So, as announced in the previous mailing (Agreed, I should've sent this one first...). Regarding the technical implementation.
First a few points that you are likely aware of, that have stopped, disabled or scared off doing this untill now. ie. creating a dedicated solution that can scale for more than just 1 tool or group of tools – And is easy to use for translators as well for developers.
-- Past issues / obstacles
* Separated Toolserver SVN repositories ** For MediaWiki extensions, TranslateWiki can easily translate things and can sync in a single commit because it has a partial check out of a single SVN repository. Having to add all ts-account repos to TW's configuration is way too much work and pretty much not-done. Not to mention the fact that most tools are either not in SVN at all, or are maintained outside SVN and pushed towards SVN for public source viewing every once in a while.
* Language of choice ** Users want to set their choice once and not have to search re-do it for all tools independently and have to find the right place to 'do it' on everybody's tool. Nor do we want to click the same link again every visit. And developers prefer not to have userlang-parameters dangling in the url and have to make sure it's preserved throughout the app with every link. This can (and sometimes is) solved by using cookies (one example is Luxo's contributions tool that sets a cookie)
* Prevent vandalism but also slow-down and other down sides of a regular MediaWiki page. ** When translated on one wiki-page (ie. at Meta-Wiki such as Magnus' implementation, which I think is the best implementation so far) there isn't a good translation-oriented workflow for translators or developers. Of course pages could be protected by sysops - and then have to be updated from another page on request. And then there is FlaggedRevs. But neither are not optimized towards translators (ie. there's no way to FUZZY a message, or see translation suggestions from services like Google Translate, or a description of the message while modifying it (aka "/qqq"). Nor is it not ideal (if not impossible) to keep track of changes to the original message without having to manually check it (eg. perform "FUZZY"). And no easy workflow to translate many messages at once. This is all taken care of by Extension:Translate [4] on TranslateWiki.
* Fallback languages ** Aside from the management involved, fallback is also an important point. It shouldn't be required that a translator has to translate everything at once or nothing at all. Some implementations around would fail if a new message wasn't available in a translated language yet. Other implementation created a way to fallback to English if there was no message-key in the selected language. But I haven't seen any real fine grained fallback (such falling back from NDS (Low German) to DE (German), or from ACE (Aceh) to ID (Indonesian) for untranslated messages, like MediaWiki does).
* Universal messages ** Some messages like 'welcome', 'login', 'submit' etc. are generic and should not required to be duplicated around everywhere for each tool. Eventhough TranslateWiki has {{Identical}}, it save work by just having a group of generic messages. Tools that are mostly data or visually oriented may not even have to request to be added to the project if they only need a few of these generic messages to control the input form.
* Keeping up with latest versions ** Another implementation currently around (the only one that actually uses TranslateWiki afaik) is done through a fake extension named ToolserverTools [1] in Wikimedia SVN. For the translators side this was perfect (since they could use the TranslateWiki workflow they know and love). But not so for the developers. Messages all had a prefix, and in order to actually use them in the tools some wheel-reinvention took place (like getting the message from the array in the correct language, providing fallback, replacing variables like $1/$2, etc.). Also they still had to re-create a way for users to choose a language, store it, remember it and apply it the next visit. Lots of wasted time. And of course staying up2date with the latest version in Wikimedia SVN was sometimes forgotten and translators are known to get especially motivated if there is no work required from the developer to put the new translations into use (ie. TranslateWiki having the ability to push the updates and there being no extra action required). We could have everybody create a cronjob to update their svn-checkout of the messages file from the "/extensions/ToolserverTools/" directory in SVN, but that's not ideal either.
Thank you for all your efforts so far, Krinkle. I hope that the toolserver tool developers will use this system profusely.
Siebrand Mazeland M: +31 6 50 69 1239 Skype: siebrand
Op 29 mrt. 2011 om 02:46 heeft Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
So, as announced in the previous mailing (Agreed, I should've sent this one first...). Regarding the technical implementation.
First a few points that you are likely aware of, that have stopped, disabled or scared off doing this untill now. ie. creating a dedicated solution that can scale for more than just 1 tool or group of tools – And is easy to use for translators as well for developers.
