from_name: Richards,Michael

body:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 9:05 PM, Richard Grevers said:

> I think that what would be good here would be a flag on the TOC code,
> which if set in the page would instead generate a horizontal linkbar of
> the type  A | B | C | D... which is commonly used in such circumstances.

I have manually updated dozens of lists to remove the vertical alphabetical toc and replace it with a horizontal one. But there are hundreds of lists. A more automated way is a good idea. However many pages have the first heading that is more than one character, e.g. "0-9" and so this could not be done completely automatically. Some also have a "See also" at the end. (The same thing applies to years and decades, e.g. "List of years in art")

Maybe we could use something similar to __NOTOC__, such as __HOTOC__ for horizontal toc?

A minor point is if we did it this way, which format would we use? e.g.

A | B | C ...  or  A - B - C ...  or  A, B, C ...
1990s | 1980s | 1970s ...  or  1990s - 1980s - 1970s ...  or  1990s, 1980s, 1970s ...

Which is the most common or looks the best? And is this a good idea in the first place (i.e. not try to totally automate it)?

Michael Richards (Nanobug)

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of Richard Grevers
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:05 PM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] No numbers for single letter headings

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:28:12 +0100, Chris Seaton <chris at chrisseaton.com>
gave utterance to the following:

> I have enabled numbered headings but I think this should be bypassed
> when the heading is just a single letter (used quite a lot in
> alphabetical lists) as it looks quite strange. See
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases if you have headers
> enabled to see what I mean.
>
> Actually, perhaps it would be better to put a colon between the number
> and header. "6: F" instead of "6 F", which looks like a school class
> name.
>
> Thoughts?

I think that what would be good here would be a flag on the TOC code,
which if set in the page would instead generate a horizontal linkbar of
the type  A | B | C | D... which is commonly used in such circumstances.

--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

body:
An anonymous user has been attacking our entry on
"Christian-Jewish reconciliation".  He has added grossly
anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic comments in the Talk page,
and has been using the article to slander all Catholics as
"apostates". This new person is trying to make the
Wikipedia article present as a fact that Catholicism since
Catican II is heretical, and that he alone understands the
true interpretation of the Bible and of Church dogma.

This new user appears to be a so-called "Traditional
Catholic", who holds violently anrgy beliefs towards
Catholics and Jews.

In response, Martin (MyRedDice) and Stevertigo have egged
this person on, and have protected multiple anti-Catholic
and anti-Semitic comments.

Stevertigo then added a bizarre rant on oil, the
middle-east, Arabs, the USA and the State of Israel, none
of which has anything to do with this article. (i.e.
evolving relations between Christians and Jews.)  It is
just another one of his attacks on Israel.

Stevertigo has also made bziarre and false accusations
towards me, claiming that I am writing "anti-Christian"
propaganda, and that I am being racist towards Chrisitans.
This, of course, is a total fabrication. In fact, I am
concerned about the way that this new user, Martin, and
Stevertgio are allowing people to slander and harass
Catholic Christians.

Wikipedia should be a community where all people, including
all Christians, should be comfortable participating. The
way that this trio is allowing hateful slander of Catholics
is simply unacceptable.  To falsely accuse _me_ of
Christian-bashing is shocking, as only they are attacking
any Christians.

Stevertigo has further added sections to this article that
include total fabrications on Jewish views of Christianity.
he then criticises Jews for these positions (which they
never held in the first place.)  And Martin is egging him
on, for reasons I can't fathom.

Finally, they protected this page.

Please help deal with thos shockingly hateful anti-Catholic
and anti-Jewish baheviour, and this total violation of all
Wikipedia norms.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews

body:
I really am unhappy with the way that Christian Identity
anti-Semites such as Stevertigo are being allowed to push
hatred of Israel and Jews on this e-mail list, and on
multiple Wikipedia articles.

I am even more unhappy about the way that several people
are writing me privately, admitting to me that they too see
huge amounts of anti-Semitism, but that they are publicly
unwilling to say or do anything about this, especially in
regards to Stevertigo.

This man is a violently hateful anti-Semitic racist, and
the way that so many people consider him a valuble
controbutor onl serves to further the impression that
Wikipedia is becoming an internet haven for anti-Semites,
as well as people who Catholics and others.

The following analysis of Stevertigo shows that he is a
"Christian Idenity" style anti-Semite. What people do with
this information will show whether or not anti-Semitism is
considered acceptable or not on Wikipedia.

Just stop allowing him to edit articles on Jews,
Christians, Israel, etc.

******************

Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash
that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David
Irving]]. I immediately removed the text, only to start a
minor edit war and provoke censure for the act, even from
people I believe acted out of good intentions. You might
also want to see the essay on Irving that SV posted on his
personal page.

Before you react, here are some thoughts. SV is acting
cleverly-so cleverly, in fact, that for a while I thought
that SV was actually Irving himself. By the way, it's not
that far off. Notice how, on the Talk Page, when I called
Irving a Nazi apologist, he signed his response "The
Apologist." I was up to three this morning, tracing his
contributions, and their development is too sophisticated
for the standard anti-Semitic gibberish that people post.
In short, his argument over several weeks is leading
somewhere. The points he is trying to make are as follows:

1. Anti-Semitism should be defined as taking extreme
actions against Jews: killing them, maiming them, or
hurting them in some other, physical way. Anti-Jewish
sentiment is not anti-Semitism.

2. [[Henry Ford]] may have published anti-Semitic articles,
but
by this definition, he is not an anti-Semite.
I call this stage, "testing the waters." He continues:

3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a
"young
and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried
to point out that post the second generation of Germans
after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than
the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap
between victor and victim."

4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to
the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats
Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back
seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever
died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

By following this logic,

5. The Nazis could not possibly be anti-Semitic (point 1),
because while they spoke about the Jews harshly, they did
not actually do any harm.

Therefore:

6. Who is responsible for the supposed imbalance between
Germany and the rest of the world if not the Jews?

As evidence for this, I quote Stevertigo's misquote of
Chomsky on his homepage: "Those who express their fear and
concern over manifestations of anti-Semitism among Blacks
and others might be taken seriously if they were to pay
even the slightest attention to what is said by their
friends and associates. They do not." In other words,
Blacks are justified for anti-Semitism because of
anti-Black racism supposedly prevalent among Jews. In other
words, anti-Semitism can be justified. Once again, we go
back to "testing the waters."

This argument is remarkably sophisticated-more so than, for
example, Clutch's rantings. Stevertigo is using quite a few
techniques used in top-notch propaganda efforts:

* He is combining fact with fiction in sophisticated ways,
so that readers immediately make the assumption that if one
statement is truthful, the other must necessarily be
truthful too.

* He is appealing to the innate sense of identification
with the underdog that most people have: notice his quote
from Thomas (originally in Psalms, but who is gonna check):
"the discarded stone is the keystone."

* He presents as fact things that only people with
specialized knowledge will know is wrong. In "Letter versus
Spirit" last night, he wrote: The Hebrew word "Torah", in
fact, similar to the Christian Old Testament, translates as
"the Law." He got a little snide when I called him on that.

* He is trying to drive wedges between people involved in
the debate.

* He is employing cynicism to fend off criticisms of him:
"And due to my ties to the Neo-nazi Filipino hemp mafia???"

* He is citing NPOV as a justification for promoting his
agenda.

* He is transferring guilt from the victims to the
oppressors. For instance, "Even though they were only small
children while Hitler was alive, they still shouldered the
heavy hand of guilt - of War-raped mothers and sisters, of
destroyed country, and a long lost sense of who they were."
In other words, the poor German children watched their
mothers raped by the Allies, their country destroyed by
them, and their sense of identity "long lost."

Poignant, painful imagery, but what the fuck is "long
lost?"  "Long lost identity" is actually a Nazi phrase
regarding the lost of German culture because of Jewish
infiltration, but who the heck is gonna know that unless
they actually studied the history.

* He is claiming to take a middle ground between two
extremes: "I think Irving represents an important middle
ground between victim and victim." In other words, Nazis
should be rejected (or at least at this point, their
arguments should be rejected), but so should Jews, because
the two represent extremes.

Please understand that we will not change SV's mind. He is
too steeped in his belief system for that. My concern is
that he is fooling others.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[WikiEN-l]
	Christian, Jewish, Muslims, Paganists, Science believers, and co

body:
Robert rkscience100 at yahoo.com
>Wikipedia should be a community where all people,
>including all Christians, should be comfortable
>participating.

You are so right Robert. Perhaps we should have chosen
that dove as a logo in truth. Or perhaps a little
branch of olive tree (eh ! what about a new logo
contest ? I got a new idea !).

Now, I must admit this must be very embarassing for
you indeed, and I concur with your distress.
Seriously.

And, since most articles you are interested in, turn
protected more often than not (and more and more often
actually), what are you gonna work on next ? This is a
serious problem. I am worried.

