> BTW - this is Eric's latest threat:
>
> I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl
> is no longer out of the question for me.
> -Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
No, Erik would never do that -- no more than I would. In a moment of
anger, anyone might 'think aloud' and talk about doing something. But
that is not a threat.
Saying, "I wish Bush was dead" or even "Someone ought to kill the
president" is NOT THE SAME as an assassination threat. Sheldon Rampton's
wish that the software would give him the ability to send a million
volts through my chair is not a murder threat.
Erik and I both spoke (rashly, perhaps) of a DESIRE to temporarily block
or even permanently ban contributors who use Wikipedia in ways we didn't
like.
But Jimbo knows we wouldn't really do that. If I blocked someone whom I
shouldn't block, someone else would simply un-block him. One of the
other developers might even de-op me. There's no way Tim or Brion would
permit an abuse of power like that.
Let this thing blow over, so Jimbo can take his day off and attend that
wedding, okay?
Ed Poor
>From: "James Duffy" <jtdire(a)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Eric's abuse of his sysop powers
>Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:36:10 +0000
>
>
>Eloquence is normally a reasonable contributor (except in the area of
>religion, where he mounts POV campaigns that RK would be proud of). But his
>behaviour on [[Mother Theresa]] amount to an abuse of his powers as a
>sysop. He has now removed a protection on a page that had been placed to
>stop an edit war he had been a participant of, all to preserve a large
>segment he added to the article that breaches NPOV standards in
>terminology, structure (it dominates a biographical article in a way that
>would not be tolerated in any other encyclopædia), headlines, use of
>agenda-laiden captions, and elementary biographical standards. Any attempt
>to remedy the many NPOV deficits in the article (which involves correcting
>the 'she was the greatest human being in existence' glorification tone in
>other parts of the article, the 'she was the devil incarnate' tone in his
>add-in, which covers nearly 70% of the text and is based on a book called
>''Hell's Angel'' ) are attacked as 'pro-catholic bias' and a simple move of
>the large accusationary text to a linked article and replacing it with a
>smaller summary that allows for a more readable and less polemic text,
>leads to screams of censorship.
>
>As an example of the supposed 'censorship' compare my one draft opening
>paragraph Eloquence kept reverting
>
>Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, best known as Mother Teresa (27 August 1910 - 5
>September 1997), was a Roman Catholic nun, missionary, peace advocate and
>anti-abortion activist who set up a world-wide network called the
>Missionaries of Charity. This network engages in Christian missionary
>activity and to some extent in local charity. Mother Teresa is most famous
>for her work with the poor in Calcutta. Critics however questioned the
>standard of medical care received by those she cared for and questioned her
>association with some right wing dictators.
>
>with what preceded it in the earlier version
>
>'''Blessed Teresa of [[Calcutta]]''', best known as '''Mother Teresa'''
>([[August 27]], [[1910]] - [[September 5]], [[1997]]), was a revered
>[[Christian]] [[nun]], missionary, peace advocate and anti-abortion
>activist who set up a world-wide network called the ''Missionaries of
>Charity''. This network engages in Christian missionary activity and to
>some extent in local charity. Mother Teresa is most famous for her work
>with the poor in Calcutta.
>
>Yet Eloquence's defence of a version that included the above POV stuff, and
>his own writing based on a 'neutral' commentator who called MT a 'presumed
>virgin', is to say, when efforts to do a professional editing job are made
>
>You can play up your oh-so-critical "lapsed Catholic" attitude as much as
>you want, that does not change the fact that you are trying to stow away
>very substantial and very important criticisms of this soon-to-be "saint".
>
>Eric has a very bizarre comprehension of censorship and 'stowing away'
>criticisms if he thinks that mentioning them in the very opening paragraph
>and later in the article, and creating a linked article where all the
>detail can be published in a way that it cannot in a biographical entry
>without turning the article into a polemic, is hiding criticism. Apart from
>copyright questions about quoting large paragraphs of books (most
>publishers tolerate a line or two, but large paragraphs are seen in many
>jurisdictions as crossing the line into breaching copyright), it is a gross
>abuse of sysop powers for a sysop involved in an edit war to choose to
>remove protection from a page. Promising that you wouldn't edit it for an
>hour or two is no defence.
