from_name: Skyring

body:
On 7/1/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> One of the first things to be learned in critical (or scientific)
> thinking is to distinguish between statements of fact and statements of
> opinion.  To be most effective that approach must be applied with
> absolute rigour. Let's deal only with the Eiffel Tower statement, since
> it doesn't have the level of controversy that one might associate with
> homeopathy.   That the Eiffel Tower is a metallic tower is a statement
> of fact; that can be directly observed, but even that assumes that there
> is no controversy about the nature of metal.  That it is on the Champ de
> Mars in Paris is a statement of fact.  The naming of places is arbitrary.
>
> That it is the most famous landmark in Paris is a statement of opinion.
> Fame is a question of opinion.  There is no way that you can go the
> Eiffel Tower and perform any physical test that will establish its
> fame.  It is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
>
> It is information, and it may be true, but it is not a statement of fact.

Actually, fame *is* measurable. The opinion of one person as to
whether it is the most famous landmark in Paris is worth little, but
the opinions of a large number of people count for a lot, because by
definition, fame is a measure of knowledge. If more people know about
the Eiffel Tower than any other landmark in Paris, then it is the most
famous. It doesn't take a huge sample size to establish confidence in
this fact. (Or to discover that the Louvre or Notre Dame or something
else is more famous - just ask enough people, and you will know.)

--
Peter in Canberra


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power

body:
A Nony Mouse wrote:

> Since you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways, why should we care
> what you think?
>
> The way you treat anyone who isn't in your little clique is nothing
> short of barbaric, and your behavior as an ArbCom member deplorable.
>
> I'm not surprised you're jumping in to attack Nathan either. Give
> Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him long
> enough to speak.
>
> -Not Marmot but tired of seeing Wikiadmins cover up each other's
> crimes constantly.
>
>> From: Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> To: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>,English Wikipedia
>> <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin
>> power
>> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:53:27 +1000
>>
>> On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:
>> > Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is
>> > NOT a personal attack.  This has been a matter of debate on the no
>> > personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not
>> > state what constitutes a personal attack.  The examples given on the
>> > "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are
>> > very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be
>> > either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
>>
>> This is specifically left up to the discretion of the blocking
>> administrator, and you were specifically warned against wikilawyering
>> on this issue, so I'm afraid you won't be getting much sympathy from
>> me.
>>
>> -- ambi
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's finally here! Download Messenger 7.0 - still FREE
> http://messenger.msn.co.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be interested
in seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would
support your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much
better than these unceasing tireless rants.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Please read the decision in your arbitration case. We will try to
answer any questions you have about it.

Fred

On Jul 1, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

> SHouldn't a requirement of being an arbitrator be that they are able
> to defend their actions without resorting to "because we say so"
> logic?


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Watchlist not showing anything

body:
My watchlist is refusing to admit anything has changed since 12:29
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_M.D.&curid=1273596&diff=0&oldid=0).

More recently-changed watched items are showing up emboldened on Recent
Changes.

What's going on?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 01/07/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> My watchlist is refusing to admit anything has changed since 12:29
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_M.D.&curid=1273596&diff=0&oldid=0).
>
> More recently-changed watched items are showing up emboldened on Recent
> Changes.

Hmm... I've got this as well, where the latest timestamp is 12.05.
Hadn't noticed until now, though.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Craig Franklin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Mongolian Script

body:
Scr?obh Mark Williamson:

>A representation of what a proper implementation of Mongolian script
>protocols on mn.wiki should look like can be found here:
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Mongolian_wikipedia_prev
iew.png
>(it's pretty neat, actually)

Is there any particular reason that the Wikipedia logo is flipped here?  I
can understand the rest of it, but I don't see why the graphics on the page
should be shifted away from normal.

- Craig

-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Why do we have them??

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> I can't imagine a relatively sensible bloke like Ray trying to get
> Esperanto out of Wiktionary. I'm guessing more like... Klingon,
> Lojban...?

This is another argument against touching qualitative aspects
(constructed or not) of languages and projects, and for focusing
instead on quantitative aspects: Are people willing to do serious
work over a long time?  For Esperanto: yes, apparently.

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


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
On 7/1/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Walter, perhaps it sounds rude, but else do you want? There will surely be
> something serious (a vandal bot with open proxies, for instance), otherwise
> they will not take such a rigorous step. And to be quite frank: I prefer
> excluding some good-willing people from editing Wikipedia to letting a
> maniacal nerd ravage the whole project. I quite clearly remember such an
> attack on li:, some time ago.

Actually SORBS is pretty frequently wrong. The IP address we had a
home a while back (before wikipedia used sorbs) was marked as having
an open proxy... Which is had... a year ago.  SORBS ignored all emails
from me, because they require the provider to take action. My provider
ignored my emails because they know I don't have any other choices
(other than paying for a real t1)...

Eventually I changed IP addresses.. now someone else is being goofed.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Watchlist frozen

body:
On 01/07/05, Stacey Greenstein <stacey.nj at gmail.com> wrote:
> My watchlist appears to be frozen at 6:47am EDT. Is there a remedy for this?

It's reported as a bug - http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2647

AIUI - it's not actually frozen, it's just not showing entries after a
certain cutoff point (around noon UTC). If you were to edit one of
those articles and reload the watchlist, it'd "disappear" - because
the pre-noon edit wasn't the most recent one any more.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

body:
> For example, I think mention of Creationism is perfectly appropriate
> for the article on [[Earth]]. Should it be the first mention?  No.

I wouldn't oppose such an addition. The article
already contains some information on mythology.

My main point is that Wikipedia says thinks like:

"The planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57?10^9) years ago and shortly
thereafter acquired its single natural satellite, the Moon."

Wikipedia could never say things like:

"The planet was created around 10.000 years ago
along with the Moon and the rest of the universe."

While we can certainly describe the second view it
is clearly something we'd have to attribute. The
scientific facts can be stated in Wikipedia's own
voice. This is a huge difference.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
> She is obligated to abide by the injunction, which means making it a
> 24 hour block.  You don't understand what happened.  It is NOT an
> intentional feature of the system to auto-reblock for someone hitting
> 'edit' under their regular account that they were blocked under.  It's
> a bug.
>
> That wouldn't even make sense as a feature even if it were
> intentional (which it's not), because that would mean if someone
> didn't know they were blocked yet and went to hit 'edit', their block
> would automatically be reset.  IT also means that if they wanted to
> check if their block was over or wanted to see the block page again
> their block would also be reset.

As far as I recall (and if I am wrong, please correct me with
evidence) that the idea is to encourage problem users (and that is not
to call you thus) to stay away from wikipedia until their block has
expired.  I believe it is mostly intended for bans.  I think it is
also true that it looks at IP addresses, to stop people evading
blocks.  Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe that is how it works.

Sam


from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Quarto #3 and #4

body:
We also have a killer PDF version of the third Quarto; if you want to
be the first to see a copy of it, sign up at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-news-l  .  You
can thank LockeShocke for this.

Translations are underway in 15 languages; French is the front-runner
for the second complete edition.  If you want to see the Quarto in
another language, you will probably have help.

Meanwhile... the *next* Quarto is coming out hot on the heels of #3, in July.

Reports, essays, and telling photographs (and sound or video clips)
from the second quarter  -- March through June --  can be submitted to
newsletter at wikimedia.org , or added  directly to [[m:WQ/Draft]] .

++SJ

> Hello,
>
> The third Wikimedia Quarto is fully available in english (though not yet
> moved to Foundation website :-)). You may find it at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WQ/3/En/1.
> Please do not hesitate to fix typos you might meet :-)
>
> You will find the usual essays, Jimbo's letter, reports of the
> Foundation, conference summaries, and updates from the developing
> projects. As always, we are open to your suggestions and submissions;
> please send letters to newsletter-at-wikimedia.org, or leave comments on
> the meta-wiki.
>
> Special thanks to the translators who continue to make this effort such
> a far-reaching success, and to the designers who have helped produce the
> current clean look.
>
> Anthere


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Block messages, SORBS

body:
Please change the message that blocked SORBS-IPs see on all wikis.  I
encountered it once myself, when I was in Houston behind a local ISP;
I don't remember its exact wording, but it was distinctly offensive.
(Is it a MediaWiki namespace message?)

