from_name: Jon Awbrey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

WikiPediatrics 101.  Diseases of Infancy.  Major Syndromes, Section 1.

| In the present state of Wikipedia, the rules in practice and the
| prevailing attitudes of administrators are all skewed in favor
| of the Infantile Vandals and the Expert Disrupters, while the
| Accurate Reporters and Responsible Scholars don't stand a chance.

If I had to single out the single most serious symptom, the most critical
systematic fault that I have observed interfering with the possiblity the
WikiPatient ever recovering healthy functioning, it would have to be this:

Symptom 1.  Inversion of Priorities (IOP)

One of the more distressing aspects of WP's present condition,
at least for the un-anaesthetized observer, is the fact that
WP embodies within its basic constitution, namely, its most
celebrated and clamorously espoused policies and guidelines,
"all the right stuff" that it would take to return to health.

Sadly, even tragically, "the vodka is good, but the meat is rotten",
as that classic bytage of machine translation goes.  So it behooves
a "student of systems" (SOS) to ask about the reasons or causes why.

That will be the subject of this section's inquiry.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Igor Coropceanu

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia, again

body:
I agree with that statement, why should the Moldovan Wikipedia only use Cyrillic, that would imply that Moldovan is normally written in that alphabet, which is actually false as the vast majority of Moldovan speakers (i.e. speakers of Romanian in Moldvoa) use the latin script. But having a latin version of Moldovan would also be stupid as formal Moldovan and Romanian are identical. A mo-cyr or ro-cyr version could be created for those who want to read the Romanian encclopedia in Cyrillic (through a transliteration tool), but I suggest not implementing that until someone actually requests a Cyrillic Moldovan encyclopedia.

Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:By all this I am trying to explain that current Cyrillic content has nothing
to do on mo.wikipedia. If it has any right to exist (low quality content, no
native contributors, no native people's support of its existance [at least
not here, not on this mailing-list]), it should be somewhere on a
mo-cyr.wikipedia.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 6/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> A redlink might just be a mistake, so briefly search for an existing
>> article. If it seems it could be a viable article it should be left
>> alone. I think it should continue to be a redlink until someone is
>> ready to write an article rather than being made into a stub.
>>
>
> But if someone is looking for information on a book, is it not more
> useful to make that book a redirect to the author, where at least the
> one liner "John Foo is best known for his brilliant book, Foo Strikes
> Again, which is all about ...." is better than nothing.
>
> I firmly believe that Wikipedia's mission is to answer the question
> "What the hell is X?" to whatever extent it can, rather than just give
> up and say "no, we don't know either". Even if all we have time to
> write is "It's a book, check out these three urls".
>
> Steve

In the case of a book on which there is no article a redirect to the
author is appropriate. I don't think there are very many books which
will support a decent article, but then I don't think the average
episode of South Park does either. We need to have a discussion on
which books ought to have articles. Some criteria regarding notability.

Fred


from_name: Rosa, Michael

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Require confirmed email address to upload images?

body:
>From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
>[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz

>> However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can
>also be food
>> for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use
>> the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few
>> of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
>>
>> There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march.
>> *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails.
>> *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
>>
>> There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march.
>> *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails.
>> *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
>>
>> I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based
>> on the numbers.
>
>So about 40% of useful contributions come from users without
>confirmed emails, and we would be throwing them away ?

32% is closer to 30% than to 40%...

As the OP says - the numbers can be misleading - you see 40% of useful
contributions, I see that 70% of uploads by the "unconfirmed" users are
deleted as opposed to just 24% of the "confirmed" users uploads.  For me
that clearly says it's a good policy.

>The numbers prove clearly that the proposed policy is really stupid.

No, they don't.  Numbers rarely prove anything as they can be very
easily twisted in any way that seems suitable for a particular point of
view.

Cheers,
Michal (roo72)


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
>   When discovering a redlink, which is better: to leave it as a
> redlink, or redirect it to the "closest" topic? Eg, a redlink to the
> name of a book - best to leave it that way, or create it as a redirect
> to the book's author? Or, create a substub "X is a book by
> [[Author]]"?

I say only redirect to an article if the article already contains some
kind of substantial content about the subject the redirect is about. So
if the author's page actually discusses the book in question go ahead
and redirect, but if it doesn't then IMO it will only lead to confusion
and frustration on the part of the reader.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060629/8801b483/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> There have certainly been cases where I've been redirected without
> understanding why (usually because the topic is some synonym for some
> obscure point discussed in the 14th paragraph...) It's not obvious how
> to then fix the problem though - you almost need a "Topics discussed
> in this article" box up the top.

The "Table of Contents" box can serve this purpose in many cases,
fortunately. Subtopics often get their own section, whose header shows
up there.

> Unlike a real encyclopaedia, we don't seem willing or able to have
> incredibly short articles that say things like "Wreckage: temporary
> name given to English pop group Ibex in 1970. See [[Ibex (group)]]".

In this case a disambiguation page would be able to hold this
information, but I can see the problem where a non-ambiguous name comes
in. Hopefully one can come up with enough information to warrant a
section header for the topic, at least.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060629/54a2b090/attachment.pgp


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
On 6/29/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a
> block?  What if it's your roomate?  Your 5 year old child?

Common sense should be used. Getting someone to act *on your behalf*
for your own personal gain is one thing. Getting someone to relay some
information which is clearly, objectively in the interests of the
project, once, is another.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] suck it wiki

body:
On 6/29/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we don't screen posts before they go to the list, that would
> explain why we've getting an incredible amount of trollish edits by
> the likes of Rgulerdem over the past month or so.  However it doesn't
> explain why we *don't* get loads of off-topic borderline spam.

Posts from people who are not subscribed do not, by default, make it
through to the list. That knocks out all spam instantly. Occasionally
some legitimate posts are made in this fashion, and if we're on our
toes, we notice them and let them through, but probably a goodly
number get wiped. The list gets a hundred or more spam messages a
day...

Also, all subscribed users start out moderated, but are usually taken
off after their first message.

> Clearly there is some moderation, and the moderators are awake.  But
> their standards over the past month or so have been, to say the least,
> somewhat catholic.  To the extent that I wonder why we bother running
> this list any more.  The good discussion is being relentlessly drowned
> out by idiocy.

I don't presume to set the standards for discussion, I only enforce
them. IMHO, it is up to people on this list to decide the standards
and tell others when it's time to drop a subject, or to ask people to
stop responding to trolls. Also, we do tend to react when we get
complaints to wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org .

If people want, we could raise the minimum standards, and be more
proactive about moderating trolls. However, with the new directive
that grievances about blocks should not be brought here, that may not
be necessary.

Steve


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 6/29/06, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> However, what's the situation
> with accounts that provided an email address which has never been
> verified because it was supplied before validation started and the user
> didn't bother afterwards?

The proposed change applies only to uploads. So, existing images will
be unaffected.
Users with preexisting accounts that do not have a confirmed email set
will be unable to upload until they set one.


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 6/28/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of
> requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid
> evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler.
> I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness
> w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the
> level of vandalism by IPs.

Perhaps you should do newimage patrol for a few weeks, then.  If
vandalism were taking place at the same rate as bad image uploads,
people would be screaming bloody murder.

My bot's spending about ten hours a day handling bad image uploads,
and I'm spending another two to three.  Between us, we're catching
about 95% of images without a license tag, about 20% of images without
a source, and about 2% of invalid fair-use claims.  I don't have time
to follow up on any of this -- if the uploader removes the {{no info}}
or {{untagged}} template, the image simply gets lost among the tens of
thousands of other problem images.  I can follow up on the ten or so
fair-use claims I dispute each day, but that takes another hour, and
doesn't do much good -- for every image I dispute, another 50 get
uploaded.

My best estimate is that there are around 100,000 images on the
English Wikipedia with a clearly invalid "fair use" claim or being
used in a manner inconsistent with their fair-use tag, and another
100,000 with an incorrect free-license claim.  Any one of those could
harm us worse than the whole Siegenthaler mess when the copyright
holder files an infringement lawsuit.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] import babel templates, how-to

body:
Hi Berto,

yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in
a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the
same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.

