from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Native language preservation bill becomes law

body:
Native language preservation bill becomes law
Friday, December 15, 2006

A bill that will help tribes preserve their languages was signed into
law by President Bush on Thursday.

H.R.4766, the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation
Act, authorizes funding for new programs that tribes will use to prevent
the loss of their heritage and culture. "These languages will be
preserved with attention and effort. Once lost, they will never be
recovered," said Ryan Wilson, the president of the National Indian
Education Association.

The act took on significance this fall following the death of Esther
Martinez, a Native language teacher and storyteller from New Mexico. She
was killed in a car accident on September 16, just days after receiving
a National Heritage Fellowship award for her efforts to preserve the
Tewa language.

"The Native languages were precious to Esther Martinez, and this bill is
designed to help preserve them," said Wilson. "It is a fitting tribute
to her life's work."

New Mexico's Congressional delegation worked to pass the bill in the
closing weeks of the 109th Congress. It had passed the House in
September but was held up in the Senate and failed to gain approval
before the November elections.

After some feverish lobbying by the National Alliance to Save Native
Languages, a coalition that includes the NIEA and other organizations,
the measure passed the Senate earlier this month. Tribes then turned
their attention to the White House to get it signed before the end of
the year.

"The urgent need to protect and preserve Native American languages is
clear," said Rep. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), whose district includes
Ohkay Owingeh, the pueblo where Martinez taught her language for
decades. "We must invest in their preservation by implementing immersion
programs."

By authorizing funding for language nests, language survival schools and
language restoration programs, supporters hope to prevent the loss of
additional languages. Of the more than 300 languages spoken in the U.S.
at the time of European contact, only 175 remain, according to the
Indigenous Language Institute.

By 2050, only 20 will be spoken with regular use, the organization says,
unless efforts are taken to teach the languages to new generations.

The United States played a major role in the loss of Native languages.
Students at government boarding schools were prohibited from using their
languages. The Bureau of Indian Affairs at one point outlawed
ceremonies, a critical method of preserving languages and history.

Through the government policies of termination, relocation and
assimilation, the efforts continued through the 1950s and 1960s even as
the U.S military enlisted Native soldiers to create unbreakable codes
using their languages. In 2000, President Bush honored Navajo Code
Talkers who served in World War II.

"For many years, tribes were discouraged from speaking their native
languages and now many languages have disappeared. This legislation will
help ensure native languages are preserved, and passed on to future
generation," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico).

The grants for the new programs will be distributed by the
Administration for Native Americans within the Department of Health and
Human Services. Wilson said tribes must work to ensure Congress and the
White House provide adequate funds to carry out the bill.

Native Languages Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04766>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox


list: wikien-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-stupid WikiEN-l thread - Edition 4 I think

body:
On 15/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > My own favourite is [[Xenu]]. It was the numbah one source during Tom
> > > Cruise's public meltdown in 2005. And for obvious reasons, it's
> > > referenced to the hilt.

> > I should add the really fun part was seeing sentences I'd written
> > lifted directly by the media. Hell yeah, use my stuff ;-D

> So what's it like having your own SP declare?

Well, I don't *know* I do - "if it isn't written it isn't true," and I
haven't seen the actual paper. They seem reluctant to let people near
the actual paper these days.

I have had actual paper legal threats from an actual lawyer, not just
emailed ones. And the ISP hosting my site on the subject [*] has balls
so big they eclipse the Sun.

- d.

[*] http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/


body:
On 15/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> SP declare? Whu?

There's an online encyclopedia you could look it up in ...

- d.


from_name: SPUI

body:
James Hare wrote:
> In light of petty squabbles, I decided to bring back the non-stupid thread
> fad.
>
> - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why?

[[penis]]
>
> - If there was an article you'd love to see become FA, which one and why?

[[penis]]
>
> - Favorite pictures?

penis vandalism of the day
>
> - Favorite anything?

penis
>
> --James

--troll


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start

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

Brad Patrick wrote:
> * Site notice needs to be translated in four forms
> - Default - now
> - Sponsor #1 (matching) -  sometime next week
> - Sponsor #2 (matching) - sometime next week
> - Sponsor #3 (Anonymous matching) - sometime next week

We've gone ahead and set the default sitenotice, using a variant of last
year's.

I've put some information about how to translate it and how the
dismissable sitenotice works here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_sitenotice_2006_Q4

I'd appreciate it if this information could be spread to the right
people, and integrated with any planned sitenotice texts and
translations that may exist.

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

iD8DBQFFg0RMwRnhpk1wk44RAlnMAKC5HKCqQh+zJFPd6pJ3iS6iGQ6zhACfRgBa
75KI8R9YMkJyHlRL60k3H2U=
=RNGj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> But this really needs a longer term solution, and I agree with you that
> discussing it here (even with the unnecessary flaming around the edges
> of the discussion) seems helpful in sorting through this.

And your post further up this thread will, I think, be invaluable in
moving towards that long-term solution in helping people understand
exactly how this should be managed.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting.  I thought everyone newer than me was a rank newbie... (yeah, I
> know, I've been here a whole 3 months longer than you).

Doesn't everyone think that?

--
Sam


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > This is all fine, but Office actions should not be a technique for
> > sweeping issues under the rug indefinitely.
>
> I agree completely.  The message of WP:OFFICE should not be "hands OFF"
> but "hands ON".
>
> The core idea is that the process SHOULD work like this:
>
> 1. A hysterical phone call comes in to the office.  There might or might
> not be legal threats.  The hysteria might or might not be justified.
> But someone is sad, and Wikipedia is not here to make people sad.  So we
> want to respond in a helpful and loving way.
>

Problem is that it's used for more than that (Image:Crosstar.png for
example which I wish someone would oversite away and have done with)

> 2. The article is stubbed and tagged as WP:OFFICE.  This is a message to
> good editors: "Please help us.  This article is making someone unhappy.
>   We want to make sure that it is a thoughtful, fair, neutral article.
> We need GOOD editors to pay attention to it, and help us make it good."
>

That would be cleanup and the wait is about 6 months. In the meantime
we have [[Elevator music]].

> I would recommend protection or semi-protection at this point, but with
> the idea that even if protected admins are (as compared to normal
> protection) actually encouraged to come help with the article.
>

Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
comes to editing we are all equal.

> 3.  After some reasonable period of time, hopefully 24 hours, but
> perhaps as long as a week, the article has become a shining beauty.  The
> subject of the biography (and really, these are most often biographies)
> is either made happy (because a horrible error was corrected, a troll
> was vanquished, or whatever) or made at least satisfied (the story of
> the negative thing he or she did once is now placed in appropriate
> context, properly cited, including citations to his or her own response
> and defense).
>
> 4. Joy.
>

This assumes the person complaining is ah reasonable.

> Perhaps young and excitable Wikipedia contributors think that the point
> of the exercise is to SHOW PEOPLE that you CAN'T PUSH WIKIPEDIA AROUND,
> and go out to try to dig up well-cited dirt on the person, creating an
> even more horribly bad and biased article than we started with, forcing
> us to start all over again.
>

I don't think it is a good idea to get into the habit of removing well
cited information

> Perhaps good contributors who respect WP:OFFICE think "Gee, trouble
> here, I will just stay out of the way"... and then nothing happens.
>

Can you blame them?

> Perhaps no one really cares in the first place, such that if the article
> has been out-of-process speedied, it would have slipped through the cracks.