This message should apologize for the inconvenience, and assume in
good faith that it is speaking to a good user trapped behind a bad
proxy.
* offer them a form to submit to request an account.
* don't tell them that 'they might be a vandal'...

To reduce the workload produced by the above form, you could also
* provide a mechanism for users to create /their own/ account if they
already have a known (and not day-old) account on some other Wikimedia
project.
* Ask users to do this before offering them the form

--SJ

On 7/1/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the [http://www.sorbs.net
> SORBS] DNSBL. You cannot create an account
>
>
> It is nice that I cannot create accounts anymore ...... it is neat that
> I am considered a vandal. Can we please stop the nonsense it becomes
> extremely irritating.
>
> Walter/Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Block messages, SORBS


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Block messages, SORBS


from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

body:
> Please read the decision in your arbitration case. We will try to answer any questions you have about it.

Already read it.  Already asked these questions a loooong time ago in
my case (which you probably didn't even read).  None were answered.
There arbitrators, yourself, included, just ruled without bothering to
address what I said.

In fact, you're one of the arbitrators who inserted a whole bunch of
bogus claims in the 'findings of fact' (and even a joke and very
off-the-wall sections that are contrary to Wikipedia policy in other
parts) that were not only wrong, but they were completely unrelated to
the accusations made by the parties involved (such as the 'citing your
sources' thing which was completely irrelevent to the case).

You also added content disputes on the page. It does nothing but
indicate that you, at best, briefly skimmed and didn't read what was
said.  Then the other arbitrators just took your word for it and
voted.  You could have added a "finding of fact" like "racist remarks
are not appropriate on Wikipedia" and they would have all voted
'support' without checking themselves to see if I made any.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Matt R.

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How do I change the path to the temp directory in
	install script?

body:
Greetings,

I'm attempting to install MediaWiki 1.4.5 , and i'm running into problems.

I'm stuck on step 5 of the following link:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Documentation:Installation

The error msg I receive is located here:
http://www.underworld93.com/wiki/config/index.php

I asked my host whats the deal and they told me, "Your script is attempting
to write to /usr/local/apache/proxy, which for security reasons is
protected. I would look into the settings of your script to direct it to put
temporary files in /tmp."

Can anyone assist me with editing the script or show me how to change it to
point to the /tmp directory? I have no problem doing the work myself however
I really have no knowledge of php beyond a very basic understanding of the
language. ...or perhaps someone can point me in the right direction to find
my answers?

--
Matthew
underworld93.com <http://underworld93.com>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Categories and NPOV: Libraries?

body:
On 01/07/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> In fact, the research of book cataloging systems was a dead science until
> Yahoo came along some ten years ago; one friend who is a book cataloging
> geek (he actually tried to convince me to let him assign catalog numbers
> based on his own scheme to my personal library), sadly remarked no new
> research had been done since the 1930s. It's a case that in the
> English-speaking world, both the Dewey or LC systems are "good enough"
> for their needs. (Those that don't use one of these either follow a
> home-brewed system created in the 19th century, or, as in the case of
> the British Library -- avoid the issue of cataloging, & simply assign
> a shelf number to their books.) And migrating to a new system is an
> unnecessary cost most libraries -- which are perennially short on
> funds -- want to avoid.

India uses Colon classification, which I believe is the 1930s system,
and I'm not sure you can really call UDC, the turn of the century one,
"home-brewed" - it gets a lot of usage, international standard and
all, although in the English-speaking world it's a minor partner to
Dewey. (The two are, in many ways, similar; UDC is a bit more
flexible, in general terms). And then there's Bliss, which is mildly
obscure and American, but does get some use. There are also
specialised ones - I've experience of NLM, the National Library of
Medicine scheme, but there's plenty others - for specialised
subfields. Not a dead area, just one where the big breakthroughs seem
to have been made <g>

UDC's certainly common enough, and viewed as standard enough, that I
was taught it alongside Dewey, for what that's worth.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
I wondered about the same thing last month... I was at a librarian's
convention discussing blogs and information sharing.

OCLC, the online computer library center, is one of the big
repositories of catalogue information.  They take input directly from
member libraries, so for small works that might only exist at a few
libraries, they trust what those member librarians say about the
works' classification.   (They're also cool because they are
considering a WorldCat wiki for annotating their database.
   http://outgoing.typepad.com/outgoing/2005/05/worldcat_wiki.html )

I wrote them to inquire after the classification of  Wallace Reyburn's
humorous 1968 'biography' of Thomas Crapper, "Flushed with Pride"  as
"non-fiction".   Here is part of their response:

========================================
Classification and subject analysis for a majority of the records in
WorldCat are generally based on guidelines set by the Library of
Congress using their Subject Cataloging Manuals and their
classification schemes.  These items can likely be gotten from the
Library of Congress: http://loc.gov

We ask our member libraries when cataloging to follow the AACR2
cataloging rules and the rule interpretations and guidelines set by
the Library of Congress.

[...]

[I]t was originally cataloged by the Library of Congress as a
Biography which puts it into the non-fiction category. There is also
an authority record indicating that this record relates to a real
person, another test for whether it is a true Biography or not.
===========================================

--Sj

On 6/30/05, dpbsmith at verizon.net <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> How do libraries handle it?
>
> When I was about eleven, I discovered that my local library had a copy of
> Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" shelved among the science books.
> I went to the librarian full of indignation, demanding that they reshelve it
> under "science fiction." The librarian somehow calmed me down... and the book
> stayed where it was.
>
> Well, I'm older. (And to tell the truth the geologists seems to be a lot less
> uniformitarian than they used to be. Asteroids extinguishing the dinosaurs?
> Well, OK. But I still don't think the fall of manna that saved the Israelites
> resulted from the earth passing through a comet's tail.)
>
> Anyway, it seems to me that librarians must deal with this sort of thing all
> the time. And the many public libraries that use the Dewey Decimal system
> can't just fall back on the Library of Congress. Although perhaps there's
> some central authority that recommends Dewey classifications. But in any
> case, someone has to decide whether Velikovsky is science or science fiction.
> Who does? and how?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
++SJ


from_name: Stephan Walter

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Access Wikipedia through SMS

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> In developed countries, the callback could be paid for by the user, of
> course. (One idea is that users in developed countries could sponsor
> users in developing ones.) If you want to be involved, drop me or Angela
> a line and we'll get you in touch with the relevant people.

This is a great idea, and with a slight modification you wouldn't even
have to worry about callback costs. Simply let the user call your
number, then they type the keyword on their phone, you detect the beeps
and immediately read the article.

You could get a toll number and start grubbing money for the Wikimedia
servers ;-)

I'd like to get something like that to work... But still one problem
would be that it's country-specific, and me living in a small country
(Switzerland, and to make matters worse, there are 4 official
languages), I'd have some problems getting a large audience/user base.
Perhaps someone in the USA, Germany or France could set up such a
system, to see how many people would actually use it.

On the technical side, are there already working solutions?

-Stephan


subject: [Foundation-l] Elections 2005 - Third day

body:
I just heard the remarkable statistic that 10 times as many people
voted last year as visited the candidate profile pages.  I wonder if
there is some way to estimate the same this year...

On 7/1/05, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a few minutes ago we got the 1000 vote! Congratulations to
> whoever submitted it ;). 156 users submitted their vote today.
>
> Votes up to date: 1004
> Votes from the English Wikimedia projects: 551
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


from_name: A Nony Mouse

body:
Since you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways, why should we care what you
think?

The way you treat anyone who isn't in your little clique is nothing short of
barbaric, and your behavior as an ArbCom member deplorable.

I'm not surprised you're jumping in to attack Nathan either. Give Gerard my
regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him long enough to speak.

-Not Marmot but tired of seeing Wikiadmins cover up each other's crimes
constantly.

>From: Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power
>Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:53:27 +1000
>
>On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:
> > Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is
> > NOT a personal attack.  This has been a matter of debate on the no
> > personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not
> > state what constitutes a personal attack.  The examples given on the
> > "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are
> > very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be
> > either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
>
>This is specifically left up to the discretion of the blocking
>administrator, and you were specifically warned against wikilawyering
>on this issue, so I'm afraid you won't be getting much sympathy from
>me.
>
>-- ambi
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
It's finally here! Download Messenger 7.0 - still FREE
http://messenger.msn.co.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Intention of Rollback

body:
And when "troublemaker" is in the eye of whoever is being a POV warrior, it
becomes a tool of edit warring.