Yours

Anth?re

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo results as tallied pairwise (Condorcet)

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>On 30 Sep 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as
>>invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on
>>[[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of
>>ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear
>>repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.
>>
>
>No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was
>valid, whereas it was not. The rules were laid out to ensure that people
>were a valid user (i.e. with at least 10 contributions) on some Wikipedia.
>They were not laid out to make voting more difficult by creating
>technicalities.
>
I think most people opted out of the voting method discussion because it
became far too arcane.  When the time came for the 2nd round vote on the
logo they just gave it their best shot, trusting that it would be dealt
with fairly.  As a system becomes more complicated there are more things
that can go wrong.  I suspect (but can't be sure of) where my vote went
wrong.  Somehow, my Meta user page did not link to another project, but
I do have at least 10 edits in Meta alone so it was not needed, and
nobody ever said that Meta was an excluded project.

>People have linked directly to their elsewhere user page rather than through
>their meta page, people have had links on their meta page to Wikipedia pages
>on www.wikipedia.com because they were so long users, people have given their
>nick and said "I am from the English Wikipedia". Those have all not been
>counted. Why? Because there is the possibility they cheated? No. Because
>they did not go with some random rule. Or in some cases, like the one we
>are describing now, because they simply had technical problems.
>
This was bound to have problems, and was compounded by the slow server.
 When I was voting I twice received an edit conflict message.  A vote
with such a wide range of options where all the votes are put into the
same "article" is bound to have slow loading problems.

>>Note that some people refused to accept the first round of voting because
>>the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse to
>>accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and
>>cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly
>>considered to negate each other.
>>
>In other words, that people may have cheated on the first round does not
>matter, because on the second round there were people who did not cheat
>who were counted as cheaters? And that in the second round there are people
>whose vote did not count whereas some (many?) think it should does not matter
>because in the first round there are people whose vote did count whereas
>some (many?) think it should not?
>
>That's a strange definition of complaints negating, in my opinion. If you
>had said, there are people who think the _second round_ rules were not strict
>enough as well as people who said they were too strict, then you would have
>had a point. But not this way. It's like saying, "Wikipedia has too much on
>A and too little on B. But that cancels out, so we're not going to change
>either article."
>
I never considered cheating to be a major issue.  The purpose of the
first round was to reduce the number of candidates to a reasonable size
by eliminating those that didn't have a chance of winning.  Ten winners
in that round was an arbitrary number, and adding the eleventh was a
perfectly sensible act.  The most that a cheater could have accomplished
in that round is have his pet design added to the top ten to the
exclusion of another design, but if this ten is taken as an arbitrary
and flexible amount, and the voting director has the right to include
borderline losers on the list there would be no problem.

One very good way to create confusion in a voting system is to develop
rules for problems that aren't there.  Confusion has been a far bigger
problem than cheating.  The number of people who would cheat in this
kind of situation is small, and the number whose cheating would be on a
large scale is a small proportion of all the cheaters.  Catching and
invalidating the efforts of the large scale cheaters makes sense, but
when it comes to the small scale cheating that might only affect one
ballot we would do better to develop situations where that cheating
doesn't matter.

Ec


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
On meta: [[Wikitax]] and [[Simple ideology of Wikitax]].

-- Jake


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: Fw: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 07:53, Alex R. wrote:
> Ops, sorry,
> I realize that this was not posted to the list.

Well, I guess I'll post my reply to that back to the list then.

====

Alex, just a few points. I don't want us to get all worked up and argue
past each other.

First: the wiki is a means to an end. It's a *really cool* means, but
fundamentally it's got a purpose other than just being a fun way to pass
the time with some friendly folks.

That purpose is to "create an information source in an encyclopedia
format that is freely available. The license we use grants free access
to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely.
That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and
redistributed _so long_ as the new version grants the same freedoms to
others and acknowledges Wikipedia as the source. Wikipedia articles
therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to
certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."
(Quoted from Wikipedia:Copyrights.)

Third party reuse, modification, and redistribution is a fundamental
goal of Wikipedia, not an unsavory side-effect of the license. It is our
duty as Wikipedians to think of our readers, our users, our
republishers, and provide them with good material that should work well
as it is for an encyclopedia, and can be remolded to other uses.

Third party reuse may have different goals from the encyclopedia; for
instance adapting encyclopedia articles into textbooks or lesson plans
or travel guides; narrowing the scope and adding more technical detail;
widening the scope and reducing detail; giving emphasis to a different
subject or point of view; altering the language to suit a different age
group; translating to another language entirely; adaptation to another
medium (voice, or narration for a video); etc. They may be noncommercial
(distribution via web gratis) or commercial (distribution of books or
DVDs for a fee, with "transparent" editable version of FDL works
included or available on request for cost of reproduction).

That's why for instance a number of us (of which I am one) are so
suspicious of "fair use" images, where in our editing/publishing
software images are not directly tied to their usages, but "fair use" as
a legal concept is intimately connected to the circumstances of a
particular usage. It creates another potential barrier to re-use, which
harms the goals of the project.

Editions of articles that have been released to Wikipedia are released
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. They are never
un-published or withdrawn from circulation, though perhaps they get
moved to the back shelf while a shinier new edition is put up in the
front of the store. They continue to be further published under that
license, because Wikipedia has no other license to publish them under.

(The exception would be for materials that Wikipedia can't publish
because the license was invalid, in which case they should be withdrawn
from circulation. That's why we have a deletion function, and if
necessary can pull individual revisions that are determined to not be
distributable after all.)

It is an essential freedom that users not be forced to use some
particular edition of an article if it does not suit their needs as well
as another edition. A newer edition may be a "better" encyclopedia
article than the last (at least, in some people's opinions), but this
does not and should not nullify the existence of available different
editions. I suspect it's not very often that people would dig back for
old revisions to work from, but the claim that they _shouldn't be able
to_ is horrifying to me.

As far as issues of how many authors need to be credited etc for
compliance; that's an issue we'd all like to see better sorted out, but
it doesn't seem terribly relevant here. If you redistribute a particular
edition, of course you'll only need to credit the authors who
contributed to the history of that edition. I don't see how it could be
otherwise.

Anyway, I apologize if anything I've said sounds rude or short (or if I
just come off as an ignorant ass). It's just that I care a lot about
this project and can get a little defensive when I feel it's being
threatened. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>On 1 Oct 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>Andre-
>>
>>>I already did
>>>
>>Great. So everything's peachy, no?
>>
>
>Well, not really, since there is still no agreement on which votes should
>count. Then again, wherever we draw the line, the winner does seem to be
>the same, so I will rest my case. There's more important things to do.
>
IOW, the complicated restrictions made no difference to the final
result. :-)

Ec


list: wikitech-l

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Server upgrade status needed in order to
	distribute press release

body:
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 12:51, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> When are the servers going to be upgraded?

Jimmy says the fun mix-ups with the vendor have continued, but the parts
are now expected to be in the right state by Friday. Or Monday.

We've heard that before, so I'm going to assume they'll *never* arrive,
and if they unexpectedly do it'll be a happy surprise. :D

Note to self: never buy anything from ewiz.com.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Alex R.

subject: Fw: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
Ops, sorry,
I realize that this was not posted to the list.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
To: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

>
> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>
> > How is it collaborative, open or free content to allow others to
> > ignore the contributions of our co-contributors?
> >
> > Part of collaboration in an open content context is the opportunity to
> > discard material that is wrong or not useful.
> >
> > Fred
>
> With all due respect Fred, where does it say that? And how can
> you assume that material that is contributed to Wikipedia is wrong
> or not useful? This seems like a dangeous way of looking at the
> kind of collaboration that we are undertaking.  What you
> are essentially saying is that if someone uses the internet to
> develop open content that even that process of development can
> be bastardized. I think that is too literal reading of what open content
> means. Even open content has  to have the right to be developed.
>
>


subject: Fw: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
Ops, sorry,
I realize that this was not posted to the list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
To: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> To: "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>; "English Wikipedia"
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL
>
>
> > Who decides if they were fair use? Do we have a US Federal District
> > Court judge who can render binding fair use opinions? Do we have
> > someone who can even say what is a copyright violation? It is all
opinion.
> >
> > Well, observance of law is a duty of citizens, most of whom have limited
> > access to legal expertise. However being regularly engaged in a
regulated
> > activity as our editors are, results in gradual development of expertise
> > which is "good enough" for our purposes.
>
> This is exactly my point about collaboarative process. It gradually
develops
> into something more cogent, so why would anyone want to use some
> old out of date version of a page?
>
> > Even if one of regular contributors was a US Federal District Court
judge
> > and they chose to share their expertise with us it would not serve as
that
> > would be the opinion of only one judge in one jurisdiction in a
> complicated
> > field with diverse authority.
>
> You are now misquoting me. I did not state that Wikipedia needed a US
> Federal judge to be give his opinion but render a legally binding decision
> on copyright law.  Also you do not seem to know the basics
> of copyright law and fair use. It is an American concept and all of
> Wikipedia
> is published in the United States, so even French pages on the French
> Wikipedia written by French contributors is under US copyright law.
> It is all published in the good ol'USA. That's a fact.
>
> > What we have to do is in good faith do our best.
>
> And my point is that good faith applies to our collaboration on articles
> and the use of those articles and the contribution of others.
>
> > These and discussions on talk pages are a vital part of our
self-education
> > and our program for compliance.
> >
> > It is of course, opinion, but we need to form opinions which are
> sufficient
> > for our purposes, which are to appropriatly apply fair use and avoid
> > infringement and possible litigation.
>
> So on one had you think we need to work together, but only when dealing
> with legal issues, not when dealing with content. This seems
contradictiory
> to me.  You want to gain the benefit of collaboration only when it suits
> you,
> otherwise you want to discard collaboration when it doesn't.
>
> This does not bode well for the future of some formal structure that
> you are suggesting that "we" are part of.  the whole point of being in
> an organization is that you surrender your personal point of view to the
> collective whole so that the whole can function. If everyone wants to
> allow people to use old versions of pages, that does not seems to support
> the idea of the Wikipedia being more than just a rough compendium of
> randomly pooror incomplete  pages.
>
> Alex756
>


subject: Fw: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
Ops, sorry,
I realize that this was not posted to the list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
To: "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