Ciao, Sabine

Berto schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with the
> level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it
> looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
>
> B?rto
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
Hi all,
  When discovering a redlink, which is better: to leave it as a
redlink, or redirect it to the "closest" topic? Eg, a redlink to the
name of a book - best to leave it that way, or create it as a redirect
to the book's author? Or, create a substub "X is a book by
[[Author]]"?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation

body:
On 6/29/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > If people want, we could raise the minimum standards, and be more
> > proactive about moderating trolls.
>
> Please do. The fact that a thread titled "suck it wiki" has seen
> several dozen messages on this list is enough proof that such action
> is needed.

There's nothing much we can do about that particular case: someone
posts "please unblock X" - seems reasonable, we unmod. His next post
is "suck it wiki".

But I'll take your comments into account in future.

Steve


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 6/28/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is
>>> the AN/I page a grey area?
>> Nope.  If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it.  You can
>> always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000
>> or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up
>> there.
>>
> Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a
> block?  What if it's your roomate?  Your 5 year old child?
>

"User:XYZ emailed me and said... and asked that it be posted here. I
have no opinion either way on the matter."

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060629/5f5e10d5/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] suck it wiki

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/06, Nolan mccollum <nolanmccollumhotmail.com at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> thats right i said suck it wiki your full of crap.
>>>>
>>> Uh oh. List admins went to sleep?
>> There's a difference between going to sleep and assuming good faith.
>> Remember, we don't screen everyone's posts before they go to the list.
>> Anyway, he's moderated now.
>
> If we don't screen posts before they go to the list, that would
> explain why we've getting an incredible amount of trollish edits by
> the likes of Rgulerdem over the past month or so.

They're called "posts", Tony. If they were edits we could ammend them :)

>  However it doesn't
> explain why we *don't* get loads of off-topic borderline spam.
> Clearly there is some moderation, and the moderators are awake.

IIRC new members and non-subscribed addresses are moderated...

> But
> their standards over the past month or so have been, to say the least,
> somewhat catholic.  To the extent that I wonder why we bother running
> this list any more.  The good discussion is being relentlessly drowned
> out by idiocy.
>

Excessive moderation only brings on cries of censorship...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060629/6b1c8cda/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Unlike a real encyclopaedia, we don't seem willing or able to have
> incredibly short articles that say things like "Wreckage: temporary
> name given to English pop group Ibex in 1970. See [[Ibex (group)]]".

Need to work on this. Sometimes a redirect is not the right thing.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 6/29/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> In this case a disambiguation page would be able to hold this
>> information, but I can see the problem where a non-ambiguous name
>> comes
>> in. Hopefully one can come up with enough information to warrant a
>> section header for the topic, at least.
>>
>
> Hmm, good thoughts.
>
> Steve
>

Why would a section header be needed? Some software barrier?

Fred


from_name: Jacky PB

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia, again

body:
Hello Gerard,

I don't really understand what you are implying.

But I can repeat why we ask for the deletion of
mo.wikipedia (all of these are already proven in
previous messages):

1. There is no community. Nobody on wikipedia is both
interested in having it and able to contribute.

2. All content is copied from ro.wikipedia and
transliterated. There are better, already tested ways
of changing script, if someone wants it.

3. In the current status, mo.wikipedia is in fact a
heaven for trolls of all sorts.

Of course, deletion needs not be permanent. As soon as
the condition 1 becomes false (as soon as a community
forms), the moldovan wikipedia can be re-created.

Yours,
Jacky

--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > ... The big issue comes mainly from the
> desinformation that mo.wikipediacreates.
> >
> > The content that is currently on mo.wikipedia is
> written in a language that
> > is not used any more in the Republic of Moldova.
> It could be argued that
> > Moldovan is used by a minority in the territory of
> Moldova (in private and
> > personal matters), and by a part of population
> (mainly Moldovan schools) in
> > Transnistria.  Please note that Cyrillic Moldovan
> is not used on a large
> > scale (that is, generally speaking, you won't
> encounter Moldovan Cyrillic
> > anywhere in Moldova). At least for Moldova, I can
> assure you, as I am a
> > native Moldovan. As far as Transnistria is
> concerned, I really doubt it.
> >  Even the   official presidential website
> > <http://www.president-pmr.org/>doesn't
> > contain any Cyrillic Moldovan content. ...
> >
> Hoi,
> Either the information is correct, and given that it
> is said to be
> information from the Romanian language Wikipedia it
> should be both
> correct and NPOV. If it is not correct or NPOV,
> /both/ the Romanian and
> the Moldovian language Wikipedia are to be
> considered problematic. All
> the rest is very much politics, posturing and
> intransigence.
>
> I am sure that this continued existence is best
> ignored. Consider you
> are either a party to this dispute or you could not
> care less. When  the
> argument is that the mo wikipedia is occupied by
> trolls, remember they
> thrive by getting attention.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Offline submissions?

body:
mboverload wrote:
> On 6/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> mboverload wrote:
>>> Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"
>>>
>>> If they don't have a computer they don't have the time to write an
>>> encyclopedia.
>>
>> Wow, that says a *lot* about your attitude.
>>
>> Do even contribute to Wikipedia, or are you just another troll?
>>
>
> Thank you for the kind words.  I'll be sure to censor any thoughts that
> don't conform to your views in the future.
>

How about you stop and think before you make such harsh judgements on
people? You said, "If they don't have a computer they don't have the
time to write an encyclopedia" - come to think of it, why should we let
people who don't have computers READ the encyclopedia either? After all,
if they don't have a computer, they OBVIOUSLY don't have time to read an
encylopedia!

What about people with plenty of time who don't have computers? As you
said, "Maybe I'm the only one here, but I say "Who cares?"". So, you
write them off as worthless. Lesser persons than yourself? Subhuman?
Godwin help me...

Now answer me again: do you actually contribute to Wikipedia? Why do you
contribute to Wikipedia? Where do you see Wikipedia in five years time?
It's very hard to assume good faith (that you're not a troll) when such
evidence to the contrary is being presented.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060629/ef7bdb62/attachment.pgp


from_name: Marco Chiesa

body:
Now, let's think a bit. In order to upload a file, you need to be a
registered user. I don't think that many people that are not put off by
having to register will be put off by supply an email address which is
not published and having to validate it. However, what's the situation
with accounts that provided an email address which has never been
verified because it was supplied before validation started and the user
didn't bother afterwards? At least of it.wikipedia there are hundreds of
images that were uploaded say in 2004 when copyright requirements were
less strict (as soon as a realistic licence tag was there the image
could stay, even without any indication of the author)? Quite a few of
these images were uploaded by users that haven't been active since, but
the email address they provided is still existing, probably. And I tink
this feature is even more useful for Commons, where even active
wikimedians normally only occasionally upload some file, therefore not
reading their talk page that often - well, single login would help even
more...

Cruccone

mboverload wrote:

>The best idea I've heard in awhile.
>
>On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as
>>>throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method
>>>of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not
>>>missing much.
>>>
>>>
>>The practice of deleting with extreme prejudice is the best tool we
>>have today on enwiki. It is, at least somewhat, effective. However
>>deletion creates a lot of opportunity for tension in the community,
>>there are a lot of people who would like to keep their favorite image
>>at any cost, at least any cost short of them figuring out the
>>copyright status themselves...
>>
>>
>>


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[WikiEN-l] SPEEDYING images Re: Jimbo's rule, copyright,
 old images with permission only

body:
Anthony schrieb:
> On 6/28/06, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, my point is, why aren't these being speedied like the new ones?
>> If giving time for finding replacements was the issue, plenty of time
>> has been given, (yet precisely since they were kept, noone is
>> bothering to find free replacements).
>>
>
> Is there somewhere I can get a list of the images I've uploaded which
> don't fall under the current tagging rules?
>
> Is there even a place where I can get a list of the images I've uploaded?
>
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&wikiuser=Your_user_name_on_en

will show all your images on en, and tries to guess their status by the
used tags/templates. If it doesn't recognize a specific tag correctly,
please tell me so I can fix it.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060629/8ecf0aeb/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] Interwiki/transwiki imports mostly working now

body:
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to
> Commons]]!" kind of  link appearing on images in the various
> Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently
> restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by
> anyone...

It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many
images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the
Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point,
rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up
later.

I have some support for this position :) see
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .

cheers,
Brianna
en.wp,commons:User:pfctdayelise


body:
On 29/06/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> >* Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
> >
> Please please please let it be so! After having to mark several
> thousand bad uploads for deletion, and realizing it was just a
> tiny percentage of the total problem, I'd agree to anything that
> would stop the deluge of sh!t.
>
> I think it's hard for people who haven't worked on image cleanup
> to realize how much grunt work is created by the hundreds and
> sometimes thousands of bad uploads that accumulate each and every day.