Just like the "block" button in the hand of some recent Admins has been a
tool of revert warring and asserting dominance.

They pay NO attention to the fact that blocks are not supposed to be
punitive. Instead, we have hags like Ambi who take PRIDE in the fact that
they are doling out punishments to those who cry foul over their abuse of
power.

>From: Angela <beesley at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Angela <beesley at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intention of Rollback
>Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:57:41 +0200
>
>On 7/1/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What was the original purpose of the Rollback - purely to revert
> > vandalism? And is it considered bad form to use it to revert
> > good-faith edits by other editors (not troublemakers)?
>
>I asked a similar question (a very long wikitime ago)
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_4#Question_on_use_of_Rollback_button>
>
>Brion replied:
>     "Its intent is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting
>mass vandalism."
>
>Reverting good faith edits without explanation shouldn't be done, and
>the rollback prevents any explanation, giving the impression that you
>are viewing the other person's edits as vandalism, so I would suggest
>that it is bad form to use it in that way.
>
>Angela.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Millions of quality singles are online now - click to meet them!
http://match.msn.ie


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily
	broken

references:
<42C33447.50301@pobox.com>	<9a878c4405062923081aa5dea@mail.gmail.com>	<42C3A302.20205@pobox.com>
	<42C3C7A2.5090006@softhome.net>	<42C3CBF0.1080401@yahoo.it>
	<42C3F179.7010405@softhome.net>	<1b98bebe05063008403161d6b@mail.gmail.com>	<42C43C9B.1040304@gmail.com>	<op.ss7ncmh22okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>	<42C4F0B5.70806@gmail.com>
	<op.ss8woamw2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>

body:
Muke Tever wrote:

>> Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.
>
>
> Then what do you suggest would replace it, so the dictionary
> can be useful?

There are several reasons why redirects will not work.
* At this moment in time, there are some 76.000 words. When you have
some 760.000 words, you will have a need to add a redirect for every
added word. I do not think that this is reasonable to ask from the
contributors to Wiktionary.
* When a word exists both as a capitalised word and as a noncapitalised
word, you will not be directed from one to the other word. This works
both ways.
* In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper capitalisation.
* When the content of the Ultimate Wiktionary is to be used for spell
checking, there will be software that will perform this functionality.
The functionality that will allow for uppercase that is typically not
correct will be in the software not in the content of the UW. Even so,
certain words are only correct in a certain context, otherwise words
like their and there can be used without it being recoginised. This is
to say that there is more to spellchecking than what can be indicated by
redirects in any Wiktionary.

Consequently, as far as I am concerned redirects are of no use
whatsoever in any Wiktionary. Your arguments against having words in the
proper case do not convince me, but you already knew that.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Boris Lohnzweiger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Simple English Wikipedia - Requesting a rethink

body:
David's analysis of the state of the SE Wikipedia is quite an accurate one and I would agree with almost all of his arguments. And - like Mark - I do believe that a "rethink" should eventually result in the phasing out of the Simple English Wikipedia.

Simple: doesn't work well. Of course, that is a fact it shares with many existing but more or less dormant Wikipedias. More severe however is the "lack of focus and ... lack of direction", like David put. I would even dare to say it lacks a purpose altogether, at least one conforming with Wikipedia's general aims.

At http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia one reads that it "has been started as a response to the need for English learners". Fine, but Wikipedia was never meant as a language course. WP is an encyclopedia, i. e. a place where knowledge is gathered and can be accessed. Furthermore, Wikipedia is committed to providing knowledge in people's _native_languages_. Hence, there is no need for a Wikipedia for those with a limited command of English (or German, French, Spanish ...).

I just don't see why we should continue the Simple English Wikipedia.

Boris

wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 29.06.05 01:16:39:

The subject of Simple English Wikipedia has came to the mailing list before,
but after reading talk pages there and seeing the dormancy of Recent Changes
(bar a few persistent users, and the odd anon editor) I feel it is time to
suggest a rethink, or at least look into the direction of Simple English
Wikipedia.

Simple English Wikipedia currently has 4,157 articles, the vast majority of
which fail to extend further than three sentences in length. There are a few
administrators, Netoholic being the most active of them. There is a small
user base, but unlike some language Wikipedias where this results in a small
and persistent community, the small user base at Simple English often have
their priorities understandably set on the main English Wikipedia.

The SE Wikipedia currently has a lack of focus, and a lack of direction.
Indeed, it claims to cater for multiple groups of people, which simply isn't
working:

"It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different people with
different needs: students, children, and translators."

The description there, taken from
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia, is too
ambiguous to encourage any regular contributors to the Wikipedia. Whereas
with the main Wikipedias there is a ultimate cause of creator 'the sum of
all human knowledge', Simple English doesn't have a goal, as its not aiming
for anything specifically.

The aims of students, children and translators, to me, is wrong on all
counts. I've read a few articles on Simple English, and the variation and
way of writing is at times so belittiling that I wonder why such a project
exists. This quote from the talk page sums it up perfectly:

"One thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that people act like
this is supposed to writted towards children, talking down to them and such,
when in fact Wikipedia Jr. is there to handle that - this should be aimed at
just reposting English articles in a simplified and standardized version of
English, as opposed to the "baby talk" many of the articles are crammed
with.
Simple: A problem I have with this website is that there is a website like
it that is already here - Wikipedia Junior. I think that this website should
be for people from another country who are learning English, not small
children. This website talks to its people badly."

Simple English Wikipedia is, in reality, never going to be used by babies or
small children - Infact, unleashing such persons onto Wikipedia is dangerous
(as proven by our Recent Changes list :p ). Wikijunior, which is in
development, caters for the young market and has a focus to not talk down to
people. When I read Simple English trying to explain racism, I felt like it
was dumbing me down. Anyone capable of using Wikipedia normally can use
normal Wikipedia, whilst Simple English is not going to be used by 4 or 5
year olds. Children is a bad thing to aim at. Aiming at translators is
similiarly odd, because a translator wouldn't be a translator if their
English wasn't fluent.
Simple English Wikipedia needs to, in my opinion, have a huge rethink. It
should be aimed at persons wanting to practice their English by reading it,
and should be an aid for those learning it as a foreign language. Simple
English should read simply, but not so simply that it puts down the reader.
People contribute to Wikipedias for a reason, and for a goal - Simple
English has no goal, so theres no clear reason for editors to contribute to
it. A look at recent changes shows that.

Without a rethink and a real discussion into the direction, policies and
descriptions of Simple English Wikipedia, it had mayswell be deleted. Simple
English was the second Wikipedia I visited, after main English, and I
believe it will be the same for many others. It doesn't reflect well on
Wikimedia Foundation to have a Wikipedia in such a bad state, and in the
English language - Quality over quantity isn't necessarily always true, but
in the case of having Wikimedia Foundation projects and Wikipedias, it is.
Simple is way too out there to stay as it is; a rethink is needed.

Yours,
David Hedley

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

__________________________________________________________
Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min.
weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Fwd: Not Able to Contact Help Desk]

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Not Able to Contact Help Desk
Date: 	Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:17:12 EDT
From: 	FamilyPTSDNet at aol.com
To: 	jwales at wikia.com, board at wikimedia.org

Hello,
    I'm writing to you because I had no other way of letting your
organization know about the problem I'm experiencing with your website.
    I tried to set up a new account and received a message back that
this site was unavailable.  I read the articles in your help section and
could not find an answer to this question.
    I saw a section on complaints about problems that need fixing and
found a message there that said;
> Ask your questions at the bottom. Please place resolved articles on
Wikipedia: General complaints (resolved)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_complaints_%28resolved%29>>
However, there was no form at the bottom or contact link for me to ask
my question.  I really like your work and would like to become more
involved but feel shut out.
    If you can assist me with this I'd greatly appreciate it and I think
others would find it a less frustrating experience as well when trying
to set up a new account.
    Thank you very much,
    Anita Cape, Moderator of the Board
    Family Trauma Survivors' Network, Inc.


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power

body:
Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this list?