> From: "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com>
>
> > Alex, every version of every page that has been released under the FDL
> > through this project *has been released under the FDL*.
>
> Has been? So when it was released it could be used and that use is
> covered, but not someone coming later and picking and choising
> out of the page histories.
>
> > redistributed by anyone who received it under that license, and
> > Wikipedia's servers continue to redistribute them under that license as
> > part of Wikipedia.
>
> The link is not stable, they would have to change the link once it
> goes into the page history. Does anyone do that, i.e. this page is
> from a Wikipedia article named: [[fair use]]. Not, this page is
> stored in the page history. Didn't I read someone someone suggesting
> that stable URLs are very important to content continuity? That does
> not occur once a page goes into history, the URL changes at that point.
> I think that is very significant.
>
> > It is the very essence of what we're trying to do that material from the
> > project can be reused and redistributed under that same free license. To
> > claim that this should be taken away after another revision has been
> > made is to pervert the system, to demolish the community editing system,
> > to strangle the right to fork, to pull the rug of liberty from under the
> > feet of reuse.
>
> But a Wiki is about change and collaboration. I think that such a
> literal view of free resuse means that Wikipedia can for ever be
> associated with outdated and poorly edited pages. No! The point
> is that if someone finds a Wikipedia page they can change it and
> improve it, not decide to make fun of us (or hail to the glory of the
> by gone age when pages were really good). They have to re-edit
> that is what Wikipedia is about, not linking to old page histories.
>
> > In short, I can only assume we're misunderstanding each other badly,
> > because I can't believe anyone would try to make the argument that
> > legitimately edited, publically released, FDL-licensed past revisions
> > are no longer redistributable under the terms of the license that they
> > have been released to the world under. That would be to argue against
> > everything this project stands for.
>
> Publically released?  Not everythiing on the internet is "publicly
> released".
> True it is all available and the liberal availability of fair use on the
> internet means that people can get prior versions, but does that mean
> that they are the authorized versions?  The GFDL requires that the
> current version of an article some how be acknowleged. I think that
> is pretty clear.
>
> Also we are not talking about third parties. Most of my argument
> was about the duties of the Wikipedia community amongst its
> fellow coauthor community and the obligation we have towards each
> other in relation to the public.  There is an us and them. We have
> contributed we share a coauthorship bond, we have duties towards
> each other. Third parties do not, we should not encourage them to
> act in a way that compromises our collaboration.
>
>
> I think that when someone uses a page history file they might have
> a strong case for fair use, but the more I think about it the more I
> think that so doing they are violating both the spirit of Wikipedia
> and the letter of the GFDL.
>
> > The arguments about it being _unfair_ to later contributors to not use
> > their work don't make any sense to me, and appear to explicitly reject
> > what the project's use of the FDL license explicitly embraces: the
>
> The key word is develop. The GDFL was written for manuals. It was
> not envisioned to be used in a collaborative social software content
> collaboration project. Anyone could read lots of things into the license,
> as both you have I have done. I think we have both demonstrated
> that there are lots of problems with the GFDL. What should
> have been done is someone should have written a license that was
> clearly written with such a collaborate project in mind, but now it
> is not possible to do so as the license is permanently grafted onto
> more than 150,000 articles (and that is in English only).
>
> > ability to reuse and if desired separately develop free encyclopedia
> > materials under a free license.
>
> Even without the FDL people can develop separate encylopedias.
> Encyclopedias are compendiums of knowledge. Anyone can take
> the knowledge of Wikipedia and re-use it. I see no problem with that
> that is allowed under copyright law, fair use is a lot more flexible than
> I think most people here understand. Copyright law on the internet
> is fairly weak because it is so easy to copy materials and most
> people who post on the internet would have a difficult time in policing
> their copyright, even if they assert copyright they use it anyway.
>
>  I think that if you look at most of the downstream users of
> Wikipedia material you will find that they do not comply with the
>  letter of the FDL anyway; if some contributor wanted to they could
> probably get these materials yanked off the internet because their
> rights are being violated under the license.
>
> I have not found one cite where they do  cite at least  five
> of the principal authors of the material on their site, they do not have
> any clear link back to the Wikipedia page that they have reproduced
> (though most link back to Wikipedia, they have confused Wikipedia
> with all of its diverse contributors). Even within Wikipedias there
> are many translations of articles. These translations are violations of
> the GFDL because they do not respect the original authors' rights as
> stated under the GFDL.
>
> The text of the GDFL is a complex license that many people do not
> understand and do not know how to apply, that is pretty clear.
> I once had some clients (software developers) who entered into
> a contract with an information producer. They all downloaded some
> contract they had found on the internet. Both my clients and the
> producer had no idea what the contract meant, they had assumed it
> applied to them because they heard that the site that posted the
> contracts was used by software developers. The only problem was
> that the factual circumstances differed much from what software
> developers did. The result? No one knew what their rights were,
> or their responsibilities and not even lawyers could straighten it out.
> Lawyers are not miracle workers, when something is confusing or
> wrong, confusing, inappropriate or poorly drafted the lawyers
> cannot necessarily fix it.
>
> Alex756
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
I don't think (from what I've seen) that anyone is proposing making this
retroactive. (If they were, they should know it can't be done.) As for
making them GFDL from now on... I strongly vote against.
A) Sometimes people will discuss things we don't have the rights to print in
an article. This isn't unusl when making a point.
B) GFDL is a bad fit for Wikipedia, much less mailing lists. We'd be utterly
noncompliant in so many ways, it's not even funny. And once you attach a
license, it's insanely difficult to get rid of it.

Now, I personally wouldn't have issue with releasing all my postings as PD,
but point A would cause some trouble with that being general policy. I think
a notice on the signup mail or page or something saying "You allow your
statements made on this list to be used in Wikipedia." might be workable.

-- Jake


subject: [Wikitech-l] a suggestion for a new option

body:
From: "Nikola Smolenski" <smolensk at eunet.yu>
On Monday 29 September 2003 16:54, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
>> I am posting this here (as opposed to sourceforge) since this idea needs
>> some discussion, etc.
>>
>> I often think that viewing the latest version of the page after just
>> editing it is not necessary.
>>
>> When I press "Save" button, all I need is the message that "data is now
>> saved," not the whole article/ page.
>>
>> So it would be nice to have that option in one way or another. It could
be
>> either a user option or
>> two save buttons with the edit box. Or "data is now saved" is the
default,
>> and there is a link to the
>> page just edited. (The last option is similar to the way login proceeds.
>> You get a link to the previously visited page after logging in
>> successfully.)

> I would disagree with this. Oftenly errors are spotted after saving page
(even
> if preview is used prior to that), and for new users it is interesting and
> important that they see what their work looks like.

I agree with Nikola, above.  More important would be a larger summary
 box so that copyright permissions and fair use citations could be
put in. If someone writes much in the summary box (the recommendation
seems to be to to put third party licensing info and fair use notices
there).
For most summaries it is ok, but for these copyright
notices (which are really required under the GFDL) it is really not enough
space. As it stands now you cannot see most of the text you write in by the
time you get to the end.

Alex756


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
From: "Dante Alighieri" <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
...
> Since the mailing list is archived on the 'pedia does that mean that by
> writing this email I'm releasing its contents under the GDFL?
>
> Either way, the status of this list should probably be more explicit both
> during list sign-up and in the monthly password reminder.
...
> Dante Alighieri

Just wanted to point out that my argumentation about the
status of archives on Wikipedia is to show that the issue
is not really clear. The point is not to convince anyone either
way. The fact is that you can sign up on the mailing list without
logging onto Wikipedia so there probably is no GFDL agreement
there, that brings into question that status of archives on Wikipedia
and what the GFDL license really means in a wiki content.

As far as I know there is no jursidprudence on such a point of
law so there is really nothing to guide one in these obscure
area of cyberlaw.

The point is that you can't always ask lawyers to fix your problems
after the fact. Sometimes things don't make much sense and lawyers
have a duty to their clients to either make things sound very simple
or incredibly complex and confusing (depending which side they
are on in the argument).