People are supriseingly good at picking up impropper speedies

> I am unsure exactly how to redesign the process so that we get the good
> outcome more often, and the bad outcome less often.

Outline the problem on the talk page as see if we can get the person
complaining to suggest any souces that could be useful.

> An example of the good outcome can be seen at [[Ron Jeremy]], which was
> NOT subject WP:OFFICE, but rather subject to a controversial blanking by
> an ordinary editor.  It has become an excellent article which continues
> to improve, because good editors are keeping unsourced cruft out of the
> article completely.

Try [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] I suspect the subject still has
issues with the article but at least it now covers more of his life
than his campains against certian types of computer games.
--
geni


list: wikitech-l

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Translate "You can give the gift of knowledge by
 donating to Wikipedia!"

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

Plyd wrote:
> Could anyone tell me how we can reduce or at least translate this
> message, shown for every connected user on wikipedias since several
> minutes?

Welcome to the 2006 Q4 Wikimedia Foundation fundraising drive.

Please see:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012197.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012199.html
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_sitenotice_2006_Q4

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

iD8DBQFFg0quwRnhpk1wk44RAlOrAJ9zLsR2W6o3SH5wDpx7FAawgdl6awCgxENC
c2L/v0050gyVRzA8It7gX34=
=g3Ot
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images

body:
On 12/15/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On issues such as whether we should allow NC images I, as member of
> the current Board, definitely don't think there should be any project
> level autonomy at all. If we want to keep our content compatible
> across languages and projects, we need to apply a consistent standard
> of freedom.

Is that really necessary?  Yes, a defined *minimum* level of freedom
is necessary for cross-project compatibility, but that doesn't have to
preclude allowing projects from being *more* strict than the
Foundation-defined minimum.

--
Sam


subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images


body:
On 12/15/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> In light of petty squabbles, I decided to bring back the non-stupid thread
> fad.
>
> - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why?
>

[[0.999...]]

So beautiful. A pretty complete adressing of a subject that has caused
arguments between geeks across the web.

> - If there was an article you'd love to see become FA, which one and why?
>

[[Rolle Canal]] because I think it is a cool canal

> - Favorite pictures?
>

[[:Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg]]

Just look at it

> - Favorite anything?

Mascot? Wikipe-tan because there is enough source material for those
of use who can't draw to be able to create derivatives (not everyone
may agree that this is a good thing).

--
geni


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:18:43 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
>articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
>comes to editing we are all equal.

I'm not sure I agree here.  There is a bar to entry for admins, and it
is reasonable to require, at least in the short term, that we allow
editing only by trusted individuals.  Protection is a blunt instrument
and certainly excludes many highly trustworthy individuals, but it
does exclude most of those likely to perpetuate the problem. Hopefully
if the clarification Jimbo gave is taken to heart, the protection
period can be reduced as we fix the articles.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Reverberating self-reinforcing autoregenerative
	circular sourcing

body:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:34:59 -0700, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com wrote:

>Good, right? Unfortunately the reporter did not cite his source. So someone contacted that reporter and asked.
>And, guess what: the reporter's source was the Wikipedia article.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is also the source for the
significance asserted in the single newspaper article we cite as a
source for The Game (game).

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


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

body:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:37:03 -0500, "James Hare"
<messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

>Please refrain from accusing people of trolling. It's really not that
>pleasant.

The trolling itself is worse, though :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting.  I thought everyone newer than me was a rank newbie... (yeah, I
> > know, I've been here a whole 3 months longer than you).
>
> Doesn't everyone think that?
>

After a while you adjust that to everyone who joined after you made it to admin.

--
geni


body:
On 12/15/06, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> See >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivy_League#A_Rutgers.2FIvy_reference_from_the_Daily_News >and followup, and be afraid. Be very afraid.
>

Hey at least it isn't a court ruleing this time.

--
geni


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
> > I would recommend protection or semi-protection at this point, but with
> > the idea that even if protected admins are (as compared to normal
> > protection) actually encouraged to come help with the article.
> >
>
> Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
> articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
> comes to editing we are all equal.

Jimbo said protection *or semi-protection*. Perhaps more OFFICE
articles should be semi-protected, rather than protected.

> I don't think it is a good idea to get into the habit of removing well
> cited information

Indeed. A balanced article isn't one that has the same number of good
points as bad points. It's one that has a ratio of good points to bad
points that accurately represents how good/bad the subject is (yes,
it's not our job to decide is someone is a good person or not, but we
don't need to, if we do our research properly and cite everything
properly, we'll get the right ratio without having to decide what that
ratio is). An article on a convicted murderer is going to have mainly
bad points, that's perfectly balanced. An article on an
uncontroversial charity worker will have mainly good points, that's
perfectly balanced.

If there are far more bad points than good points in an article, and
the bad points are all well cited, then there are two possibilities.
Either the subject is simply bad, in which case the article is fine,
or the article is missing some good points, in which case they should
be added. I can't see any reason for a well cited bad point to be
removed.

> > Perhaps good contributors who respect WP:OFFICE think "Gee, trouble
> > here, I will just stay out of the way"... and then nothing happens.
> >
>
> Can you blame them?

Especially not when [[WP:OFFICE]] says:

"The following pages are currently under full Office protection and
full page protection and must not be edited by anyone not explicitly
authorised to do so."

>From following this thread, I think what that means is the article
should be edited on a temporary subpage and then get explicit
authorisation to move the subpage to the main page. If that's what's
intended, it should be made clearer.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:18:43 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
> >articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
> >comes to editing we are all equal.
>
> I'm not sure I agree here.  There is a bar to entry for admins, and it
> is reasonable to require, at least in the short term, that we allow
> editing only by trusted individuals.  Protection is a blunt instrument
> and certainly excludes many highly trustworthy individuals, but it
> does exclude most of those likely to perpetuate the problem. Hopefully
> if the clarification Jimbo gave is taken to heart, the protection
> period can be reduced as we fix the articles.
>
> Guy (JzG)

The divide between editors and admins should be as small small as
posible. At the moment most of the admin powers are ah procedural.
They are not really ment to be related to content. I would not like to
see that change. There are too many traps on that path.

--
geni


body:
> Good, right? Unfortunately the reporter did not cite his source. So someone contacted that reporter and asked.
>
> And, guess what: the reporter's source was the Wikipedia article.

Someone should tell his boss and get him fired. What kind of
journalist uses Wikipedia as a source for any like that (especially
without saying "according to Wikipedia", so people can decide how much
to trust the "fact")? We don't use tertiary sources for articles, and
neither should journalists...


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start

body:
Hello, world:

I want to provide everyone with the situation regarding fundraising.
(www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising)

* Fundraising page in its new form is up and running in many languages.
* Need to migrate FAQ from comcom to Foundation wiki
* Need to migrate Press release from comcom to Foundation wiki
* Need to translate FAQ on Foundation wiki
* Need to translate Press release on Foundation wiki
* Need to translate Anthere's appeal on Foundation wiki where not translated
* Site notice needs to be translated in four forms
- Default - now
- Sponsor #1 (matching) -  sometime next week
- Sponsor #2 (matching) - sometime next week
- Sponsor #3 (Anonymous matching) - sometime next week

A word about matching.  So far we expect to have a significant match
extending over several days from an anonymous donor, and two
corporations with matching dates we are still working out.  We don't
have the dates completely set in stone yet, and they will not be in
place until next week. For now, the regular fundraising is underway.  We
are finalizing the site notices shortly, and will be working on all of
this tonight.