I have to agree. Image contributions are not equivalent to text
contributions at all. While many people who are ignorant of copyright
can make non-copyvio text contributions it seems impossible for them
to make non-copyvio image contributions.

As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as
throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method
of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not
missing much.

It depends if you want to implement this as a way of verifying
licenses (I don't think it will help with this), or as a way to slow
down image uploaders (it will slow them down, but I think it's a bit
underhanded). Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem
uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems
like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image
users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my
observation.

cheers,
Brianna
en.wp,commons:User:pfctdayelise


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject:
[WikiEN-l] SPEEDYING images Re: Jimbo's rule, copyright,
	old images with permission only

body:
On 6/29/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> > Anthony schrieb:
> > > Is there somewhere I can get a list of the images I've uploaded which
> > > don't fall under the current tagging rules?
> > >
> > > Is there even a place where I can get a list of the images I've uploaded?
> > >
> > http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&wikiuser=Your_user_name_on_en
> >
> > will show all your images on en, and tries to guess their status by the
> > used tags/templates. If it doesn't recognize a specific tag correctly,
> > please tell me so I can fix it.
>
> Thanks, this is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.  Using the
> upload log doesn't work for some reason.  It seems to ignore uploads
> before a certain date.  I'll have to go through some time and figure
> out which of those images are deleteable.  Is there some documentation
> of what the colors mean?  Specifically, why are the {{cc-sa}} ones
> yellow?
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
something strange is that it shows images I've reverted as mine
(several fair-use images I didn't upload, merely reverted some
vandalism) ~~~~


body:
On 6/29/06, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> something strange is that it shows images I've reverted as mine
> (several fair-use images I didn't upload, merely reverted some
> vandalism) ~~~~
>

Also, what do "shadow commons" do? It seems to attemp to insert
{{ShadowCommons}} on the en: image, but suchtemplate doesn't exist.
--Drini


body:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to
>> Commons]]!" kind of  link appearing on images in the various
>> Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently
>> restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by
>> anyone...
>>
>
> It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many
> images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the
> Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point,
> rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up
> later.
>
> I have some support for this position :) see
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
>
Suggestion:
1. Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a
{{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag
2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description
3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease
tag has been removed on commons

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060629/d67ca535/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
On 6/29/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> You seem to be constantly looking for things to talk about except what I'm saying.  Why?

Perhaps because constantly inventing new terms makes what you are
writing much harder to read.

You seem to be writing in a somewhat stilted academic-ish style that
is (IMO) not very suited to email.

-Matt


body:
On 29/06/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem
> > uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see
> > http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems
> > like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image
> > users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my
> > observation.
>
> Um. You can block users from uploading. It's called the block button.
> If someone is too incompetent or too malicious to discontinue
> uploading inappropriate material after they have been asked to stop
> then they have no business editing what so ever...

A full block is in many situations too heavy handed. What is the
problem? They upload images with insufficient source. What do we want
them to do? Add source information to their existing uploads. How do
we currently solve this? We block them from editing altogether.
Uh....oops.

The easiest way to educate them is on-wiki. When they can only edit
their talk page, it makes it a tiny bit hard.

what makes you so
> sure they aren't busily adding copyvio articles? It's not always easy
> to spot.

Nothing makes me so sure, it's just my gut feeling based on
observation. Newbie editors who are keen and add good,
obviously-non-copyvio text frequently get tripped up when they try to
augment their articles with images. Maybe some en.wp image patrollers
will contradict me, fine.

Brianna


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:10:44 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>  When discovering a redlink, which is better: to leave it as a
>redlink, or redirect it to the "closest" topic? Eg, a redlink to the
>name of a book - best to leave it that way, or create it as a redirect
>to the book's author? Or, create a substub "X is a book by
>[[Author]]"?

For what value of better?  I think it's personal preference.  I'm one
for describing books on the author's article until it becomes too big,
in the first instance, but others prefer lots of tiny stubs.

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


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> A redlink might just be a mistake, so briefly search for an existing
>> article. If it seems it could be a viable article it should be left
>> alone. I think it should continue to be a redlink until someone is
>> ready to write an article rather than being made into a stub.
>>
>
> But if someone is looking for information on a book, is it not more
> useful to make that book a redirect to the author, where at least the
> one liner "John Foo is best known for his brilliant book, Foo Strikes
> Again, which is all about ...." is better than nothing.
>
> I firmly believe that Wikipedia's mission is to answer the question
> "What the hell is X?" to whatever extent it can, rather than just give
> up and say "no, we don't know either". Even if all we have time to
> write is "It's a book, check out these three urls".
>

This becomes irritating when you're going the other way---you've just
read the article about the author, and now are going down the list of
books at the bottom looking to read more.  If some articles exist and
some don't, you can click on the blue links and get articles, and know
from the red links that no article exists on those books yet.  The
situation is considerably more confusing if they're all blue links, but
some are articles while others redirect right back to the page you just
read.

-Mark


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia, again

body:
I highly doubt it. Until a few weeks ago, your protest was that it was
in Cyrillic. You only adopted the idea of no native speakers when it
was suggested by Fran.

Mark

On 29/06/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Gerard,
>
> I don't really understand what you are implying.
>
> But I can repeat why we ask for the deletion of
> mo.wikipedia (all of these are already proven in
> previous messages):
>
> 1. There is no community. Nobody on wikipedia is both
> interested in having it and able to contribute.
>
> 2. All content is copied from ro.wikipedia and
> transliterated. There are better, already tested ways
> of changing script, if someone wants it.
>
> 3. In the current status, mo.wikipedia is in fact a
> heaven for trolls of all sorts.
>
> Of course, deletion needs not be permanent. As soon as
> the condition 1 becomes false (as soon as a community
> forms), the moldovan wikipedia can be re-created.
>
> Yours,
> Jacky
>
> --- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > > ... The big issue comes mainly from the
> > desinformation that mo.wikipediacreates.
> > >
> > > The content that is currently on mo.wikipedia is
> > written in a language that
> > > is not used any more in the Republic of Moldova.
> > It could be argued that
> > > Moldovan is used by a minority in the territory of
> > Moldova (in private and
> > > personal matters), and by a part of population
> > (mainly Moldovan schools) in
> > > Transnistria.  Please note that Cyrillic Moldovan
> > is not used on a large
> > > scale (that is, generally speaking, you won't
> > encounter Moldovan Cyrillic
> > > anywhere in Moldova). At least for Moldova, I can
> > assure you, as I am a
> > > native Moldovan. As far as Transnistria is
> > concerned, I really doubt it.
> > >  Even the   official presidential website
> > > <http://www.president-pmr.org/>doesn't
> > > contain any Cyrillic Moldovan content. ...
> > >
> > Hoi,
> > Either the information is correct, and given that it
> > is said to be
> > information from the Romanian language Wikipedia it
> > should be both
> > correct and NPOV. If it is not correct or NPOV,
> > /both/ the Romanian and
> > the Moldovian language Wikipedia are to be
> > considered problematic. All
> > the rest is very much politics, posturing and
> > intransigence.
> >
> > I am sure that this continued existence is best
> > ignored. Consider you
> > are either a party to this dispute or you could not
> > care less. When  the
> > argument is that the mo wikipedia is occupied by
> > trolls, remember they
> > thrive by getting attention.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    GerardM
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Jon Awbrey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

WikiPediatrics 101.  Diseases of Infancy
Symptomania 1.  Inversion of Priorities (IOP)

The pages on [[WP:POLICY]] clearly identify the three content-definitive and
non-negotiable policies of WP as [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:VERIFY]],
reiterating three times over on each of their individually dedicated pages,
with no substantive variation, the following norm of participation in WP:

* These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded
  by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Pending a properly controlled study of WikiPediatric epidemiology (Proposal Pending),
it is this observer's estimation that the most prevalent IOP is the one that inverts
the priorities of the superordinate policies cited above and the unofficial dictates
of what is here nomenclated as "De Facto Consensus" (DFC).  DFC must not be confused
with Genuine Consensus -- defined as the absence of dissent -- DFC as it's currently
observed in WP means that any three users, or evatars, coming to agreement in a half
hour period, can impose their absolute dictatorship over the direction of an article.

