stevertigo wrote:
Note also that I find your comment don't feed to be a bit.. vexing.
I insist that you refrain from making such accusations to me or anyone
else for that matter - particularly when you've demonstrated your
substantial capacity to intimately misconstrue both the subject and
Steve Bennett wrote:
Learnt about this the standard way knowledge about wiki syntax
proliferates: diffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gippsland_Lakes_Discovery_Traildiff=314633894oldid=314622174
Yes, good, but {{reflist}} is also progress and needs to be made compatible.
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
OK, here's what I think.
Let's hear it.
You have shown you are prepared to troll on this list and others.
You are no doubt referring to unrelated issues with regard to certain
officers. The issues I raised all dealt with obvious lapses in
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
That seems unduly harsh for one post which your personal opinion judges
off-topic
Ec
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jay Litwyn
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
Over in the recondite if productive arena of WikiProject Mathematics,
fresh eyeballs have been looking over articles in areas that retain a
structure imposed up to five years ago, and not much liking what they
see. Basically there were POV forks introduced in areas, to calm down
edit wars, at
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
(ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Over in the recondite if productive arena of WikiProject Mathematics,
fresh eyeballs have been looking over articles in areas that retain a
structure imposed up to five years ago, and not much liking what
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Don't fully pretend to understand this, but given there was stuff about
a WikiJournal on the list recently, I thought this article might be of
use to some of the participants:
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#cite.php_update
{{Reflist}} has already been changed to allow:
{{reflist|
refs=
ref name=refname1content1/ref
ref name=refname2content2/ref
ref name=refname3content3/ref
}}
A little ugly, but everyone copy-pastes anyway.
Also take a look
It looks like the rule in Australia is currently life of the creator +70 for
public domain but actually thats very new (2005) and before that it was only
50 years after death so anything where the creator died after 1958/9 should
be public domain. (
On 9/18/09, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
If I may push my most radical suggestion, I want i.e. Smith2006 to be a
shortcut for ref name=Smith2006 / allowing for very short references in
text.
Interesting idea. May be worthwhile.
FT2
___
Steve, that image is now PD in Australia. In Australia, the copyright of
photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 has expired and they are now in
the public domain. The template for using PD Australian images on Wikipedia
is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia and Commons -
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
That seems unduly harsh for one post which your personal opinion judges
off-topic
Ec
Jay has long danced on the edge. This post on
This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone
who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting
wikibullying can be for newbies and other editors who aren't
well-versed in the procedures and processes.
Is that date taken or date published? This is why provenance of
photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed
dates are mixed up. Also, the
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Not me, the guy who did the website :-) It did occur to me to wonder
if he'd just reinvented PageRank from first mathematical principles
...
I'm pretty sure the mathematics of PageRank are pretty well known. My
linear
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining. The argument that an article about a
non-profit can't be an advertisement is absurd. I recognize that NPPs
should on the whole be nicer to submissions from newer users, but the
overwhelming majority of
This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone
who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting
wikibullying can be for newbies and other editors who aren't
well-versed in the procedures and processes.
A good way to test friendliness is to edit logged out or from an
alternative IP, or as a new account (but avoid breaching experiments),
and see if your contributions get treated any differently. I've heard
from numerous people that there is resistance to new editing and
biting behaviour going on,
Amory Meltzer wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining.
Actually this is not so much an example on bullying, but on _precisely_
why we have WP:COI.
The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs. Is this an
encyclopedic topic? Not
Oh, please post this somewhere where it will be more widely read! What
you said makes the relevant points so well and so clearly. But maybe
frame it as increasing participation in Wikipedia, rather than
changing the unfriendly culture?
Carcharoth
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM, David Goodman
2009/9/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Yes, good, but {{reflist}} is also progress and needs to be made compatible.
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Shirley {{reflist}} should be made options for references. Does it
do anything other than pretty formatting?
Agree
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So it tells you what QFT does, not what it is (unsurprising, with the jury
still out).