>
>The result is that that the article is an utter mess, veering from
>glorification of MT in some bits to demonising MT in others. It is
>amateurish, POV and reads like the sort of polemic that wouldn't last
>twenty seconds in front of an editor in any other encyclopædia. But
>attempts to fix the article and provide a proper NPOV article runs into a
>brick wall of Eric's agenda, including abusing his powers as a sysop to get
>what he wants.
>
>JT
BTW - this is Eric's latest threat:
I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl is no longer out of the
question for me.Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
The big boss server has been ordered and should be arriving at Jason's
house within a few days. When it comes in, he'll drive down to San
Diego and install it.
I am going to a wedding, leaving tomorrow morning and returning Sunday
but probably not really logging in until Monday.
I *should* have some kind of network access via a borrowed laptop and
dialup, but you know how that is...
I can try to mediate any huge disputes, but of course a wiser course
would be for peace and joy to prevail everywhere simultaneously so
that there's no major disputes.
I'll have my cell on me at all times, of course, and so the people who
have that number and call and request me to do something in an
absolute emergency.
--Jimbo
Eloquence is normally a reasonable contributor (except in the area of
religion, where he mounts POV campaigns that RK would be proud of). But his
behaviour on [[Mother Theresa]] amount to an abuse of his powers as a sysop.
He has now removed a protection on a page that had been placed to stop an
edit war he had been a participant of, all to preserve a large segment he
added to the article that breaches NPOV standards in terminology, structure
(it dominates a biographical article in a way that would not be tolerated in
any other encyclopædia), headlines, use of agenda-laiden captions, and
elementary biographical standards. Any attempt to remedy the many NPOV
deficits in the article (which involves correcting the 'she was the greatest
human being in existence' glorification tone in other parts of the article,
the 'she was the devil incarnate' tone in his add-in, which covers nearly
70% of the text and is based on a book called ''Hell's Angel'' ) are
attacked as 'pro-catholic bias' and a simple move of the large accusationary
text to a linked article and replacing it with a smaller summary that allows
for a more readable and less polemic text, leads to screams of censorship.
As an example of the supposed 'censorship' compare my one draft opening
paragraph Eloquence kept reverting
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, best known as Mother Teresa (27 August 1910 - 5
September 1997), was a Roman Catholic nun, missionary, peace advocate and
anti-abortion activist who set up a world-wide network called the
Missionaries of Charity. This network engages in Christian missionary
activity and to some extent in local charity. Mother Teresa is most famous
for her work with the poor in Calcutta. Critics however questioned the
standard of medical care received by those she cared for and questioned her
association with some right wing dictators.
with what preceded it in the earlier version
'''Blessed Teresa of [[Calcutta]]''', best known as '''Mother Teresa'''
([[August 27]], [[1910]] - [[September 5]], [[1997]]), was a revered
[[Christian]] [[nun]], missionary, peace advocate and anti-abortion activist
who set up a world-wide network called the ''Missionaries of Charity''. This
network engages in Christian missionary activity and to some extent in local
charity. Mother Teresa is most famous for her work with the poor in
Calcutta.
Yet Eloquence's defence of a version that included the above POV stuff, and
his own writing based on a 'neutral' commentator who called MT a 'presumed
virgin', is to say, when efforts to do a professional editing job are made
You can play up your oh-so-critical "lapsed Catholic" attitude as much as
you want, that does not change the fact that you are trying to stow away
very substantial and very important criticisms of this soon-to-be "saint".