If it were merely a matter of educating users about the standardized meanings of the
words "consensus", "non-negotiable", and so on, then there might still be some cause
to hold out a few dim hopes, for a better prognosis or a gradual remediation, but if
WP administrators continue to exhibit themselves, as they do in my experience, to be
every bit as (1) ignorant of, or (2) indifferent to these principles, then that is a
sign that the condition is terminal.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


body:
On 6/29/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Tomasz never said this.  He said anonymous users should "have all
> options available", not that they should have "more" than
> registered users.  I don't know if you have a problem with reading
> what others write, or if you are pushing some political agenda,
> but the way you communicate is becoming irritating.

It is to afford them more respect when we contort our policy to
minimize effort for them while maximizing the effort for our more
established editors.

I have a hard time listening to people who make loud an emotional
complaints about exclusion when we talk about registration, because
it's patently untrue. Registration excludes no one.   If you want to
argue on the basis of more complicated editing/uploading dissuading
new people from discovering the joy of contributing then I can follow
that argument..  But to claim that we're discussion a policy of
exclusion? Thats just trolling.

We should discontinue using the word 'anonymous' for non-registered
users, because they are among the least anonymous users on the system.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia, again

body:
Liviu fails to mention a number of things.

First of all, he can not testify to the current situation in Moldova
because he does not live there. He lives in Toulouse, at least last
time I heard.

If you went to the (old) main page, it was made _very clear_ that
Cyrillic is the minority script. The site notice was, and still is,
huge bold letters telling people that if they want to read articles in
Latin, go to ro.wp.

> scale (that is, generally speaking, you won't encounter Moldovan Cyrillic
> anywhere in Moldova). At least for Moldova, I can assure you, as I am a
> native Moldovan. As far as Transnistria is concerned, I really doubt it.

Transnistrian internet is very small, consisting of a handful of
websites mostly in Russian. If it grew bigger, maybe you could expect
more. However, there are a couple of Transnistrian government websites
in Moldovan Cyrillic:

www.kspmr.idknet.com/md/
www.president-pmr.org/news/dok/obr_md.htm (in fact this document was
signed by V.A. Tulgara, an ethnic Moldovan and one of the founders of
Transnistria)

You may reject the latter as propaganda, but statistics from
independent researchers have shown that Transnistrian Moldovans are
overwhelmingly supporters of Transnistrian independence.

Even a document published by a progressive group which studies
European integration of Moldova used Cyrillic in one document:

http://www.pca.md/files/publications44.doc

(it's in Document 20, you have to scroll down quite a bit, but all of
Document 20 is in Cyrillic).

> The big issue: when people visit  mo.wikipedia.org and see the Cyrillic
> content, they believe that this is the language currently used in Moldova.

That's not really an issue. What Wikipedia is for is to provide
information using language as a vehicle, not vice-versa. If someone
wants to know about Moldovan language, they should go to the article
at their respective Wikipedia about the language, rather than mo.wp.

> By all this I am trying to explain that current Cyrillic content has nothing
> to do on mo.wikipedia. If it has any right to exist (low quality content, no

Psh.

> The reason for my opinion is that before 28 June
> 2006<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044584.html>,
> not one time (at least not to my knowledge and not on the Wikipedia-I
> mailing list ; please correct me if I am wrong) did Mark ackowledge himself
> as being a native Moldovan speaker. Although he had plenty of occasions,  for
> example<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043992.html>

I did mention it elsewhere, including on my userpage at the Romanian
Wikipedia. I don't know if I mentioned it on this mailing list.

> Moldovan speaker ever asked for a Moldovan Wikipedia", Mark's response is
> "Dpotop is spreading FUD". And, as far as I know, Moldovan Wikipedia was
> created on Mark Williamson's demand.

FUD is an acronym, look it up. This suggests that he is deceiving
people, which can include telling lies, which could thus imply that he
was lying when he said there are no native speakers.

Also, you're wrong -- Moldovan Wikipedia existed before I found it, it
just had no articles (like the Kanuri Wikipedia right now --
http://kr.wikipedia.org/ ).

> I am wondering if shouldn't the decision on closing down the Moldovan
> Wikipedia<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html>be
> put in action as soon as possible, to avoid all these useless
> discussions

No, it won't, because of the new vote. An old decision that was never
carried out is unlikely to be put into place without further
deliberations if new events transpond.

> (if my calculations are correct, the next re-openning of this discussion is
> scheduled on September
> 2006<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-September/>).

Indeed. And I am not looking forward to it. But I will stock up on my
supplies and I will practice my oratory in preparation.

> If there are users who want to get out of the state of confusion regarding
> this issue, they could look here for an acceptably well put status
> quo<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#What_decision_makers_need_to_know>and
> here for some
> background <http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rezultat_alegeri>

Hah. You just happen to provide the one vote which resulted in a
"close" result. The VERY FIRST VOTE on that Wikipedia resulted in a
clear "leave open".

Mark

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia: hands waiving is not proof

body:
> So, to summarize your last 3 messages, we agree on the fact that nobody on the whole wikipedia is both capable and willing to edit on mo.wikipedia otherwise than by copying articles from ro.wikipedia.

Two new original articles from yesterday. Short, but still nice.

> To do this, you don't need a Moldovan wikipedia to do it. You need the script of Bogdan Giusca (:en:User:Bogdangiusca), which will automatically convert to cyrillic (and with far less errors than you) any article on the Romanian wikipedia. This script is already functional at

>      http://mcworld.org/McChirilic/?pagina=Limba_moldoveneasc%C4%83
>
> To make it work on the article of your choice, replace the text
> "Limba_moldoveneasc%C4%83" with the page name of your choice.

Yes, and it comes out with horrible misspellings all over the place.

People have said that improvements can be made, but when I sent
improvements to Bogdan, he ignored them entirely.

Mark

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


body:
Another difference is Greater Romania POV.

Articles on ro.wp tend to be written slightly slanted towards a Romanian view.

Romanian Wikipedians may deny this, but one has only to compare the
Romanian and English articles on [[Moldova]], [[Transnistria]], [[Igor
Smirnov]], [[URSS]]/[[USSR]], etc. to know.

While some Moldovans share this opinion, the opinion base in Moldova
is vastly different. While it would be best to work together, in the
current situation ro.wp is dominated by a huge majority of Romanians,
so any moderate or nationalist Moldovan (as opposed to unionist), or
someone favouring closer ties to Russia, would likely get little say
in that Wikipedia.

This situation might be considered similar to the reason why the
current Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian Wikipedias are incompatible for
a merger -- there are many POV articles on each Wikipedia due to
systemic biases that people do not realise are present.

If Romanian Wikipedians tried to make their articles conform to the
same POV standard as the English Wikipedia does, this would not be an
issue.

Mark

On 29/06/06, Lorenzarius <lorenzarius at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know any "Moldovan", but if the difference between "Moldovan"
> and Romanian is merely a difference in the alphabet used, we don't
> even need an external script for the conversions: because MediaWiki
> already supports such conversions (this function is introduced in
> version 1.4). This function is currently being used on the Chinese (to
> convert between traditional/simplified Chinese) and Serbian (to
> convert between Cyrillic/Latin alphabet) Wikipedia. In fact the
> situation on zh: is much more complicated than merely a difference in
> alphabet, and I can assure you that the initial discussion on zh:
> (e.g. whether to split or not; whether a technical solution is
> adequate enough) is no less painful than the current one I see here.
> But as a native Chinese speaker, I think our use of a technical
> solution to overcome a not-so-technical problem works out pretty well
> so far and that we did indeed make a correct decision to not to split.
>
> For more info:
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Paper-ZZ1
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Automatic_conversion_between_simplified_and_traditional_Chinese
> http://sr.wikipedia.org/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Wikipedia
> --
> Larry Lo
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
> Tel: +852 95825791
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Heli Retzek

subject: [Wikitech-l] recent - "recentchanges" not shown

body:
Dear Friends,

had good running version 1.5x

--> suddenly last week Special-page: RECENT-CHANGES didnt show any longer
any recent changes, though I find changes incorporated into mysql-tbl
"recentchanges".