Thank you for your patience, and for your support of Wikimedia!

-Brad


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Interesting.  I thought everyone newer than me was a rank newbie... (yeah, I
> > > know, I've been here a whole 3 months longer than you).
> >
> > Doesn't everyone think that?
> >
>
> After a while you adjust that to everyone who joined after you made it to admin.

You do?  Oh good.

--
Sam


from_name: luke brandt

subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> On issues such as whether we should allow NC images I, as member of
>> the current Board, definitely don't think there should be any project
>> level autonomy at all. If we want to keep our content compatible
>> across languages and projects, we need to apply a consistent standard
>> of freedom.
>
> Is that really necessary?  Yes, a defined *minimum* level of freedom
> is necessary for cross-project compatibility, but that doesn't have to
> preclude allowing projects from being *more* strict than the
> Foundation-defined minimum.
>

Hi - for information (and it has some relevance) the recent EN
discussion on non-commercial images can be found at this web address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Fair_use_VS._Non-com

Hope this helps a bit
--
luke


subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Extension - The wiki NMA... WhatsDown

body:
On 15/12/06, Steve Sanbeg <ssanbeg at ask.com> wrote:
> If you need the functionality anyway, doing it on the wiki shouldn't be
> much worse than using a CGI.  So it could be useful on small site, i.e. to
> document a service and monitor it on the same site.

I didn't mean to imply that it was totally useless, of course; if you
need it, you'll use it.

> I'd think it could benefit from some improvements, such as to allow a
> parameter in LocalSettings to restrict where it can connect to; and have
> its own cache, so you can view it as often as you want from as many pages,
> without hitting the same address many times a second.  That would be a
> nice benefit to using the wiki.

Those would be sensible additions.

Rob Church


body:
>The problem---it's the *verbatim* same sentence.  The BBC
> not only got its information from the article I wrote in 2003, but
> lifted my sentence word for word!  (archive.org can verify that the
> sentence in Wikipedia long predates the BBC's use of it, and it uses an
> idiosyncratic grammatical construction, so there it's very unlikely to
> be a coincidence.)

How much do you have to copy for it to be plagiarism? I would imagine
one sentence will do... Should someone contact the BBC?


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

body:
> Me too.... And what the hell does INTERWAVE mean?

You missed a letter, it's "interweave".


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] postfix greylisting

body:
Hello,

Our MXes for wikimedia.org are set to albert and pascal. Pascal got the
postgrey extension [1] for postfix while albert does not have it.

Maybe installing it on albert can help reduce spam and virus received on
OTRS ?

[1] http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n G l F
> > > y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
>
> You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to
> decipher your email, and I want them back.

Me too.... And what the hell does INTERWAVE mean?

--Oskar


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject:
[Foundation-l] two wanted: Polish editors and Wikiversity
	description

body:
On 12/15/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. is any Wikiversity folk willing to expand
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF/Our_projects/En:#Wikiversity
> (it will be shown at the foundation wiki)

I've made a stab at this for now (not sure if this is too
"present-specific"). Feel free, anyone, to give it a look-over - see
link above - forwarding this also to wikiversity-l.

Cheers,
Cormac


from_name: Jim Schuler

body:
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n
> G l F
> > > > y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
> >
> > You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to
> > decipher your email, and I want them back.
>
> !gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]

!ton s'ti oN

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems Connecting to Wiki

body:
Is it just Wikipedia that won't load? Try typing 145.97.39.155 into
the address bar - that's the IP address for en.wikipedia.org. After a
quick test, I see it won't actually take you to the main page, it will
take you to an error page (with the foundation logo) because it
doesn't know which project you want - let us know if you can see that
error page. If you can, it sounds like some kind of DNS issue. If you
can't load that error page, and it's only wikipedia that's a problem,
then something very odd seems to be going on...


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

body:
On 12/15/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to
> flame me.
>
> Parker

Name dropping is so tacky.

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


body:
On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Parker, if you email me that log for review, I am happy that we publish
> it.
>
> I just want to review it to make sure I didn't say anything in private
> that would be inappropriate to say in public.

Possibly a point that should have been made privately.

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


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do with $1.000.000

body:
I remember a post way back about what the Wikimedia Foundation should do in
case it receives a large grant or donation.
For the past few days I've been collecting data for a number of new
articles, and I realized how lucky I am.
A lot of people don't have access to things like Pubmed and LexisNexis and
those are particularly useful in citing articles.
Buying a set of books and making their contents available is nice, but still
growing databases of information are more useful, especially now we should
focus more on sources instead of new content as Jimbo said at the Wikimania
conference. As soon as I finish my study, my access to those databases will
cease to exist. I don't know the numbers, but perhaps a number of
Wikipedians, say those in a referencing taskforce, should get access to such
services with the help of the foundation...

Mgm


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 15/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I don't think Earle needs to be put on moderation, I think Earle needs a
> big hug.

Aw, shucks.

> Earle, I can tell you that nothing is approaching anything like the Open
> Directory Project.

I'm very glad to hear it. Speaking from bitter experience as ex-ODP...
but that's better suited elsewhere.

> It is not very helpful to accuse Danny or the Foundation of any sort of
> "memory hole" policies or of becoming closed like the ODP.

After subjecting earlier posts in this thread to a more careful
re-reading, it appears I missed the lines quoted in Matthew Brown's
original post, which made his comments appear to mean something very
different indeed when read out of context ("Danny doesn't want an
official decision of the Foundation on record") - hence my incredulous
reply.

I apologise for any offence caused by my misunderstanding. I certainly
wouldn't want anyone to compare a project of mine to the ODP. (Whoops,
there I go again!)

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Earle
(enjoying a hearty dinner of crow and humble pie)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems Connecting to Wiki

body:
It appears you system is messed up. Even if you are banned from editing, you
should still be able to read it. What was the last thing you installed
before things went wrong?
Can you tell us a bit about your computer as in speed, HD space, browsers
and all that?

Mgm

On 12/15/06, Wiki-XMZL <montgomery210 at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I love wikipedia so it was a shock to me when 4 weeks ago I couldn't
> access
> it on my computer. Sadly it continued to be unreachable for 2 more weeks,
> at
> which point I began searching the net for possible Wikipedia downtime.
> Nothing came up...
>
> Now it has been 3-4 weeks and I have asked many people (about 10) who call
> all access Wikipedia within a few seconds, but it just won't work for me!
> I
> even tried it on 4 different browsers.....So far NO luck..
>
> So what is going on? Did wiki accidentally ban me? Is my PC messed up
> royally? Any help needed alot, I'm desperate and I want my Wikipedia!!!!
>
> thanks
>
> ~XMZL
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Problems-Connecting-to-Wiki-tf2824720.html#a7884985
> Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

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

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> these people
>> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
>> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.
>
> Just to interject a contrasting view here:
>
> What they have released are modern editions.
> These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
> These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.
>
> You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
> but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
> accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
> single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
> industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
> of the scores.
>

Ahh, the press releases and other hype had failed to make that clear.

> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
> transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
> other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
> locked away.
>

Yes, it wasn't /just/ the Mozart Foundation who I was thinking of.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061215/91b65d5e/attachment.pgp


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

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> these people
>> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
>> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.
>
> Just to interject a contrasting view here:
>
> What they have released are modern editions.
> These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
> These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.
>
> You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
> but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
> accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
> single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
> industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
> of the scores.
>

Ahh, the press releases and other hype had failed to make that clear.

> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
> transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
> other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
> locked away.
>

Yes, it wasn't /just/ the Mozart Foundation who I was thinking of.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061215/91b65d5e/attachment-0001.pgp


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

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> these people
>> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
>> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.
>
> Just to interject a contrasting view here:
>
> What they have released are modern editions.
> These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
> These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.
>
> You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
> but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
> accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
> single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
> industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
> of the scores.
>

Ahh, the press releases and other hype had failed to make that clear.

> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
> transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
> other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
> locked away.
>

Yes, it wasn't /just/ the Mozart Foundation who I was thinking of.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061215/91b65d5e/attachment.pgp>


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

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> these people
>> deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
>> other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.
>
> Just to interject a contrasting view here:
>
> What they have released are modern editions.
> These are not the Mozart manuscripts.
> These differ in material ways from the manuscripts.
>
> You may not agree that the changes are deserving of a new copyright,
> but that they are appears to be reasonably well established and
> accepted. So if you're going to rant about immoral activities, don't
> single out these people... it's a practice of the entire sheet music
> industry at least these people are allowing more liberal availability
> of the scores.
>

Ahh, the press releases and other hype had failed to make that clear.

> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> At least Mozart manuscripts are available and we can make our own
> transcriptions (well, once we have lilypond support...). There are
> other composers where all the possibly PD copies have been lost or
> locked away.
>

Yes, it wasn't /just/ the Mozart Foundation who I was thinking of.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061215/91b65d5e/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
 but it's sad to see that
> the people who joined around the same time as I did (mid to late 2004)
> aren't around much either.  What really makes me feel old is all the people
> who have come, become stalwarts of the community, and then burned out...who
> weren't even editing back when I had my RFA.  It makes you feel rather
> ent-ish ;)

Hm. I'm on dewp since April 04 and I don't feel ent-ish yet. At least
on dewp, there are still a lot of people, who were regulars (as in
"sysops") when I joined...
Michael
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Aphaia

body:
Hello,
1. is any Polish editor willing help to update Fundraising page on the
foundation wiki?
2. is any Wikiversity folk willing to expand
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF/Our_projects/En:#Wikiversity
(it will be shown at the foundation wiki)

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


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 15 Dec 2006 at 14:11, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Looks like it's ready for the flaming debate on inclusion - "all
> glaciers are notable" vs "icecruft", which Google shows to be a term
> waiting to be coined... :-)

Ice, ice baby!

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


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"James Hare" wrote

> - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why?

[[List of glaciers]] is cool. I just think having such a list is great. I started it, admittedly, in an atypical moment, but the coolness and increments are due to others.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 15/12/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> James Hare wrote:
> > In light of petty squabbles, I decided to bring back the non-stupid thread
> > fad.
> > - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why?

> [[penis]]

> > - If there was an article you'd love to see become FA, which one and why?

> [[penis]]

> > - Favorite pictures?

> penis vandalism of the day

[[Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg]], shirley!

> > - Favorite anything?

> penis

US Highway Penis!

- d.


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/15/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Wow, it's much expanded since I last looked at it, two years ago!
>
> Looks like it's ready for the flaming debate on inclusion - "all
> glaciers are notable" vs "icecruft", which Google shows to be a term
> waiting to be coined... :-)

Nyet in this case the deletionists are being pro-active and are
working on removeing the glaciers themselves.

--
geni


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

body:
On 12/15/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Oy vey, that suggests the ultimate stage of Wikipediholism - altering
> the real world so as influence articles!

I wonder how often this has actually happened.

--Ryan


body:
geni wrote

> On 12/15/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Wow, it's much expanded since I last looked at it, two years ago!
> >
> > Looks like it's ready for the flaming debate on inclusion - "all
> > glaciers are notable" vs "icecruft", which Google shows to be a term
> > waiting to be coined... :-)

> Nyet in this case the deletionists are being pro-active and are
> working on removeing the glaciers themselves.

Some sort of terminal murrain?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/15/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> >Editors are accountable for their own actions.
> >
> >The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
> >people's actions.

<snip>
> Surely the foundation is not responsible for
> the legal defence of its editors, but a plaintiff is likely to want to
> make the Foundation at least a co-defendent in a law suit, It should be
> prepared to defend itself against groundless, vexatious, or SLAPP
> lawsuits.  If it ends up defending an editor at the same time so much
> the better.

I was speaking in the general case, to explain one common reason why
people like Danny and Brad don't speak on every matter they are asked
to speak on.

To bring this back to the specific case at hand, the article once
again has the assertion that the institution is unaccredited, but
there are no sources cited to verify this. This is highly surprising,
given that one such source was mentioned in the original email in the
thread. Why have the sources not been added to the article?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Thank you for your updating, Christophe.
I warmly invite all the communities on the whole our project, to
revise the version on meta which is primarily intended as a source
document for translators, but also can serve as a draft page for the
coming content to the website.

Thanks for your reminder too, I failed to update the Commons part; now
it says "In December 2006, it has reached 1,000,000 multimedia files.
"
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects#Wikimedia_Commons

Again, we will appreciate your help and information!

On 12/15/06, Christophe Millet <kipmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2. is any Wikiversity folk willing to expand
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF/Our_projects/En:#Wikiversity
> > (it will be shown at the foundation wiki)
>
>
> The information about Wiktionary on this page was incredibly outdated,
> I've updated.
> Wikipedia seems uptodate (except the logo?), but I don't know about
> wikiquote,
> wikibooks, ...
> It would be good if people from these communities could check that.
>
> The 1,000,000 media files on commons should also appear on this page I
> think.
>
> Thanks,
> Kip.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] [Wmfcc-l] Fundraising start

body:
The anonymous donor is a friend of mine, a friend of Wikimedia, who asks
for absolutely nothing in return.  He doesn't even care to be recognized.

What's to defend or explain? :)  Some rich people love our work and
would like to help.

Andrew Lih wrote:
> Just a heads up -re: "an anonymous donor"
>
> There was already blowback on this re: the Taiwan Wikimania bid having
> an anon donor involved. The donor was later revealed as the donor only
> requested the name be withheld during bidding, and that the name could
> be revealed afterwards.
>
> The E.D. and board should carefully consider this point, as a
> "matching fund" drive is a new experience that folks need to get used
> to. But once anonymous donors are involved, the community could turn
> against the effort and it is another type of "intrigue" for the
> Foundation to have to defend.
>
> It should be explained appropriately, and the board and E.D. should be
> able to, on demand, give the reasoning for accepting such donations
> and whether the parties involved were screened and meet certain
> standards.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
>
> On 12/16/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello, world:
>>
>> I want to provide everyone with the situation regarding fundraising.
>> (www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising)
>>
>> * Fundraising page in its new form is up and running in many languages.
>> * Need to migrate FAQ from comcom to Foundation wiki
>> * Need to migrate Press release from comcom to Foundation wiki
>> * Need to translate FAQ on Foundation wiki
>> * Need to translate Press release on Foundation wiki
>> * Need to translate Anthere's appeal on Foundation wiki where not translated
>> * Site notice needs to be translated in four forms
>> - Default - now
>> - Sponsor #1 (matching) -  sometime next week
>> - Sponsor #2 (matching) - sometime next week
>> - Sponsor #3 (Anonymous matching) - sometime next week
>>
>> A word about matching.  So far we expect to have a significant match
>> extending over several days from an anonymous donor, and two
>> corporations with matching dates we are still working out.  We don't
>> have the dates completely set in stone yet, and they will not be in
>> place until next week. For now, the regular fundraising is underway.  We
>> are finalizing the site notices shortly, and will be working on all of
>> this tonight.
>>
>> Thank you for your patience, and for your support of Wikimedia!
>>
>> -Brad
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wmfcc-l mailing list
>> Wmfcc-l at mail.wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wmfcc-l mailing list
> Wmfcc-l at mail.wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
>


