> This problem can be solved without developers' help -- if you can
> identify which revision goes with which article.
That's the problem - I'm pretty sure there was a cut n' paste move
between the two which was the reason for the history merge in the first
place (as often happens on WP:RM...). But the mistake I made was
merging the entire history of the two.
It might be just simple redirects after the major history of the
unaccented version, but I'm not sure :(.
(Move from Montreal Expos to accented version of same name).
Thanks,
Ryan
Hello!
I've been trying and trying, editing main.css for Monobook time and time
again, with no success. I would like to change my "red links" or rather,
"broken links" from red to #c2a32d, but when I change the css statement to:
a.new, #p-personal a.new {
color: #c2a32d;
font-weight: bold;
}
it takes the "bold" but doesn't change the link color to the color I
specified. They stay red! Can anyone tell me what's up with this???
Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to offer.
--Billy
Took me some time to answer, sorry for that. (lots of things to do in
december :P)
2005/12/12, Gregory Maxwell < gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>:
>
> On 12/12/05, effeietsanders-list <effeietsanders.l(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi Gregory, thank you for your imput,
>
> No problem. I have also provided comment on the project talk page
> about copyright.
>
> > 2005/12/12, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Saying Lilypond is hard is like saying wikitext is hard.
> > > Lilypond is just one step above ABC and much more expressive, anything
>
> > > else would not be sufficient to produce and maintain a professional
> > > quality score.
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced.
> >
> > In short: I want not only "proffessionals" to add their information, but
>
> > also people with little knowledge of music. This is very hard with
> Lilypond.
> > Please take a look into http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/talk:Wikimusic_II
> for
> > further discussion we already had.
>
> Can you make an example for me of the sort of valuable addition which
> would be performed by someone who could not handle lilypond?
>
> I haven't used lilypond in many many months, and never used it for
> much but here is the lilypond for mary had a little lamb in C "E D C
> D E E E D D D E G G E D C D E E E E D D E D C".
>
> I'm not sure how much simpler you can get! :)
We could add a function, for example, in whitch you have a keyboard on the
screen, so people able to play a sound, but cannot handle the notation, can
enter it into the database. I would like Lilypond to be the standardformat,
maybe I wasn't clear about that, but I want more options to edit it.
Dfferent interfaces, drag- and drop functions, so people with very little
knowledge of music can reproduce a sheet of music, if they have it on paper
to the screen etc.For you it might stay easier to edit directly into
lilypond, but I think there are a lot of people not able to, and I would
love this project to be as open as a wikipedia. Possibly the restriction
could be editing the sheets, that could possibly be resptricted to a certain
group of users.
And further: The Wikimusic I have in mind is not just sheet. It's also text,
plain text (as for the anthems now in wikisource and/or wikipedia) and
information *about* the music, so written in XXXX by YYYY, interpreation
etc. (information now found in wikipedia sometimes as well. But that belongs
as well in this kind of database. But I can think that some information
wouldn't fit in WIkipedia, but would be wanted in a Wikimusic.) but also
playeble music. So if someone can play piano, (s)he can play it, record it,
and upload it. I'd love it to be multiple versions, one with piano, one with
violin, maybe in different qualities. That are in my view the keys for a
succesfull wikimusic.
> > Most people qualified to edit such work would be able to visually
> > > qualify such changes.. How could you expect to help out if you can't
> > > read music? For such a project all changes should be clearly
> > > explained. I don't see the problem with regular wiki procedures.
> >
> > If there come a lot of edits, it'll be hard to determine if a edit is
> okey
> > or not. I'm not saying it has to be done the way I mentioned, but that
> we
> > have to think about it.
>
> If we demand that the scores be accurate and true, we can ask people
> to justify their edits.
> If we are only asking that they sound good then there isn't a clear
> model for success in the Wiki world. I've yet to see proof that
> Wiki's are a scaleable medium for material where there is not a set of
> fairly easy objective criteria.
Asking to justify will be hard, just as in Wikipedia it is already hard.
Asking with every edit for justification will be the neckshot for a starting
project. But as there is this newfunction in the software, semiprotection,
that might be a good way to semiprotect automatically all sheets, with
(maybe) the exemption of the original uploader? Just some policythings to
think about.
> > There is already a great public domain score site, Mutopia. Tell us
> > > why what you propose would be worth anyones time when mutopia already
> > > exists?
> >
> > There are even more small projects on the web, and the few I found,
> probably
> > not even 10 % of them, don't have the infrastucture I would like to see
> in a
> > wikimusic-like project. For example, they seem to have no talkpages,
> they
> > seem to have no recent changes, they seem to have no "real music" files.
> > They don't have possibilities for entering musin in an easy way as well,
> nor
> > a way to find the music you search, as a non-musician.
>
> True, Mutopia lacks performances... But it is not easy to get people
> to work on those in any case. They have also worked out much of the
> complex legal waters.
>
> I don't see how talk pages would be all that useful.. We hardly use
> them for images....
>
> Would music really see much fluid collaborative editing?
I think talkpages will be usefull, because this will not be a imagedatabank.
There will be more. There will be four kinds of data in every "entrence", at
least (if it's a perfect "article"), and also information about, so
discussion will be wanted. If you want justifications, you need talkpages.