-- Past issues / obstacles
- Separated Toolserver SVN repositories
** For MediaWiki extensions, TranslateWiki can easily translate things and can sync in a single commit because it has a partial check out of a single SVN repository. Having to add all ts-account repos to TW's configuration is way too much work and pretty much not-done. Not to mention the fact that most tools are either not in SVN at all, or are maintained outside SVN and pushed towards SVN for public source viewing every once in a while.
- Language of choice
** Users want to set their choice once and not have to search re-do it for all tools independently and have to find the right place to 'do it' on everybody's tool. Nor do we want to click the same link again every visit. And developers prefer not to have userlang-parameters dangling in the url and have to make sure it's preserved throughout the app with every link. This can (and sometimes is) solved by using cookies (one example is Luxo's contributions tool that sets a cookie)
- Prevent vandalism but also slow-down and other down sides of a
regular MediaWiki page. ** When translated on one wiki-page (ie. at Meta-Wiki such as Magnus' implementation, which I think is the best implementation so far) there isn't a good translation-oriented workflow for translators or developers. Of course pages could be protected by sysops - and then have to be updated from another page on request. And then there is FlaggedRevs. But neither are not optimized towards translators (ie. there's no way to FUZZY a message, or see translation suggestions from services like Google Translate, or a description of the message while
Krinkle wrote:
-- Tool developer workflow:
I'll describe how the system would work from a tool developers point of view. [3]
So here's what you'd do to make it work, three easy steps:
- The toolserver tool developer includes a single php file (eg. /
p_i18n/ToolStart.php). This makes the i18n class available. 2) A new instance of the class is created like $I18N = new TsIntuition( 'mygroup' ); 3) Messages can now be returned with either _('message-key') [2] or $TSi18n->msg( 'message-key', $options ).
-- Other features
Variable replacement ($1, $2, etc.)
Fallback languages:
Getting language names
Escaping (ie. options = array( escape => html )
How much duplication will TsIntuition have with MediaWiki i18n code?
- Automated updates: Since the messages are file-stored in the
messages-directory of the tool. There's no need to keep track or update anything.
(...)
-- TranslateWiki
I'm currently in talks with TranslateWiki how to best set up the syncing system. Although initial chat with Nikerabbit didn't bring up any expected problem (as it's fairly similar other projects they translate), it still needs to be set up. I expect to have something going within one or two weeks.
Wouldn't DBA be preferible?
Platonides wrote:
Krinkle wrote:
-- Other features
Variable replacement ($1, $2, etc.)
Fallback languages:
Getting language names
Escaping (ie. options = array( escape => html )
How much duplication will TsIntuition have with MediaWiki i18n code?
The basic principle is the same: Loading messages from i18n php files, translating at TranslateWiki, getting messages with fallback, etc..
However the main difference will be it's more basic / simplified. * No registered users * No dependencies on other code or database connections to be made. * Other than replacing variables and gender/plural there will be no parsing (ie. no ''markup'', {{templates}}, [[links]], {{#or}}, <whatever>) * No 'site language' vs. user language. * Language/gender choice come from cookies and/or browser agent. Rather then database user account preferences retrieval. * Isolated text domains. * No converters, backwards compatibility or wiki-environment factors to take into account.
One could describe TsIntuition as a lightweight i18n system for Toolserver tools written in a way that is compatible with TranslateWiki's workflow and as such is similar to other TW projects (like MediaWiki core/ extensions/Wikia).
Or one could describe TsIntuition as a stripped down version of MediaWiki's Language-class and rewritten without dependancies and with Toolserver tools in mind.
Both descriptions would match what TsIntuition is most of these functions are very simple in nature anyway. To save time and to avoid wheel- reinvention I have taken a closer look at MediaWiki's i18n system and may end up using some of it's code, why not ?
- Automated updates: Since the messages are file-stored in the
messages-directory of the tool. There's no need to keep track or update anything for you.
(...)