Eric has a very bizarre comprehension of censorship and 'stowing away'
criticisms if he thinks that mentioning them in the very opening paragraph
and later in the article, and creating a linked article where all the detail
can be published in a way that it cannot in a biographical entry without
turning the article into a polemic, is hiding criticism. Apart from
copyright questions about quoting large paragraphs of books (most publishers
tolerate a line or two, but large paragraphs are seen in many jurisdictions
as crossing the line into breaching copyright), it is a gross abuse of sysop
powers for a sysop involved in an edit war to choose to remove protection
from a page. Promising that you wouldn't edit it for an hour or two is no
defence.
The result is that that the article is an utter mess, veering from
glorification of MT in some bits to demonising MT in others. It is
amateurish, POV and reads like the sort of polemic that wouldn't last twenty
seconds in front of an editor in any other encyclopædia. But attempts to fix
the article and provide a proper NPOV article runs into a brick wall of
Eric's agenda, including abusing his powers as a sysop to get what he wants.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikipedia-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikipedia-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Money, money... (let's bribe them) (Daniel
> Mayer)
> 2. images from one wikipedia to another (Re:
> Money, money)
> (Karl Eichwalder)
> 3. Re: images from one wikipedia to another (Re:
> Money, money)
> (Sascha Noyes)
> 4. Re: images from one wikipedia to another (Re:
> Money, money)
> (Arnaud G)
> 5. Money, money... (let's bribe (Anthere)
> 6. Money, money... (let's bribe (Anthere)
> 7. Re: images from one wikipedia to another (Re:
> Money, money)
> (Stan Shebs)
> 8. Re: images from one wikipedia to another (Re:
> Money, money)
> (Sascha Noyes)
> 9. Re: Money, money... (let's bribe (Jens Frank)
> 10. Re: Money, money... (let's bribe (Brion
> Vibber)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:22:50 -0700
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Money, money... (let's bribe
> them)
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <200310131122.50970.maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Erik Zachte wrote:
> >A fool like me might come to his senses and think
> >twice before contributing for free what can be
> bought
> >on the market.
>
> This is highly flawed thinking given the large
> number of free software coders
> that are paid by their employers to create free
> software. US government
> employees do this a lot as well.
>
> Does that make pure volunteers fools? Hardly.
>
> -- mav
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:12:41 +0200
> From: Karl Eichwalder <ke(a)gnu.franken.de>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] images from one wikipedia to
> another (Re:
> Money, money)
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <shekxh80rq.fsf(a)tux.gnu.franken.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Anthere <anthere6(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > and those copying images from one wikipedia to
> another
> > ?
>
> This is a problem to be attacked ASAP. We need one
> image server for
> all wikipedias--simply because images are language
> independend.
>
> It would also be good, to store the "facts"
> (numbers, numbers,...)
> somewhere independently from where it could be
> possible to feed the
> data sections of certain articles.
>
> > Drawing logos ?
>
> No new logo within the next five years, please ;)
>
> --
>
> | ,__o
>
> | _-\_<,
> http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/
> | (*)/'(*)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:36:10 -0400
> From: Sascha Noyes <sascha(a)pantropy.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] images from one wikipedia
> to another (Re:
> Money, money)
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <200310131636.10683.sascha(a)pantropy.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Monday 13 October 2003 02:12 pm, Karl Eichwalder
> wrote:
>
> > This is a problem to be attacked ASAP. We need
> one image server for
> > all wikipedias--simply because images are language
> independend.
>
> This is necessary for another reason: copyright
> validation. Often images are
> uploaded with the description that they are from a
> foreign language
> wikipedia. That means that someone hunting for
> possible copyvio has to go to
> that other language wikipedia to verify the source.
> Needless to say I didn't
> succeed in reading the details on an image in the
> korean wikipedia, and the
> user copying it over has yet to respond to my
> request.
>
> Best,
> Sascha Noyes
> (in wikiland: snoyes)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:53:54 +0200
> From: Arnaud G <wikipedia(a)amarys.com>
Moreover can you tell us why the description
> of the image should
> contain the copyright notice in english? If we have
> the same image for
> multiple wiki, this image should contain the
> copyright statement in all
> the language as you cannot expect everyone to
> understand english, and
> then the description will be not very readable.
