:
>> Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through
>> Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.
>
> Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.

I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in
love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory
age of consent.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
>> By "it" I meant "your personal crusade", not "the CVU", although I
>> suspect you already knew that.
>
> Well, since you're willing to give me enough credit to recognize
> antecedents, maybe you'd be willing to consider that I'm making a
> serious point, one that's been agreed with by other people. Are they
> blatantly trolling too?

If you just posted and said "Counter-Vandalism Unit is an
unnecessarily aggressive name under which to organize counter-
vandalism" that would be one thing. But you started with "Counter
Vandalism Unit sucks and is a bunch of evil militarist jackbooted
fascists!!" to get a bunch of responses on the mailing list. That's
the textbook definition of trolling, or as we used to call it, "just
trying to get attention".

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


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangers to Children

body:
The fact that they are saying we refuse to address the issue of "the
allowance of random editing to pages" should say enough. The only
pandering to these people would be to shut the entire project down. I
don't think so.

FF

On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> How much truth is there to this:
>
> The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is
> worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a
> known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a
> child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of
> residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit
> children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia
> as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant
> messenger screen name.
>
> Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view
> the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use
> filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household
> or school.
>
> The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles;
> statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex
> online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number
> can only skyrocket.
>
> Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its
> ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only
> recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time
> being.
>
> Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php?
> action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
>
> What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I
> exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
>
> Fred
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Jonathan Daugherty

subject: [Wikitech-l] include_path.

body:
Hello,

I'm helping someone use my OpenID patch with MediaWiki, and it seems
that MediaWiki can't easily be used with things in the standard PHP
include path.  These two lines in LocalSettings.php are the culprit:

  $path = array( $IP, "$IP/includes", "$IP/languages" );
  set_include_path( implode( PATH_SEPARATOR, $path ) );

So, if /usr/share/php is in the PHP include path, it'll get blown
away.  Is MediaWiki so self-sufficient that this has never stepped on
efforts to include things in, say, PEAR?  Is modifying the above code
an acceptable way to customize a given MediaWiki install if things in
/usr/share/php are needed?  Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!

--
  Jonathan Daugherty
  JanRain, Inc.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Coin photos and scans

body:
In the U.S., anyway, I think it is perfectly safe. There's no
"creativity" in that scan in the slightest. The scanner did not expend
any creativity in creating it, it should generate no copyright claims
other than the ones already in the coin, which is well over the
copyrightable age limit, unless there is some sort of special clause
in the law about official currency.

(As an aside, the only real argument I've ever seen people raise
against Bridgeman v. Corel is "museums depend on a lot of income from
this practice." In my opinion that's the worst defense against
copyright principles available: "we make money off of it, so damn the
principles." That's the sort of nonsense which leads to the Sonny Bono
Extension Act, which tries its hardest to do away with the whole
"limited" part of "limited monopoly.")

FF

On 2/2/06, Joshua Griisser <JDGRII8338 at ngcsu.edu> wrote:
> According to our [[WP:IUP|Image use policy]]:
>
> "''According to the image use policy: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright ? for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights ? they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing.''"
>
> Does this mean that images taken from coin auction catalogs (whether paper or online) could be uploaded under a {{tl|Money-US}} license? As an example of what I'm talking about, see this:
>
> [http://www.coinfacts.com/nickels/shield_nickels/1866_nickel_obv.jpg]
>
> This and similar images are clearly either scans or straight-on photos, with essentially no creative work involved. Since they are large, high-resolution pictures, they would be very useful on Wikipedia. Can they be used in compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy?
>
> - [[User:Crotalus horridus]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Changing fair use tags

body:
"Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote
in message
news:71cd4dd90602060519n2b2e7b11o67cdfe01176b774c at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]> In the interest of trying to reach consensus, I'll boil everything
> down to this.  "''This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photo
> with a '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known source]]'''" was changed to
> "This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photograph of a person
> that is '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known]]''' to have come from a
> media kit or similar source."

> That wasn't a comment about copyright or fair use or anything of that
> sort.  It was a comment on *what the image was*.  If people want to
> add extraneous text to image tags about what may or may not qualify as
> fair use under copyright law, let them waste their time.  But in this
> instance a sentence describing the image itself was changed in a
> significant way.

Absolutely. To take a concrete example, I uploaded a picture of the author
[[Jim Butcher]] after checking with the webmaster for his website, where the
original picture was hosted, and receiving confirmation from Jim's wife that
they were OK with tagging it as I had suggested.

This picture is *not* from a "press pack" or "media kit", it's from the
personal/professional website for its subject.

It *is* a promotional photograph, and when I tagged it as such, the working
of the template was accurate and satisfactory to the providers of the
picture.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Database locking

body:
"Chris Jenkinson" <chris at starglade.org> wrote in
message news:43E50127.4090702 at starglade.org...
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> Can you explain what you mean by "database lock"? Or point me to a
>> reference? I'm happy to RTFM.
>
> Basically where an admin does something which means that everything else
> gets put on hold until the "something" is completed. For example, deleting
> a page with a large history (such as when Ed Poor deleted AFD).