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> jayjg wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:37:03 -0500, "James Hare"
> >>> <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Please refrain from accusing people of trolling. It's really not that
> >>>> pleasant.
> >>> The trolling itself is worse, though :-)
> >>>
> >>> Guy (JzG)
> >>
> >> I've spent a lot of time discussing this with Jimbo, he's already
> emailed
> >> two people who were vexatiously trolling me, and I'd prefer not to have
> >> people trying to troll me. It does nothing for the discussion.
> >>
> >> In other words, stop trying to [[shoot the messenger]] please. I agree
> with
> >> about half of what I've seen you write, and I wish you didn't have this
> chip
> >> on your shoulder making you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of
> >> trolling. It doesn't help the debate in any fashion.
> >>
> >> That goes for you too, Jay.
> >
> > There's no message, though, aside from "I'm a troll, please feed me".
> >
>
> Actually, there /is/ a message; it's just that we've become so used to
> screams of "omg admin abuse" that we tend to dismiss them outright
> before checking to see if they're valid, which this one appears to be.
> My apologies to Parker.
>
> --
> Alphax

The apology is accepted, and I thank you for having the class to make it.

Parker


body:
I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even
relevant.

On 12/15/06, IAJ <zzvash at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
>
> <snip>
>
> "to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
>
> That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the
> content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to
> merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised
> revert. I don't believe that merits a response.

After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and
others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small "changes"
happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very divergent
versions going on.

Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
> Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,

Arrow740 did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93017548&oldid=92958469

So did Proabivouac.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93030627&oldid=93019838

You're out of line, mister.

<snip>
>
> "Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of
> Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent
> to
> read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and
> Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question."
>
> Fact is: the sources RunedChozo provided do not explicitly substantiate
> the
> claim he attributed them.

At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim
politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment.

At best, his insertion was an editorialised
> intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR).
> At
> worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
>
> I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in
> content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
>
> The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya,
> I'm
> not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons I
> will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as
> the
> casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the article
> states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for the
> attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it imply
> deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere
> convenience?
> Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
>
> Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly, reliable
> source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or Arab
> history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority.

Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come up
with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in
his Muslim upbringing.

Why, then, does
> his opinion matter here?

For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or
the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the Ayatollah...

I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
> his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked in.

We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an
excellent place to start.

Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
> scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of such
> people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an
> encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.

See above.

<snip>
>
>
> "The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly
> indicates
> that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful
> treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
>
> It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.

I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be
discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out of
hand, so I really can't say anything more to you.

"And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a
> good amount of time going
> through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in
> favor
> of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV
> presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly
> when there is a controversy over his actions"
>
> That's not the case, but I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry the article is that way, and that you feel the need to edit war
over it.

"And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit,
> well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case
> at
> all."
>
> It doesn't, and I've discussed this above.

And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people
didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day.

Your 'research' is less than
> convincing, I'm afraid.

Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above.

Parker


from_name: IAJ

body:
Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.

I did state that what I had written previously was all I had to say on this
matter, but Parker's apparent 'rebuttal' compels me to respond.

" but Tariqabjotu (the blocking admin) has strong ties to him, including
being an "ex" member of the same Guild."

"Strong ties"? I have no ties with Tariqabjotu. I have messaged him in total
twice (last I remember). One was a festive greeting several months ago (to
which he did not respond), and the other was a request for an update on the
status of a mediation case involving the article 'Indian caste system'.
Which "guild" are you referring to, by the way? The short-lived "WikiProject
Muslim Guild"? I was never a part of that WikiProject. I've never been a
part of any WikiProject. Can you please be a bit more explicit in describing
how exactly Tariqabjotu has "strong ties" with me?

"to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"

That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the
content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to
merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised
revert. I don't believe that merits a response.

Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have, they instead reverted
one before him, removing the text he inserted (check the article history).
In fact, the role played by RunedChozo here and elsewhere was as an abusive
and disruptive editor, disinterested in discussion, unable to spare even his
friendly advisors and uninvolved admins from paranoid accusations.

"Change three: Block of text removed. This is the same block of text
introduced by RunedChozo, the same Itaqallah refers to in his email to us.
Conclusion: This is the bone of contention, but we analyzed the whole thing
just to be sure, so I'll continue."

Block of text? You mean two sentences? The first of which is original
research? The second of which is the attribution to sources which do not
verify the statement? Oh, right.

"Because the text block includes a definite Source: statement, we deemed
that the edit summary was indeed deceptive."

Deceptive? Probably, but only because a source was slipped in of which I was
not immediately aware. Intentionally? No.

As for the second summary you highlight. I think almost all of the changes
in the revert had indeed been discussed, the most significant being the lead
and whether the people of Medina "agreed" to the constitution. What had not
been discussed was this OR insertion (and yes I will deal with these quotes
you provide in a moment), perhaps I should have started a discussion on talk
explaining why such an insertion was totally ridiculous, I regret not doing
that now that I realise some did not see it with the clarity that myself and
the people I was disputing with on the talk page did (Alecmconroy,
Proabivouac; who did not endorse it and avoided reverting to RunedChozo).

"Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of
Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent to
read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and
Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question."

Fact is: the sources RunedChozo provided do not explicitly substantiate the
claim he attributed them. At best, his insertion was an editorialised
intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR). At
worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.

I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in
content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.

The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, I'm
not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons I
will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as the
casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the article
states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for the
attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it imply
deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere convenience?
Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.

Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly, reliable
source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or Arab
history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority. Why, then, does
his opinion matter here? I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked in.
Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of such
people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an
encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.

Seeing as though you merely copy/pasted from a biased, unreliable
article (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/316 ,
from a journal which seemingly has little connection with studies of early
Islamic history) without doing your own research, why did you fail to
present the other extracts also? Were they not as explicit in detailing
Muhammad's apparently malicious intentions? So much for your "research". No
wonder it's quoting Yasir Arafat, it's a political current affairs journal.
The author himself is not known for his neutrality nor the quality of his
work.

Beit Or on the talk page pointed out in his GA review that the Encyclopaedia
of Islam (perhaps the best source for Islam-related wiki articles) describes
the events leading up to the Conquest of Medina, stating that it mentions
that tribal proxy warring contributed to the breaking of the treaty. This
was a notable opinion I had overlooked, and I immediately inserted it into
the article. Nowhere does it mention that the treaty was a guise under which
an army could be amassed. In fact, the majority of academic scholarship does
not endorse this view from what I know. To then defend an extremely
subjective edit through equally subjective research doesn't say many
positive things about how you are approaching this whole dispute in general.

"The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates
that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful
treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."

It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.

"And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a
good amount of time going
through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in favor
of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV
presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly
when there is a controversy over his actions"

That's not the case, but I'm sorry you feel that way.