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


from_name: Geoffrey Bell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Categories and NPOV

body:
As truly informative (and useful in arguments) as it is, isn't
[[Category:Logical fallacies]] a little non-NPOV too, if people use them
everyday, and believe in their truth?

~~~~

On 6/30/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've always though that the pseudoscience (and protoscience)
> catogries were far more trouble than they were worth.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Wait wait wait...I haven't been watching this list like a hawk, and maybe
we're talking about two different people, but I don't see any trolls, only a
dissenter. And dissent is not a crime, of course.

On 7/1/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this list?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Nyenyec N

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Privacy policy,
	law and guessing identitites of anon users

body:
Hi,

I'm a sysop in HuWiki and we have the following problem.
Some revert warriors took up the habit of logging out during a revert
war to get around the 3RR (we have the same 3RR rule as EnWiki).

So basically they are using their logged out IP as their sockpuppet
for revert warring.

When they were blocked since it was obvious from the anon users' edit
history and from the steps in the revert war that the anon and logged
in user was the same person, they started attacking the blocking
sysops for this, referring to their legal rights to privacy.

Also, for exactly the same reason, there is a collection of IP
addresses used by one of the revert warriors on a user page, so that
anyone can see where he edited from, even when he was not logged in.

The revert warrior and his friend claims that such a collection of IP
addresses is a violation of privacy rights and Wikipedia's published
privacy policy.

So my questions:

Is it against the privacy policy or the law to:

1a) publicly claim that an anon user is the same as a logged in User
when they take part in policy violations such as 3RR

1b) publicly claim that they are the same person when they haven't
violated any policies yet

2) publish a list of IP addresses assumed to belong to a user who have
already violated policy (3RR, personal attacks)

Thanks,
nyenyec


body:
On 7/1/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just heard the remarkable statistic that 10 times as many people
> voted last year as visited the candidate profile pages.  I wonder if
> there is some way to estimate the same this year...

Ok, I guess this might be complicated.
Last year it came from webalizer stats:
  http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200405.html
  http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200406.html
  http://wikimedia.org/stats/meta.wikipedia.org/url_200406.html

Which may not have been quite accurate then, and which we don't
try to duplicate now at all.

--
++SJ


body:
On 7/1/05, Stephan Walter <stephan at walter.name> wrote:

> This is a great idea, and with a slight modification you wouldn't even
> have to worry about callback costs. Simply let the user call your
> number, then they type the keyword on their phone, you detect the beeps
> and immediately read the article.

I like the idea about encouraging the listener to economize on time
spent listening; less load on the servers for those "Origins of the
American Civil War" -length articles.

> You could get a toll number and start grubbing money for the Wikimedia
> servers ;-)

"Call to hear our lovely readers read DIRECTLY TO YOU!  Only $0.99 a minute..."

This would certainly be a lovely project; particularly the "would you
like to record one?" part.   On the other hand, the trick will most
often be finding ways to search for related information when a close
title-match is not found.

--
++SJ


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 7/1/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it against the privacy policy or the law to:
>
> 1a) publicly claim that an anon user is the same as a logged in User
> when they take part in policy violations such as 3RR
>
> 1b) publicly claim that they are the same person when they haven't
> violated any policies yet
>
> 2) publish a list of IP addresses assumed to belong to a user who have
> already violated policy (3RR, personal attacks)

It is certainly not against the law in the United States, which is
where the servers are located.  It may be against the law in other
jurisdictions (I know some European countries have perfectly
ridiculous data privacy laws).  Claiming that someone has violated
policies runs the risk of a defamation claim; again, it's very
unlikely that such a claim would withstand scrutiny in the United
States.

It is my impression, however, that there is no unfair disclosure,
since the conclusions being reached about a user's IP address are
being reached solely by deduction from that user's public behavior.
For there to be a privacy violation, it would have to involve access
to private information (such as the internal data about user's IP
address that is only available to developers).  There can't be a
privacy violation when the determination of an individual's IP address
is based entirely on public behavior; that would be like arguing that
I have a privacy right in my phone number after I publicly announce
what my phone number is.

Kelly


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
There is unfortunately a problem with Captcha.

It assumes that the person can read the Roman alphabet.

And many people who can "read the Roman alphabet" will not be able to
recognise letters if they're distorted a bit.

If we only use it on en:, de:, fr:, etc etc, but not uk:, zh:, etc
etc, then I don't really mind.

I don't know if it's possible or reasonable, but a numeric Captcha
would probably work much better as it could be used at all but a few
Wikipedias.

Mark

On 01/07/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Angela:
> > The problem is not being ignored. The developers have already worked
> > out a way to whitelist certain users, at least for editing if not yet
> > for account creation. Better solutions and alternative approaches are
> > being discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proxy_blocking
>
> One thing we discussed on IRC yesterday is to
> a) require logging in when editing from an open proxy,
> b) require a captcha for every login or account creation from an open proxy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
>
> If the captcha is hard to break - I'm told that, for example, Yahoo!'s
> is very difficult to break - this should make us relatively secure
> against spambot and vandal attacks, as we can deal with a limited supply
> of identities.
>
> The most difficult part of the implementation is probably the captcha
> itself. The person on IRC who specialized in captchas said that
> http://jcaptcha.sourceforge.net/
> is a good, free implementation. A problem is that it runs on Java.
>
> I would be strongly opposed to requiring captchas for all logins, even
> those which do not come from open proxies, because a visual captcha
> would exclude blind people from accessing Wikipedia.
>
> I'd be happy to put further evaluation of this issue on the agenda for
> the next research meeting. However, Tim might be more willing to work on
> something in his free time if there's not yet a full-fledged proposal
> out there. So I'd like to ask Tim to comment first on whether he wants
> to work on a solution to the problem, not necessarily the one outlined
> above.
>
> Best,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reasonable doubt and the Neutral Point of View

body:
> Global warming is a bad example.  That's an area that involves
> considerable controversy and contention among scientists, there really
> is no scientific consensus on it.  Also, all sides are at least
> capable of being scientific (as they are very falsifiable) and there
> is science being practiced , to some extent, on both sides.
>
> This is quite a bit different than well-established, non-controversial
> theories for which there is near unanimous consent in the scientific
> community.  Especially in cases where the only opposition is religious
> and/or political in nature.

Agreed. And of course the line of reasonable
doubt has to be drawn somewhere. I think that
it is noble and a sign of the high quality
of Wikipedia editors that they are generally
willing to err on the side of caution. It's just
that I don't think we should err *enormously*
on the side of caution. Let's look at a few
propositions:

A 1. The Earth is less than 10 thousand years old.
A 2. Homeopathic remedies are more effective than
can be explained by the placebo effect.

B 1. Human beings did not land on the moon in the 1960's.
B 2. Jews were not systematically exterminated in Europe
under the Nazi regime.

- - - My line of reasonable doubt - - -

C 1. Human activities are not having a significant
effect on global weather patterns and average temperature.
C 2. When presenting the case for invading Iraq,
the Bush administration made no attempt to exaggerate
the threat of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.

I'd say the propositions in the B class are an order of
magnitude more reasonable and probable than those in the
A class. They don't break any laws of physics. They do,
however, involve vast forgery of documents and a conspiracy
to conceal the truth which is so enormous as to be entirely
improbable.

The propositions in the C class are again an order of
magnitude more probable than those in the B class.
They don't break any laws of physics and they don't
require vast conspiracies. They do, I think, require
interpreting a lot of data in creative ways but I'd
say they are tenable enough for Wikipedia to take
into account when discussing the relevant phenomena.

The line has to be drawn somehwere. There comes a point
where attempting to take every theory into account gets
in the way of writing a useful encyclopedia. We shouldn't
need to qualify statements about the Earth's age and we
shouldn't hestitate to put a discipline that involves
shaking water and pretending it's medicine into a
pseudo-science category.

- - -

I think the Neutral Point of View is a good policy.
When reasonable people disagree about a subject we
should report all sides of the argument. That's what
I try to do myself, take my article on [[Hrafnkels saga]]
as an example. There are many theories on the saga's
origins and the article tries to describe each of them
fairly.

Of course Wikipedia can't settle every argument and
establish the truth of every proposition. But when the
truth is known beyond reasonable doubt we should report it.
And we do.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jtkiefer

body:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:

> Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they
> booted me off the list for speaking truth to power.
>
> You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.
>
> Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
> circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.
>
> Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat
> fool, screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her.
> She gets some sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.
>
> The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to
> anyone involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts
> get in the way of their witch hunts.
>
> Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis
> enough for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
> self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
> applauding.
>
> I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.
>
> An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it,
> and all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't
> even MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I
> checked the log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.
>
> Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved
> in his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well
> you shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names  rather
> than paying attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.
>
> And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new
> user comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for
> the crime of knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do
> anything wrong but you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends
> him crank emails, and before you know it we have a user screaming
> profanities.
>
> Not his fault. YOUR fault.
>
> There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
> power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone
> who dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my
> Wikipedia account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know
> you WAY too well for you to claim otherwise, JT.
>
> Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND
> that you actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.
>
> Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner
> circle jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't
> doing you any favors.
>
> A. Nony Mouse.
>
>>>
>> and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be
>> interested in seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations,
>> that would support your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan
>> J. Yoder much better than these unceasing tireless rants.
>>
>> -Jtkiefer
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
First of all I take offense at the presumption that I had something to
do with you getting kicked off the list, I do not have that power, I do
not want that power and if I had it I had it you wouldn't be back
ranting about which is absolute proof that i had nothing to do with it.
In terms of the admin actions, you would not be banned for speaking your
mind about the administrative decisions you would be and I presume have
been banned for your personal attacks against other users, personal
attacks are the only thing that you seem to have done that would justify
you getting banned and if you get banned for anything less than
blatently violating the rules I will be the first one to advocate that
you be unbanned and that the admin involved re-read the rules.  So do
not for one F*cking second that you know me, you don't know me and if
you keep ranting like this you are proving that you don't know any of
us. So do us all a favor and leave, begone, and never write to this
message list again.  Oh and anonymity has it's usages but you are using
it to conceal your own cowardice, to hide behind your anonymity for the
sole purpose of making personal attacks against users is nothing sort of
being an absolute coward, I dare you to reaveal yourself for the person
you really are to and stop hiding behind false facades... I will await
that time.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Muke Tever wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The reason for this is that like in a paper dictionaray we only want
>>> correct
>>> spellings and an incorrect spelling should result in a "not found"
>>> message.
>>
>> In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
>> one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
>> is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
>> "spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the
>> Wiktionary
>> is useless for this.
>
> Hoi,
> When a word is correctly spelled in several ways, every alternative is
> as good as the other and deserve its own article. It should therefore
> be abundantly clear that they are correct. As a consequence of the
> massive rename action many thousands of redirects have been created
> words like "Lightbulb" are now correct because there is a redirect ??
> So the spelling of a sentence like: "A Lightbulb Is Typically Found In
> A Lamp."  is apparantly correct?? I think not.
>
> Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.

I agree.  Although some very common misspellings probably should be
listed, there should still be some standard for what is common.  Perhaps
a reference to a grammar text that shows common misspellings.  A listed
misspelling should perhaps explain the misunderstanding that underlies
that error, and thus be instructive.  There is no reason to have an
endless list typos.

To the extent that we do list misspellings the page should show
    #a common misspelling of [[...]]
A redirect of the misspellings is a form of dumbing down.  It may very
well be that the person won't even notice the "redirected from" message
at the top of the page.

A dictionary can to an extent be used to find the correct spelling, and
that is somewhere that the paper dictionary has an advantage.  Having a
browse function could help to some extent there.  But this solution only
works when the correct spelling is reasonably near to what you expect it
to be.  I recently went shopping for a music CD by Theresa Sokyrka, but
couldn't find it because I had the first vowel of her surname wrong.  A
possible solution to finding the correct spelling of words could be
something like the Soundex system used by the US Census Bureau.

Correct spelling is a bigger problem in English than in many other
languages  Ultimately it is a matter of consensus rather than the
dictates of a language academy.  Insisting on "correct" spelling can
lead to the somewhat pejorative charge of being "prescriptivist" when
one rejects an imaginative spelling or a new word.  Such issues are
matters of perpetual debate on the English Wiktionary.

My response to your question about the "Lightbulb" sentence is yes and
no.  It is a question of defining the difference between spelling and
grammar.  I would consider the sentence wrong, but I would hesitate in
saying that the sentence is wrong becaus of the spelling.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Categories and NPOV

body:
Certain attempts at reasoning have been labeled logical fallacies at
one time or another. The category just points you to them, whether or
not they are really logical fallacies or not (logically speaking}. A
category is an aid in finding, not a conclusion.

Fred

On Jul 1, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Geoffrey Bell wrote:

> As truly informative (and useful in arguments) as it is, isn't
> [[Category:Logical fallacies]] a little non-NPOV too, if people use
> them
> everyday, and believe in their truth?
>
> ~~~~
>
> On 6/30/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've always though that the pseudoscience (and protoscience)
>> catogries were far more trouble than they were worth.
>>
>>
>> --
>> geni
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the [http://www.sorbs.net
SORBS] DNSBL. You cannot create an account

It is nice that I cannot create accounts anymore ...... it is neat that
I am considered a vandal. Can we please stop the nonsense it becomes
extremely irritating.

Walter/Waerth


subject: [Foundation-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
>Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the [http://www.sorbs.net
>SORBS] DNSBL. You cannot create an account
>
>
>It is nice that I cannot create accounts anymore ...... it is neat that I
>am considered a vandal. Can we please stop the nonsense it becomes
>extremely irritating.
>
>Walter/Waerth

Walter, perhaps it sounds rude, but else do you want? There will surely be
something serious (a vandal bot with open proxies, for instance), otherwise
they will not take such a rigorous step. And to be quite frank: I prefer
excluding some good-willing people from editing Wikipedia to letting a
maniacal nerd ravage the whole project. I quite clearly remember such an
attack on li:, some time ago.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Altijd in contact met de kleinkinderen: MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


body:
I have an honest question for you then, if you admit that it's gonna
take that long for people to see that way (and believe me hell won't
freeze over at least in our lifetimes) then why do you even try, why try
when you know you can't win.

-JT


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/1/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
> I have an honest question for you then, if you admit that it's gonna
> take that long for people to see that way (and believe me hell won't
> freeze over at least in our lifetimes) then why do you even try, why try
> when you know you can't win.

perhaps it likes the debate..
I suspect the same might be true of those who reply.


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/1/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I have an honest question for you then, if you admit that it's gonna
>>take that long for people to see that way (and believe me hell won't
>>freeze over at least in our lifetimes) then why do you even try, why try
>>when you know you can't win.
>>
>>
>
>perhaps it likes the debate..
>I suspect the same might be true of those who reply.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>
good point, that is why this will be my last email on the topic since I
personally do not want to be sucked into this argument any more than I
already have.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Muke Tever

body:
Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Muke Tever wrote:
>>> Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.
>>
>> Then what do you suggest would replace it, so the dictionary
>> can be useful?
>
> There are several reasons why redirects will not work.
> * At this moment in time, there are some 76.000 words. When you have
> some 760.000 words, you will have a need to add a redirect for every
> added word. I do not think that this is reasonable to ask from the
> contributors to Wiktionary.

Yes, that was why I thought breaking case-folding was silly.

> * When a word exists both as a capitalised word and as a noncapitalised
> word, you will not be directed from one to the other word. This works
> both ways.

Yes, and this is why en.wiktionary is now being pushed into adding a
see-also line to every such page, like the one at the top of
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadir

> * In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper capitalisation.

Yes, and you will find them whether you are searching with the proper
capitalization or not.

> * When the content of the Ultimate Wiktionary is to be used for spell
> checking, there will be software that will perform this functionality.
> The functionality that will allow for uppercase that is typically not
> correct will be in the software not in the content of the UW. Even so,
> certain words are only correct in a certain context, otherwise words
> like their and there can be used without it being recoginised. This is
