from_name: Liviu Andronic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] My apologies

body:
How? What standards? The naming standards?

I would appreciate if you provided me with a link where applicable standards
are described.

What concerns the move "mo to mo-cyr", it is still a
bug<http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4409>with "reopened"
status.

Liviu

On 7/4/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> For your information, the mo.cyr.wikipedia is not a viable compromise.
> It offends to applicable standards.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > No, Mark. The status quo is what you want. Not a compromise.
> >
> > Deleting/closing the Moldovan Wikipedia is - generally speaking - what
> we
> > want.
> >
> > Moving the existing contents from mo.wikipedia.org to a certain
> > mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would be a compromise. And, once again,
> >  this compromise doesn't destroy anyone's work. Just as Sabine said:
> "Vivi e
> > lascia vivere".
> >
> > On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Please see the messages from Sabine Cretella.
> >>
> >> The status quo is the compromise.
> >>
> >> If you care about Wikipedia, it makes sense to take care of your own
> >> instead of trying to destroy what others have built, which is exactly
> >> what you are doing here. There is no reason for this to continue.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia <tso1d at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Of course, a conflict requires at least to sides, and only leaving one
>
> >>>
> >> side standing would end the dispute. However, I don't believe that this
> is
> >> likely to happen in this case. By the same token one could make the
> argument
> >> that if you would disappear (as you are virtually the only active
> >> contributor on mo) then viable opposition to the closure of the project
> >> would cease and the admnistration would have to acquiesece.
> Nevertheless, at
> >> this point, the unwillingness of some administrators to act on a
> resolution
> >> reached almost by concensus (with few dissents), practically
> constitutes
> >> endorsement of the current status quo, thus autmatically negating the
> >> partiality claimed by them.
> >>
> >>>   I agree with you, though, that simply closing the encyclopedia might
> >>>
> >> not bring about a complete end to the dispute, though you ability to
> reopen
> >> the debate and subjequently the wiki will be greatly reduced unless you
> were
> >> to produce a native speaker intersted in pursuing the project. For this
> >> reason, I find it best if all sides could agree on one solution and
> >> compromise if need be. For example would you agree to set up a
> >> transliteration tool that would convert articles from RO to Cyrillic
> and
> >> have that available at ro-cyr or mo-cyr (assuming the tool could be
> >> perfected to funciton adequately)?
> >>
> >>> Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>   The conflict will end if you stop making it such an issue.
> >>>
> >>> Without you and your friends, there simply is no conflict.
> >>>
> >>> Enforcement is not all that is lacking. There are many issues here.
> >>>
> >>> Currently, the position of those in charge seems to be to try to seal
> >>> the situation off from the outside and let both sides duke it out.
> >>>
> >>> And who's to say the conflict would end if the Wikipedia were closed?
> >>> I know that I would hold polls for it to be reopened, try to put the
> >>> content elsewhere, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Until Bogdan and Jacky made an issue of this, it was dormant, nobody
> >>> paid attention to mo.wiki except those who actually care about it.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> On 03/07/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In my view this is discussion cannot be viewed as separate from the
> >>>>
> >> past ones on the topic, but rather the continuation (and hopefully the
> >> culmination) of the issue. If such a resolution has already been made,
> then
> >> what is the purpose of continuing this discussion and wasting even more
> >> time. The only thing lacking is enforcement, and why souldn't that be
> >> carried out in accordance with the general conclusion of the debate,
> whether
> >> in the past or the present.
> >>
> >>>> I understand how some users might feel frustrated with the
> >>>>
> >> continuation of the discussion and the war of words, however by not
> acting
> >> the conflict will not end, and I believe you are actually giving tacit
> >> approval to the project in its current state. I am sorry if others
> spent a
> >> great deal of time looking at the dispute and now may feel irritated,
> but
> >> others also were involved in this debate, to an even higher degree, and
> >> simply stating that all this work was in waste as you do not intend to
> act
> >> in any way seems a grave neglect of your duties and even a lack of
> respect
> >> for those who have invested their time to try to find a solution to the
> >> problem and find the best way to resolve it.
> >>
> >>>> Mark Williamson wrote:
> >>>> Is this relevant to the *current* discussion?
> >>>>
> >>>> Everybody already knew about that. It was clear that that decision
> was
> >>>>
> >> made.
> >>
> >>>> However, it was never enforced, and since then, you have taken
> against
> >>>> yourselves by turning the heat up where it was absolutely not
> >>>> necessary and making everyone stop caring.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark
> >>>>
> >>>> On 03/07/06, Jacky PB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to apologize to all of you for my
> >>>>> interventions here. I just missed an e-mail of anthere
> >>>>> more than 6 months old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-March/043897.html
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My only excuse is that it happened on another thread
> >>>>> than the one I followed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Liviu


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] MediaWiki Cherokee Langage Extension

references:
<44A9E5D1.9090902@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<48502b480607032303j21fed98araa4791e39a7c2cfd@mail.gmail.com>
	<E375D119-904B-43B2-AA23-D3286AFFD2E4@ctelco.net>
	<44AA9A04.1000304@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<44AAA065.4040001@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
Ah Jeffrey, our Cherokeee Wikipedia guy.

Anyways, I'm looking there and it appears I don't have the Cherokee script
installed. How could I get the Cherokee script to appear in my browser? (I
use Mozilla Firefox.)

--James

On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have created a language extension PHP which allows these tags:
>
> <cherokee>
>
> phonetics text
>
> </cherokee>
>
> which converts to syllabary after an article is saved. It needs another
> week or so of testing.
>
> Such an addition to the chr.wikipedia.org Cherokee site will make it
> usable for syllabary editing.
>
> Now who do I get with to provide the parser extension?
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: grok at resist.ca

subject: [Wikitech-l] page move vandalism restrictions not working

references:
<44A81D76.7090303@gmail.com> <e8cpqc$30l$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e8eh50$h28$1@sea.gmane.org>

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

> > I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet, but the classic
> > wiki solution to page move vandalism is not to put up
> > barriers to making contributions, but rather to make
> > vandalism easier to revert.
>
> I'm surprised (well, rather disappointed) that this even
> needs saying.  It implies that most people here don't know
> what wiki is all about.

Well that's the situation, isn't it?
Why should it be surprising that people are creatures of
habit -- and this is another learned one? There needs to be
more of an educational effort, clearly.

And I think there are also some baseless assumptions about
what a wiki is (or isn't) here too. Maybe these are what the
_mediawiki_ wiki software is -- but not wiki software per se.

- -- grok.

- --
** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! ****************************************
*    BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS            *       Get your news & analysis *
*          MASS-MEDIA:            *       from the Best on the Web *
****  Critical endorsement only **** Most sites need donations  ****
* http://www.uprisingradio.org                      Uprising Radio *
* http://narconews.com                         Narco News Bulletin *
* http://radio.labourstart.org                   Radio LabourStart *
* http://www.laborradio.org       Workers Independent News Service *
* http://www.democracynow.org         Democracy Now!   TV/Internet *
* http://www.indymedia.org            Your local IndyMedia website *
* http://www.ratical.org                          rat haus reality *
*** There can be no whitewash at the Whitehouse. - Richard Nixon ***
GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3  09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEqsvOXo3EtEYbt3ERAjeNAJwOAsLG1IcztwmfQkeq/N3jmaSmUgCfYUrN
dnV8kM8EnmjX/KZTE6Exnjc=
=dgt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> (and as pointed out, they could get themselves another email
> address...but as I mentioned, that's a hassle)

If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put
up with that hassle.  This is a barrier to entry best characterized as
a log to step over, not a fence.  If you can't make that step, or are
unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit (was: Wikibooks for sale)

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>
>In a message dated 7/4/2006 2:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>wikilegal at inbox.org writes:
>
>This is  especially true when an
>employee of the foundation implies that playing it  safe and assuming
>the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a  publisher is
>somehow a violation of trademark  law.
>
>
>
>To be perfectly clear, Anthony, I stated that our name (and logo) are
>trademarked. That is unquestionable. The books were listed as being created the
>Foundation, yet we had no knowledge of it. In other words, the publisher used
>our trademarked name on a book without the agreement of  the Foundation. While I
>am not assuming malicious intent, that is  clearly unacceptable. Don't twist
>what I said.
>
>Danny
>
>
I don't understand how you could not have knowledge of this book when
you claim that you were in the middle of delicate negotiations about
this specific book.  All you didn't have knowledge of was one user
taking content on Wikibooks and simply offering it for sale.  The claim
that the contents were credited with the WMF as a "co-author" or
"publisher" has been on the PDF now for almost a year and not disputed
until now.  Technically "published" on Wikibooks for that whole time.