-- TranslateWiki
I'm currently in talks with TranslateWiki how to best set up the syncing system. Although initial chat with Nikerabbit didn't bring up any expected problem (as it's fairly similar other projects they translate), it still needs to be set up. I expect to have something going within one or two weeks.
Wouldn't DBA be preferible?
I'm not sure which definition of DBA you're referring to in this context. Can you elaborate ?
Thanks for your email, -- Krinkle
I have reason to believe that one of Betacommand's tools is currently violating the Toolserver's privacy policy by profiling individual users editing times and edited articles for comparative reasons as seen at:
http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/UserCompare/
This information would not normally be aggregated in such a way that it is easily obtainable and would require some effort and maths to do so.
"Tools that allow profiling of individual user's activity (beyond what can easily be achieved directly on the public wiki sites) must only be applied with the respective user's consent (opt-in)."
Whilst such information can be used against abusive editing, it promotes a gross violation of privacy.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Krinkle Sent: Friday, 1 April 2011 9:47 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Toolserver Intuition - Tech spec (Toolserver goes I18N!)
Platonides wrote:
Krinkle wrote:
-- Other features
Variable replacement ($1, $2, etc.)
Fallback languages:
Getting language names
Escaping (ie. options = array( escape => html )
How much duplication will TsIntuition have with MediaWiki i18n code?
The basic principle is the same: Loading messages from i18n php files, translating at TranslateWiki, getting messages with fallback, etc..
However the main difference will be it's more basic / simplified. * No registered users * No dependencies on other code or database connections to be made. * Other than replacing variables and gender/plural there will be no parsing (ie. no ''markup'', {{templates}}, [[links]], {{#or}}, <whatever>) * No 'site language' vs. user language. * Language/gender choice come from cookies and/or browser agent. Rather then database user account preferences retrieval. * Isolated text domains. * No converters, backwards compatibility or wiki-environment factors to take into account.
One could describe TsIntuition as a lightweight i18n system for Toolserver tools written in a way that is compatible with TranslateWiki's workflow and as such is similar to other TW projects (like MediaWiki core/ extensions/Wikia).
Or one could describe TsIntuition as a stripped down version of MediaWiki's Language-class and rewritten without dependancies and with Toolserver tools in mind.
Both descriptions would match what TsIntuition is most of these functions are very simple in nature anyway. To save time and to avoid wheel- reinvention I have taken a closer look at MediaWiki's i18n system and may end up using some of it's code, why not ?
- Automated updates: Since the messages are file-stored in the
messages-directory of the tool. There's no need to keep track or update anything for you.
(...)
-- TranslateWiki
I'm currently in talks with TranslateWiki how to best set up the syncing system. Although initial chat with Nikerabbit didn't bring up any expected problem (as it's fairly similar other projects they translate), it still needs to be set up. I expect to have something going within one or two weeks.
Wouldn't DBA be preferible?
I'm not sure which definition of DBA you're referring to in this context. Can you elaborate ?
Thanks for your email, -- Krinkle
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
I have reason to believe that one of Betacommand's tools is currently violating the Toolserver's privacy policy by profiling individual users editing times and edited articles for comparative reasons as seen at:
http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/UserCompare/
This information would not normally be aggregated in such a way that it is easily obtainable and would require some effort and maths to do so.
"Tools that allow profiling of individual user's activity (beyond what can easily be achieved directly on the public wiki sites) must only be applied with the respective user's consent (opt-in)."
Whilst such information can be used against abusive editing, it promotes a gross violation of privacy.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
Have you talked about your concerns to BetaCommand?
PS: You should have created a new mail for the new topic. Otherwise it gets threaded incorrectly. It is not an uncommon sin, but those people at least don't use to create a new topic by top-posting the new one.
He has not, and the data collected via user-compare is generated solely via data collected from the API and almost exclusively used for SPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations where gathering and analyzing this data is standard practice. Had I been using non-public data (anything generated from the sql databases that normal users do not have access to) I would agree that there may be privacy issues, however every piece of data that is used for that tool comes from the en.wikipedia.org API.
Betacommand
Hi John
The fact that you are using public data for your analysis does NOT mean that it's compliant with the policy.