> to say that there is more to spellchecking than what can be indicated by
> redirects in any Wiktionary.

Yes, as I said earlier, it needn't be mediawiki #redirects, but there will
have to be a reference of some kind.  I am not talking about machine
spell-check, but *human* use of the dictionary.  There will be notes
saying that people who have found [[its]] may be looking for [[it's]].
Such in fact already exist, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its#Usage

> Consequently, as far as I am concerned redirects are of no use
> whatsoever in any Wiktionary.

Yes, IMHO #redirects are much less useful than most of en: thinks, though
I do find them to have their use occasionally.  On la: where words are
to be disambiguated, it makes sense to redirect [[sulfur (en)]] and
[[sulphur (en)]] together, because they are the same word.

http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sulphur_(en)

> Your arguments against having words in the proper case do not convinceme, but you already knew that.

No, I'm not against having words in their normal case; I just don't think
that the URL is a useful place to communicate such information. (And as I
have mentioned before, it is improper for a title to be in lower case.)

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Database master switch coming up

body:
We're going to switch the database master from ariel to samuel shortly.

It should only take a couple of minutes to swap configurations.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050701/4fc31eea/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

body:
Just a few minutes ago we got the 1000 vote! Congratulations to
whoever submitted it ;). 156 users submitted their vote today.

Votes up to date: 1004
Votes from the English Wikimedia projects: 551

--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> We're going to switch the database master from ariel to samuel shortly.
>
> It should only take a couple of minutes to swap configurations.

And... it's been done.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050701/8661bc89/attachment.pgp>


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

body:
Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they booted
me off the list for speaking truth to power.

You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.

Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.

Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat fool,
screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her. She gets some
sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.

The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to anyone
involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts get in the
way of their witch hunts.

Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis enough
for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
applauding.

I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.

An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it, and
all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't even
MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I checked the
log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.

Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved in
his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well you
shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names  rather than paying
attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.

And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new user
comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for the crime of
knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do anything wrong but
you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends him crank emails, and
before you know it we have a user screaming profanities.

Not his fault. YOUR fault.

There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone who
dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my Wikipedia
account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know you WAY too well
for you to claim otherwise, JT.

Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND that you
actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.

Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner circle
jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't doing you any
favors.

A. Nony Mouse.

>>
>and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be interested in
>seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would support
>your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much better than
>these unceasing tireless rants.
>
>-Jtkiefer
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie


references:
<42C33447.50301@pobox.com>
	<9a878c4405062923081aa5dea@mail.gmail.com>
	<42C3A302.20205@pobox.com> <42C3C7A2.5090006@softhome.net>
	<42C3CBF0.1080401@yahoo.it> <42C3F179.7010405@softhome.net>
	<1b98bebe05063008403161d6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<42C43C9B.1040304@gmail.com>
	<op.ss7ncmh22okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
	<42C4F0B5.70806@gmail.com>
	<op.ss8woamw2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
	<42C58C98.7020708@gmail.com>
	<op.ss9r42ud2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
	<42C6260B.3050302@yahoo.it>

body:
Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>> Yes, and this is why en.wiktionary is now being pushed into adding a
>> see-also line to every such page, like the one at the top of
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadir
>>
> Why don't you just insert the word in the "Related words"??? It is a
> related word - so a "see also" doesn't make any sense.
> (or maybe "variants")

Because they are not at all related.  [[nadir]] is from an Arabic word
na??r meaning 'counterpart', and [[Nadir]] is either from naz?r "rare"
or na??r "auspicious".  Outside of having a common source language they
have nothing in common.

>>> * In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper
>>> capitalisation.
>>
>> Yes, and you will find them whether you are searching with the proper
>> capitalization or not.
>
> So what you are talking about is the search function, but not the
> article - this means that whenever you insert a word into the search
> field it should give back both results, with capital letter and without
> (it is sufficient thought to use google search).

Actually here I am talking about paper dictionaries, which don't have
search functions.  The Wiktionary search hasn't come up at all.

> I don't think people are so stupid to search for an Englishword with a capital letter if it isn't normally capitalised -

It's rather the contrary really.  People are used to case-insensitive
search, and generally don't bother to capitalize anything when typing
in search boxes, if my webserver's logs are any indication.

> when studying English the first things you learn is that English usescapital letters only for months, days, countries, languages etc. andin titles and in some exceptional cases - so why should native speakerspretend capitalised entries in a dictionary?

Wiktionary page titles have no direct counterpart to anything in a paper
dictionary.

http://frath.net/stuff/wikt-vs-paper.png

This is especially noticeable in languages which use optional pointing,
such as Hebrew and Arabic, in which case the pointed form you would find
in a paper dictionary is the in-page headword, and the page title is a
normalized form *without* points--exactly the form the user normally
searches for.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/?????

Cf.
http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categorie:Woorden_in_het_Hebreeuws
which also uses normalized page titles.  It is inconsistent to only
normalize certain languages.

>> Yes, as I said earlier, it needn't be mediawiki #redirects, but there
>> will have to be a reference of some kind.  I am not talking about machine
>> spell-check, but *human* use of the dictionary.  There will be notes
>> saying that people who have found [[its]] may be looking for [[it's]].
>> Such in fact already exist, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its#Usage
>
> Also this has to do with the search function - if I remember well, using
> google for the search it already works like this.

Not everyone uses Google for searching Wiktionary. In any case, Google
suggests spellings when you give it a word that it doesnt recognize...
both "its" and "it's" are English words; it won't suggest "it's" if you've
searched for "its".

>>> Consequently, as far as I am concerned redirects are of no use
>>> whatsoever in any Wiktionary.
>>
>> Yes, IMHO #redirects are much less useful than most of en: thinks, though
>> I do find them to have their use occasionally.  On la: where words are
>> to be disambiguated, it makes sense to redirect [[sulfur (en)]] and
>> [[sulphur (en)]] together, because they are the same word.
>>
>> http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sulphur_(en)
>
> No, they should be two single words, connected on the relative page
> under "Related words" or "Variants". Redirects do not have any sense
> even if there are some printed dictionaries that use this in order to
> save space - we don't have the space problem so why use it and not just
> create two separate pages connecting them under relations?

Because you will have duplicated information (viz., etymological information,
pronunciations, derived and related terms, translation tables, definitions,
etc.) that have to be synchronized--that, or you deal with the POV issue
of labelling one spelling as "more correct" and worthy of hosting the
information alone.  This problem has been run across in several places on
en.wikt, such as gray/grey, armor/armour... and in the source of several
yet remains the injunction:

<!--If you edit this entry, please also edit the following entry to
ensure these two entries remain in synchrony: grey-->

<!--If you edit this page, please also edit "armour" to ensure these
pages remain in synch.-->

This is ridiculous, especially when the variation is not due to
regional issues, as is the case with gray/grey--'gray' is, as the
pages say, an American spelling, though this is slightly misleading,
as it is not a color/colour-type pair: both 'gray' and 'grey' are
common acceptable forms within this country (cf. gray vs lightgrey
in HTML).

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
Walter van Kalken (walter at vankalken.net) [050702 01:37]:

> Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the [http://www.sorbs.net
> SORBS] DNSBL. You cannot create an account
> It is nice that I cannot create accounts anymore ...... it is neat that
> I am considered a vandal. Can we please stop the nonsense it becomes
> extremely irritating.

Writing suitable code for bug 550 will probably work.

- d.


from_name: Rebecca

body:
On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:
> That wouldn't even make sense as a feature even if it were
> intentional (which it's not), because that would mean if someone
> didn't know they were blocked yet and went to hit 'edit', their block
> would automatically be reset.  IT also means that if they wanted to
> check if their block was over or wanted to see the block page again
> their block would also be reset.

I hate to break it to you, but this is an intentional feature. You
won't be able to blame this one on Bishonen.

-- ambi


body:
No, No, I think I hit it right on the mark.

You want anyone who dares to speak the truth about admin behavior to be