IIRC this also happened when SnowSpinner "deprecated" {{if}} by replacing
the functional (but horrible, don't get the idea I fail to agree with that
:-) code with a notice saying that this template had been deprecated and
should be replaced.

I recall reports that it took about 15 minutes to recover, but I can't
remember whether this was for the DB lock, or for all uses to be replaced. I
do know it was surprisingly fast, even for those of us who had been
expressing scepticism that any one template could hold the DB to ransom :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Database locking

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>IIRC this also happened when SnowSpinner "deprecated" {{if}} by replacing
>the functional (but horrible, don't get the idea I fail to agree with that
>:-) code with a notice saying that this template had been deprecated and
>should be replaced.
>I recall reports that it took about 15 minutes to recover, but I can't
>remember whether this was for the DB lock, or for all uses to be replaced. I
>do know it was surprisingly fast, even for those of us who had been
>expressing scepticism that any one template could hold the DB to ransom :-)

It should be noted that he did check in #wikimedia-tech first to make
sure the devs wouldn't hunt him down and kill him!

- d.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 2/6/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
>
> > On 2/6/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
> > >
> > > > That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people less
> > > > inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel.
> > >
> > > Don't ask people to do this. Tell them. I think that a lot
> > of people
> > > who ask for power shouldn't have it. Where would we be if
> > juries were
> > > made up of those who held their hands up to do it?
> >
> >
> > If any such unit is created, I'd like Jimbo to appoint its
> > intial members.
>
> I wouldn't. Bagehot's views on the role of a monarch are as valid now as
> they were 140 years back.
>
> My point is that a posse of level headed citizens are going to be far more
> effective in resolving disputes  than a squad of stormtroopers in a
> wikicommunity where every editor is theoretically equal. Once you get
> admins, let alone some "Anti-Stupidity Squad" with approval right from the
> top, throwing their weight around, then you are going to get resentment
> from
> those who feel that they are being unfairly stepped upon. And labelled
> stupid.
>
> Peter (Skyring)

Of course, we should call someone stupid as that would be a personal attack
and counter productive.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm with Drini here.  Whatever your opinions, gratuitous incivility is
> not to be encouraged.
>
I guess I feel that Drini's actions were rather uncivil as well.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
> > edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
> > protected my userpage.
>
> Not really a model use of admin powers, now is it?

No, I don't think edit-warring other people's userpages is a model use
of admin powers.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Personal attacks may be removed. You are also violating assume good
> faith. However, no warning is wrong, as is edit warring over it.
>
I didn't make any personal attacks. I think the phrase "Counter
Vandalism Unit" has fascistic overtones, and I think it's lame. I
wasn't trying to broadcast this or stomp on everyone's fun, just state
my opinion on my own userpage. I wasn't forcing this down anyone's
throats, nor making any personal attacks. I had no idea who any of the
people involved were.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
> > rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> > homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
>
> Frankly, I'm convinced that your personal crusade against the CVU has
> never gone beyond the level of blatant trolling, either on this list
> or on the wiki. If admins want to put a stop to it, that's their right.

I'm surprised that you think that admins have the right to put a stop
to the CVU.


body:
On 2/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fastfission wrote:
>
> >As for the project itself, I don't see it adding "process"; it seems
> >like a way to centralize certain resources and participation, which I
> >don't think is negative in any way.
>
>
> I think the CVU is a clear win for Wikipedia and holding back the
> masses (and I do mean *masses*) of vandalism. Curps in particular has
> done some amazing work with bot-based detection of vandalism, needed
> to counter the bot-based vandalism that is fashionable amongst the
> kiddies these days. You really would not believe the mountains of crap
> the CVU holds back.
>
> If the name is the real issue, I don't see anything wrong with calling
> it "WikiProject Counter Vandalism Project", which after all is what it
> is.
>
This is getting somewhere--now if we can come up with a positive,
rather than negative name, we'd be perfect.

Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
"bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
cabal").


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unitary Administrator

body:
Yes.  And it is the first step in prescribed Dispute Resolution processess
which can lead ultimately to punative action and banning.

nobs

On 2/3/06, Chris Backert <cbackert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Can any user post false declarations in an RFC?
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
> >>> edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
> >>> protected my userpage.
> >> Not really a model use of admin powers, now is it?
> >
> > No, I don't think edit-warring other people's userpages is a model use
> > of admin powers.
>
> I believe that Steve was talking about your protection of your user page.
>
> Also, people aren't required to get permission before editing a page.
> Please read the protection policy:
>   --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
Please read the user page policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

Quote:
"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing
another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct
typos and other mistakes."