Hm.. Quantum field theory (QFT) *is* a claimed theoretical framework
for constructing quantum-mechanical models of systems classically
described by
David Goodman wrote:
the overwhelming majority of speedily deleted articles deserve to be
so. -- yes, so they do. But of the people who contribute them, many
can be encouraged to learn how to write adequate articles and perhaps
become regular contributors. People who write inadequate
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
But neutrality means, surely, that treatments
that are really introduction to X from the POV of Y are out of place,
or at least to be seriously deprecated.
WWIN
Most of the ones doing a single article won't be. Suppose one in five
of them did? But even apart from general purpose editors I've seen
some move on to do articles on their industry in general, and not
biased ones either, or fix technical errors in other related articles.
That it's difficult,
2009/9/18 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
That seems unduly harsh for one post which your personal opinion judges
off-topic
It is not one post. Most of Jay's posts are like this one.
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't think Charles was saying we shouldn't have introductory-level
articles. I think he was saying that if we do have introductory-level
articles, they need to not be skewed to a POV.
I read it as if NPOV tends to weed out introductory
Having various reference techniques is very useful for people writing
articles, who can choose whatever they feel comfortable with; having
multiple simultaneous techniques is not quite as helpful for people
trying to make small edits and fixes in articles, or adding
references, because you need
stevertigo wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
This would be another swipe at [Officer] - don't feed.
No, Charles, it was not a swipe at [Officer]. If it was a swipe at
anything corporeal all, it was at the way BLP paranoia and the
BLP-police-state often
Image uploads have a broad range of license options. Over the last year
several knowledgeable people have approached me and advised that I assert
copyleft over restorations due to the amount of creative input involved.
The principal argument against that advice has not arisen in this
Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, Charles, it was not a swipe at [Officer]. If it was a swipe at
anything corporeal all, it was at the way BLP paranoia and the
BLP-police-state often appears to bring about an institutional
violation of our most core policies. As in the case of the
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire.
Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free
culture
movement. Look at the paint by numbers analogies within this list
thread:
many people cannot
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire.
Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free
culture
movement. Look at the
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
That seems unduly harsh for one post which your personal opinion
judges
off-topic
Ec
It doesn't matter if the judgement is harsh. In my opinion, people
should get only a handful of warnings for blatant mailing list abuse
I'm going to contribute to this thread backwards, replying first to
this message and then replying to other peoples' reply. I hope other
people don't mind at all.
here's a nice post by someone who's been contributing occasionally
since 2004, about how daunting wikibullying can be for
When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they
often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate
keepers.
Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an
admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but obviously a newcomer (or
even an
Im working on a toolserver based tool if anyone would be interested. Im
doing some basic parsing now.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Yes, good, but {{reflist}} is also progress and needs to be
It is a balance between efficiently working through new page patrol
(NPP) and not scaring off new editors who may develop into good
editors, and who may be quite happy for others to take their edits
and improve them (but don't want them just thrown away).
I, on occasion, will improve an
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
snip
I can't help but notice that the author of this article keeps trying
to add articles that aren't to our standards. Maybe make people who
are writing their first (or second, or third, if the first or second
is
When you say not to our standards, are you expecting a minimum
standard from new editors?
Yeah, I do. I believe this helps them acclimate to the Wikipedia
community.
Like I've said previously, I often edit articles *before* tagging for
deletion. These articles are usually written by
The argument that an article about a non-profit can't be an
advertisement is absurd.
Well, yeah. Non-profits can advertise as well. They have that right,
if done in the proper place. The difference between a for-profit and
non-profit corporations is non-profits, at least in spirit, aren't
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they
often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate
keepers.
Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an
admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but
But of the people who contribute them, many can be encouraged to
learn how to write adequate articles and perhaps become regular
contributors. People who write inadequate unsourced promotional
articles can be simply rejected, or alternatively helped to write
good ones or at least
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
While the latter responsibility (lights) has fallen to the Foundation,
Huh. This line refers to text I removed from my message, so I should
have taken this out too. I had referred to 'keeping the lights on' as
one of the inheritable responsibilities, but took
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
who enforce the rules are perfectly civil and try to be friendly at an
individual level.