I am also not exactly clear as to what is unacceptable here.  Using the
Wikijunior trademark?  Acknowledging that the WMF had a part in the
creation of the content in this book?

The only thing that might be an issue is if this had claimed to be an
"official" print version "authorized" by the WMF, which it didn't.

If the trademark usage is unacceptable, there are other Wikibooks which
need to be fixed as well, because this style of usage for invoking the
name of the WMF is catching on at Wikibooks.  Also, there are legitimate
uses of a trademark that don't need permission of the trademark holder.
 Perhaps we crossed the line here as Wikimedia users, and for that I am
asking for some guidelines.  Not simply "you went too far, don't go
there again", but something a little bit more constructive.  I don't see
how using the name of the Wikimedia Foundation in the acknowledgements
sections of a book is abuse of a trademark.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moldy discussions

body:
He tried to get away with not using a smiley, which is well-known
to be impossible on the net.

Joe Anderson wrote:

>Sorry, but is this supposed to be humorous :?
>
>
>On 7/4/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>How about a separate mailing list exclusively for discussion of all
>>things Moldovan?
>>
>>
He tried to get away with not using a smiley, which is well-known
to be impossible on the net.

(Trying both top- *and* bottom-posting in an effort to please
everybody. :-) )

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/4/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put
> > up with that hassle.  This is a barrier to entry best characterized as
> > a log to step over, not a fence.  If you can't make that step, or are
> > unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.
>
> I'm not sure that's the friendliest, most welcoming attitude we could
> possibly give to someone who has possibly been wrongly blocked (it
> happens, you know). But I'll leave it there.

This is an internal discussion, not responding to someone who's
blocked.  I agree that responses to blockees should be more supportive
than the way I phrased it above.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moldy discussions

body:
  Your failure to
On 7/4/06, Stan Shebs                                        include
side-posting
<shebs at apple.com> wrote:                                has been noted and
> He tried to get away with not using                    will remain so noted
> a smiley, which is well-known                           in your permanent file.
> to be impossible on the net.
>
> Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but is this supposed to
> >be humorous :?
> >
> >>How about a separate mailing list
> >>exclusively for discussion of all
> >>things Moldovan?
> >>
> >>
> He tried to get away with not using
> a smiley, which is well-known
> to be impossible on the net.
>
> (Trying both top- *and* bottom-posting
> in an effort to please
> everybody. :-) )

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Offering Wikibooks content for sale

body:
On 7/4/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Essentially, this is an issue where there are people with
> editing/processing skills that are not developers, and part of the gulf
> that seperates the Wikimedia contributor/editors from the MediaWiki
> developers.  Certainly an "automated" process would be desireable, but
> at the moment we are doing as best as we can with the tools currently
> available.  Making a Wiki-syntax to PDF converter would be a non-trivial
> task that could be a whole major software project unto itself.

I was thinking more like a wiki-syntax to LaTeX converter then the
LaTeX could be edited collaboratively then converted to PDF.  But I
didn't realize the current PDF had been generated with Open Office.
swx certainly doesn't lend itself to collaboration through the web in
the way I was thinking about.

As for the GFDL, I suppose PDF itself could be considered a
"transparent" format.

Anthony


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
> by page move vandals.  The current restriction apparently allows moves
> automatically after a week?

I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet, but the classic wiki solution to page
move vandalism is not to put up barriers to making contributions, but rather
to make vandalism easier to revert. I made a "revert" link in the page move
log a while back, but a lot of people don't know about it, and it's far from
ideal. What we really need is a big list of checkboxes on the user
contribution page, with a "select all" box. Click select all, click revert,
job done. The function would be restricted in the same way as rollback. With
the 1.5 schema, moving pages is quite a fast operation, similar to editing.

Throttling is necessary to prevent extremely high request rate attacks, but
it should be set to a level that won't inconvenience regular users. The
UserThrottle extension can be adapted for this purpose.

If you can't revert page moves in a shorter time than it takes to perform
them in the first place, then there's a problem with our user interface.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Zero

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPUI requesting unblock

body:
Randall Brackett <megamanzero521 at yahoocom> wrote:  On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On 7/4/06, George Herbert  wrote:
> > If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put
> > up with that hassle.  This is a barrier to entry best characterized as
> > a log to step over, not a fence.  If you can't make that step, or are
> > unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.
>
> I'm not sure that's the friendliest, most welcoming attitude we could
> possibly give to someone who has possibly been wrongly blocked (it
> happens, you know). But I'll leave it there.

>>This is an internal discussion, not responding to someone who's
>>blocked.  I agree that responses to blockees should be more >>supportive
>>than the way I phrased it above.
--
>>-george william herbert
>>george.herbert at gmail.com

  I've no idea what the manner of this conversation has to do with SPUI.  I was under the impression the focal point of this e-mail thread was  the discussion of the unblock and the editor in question.

  In relevance, I paticularly don't think this user should be unblocked  so easily anymore. I'm not very experienced with SPUI, but to have  multiple blocks, consistant comments concerning behavior on WP:AN/I,  blatent disregard to dispute resolution and egregrious edit warring is  not the standards demanded of us as wikipedians.

  SPUI is a good contributor, but unfourtunetly he trolls (look at his  userpage)  and its very commonplace for him and the editors  familiar with the behavior. Its a bit of travesty, I believe, when a  wikipedian is not sastisfied with producing an encyclopedia and sharing  knowledge, that he must degrade to silly games and disruption to waste  resources. I too have a long and productive editting history,  but  I really don't see why my fellow wikipedians would have to tolerate me  if I resorted to such nonsense. - Randall Brackett
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.


body:
On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It would also be nice
> >>to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
> >>claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
> >>
> >>
>
> Under US Law, Wikimedia is the "publisher" because they create
> "collections" of works of the
> Wikipedia site and "publish" them to the world as XML dumps. Whether
> electronic or in book form, they
> are publishing. This being said, given the nebulous and undefined state
> of internet IP law,
> whether they are a publisher or not, there's no legal precedence to
> determine liability, so at present
> they are operating in an area of experimental law on the frontiers of
> human knowledge.

It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
Internet, though.  The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all.  The
more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
interpretation.

Ultimately, it's grey area to the point where it would greatly improve
matters if Wikimedia would make an official statement as to how it
wants to be treated.  Does Wikimedia want to hold a copyright interest
in works other than the logos?  Does it want to be considered a
publisher *for the purposes of the GFDL*?  Any of the four
combinations of answers are acceptable, but until one is chosen the
content is that much less Free.  This is especially true when an
employee of the foundation implies that playing it safe and assuming
the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a publisher is
somehow a violation of trademark law.

Anthony


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: ScottL

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

body:
   Ok, that is an acceptable answer though again I still think we are
talking about a really really small group (according to
[[Transnistria]], there are 177k RO/MO people in Transnistria of which
only some are going to be school age and only some of those not going to
Latin scripted schools).