banned.

Not for "personal attacks" because I didn't make any here, unless you call
the truth about Ambi a personal attack.

No, you want me banned because I spoke the truth about all those occasions
where the Admins are breaking their own policy and refusing to act properly.

I know you perfectly well JT. This is the same way you act any time someone
challenges you to do the right thing. Too bad you won't actually DO it.

Deal in honesty with Marmot, Enviroknot, Yoder, and Kurita77 and then get
back to me.

Knowing you and the rest of this list I'll be waiting until hades freezes
over.

A.Nony Mouse

>First of all I take offense at the presumption that I had something to do
>with you getting kicked off the list, I do not have that power, I do not
>want that power and if I had it I had it you wouldn't be back ranting about
>which is absolute proof that i had nothing to do with it.  In terms of the
>admin actions, you would not be banned for speaking your mind about the
>administrative decisions you would be and I presume have been banned for
>your personal attacks against other users, personal attacks are the only
>thing that you seem to have done that would justify you getting banned and
>if you get banned for anything less than blatently violating the rules I
>will be the first one to advocate that you be unbanned and that the admin
>involved re-read the rules.  So do not for one F*cking second that you know
>me, you don't know me and if you keep ranting like this you are proving
>that you don't know any of us. So do us all a favor and leave, begone, and
>never write to this message list again.  Oh and anonymity has it's usages
>but you are using it to conceal your own cowardice, to hide behind your
>anonymity for the sole purpose of making personal attacks against users is
>nothing sort of being an absolute coward, I dare you to reaveal yourself
>for the person you really are to and stop hiding behind false facades... I
>will await that time.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info!
http://meegos.msn.ie


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
The problem is not being ignored. The developers have already worked
out a way to whitelist certain users, at least for editing if not yet
for account creation. Better solutions and alternative approaches are
being discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proxy_blocking

If anyone does have any real solution to this issue - one that doesn't
involve allowing vandals to edit freely - I see no reason why the
Foundation couldn't fund the development of such a solution. Perhaps
looking into this might be something the new Research Network
(<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network>) could
do?

If there is a problem with the information given to blocked users,
which as far as I can tell makes no such suggestion that the user is a
vandal, then this can be edited by any admin at
[[MediaWiki:Sorbsreason]] and [[MediaWiki:Sorbs create account
reason]]. As I wrote at [[m:Proxy blocking]], it may be better for
that message to direct users somewhere they can be whitelisted rather
than sending them to SORBs if they are unable to change the fact
they're on an open proxy.

Angela.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Stephan Walter:
> This is a great idea, and with a slight modification you wouldn't even
> have to worry about callback costs. Simply let the user call your
> number, then they type the keyword on their phone, you detect the beeps
> and immediately read the article.

The point is to have toll-free access in developing countries. This
could be accomplished through a toll-free number as well, though.

Best,

Erik


body:
If the other arbitrators don't like what I propose they raise hell
and so does the Wikipedia community at large. Just take a look at the
Jguk case. What was going on in your case was that you came here to
push a point of view, Instead of using your point of view to identify
reputable resources which expressed it or diverged from it, you
declared that other points of view were nonsense and attempted to
structure articles accordingly. Rather than familiarizing yourself
with Wikipedia policy about citing sources, you decided that you
would judge for yourself whether what a source said was true and
based on your own judgement decide whether or not the source could be
cited. What is much worse, you show absolutely no insight into the
issues that were involved, and we can look forward to nothing but
more trouble. It comes down to this: Wikipedia is not a forum or
platform for advocacy. Many other internet venues exist for that, but
Wikipedia is and ought to be a frustrating, even punishing
environment if that is what you are here for.

Fred

On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

> You could have added a "finding of fact" like "racist remarks
> are not appropriate on Wikipedia" and they would have all voted
> 'support' without checking themselves to see if I made any.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
Angela:
> The problem is not being ignored. The developers have already worked
> out a way to whitelist certain users, at least for editing if not yet
> for account creation. Better solutions and alternative approaches are
> being discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proxy_blocking

One thing we discussed on IRC yesterday is to
a) require logging in when editing from an open proxy,
b) require a captcha for every login or account creation from an open proxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

If the captcha is hard to break - I'm told that, for example, Yahoo!'s
is very difficult to break - this should make us relatively secure
against spambot and vandal attacks, as we can deal with a limited supply
of identities.

The most difficult part of the implementation is probably the captcha
itself. The person on IRC who specialized in captchas said that
http://jcaptcha.sourceforge.net/
is a good, free implementation. A problem is that it runs on Java.

I would be strongly opposed to requiring captchas for all logins, even
those which do not come from open proxies, because a visual captcha
would exclude blind people from accessing Wikipedia.

I'd be happy to put further evaluation of this issue on the agenda for
the next research meeting. However, Tim might be more willing to work on
something in his free time if there's not yet a full-fledged proposal
out there. So I'd like to ask Tim to comment first on whether he wants
to work on a solution to the problem, not necessarily the one outlined
above.

Best,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
We could add some examples to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. We
had a big talk here about "moron." If you want trouble with someone
who is little slow, just call em a moron and see what it gets you.
Nazi is a little easier case, but we still have Wikipedia users who
think they can throw the word around and make it stick, see for
example the current Arbitration case
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey/
Proposed_decision#Advocacy_by_Mlorrey]]. Hypocrite is a bit more
difficult -- how do you say nicely that an editor is applying one
standard to himself and another to others. I guess you have to spell
out the behavior, giving examples. Maybe some talk about how to do
that on Wikipedia:No personal attacks, about adequately communicating
about what is bothering you rather than resorting to invidious labels.

Fred

On Jul 2, 2005, at 5:23 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> We could start by banning words like "hypocrite", "moron" and "nazi"
> when describing other wikipedians (regardless of how true these could
> be as Timwi said). It's the loaded words that make up a majority of
> personal attacks.
>
> --Mgm


from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] The sandbox incubator

body:
This is fascinating.  Some of the wikipoetry is hilarious.

But these should definitely not be subpages of the sandbox.  I suppose
they can be linked to from there, though I'm also not sure why that
should be.  I certainly find the interest in these pages fascinating,
not offensive.  Such pages could clearly can be part of someone's user
space.

I can imagine these being subpages of WP:FUN. Better to play games
with other wikipedians than with random jerks on yahoo! games...  as
for the killjoys who think game-playing will Destroy Wikipedia... I
think any time users spend on en:wp, monitoring their personal
messages and checking their watchlists while waiting for the next
move, is  an efficiency win for the project.

> 1) Eventually, these gaming activities will attract users who do nothing
> *but* playing games,

I know that wiki was originally intended as a "fast gaming platform",
but it has come a long way in a different direction since then.  When
the users you imagine arrive, I want DNA samples; they will surely be
cunning alien clones sent to take over the wiki.

> 3) The Wikipedia: namespace is meant primarily for policies; an
> abundance of gaming-related pages complicates browsing and searching.

It also serves as a meta-space for projects of all stripes.

> 4) The more visible these activities become, the more they become a
> reflection on our project to outsiders.

This may be a reason not to link to games in particular from the
sandbox.  On the other hand, letting passing visitors (who are
unlikely to become contributors) see that we also have fun, may do
more to attract long-term contributors than you think.

> In other words, I would strongly argue in favor of shutting down the
> sandbox as a VfD-resistant incubator for games which distract from the
> purpose of building an encyclopedia. There is value to wikigames as
> entertainment and as an artistic effort, but there's a separate wiki

I think the purpose here is to use wikigames to give editors a break
without forcing them to leave the wiki...  which has positive
side-effects for community maintenance.

--
++SJ


from_name: Sabine Cretella

references:
<42C33447.50301@pobox.com>	<9a878c4405062923081aa5dea@mail.gmail.com>	<42C3A302.20205@pobox.com>
	<42C3C7A2.5090006@softhome.net>	<42C3CBF0.1080401@yahoo.it>
	<42C3F179.7010405@softhome.net>	<1b98bebe05063008403161d6b@mail.gmail.com>	<42C43C9B.1040304@gmail.com>	<op.ss7ncmh22okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>	<42C4F0B5.70806@gmail.com>	<op.ss8woamw2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>	<42C58C98.7020708@gmail.com>
	<op.ss9r42ud2okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>

body:
>
> Yes, and this is why en.wiktionary is now being pushed into adding a
> see-also line to every such page, like the one at the top of
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadir
>
Why don't you just insert the word in the "Related words"??? It is a
related word - so a "see also" doesn't make any sense.
(or maybe "variants")

>> * In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper
>> capitalisation.
>
>
> Yes, and you will find them whether you are searching with the proper
> capitalization or not.

So what you are talking about is the search function, but not the
article - this means that whenever you insert a word into the search
field it should give back both results, with capital letter and without
(it is sufficient thought to use google search). German has loads of
words with capital and non capital letters - Deutsch, deutsch for
German, Wei?, wei? for white etc. depending on how words are used and