(this happened without any changes made to the programm)

updated yesterday to

MediaWiki: 1.6.7
PHP: 4.4.2 (cgi)
MySQL: 4.0.27-standard
Extensions:
Extension functions:
wfH1Ext
Parser extension tags: ....
"http://www.homeopathy.at/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Version"

no difference in this odd behaviour

If I want to look at changes the last 7 days:

http://www.homeopathy.at/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Recentchanges&days=7&l
imit=200

only one picture-upload is shown but no further recentchanges (in the DB are
about 7-10 more from the last days)

If I let show changes from 30 days ago then all recent changes from longer
ago seem to be shown

http://www.homeopathy.at/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Recentchanges&days=30&
limit=200

does seem like some odd "date calculation problem" from the side of the
hoster? Or.

Any idea?

tx, Heli


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia: when is this farce going to
	end?

body:
Is this real?

Where are the administrators of wikipedia?

This is a blatant show of maliciousness, and nobody
says anything? A load of disinformation is really
better than

--- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another difference is Greater Romania POV.
>
> Articles on ro.wp tend to be written slightly
> slanted towards a Romanian view.
>
> Romanian Wikipedians may deny this, but one has only
> to compare the
> Romanian and English articles on [[Moldova]],
> [[Transnistria]], [[Igor
> Smirnov]], [[URSS]]/[[USSR]], etc. to know.
>
> While some Moldovans share this opinion, the opinion
> base in Moldova
> is vastly different. While it would be best to work
> together, in the
> current situation ro.wp is dominated by a huge
> majority of Romanians,
> so any moderate or nationalist Moldovan (as opposed
> to unionist), or
> someone favouring closer ties to Russia, would
> likely get little say
> in that Wikipedia.
>
> This situation might be considered similar to the
> reason why the
> current Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian Wikipedias
> are incompatible for
> a merger -- there are many POV articles on each
> Wikipedia due to
> systemic biases that people do not realise are
> present.
>
> If Romanian Wikipedians tried to make their articles
> conform to the
> same POV standard as the English Wikipedia does,
> this would not be an
> issue.
>
> Mark
>
> On 29/06/06, Lorenzarius <lorenzarius at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't know any "Moldovan", but if the difference
> between "Moldovan"
> > and Romanian is merely a difference in the
> alphabet used, we don't
> > even need an external script for the conversions:
> because MediaWiki
> > already supports such conversions (this function
> is introduced in
> > version 1.4). This function is currently being
> used on the Chinese (to
> > convert between traditional/simplified Chinese)
> and Serbian (to
> > convert between Cyrillic/Latin alphabet)
> Wikipedia. In fact the
> > situation on zh: is much more complicated than
> merely a difference in
> > alphabet, and I can assure you that the initial
> discussion on zh:
> > (e.g. whether to split or not; whether a technical
> solution is
> > adequate enough) is no less painful than the
> current one I see here.
> > But as a native Chinese speaker, I think our use
> of a technical
> > solution to overcome a not-so-technical problem
> works out pretty well
> > so far and that we did indeed make a correct
> decision to not to split.
> >
> > For more info:
> > http://zh.wikipedia.org/
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Paper-ZZ1
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Automatic_conversion_between_simplified_and_traditional_Chinese
> > http://sr.wikipedia.org/
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Wikipedia
> > --
> > Larry Lo
> > http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
> > Tel: +852 95825791
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On 6/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> For what value of better?  I think it's personal preference.  I'm one
> for describing books on the author's article until it becomes too big,
> in the first instance, but others prefer lots of tiny stubs.

Good, glad I'm not the only one who finds questions like this tricky.
It's hard making articles grow in a balanced way. Imagine an article
about a topic which naturally has, say, 5 subtopics. The perfect
article would be, let's say, 6000 words - 1000 of intro plus 1000 on
each subtopic.

Now, imagine our article is currently a 100 word stub, and someone
comes along and adds 1000 words on one of the subtopics. I find this
very far from ideal, as it vastly overstates the importance of that
subtopic. I would almost be inclined to move that subtopic to its own
article while waiting for the main article to grow, then move it back
later. Since some parts of Wikipedia grow so slowly, it's not right to
always talk about "eventualism" - we should make the articles the
"right shape" while waiting.

On the other hand, making a redirect rather than an a stub might give
the impression that we could never have an article about that book, or
that someone has decided we don't want too much info - which isn't
true at all.

How to balance the needs of readers with our need to grow?

Steve


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 29/06/06, Heli Retzek <heli.retzek at homeopathy.at> wrote:
> I could trace the problem to a field named rc_bot
> If I put that field to "1" then the change is shown in Special:recentChanges

When rc_bot is 1, the change should not show up in
Special:Recentchanges, as the point of "bot" edits is to hide them
from these views. It doesn't stop them being recorded.

If edits which have rc_bot set to 0 are not showing up in
Special:Recentchanges, then something is drastically wrong.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On 6/29/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> > Pending a properly controlled study of WikiPediatric epidemiology (Proposal Pending),
> > it is this observer's estimation that the most prevalent IOP is the one that inverts
> > the priorities of the superordinate policies cited above and the unofficial dictates
> > of what is here nomenclated as "De Facto Consensus" (DFC).  DFC must not be confused
> > with Genuine Consensus -- defined as the absence of dissent -- DFC as it's currently
> > observed in WP means that any three users, or evatars, coming to agreement in a half
> > hour period, can impose their absolute dictatorship over the direction of an article.
> >
>
> You seem to be constantly inventing new terms. Why?
>
> Steve

You seem to be constantly looking for things to talk about except what I'm saying.  Why?

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


body:
Blatant maliciousness? Please.

As for people in charge, I'm guessing they turned their backs on this
discussion months ago, precisely because of mails like yours which are
trolling and accusing people, when this discussion is supposed to be
about whether or not to close mo.wiki.

It seems to be that when you have to groups of people opposing one
another, sometimes the option to choose is the status quo, even if it
isn't the "right" thing to do.

Mark

On 29/06/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Is this real?
>
> Where are the administrators of wikipedia?
>
> This is a blatant show of maliciousness, and nobody
> says anything? A load of disinformation is really
> better than
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another difference is Greater Romania POV.
> >
> > Articles on ro.wp tend to be written slightly
> > slanted towards a Romanian view.
> >
> > Romanian Wikipedians may deny this, but one has only
> > to compare the
> > Romanian and English articles on [[Moldova]],
> > [[Transnistria]], [[Igor
> > Smirnov]], [[URSS]]/[[USSR]], etc. to know.
> >
> > While some Moldovans share this opinion, the opinion
> > base in Moldova
> > is vastly different. While it would be best to work
> > together, in the
> > current situation ro.wp is dominated by a huge
> > majority of Romanians,
> > so any moderate or nationalist Moldovan (as opposed
> > to unionist), or
> > someone favouring closer ties to Russia, would
> > likely get little say
> > in that Wikipedia.
> >
> > This situation might be considered similar to the
> > reason why the
> > current Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian Wikipedias
> > are incompatible for
> > a merger -- there are many POV articles on each
> > Wikipedia due to
> > systemic biases that people do not realise are
> > present.
> >
> > If Romanian Wikipedians tried to make their articles
> > conform to the
> > same POV standard as the English Wikipedia does,
> > this would not be an
> > issue.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 29/06/06, Lorenzarius <lorenzarius at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't know any "Moldovan", but if the difference
> > between "Moldovan"
> > > and Romanian is merely a difference in the
> > alphabet used, we don't
> > > even need an external script for the conversions:
> > because MediaWiki
> > > already supports such conversions (this function
> > is introduced in
> > > version 1.4). This function is currently being
> > used on the Chinese (to
> > > convert between traditional/simplified Chinese)
> > and Serbian (to
> > > convert between Cyrillic/Latin alphabet)
> > Wikipedia. In fact the
> > > situation on zh: is much more complicated than
> > merely a difference in
> > > alphabet, and I can assure you that the initial
> > discussion on zh:
> > > (e.g. whether to split or not; whether a technical
> > solution is
> > > adequate enough) is no less painful than the
> > current one I see here.
> > > But as a native Chinese speaker, I think our use
> > of a technical
> > > solution to overcome a not-so-technical problem
> > works out pretty well
> > > so far and that we did indeed make a correct
> > decision to not to split.
> > >
> > > For more info:
> > > http://zh.wikipedia.org/
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Paper-ZZ1
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Automatic_conversion_between_simplified_and_traditional_Chinese
> > > http://sr.wikipedia.org/
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Wikipedia
> > > --
> > > Larry Lo
> > > http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
> > > Tel: +852 95825791
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Anders Wegge Jakobsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Sanity check on image uploads

body:
 I've been asked by some of the editors on dawiki of the possibilities
to create a set of questions that can lead to the correct image
license(s) for image uploads. Furthermore, there is a request for
enforcing a name for the photographer, so proper crediting can be
done.