"And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit,
well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case at
all."

It doesn't, and I've discussed this above. Your 'research' is less than
convincing, I'm afraid. If you would like to discuss this further, I invite
you to come to my talk page or the talk page of [[Muhammad as a diplomat]]:
I don't want to engage in verbose content disputes on the mailing list. I
hope the issue regarding the edit warring earlier has been clarified, a
little good faith would be nice.
-- Itaqallah


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:32:37 -0500, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

>There's no message, though, aside from "I'm a troll, please feed me".

Yup.  He's wasting his time posting to me anyway, since he's now in my
killfile, but in the quoted reply I see he accuses me of being chippy.
Like the good book says, "The mote that is in the eye of your brother
you see; but the beam that is in your own eye, you see not!"  One day,
perhaps, the on-the-way out will turn into the gone-for-ever, as
promised...

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


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] Recruit photographers with your blog

body:
  http://reddragdiva.livejournal.com/374553.html

I couldn't get to sleep, so I posted to my blog asking for missing
pics. At least one direct success! Maybe more to come! Would anyone
else like to try?

"With-permission images are deprecated; we need actual free-content
images that anyone can reuse without asking" seemed to get the point
across okay.

- d.


body:
On 15/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I couldn't get to sleep, so I posted to my blog asking for missing
> pics. At least one direct success! Maybe more to come! Would anyone
> else like to try?

Oh, and note that I didn't even try to explain Commons vs English
Wikipedia or creating a login on both. There's a limit to how much
complexity I can reasonably expect people to take in the first time.
And I eagerly await single login and some sort of auto-redirect to
Commons when the uploaded image is free content.

- d.


body:
Thank you for your reply,
Fundraising page was updated by Datrio (thanks, Dat!) . I'll be happy
to have your further proofread on it.
Also the project list on the home (Strona g??wna) is outdated ... for
this request, please give a look to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/TR/quick (two line request for template
variables).

Cheers,

On 12/15/06, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/12/15, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com>:
> > Hello,
> > 1. is any Polish editor willing help to update Fundraising page on the
> > foundation wiki?
>
> There is a real-life meeting of Polish Wikimedia Chapter tommorow, and
> we are all busy with it. I may do it on Sunday night/Monday - or I can
> ask someone during  the meeting.
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.poli.toya.net.pl
> http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-16

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

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

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

Passed 458 of 477 tests (96.02%)... FAILED!


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
I'd make an attempt to answer the questions, but I'd probably bore en-l
readers with tropical cyclones. :P

Favourite anything, though, would technically not be on wikipedia. Rather,
it's something you (and I) have been a part of - the Wikipedia Weekly
podcast. It's great. </plug>

On 15/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In light of petty squabbles, I decided to bring back the non-stupid thread
> fad.
>
> - What is your favorite article on Wikipedia, and why?
>
> - If there was an article you'd love to see become FA, which one and why?
>
> - Favorite pictures?
>
> - Favorite anything?
>
> --James
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
>
>  Beit Or on the talk page pointed out in his GA review that the
> Encyclopaedia of Islam (perhaps the best source for Islam-related wiki
> articles) describes the events leading up to the Conquest of Medina, stating
> that it mentions that tribal proxy warring contributed to the breaking of
> the treaty. This was a notable opinion I had overlooked, and I immediately
> inserted it into the article. Nowhere does it mention that the treaty was a
> guise under which an army could be amassed. In fact, the majority of
> academic scholarship does not endorse this view from what I know. To then
> defend an extremely subjective edit through equally subjective research
> doesn't say many positive things about how you are approaching this whole
> dispute in general.
>

Conquest of Mecca*, sorry.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

references:
<5fb3o251ibvnjflns0pifu7ao6f8hg3d7t@4ax.com>
	<42f90dc00612141222u6bece7aen8cba66dc48ca2018@mail.gmail.com>
	<7de99f2d0612141442r3f0edc55i58156ebd09edbdbc@mail.gmail.com>
	<f30e42de0612141709j76bd64a4v4eda9b2c287839c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7de99f2d0612150536g4080b6c0y99aad9c13aef022e@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/16/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> I have no idea where you got the idea that I was asking the Foundation
> to be responsible for other people's actions.

That's how it seemed from putting what you said in the context of the
other two posts.

My reading of the conversation: Guy was wondering why he hadn't heard
any answers from Danny in regard to fairly specific questions he had
asked about what he could or could not do to the page. Matthew
suggested one reason would be that Danny doesn't want it on record
that the Foundation has said "yes you can add this to an article" or
similar statements, because the Foundation doesn't want to be
accountable for what editors do in that type of situation.

So when you mentioned accountability, I thought you were following the
same line that Matthew had followed. Sorry if that's not what you
meant.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images

body:
On 12/16/06, elvis at chan.de <elvis at chan.de> wrote:
>
> (and i am not really sure what a non comercial image is)

"Non-commercial licences", in this context, means copyleft licences
which don't allow any commercial use, that is only personal use or use
in free-as-in-beer products is allowed. Use in products that cost
money is not allowed.

Copyleft licences such as the GFDL (under which text on the projects
is licenced, and some images are licenced) permit commercial use. This
basically means that I can use the image in a product and then sell it
for money.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images


from_name: Delirium

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> The anonymous donor is a friend of mine, a friend of Wikimedia, who asks
> for absolutely nothing in return.  He doesn't even care to be recognized.
>
> What's to defend or explain? :)  Some rich people love our work and
> would like to help.
>

Yeah, that seems perfectly fine to me.  Actually I'm surprised it was
the *anonymous* donor people would be worried about.  Personally I'm a
bit wary of the non-anonymous donors being listened in
sitenotices---someone paying money to get their name on the top of all
Wikipedia pages for a time (as "thanks", naturally) sounds awfully like
the functional equivalent of them buying ad space, only with the quid
pro quo more implicit...

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do with $1.000.000

body:
Fun thing to do with $1,000,000:

Buy the rarest stamp in the world, the [[British Guiana 1c magenta]]
(only one known to exist); last known value $935,000.  If you can't
get the owner to sell, you might have to settle for another rare
stamp such as an [[Inverted Jenny]].  Anyway, get a rare, priceless
small paper object.  Then feed it to a goat.  Take the goat's feces
and mold it into a modern-art sculpture, and exhibit it at the
[[Brooklyn Museum]].

And this will benefit Wikipedia... how?

Well, um... I guess you can release the sculpture and pictures of it
under a free license to allow illustration of Wikipedia coverage of
this project and any controversy you manage to stir up about it
without resorting to fair use or anything else unfree.

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


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start

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

Brion Vibber wrote:
> Brad Patrick wrote:
>> * Site notice needs to be translated in four forms
>> - Default - now
>> - Sponsor #1 (matching) -  sometime next week
>> - Sponsor #2 (matching) - sometime next week
>> - Sponsor #3 (Anonymous matching) - sometime next week
>
> We've gone ahead and set the default sitenotice, using a variant of last
> year's.
>
> I've put some information about how to translate it and how the
> dismissable sitenotice works here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_sitenotice_2006_Q4
>
> I'd appreciate it if this information could be spread to the right
> people, and integrated with any planned sitenotice texts and
> translations that may exist.

On Erik's request, the sitenotice has been updated to include a
miniaturized one-line version of the donation form. (See the
documentation page above for customizing this per site).