people who study German know this as well as Germans know this. I don't
think people are so stupid to search for an English word with a capital
letter if it isn't normally capitalised - when studying English the
first things you learn is that English uses capital letters only for
months, days, countries, languages etc. and in titles and in some
exceptional cases - so why should native speakers pretend capitalised
entries in a dictionary? I don't think that English and/or American
people know less about their own language than foreign students do - and
if they knew less it would be really tragic - it would mean that the
educational system does not work at all ... really I suppose it to work.

> Yes, as I said earlier, it needn't be mediawiki #redirects, but there
> will
> have to be a reference of some kind.  I am not talking about machine
> spell-check, but *human* use of the dictionary.  There will be notes
> saying that people who have found [[its]] may be looking for [[it's]].
> Such in fact already exist, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its#Usage

Also this has to do with the search function - if I remember well, using
google for the search it already works like this.

>
>> Consequently, as far as I am concerned redirects are of no use
>> whatsoever in any Wiktionary.
>
>
> Yes, IMHO #redirects are much less useful than most of en: thinks, though
> I do find them to have their use occasionally.  On la: where words are
> to be disambiguated, it makes sense to redirect [[sulfur (en)]] and
> [[sulphur (en)]] together, because they are the same word.
>
> http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sulphur_(en)

No, they should be two single words, connected on the relative page
under "Related words" or "Variants". Redirects do not have any sense
even if there are some printed dictionaries that use this in order to
save space - we don't have the space problem so why use it and not just
create two separate pages connecting them under relations?

>
>> Your arguments against having words in the proper case do not
>> convinceme, but you already knew that.
>
>
> No, I'm not against having words in their normal case; I just don't think
> that the URL is a useful place to communicate such information. (And as I
> have mentioned before, it is improper for a title to be in lower case.)

I am not going to answer this ... it would not be fun for you to read
it, but if you would like me to: I can answer on this as well.

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
On 7/1/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If there is a problem with the information given to blocked users,
> which as far as I can tell makes no such suggestion that the user is a
> vandal, then this can be edited by any admin at
> [[MediaWiki:Sorbsreason]] and [[MediaWiki:Sorbs create account
> reason]].

Well, here is what the text looks like, so you all don't have to go
try it yourselves.   It doesn't explicitly suggest the reader is a
vandal, but it certainly isn't polite.  It is rather deceptive,
really, in that it seems to tell you how to solve your problem, but is
only leading you towards further exasperation.  If you follow the
SORBS DNSBL link, it takes you to an inscrutable User-page whose
clearest sentence is "Please contact User:Tim Starling or an
administrator with any problems."  Of course you have no way to Tim
Starling, as you can neither edit nor follow the "email" link from his
user-page.  If you follow the "administrators" link you are taken to a
page full of user-page links, almost none of which have a visible
email address.  Sorry, chump.

There is a brief half-apology to AOL users near the end, but by the
time you get to it you are probably in no mood to notice.  It also
advises you, inexplicably,  "Note that you may not use the "email this
user" feature unless you have a valid email address registered in your
user preferences."   -- if the authors of this text realized that, why
did they not provide a way out?  It makes you feel as though you are
missing something obvious.

I don't know where this text shows up, and it doesn't seem to be a
Mediawiki: message, but the default is what should be changed.

__________________________________________

= User is blocked =
>From <projectname>

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by [[SORBS DNSBL]].

The reason given is this:
Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the SORBS
(http://www.sorbs.net) DNSBL.

You may contact [[SORBS DNSBL]] or one of the other [[administrators]]
to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "email this user"
feature unless you have a valid email address registered in your user
preferences. Your IP address is 194.117.134.72. Please include this
address in any queries you make.

==Note to AOL users==

Due to continuing acts of vandalism by one particular AOL user, this
wiki often blocks AOL proxies. Unfortunately, a single proxy server
may be used by a large number of AOL users, and hence innocent AOL
users are often inadvertently blocked. We apologise for any
inconvenience caused.

If this happens to you, please email an administrator, using an AOL
email address. Be sure to include the IP address given above.

[Return to Main Page.]
__________________________________________

--
++SJ


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Period. Everything
else is tangential to that. We have been fortunate in seeing that a strong
community has emerged as a result of this common goal, but that is precisely the
point. The community emerged because a bunch of people around the world are
trying to create something together. People who are not interested in that goal
 have all the rights in the world not to be involved in it.

Nevertheless, we have recently seen quite a bit of game-playing on
Wikipedia. If it is not stopped now, it will continue to grow. We already have  chess,
checkers, hangman, N degrees of separation, and I am sure that there  will be
more to come.

Not only does this clog up an already overburdened Recent Changes page. It
is an insult to the many people who have given of their time and money so that
Wikipedia can become the world's greatest encyclopedia. It detracts from the
serious nature of the project, and has the potential to turn it into yet
another  gaming site. As for referring to the people who oppose these games and
tournaments as "killjoys," this is a very upsetting ad hominem attack. In
essence it means that the people who keep Wikipedia's goals in mind are
"killjoys." I hardly see how that helps Wikipedia.

Jimbo has offered a place on Wikicities for people to play. He has even
suggested on mIRC that it might be ad-free. I hope that these games are moved
their immediately. I am still astounded that this is even a matter for a  vote.

Danny


subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

body:
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Date: July 2, 2005 8:17:59 AM MDT
> To: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs
>
>
> "You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You seem to apply a
> lenient standard to yourself and a strict standard to others" is a
> description of behavior, particularly if you cite examples. There
> are several policies which do require you to be Mr. Nice Guy in
> addition to general exhortations about Wikiipedia:Wikilove:
> Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.
>
> And by the way, this is not "Gotcha." You are subject to a one year
> ban on editing articles which relate to gender or sexuality. All
> the rest of Wikipedia is open to you including all the policy
> discussions. You are subject to a personal attack parole for one
> year. Just don't do it. You are by no means done here. Now as a
> practical matter, you can, if you chose to, convert this minor
> setback into general opprobrium, but that is your responsibility.
>
> Fred
>
> On Jul 2, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
>
>> There's no policy on Wikipedia saying you have to be Mr. Nice Guy.
>> Whenever I make an accusation like hypocrite, I always explain why
>> I'm
>> giving that accusation.  So this doesn't make any sense at all,
>> you're
>> saying I'm allowed to do it with explanation, but that's exactly what
>> I was banned for doing.
>>
>> So let me get this straight about the real policy: if you're in favor
>> with the admins and you make an accusation of hypocrisy with an
>> accusation, it's ok, but if you're not, you get banned.  Gotcha.
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
By the way, personally, I do think that the Wikicities site should keep
advertisements on the gaming pages. This is potentially a fabulous opportunity
for Wikicities.


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
A. Nony Mouse stated for the record:
> Oh give me a fucking break and stop lying.

Can we make mailing list subscriptions by approval only when they come
from free sites like hotmail?  That would hinder some of these whiney
children....

--
  Sean Barrett
  sean at epoptic.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Blocked yet AGAIN!

body:
> Walter, perhaps it sounds rude, but else do you want? There will
> surely be something serious (a vandal bot with open proxies, for
> instance), otherwise they will not take such a rigorous step. And to
> be quite frank: I prefer excluding some good-willing people from
> editing Wikipedia to letting a maniacal nerd ravage the whole project.
> I quite clearly remember such an attack on li:, some time ago.
>
Yes Wouter I am extremely offended and disappointed by your answer and
also by the lack of reactions by boardmembers such as Anthere, Angela
and Jimbo. It is very simple it is the fourth time this is happening to
me. And I am sick and tired of it especially because everybody is
ignorong the problem. Because they have selfish reasons like yours: "I
can edit wikipedia why should I care about others?" How about me putting
a vandalwarning on your account in nl.wikipedia Wouter? Wouldn't you be
offended? Yes you would. And it is exactly this what I read when I try
to create a new account in a wiki. And ironically enough I am creating
an account to get rid of vandalism.

How many vandalbotoperators are there? Maybe 30 - 40 around the world?
How many people do we block from editing wikimedia projects? Well at
least 500.000 in Thailand. And that is just a very small set of the IP
adresses we block. We are blocking currently probably over 10 million
people from potentially editing wikimedia projects. Isn't that like
using a flamethrower to kill a mosquito? It is not as if li: is the only
vandalized project. So far all damage has always been able to  be
restored manually usually within a short space of time.

Actually even though we are smuck about the closure of the LA Times
wiki, we have lost already just as much as they did. Wikimedia is not
open anymore, nor does it care about the "right" we actually state
everybody has to edit. And why? Because a couple of handfull have
dictated that. So we should actually take the free editable for all out
of our mission statement as it is a lie.

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific
	POV

body:
On 7/2/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> The scientific view is *not* the prevailing view in American society.
> Most Americans are Christians and believe in some form of Creationism or
> other.

Most?  I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I
don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.

Kelly