 Looking at SpecialUpload.php, there are no hooks that is really
suitable for this, and also I'm a little unsure about any effects of
beginning to send people to new pages mid-upload, which would happen
if added to any of the two existing hooks.

 So I propose to add two hooks: One for adding fields to the initial
form, and one for validating the contents before proceeding with the
upload. Is there any reason that validation of license information
should not be done in this way? Also, if a more suitable way of
"quizzing" people exists, I'd be happy to hear about that.

--
// Wegge


body:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> On 29/06/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>> Brianna Laugher schrieb:
>>
>>> On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to
>>>> Commons]]!" kind of  link appearing on images in the various
>>>> Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently
>>>> restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by
>>>> anyone...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many
>>> images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the
>>> Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point,
>>> rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up
>>> later.
>>>
>>> I have some support for this position :) see
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
>>>
>>>
>> Suggestion:
>> 1. Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a
>> {{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag
>> 2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description
>> 3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease
>> tag has been removed on commons
>>
>
> All I can say to that is "please for the love of God no". People
> should take responsibility for verifying the source if they are so
> eager to have it on Commons. Commons admins have more than enough to
> do...and this method would just cause unnecessary duplication. Just
> verify it in the first place, in the first place it was uploaded! What
> is the rush? Commons isn't going anywhere. Let's take the time to get
> at least this right, 'cause God knows Commons has enough copyvios
> without needing to import old ones.
>

Maybe this is a misunderstanding; I didn't propose to "dump everything
into commons on sight", but to ease the transition for both parties (if
there are indeed two, and not just the big happy wikimedia family;-)

IMHO my suggestion makes it easy for the wikipedia "party" to transfer
an image believed to be suitable to commons, easy for the commons
"party" to find such an image (via template and included category), easy
to approve (remove the template) or disapprove (delete), and again for
the wikipedia "party" to finalize the move (delete if approved on commons).

As for "verifying the source" - a picture of a building with "took this
myself, GFDL" is as easy/hard to verify for someone on wikipedia as it
is for someone on commons - either believe it or ask the original
uploader yet again (pointless IMHO). Of course, obvious non-free image
should not be uploaded to the commons in the first place.

Finally, when it comes to judgement about the "freeness" of an image, I
would imagine that people from commons have more experience with that
kind of thing than the average wikipedia person. OTOH,a wikipedia user
might know the original uploader and place better judgement on wether
his/her claims of GFDL etc. are likely or not.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060629/6f2caee7/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where are the decision makers?

body:
Hello everybody,

It's been now some time we are providing actual proof
in support of a petition to close the Moldovan
wikipedia.

However, it is obvious that something is wrong,
because every single message of ours is simply buried
under sequences of messages from Mark Williamson.

Moreover:
- Our messages are sequences of facts that can be
  verified by anybody. Proof, in the scientific sense.
- The edits of Mark have the sole goal of
  discreditating the opposed camp. No proof, just
  "their oppinion is biased, because they
  have a hidden agenda". The very definition of FUD.

Under these conditions, nobody says nothing! We are
left here to exchange messages in an uncontrolled
fashion, while the matter is really important.

Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody

Yours,
[[:en:Dpotop]], [[:ro:Dpotop]]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Chris Lüer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
At 10:39 AM 6/29/2006, Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 6/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > We need to have a discussion on
> > which books ought to have articles. Some criteria regarding notability.
>
>Something like that exists, a print run of 5000 figures in there somewhere.

Now that's just stupid. The local grocery store's weekly flyer has a
higher print run than that.

>I'm leaning more and more towards the attitude of people who equate
>notability with "the ability to write a meaningful article based on
>verifiable and reputable secondary sources". At the end of the day, if
>we have meaningful, verifiable stuff to say about insignificant
>topics, Wikipedia is not harmed to any great extent by saying it.

Right -- and with books, this works pretty well. Having secondary
sources ensures that there is more to the article than just a plot summary.

         Chl


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
On 6/29/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we grow up?  If you hate WP so much, fork and leave, or leave.
> And Jon's style of writing is fine... if we can't read what is writen
> in an educated manner, we probably shouldn't be writing an
> encyclopedia. Let's just move on.  --LV

Jon is free to write in any way he wishes, and the rest of us are free
to draw any conclusions we like about him from his chosen style as
well.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
At 05:10 AM 6/29/2006, Steve Bennett wrote:
>Hi all,
>   When discovering a redlink, which is better: to leave it as a
>redlink, or redirect it to the "closest" topic? Eg, a redlink to the
>name of a book - best to leave it that way, or create it as a redirect
>to the book's author? Or, create a substub "X is a book by
>[[Author]]"?

 From an editor's point of view: leave it as a redlink, so one can
easily tell it needs work.

 From a reader's point of view: write the stub, a little bit of
information is always better than none. A little bit of easy-to-find
information is also much better than having to search through a
lengthy article on a related topic to which a redirect goes.

Personally, I think we should write for our readers rather than for
ourselves, and so I would go with the stub.

         Chl


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Use of images (again)

body:
"Berto" wrote:
.....
>>Maybe the local links to Commons could have "?uselang=" at the end of
>>the URLs?
>Yes! http://commons.wikimedia.org/?uselang=fr works. Is it an acceptable
>practice? By the way... this thing alone would have interwiki links mantain
>a stable interface, if put on the main soft engine... I do not really think
>that it would cost much work...
I'd want this on the software too.

>>http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Upload
>This is not what I want, but it's better than nothing. The good thing would
>be a dedicated page there, that would upload images to commons, as the old
>one did. Any time you ask a user to click once more you loose traffic.
>Things must be as simple as possible.
The 'Subir este archivo' link on the tool section sends you to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=es
However, this message will still show from other links.

As how we did it, Alphax, we decided it on a poll
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar_pol%C3%ADticas_y_reglas_de_uso_de_im%C3%A1genes
and then asked it on bugzilla :-)

About language selecting on login, commons had recently set a lenguage
selector on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin so you can
easily change the language on the login. This will stay when as your
preference when you create an account (sorry, pms is not on the list, but
you can always use the ?uselang=pms).


body:
I could trace the problem to a field named rc_bot
If I put that field to "1" then the change is shown in Special:recentChanges

I have no altered the structure of MySQL-Tbl to set rc_bot DEFAULT=1

any Idea why that happened or what is up?

tx, Heli

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Heli Retzek
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 13:56
An: 'Wikimedia developers';
Betreff: [Wikitech-l] recent - "recentchanges" not shown

Dear Friends,

had good running version 1.5x

--> suddenly last week Special-page: RECENT-CHANGES didnt show any
--> longer
any recent changes, though I find changes incorporated into mysql-tbl
"recentchanges".

(this happened without any changes made to the programm)

updated yesterday to

MediaWiki: 1.6.7
PHP: 4.4.2 (cgi)
MySQL: 4.0.27-standard
Extensions:
Extension functions:
wfH1Ext
Parser extension tags: ....
"http://www.homeopathy.at/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Version"

no difference in this odd behaviour

If I want to look at changes the last 7 days:

http://www.homeopathy.at/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Recentchanges&days=7&l
imit=200

only one picture-upload is shown but no further recentchanges (in the DB are
about 7-10 more from the last days)

If I let show changes from 30 days ago then all recent changes from longer
ago seem to be shown

http://www.homeopathy.at/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Recentchanges&days=30&
limit=200

does seem like some odd "date calculation problem" from the side of the
hoster? Or.

Any idea?

tx, Heli

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


body:
Special:Export is now supposed to work even with history from wikipedias
(wiktionaryZ may be apart), but you will need an 'special right' to be able
to import.

"Sabine Cretella" wrote:
>Hi Berto,

>yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in
>a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the
>same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.

>Ciao, Sabine

>Berto schrieb:
>> Hi!
>>
>> is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
>> the
>> level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it
>> looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
>>
>> B?rto


body:
Simetrical schrieb:
> On 6/28/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php
>>
>> Or
>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php
>> for a more organized effort.
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>
> You should really modify the default edit summaries on those to link
> back to the tools.  Otherwise they won't ever be very widely used.
>
Nice idea, done.