You can't discuss through summarylines, as some people think... ;-)
> I just hope so much that the music will no longer be limited to a small
> > group of people, that everybody can enjoy it. I hope so much that if I
> have
> > a tune in my head, and I want to find out whitch one it is, how it is
> > calles, and who composed it, I can easely find it. Through a WikiMusic.
>
> Searching for 'tunes' is a hard subject. It is not at all remotely
> solved. Nothing you've proposed in Wikimusic will help people find
> some melody they half remember.
I saw it on some other websites already happening. you could add a Parsons'
code in the mediawiki. for more information about that: see the projectpage.
> I really recommend you to take a look at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/talk:Wikimusic_II , because some of the
> > things you mentioned are already discussed over there. (As well as some
> > legal issues). If you think there might be some problems, please add
> them.
>
> I have. :)
>
great :)
i hope you understand me well: there has to be done a lot of things before
such a project can start, because there are needed a lot of additions in the
sftware, as i see it. I sincerely hope that the "technicians" will be
looking to those points as well, which changes might have to be made, etc.
That's an area I can't work on, as I have very little understanding of the
complex MediaWiki-software.
Greetings, Effeietsanders
hello everybody,
We now have a free encyclopedia. We now have a free library. We now have
free pictures. Now we have to *free the music*
(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikimania05/Presentation-JW1 )
and make it available for everyone. But with the preservation of the
wiki-idea: publishing music with a free license, or publishing music in the
Public Domain.
Let's make a WikiMusic. A Wiki with:
- *both score and text* of a free piece of music
- the *music itself* in a playable music file (in different versions,
for example one version with trumpet, one with a whole orchestra, not MIDI)
- the *sheet music* in a wiki-text format
- *information about* the piece of music.
The WikiMusic has to be *user-friendly* as well. So NO WikiMusic just for
expert musicians, but also for people who are just looking for a nice work
of Beethoven. There has to be a system to *search* in this Wiki in a
user-friendly way, too. Maybe the so-called Parsons
code<http://www.musipedia.org/pcnop.0.html>(
http://www.musipedia.org/pcnop.0.html) can be used?
The WikiMusic wiki has to *allow for growth*. Not just for experts, but
rather also for people with little knowledge of the software.
Lilypond<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_LilyPond>is at the moment
still too difficult, too technical, for this purpose. Maybe
there are possibilities to make it easier to enter scores into a Wiki. Maybe
it is possible to integrate some kind of keyboard (java applet) in the
software, and have the software rewrite it into Lilypond-like formats.
Perhaps a (java) applet to drag and drop the notes into the score can be
developed, so a full score can be reproduced in a Wiki. And that such will
be transcribed into the Lilypond format automatically is our dream.
The Wikimusic has to be *editable*. So not just the creation of new scores
has to be easy, but also their editing. Maybe some way can be found to
change the rather complex format of lilypond into a drag-and-drop idea, so
the sheet can be altered easily. Later the sheet can be transcribed into the
standard format again.
WikiMusic must, last but not least, be *able to survive*. Not only with its
envisioned community, but also with a protection from vandals. It may prove
to be be hard to maintain the usual wiki-way here. Some brainstorming about
this issue needs to be done. How can vandals be checked best, by a mere
possibility of *listening to the differences* perhaps?
You can help with this! Today a proposal is posted on meta
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikimusic_II
and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimusic_II), and there are still a lot
of technical issues to be solved. Plese add your comment, and get the
project on it's way. Every bit of help and comment is welcome. I hope to see
you there.
Effeietsanders (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/gebruiker:Effeietsanders
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Effeietsanders
)
ps: I sent this message as well from the wrong address, maybe you'll get it
twice. My excuses for that.)
Hi,
can someone more familiar with the mail feature please take care of this?
Thanks,
Magnus
Original mail from : Tony Weber
Message body follows:
Hi,
I recently installed Media Wiki, and email would not send.
It happens
because some email server refuse bare LF in the email body. See
http://cr.yp.to/docs/smtplf.html. Media Wiki code composes
email body
with bare LF "\n" instead of CRLF "\r\n". The fix is
simple: replace
all bare LF with CRLF.
In the file UserMailer.php, add a line immediately after the
function
userMailer():
--- BEFORE ---
function userMailer( $to, $from, $subject, $body,
$replyto=false ) {
global $wgUser, $wgSMTP, $wgOutputEncoding, $wgErrorString,
$wgEmergencyContact;
--- AFTER ---
function userMailer( $to, $from, $subject, $body,
$replyto=false ) {
global $wgUser, $wgSMTP, $wgOutputEncoding, $wgErrorString,
$wgEmergencyContact;
$body = preg_replace("/^(?=\n)|[^\r](?=\n)/", "\\0\r",
$body); //
replace LF with CRLF: see http://cr.yp.to/docs/smtplf.html
This regular expression matches all characters which precede
"\n" except
"\r". It then replaces them with the original character
(\\0) plus
"\r". As a special case, it also matches a "\n" as the
first character,
and replaces it with "\r\n".
Best regards,
Tony
Use of CheckUser feature is now officially permitted on French Wikipedia.
As a "checker" I made some test on my own user name / IPs and have
questions about the feasibility of:
- Add the source site of the check (like prefix: m, fr.w, en.wb, etc.)?
- Add a "comment" field? (Because on fr.w any check must be justified)
It may also be good to respect the same order than other Wikimedia logs
(newer on top), but it's just a detail.
Aoineko / Guillaume Blkanchard