   Though Sabine does make a valid point that most of them (the ones in
Moldova proper as well) probably can sound out words in any language
written using Cyrillic and a large number also are likely to know
Russian.  To me the more interesting question is how many of them know
the RO/MO language in Cyrillic to the exclusion of Latin and are likely
to have access to a computer with Internet access.

SKL

Mark Williamson wrote:
> It incorrectly represents Moldova? Come on!
>
> Wikipedia uses language as a MEDIUM. If somebody wants to know about
> the language, they would go to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language or
> http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldau or whichever language they speak
> article.
>
> They will NOT go to mo.wikipedia.
>
> And you are clearly not in touch with reality. In schools east of the
> Dniestr river, which teach Moldovan, the Cyrillic alphabet is taught.
> This fact is a fact and you cannot contest it. This is the usual
> script.
>
> Now, unless you want to challenge the territorial integrity of
> Moldova, it seems reasonable to accept that Moldova is, in fact, a
> biscriptal nation.
>
> As Gerard noted, mo-cyr is not acceptable because it violates conventions.
>
> Mark
>
> On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is what would reasonably happen, Mark. In my opinion, of course.
>>
>> Currently people "give a damn" because it represents incorreclty Moldova.
>> Personally, I cannot stand when my country is represented n'*importe comment
>> * on Wikipedia.
>>
>> We don't use this writing, Mark. Apart from exceptions, nowhere. This
>> writing, for all areas of life, is a reality of the past. And do not try to
>> discredit my words stating that "he is not in Moldova". I lived my whole
>> life in Moldova, which makes, roughly, 20 years. I read news. I return to
>> Moldova at least one time per year. I know what happens there. We don't use
>> this writing. Other Moldovans that are currently in Moldova could easily
>> backup this.
>>
>> If you want to write articles, I have nothing against it. Moving all you
>> have done on mo.wikipedia.org to mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would in no way
>> interrupt your work. And your work would cease disturbing people
>> concerned.
>>
>> But enough on this. Let's see the way the current
>> vote<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia>on
>> meta ends.
>>
>> On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is that a threat?
>>>
>>> Why should anyone "give a damn" now? What reason is there for people
>>> to not just ignore it and work on the Romanian Wikipedia? Really,
>>> there is no good reason. Any good Wikipedian should focus on fixing
>>> articles, writing new articles, etc., instead of fussing about
>>> something like this.
>>>
>>> I just want to write articles, but you and your friends insist on
>>> interrupting.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Everyone will start ignoring it, as soon as the Moldovan Wikipedia gets
>>> out
>>>> of the mo.wikipedia.org domain. No one would give a damn about it.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com > wrote:
>>>>> Would it really make everyone happy?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> There would still be people whinging endlessly that it should be
>>>>> closed and/or deleted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/07/06, Liviu Andronic < landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree that simple ignoring of this project would make it disappear
>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>>> one-two year time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the you do not get is that there is one simple solution: move
>>> mo to
>>>>>> mo-cyr. And everyone gets happy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this so difficult?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/2/06, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> You do not get it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an annoyance. One of the points made is that the Moldovan
>>>>>>> wikipedia is just trolling. Consider what makes a troll thrive;
>>>>>>> attention. The more attention that you give it, ANY attention the
>>> more
>>>>>>> it will get entrenched. There is this saying: "I do not care what
>>> they
>>>>>>> say about me as long as they write my name correctly", all this
>>>>>>> attention makes the mo.wikipedia "relevant". If it is not
>>> relevant,
>>>>>>> refrain from giving it attention and at some time it will just
>>>>>>> evaporate. If it does not, it cannot be considered trolling and
>>> you
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> plain wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best thing for you to do: shut up. Ignore this project.
>>> Everybody
>>>>>>> will be happier and maybe you will be proven to be right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>     GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liviu Andronic wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would have to object to the position taken by people who can
>>> make
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me.
>>> I do
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all
>>> this
>>>>>>> junk.
>>>>>>>> I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an
>>>>> issue. I
>>>>>>>> agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an
>>>>> unimportant
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire
>>> community.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all
>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and
>>> Moldovan
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>> Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty
>>> war
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for
>>>>> those
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> can make a difference to just ignore?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create
>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>> and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free
>>>>>>> encyclopedia
>>>>>>>> of the highest possible quality"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to
>>> take
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and
>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>> arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and
>>> all
>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests
>>> to
>>>>> do is
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> common sense to decide on this issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by
>>>>> stewards
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance
>>> to
>>>>>>> adopt. I
>>>>>>>> still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop
>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>> ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not
>>> cease
>>>>>>>> re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an
>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>> country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million
>>>>> persons)
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me -
>>> if
>>>>> no
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a
>>>>> two-three
>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you managed to read till this point, thank you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liviu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber < brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacky PB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved
>>> would
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> wasting
>>>>>>>>> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something
>>>>> unimportant.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> safest
>>>>>>>>> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same
>>> as
>>>>> we do
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Liviu
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Liviu
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Liviu
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Just curious...

body:
Hello mailing list folks,

I've been thinking about this... it's not really a pressing issue, but how
would the Wikimedia Office handle Office Actions on other projects? As far
as I know, Danny Wool isn't a sysop on Wikinews. Would the developers make
him into an administrator? Or would he make administrators available at the
time do the office's bidding?

--James


subject: [Foundation-l] Just curious...


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 7/4/2006 2:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wikilegal at inbox.org writes:

This is  especially true when an
employee of the foundation implies that playing it  safe and assuming
the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a  publisher is
somehow a violation of trademark  law.

To be perfectly clear, Anthony, I stated that our name (and logo) are
trademarked. That is unquestionable. The books were listed as being created the
Foundation, yet we had no knowledge of it. In other words, the publisher used
our trademarked name on a book without the agreement of  the Foundation. While I
am not assuming malicious intent, that is  clearly unacceptable. Don't twist
what I said.

Danny


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Geographic_references]]

body:
On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> There is a special packaged version of the en.wikipedia database (for
> example), which contains "Articles, templates, image descriptions, and
> primary meta-pages."  It omits most Wikipedia namespace pages.
>
> If Geographic References is going to stay in the Wikipedia namespace,
> it certainly needs to be included in this database dump, as that is
> the dump that mirrors are encouraged to use (and Geographic References
> should be included in the mirrors).

This sounds like the best solution: Wikipedia namespace (as it's not a
genuine encyclopaedic article), but marked as being closely related to
articles and a "must have" for content reusers.

Steve


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wikitech-l] Double quotes in interwiki links don't work

body:
On 7/3/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Quistnix wrote:
> >
> > To link to e.g.
> > http://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Comune_d%27%27a_pruvincia_%27e_Avellino
> >   from another Wikipedia is a problem since the double quotes inside an
> > interwiki link are interpreted the same way as in text. Can this be
> > helped?
> >
> This problem has been discussed before.
>
> Some example solutions are shown here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Boswell/Sandbox/Double_apostrophe
>
> The first solution, proposed elsewhere on this thread, is by far the
> simplest; unfortunately it is subject to disruption by well-intentioned bots
> and users who convert the numeric entity to the appropriate character.
>
> My personal favourite is the "Unicode double-apostrophe" which could easily
> be added to [[nap:MediaWiki:Edittools]] and requires no more than an
> appropriate font specification to make it properly visible, which could
> possibly be arranged for the entire wiki?

Except of course that a double apostrophe is semantically
quite different to two single apostrophes and that even
specifying appropriate fonts does not ensure that users
have appropriate fonts installed.

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

> HTH HAND
> --
> Phil
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Double-quotes-in-interwiki-links-don%27t-work-tf1880127.html#a5151748
> Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: sajasaze

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic translator

body:
Hello,

I'm the gothic wikipedia's sysop, and I would like to know how
to create an automatic translator between gothic and latin
alphabet as it already exists on the chinese wikipedia.

Hoping you'll help me,
Sajasazi.