Now I'm waiting for people to complain about the spam ;-)

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060629/2b3594bc/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Joakim Larsson

body:
WiktionaryZ do use a diffrent set of babel-templates then most Wikipedias.

2006/6/29, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
>
> Hi Berto,
>
> yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in
> a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the
> same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
>
> Ciao, Sabine
>
> Berto schrieb:
> > Hi!
> >
> > is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
> the
> > level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it
> > looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
> >
> > B?rto
> >
>
> Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
> http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
WiktionaryZ uses the ISO-639-3 language codes to identify languages. The
codes currently in use in the Wikimedia Foundation projects are
ambiguous and often have no precise meaning except within the Wikimedia
Foundation. By standardising on the ISO-639-3 we have divorced the
project codes from the language codes. This is for WiktionaryZ not a
problem as it its data will be usable for people from all languages.
Thanks,
    GerardM

PS both Berto and Sabine are aware of this.. :)

Joakim Larsson wrote:
> WiktionaryZ do use a diffrent set of babel-templates then most Wikipedias.
>
> 2006/6/29, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
>
>> Hi Berto,
>>
>> yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in
>> a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the
>> same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
>>
>> Ciao, Sabine
>>
>> Berto schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it
>>> looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
>>>
>>> B?rto


body:
Account merging will be done based on e-mails (as you can set your password
based on emails) because you can't compare passwords (due to the salt). The
merging by password will be done if your local and global account have the
same password when you login. Not really automatic. See the evil-plans for
more info.

"Erik Moeller" wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell wrote:
>> But to add the email you had to have known the password, and unless I'm
>> sorely mistaken it is possible to recover the email address for an
>> automated
>> process to compare between two accounts, whereas if this were true for
>> passwords...
>
> Having confirmed e-mail addresses for all your accounts is definitely
> going to make migration easier, but we're only ever going to get that
> for a subset of accounts. If your accounts use the same password, the
> merging of old accounts into the global system can be done
> transparently for the user at login time.
>
> Now, it's always good to talk about single login strategies, because
> that will hopefully guilt trip Brion into finishing the implementation
> ;-). But I think it's a separate issue from the e-mail upload
> confirmation problem.
>
> Erik


body:
I already did, see my e-mail.

Mark

On 29/06/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 13:45 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Another difference is Greater Romania POV.
> >
> > Articles on ro.wp tend to be written slightly slanted towards a Romanian view.
>
> I could believe this, but can you present some examples? (For
> independent verification).
>
> Fran
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


body:
So it's not OK for me to accuse you of FUD, but it's OK for you to accuse me?

I have presented plenty of proof. I am done arguing with you here about this.

The decision makers have left, as I said. They are no longer listening.

Mark

On 29/06/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> It's been now some time we are providing actual proof
> in support of a petition to close the Moldovan
> wikipedia.
>
> However, it is obvious that something is wrong,
> because every single message of ours is simply buried
> under sequences of messages from Mark Williamson.
>
> Moreover:
> - Our messages are sequences of facts that can be
>   verified by anybody. Proof, in the scientific sense.
> - The edits of Mark have the sole goal of
>   discreditating the opposed camp. No proof, just
>   "their oppinion is biased, because they
>   have a hidden agenda". The very definition of FUD.
>
> Under these conditions, nobody says nothing! We are
> left here to exchange messages in an uncontrolled
> fashion, while the matter is really important.
>
> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
>
> Yours,
> [[:en:Dpotop]], [[:ro:Dpotop]]
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


body:
2006/6/29, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net>:
>
> Yes, it's much wider. Why should I import an older tool version, since I
> am
> to start now?
> B?rto

My tought was that maybe becuse it shall be easy to ad and understand over
all wikis. But since you are aware of this, I say no more.

[[sv:User:Gr?n]]


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On 6/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> A redlink might just be a mistake, so briefly search for an existing
> article. If it seems it could be a viable article it should be left
> alone. I think it should continue to be a redlink until someone is
> ready to write an article rather than being made into a stub.

But if someone is looking for information on a book, is it not more
useful to make that book a redirect to the author, where at least the
one liner "John Foo is best known for his brilliant book, Foo Strikes
Again, which is all about ...." is better than nothing.

I firmly believe that Wikipedia's mission is to answer the question
"What the hell is X?" to whatever extent it can, rather than just give
up and say "no, we don't know either". Even if all we have time to
write is "It's a book, check out these three urls".

Steve


from_name: mboverload

body:
Are you sure this is the right mailing list?  Are you sure you shouldn't be
on some wikimedia list?

mboverload

On 6/29/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Blatant maliciousness? Please.
>
> As for people in charge, I'm guessing they turned their backs on this
> discussion months ago, precisely because of mails like yours which are
> trolling and accusing people, when this discussion is supposed to be
> about whether or not to close mo.wiki.
>
> It seems to be that when you have to groups of people opposing one
> another, sometimes the option to choose is the status quo, even if it
> isn't the "right" thing to do.
>
> Mark
>
> On 29/06/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is this real?
> >
> > Where are the administrators of wikipedia?
> >
> > This is a blatant show of maliciousness, and nobody
> > says anything? A load of disinformation is really
> > better than
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Another difference is Greater Romania POV.
> > >
> > > Articles on ro.wp tend to be written slightly
> > > slanted towards a Romanian view.
> > >
> > > Romanian Wikipedians may deny this, but one has only
> > > to compare the
> > > Romanian and English articles on [[Moldova]],
> > > [[Transnistria]], [[Igor
> > > Smirnov]], [[URSS]]/[[USSR]], etc. to know.
> > >
> > > While some Moldovans share this opinion, the opinion
> > > base in Moldova
> > > is vastly different. While it would be best to work
> > > together, in the
> > > current situation ro.wp is dominated by a huge
> > > majority of Romanians,
> > > so any moderate or nationalist Moldovan (as opposed
> > > to unionist), or
> > > someone favouring closer ties to Russia, would
> > > likely get little say
> > > in that Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > This situation might be considered similar to the
> > > reason why the
> > > current Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian Wikipedias
> > > are incompatible for
> > > a merger -- there are many POV articles on each
> > > Wikipedia due to
> > > systemic biases that people do not realise are
> > > present.
> > >
> > > If Romanian Wikipedians tried to make their articles
> > > conform to the
> > > same POV standard as the English Wikipedia does,
> > > this would not be an
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 29/06/06, Lorenzarius <lorenzarius at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I don't know any "Moldovan", but if the difference
> > > between "Moldovan"
> > > > and Romanian is merely a difference in the
> > > alphabet used, we don't
> > > > even need an external script for the conversions:
> > > because MediaWiki
> > > > already supports such conversions (this function
> > > is introduced in
> > > > version 1.4). This function is currently being
> > > used on the Chinese (to
> > > > convert between traditional/simplified Chinese)
> > > and Serbian (to
> > > > convert between Cyrillic/Latin alphabet)
> > > Wikipedia. In fact the
> > > > situation on zh: is much more complicated than
> > > merely a difference in
> > > > alphabet, and I can assure you that the initial
> > > discussion on zh:
> > > > (e.g. whether to split or not; whether a technical
> > > solution is
> > > > adequate enough) is no less painful than the
> > > current one I see here.
> > > > But as a native Chinese speaker, I think our use
> > > of a technical
> > > > solution to overcome a not-so-technical problem
> > > works out pretty well
> > > > so far and that we did indeed make a correct
> > > decision to not to split.
> > > >
> > > > For more info:
> > > > http://zh.wikipedia.org/
> > > >
> > >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Paper-ZZ1
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Automatic_conversion_between_simplified_and_traditional_Chinese
> > > > http://sr.wikipedia.org/
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Wikipedia
> > > > --
> > > > Larry Lo
> > > > http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
> > > > Tel: +852 95825791
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia, again

body:
HEY!  I got an idea!