In fact, this policy was put into place precisely to make clear that even when using public data, making available an analysis may STILL constitute a privacy violation. from the toolserver policy page:
"analysis of publically available data (data mining) may well lead to information that compromizes the privacy of individuals (profiling). The fact that anyone could in theory perform this analysis does not justify the publication of such information."
Making this kind of information available to a closed circle of users entrusted by the community with special powers, such as admins with checkuser privileges, os one thing. Making them available to the public is quite another.
Please make sure that your tools do make available any analysis that allows insight into peoples habits or lifestyle, beyond what is easily and directly visible on wikipedia itself.
Regards, Daniel
On 01.04.2011 12:52, John wrote:
He has not, and the data collected via user-compare is generated solely via data collected from the API and almost exclusively used for SPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations where gathering and analyzing this data is standard practice. Had I been using non-public data (anything generated from the sql databases that normal users do not have access to) I would agree that there may be privacy issues, however every piece of data that is used for that tool comes from the en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org API.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
The fact that you are using public data for your analysis does NOT mean that it's compliant with the policy.
As I understand it, there are three options for tools like this:
* Limit the tool to trusted users, so that the analysis is not publicly available. This is the simplest option, but you should check with the TS admins whether this would be acceptable.
* Run the tool on a host other than toolserver and don't use the toolserver databases as a data source. Then the toolserver privacy policy doesn't apply.
* Get consent from the users whose data is being analyzed. This is impractical for investigating sockpuppets.
The underlying source of the privacy policy is that the toolserver is associated with WIkimedia Deutschland, and German privacy law is not the same as U.S. privacy law.
- Carl
All that the tool does is merge [[Special:Contributions]] of multiple users and shows pages that multiple accounts have edited in common. Im really not sure how that could be considered a privacy issue.
Betacommand
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
The fact that you are using public data for your analysis does NOT mean
that
it's compliant with the policy.
As I understand it, there are three options for tools like this:
- Limit the tool to trusted users, so that the analysis is not
publicly available. This is the simplest option, but you should check with the TS admins whether this would be acceptable.
- Run the tool on a host other than toolserver and don't use the
toolserver databases as a data source. Then the toolserver privacy policy doesn't apply.
- Get consent from the users whose data is being analyzed. This is
impractical for investigating sockpuppets.
The underlying source of the privacy policy is that the toolserver is associated with WIkimedia Deutschland, and German privacy law is not the same as U.S. privacy law.
- Carl
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
Please make sure that your tools do make available any analysis that allows insight into peoples habits or lifestyle, beyond what is easily and directly visible on wikipedia itself.
I believe you meant " _do not_ make available any analysis". :)
Delphine
The aggregation or representation of individual users editing habits such as what time they mostly edit and then overlapping these edits and times with other users is a violation of Toolserver privacy policy wether it is using the API, Database or otherwise because its information that reveals the users lifestyle (the time bit especially) and such information would not normally be so easily available especially if the user has 1000’s of edits.
Whether it is primarily used by SPI or not is irrelevant as at present you have no control over who views that info and for what purpose, you also seem to keep these reports wether the accounts within were socks or not.
I did not contact you directly as possible Privacy violations of any sort is a matter of interest for Toolserver Staff and other Toolserver users who may or may not run similar scripts.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand
User:Promethean @ en_wiki
ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Sent: Friday, 1 April 2011 9:22 PM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Platonides Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
He has not, and the data collected via user-compare is generated solely via data collected from the API and almost exclusively used for SPI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations where gathering and analyzing this data is standard practice. Had I been using non-public data (anything generated from the sql databases that normal users do not have access to) I would agree that there may be privacy issues, however every piece of data that is used for that tool comes from the en.wikipedia.org API.
Betacommand
On 01.04.2011 13:41, Brett Hillebrand wrote:
The aggregation or representation of individual users editing habits such as *what time they mostly edit and then overlapping these edits and times with other users* is a violation of Toolserver privacy policy wether it is using the API, Database or otherwise because its information that reveals the users lifestyle (the time bit especially) and such information would not normally be so easily available especially if the user has 1000’s of edits.