Acc?dez au courrier ?lectronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net
3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34 ?/mn)


body:
On 7/4/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/4/2006 2:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wikilegal at inbox.org writes:
>
> > This is  especially true when an
> > employee of the foundation implies that playing it  safe and assuming
> > the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a  publisher is
> > somehow a violation of trademark  law.

> To be perfectly clear, Anthony, I stated that our name (and logo) are
> trademarked.

You stated that Lulu press was infinging upon the foundation's
trademark ("A third party, Lulu Press, is using the trademarked name
of the Foundation to sell a book. While I believe that they are doing
this unwittingly,  it nonetheless infringes on our trademark.") and
you said that "using the name of the Foundation without the explicit
permission of the
Foundation" infringes upon the foundation's trademark.  The first
statement is disputable.  The second is outright false.

> The books were listed as being created the Foundation, yet we had no knowledge of it.

The foundation was listed as one of the copyright holders.  There's
certainly a legal argument that that's a true statement.

> In other words, the publisher used
> our trademarked name on a book without the agreement of  the Foundation.

They used your name *in* a book, not *on* it.  It's certainly not an
indisputable legal fact that such use is trademark infringement.

> While I am not assuming malicious intent, that is  clearly unacceptable.

It's not at all "clearly unacceptable".  If Wikimedia wants to be
credited, then its name has to be mentioned.  Right now
[[Wikibooks:Copyrights]] *still* says that trademark law "does not
prevent you from giving either Wikibooks or Wikimedia credit for the
work by name".

> Don't twist what I said.
>
You said that Lulu was violating your trademark.  Again, I'll quote
you directly: "A third party, Lulu Press, is using the trademarked
name of the Foundation to sell a book. While I believe that they are
doing this unwittingly, it nonetheless infringes on our trademark."

Anthony


from_name: Arne Klempert

subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo

body:
On 7/3/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> WMF is willing to negotiate favorable terms for a logo agreement for use on
> toolserver. =)

The toolserver is a project of Wikimedia Deutschland. So there is no
need for an(other) agreement. Marco, could you send your proposal to
the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland?

Cheers,
Arne


subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Wiktionary; let your voice be heard

body:
Hi,

About some 8 months ago I started with an attempt to bring news with a
newsletter "Wikizine". I try to bring different types of news like
"Foundation", "Community", "Media" , "Technical news" and so.

So I try to bring the news for the Wikimedia family. And that includes
Wiktionary.

I am writing this fist of all to ask for your cooperation with this
newsletter. To be able to report news first the news must be known.

Wiktionary is a project where I am not at home. If no one reports what
is going on there  it is not likely I will find out about it. And
especially if it is going on other Wiktionary language editions.

So I request that if there is news about your project, especially for
the non-English editions, that you would report the news to me, to
Wikizine. Let the  readers of Wikizine know there is more then
Wikipedia.

A way to make it more likely that someone will think about Wikizine is
to put a banner on your userpage or even better on a public page and
also for the non-English Wiktionary versions.;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/banners

On the other side I try to get the news downhill to as most of the
projects and especially languages as possible.  Because of piratical
reasons Wikizine can only be in English. But it would be fantastic if
people would be willing to translate the news and share it with there
community.

A total translation of Wikizine is great but also a lot of work. Maybe
only translating the most relevant news can be einghoud for starting.
You could work together across the different projects in the same
languages. By cross-project cooperation the work of translation can be
shared.

Just only subscribing to Wikizine only is also useful of course. Then
you at least are informed.

Reading Wikizine can by email. Just click here below and follow the
instructions;
mailto:request at wikizine.org?subject=subscribe

Or you can also read Wikizine from the website;
http://www.wikizine.org

Thank you for reading this and I hope to receive some news from Wiktionary!

Greetings,
Walter

The guy from Wikizine
http://www.wikizine.org

To subscribe;
mailto:request at wikizine.org?subject=subscribe


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 07:13:08PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> This kind of sentiment (which appears to be widespread) assumes that
> everyone in the world has some sort of pressing need to do something
> useful for Wikipedia. You blindly assume that everyone will perform the
> same amount of work independent of how inconvenient it is or how long it
> will take, supposedly because they have some inherent urge to do that
> work and will not be held back by any obstruction. Has anyone ever
> thought that if something is less convenient or takes more time, that
> people are by logical consequence less likely to even do it at all?

Certainly.

The curve is probably even logarithmic.  The linearly easier you make a
process, the logarithmically more times people will use that process,
would be my bet.

I know it personally applies to me.

Cheers
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


body:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 08:28:33PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 04/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yay, I'm superhuman. And I wasn't even trying! Imagine if I trained a bit...
>
> I'll put you in touch with Marvel, and the people who make those cute
> plastic action figures.

And the award for Outstanding Effort in Understated Humor In A Mailing
List Reply goes to...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


body:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 09:55:55PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I suppose the simple example would be: if the MediaWiki interface let
> me rename every single river to meet the "...River" naming convention,
> in one single second, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
>
> The answer is, "good thing".  One might then argue that giving such
> power to vandals is bad. But that wasn't the question: the question
> was whether *I* should have such power...

That is *such* a good point...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo

body:
On 7/4/06, Arne Klempert <klempert at gmail.com> wrote:
> The toolserver is a project of Wikimedia Deutschland. So there is no
> need for an(other) agreement.

Unless the toolserver logo incorporates the Foundation logo, which
sounds eminently possible.

--
Sam


subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> It would also be nice
> to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
> claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.

This is the first time this has come to my attention, and I would also
appreciate a response on this issue. The GFDL explicitly requires the
"publisher" to be credited in the history of modified versions
(section 4.I), though not in the title (indeed, it explicitly states
that the new publisher should be credited instead). It does not
provide a definition for the term "publisher." It is not our current
practice to require publisher credit to the WMF, though it is also
somewhat unclear when section 2, "Verbatim Copying" and when section
4, "Modifications" would apply; "Verbatim Copying" only places minimal
requirements on third parties.

Does the WMF consider itself the publisher?

I think it would be quite important to have a legally authoritative
interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikimedia Foundation
project content. So far we've been basically "playing it by ear" when
it comes to GFDL compliance. As the Wikibooks case demonstrates, this
can lead to serious problems when contributors try to do the right
thing, but end up doing the opposite of what we want.

I suggest that such an interpretation be undertaken after a community
consultation on Meta, so that as many people as possible can add their
questions about the GFDL (which does not necessarily mean that all of
them will be answered, of course).

Erik


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Publishing

body:
I do not think it is necessary to comment on whether
the editor had a good idea or not to make the
wikijunior on big cats available for print. It seems
pretty natural to think he made it in good faith. I
did not have the opportunity to see the version, since
it was removed from Lulu site.
Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I
see not why the Foundation would be listed as a
co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the
future.

There is an issue on which I'd like to react though.

Anthony wrote "Distributing content (including in
print form) *is* the
purpose of Wikimedia."

Well.... not exactly.

The bylaws do mention a distribution free of charge,
but it makes no reference on whether it should be
online, on paper, on dvd etc...

The bylaws do not mention a distribution non-free of
charge.

The main page mentions "encouraging the growth,
development and distribution of free, multilingual
content". Note the "encouraging". It means "support",
"help", "initiate"... but not necessarily "do".

It is still unclear to me (and probably to most)
whether *online*, we are hosting or publishing. I
think jurisdiction is messy anyway, so we should
probably claim "hosting" but legally plan to be
qualified "publishing".

However, as soon as we make a DVD or a paper version,
we'll definitly be "publisher". So, with no doubt
enter a certain category, with a certain amount of
legal risks. And a certain amount of benefits. Which
might make the risk worth.

Among benefits, a financial one. It is unclear as of
today whether we are looking for *this* specific
benefit though. *I* am not looking for that benefit
for the Foundation. I do not know if other board
members would.