Hm. We can change that. Wiki wont do it. Nor will Wikimedia for
that matter. But
The one that matters most to me is that something of the order of 2%
of speedy nominations are just cleanup cases (sometimes extreme, but
not nonsense as often tagged).
I assume you're an admin, and have the power to speedily delete. Do
you actually clean up the article instead of
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Over
the past years the number of vandals and other simple troublemakers has
dropped and our technical means of dealing with them have improved. We still
have the army of hobby-cops and they aren't going to sit around idle. So we
get the situation that writer above faces.
A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the
Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in
choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork.
Creative copyright also attaches when the same tourist heads over to
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of
reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes.
Some would say that any attempt to recreate the eyes and present it as
a restored photograph is
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath
the
Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in
choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork.
Creative copyright
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you
truly restored it? Or have you created something new?
For that matter, what about the restoration of the Dresdner Frauenkirche?
You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive concepts.
-Durova
On
Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and
digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to
compare them.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and
digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to
compare them.
I could not disagree more. But I get the impression this is a discussion
that would be a lot
I think most of us on this list treat newbies fairly well. Now what about
the people that showed up a few months ago, never contributed much, and
spend their time biting newbies?
Let's say I register a new account right now. I go to new page patrol and
start indiscriminately deletion-tagging any
Then let's take a better example. The dilemma with this restoration on an
architectural design is easy to explain.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore_compressed.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore2_courtesy_copy.jpg
Normally I wouldn't nominate a
We can change that. Wiki wont do it. Nor will Wikimedia for that
matter. But collaboration will..
I agree 100%.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:12 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
who
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals
we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).
Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this
question not out of spite, but of curiosity.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Charles Matthews
Emily Monroe wrote:
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals
we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).
Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this
question not out of spite, but of curiosity.
It is composed of two things.
For how long could I do this before I get blocked?
Quite a long time, if at all, I'm afraid. You would probably get a
WQA, RFC, and an arbitration case justifying your actions long after
there's any discussion of blocking you. More than likely, you'd be
banned from new page patrolling, and
I'm quite active at speedy deletion and often decline overenthusiastic
tags, but I would disagree with making it compulsory to improve a good
faith article one tags for deletion (though I'd be happy with
something that encourages this).
Bad faith I take as attack pages, vandalism and hoaxes
But
Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort
of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being
that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).
First off, thanks for the history lesson. No, I'm not being sarcastic,
really, thanks.
In short, the checks
I'm quite active at speedy deletion and often decline
overenthusiastic tags, but I would disagree with making it
compulsory to improve a good faith article one tags for deletion
(though I'd be happy with something that encourages this).
I suggested this mostly for public relation
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort
of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being
that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).
First off, thanks for the history lesson.
People who are causing a problem but have aware friends - people
who know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven
off. Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked
excessively, or go to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to
another administrator and
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to
say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin
actions and see if they're documented, justified, reasonable etc and
give the admins feedback, request more
I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but
hmm.
How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in
with a super majority?
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:35 PM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish
Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly
atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are
regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community,
they often have a group of supporters around them always ready to praise
2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
restoration and creative
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Editors/admins who are regularly rude to others are not only
tolerated by most of the community, they often have a group of
supporters around them always ready to praise everything they do,
manipulating RfCs and other
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to
say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin
actions and see if they're
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
*Any* system relies on people being told how to appeal against admin
actions, and it depends on them also having the confidence that they
will get a fair hearing, and that depends on those reviewing the
Out of curiosity ... Do we have to allow nested refs? Would it be
better to un-nest them?
Stylistically I think it's preferred not to do that.
Or at least, un-nest them to the extent of moving the body of ref B
outside the body of ref A, and replacing with a named ref callout to
B?
refA ref B
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Is that date taken or date published? This is why provenance of
photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
photograph was
The best PR we can do is to improve the improvable articles, and
explain to the authors of the others why the subjects are not suitable
for Wikipedia, or why the subjects might be, but the submitted
articles are not capable of being used even as a base for rewriting.
Sometimes when I find a
76 matches
Mail list logo