The Wikilists are probably not GFDL. Trying to make part of them
GFDL now is not going to solve any problem, is it? You can't force
people who have posted in the past to release their material GFDL
after the fact and what is really the point of that?  There is not really
much
copyright protection of mailing list contents, they can be quoted,
cited and the ideas therein expressed are covered either by
fair use or by the doctrine that ideas are not covered by copyright
(expressed in US law in the copyright act at sec.  102(b):
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Alex756


subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
Jake Nelson wrote:

>On meta: [[Wikitax]] and [[Simple ideology of Wikitax]].
>
A fundraising proposal!?

Ec


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

>Hello all,
>Some idea of WikiSyntax :
>
><<foo>> (foo)
><<foo<< (
foo
)
>
>
>>>foo>> (
foo
)
>>>
My first thought is "YUCK! presentational!"
could be useful for images, but I think we might be using table markup
for those. Not sure.

>>>
>>>
>^^foo^^ (foo)
>__foo__ (foo)
>
>
already been suggested, but I'm not sure what was decided


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Andre-
> No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was
> valid, whereas it was not.

I don't have time to validate votes beyond the rules as they were clearly
laid out on the voting page. If you wish to post-vote validate some
ballots, go ahead and do it. In the case of the ~~~~ votes, this includes
checking the history and locating the exact revision where this text was
added, then checking which username made the addition (and only counting
it if it was in fact a username, and not an anonymous IP). Have fun.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: sannse

subject: [Wikitech-l] No numbers for single letter headings

body:
Chris wrote:

> I have enabled numbered headings but I think this should be bypassed
> when the heading is just a single letter (used quite a lot in
> alphabetical lists) as it looks quite strange. See
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases if you have headers
> enabled to see what I mean.
>
> Actually, perhaps it would be better to put a colon between the number
> and header. "6: F" instead of "6 F", which looks like a school class
> name.
>
> Thoughts?

I think on all pages it looks a little strange to have no separator between
the number and the text.  I think "1.  heading" would be better than "1
heading".  A colon would look OK too I think, but that would be my second
choice.

Regards,

sannse


body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Robert,
>
>I think everyone would agree that the word "apostate" has a negative
>connotation. Perhaps it's best used in a sentence like:
>*Francis Xavier McDougal called Friar Travers an "apostate".
>
>Also, most of us would agree that the article should attribute the POV
>that Vatican II is a "heresy" to adherents of that view, rather than
>stating it as a fact or implying that it's 'common knowledge.'
>
>I have high hopes for a quick Wikonciliation of this issue.
>
Despite being a capital offence in Saudi Arabia, I don't find "apostate"
to be so inherently negative.  It's only a renunciation of a religious
or political belief.

"Heresy" is slightly more negative since it undermines the sense of
security that people have in connection with their religious beliefs.
 But we're long past the days of the Holy Inquisition.

The term "common knowledge" is mostly rhetorical flourish that readers
should accept as rarely informative.

I find the use of the term "anti-semitic" far more offensive than either
of the two above.  The tendency to unreservedly use it on occasions
where Jewish sensibilities have been only slightly bruised is often akin
to a form of hate-mongering.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

body:
Gutza wrote:

> You can definitely add that to the page, we're people, not computers,
> it's obvious that'd be a good faith edit. My 2c, of course, but I
> highly doubt anyone would mind.
>
> Gutza
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is
>> the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
>>
>> I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various
>> edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant
>> NPOV-deficient to me.
>>
>> Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix
>> the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current
>> impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
>>
>> By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of
>> [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the
>> neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself,
>> because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit
>> it".
>
Adding such a notice wihout otherwise changing the text is really more
meta-editorial than editorial, but when sensitivities are running high I
can appreciate the wisdom of having soneone else to it.

Ec


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: AW: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Logo results as tallied pairwise (Condorcet)

body:
Erik,

it's not that easy. There was a template for the vote, I used it (replacing
"[[User:Foo]]" with "~~~" or "~~~~", because that's the way we do it in
Wikipedia, don't we), and I didn't check if everything was okay (because
I didn't had time and because I thought that the given template will work).
The template didn't (or my interpretation of the template didn't). That's
not a question of strict rules, but of not working ballot machines, and
especially one of equality of the vote, if some votes were counted and some
not. This is in my perspective a major problem, even if the result won't
be changed by counting the three or whatever disabled votes. One just can't
say "let's have a vote" and the arbitrarily say which vote counts and which
doesn't count. So the whole voting process is tainted, I'd say.

Regards, Till

>-- Original Nachricht --
>Date: 30 Sep 2003 23:26:00 +0200
>From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
>To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Logo results as tallied pairwise (Condorcet)
>Cc:
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>
>
>Richard-
>> On 30 Sep 2003 21:23:00 +0200, Till Westermayer <till at tillwe.de> gave
>> utterance to the following:
>
>>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . .
.
>>>
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>
>>> thanks for pointing that out. If this is really the case, I also propose
>>> a recount (how should one now that ~~~~ between == don't work?!). (IIRC,
>>> I came back from holiday just before the voting period ended and didn't
>>> check if my vote was counted)
>>>
>> Well that's three users who were qualified to vote who missed out for
>> technical reasons. I signed the same way, but the page never reloaded
full
>> (the server was down for the next hour or two, and by the time I managed
>> to get back to W the next day, voting was done and dusted.
>
>==~~~~== does work, but there are apparently certain browser/OS
>combinations which had problems with the Unicode representation on Meta

>
>and copy and pasted it in a way that doesn't work. To avoid this from

>occurring repeatedly I changed the template at some point to just say

>==[[User:Foo]]==. In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as

>
>invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on

>[[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of

>
>ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear
>repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.
>
>Note that some people refused to accept the first round of voting because
>
>the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse
to
>
>accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and

>cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly

>considered to negate each other.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

________________________________________
Digitale Urlaubsfotos online speichern und Abz?ge bestellen bei  http://www.epost.de


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> In all fairness I did complain when I saw that my vote had been
> disallowed.  Andre reviewed the issue.
>
> I've since looked at the situation and my vote was reinstated (though
> none of the others.  Thanks Erik.

Actually, Jeroenvrp's was reinstated as well.

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Slow

body:
 From: "Marco Krohn" <marco.krohn at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] slow ?
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <8236.1065011232 at www61.gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > Anything else that we can disconnect ? Perhaps
> > wikipedia could be made read only 12 hours a day,
> and
> > write the other twelve.
>
> Bad day for wikipedia - the first suggestion to make
> a wiki (partially)
> read-only
> :-(

Well, it is not the first time I hear from it. Some
french speaking suggested a read-only mirror to
relieve the server. I just know that even if what had
a very strong surge in hits the past month, we also
had a drop in new contributors.

> Perhaps one should reconsider setting the national
> wikipedias free meaning to encourage them to find a
> > host in their country.

But what is "their" country for the french wikipedia ?

> That would at least give
> them some space for growth. The performance issue is
> going on for too long now and I for one stopped
> editing wikipedia because it is too frustrating at >
the moment.

Yes. I understand.

Does anyone has an idea why most wikipedias seem to
have  doubled the number of visits and requests in
september compared to august (well, at least, I
checked the 4 bigger ones)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
On 30 Sep 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

> ==~~~~== does work, but there are apparently certain browser/OS
> combinations which had problems with the Unicode representation on Meta
> and copy and pasted it in a way that doesn't work. To avoid this from
> occurring repeatedly I changed the template at some point to just say
> ==[[User:Foo]]==. In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as
> invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on
> [[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of
> ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear
> repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.

No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was
valid, whereas it was not. The rules were laid out to ensure that people
were a valid user (i.e. with at least 10 contributions) on some Wikipedia.
They were not laid out to make voting more difficult by creating
technicalities.

People have linked directly to their elsewhere user page rather than through
their meta page, people have had links on their meta page to Wikipedia pages
on www.wikipedia.com because they were so long users, people have given their
nick and said "I am from the English Wikipedia". Those have all not been
counted. Why? Because there is the possibility they cheated? No. Because
they did not go with some random rule. Or in some cases, like the one we
are describing now, because they simply had technical problems.

> Note that some people refused to accept the first round of voting because
> the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse to
> accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and
> cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly
> considered to negate each other.

In other words, that people may have cheated on the first round does not
matter, because on the second round there were people who did not cheat
who were counted as cheaters? And that in the second round there are people
whose vote did not count whereas some (many?) think it should does not matter
because in the first round there are people whose vote did count whereas
some (many?) think it should not?

That's a strange definition of complaints negating, in my opinion. If you
had said, there are people who think the _second round_ rules were not strict
enough as well as people who said they were too strict, then you would have
had a point. But not this way. It's like saying, "Wikipedia has too much on
A and too little on B. But that cancels out, so we're not going to change
either article."