Another benefit would be to help distribution, for
example in providing all pressed dvd to ship in
certain countries. We could press the DVD and get as
an income exactly what the DVD costs us. This is a
different benefit. And one which might possibly induce
lesser costs in case of a problem.

There is also a certain benefit in terms of image.

*If* we become publishers, we should know why we are
becoming publishers. To make cash ? To improve image ?
To satisfy a sponsor ? To provide kids in schools ?

But in any cases, it is not among goals of the
Foundation to become publishers to make *profit*.
Distributing content in print form *is* not the
purpose of Wikimedia. We may do it. It is not our
declared goal.

Anthere

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Publishing


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Apropos:moldovia

body:
Now... I live in Kiev, I am NOT ethnically russian, slavian or whatever, and
I could not care less for anyone's national feelings. Actually I suppose the
NPOV policy should simply BAN anyone even just mentioning them as a decision
criteria. If politics are allowed to be a decision criteria, then you can
expect a LOT of such quarrels coming up. We all have political opinions, and
I cannot think of any country in in this planet that has never had pretty
good reasons for them to feel offended by (at the very least) some of their
neighbouring peoples, religions, cultures, scripts, miniskirts,
trolleybuses, etc. Do you want to open this pandora's box? Go on. Only pls
rename this list into Wikipedia-h (H is for hooligans), because that's what
it's going to be.

So... living here I meet a number of moldavian (not transdnistrian)
residents on the net. Bear in mind, I say *residents* because I simply do
not give a damn about their blood, religion, DNA, etc. And I believe that
nobody should. This people speak BOTH russian and moldavian. Since my use of
rumenian languages is limited (I speak IT-4, which is enough to read most
RO, but definitely not enough to write even just at RO-1), I usually use my
RU-3 with them. And it works perfectly. Now, RU-3 happens to be written in
cyrillic and so are most of their answers, too (just a small number of them
using a latin transliteration). Which in turn means that they either use a
russian interface or type by some sort of charmap.

I read enough *weird* reports about Ukraine at the time of the "orange
revolution" to know how western journalists that come here should be valued.
It really depends on which side of the conflict buys them sex partners, wine
etc. In the most honest cases they sincerely believe to what their
translators tell them, but simply do not have any way for them to check
anything of what they are told. Such western reports have supported all
possible conflicting sides in regional hot spots in the recent past, mostly
because of this. So I'm really asking myself whether the press should be
used as a source, when contemporary politics are even remotely a part of the
issue. Reality is usually much wider and more complex than the canonic 8.000
symbols a redactor is giving to his journalists for them to describe an
event.

I  don't mean to offend BBC's reputation, actually they are one of my
favourite and most reliable news sources. I simply wonder whether the news
*as such* can be used to make a decision at all, no matter what the source.
After some 6 years in eastern Europe I came to understand that most of what
we think of it is simply absurd. It is actually impossible to judge a
foreign culture unless you dont' spend *many* years in it.

>From all practical POVs, moldavians of all kinds do know cyrillic scripting.
This is because of the trade they have with Ukraine and Russia, that are
ONLY using cyrillic script(s). The situation will only get to a further
integration into using cyrillic once Rumenia steps in the EU and more strict
border checking between Rumenia and Moldavia will be in place. Many
moldavian products already bear mixed latin/cyrillic labels for them to be
easily exported here (wine, mainly). The most world wide known moldavian
band (Zdub si zdob, I believe BTW, they are GREAT) made a fortune by singing
(also) russian songs and maintains an internet site in both russian and
moldavian. So it's simply absurd to claim that one of the two scripts (no
matter which one) could be unknown to the locals, who definitely have much
more urgent life problems than writing a wiki, but undoubtedly do trade and
listen to the radio.

Choosing a script or another is mainly a thing at official level, a thing
dealing with politics only. In reality, people will simply use them both, no
matter what the local war games end up in deciding, because BOTH are needed
in practical and economical life, and even the most radical guys need money
to make a living. Same applies to the (many) rumenian minorities in Ukraine.
>From a practical POV having a latin script is nice for bringing people
closer to the undisputable source of the rumenian culture, that is Rumenia.
But on the other hand there are many minorities in Ukraine that never really
had a formal instruction in the latin script (and probably never will), but
still speak some rumenian dialect. And the only script they can manage is
ukrainian and russian cyrillic.

My fivepence worth, because I got to understand that most people in here
simply does not know what the issue is about. And as long as we deal with
facts and information on cold NPOV basis I am happy to help. IMHO the sooner
we manage to detach geopolitics from languages, and get to speak about
content accessibility in instead, the better we will work.

B?rto

----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "ScottL" <scott at mu.org>
????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
??????????: 4 ???? 2006 ?. 15:07
????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Where are the decision makers?

   From the BBC article posted way way back on this thread it appears
that the schools for ethnically Moldavian children in Transdniester
actually use the Latin script if they can, and some times they do it
when they are officially being persecuted.  At least that is what the
article said.  As far as I can tell the (non-moldavian speaking) people
in power are trying (unsuccessfully) to impose this script.  Now it
probably is likely older people in the region still use it and its
probably in public use but I am not sure you can say that its in many
schools. At least not to a point where students are learning it to the
exclusion of the Latin based script.

SKL

Mark Williamson wrote:
> It incorrectly represents Moldova? Come on!
>
> Wikipedia uses language as a MEDIUM. If somebody wants to know about
> the language, they would go to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language or
> http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldau or whichever language they speak
> article.
>
> They will NOT go to mo.wikipedia.
>
> And you are clearly not in touch with reality. In schools east of the
> Dniestr river, which teach Moldovan, the Cyrillic alphabet is taught.
> This fact is a fact and you cannot contest it. This is the usual
> script.
>
> Now, unless you want to challenge the territorial integrity of
> Moldova, it seems reasonable to accept that Moldova is, in fact, a
> biscriptal nation.
>
> As Gerard noted, mo-cyr is not acceptable because it violates conventions.
>
> Mark
>
> On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is what would reasonably happen, Mark. In my opinion, of course.
>>
>> Currently people "give a damn" because it represents incorreclty Moldova.
>> Personally, I cannot stand when my country is represented n'*importe
comment
>> * on Wikipedia.
>>
>> We don't use this writing, Mark. Apart from exceptions, nowhere. This
>> writing, for all areas of life, is a reality of the past. And do not try
to
>> discredit my words stating that "he is not in Moldova". I lived my whole
>> life in Moldova, which makes, roughly, 20 years. I read news. I return to
>> Moldova at least one time per year. I know what happens there. We don't
use
>> this writing. Other Moldovans that are currently in Moldova could easily
>> backup this.
>>
>> If you want to write articles, I have nothing against it. Moving all you
>> have done on mo.wikipedia.org to mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would in no way
>> interrupt your work. And your work would cease disturbing people
>> concerned.
>>
>> But enough on this. Let's see the way the current
>>
vote<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#Closure_o
f_Moldovan_Wikipedia>on
>> meta ends.
>>
>> On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is that a threat?
>>>
>>> Why should anyone "give a damn" now? What reason is there for people
>>> to not just ignore it and work on the Romanian Wikipedia? Really,
>>> there is no good reason. Any good Wikipedian should focus on fixing
>>> articles, writing new articles, etc., instead of fussing about
>>> something like this.
>>>
>>> I just want to write articles, but you and your friends insist on
>>> interrupting.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Everyone will start ignoring it, as soon as the Moldovan Wikipedia gets
>>> out
>>>> of the mo.wikipedia.org domain. No one would give a damn about it.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com > wrote:
>>>>> Would it really make everyone happy?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> There would still be people whinging endlessly that it should be
>>>>> closed and/or deleted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/07/06, Liviu Andronic < landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree that simple ignoring of this project would make it disappear
>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>>> one-two year time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the you do not get is that there is one simple solution: move
>>> mo to
>>>>>> mo-cyr. And everyone gets happy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this so difficult?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/2/06, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> You do not get it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an annoyance. One of the points made is that the Moldovan
>>>>>>> wikipedia is just trolling. Consider what makes a troll thrive;
>>>>>>> attention. The more attention that you give it, ANY attention the
>>> more
>>>>>>> it will get entrenched. There is this saying: "I do not care what
>>> they
>>>>>>> say about me as long as they write my name correctly", all this
>>>>>>> attention makes the mo.wikipedia "relevant". If it is not
>>> relevant,
>>>>>>> refrain from giving it attention and at some time it will just
>>>>>>> evaporate. If it does not, it cannot be considered trolling and
>>> you
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> plain wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best thing for you to do: shut up. Ignore this project.
>>> Everybody
>>>>>>> will be happier and maybe you will be proven to be right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>     GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liviu Andronic wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would have to object to the position taken by people who can
>>> make
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me.
>>> I do
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all
>>> this
>>>>>>> junk.
>>>>>>>> I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an
>>>>> issue. I
>>>>>>>> agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an
>>>>> unimportant
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire
>>> community.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all
>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and
>>> Moldovan
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>> Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty
>>> war
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for
>>>>> those
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> can make a difference to just ignore?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create
>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>> and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free
>>>>>>> encyclopedia
>>>>>>>> of the highest possible quality"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to
>>> take
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and
>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>> arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and
>>> all
>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests
>>> to
>>>>> do is
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> common sense to decide on this issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by
>>>>> stewards
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance
>>> to
>>>>>>> adopt. I
>>>>>>>> still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop
>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>> ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not
>>> cease
>>>>>>>> re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an
>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>> country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million
>>>>> persons)
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me -
>>> if
>>>>> no
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a
>>>>> two-three
>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you managed to read till this point, thank you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liviu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber < brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacky PB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved
>>> would
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> wasting
>>>>>>>>> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something
>>>>> unimportant.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> safest
>>>>>>>>> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same
>>> as
>>>>> we do
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Liviu
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Liviu
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Liviu
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Emmanuel Engelhart