Yes, I violated [[Don't be a dick.]] So did Drini.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >>> I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions
> >>> were
> >>> rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> >>> homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
> >>
> >> Frankly, I'm convinced that your personal crusade against the CVU has
> >> never gone beyond the level of blatant trolling, either on this list
> >> or on the wiki. If admins want to put a stop to it, that's their
> >> right.
> >
> > I'm surprised that you think that admins have the right to put a stop
> > to the CVU.
>
> By "it" I meant "your personal crusade", not "the CVU", although I
> suspect you already knew that.

Well, since you're willing to give me enough credit to recognize
antecedents, maybe you'd be willing to consider that I'm making a
serious point, one that's been agreed with by other people. Are they
blatantly trolling too?


body:
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > This is getting somewhere--now if we can come up with a positive,
> > rather than negative name, we'd be perfect.
> >
> > Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> > expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> > an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> > "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> > cabal").
>
> So "campaign to slaughter all vandals" (CSAV) would be acceptable? :)

Now you're getting the idea, but "Holy Crusade to Slaughter All
Vandals (Because God Is On Our Side)" would be better.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The deletion paradox

body:
You raise good questions. I have no answers.

Steve

On 2/3/06, BanyanTree <banyantreewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> This actually does need to be clearly spelled out in some topics.
>
> I tend to edit in modern central African conflicts and I'm pretty sure
> I've thrown together a couple bio stubs, because I was sick of a
> redlink, that basically state "So and so is a leader of a militia in
> eastern Congo and is complicit in the murder, torture and mass rape of
> civilians" and didn't bother to put a reference in.  I've certainly
> created articles that say "Gen. X oversaw Y war crime" without citing a
> specific source for that fact.  I don't think [[Rwandan Genocide]] has
> a single citation or in-line reference. Should [[Rwandan Genocide]] be
> deleted until a sourced version is created, as there are all manner of
> accusations  about people on that page?  I certainly don't know for
> certain that it's all kosher.
>
> I imagine that the state of the Central Africa articles now is about
> what the U.S. articles were in 2001.  The emphasis of most of the
> regular editors there is on expanding content rather than worrying
> about citing facts that may be controversial.  I sometimes get the
> feeling reading this list that Wikipedia has reached a uniform level of
> comprehensive detail on the level of the Pokemon articles, when most of
> the articles on my watchlist are in a laughable state in comparison to
> both their real world importance and to other Wikipedia articles.
> Wikipedia may have reached a point in its biased-for articles that the
> brakes need to be put on, but I don't see that being particularly
> helpful to the biased-against topics when they are subject to the same
> blanket response.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > Personal attacks may be removed. You are also violating assume good
> > faith. However, no warning is wrong, as is edit warring over it.
> >
> I didn't make any personal attacks. I think the phrase "Counter
> Vandalism Unit" has fascistic overtones, and I think it's lame. I
> wasn't trying to broadcast this or stomp on everyone's fun, just state
> my opinion on my own userpage. I wasn't forcing this down anyone's
> throats, nor making any personal attacks. I had no idea who any of the
> people involved were.

The solution is simple enough - the box obviously offends some people.
Rather than fight about it, be the bigger person and remove it yourself.
Then place some nicely phrased text explaining what you feel, text that will
inspire people to think, instead of inspiring them to remove it from your
user page.

End result - thoughful discourse and an end to a revert war.

Ian


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Casting call

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

>David Gerard - [[Pete Postlethwaite]]
> Lest any of
>the subjects be offended by my choices, I'm not necessarily saying you
>look like these people. My focus was on picking capable actors who could
>be made to look more or less like you. This is for entertainment value only.

Hmph! [[Jason Isaacs]] if you please. Including the overwhelming hubris.

>But keep in mind that the only way to
>ensure you will be played by the actor of your choice is to foot the
>bill for that actor's salary.

Oh, well in that case your choice is JUST FINE.

- d.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think this rises to an ArbCom situation, but I'm not sure what
> the current mores are on Wikipedia. I put something relatively rude on
> my userpage (I put up a version of the "Counter Vandalism Unit"
> userbox with the text "The Cunctator is a non-member of the Retarded
> Fascism Unit").
>
> Drini removed the box without any warning or discussion.
>
> I put it back, asking him not to edit my page.
>
> Drini removed the box again without any warning or discussion.
>
> I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
> edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
> protected my userpage.
>
> Drini removed the box again without any warning.
>
> I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
> rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.

I'm with Drini here.  Whatever your opinions, gratuitous incivility is
not to be encouraged.

--
Sam


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] include_path.

body:
Jonathan Daugherty wrote:
> I'm helping someone use my OpenID patch with MediaWiki, and it seems
> that MediaWiki can't easily be used with things in the standard PHP
> include path.

If you need to include something outside, change the include_path as per your whim.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060206/4a4509a9/attachment.pgp>