Andre Engels


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Server upgrade status needed in order
	todistributepress release

body:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:09:41 -0700, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> gave
utterance to the following:

> On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 14:57, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> How many hits an hour do we get during primetime?
>
> About 8-11 wiki page hits per second, so ~30000-40000/hr, on
> www.wikipedia.org at peak times.
>
> Most of these should be cached pages, but we still have to check the
> database to make sure the cache is current.
>
Why? surely in a system of this nature you can simply update the cache as
the final step of the edit process. Are there circumstances under which
that is likely to get out of synch? I guess it could be backed up by a
background synch checker once a day.

--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


body:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:28:12 +0100, Chris Seaton <chris at chrisseaton.com>
gave utterance to the following:

> I have enabled numbered headings but I think this should be bypassed
> when the heading is just a single letter (used quite a lot in
> alphabetical lists) as it looks quite strange. See
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases if you have headers
> enabled to see what I mean.
>
> Actually, perhaps it would be better to put a colon between the number
> and header. "6: F" instead of "6 F", which looks like a school class
> name.
>
> Thoughts?

I think that what would be good here would be a flag on the TOC code,
which if set in the page would instead generate a horizontal linkbar of
the type  A | B | C | D... which is commonly used in such circumstances.

--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


body:
Andre-
> I already did

Great. So everything's peachy, no?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
Robert,

Thank you for bringing this issue to the mailing list. I appreciate your
efforts to keep important articles from getting mangled.

By the way, it was I (Uncle Ed) who 'protected' the page.

I think everyone would agree that the word "apostate" has a negative
connotation. Perhaps it's best used in a sentence like:
*Francis Xavier McDougal called Friar Travers an "apostate".

Also, most of us would agree that the article should attribute the POV
that Vatican II is a "heresy" to adherents of that view, rather than
stating it as a fact or implying that it's 'common knowledge.'

I have high hopes for a quick Wikonciliation of this issue.

Sincerely,

Ed Poor


body:
RK,

Just to respond to your first numbered point, re the statement:

* Anti-Jewish sentiment is not anti-Semitism.

I'm fairly sure that anti-Semitism is generally held to include
"anti-Jewish sentiment". I faintly recall that at one point, the
[[anti-Semitism]] article even defined it that way.

Those who advocate a different DEFINITION of the term are welcome to
their POV, of course, but any non-standard (or controversial) usage
should be marked as such.

I'm sure we can reach a harmonious resolution of this issue, through
calm discussion just like this.

Keep up the good work!

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bounced from the mailing list

body:
This will make you laugh:

> Your membership in the mailing list WikiEN-l has been disabled
> due to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was
> dated 01-Oct-2003.  You will not get any more messages from
> this list until you re-enable your membership.  You will
> receive 3 more reminders like this before your membership in
> the list is deleted.

I don't know what that's about, unless I've posted too many times in one
day? It would be ironic if the LIST ADMINISTRATOR himself got deleted
from the mailing list!! ^_^

I'd have to go in, *as administrator*, and re-instate myself.

Ed Poor


body:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Richard Grevers wrote:

> Why? surely in a system of this nature you can simply update the cache as
> the final step of the edit process. Are there circumstances under which
> that is likely to get out of synch? I guess it could be backed up by a
> background synch checker once a day.

It would require updating _all_ linking pages when a page is removed or
created. Then again, page creation and page deletion are so rare compared
to page views that it probably is worth it.

Andre Engels


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
Hello all,
Some idea of WikiSyntax :

<<foo>> (foo)
<<foo<< (
foo
)
>>foo>> (
foo
)
^^foo^^ (foo)
__foo__ (foo)

There a place to discuss it ?

Aoineko


subject: [Wikitech-l] Memcached merge

body:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 06:17, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I've started merging in memcached support for user/newtalk info,
> interwiki prefixes, and the UTF-8 conversion tables into the stable
> branch. It's not 100% clean and clear, and I may have to adjust the
> server config to get it all running, so _don't_ update the files in
> /apache/common/php from stable just yet.

Okay, the current stable version is now installed, but the limited
memcached support is disabled until I get some things recompiled. (PHP
on pliny needs sockets support, etc.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo ratification and variants

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Failing consensus, given the current voter fatigue,
> I suggest revisiting
> the issue one or two months from now. This gives us
> enough time to work on
> new and exciting variants, and at that point, we may
> decide to hold
> another vote on whether we want to replace the
> current concept
> implementation or keep it. I hereby resign my role
> as contest coordinator,
> as the original contest is finished, but will
> provide assistance if
> necessary for any new vote.

Its also possible that we can put a nice new one up
anyway, and take a complaint/compliment ratio--which
of course is all a part of a "process" and is not
"voting."  I dont think that people would regard
gradual improvements as being

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo ratification and variants (append)

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

Its also possible that we can put a nice new one up
anyway, and take a complaint/compliment ratio--which
of course is all a part of a "process" and is not
"voting."  I dont think that people would regard
gradual improvements as being alterations of their
vote.

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but
> more about what is
> the best way to write _neutrally_ about a
> controversial subject.
>
> I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking
> over the various
> edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked
> significant
> NPOV-deficient to me.
>
> Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and
> figure out how to fix
> the article -- or at least come up with a solution
> to the current
> impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
>
> By the way, would some admin (other than me) please
> add to the top of
> [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard
> text about ''the
> neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare
> do it myself,
> because of the guideline about "he who protects a
> page must not edit
> it".
>
> Ed Poor

IMHO, I think that that is protesting the page anyway.
This is the type of case where it's the spirit of the
law, not the letter. If you think that the neutrality
of the article is disputed, then you can't edit it
(unless we want to change that rule partially).
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: David Friedland

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:

> Robert <rkscience100=/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes:

>>Stevertigo then added a bizarre rant on oil, the
>>middle-east, Arabs, the USA and the State of Israel
>
>
> This is the "bizarre rant" in full.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm sorry, but that does not strike me as :
> i)  anti-semitic
> ii) anti-catholic
> iii)  POV
> iv) Bizarre
> v)  Unsuitable  for the article.
>
> US / Israeli relations are certainly -- and their effect on the continuing
> Arab / Israeli conflict -- seem very important to Christian / Jewish relations
>
> RK, is there anyone with whom you disagree
> who you not prepared to call an Anti-Semite?

I agree! Robert, you may be able to endear some unsuspecting people to
your cause by exaggeratedly characterizing those you disagree with as
vehement anti-whatevers insistent on furthering their POV, but it seems
I'm not the only one who gets frustrated when when we investigate one of
your shall we say "enthusiastic" complaints only to find that the only
one who has lost their cool is you.

- David


from_name: Roy Royce

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE
	aWIKIArticle--]

body:
>From: "Eric Demolli" <demolli at unice.fr>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l][roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request RE
>aWIKIArticle--]
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:16:37 +0200

[RR wrote:]
>>No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way).

>I'm not a specialist, but there is no need to measure the speed of light as
>SI time unit (the second) is defined by reference to the speed of light.

(So why didn't anyone chew you out for not even having a Sig?)

First of all, no mere definition can cause the outcome of any scientific
experiment.

Second, the definition that pertains to a speed of light is the one
that states that - by pure definition - a speed of light is _exactly_
299,492,458 m/s, but what speed of light is being defined to be
an exact number here?

It cannot be light's two-clock, one-way speed because no one has
ever measured this speed. Thus, it has to be either Maxwell's
_NO-clock_ speed or the one-clock, round-trip speed.

I fully agree of course that Maxwell's c is very close to the above
number, and I also fully agree that the round-trip, two-clock light
speed is very close to the above number, but I cannot agree that
the one-way, two-clock speed is close to the above number, and no
one has shown that it is close.

If you think that I am speaking some sort of gibberish here, then
please recall the fact that Einstein himself obtained a value
for the one-way speed of light that differed greatly from c. No,
I am not making this up. See the next paragraph.

In his book "Relativity_, Einstein noted that - given the truly
synchronous clocks of classical physics - (and he was not able
to prove that such clocks cannot exist) light's one-way, two-clock
speed will vary with the observer's velocity (and Einstein wrote
this mathematically as c - v for a departing light ray's speed).

If you still want to protest, then look again at Einstein's little
equation (which contained c - v as light's one-way speed) and tell
me how he derived it.  Also tell me what it means physically.  I
guarantee you that you will have to conclude that it was due to the
use of the truly synchronous clocks of classical physics on paper.

No amount of protesting or objecting from anyone can do away with
the fact that Einstein himself obtained the result c - v on paper.
And Einstein was not able to prove that this result will not _still_
occur truly synchronous clocks are used; all he did was force clocks
to obtain his chosen value c, supposedly chosen or given purely by
mere definition! It was certainly NOT given by any experiment using
two clocks!

This is why it is extremely important to separate the two-clock case
from the other cases (i.e., from the one-clock and the no-clock ones).

These three cases are fundamentally different. There are three different
speeds of light. And the one-way speed has not been determined yet.

(By the way, the second is 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of some atomic
radiation, so it is not "defined by reference to the speed of light,"
as you said.)

One final remark: What is your personal prediction for the outcome
of "the one-way light speed measurement by using two clocks"?