subject: [Wikitech-l] PNG and JPEG optimizers

body:
Hi

What about using systematically:
* pngcrush or optipng for PNGs
* jpegoptim for JPEGs

PNG optimizers may be very slow, but it's possible to get relatively quickly
a good optimization, and jpegoptim is fast.

With this methods, it would be relatively easy to reduce the pictures size
about 10% - 20% the image sizes.
Such optimization would directly impact the bandwith usage.

Emmanuel


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] mo - let's make a point ...

body:
1) mo = ISO 639 language code for Moldovan - it refers solely to a
language and not a territory (this seems to be mixed up every now and then)
2) like Mark already said, they would continue the project anyway, also
outside the WMF (remember the contents is GFDL and may be used by
anyone) ... well one point to consider is: if you want to assure NPOV
than you need to have that project within the WMF - outside there is no
more guarantee about NPOV
3) following a research among colleagues (translators) Moldovan is
listed as a separate language when it comes to in which and from which
language is being translated - so there must be a real difference,
otherwise translators would just say "Romanian"
4) we have "native speakers" in several projects that have a lower
written language knowledge (even if these people are to be considered of
mother tongue), the reasons for this are several and different from
country to country - many of them started to write their language again
when the wikipedia was started and after some time they again gained a
much better written level of that language, contributing to cultural
diversity and helping to understand their culture - this also leads to
better understanding of other people and therefore to less conflicts.

Now considering these points (I could work out some more, but the main
point for me is definitely NPOV) for me things are obvious ... but of
course they cannot be obvious to all.

Well, I'll be away for some days from tomorrow on - and anyway I already
was too much involved in this and really don't want to get further
involved - it is not a nice thread and I like positive things best.

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


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Certificare

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

I really think this is an over-valued conflict, but why not make a
screenshot of the message in the yahoo-account (yes that can be forged,
too), best showing also the message headers, and upload that to META or
COMMONS?

>The correct translation follows.
>Sorry, but half truths are often worse than an
>outright lie.

>:en:Dpotop

>>>> Salut Ronline,
>>>>
>>>> Nu stiu daca ai urmarit ultima discutie
>>> referitoare la
>>>> wikipedia moldoveneasca, dar la un moment dat
>> Mark
>>>> Williamson mi-a trimis un mesaj injurios.

>Hello Ronline,

>I do not know if you've been following the last
>discussion on the Moldovan wikipedia, but at one point
>Mark Williamson sent me an offensive message.

>>>> Acum, vor si altii sa il vada, in cont, ca sa se
>>>> asigure ca intr-adevar el l-a trimis. Insa e
>> vorba
>>> de
>>>> un cont Yahoo, si deci daca dau acces la el si e
>>> sters
>>>> mesajul nu mai am "dovada". :)

>Now, some others want to see the message in the
>account, so that they can be sure he sent it. But it's
>a Yahoo account, so that if I give access to it and
>the message is deleted there is no more "proof". :)

>>>> Am deci nevoie de un trustee, un user respectat
>> pe
>>>> wikipedia, care sa se uite primul si sa vada
>>> mesajul
>>>> acolo. Apoi, poate sa se uite cine o vrea.

>Therefore, I need a trustee, a respected wikipedia
>user, to look there first and see the message there.
>Then, anybody can take a look.

>>>> Ai putea, te rog, sa fii trustee in directia
>> asta?
>>>> Daca da, iti trimit parola, te uiti, si eventual
>>> faci
>>>> o copie a mesajului.

>Can you, please, be the trustee on this matter? If
>yes,
>I will send you the password, you take a look, and
>possibly make a copy of the message.

>__________________________________________________
>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

 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Hirschstra?e 5. 79100 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


body:
Its not me who says that they differ, but having colleagues (just search
for translations + Moldovan) that obviously make the difference ... well
...

I cannot contact these people now - I can only try to do it asap. Be
sure I am going probably much further when I research than you can imagine.

Sorry, cannot follow up for the next days.

Best, Sabine

TSO1D From Wikpedia schrieb:
> Some of the points you have presented are subjective, however the Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity is not a matter of debate. There is virtually not a single person who claims that formal written Moldovan differs from Romanian (as proven by the fact that Node directly transliterated articles from Ro to Mo with no "translation"). I don't really understand what research you carried out to come to your conclusion, but if you would consult any reference work (e.g. Moldovan language at en.wiki) you can find multiple sources emphasizing this point.
>
>   The only issue truly at stake here is the usage of the cyrillic alphabet for writing Moldovan, and that issue is a bit more complex. I don't wish to go into the details of that aspect of the debate at this point as they have been thoroughly discussed, but I wouldn't want you to make your decision on an incorrect premise (that formal Moldovan and Romanian differ).
>
>

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


list: textbook-l

from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Textbook-l] [Foundation-l] Offering Wikibooks content for sale

body:
Robert Scott Horning schrieb:

> Why do you think I brought it up at all on this list?

My post was not meant to say that someone did not communicate. I was
just trying to add to Eriks points as there is more than just a legal
point of view.

My apologies if you felt offended by me.

Mathias


from_name: mboverload

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moldy discussions

body:
NEW RULE:

Say "Moldovan" and you get autobanned.  From the internets.

mboverload


body:
I said that I am going to talk to people - people that have nothing to
do with the wikipedia and all the povs that are around here.

You can find all sorts of information that proof one or the other thesis
on the internet (depending on with which search engine + which language
version and word combination in which language you search) - that is
definitely not the way to get information (I could give you some links
that proof the contrary ... well: I don't want to use any of those).

And I don't like that you try to create a negative mood around - be
positive.

It is definitely enough for today.