> People should take care
> when they import an image from another wikipedia to
> translate the
> copyright statement and not only say: this image is
> ok it comes from kw: !
I never saw anything stating that.
Arnaud, I invite you to read all brand new image
policy on french wikipedia
Basic rules on image upload
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3AImage
Description file recommandations to respect
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3ADescription_d%27une_image
Recommandations to respect in case of fair use image
uploading
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3AFair_use
Model to put on users page who do not follow
recommandations
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3AMessage_de_description_des_images
Some models of description for fair use images
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3AMod%E8le_fair_use
Nowhere is it written the description of copyright
status had to be in english. French only is enough
(but of course, it might be beneficial to put some
description in english for other wikipedias uses)
Amicalement
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Erik wrote:
>We should strive to make the Wikimedia page
>itself somewhat useful as well, with a clear mission
>statement,
Good idea! A page on meta should be used to write this. Let's do that here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mission_statement
>and perhaps the news directly on the main page
>(weblog-style).
Another great idea! Perhaps the first 4 or 5 H3 headings at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_News would work via a simple script
(ignoring the wiki-specific text in the H2)? A link to "more..." would, of
course, be to the fully editable meta page and the "News" link in the sidebar
should also stay.
If that is done though, full HTML should be disabled for that exported text
(otherwise somebody could edit the Wikimedia News page to do nasty things to
the computers and personal info of anybody visiting the Wikimedia home page).
Oh and wiki links would need to be converted to HTML 'a hrefs' on-the-fly for
this instead of being displayed as bracket text (the current behavior of
Brion's neat-o 'export meta page text to wikimediafoundation.org' hack).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_News should, of course, be
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_News , but that can wait.
Erik wrote:
>Aside from that, I believe the "umbrella organization"
>logic is correct -- it would not be fair to our other
>projects (Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote), all of
>which are coming along nicely, to use the Wikipedia
>logo for the Wikimedia foundation as well.
I could not agree more, but would like to add that the word "Wikimedia" (by
itself) is the whole thing - the foundation and all projects including
MediaWiki and meta. The term "Wikimedia Foundation" is more specific and
deals just with the foundation.
>The present Wikimedia logo is nice and abstract
>and favors none of our projects in its style or
>substance.
Exactly why it is perfect. Here are some more reasons; it is a copyright
symbol turned on its side so that the open part points up. Within that space
an abstract flower grows. The symbolism is perfect for Wikimedia.
>That is, put the logos for all of our projects in
>small versions on the letterhead, next to the
>large Wikimedia logo.
This sounds like a good idea, at least until Wikimedia becomes nearly as
famous as Wikipedia is already. By that time we might have so many projects
that the letterhead would be too cluttered (not to mention distracting - we
want people to /read/ the letter, not ponder the letterhead ;).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
David Friedland wrote:
>Since the Mediawiki project is part of Wikimedia,
>shouldn't there be a link to it (with it's shiny new
>logo) on the Wikimedia.org page?
Yes! Most definitely. Please somebody make it so. :-)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Jimbo wrote:
>Is it really sensible to have different logos for the
>Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia itself?
Because Wikimedia is the /whole/ thing (the foundation, Wikipedia, Wiktionary,
Wikibooks, Wikiquote, and yes MediaWiki), while Wikipedia is just Wikipedia.
Different projects need different logos; the foundation also needs a logo and
minus the word "Foundation" that same logo also symbolizes the whole free
content wiki package along with the software that serves it.
Just because Wikipedia is the bomb right now and the foundation and other
Wikimedia projects are almost unknown in comparison, is not a good reason to
abandon the establishment of distinctive branding. Nuff said.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS: All that is really needed to establish a sense of Wikimedia-wide
cohesiveness is the phrase "A [Wikimedia] project]" right below the logo on
each Wikimedia project. [Wikimedia] would be a link to our project portal at
http://wikimedia.org