@Brett: Can you please specify what in the reports generated by betacommand you deem probelematic? Is it only the "Normal edit time" bit, or did I miss something?
I think the main feature here is finding the co-authorship sets for two or three users. I think that by itself should generally be fine, though with some effort I could construct some case where it *might* compromise someones privacy...
@John: would it significantly reduce the usefulness of your tool if you removed the "Normal edit time" bit? Also, could you throw away the reports on a regular basis, once they are no longer needed? I think that would already help a bit.
I did not contact you directly as possible Privacy violations of any sort is a matter of interest for Toolserver Staff and other Toolserver users who may or may not run similar scripts.
Well, I'd recommend to talk to the person in question directly as a first option. Seems more friendly than screaming bloody murder right away. On the other hand, if someone is persistently violating policy, talking to the admins is of course the right thing to do.
Regards, Daniel
Yes, In my view the issue is the "Normal edit time" by itself and more so when combined with specific edits so a time and topic range could also be established. Using such information you could say, quite accurately hypothesise what country the person is in and perhaps wether they worked or not among other habits. "Normal Edit Time" is a clear form of profiling as it is *calculated* on a *per user* basis using raw information and is not the raw information itself presented in different ways or with other raw information (Which is what the overlapping of contribution logs is).
The overlapping of contribution logs is relatively harm free as that is a way of looking at raw information that does not summarise, profile or otherwise reveal anything about an individual user not already there in plain text.
Removing the Normal edit time would still allow the tool to be as useful as it is now.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Kinzler [mailto:daniel@brightbyte.de] Sent: Friday, 1 April 2011 10:48 PM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Brett Hillebrand; John Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
On 01.04.2011 13:41, Brett Hillebrand wrote:
The aggregation or representation of individual users editing habits such as *what time they mostly edit and then overlapping these edits and times with other users* is a violation of Toolserver privacy policy wether it is using the API, Database or otherwise because its information that reveals the users lifestyle (the time bit especially) and such information would not normally be so easily available especially if the user has 1000’s of edits.
@Brett: Can you please specify what in the reports generated by betacommand you deem probelematic? Is it only the "Normal edit time" bit, or did I miss something?
I think the main feature here is finding the co-authorship sets for two or three users. I think that by itself should generally be fine, though with some effort I could construct some case where it *might* compromise someones privacy...
@John: would it significantly reduce the usefulness of your tool if you removed the "Normal edit time" bit? Also, could you throw away the reports on a regular basis, once they are no longer needed? I think that would already help a bit.
I did not contact you directly as possible Privacy violations of any sort is a matter of interest for Toolserver Staff and other Toolserver users who may or may not run similar scripts.
Well, I'd recommend to talk to the person in question directly as a first option. Seems more friendly than screaming bloody murder right away. On the other hand, if someone is persistently violating policy, talking to the admins is of course the right thing to do.
Regards, Daniel
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
Removing the Normal edit time would still allow the tool to be as useful as it is now.
A better solution would be to simply limit access to the tool and its data to pre-approved users, if this is allowed by the privacy policy.
- Carl
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
"Tools that allow profiling of individual user's activity (beyond what can easily be achieved directly on the public wiki sites) must only be applied with the respective user's consent (opt-in)."
Well the policy is pretty vague (indeed, you have quoted the whole of it there).
What counts as profiling and what does not? And what "can easily be achieved" using only the wiki?
The editing overlap can be reproduced quite straightforwardly using Special:Contributions and article history pages (or the API), perhaps with the aid of a pencil and paper and the browser's search function for the larger sets. There could be quite a bit of labour in that though. Does that count as "easy"?
On 01.04.2011 14:28, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
"Tools that allow profiling of individual user's activity (beyond what can easily be achieved directly on the public wiki sites) must only be applied with the respective user's consent (opt-in)."
Well the policy is pretty vague (indeed, you have quoted the whole of it there).
yes, it is vagues. because a precise policy would be twenty pages long, and still wouldn't cover all corner cases. So the policy is supposed to give a general idea, any corner cases get decided on a case by case basis.