Best, Sabine

TSO1D From Wikpedia schrieb:
>
>   The websites I found using the Google search you proposed just support my point. The first states:  "Moldavian is in Moldova to the northeast, and Muntenian in Muntenia, or Wallachia in the southeast, other dialects in the north and west, including much of Transylvania.,  Alternate Names: Rumanian" Or the next one: " Moldovan is widely considered to be little more than the Romanian language renamed for political purposes."
>
>
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Publishing

body:
Dont we have a lawyer for these kind of things? =D

On 7/4/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I
> >see not why the Foundation would be listed as a
> >co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the
> >future.
> >
> >
> In part I am responsible for this chain of events as far as claiming the
> WMF as an "author". I'm still not convinced that the Foundation isn't an
> author or at least a copyright claimant, but I was trying to make a
> politically neutral sentiment when I created the copyright notice that
> the Wikijunior books have which simply stated the following:
>
> "(c) Copyright 2004?2006, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and contributing
> authors, all rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute
> and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Document
> License, version 1.2."
>
> I have tried to solicit comments about this wording, and the page it is
> on
> (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_System/Copyright_Notice)
> dates back to over a year ago when I first put it up. I'm sorry that it
> has created this kind of problem. All this user did was use the WMF name
> as one of the "authors", just as the copyright notice claimed.
>
> I know this was a small detail at the time, but it is the kind of minor
> detail that can create huge problems if not done correctly. If there are
> any reasonable suggestions on how to change the wording of this
> copyright slug and what should be listed here instead, it would be
> appreciated. This is a Wiki page and thus is editable by ordinary
> Wikimedia users as well
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Publishing


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moldy discussions

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> (Trying both top- *and* bottom-posting in an effort to please
> everybody. :-) )

Great. Now you've offended both those who hate top posting _and_ those
who hate bottom posting.

I suspect the only way to please everybody is to not post anything at
all. :)

-------------- 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/20060704/19d9fb61/attachment.pgp


from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo

body:
Arne Klempert schrieb:
> On 7/3/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>WMF is willing to negotiate favorable terms for a logo agreement for use on
>>toolserver. =)
>
>
> The toolserver is a project of Wikimedia Deutschland. So there is no
> need for an(other) agreement. Marco, could you send your proposal to
> the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland?
I can do, but I have absolutely no idea which email address this is.

Greets,
Marco


subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Arne Klempert <klempert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The toolserver is a project of Wikimedia Deutschland. So there is no
>> need for an(other) agreement.
>>
>
> Unless the toolserver logo incorporates the Foundation logo, which
> sounds eminently possible.
Hoi,
This makes no difference as the chapters are allowed to use the logo in
the first place.
Thanks,
   GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] Toolserver Logo


from_name: Mei Wu

subject: [Wikitech-l] smtp server integration in MediaWiki

body:
Hi Eric,
thanks for the tip. I changed the settings and now I get the following
error message when I hit the "Email password button":

Login error:
Error sending mail: Failed to connect to localhost:25 [SMTP: Failed to
connect socket: An established connection was aborted by the software
in your host machine. (code: -1, response: )]

I think that means that the smtp server is not running correctly. I am
using the Microsoft internal smtp server included in IIS 5. I set it
up to allow connections from the localhost and allow relay but I still
get the error message. I also installed Mercury mail in order to test
another mail server but I had the same problem. Do you have an idea
what the problem is ? Thanks again!!

Mei

On 7/4/06, EricJonah <ericjonah at gmail.com> wrote:
> You can send mail via PEAR Mail.
> 1.install pear
> 2.Edit LocalSetting to add the pear into the include_path like this
> $path = array( $IP, "$IP/includes", "$IP/languages", "/usr/share/pear" );
> 3set the smtp
> $wgSMTP = array(
>         "host" => '',
>         "IDHost" => "",
>         "port" => "25",
>         "auth" => true,
>         "username" => "",
>         "password" => "",
> );
>
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700
> "Mei Wu" <mwu.mailbox at gmail.com> ???:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I installed Mediawiki in a LAN environment. I specified the internal
> > Microsoft smtp server in the "php.ini" to send out emails. However,
> > the mails were not sent out although the local smtp server is
> > listening on port 25. I do not  really know what the problem is and
> > would appreciate any help.
> >
> > The computer is directly connected to a router and has an internal IP
> > (192.168.x.x). The Wiki is running on Apache 2 on port 8080. The smtp
> > server is listening on port 25 (IIS 5).
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Mei
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> --
> EricJonah <ericjonah at gmail.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moldy discussions

body:
Sorry, but is this supposed to be humorous :?

On 7/4/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> How about a separate mailing list exclusively for discussion of all
> things Moldovan?
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | Susan: I'm just trying to be realistic!
> sean at epoptic.com | Peter: No, you're just trying to be smart.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEqo40MAt1wyd9d+URAr9/AJ9MwSsTTyeEZE18IWtuxdNV/IzObQCfbFah
> oWHxVGqk+J8M1sz9dNPDKos=
> =UN6o
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Publishing

body:
Anthere wrote:

>Also, unless I am wrong in what defines an "author", I
>see not why the Foundation would be listed as a
>co-author of the books, or of any wikibooks in the
>future.
>
>
In part I am responsible for this chain of events as far as claiming the
WMF as an "author". I'm still not convinced that the Foundation isn't an
author or at least a copyright claimant, but I was trying to make a
politically neutral sentiment when I created the copyright notice that
the Wikijunior books have which simply stated the following:

"? Copyright 2004?2006, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and contributing
authors, all rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute
and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Document
License, version 1.2."

I have tried to solicit comments about this wording, and the page it is
on
(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_System/Copyright_Notice)
dates back to over a year ago when I first put it up. I'm sorry that it
has created this kind of problem. All this user did was use the WMF name
as one of the "authors", just as the copyright notice claimed.

I know this was a small detail at the time, but it is the kind of minor
detail that can create huge problems if not done correctly. If there are
any reasonable suggestions on how to change the wording of this
copyright slug and what should be listed here instead, it would be
appreciated. This is a Wiki page and thus is editable by ordinary
Wikimedia users as well

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] Publishing


from_name: Timwi

body:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't be keen if this applied to *all* users. I've done around 50
>>page moves in maybe 5 minutes - and I'm not a vandal. Sometimes you
>>want to standardise the naming for a category. In my case, I was
>>renaming all the French rivers from like "Garonne" to "Garonne River".
>
> You are asserting that you moved each page, checked for and fixed all
> double redirects, and changed the bold page title; personally reviewing
> and verifying 3 or more actions for 50 pages, all in under 5 minutes
> (300 seconds, a rate of 2 seconds or less per edit).  Two responses:
>
>   1) There really isn't such a rush, this isn't a competition.

This kind of sentiment (which appears to be widespread) assumes that
everyone in the world has some sort of pressing need to do something
useful for Wikipedia. You blindly assume that everyone will perform the
same amount of work independent of how inconvenient it is or how long it
will take, supposedly because they have some inherent urge to do that
work and will not be held back by any obstruction. Has anyone ever
thought that if something is less convenient or takes more time, that
people are by logical consequence less likely to even do it at all?

>   2) I don't believe you.

You made several unreasonable assumptions above. He only said he moved
50 pages within 5 minutes (= 6 seconds per move). This is completely
reasonable and believable. You suddenly assert that the subsequent
clean-up work must also fall within those 5 minutes. Heck, even
asserting that this clean-up work was done at all is unreasonable in itself.

Timwi


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Why would it just be those of school age?

Anyone, in all of Moldova, educated prior to 1989 would have learnt
Cyrillic; accordingly, the majority of people speaking Moldovan in
Transnistria were brought up with Cyrillic -- 100% of them prior to
1991 or so.

Also, there are hundreds of thousands of ethnic Moldovans in Ukraine,
Russia, Belarus, who may not have been educated in their language, but
can speak it, and have learnt literacy in a language such as Russian
which uses Cyrillic.

Now, whether or not anyone knows one _to the exclusion of the other_
is more complicated.