------RR------(you can call me a stupid crackpot all you want, but
I speak with unforked tongue! :-) )

_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC.  Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 3

body:
I am appalled that people are refusing to read the full
text of Stevertigo's comments, and are snipping tiny pieces
of them to prove their points. (i.e. that he is somehow not
anti-Jewish.)

Stevertigo has and is writing non-stop anti-Semitic rants,
and attacking *me* for standing up to this is irrational at
best, and flat out anti-Semitic at worst.

Did you even read the letter I sent here? Did you even read
the edits of the articles mentioned? Isn't pushing
Neo-Nazism (or Chrisitan Identity theology) considered
anti-Semitic anymore? Or is that now Ok?

People, read the material he keeps shoving in the articles!
He is totally fabricating Jewish beliefs, and then
attacking Jews for these non-existent beliefs.  READ THE
FULL TEXT OF WHAT HE ADDED. What about this is so hard to
understand?

RK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 2

body:
Please stop Martin (MyRedDice) from writing on my User
page. I am tired of his support of Jew-baiting in Wikipedia
articles, but obviously Wikipedians feel that his behaviour
is Ok.

But I can, and do, ask that he stop harassing me by writing
on my own home page.

Martin's obsession with me is NOT funny; neither is his
constant support of violently anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish
bigotry.

RK

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is
the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.

I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various
edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant
NPOV-deficient to me.

Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix
the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current
impasse, so the article can be un-protected.

By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of
[[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the
neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself,
because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit
it".

Ed Poor


from_name: Marco Krohn

subject: [Wikitech-l] slow ?

body:
> Anything else that we can disconnect ? Perhaps
> wikipedia could be made read only 12 hours a day, and
> write the other twelve.

Bad day for wikipedia - the first suggestion to make a wiki (partially)
read-only
:-(

Perhaps one should reconsider setting the national wikipedias free meaning
to
encourage them to find a host in their country. That would at least give
them
some space for growth. The performance issue is going on for too long now
and
I for one stopped editing wikipedia because it is too frustrating at the
moment.

best regards,
  Marco

--
NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService

Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net

+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Louis Kyu Won Ryu"

body:
Can someone get "Louis Kyu Won Ryu" to stop vandalizing my
home page? He has no right to dictate what is on my page.

(He probably is Martin, but I will pretend otherwise. for
the moment; Martin has assumed other false identities in
the past. However, the present issue is that no one has the
right to dictate what is on our own homepages.)

RK

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Brian Corr

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews

body:
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031001/61c0a478/attachment.htm


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Profiling

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 21:59, Jens Frank wrote:
> > Can you measure how much time is spent in the Skin::makeLink subroutine
> > that's called quite often during the loop?
>
> For these inner functions, the millisecond resolution on the timer often
> isn't precise enough.

This is clearly wrong.  Even a one second resolution is often good
enough, when you summarize the times for a large number of calls.

  total_time = n_calls = 0;
  for (...loop...) {
     start = time();
     do_call();
     elapsed = time() - start;
     total_time += elapsed;
     n_calls ++;
  }

If the time in do_call() averages 14 ms, the chance is 1/70 that a
boundary between two seconds should be passed during the call, and 1.0
should be added to total_time.

Still, an easier method is

  start = time();
  for(...loop...) {
    do_call();
  }
  elapsed = time() - start;
  if (elapsed > 2 seconds) {
    write_warning("Too much total time spent in loop, rewrite it
      so it either uses fewer calls or faster calls");
  }

A brave fighter can use a short sword, for he dares to go close to his
enemy.

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


subject: Fw: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
> Alex, just a few points. I don't want us to get all
> worked up and argue
> past each other.
>
> First: the wiki is a means to an end. It's a *really
> cool* means, but
> fundamentally it's got a purpose other than just
> being a fun way to pass
> the time with some friendly folks.
>
> That purpose is to "create an information source in
> an encyclopedia
> format that is freely available. The license we use
> grants free access
> to our content in the same sense as free software is
> licensed freely.
> That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied,
> modified, and
> redistributed _so long_ as the new version grants
> the same freedoms to
> others and acknowledges Wikipedia as the source.
> Wikipedia articles
> therefore will remain free forever and can be used
> by anybody subject to
> certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure
> that freedom."
> (Quoted from Wikipedia:Copyrights.)
>
> Third party reuse, modification, and redistribution
> is a fundamental
> goal of Wikipedia, not an unsavory side-effect of
> the license. It is our
> duty as Wikipedians to think of our readers, our
> users, our
> republishers, and provide them with good material
> that should work well
> as it is for an encyclopedia, and can be remolded to
> other uses.
>
> Third party reuse may have different goals from the
> encyclopedia; for
> instance adapting encyclopedia articles into
> textbooks or lesson plans
> or travel guides; narrowing the scope and adding
> more technical detail;
> widening the scope and reducing detail; giving
> emphasis to a different
> subject or point of view; altering the language to
> suit a different age
> group; translating to another language entirely;
> adaptation to another
> medium (voice, or narration for a video); etc. They
> may be noncommercial
> (distribution via web gratis) or commercial
> (distribution of books or
> DVDs for a fee, with "transparent" editable version
> of FDL works
> included or available on request for cost of
> reproduction).
>
> That's why for instance a number of us (of which I
> am one) are so
> suspicious of "fair use" images, where in our
> editing/publishing
> software images are not directly tied to their
> usages, but "fair use" as
> a legal concept is intimately connected to the
> circumstances of a
> particular usage. It creates another potential
> barrier to re-use, which
> harms the goals of the project.
>
> Editions of articles that have been released to
> Wikipedia are released
> under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
> License. They are never
> un-published or withdrawn from circulation, though
> perhaps they get
> moved to the back shelf while a shinier new edition
> is put up in the
> front of the store. They continue to be further
> published under that
> license, because Wikipedia has no other license to
> publish them under.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Maybe we should make it easier to include external
images. Then, in reprints from the server dump, it
would always either be linked externally or ignored.
No one's infringing, I don't think, especially if we
say that all externally linked images must be under
fair use. Externally linked images would also decrease
the server load.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
[Sorry about that lest email -- no html this time. Brian]

I've been trying to follow this, so I decided to "research" by looking at
the David Irving article Robert referred to. I'm new to the list, so I
don't know who's on it or what they know, but I want to weigh in with the
facts as I have found them (I know it's very long, but please read before
making any judgments). In short, I think that Richard has taken things out
of context  Therefore I've put in below:

1) a short part of Richard's email -- specifically what he says Stevertigo
says about Irving.
2) the link to the page history
3) the article before Stevertigo edited it
4) the article after, which was posted with the comment line: (This is a
minor edit of about 2000 words... Definitely in need of some edits...)

Thanks, Brian <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bcorr>
=================

At 04:36 PM 10/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about
>         Jews
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
...snip...
>3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a
>"young
>and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried
>to point out that post the second generation of Germans
>after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than
>the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap
>between victor and victim."
>
>4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to
>the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats
>Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back
>seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever
>died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

-----------------------------
Here is the page history:
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history>
-----------------------------

David Irving
(Revision as of 02:22, 21 Sep 2002)
< http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&oldid=674726>

David Irving (born 1938), historian well known for his Holocaust
revisionism. Among other things, he denies that the Germans exterminated
jews in Gas Chambers during World War II
-----------------------------

David Irving
(Revision as of 19:29, 16 Feb 2003)
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&diff=674731&oldid=674726>

David Irving (born 1938), historian well known for his Holocaust
revisionism. Among other things, he has denied that the Germans
exterminated jews in Gas Chambers during World War II. In a judgement by
the High court of Justice, Irving was found to be a Holocaust denier and an
"anti-Semite."

A forgiving view of David Irving might see him as; a conflicted, ambitious,
and talented, (albeit entirely misguided) young man, who tried to shake
off, instead of reconciling, the legacy of German shame for his its Nazi
past. He originally stirred up a hornets nest of very sensitive issues in a
sensationalistic and irresponsible way, and in the light of the aftermath;
the stinging controversy, the focused attacks upon his person, and
marginalized prospects for future academic acceptance.

Too quick to rush to the assertion of his premises. he published books,
perhaps originally with little understanding of the kind of backlash they
would cause. 'Bad press being good press', he continued to work under
conditions of ever-increased marginalization, and rejection by whatever
limited academic connections he had. His associations with racist or
quasi-racist groups, began in an attempt to seek support for his work,
while perhaps negotiating issues in a way that tried to reconcile disparate
facts and social elements.

Irving, however, often was neither courteous or tactful; nor in the least
bit considerate of the passionate anger his books, theories and comments
would face, and he often spoke quite "tastelessly." As he put it, :

"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's
a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and
large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died
elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? ...I say quite
tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward
Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

Criticism
The critics of Irving claim that his scholarship is poor, the substance in
his work trite, and its keen to make assumptions. In Richard Evans' Lying
About Hitler, London University Professor David Cannadine was quoted (Re:
Irving's first volume of his biography of Winston Churchill):

"It has received almost no attention from historians or reviewers...It is
easy to see why.... full of excesses, inconsistancies and omissions...
seems completely unaware of recent work done on the subject... It is not
merely that the arguments in this book are so perversely tendentious and
irresponsibly sensationalist. It is also that it is written in a tone which
is a best casually journalistic and at worst quite exceptionally offensive.
The text is littered with errors from beginning to end."