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

iD8DBQFFg7pJwRnhpk1wk44RAoWPAJ4o0ZWEvm8dZTnyOLXg4FMUeCZL6gCeJuge
IrcpEPKtrBD8kAY2o8m24dk=
=iJku
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 15/12/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>>> On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
>>>> such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
>>>> Foundation on record.
>>> I thought this project was founded on accountability.
>> Editors are accountable for their own actions.
>>
>> The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
>> people's actions.
>
> I have no idea where you got the idea that I was asking the Foundation
> to be responsible for other people's actions. I'll quote you again the
> text (quoted above) that I was replying to:
>
> "Danny... doesn't want an official decision of the Foundation on record."
>
> In this case, it was an "office action", which appears to generally
> equate to "putting stuff in the memory hole".
>
> Is it Foundation policy to hide official decisions of the Foundation?
> Or is it Danny policy? Either way, it appears that the management of
> this project is asymptotically approaching that of the Open[sic]
> Directory Project.
>

That's grounds for moderation, citizen.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/c9b3a0e4/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Parker Peters wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>> On 15/12/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>>>> On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
>>>>> such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
>>>>> Foundation on record.
>>>> I thought this project was founded on accountability.
>>> Editors are accountable for their own actions.
>>>
>>> The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
>>> people's actions.
>> I have no idea where you got the idea that I was asking the Foundation
>> to be responsible for other people's actions. I'll quote you again the
>> text (quoted above) that I was replying to:
>>
>> "Danny... doesn't want an official decision of the Foundation on record."
>>
>> In this case, it was an "office action", which appears to generally
>> equate to "putting stuff in the memory hole".
>>
>> Is it Foundation policy to hide official decisions of the Foundation?
>> Or is it Danny policy? Either way, it appears that the management of
>> this project is asymptotically approaching that of the Open[sic]
>> Directory Project.
>>
>> --
>> Earle Martin
>
>
> Given that the risk of violating an Office action is Danny having you
> banned/desysopped/draped in sackcloth and ashes, I think that the boundaries
> of Office actions need to be spelled out pretty clearly. Hiding them is not
> good for the project.
>

Given the number of people who don't understand or don't care that what
happens on Wikipedia can have real-world implications, a suitable degree
of "HERE BE DRAGONS" /is/ needed.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/4d82c969/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
James Hare wrote:
> Yes. We all know what happened to Erik Moeller.
>

... he got elected to the Board?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/7bea1896/attachment.pgp


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

body:
Parker Peters wrote:
> I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to
> flame me.
>

Well, now that that's sorted out, could we please get the same coherent
evidence that you presented to Jimbo?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/2e424996/attachment.pgp


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

body:
Parker Peters wrote:
> Elapsed time between when message was written, and when message reached
> list: 26 hours.
>

But, it reached the list, when you said that all your messages were
being vanished...

> Oh, the irony that someone named Alphax spends all his time flaming the
> messenger rather than dealing in good faith with the problems brought up.
>

I don't deal with those sorts of problems.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/3e8c6421/attachment.pgp


from_name: Plyd

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Translate "You can give the gift of knowledge by
	donating to Wikipedia!"

body:
Hello,

Could anyone tell me how we can reduce or at least translate this
message, shown for every connected user on wikipedias since several
minutes?

thanks
Plyd


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> Given the number of people who don't understand or don't care that what
>> happens on Wikipedia can have real-world implications, a suitable degree
>> of "HERE BE DRAGONS" /is/ needed.
>
> So I agree with you about that... to a degree.
>
> The problem is that far too often, when something is tagged WP:OFFICE it
> just sits there, for months, with everyone scared to do anything.  This
> is the opposite of what is intended.
>

More carrot, less stick?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/5ed2b921/attachment.pgp


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 12/16/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the Board
> of Trustees!

Erik wasn't exactly "permabanned", and neither was he the first
trustee to be elected after being blocked. I wonder how many people
remember that Jimmy blocked an account Anthere was using many years
ago. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mediator&diff=1570530&oldid=1569877

Angela


from_name: Jim Schuler

body:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Schuler wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying
> to
> >> flame me.
> >>
> >> Parker
> >
> >
> > Name dropping is so tacky.
> >
>
> No, he really did ask Jimbo, and Jimbo really did intervene.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax

Yes, I saw that after I posted.

_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

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


from_name: spencerp

subject: [WikiEN-l] 1.9alpha redirecting loop after fresh install..

body:
Hello folks, I'm new to this list and I've looked for a previous discussion on this, back to last month, and didn't see anything.. I just did a *fresh* install of 1.9alpha on my sub-domain name. After placing the LocalSettings.php file into the root/ of the sub-domain... I'm getting multiple redirecting loops..

http://wiki.spencerp.net/index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php

Also, how can I get the links to look like such in 1.9alpha?
http://wiki.website.com/Main_Page
http://wiki.website.com/Main_Page?action=edit

I had followed this guide below here, as well as some other ones, while I having 1.8.2 up and running.. and all was well.. =/ Since I decided to go with 1.9alpha.. it all went to hell lol..
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eliminating_index.php_from_the_url#My_edits_for_ABSOLUTELY_NO_index.php_links

Any tips, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.. I really need to get that redirect loop fixed though sigh. =(  Or, should I just stick with the 1.8.2 on a "live" wiki? /Yeah, maybe I shouldn't be using the alpha on the "live" wiki.. [slaps self]..

spencerp
Also, I wasn't sure at first which list to send this too, I've also posted this in the Mediawiki-I list.. =/


from_name: Oleg Alexandrov

subject: [Foundation-l] The Paypal donation  notice is very distracting

body:
I am very well aware of foundation's need for money, and I love
the fact that Wikipedia is advertisement-free.

Yet the new Paypal donation notice with now hangs on top of every
Wikipedia page is awfully ugly and distracting.

Can we make it one line only, just a pointer to a page where
people can donate? The way it is now it is no better than an
ugly advertisement to start with.

Oleg Alexandrov


body:
>
> I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even
> relevant.

You alleged that I had 'strong ties' with Tariqabjotu, yet my response to
this myth becomes irrelevant?

On 12/15/06, IAJ < zzvash at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > "to the point where it's almost two articles side by side"
> >
> > That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the
> > content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to
> > merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised
> > revert. I don't believe that merits a response.
>
>
> After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and
> others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small
> "changes"
> happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very
> divergent
> versions going on.

Not at all.

Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate.
> > Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
>
>
> Arrow740 did.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93017548&oldid=92958469
>
>
> So did Proabivouac.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93030627&oldid=93019838
>

 See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92516142&oldid=92473890
- or how about this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92554279&oldid=92516142
 - Proabivouac reverts to Alecmconroy instead of one forward to RunedChozo,
where the only diff between the two was the insertion of that OR. or;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92761790&oldid=92737777
 where Proabivouac again reverts to three versions back to Arrow instead of
two versions back to RunedChozo, where the diff between the two is that same
OR (minus a lead tag).

You're out of line, mister.

Spare me the rhetoric, please.

At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim
> politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment.

You're missing the point: the sources he points to, which are over half a
dozen centuries old (and to some, arguably primary sources), do not
substantiate the preceding sentence. You're also overstating a
rather irrelevant selection of quotes from individuals, most of whom either
don't support what you're postulating, or should probably stick to their
field of specialisation.