Make mo.wikipedia  a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE.  Why wouldn't that work?

mboverload


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation

body:
Hey, if you need a moderator:

 I'm a loser with no life =D

On 6/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/29/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > > If people want, we could raise the minimum standards, and be more
> > > proactive about moderating trolls.
> >
> > Please do. The fact that a thread titled "suck it wiki" has seen
> > several dozen messages on this list is enough proof that such action
> > is needed.
>
> There's nothing much we can do about that particular case: someone
> posts "please unblock X" - seems reasonable, we unmod. His next post
> is "suck it wiki".
>
> But I'll take your comments into account in future.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Matt Brown wrote:
>
> On 6/29/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> > You seem to be constantly looking for things to talk about except what I'm saying.  Why?
>
> Perhaps because constantly inventing new terms
> makes what you are writing much harder to read.
>
> You seem to be writing in a somewhat stilted
> academic-ish style that is (IMO) not very
> suited to email.
>
> -Matt

a certain aesthetic distance,
however affected, and however
high the stilts that it takes
to achieve it, is a really big
help in overcoming the growing
pain of disillusionment, which
is what is demanded if you want
to see the situation more clearly.
hey, it's a dirty job, believe me,
i know, but somebody's gotta do it.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Well, we know about the differences in that German for example is not
"de" but "deu". There are no problems with interwiki-links, so it does
not really matter who uses what. The complete upload file of all
Babel-templates (iso 639-3) is being created (I did almost half of it)
and is free for anyone to use. I am not going the XML way, but create it
in such a way that it can be uploaded with the pywikipedia bot - so no
special upload rights are needed.

Therefore it only means that we are using the latest available set of
the ISO-639 series, ISO-639-3

It is going to be used also for wikis outside the foundation - therefore
it makes sense to have some kind of Babel-standard and no ambiguous
codes. At the time when most wikipedias were created with ISO 639-2
codes that seemed enough - today things are different.

Then there is that other problem that some wikipedias use codes that are
not ISO-639-3 and even worse, there is at least one that uses a code
that in ISO 639-3 is defined with another language (don't know if that
was changed in the meanwhile) - but you can find posts on that theme
from some weeks ago in the archive.

It makes sense therefore to separate language codes from Wikipedia codes.

Ciao, Sabine

Berto schrieb:
> AFAIK, it should be a transparent move for all users. If you are aware of
> any differences pls tell me, so I can have the users know that they are
> going to chenge some of their usual behaviours. All I know so far is that
> there also is an XXX-5 level for people making a professional use of a
> language.
>
> B?rto
>
> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
> ??: "Joakim Larsson" <to.joakim at gmail.com>
> ????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
> ??????????: 29 ???? 2006 ?. 16:46
> ????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] import babel templates, how-to
>
>
> 2006/6/29, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net>:
>
>> Yes, it's much wider. Why should I import an older tool version, since I
>> am
>> to start now?
>> B?rto
>>
>
>
> My tought was that maybe becuse it shall be easy to ad and understand over
> all wikis. But since you are aware of this, I say no more.
>
> [[sv:User:Gr?n]]
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On 6/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> You've just about stated the solution: we need a colour other than
> blue or red. Greylinks anyone?

But what would they do? Would they go to a stub article or go to a
blank, editable article? ;-)  I say there is no need to do one or the
other.  If you have information for a redlink, go ahead and make the
stub. If you don't, just leave it alone for the next gal to make it.
If there is sufficient info in the author's article about the book,
redirect. Just my opinion.  --LV


subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On 6/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> In the case of a book on which there is no article a redirect to the
> author is appropriate. I don't think there are very many books which
> will support a decent article, but then I don't think the average
> episode of South Park does either. We need to have a discussion on
> which books ought to have articles. Some criteria regarding notability.

Something like that exists, a print run of 5000 figures in there somewhere.

I'm leaning more and more towards the attitude of people who equate
notability with "the ability to write a meaningful article based on
verifiable and reputable secondary sources". At the end of the day, if
we have meaningful, verifiable stuff to say about insignificant
topics, Wikipedia is not harmed to any great extent by saying it.

Steve


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Brad Patrick wrote:

> Explain how an unregistered "drive by" editor should be afforded more
> respect than someone who participates, maintains a talk page, and has an
> email available.  I don't understand your cultural perspective that places a
> higher degree of importance on this than the other way around.

Tomasz never said this.  He said anonymous users should "have all
options available", not that they should have "more" than
registered users.  I don't know if you have a problem with reading
what others write, or if you are pushing some political agenda,
but the way you communicate is becoming irritating.

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


from_name: Liviu Andronic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia, again

body:
On 6/28/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com  > wrote:
>    Sounds like an utter mess.  Thanks so much for taking the time to
explain it
> to me, even if I'm still not sure why it's such a big issue =O
>

The big issue comes mainly from the desinformation that mo.wikipediacreates.

The content that is currently on mo.wikipedia is written in a language that
is not used any more in the Republic of Moldova. It could be argued that
Moldovan is used by a minority in the territory of Moldova (in private and
personal matters), and by a part of population (mainly Moldovan schools) in
Transnistria.  Please note that Cyrillic Moldovan is not used on a large
scale (that is, generally speaking, you won't encounter Moldovan Cyrillic
anywhere in Moldova). At least for Moldova, I can assure you, as I am a
native Moldovan. As far as Transnistria is concerned, I really doubt it.
 Even the   official presidential website
<http://www.president-pmr.org/>doesn't
contain any Cyrillic Moldovan content.

The big issue: when people visit  mo.wikipedia.org and see the Cyrillic
content, they believe that this is the language currently used in Moldova.
One thing that is false, as it is the content of  ro.wikipedia.org that one
may see in Moldova (anywhere: advertisment, television, newspapers, books,
laws, documents, anywhere). While Wikipedia is supposed to provide readers
with correct information. For Moldovans and Romanians
alike such a situation is frustrating.

By all this I am trying to explain that current Cyrillic content has nothing
to do on mo.wikipedia. If it has any right to exist (low quality content, no
native contributors, no native people's support of its existance [at least
not here, not on this mailing-list]), it should be somewhere on a
mo-cyr.wikipedia.

>I'll have you know that Moldovan is my native language. It is the first
language I
>heard, and I heard no other language until the age of 3.
>
>Please see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22first+language+attrition%22
>
>Mark

What concerns the native speakers present on Wikipedia, I personally do not
qualify Mark Williamson's affirmation of him being a native speaker of
Moldovan. The Moldovan Wikipedia issue was already discussed at least three
times in the recent past: in December
2005<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-December/>,
in March 2006 <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/>and
currently in June
2006 <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/>.

The reason for my opinion is that before 28 June
2006<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044584.html>,
not one time (at least not to my knowledge and not on the Wikipedia-I
mailing list ; please correct me if I am wrong) did Mark ackowledge himself
as being a native Moldovan speaker. Although he had plenty of occasions,  for
example<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043992.html>
, to use this argument.
On Jacky PB's simple assertion on 12 March
2006<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043910.html>:
"no
Moldovan speaker ever asked for a Moldovan Wikipedia", Mark's response is
"Dpotop is spreading FUD". And, as far as I know, Moldovan Wikipedia was
created on Mark Williamson's demand.

I am wondering if shouldn't the decision on closing down the Moldovan
Wikipedia<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html>be
put in action as soon as possible, to avoid all these useless
discussions
(if my calculations are correct, the next re-openning of this discussion is
scheduled on September
2006<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-September/>).
The closing
should have been carried out by Brion
somewhere in March.

If there are users who want to get out of the state of confusion regarding
this issue, they could look here for an acceptably well put status
quo<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#What_decision_makers_need_to_know>and
here for some
background <http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rezultat_alegeri>
information<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043799.html>(one
on the Moldovan Wikipedia, the other on the mailing list; both contain
the results of a vote that took place several months ago).

--
Liviu


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 6/29/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 6/30/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>I have been blocked for a week (initially indefinitely, then unblocked
> >>by another admin and reblocked for a week by the initial admin) for the
> >>contents of a page I made in January *2005* -
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SPUI/jajaja .
> >
> > The page was recently listed on MFD. You reverted the MFD notice. Why?
>
> Hmmm - I was pretty sure I had kept it while reverting a blanking, but
> on looking back at it, it appears I did remove it. My mistake.

This was not listed as a reason for the block, and the block happened
2 days after the last notice was put on the page (by someone else, of
the DRV).

I fail to see what the proximate cause was of the block.  Using the
page (after it had been MFD and during DRV, when it had relatively
respected defenders) as an excuse seems poor judgement.

I agree that if the page was disruptive it should be subject to
deletion policy etc, but if it was so disruptive that it warranted
invoking the Arbcom probation, someone should have said so at the
time.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com