Richard Evans, himself, said: "Irving's conclusions were completely
untenable. I thought his scholarship was sloppy and unreliable and did not
meet even the most basic requirements of honest and competent historical
research."

Revisionism
In essence, the judgement of Irving and revisionism, by most historians is
that he and it represented a dubiously suspect middle ground between
outright Neo-Naziism and Legitimate historianism, in some attempt to
legitimize the Neo-Nazi movement. The general consensus on Irving, among
established historians, is that he was in far over his head, making the
typical mistake of amateur historians and scientists, of starting with a
premise, and seeking to prove it, instead of researching, and letting the
facts speak for themselves. This eventually led to his making academic
blunders, and to consequent public denouncements, and thus "revisionism"
was became a genre-of-sorts, sub-academia, attempting to tie together any
work that countered any previously established research into Nazi history,
as "revising" of history, and would attempt to include neo-Nazi racism in
the same category as thorough research that might challenge an established
fact.

Irvings "revisionism" centered around the idea that Hitler did not know in
any detail about the events of the Holocaust, and that the coordinated
actions by Nazis to murder 6 million Jews took place at some administrative
level, beneath the attention of Hiter himself. While it is true that
Hitler, was clever enough to sanitize records connecting him with the
concentration camps, the idea that the absolute dictator of a large, modern
country, having long-established political and administrative connections
and heirarchies althroughout Germany, Austria, and other Nazi occupied
areas, is highly suspect. There turns out to be very little paper evidence
indeed, of the administration of the Holocaust, regardless of any
connections to Hitler himself. Irving, his critics say, in order to accept
that Hitler knew of the holocaust, (disregarding, for the moment, any
direct role he may have had in its orchestration), would be, in essence,
saying that Hitler was only a benign figurehead. The evidence supports
otherwise.

Irving was someone who reacted defensively to sharp attacks of
anti-Semitism working with limited credentials - doing serious work, albeit
with little assistance and connection to familiar circles. Working with
limited evidence, such as the forgery of a "Last confession of Hitler", as
the partial basis for some of his work. Irving claims this as a defense,
that others have cited these false sources, and yet still recieve
legitimate attention, despite a flaw in their publication.

As the heated feelings about the Holocaust continue, but there has been
some recent academic consensus on an important Holocaust issue: That in the
late 1930's, Hitler had not yet planned to murder Jews of Europe, rather
had hoped to forcibly move them out of Europe entirely. Only later, the
theory says, after pressures from the war, did Hitler act to deliberately
murder millions of Jews. This idea is contradicted by the that fact that
the Nazis made prisons out of the Jewish ghettos, not allowing them to
leave en masse. It is supported by the fact that there was not yet any
devised way to kill and dispose of millions of people, in the camp furnaces.

Only more recently, and in the context of debunking Irving, who claimed
that it was impossible to incinerate and dispose of 6 million people, was
it discovered that the Nazis had calculated that human bodyfat, after
preheating, could provide the added fuel that would sustain the feasible
operation of the furnaces.

Irving v. Lipstadt
David Irving, in 1996, sued writer Deborah Lipstadt, and publisher Penguin
Books in the High Court of Justice for her book Denying the Holocaust, on
the claim of libel. The verdict in Irving v. Lipstadt was short:

14.1 It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.

This followed numerous court findings, including the counterclaims of his
"anti-Semitism", of his being a "Holocaust denier", and of his
misrepresentaton of fact in his books.

On the issue of Irving's anti-Semitism, Mr. Justice Gray of the Queen's
Bench Division, in giving judgment against David Irving in April, 2000 wrote:

"[Irving's] words are directed against Jews, either individually or

collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical,
offensive, and derisory in their references to semitic people, their
characteristics and appearances. A few examples will suffice: Irving has
made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the
Holocaust on themselves; that Jewish financiers are crooked; that Jews
generate anti-semitism by their greed and mendacity; that it is bad luck
for Mr. Wiesel to be called "Weasel"; that Jews are amongst the scum of
humanity; that Jews scurry and hide furtively, unable to stand the light of
day; that Simon Wiesenthal has a hideous, leering evil face; and so on...
The inference which in my judgment is clearly to be drawn from what Irving
has said and written is that he is anti-semitic." (Matas, David. Bloody
Speech. Winnipeg & Niagara Falls, 2000, p. 64)

===In defense of==
Irving has had, at least, one defender in Dr. Joel Hayward of Massey
University in New Zealand. Hayward, responding to claims that Irving was
unqualified, having never finished a batchelor's degree, by citing
respected historians Gerald Reitlinger, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude
Pressac, and Walter Laqueur, as having unusual qualifications as
historians. Hayward also wrote:

"I have critically examined - keeping issues of truth, objectivity and bias
at the forefront of my mind -- ALL his thirty-one books... [I have] been
able to check his sources and they way he used them... I can say with
confidence that I am as well positioned to comment on Irving's scholarship
as anyone. My judgement: I certainly don't agree with all his arguments and
conclusions, and strongly disagree with some, but I can't find serious
flaws in his methodology and I have never found a single example of
deliberate falsification of evidence. ...Deborah Lipstadt's book is
hopeless [and] Gerald Fleming's [book] is easily the best of the
anti-Irving books, but even that ultimately fails to prove falsification or
improper consideration of evidence."

Hayward's motivations, however, have been called as suspect as well: His
masters thesis at the New Zealand's University of Canterbury, caused an
uproar, in making the claim that far fewer than 6 million Jews, perhaps
fewer than 1 million, perished in Nazi concentration camps; adding that
Hitler could not be held personally responsible for any suffering
experienced by the Jews of Europe. Hayward later apologized for the thesis,
expressing remorse over the "mistakes I made as an inexperienced student",
adding that he was "inexperienced in the historian's craft and knew
relatively little about the Holocaust and its complex historiography."

David Irving's 'Focal Point Publications' official website - Holocaust
victims website


body:
On 1 Oct 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Andre-
> > No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was
> > valid, whereas it was not.
>
> I don't have time to validate votes beyond the rules as they were clearly
> laid out on the voting page. If you wish to post-vote validate some
> ballots, go ahead and do it. In the case of the ~~~~ votes, this includes
> checking the history and locating the exact revision where this text was
> added, then checking which username made the addition (and only counting
> it if it was in fact a username, and not an anonymous IP). Have fun.

I already did, see
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/intlwiki-l/2003-September/002338.html
where I have checked the various removed votes, and given my opinion about
them.

I did not check the votes on other languages there, so I will have to
check a bit more.

-------------------
I'm not accepting the results if not included:
* Kpjas
Links to his en: page, just uses a link that worked when he created it
2 years ago, but does not any more. Apart from that an ancient and
well-known wikipedian.

-------------------
Certainly in favor of inclusion:
* JDG
Clearly identifies himself on his meta: user page as the en: user of the
same nick.

* first anonymous user (=en:Dramatic)
* second anonmyous user (=en:Tillwe)
Signing with ~~~~ between =='s

* de:Benutzer:korny78
* de:Benutzer:Hafenbar
* de:Benutzer:wst
Link directly to their page on de: and that was the purpose, wasn't it, to
be sure they were a user with some contributions on some wikipedia?

* Gaucho
Typo in his link to his de: userpage

-------------------
Probably want to include:

* Pacific1982
* F. P. Laussy (Laussy)
Clearly the same person as the en: user with the same username. No
identification on their meta: user page as to which Wikipedia they are
coming from though.

* RodrigoB
Believably identifies himself as an anonymous contributor on en:

-------------------
Agree with removal:

* Mjanich
* Juky
* Elliott
* Heymarcel
* Skrrytch
* Dishayloo
* bzwische
* Ralph

Have no meta page

* bluenote
* PierreC
* Tempshill
* Richa B

Meta page does not inform from which Wikipedia they are

* GillianAnderson
First edit (at least under this name) on de: was several days after the
closing of the voting period)

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

For the count:
Here is the extra points the various proposals get with those I certainly
want to include. All have 7 votes, unless otherwise specified.

* 1a: 24
* 1b: 17
* 2a: 15
* 2b: 20
* 2c: 17
* 2d: 16
* 2e: 17
* 3a: 20
* 3b: 19
* 4a: 14
* 4b: 17
* 4c: 17
* 4d: 18
* 5a: 14
* 5b: 11
* 5c: 14
* 5d: 13
* 5e: 11
* 6a: 25 (from 8 votes)
* 6b: 21 (from 8 votes)
* 6c: 15
* 7a: 12
* 7b: 9
* 7c: 9
* 7d: 11
* 7e: 11
* 8:  21
* 9a: 11
* 9b: 10
* 9c: 10
* 9d: 10
* 9e: 10
* 10: 21
* 11: 14 (from 6 votes)
* 0:  17

And here with also those I probably want to include. All have 10 votes unless
otherwise specified.