At best, his insertion was an editorialised
> > intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR).
>
> > At
> > worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources.
> >
> > I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in
> > content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too.
> >
> > The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya,
> > I'm
> > not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons
> I
> > will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as
>
> > the
> > casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the
> article
> > states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for
> the
> > attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it
> imply
> > deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere
> > convenience?
> > Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide.
> >
> > Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly,
> reliable
> > source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or
> Arab
> > history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority.
>
>
> Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come
> up
> with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in
> his Muslim upbringing.

That's non-sequitur. His political career has nothing to with whether he is
a scholar in Islamic studies. That he's a Muslim and a politician doesn't
automatically make him an authority in any academic field. The concept is
pretty simple: for articles related to a particular topic, you consult
qualified experts in that field. That is, amazingly, how an encyclopaedia
works. Please do try to understand that.

Why, then, does
> > his opinion matter here?
>
>
> For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or
> the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the
> Ayatollah...

In wiki articles related to classical Arab history or even Islam in general,
no they don't matter. We don't base historical narratives on the assertions
of non-historians.

I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to
> > his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked
> in.
>
>
> We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an
> excellent place to start.

'MA Khan' isn't much to go by, link me to the relevant article please so we
can see how qualified he is to write on Arab/Islamic history.

Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his
> > scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of
> such
> > people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an
> > encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources.
>
>
> See above.

Sorry, but nothing about a military officer educated in not a
single discipline of academia (let alone Islamic studies) suggests that he
becomes a reliable source for anything concerning history or Islam at all,
much less classic Arab/Islamic history.

>
> >
> > "The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly
> > indicates
> > that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful
> > treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force."
> >
> > It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then.
>
>
> I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be
> discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out
> of
> hand, so I really can't say anything more to you.

That's not even a proper response to my comment. Since when were politicians
representative of academic scholarship of any field?

As for this red herring, what has someone's being a non-Muslim got to do
with their academic education and reputation in Islamic studies (and thus
usability on Wikipedia)? This, as well as that "strong ties" farce, are
vivid examples of how you have been ready to assume bad faith whenever and
wherever you can.

And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people
> didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day.

Get it right: Alecmconroy didn't revert to RunedChozo. Proabivouac reverted
to Arrow (who reverted to RunedChozo), yet he also twice avoided reverting
to RunedChozo, opting to revert back one version more.

Your 'research' is less than
> > convincing, I'm afraid.
>
>
> Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above.

Unfortunately, your empty rhetoric plus rather poor understanding
of what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia forces me to announce
that I will not respond to you any further, though I doubt not for a moment
that you will desire the last say. Good bye.


body:
[Michael wrote>
Guess what, it's called mediawiki-l
 See http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l for more information.]

[Thomas wrote>
Wrong list. This is a list for discussing Wikipedia, not MediaWiki. There is another list for asking for help with MediaWiki installations (I'm not sure what it's called). ]

Oh, shoot.. I'm sorry about that folks.. =(  I did have this in my P.S. though: "Also, I wasn't sure at first which list to send this too, I've also posted this in the Mediawiki-I list.. =/"

 I did have it in the right place after all! Geesh! I guess I didn't have enough Pepsi lastnight lol.. =P  Sorry about that again..

spencerp


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start

body:
It was Daniel Mayer, not me, and yes, that will appear again this  year.

--the other Danny


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising start


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
Just a heads up -re: "an anonymous donor"

There was already blowback on this re: the Taiwan Wikimania bid having
an anon donor involved. The donor was later revealed as the donor only
requested the name be withheld during bidding, and that the name could
be revealed afterwards.

The E.D. and board should carefully consider this point, as a
"matching fund" drive is a new experience that folks need to get used
to. But once anonymous donors are involved, the community could turn
against the effort and it is another type of "intrigue" for the
Foundation to have to defend.

It should be explained appropriately, and the board and E.D. should be
able to, on demand, give the reasoning for accepting such donations
and whether the parties involved were screened and meet certain
standards.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 12/16/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, world:
>
> I want to provide everyone with the situation regarding fundraising.
> (www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising)
>
> * Fundraising page in its new form is up and running in many languages.
> * Need to migrate FAQ from comcom to Foundation wiki
> * Need to migrate Press release from comcom to Foundation wiki
> * Need to translate FAQ on Foundation wiki
> * Need to translate Press release on Foundation wiki
> * Need to translate Anthere's appeal on Foundation wiki where not translated
> * Site notice needs to be translated in four forms
> - Default - now
> - Sponsor #1 (matching) -  sometime next week
> - Sponsor #2 (matching) - sometime next week
> - Sponsor #3 (Anonymous matching) - sometime next week
>
> A word about matching.  So far we expect to have a significant match
> extending over several days from an anonymous donor, and two
> corporations with matching dates we are still working out.  We don't
> have the dates completely set in stone yet, and they will not be in
> place until next week. For now, the regular fundraising is underway.  We
> are finalizing the site notices shortly, and will be working on all of
> this tonight.
>
> Thank you for your patience, and for your support of Wikimedia!
>
> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> Wmfcc-l mailing list
> Wmfcc-l at mail.wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Paypal in site notice

body:
There are many ways to donate to the Foundation, not just Paypal. In fact,
Paypal, while the most common, is also the most expensive for us and the most
difficult for people in certain countries.

We have redesigned the fundraising page to highlight the different ways
people can donate. Based on the current site notice, the drive-by donor will
never see that. The link to the donor page is completely counter-intuitive.

Please remove the Paypal link from the site notice.

Danny


subject: [Foundation-l] Paypal in site notice


body:
>
> Unfortunately, your empty rhetoric plus rather poor understanding
> of what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia forces me to announce
> that I will not respond to you any further, though I doubt not for a
> moment
> that you will desire the last say. Good bye.

In other words, you're "taking your ball and going home."

And will no doubt continue to edit war on Wikipedia, which is sad, since
you're doing nothing to help the project on those articles then.

Parker


body:
>
> Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the
> debate.
> > > Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have,
> >
> >
> > Arrow740 did.
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93017548&oldid=92958469
> >
> >
> > So did Proabivouac.
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=93030627&oldid=93019838
> >
>
>
> See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92516142&oldid=92473890
> - or how about this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92554279&oldid=92516142
> - Proabivouac reverts to Alecmconroy instead of one forward to RunedChozo,
> where the only diff between the two was the insertion of that OR. or;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=92761790&oldid=92737777
> where Proabivouac again reverts to three versions back to Arrow instead of
> two versions back to RunedChozo, where the diff between the two is that
> same
> OR (minus a lead tag).
>
> You're out of line, mister.
>
>
> Spare me the rhetoric, please.

No, you're out of line. Every edit YOU point to predates the introduction of
source, after which they started reverting to RunedChozo's version with
source. And you've yet to satisfactorily provide any evidence for your
assertion that the source doesn't support it, beyond your say-so.

I don't think you are being honest here.

Parker


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Stone age??  That was only three years ago. :-)
Ec

James Hare wrote:

>I may be senior to many Wikipedians but I wasn't around in the stone ages!
>:)
>
>On 12/15/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/16/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the Board of Trustees!
>>>
>>>
>>Erik wasn't exactly "permabanned", and neither was he the first
>>trustee to be elected after being blocked. I wonder how many people
>>remember that Jimmy blocked an account Anthere was using many years
>>ago. :)
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mediator&diff=1570530&oldid=1569877
>>
>>Angela
>>