Anyone in Moldova older than 25 knows Cyrillic; in large towns and
cities such as Chisinau, everybody knows Cyrillic due to the strong
presence of Russian.

Everyone in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus also knows Cyrillic. However,
it's probable that most of these people also know Latin. I don't think
there are many people in these countries who know one script to the
exclusion of the other, so it is a matter of which they use more often
and of their preferences.

In Transnistria, this is likely to be Cyrillic for the majority (keep
in mind that actually the majority Moldovans in Transnistria choose to
send their kids to Russian school); in Ukraine, it may depend on the
region; in Russia I am guessing most would prefer Cyrillic unless they
are very recent immigrants from Moldova.

Mark

On 04/07/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>    Ok, that is an acceptable answer though again I still think we are
> talking about a really really small group (according to
> [[Transnistria]], there are 177k RO/MO people in Transnistria of which
> only some are going to be school age and only some of those not going to
> Latin scripted schools).
>
>    Though Sabine does make a valid point that most of them (the ones in
> Moldova proper as well) probably can sound out words in any language
> written using Cyrillic and a large number also are likely to know
> Russian.  To me the more interesting question is how many of them know
> the RO/MO language in Cyrillic to the exclusion of Latin and are likely
> to have access to a computer with Internet access.
>
> SKL
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > It incorrectly represents Moldova? Come on!
> >
> > Wikipedia uses language as a MEDIUM. If somebody wants to know about
> > the language, they would go to
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language or
> > http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldau or whichever language they speak
> > article.
> >
> > They will NOT go to mo.wikipedia.
> >
> > And you are clearly not in touch with reality. In schools east of the
> > Dniestr river, which teach Moldovan, the Cyrillic alphabet is taught.
> > This fact is a fact and you cannot contest it. This is the usual
> > script.
> >
> > Now, unless you want to challenge the territorial integrity of
> > Moldova, it seems reasonable to accept that Moldova is, in fact, a
> > biscriptal nation.
> >
> > As Gerard noted, mo-cyr is not acceptable because it violates conventions.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This is what would reasonably happen, Mark. In my opinion, of course.
> >>
> >> Currently people "give a damn" because it represents incorreclty Moldova.
> >> Personally, I cannot stand when my country is represented n'*importe comment
> >> * on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> We don't use this writing, Mark. Apart from exceptions, nowhere. This
> >> writing, for all areas of life, is a reality of the past. And do not try to
> >> discredit my words stating that "he is not in Moldova". I lived my whole
> >> life in Moldova, which makes, roughly, 20 years. I read news. I return to
> >> Moldova at least one time per year. I know what happens there. We don't use
> >> this writing. Other Moldovans that are currently in Moldova could easily
> >> backup this.
> >>
> >> If you want to write articles, I have nothing against it. Moving all you
> >> have done on mo.wikipedia.org to mo-cyr.wikipedia.org would in no way
> >> interrupt your work. And your work would cease disturbing people
> >> concerned.
> >>
> >> But enough on this. Let's see the way the current
> >> vote<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia>on
> >> meta ends.
> >>
> >> On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Is that a threat?
> >>>
> >>> Why should anyone "give a damn" now? What reason is there for people
> >>> to not just ignore it and work on the Romanian Wikipedia? Really,
> >>> there is no good reason. Any good Wikipedian should focus on fixing
> >>> articles, writing new articles, etc., instead of fussing about
> >>> something like this.
> >>>
> >>> I just want to write articles, but you and your friends insist on
> >>> interrupting.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> On 04/07/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Everyone will start ignoring it, as soon as the Moldovan Wikipedia gets
> >>> out
> >>>> of the mo.wikipedia.org domain. No one would give a damn about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/4/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com > wrote:
> >>>>> Would it really make everyone happy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There would still be people whinging endlessly that it should be
> >>>>> closed and/or deleted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 03/07/06, Liviu Andronic < landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I agree that simple ignoring of this project would make it disappear
> >>> in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> one-two year time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What the you do not get is that there is one simple solution: move
> >>> mo to
> >>>>>> mo-cyr. And everyone gets happy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is this so difficult?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/2/06, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>>>> You do not get it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is an annoyance. One of the points made is that the Moldovan
> >>>>>>> wikipedia is just trolling. Consider what makes a troll thrive;
> >>>>>>> attention. The more attention that you give it, ANY attention the
> >>> more
> >>>>>>> it will get entrenched. There is this saying: "I do not care what
> >>> they
> >>>>>>> say about me as long as they write my name correctly", all this
> >>>>>>> attention makes the mo.wikipedia "relevant". If it is not
> >>> relevant,
> >>>>>>> refrain from giving it attention and at some time it will just
> >>>>>>> evaporate. If it does not, it cannot be considered trolling and
> >>> you
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>> plain wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The best thing for you to do: shut up. Ignore this project.
> >>> Everybody
> >>>>>>> will be happier and maybe you will be proven to be right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>     GerardM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Liviu Andronic wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would have to object to the position taken by people who can
> >>> make
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> difference.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IMHO, all this Moldovan issue annoys you as much as it does me.
> >>> I do
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>> want to dispute on this, as much as you do not want to read all
> >>> this
> >>>>>>> junk.
> >>>>>>>> I am wondering if the Moldovan Wikipedia is such unimportant an
> >>>>> issue. I
> >>>>>>>> agree that it is a rarely used Wikipedia. And still, for an
> >>>>> unimportant
> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia, it does create a lot of headache to the entire
> >>> community.
> >>>>> If
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> issue flames every three months on this mailing list and on all
> >>>>> possible
> >>>>>>>> Talk pages and triggers revert-wars on related English and
> >>> Moldovan
> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia articles, then I believe that there is obviously a
> >>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>> Not that this entire dispute be fair or ethical - it is a dirty
> >>> war
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> personally detest -, but is it an ethically correct position for
> >>>>> those
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>> can make a difference to just ignore?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is it so unimportant that a whole Wikipedia section could create
> >>>>>>> confusion
> >>>>>>>> and desinformation? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide a "free
> >>>>>>> encyclopedia
> >>>>>>>> of the highest possible quality"?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Personally for me, it is strange how people with the ability to
> >>> take
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> implement a decision, simply choose to ignore. All possible and
> >>>>>>> impossible
> >>>>>>>> arguments were already presented here, on the mailing list, and
> >>> all
> >>>>> over
> >>>>>>>> the English and Moldovan Wikipedia, and on Metawiki. What rests
> >>> to
> >>>>> do is
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>> common sense to decide on this issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is even stranger for me the way a decision already taken by
> >>>>> stewards
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> bureaucrats was simply ignored and not implemented.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But, then, it is up to the decision-makers to decide the stance
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> adopt. I
> >>>>>>>> still hope that they will choose as soon as possible to stop
> >>>>>>> deliberately
> >>>>>>>> ignoring this issue. The problem is that this issue will not
> >>> cease
> >>>>>>>> re-appearing on this mailing-list. My reason for this is that an
> >>>>> entire
> >>>>>>>> country and population (this makes an approximate 3.5 million
> >>>>> persons)
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. And one of these, or me -
> >>> if
> >>>>> no
> >>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>> else does it -, will certainly re-open this discussion in a
> >>>>> two-three
> >>>>>>> months
> >>>>>>>> time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you managed to read till this point, thank you.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Liviu
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/30/06, Brion Vibber < brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jacky PB wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No one else is interested in this issue, and getting involved
> >>> would
> >>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>> wasting
> >>>>>>>>> a lot of time with people fighting a lot over something
> >>>>> unimportant.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> safest
> >>>>>>>>> course is thus to leave a rarely-used wiki sitting there, same
> >>> as
> >>>>> we do
> >>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> dozens of other rarely-used wikis and nobody minds.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >>>>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >>>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >>>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Liviu
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Liviu
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Liviu
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.