* 1a: 34
* 1b: 25
* 2a: 20
* 2b: 24
* 2c: 21
* 2d: 20
* 2e: 21
* 3a: 25
* 3b: 24
* 4a: 22
* 4b: 22
* 4c: 22
* 4d: 25
* 5a: 22
* 5b: 18
* 5c: 25
* 5d: 21
* 5e: 22
* 6a: 32 (from 11 votes)
* 6b: 28 (from 11 votes)
* 6c: 23
* 7a: 17
* 7b: 14
* 7c: 14
* 7d: 16
* 7e: 16
* 8:  32
* 9a: 19
* 9b: 18
* 9c: 18
* 9d: 18
* 9e: 18
* 10: 25
* 11: 17 (from 9 votes)
* 0:  23

Andre Engels


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Putting a notice of dispute

body:
> By the way, would some admin (other than me) please
> add to the top of
> [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard
> text about ''the
> neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare
> do it myself,
> because of the guideline about "he who protects a
> page must not edit
> it".
> > Ed Poor

>IMHO, I think that that is protesting the page
anyway.
>This is the type of case where it's the spirit of the
>law, not the letter. If you think that the neutrality
>of the article is disputed, then you can't edit it
>(unless we want to change that rule partially).
LDan

If you think that the neutrality of an article is
disputed, then you can't edit it even to put a lack of
neutrality banner on it ?

I think this is deeply curious. One would say on the
contrary that the one disputing an article could
precisely be the one adding a banner. And that once an
article is protected, it is so obvious that its
neutrality is disputed, that anyone could put a banner
without fearing to be breaching any rule.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l logo (Erik)

body:
I hereby resign my role as contest coordinator, as the
original contest is finished, but will provide
assistance if necessary for any new vote.

Regards,

Erik

Since I criticize a couple of time, I wanted to say
thanks for the great job nevertheless.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
On 1 Oct 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Andre-
> > I already did
>
> Great. So everything's peachy, no?

Well, not really, since there is still no agreement on which votes should
count. Then again, wherever we draw the line, the winner does seem to be
the same, so I will rest my case. There's more important things to do.

Andre Engels


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikilists and GDFL

body:
LittleDan wrote:

>Maybe we should make it easier to include external
>images. Then, in reprints from the server dump, it
>would always either be linked externally or ignored.
>No one's infringing, I don't think, especially if we
>say that all externally linked images must be under
>fair use. Externally linked images would also decrease
>the server load.

We used to allow these, but got rid of them
after a rash of links to <goatse.cx>.
That they could change without any sign on Wikipedia
(that is, no detection by Recentchanges or a Watchlist)
was also a motivating factor.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews

body:
> I really am unhappy with the way that Christian
> Identity
> anti-Semites such as Stevertigo are being allowed to
> push
> hatred of Israel and Jews on this e-mail list, and
> on
> multiple Wikipedia articles.
>
> I am even more unhappy about the way that several
> people
> are writing me privately, admitting to me that they
> too see
> huge amounts of anti-Semitism, but that they are
> publicly
> unwilling to say or do anything about this,
> especially in
> regards to Stevertigo.
>
> This man is a violently hateful anti-Semitic racist,
> and
> the way that so many people consider him a valuble
> controbutor onl serves to further the impression
> that
> Wikipedia is becoming an internet haven for
> anti-Semites,
> as well as people who Catholics and others.
>
> The following analysis of Stevertigo shows that he
> is a
> "Christian Idenity" style anti-Semite. What people
> do with
> this information will show whether or not
> anti-Semitism is
> considered acceptable or not on Wikipedia.
>
> Just stop allowing him to edit articles on Jews,
> Christians, Israel, etc.
>
>
> ******************
> [lots of valid evidence]
>
> RK

Stevertigo may be a little confused about jew-related
issues and NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should block
him from editing the articles. We only need to
convince him that what his writing is not NPOV (no
matter how "correct" it is).

Besides, Stevertigo is not anti-semetic. If he was,
don't you think he would have said something bad about
our religion to at least one of us, RK? (BTW, I'm
Jewish)
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5

body:
This harassment is totally out of control. Martin
(MyRedDice) is till vandalizing my talk page.

Stop this harassment at once. And will people kindly remove
the anti-Catholic diatribes?

RK

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] This is how it will work.

body:
Ok, I see how you are all behaving.

Now Martin and Angela are cooperating in vandalizing my
home page, despite my repeated pleas to stop harassing me.
And no one on the Wiki-En list seems to have a problem with
their harassment and vandalism.

So this is how it is going to work: If Wikipedia policy
allows them to vandalize my home page, then it should also
allow me to do the same to theirs.

If it is wrong for me to do this to them, then it is also
wrong for them to do the same to me.

It is your choice what kind of community we have. Martin
and Angela, despite my repeated desperate pleas, have made
it clear what kind of behaviour they find acceptable to do
unto others. And many of you have made it clear that you
don't have a problem with this.

Personally, I find your choices incomprehensible.  I think
this way leads to insanity, and the destruction of any
semblance of Wiki-community.

The only choice is to follow my original proposal: When
someone begs and pleads for a person to stop shoving
harassment onto their home page, then that person should
stop doing so.  Your way - i.e. allowing this behaviour -
is simply insane.

But it is up to you.  All I know is that I refuse to follow
the current Wikipedia policy, which is to forbid me alone
from changing other people's home pages, but allowing
others to harass me.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] This is how it will work.

body:
--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> But it is up to you.  All I know is that I refuse to follow
> the current Wikipedia policy, which is to forbid me alone
> from changing other people's home pages, but allowing
> others to harass me.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

There is no law that says you have to stay at the W. Nobody is
forcing you. Deal with it.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

body:
Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> writes:

> Stevertigo then added a bizarre rant on oil, the
> middle-east, Arabs, the USA and the State of Israel

This is the "bizarre rant" in full.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The US-Israeli relationship, almost since Israel's beginning, had been
  based a history of trust between the two countries-- dealing materially
  with the maintaining of [[Anglo]]-[[American]] [[oil interests]] in the
  region, and unwavering US support for Israel in the [[UN]]. The current
  climate of Christian Jewish reconciliation is seen by people of various
  political shades, in one respect or another, as being hand-in-hand with
  their mutually supportive political, military, and economic
  relationship.

  But this tenor of reconciliation also presents some political conflicts in
  light of the [[War on Terror]]. Arabs in the USA and Europe have at
  times expressed a resentment at the strength of the US-Israeli
  relationship, as a union of powers with the sole purpose of isolating
  Arabs, Arab human rights causes, and even Islam-- being the sole
  [[Abrahamic religion]] isolated from Judeo-Christian reconciliations.
  Religion is seen by some Muslims as the final straw-- the final social
  compact between US and Israeli societies, at the exclusion of Arab
  Muslims.

  Yet many Jews and Christians do not see it this way. In fact they
  express a great deal of sincerity in terms of wanting to see Jewish and
  Christian relationship further healed, having a very long and terrible
  history of ethnic hostility between them, which eventually culminated
  in the Holocaust in the mid [[20th]] century. They hold the view that the
  political connection between the US and Israel is a side issue-- not
  bearing on the importance and merit of a growing understanding
  between Christians and Jews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but that does not strike me as :
i)  anti-semitic
ii) anti-catholic
iii)  POV
iv) Bizarre
v)  Unsuitable  for the article.

US / Israeli relations are certainly -- and their effect on the continuing
Arab / Israeli conflict -- seem very important to Christian / Jewish relations

RK, is there anyone with whom you disagree
who you not prepared to call an Anti-Semite?
--
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate


subject: [WikiEN-l] Break

body:
Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to
examine whether RK  should be banned for his obnoxious
behavior, RK started vandalizing  several user and
talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being
vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on
it. I have  temporarily banned him (and no, I won't
read through his lengthy diatribes  which will
inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this
temporary  ban into a permanent one, at least for a
month or so.

Regards,

Erik

Perhaps temporary is best first. I am sure it will
make him realize that he can't do anything he wants
to, with no punishment ever.

I strongly support a graduation in punishment, just as
I indicate yesterday in Martin good work talk page

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3ABans_and_blocks

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jake Nelson wrote:
>
> >On meta: [[Wikitax]] and [[Simple ideology of Wikitax]].
> >
> A fundraising proposal!?
>
> Ec
>
That was my first reaction on seeing the titles... I think people's
obsession with rendering everything WP-related as Wiki<relevant word missing
its first syllable> should be kept in check on this one. Especially given
that it's utterly unintuitive- someone searching for WikiSyntax (as started
this thread) would have no reason to think of looking in 'Wikitax'...

-- Jake


body:
Anthere wrote:
> [...] once an
> article is protected, it is so obvious that its
> neutrality is disputed, that anyone could put a banner
> without fearing to be breaching any rule.

Not to me-too, but I have to second this.

-- Jake