What counts as profiling and what does not? And what "can easily be achieved" using only the wiki?
The editing overlap can be reproduced quite straightforwardly using Special:Contributions and article history pages (or the API), perhaps with the aid of a pencil and paper and the browser's search function for the larger sets. There could be quite a bit of labour in that though. Does that count as "easy"?
No, that's not "easy". But the result is unlikely to give away much about the user's lifestyle beyond the information which pages they edit. And that information *is* easily available on-site already, we can expect people to expect this. As opposed to plotting the time of day they mostly edit, which isn't that hard to get from the site either, but gives much more (apparent) insight into a person's habits.
-- daniel
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
[...]
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Is this e-mail signature an April 1 joke? I laughed. Well done!
MZMcBride
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=This+message+and+it%27s+attachments+ma y+contain+confidential+information+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:e n-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Actually its one of the most used email disclaimers in the world, especially in business. I use it because it's apparent unlike the majority of your emails, mine actually mean something. I think the shitter just got shat on? *Dances around playing a trumpet*
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of MZMcBride Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 1:39 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
[...]
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information
that
is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission
cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a
result
of e-mail transmission.
Is this e-mail signature an April 1 joke? I laughed. Well done!
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=This+message+and+it%27s+attachments+ma y+contain+confidential+information+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:e n-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Actually its one of the most used email disclaimers in the world, especially in business. I use it because it's apparent unlike the majority of your emails, mine actually mean something. I think the shitter just got shat on? *Dances around playing a trumpet*
This list is public.
Your email is public. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/2011-April/004022.html
Please read your email disclaimer with that in mind, and you might see why MZMcBride laughed.
-- John Vandenberg
*Facepalms*
2011/4/1, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=This+message+and+it%27s+attachments+ma y+contain+confidential+information+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:e n-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Actually its one of the most used email disclaimers in the world, especially in business. I use it because it's apparent unlike the majority of your emails, mine actually mean something. I think the shitter just got shat on? *Dances around playing a trumpet*
This list is public.
Your email is public. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/2011-April/004022.html
Please read your email disclaimer with that in mind, and you might see why MZMcBride laughed.
-- John Vandenberg
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to do I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
Also who here plays Minecraft?
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Huib Laurens Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 1:09 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
*Facepalms*
2011/4/1, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=This+message+and+it%27s+attachments+ma
y+contain+confidential+information+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:e
n-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Actually its one of the most used email disclaimers in the world, especially in business. I use it because it's apparent unlike the majority of your emails, mine actually mean something. I think the shitter just got shat on? *Dances around playing a trumpet*
This list is public.
Your email is public. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/2011-April/004022.html
Please read your email disclaimer with that in mind, and you might see why MZMcBride laughed.
-- John Vandenberg
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to do I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Ive just adjusted the "Normal edit time" which was never really worked correctly anyway in order to salt the actual values to a non-standard format in order to prevent any privacy issue.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Brett Hillebrand < bretthillebrand@internode.on.net> wrote:
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Also I only keep the files about 30 days. (I regularly run a purge script that clears old files)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
Ive just adjusted the "Normal edit time" which was never really worked correctly anyway in order to salt the actual values to a non-standard format in order to prevent any privacy issue.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Brett Hillebrand < bretthillebrand@internode.on.net> wrote:
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that
I
can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
That’s addressed my concerns, though it might be worth disabling Google indexing of that directory if you have not.
EG:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HB2nGi5PQ7IJ:toolserve... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HB2nGi5PQ7IJ:toolserver.org/~betacommand/UserCompare/Carmettu.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand
User:Promethean @ en_wiki
ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
From: John [mailto:phoenixoverride@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:32 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Brett Hillebrand Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Also I only keep the files about 30 days. (I regularly run a purge script that clears old files)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
Ive just adjusted the "Normal edit time" which was never really worked correctly anyway in order to salt the actual values to a non-standard format in order to prevent any privacy issue.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
I would have zero clue how to disable google searching/indexing Im not sure I can do that, it may require a TS root
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Brett Hillebrand < bretthillebrand@internode.on.net> wrote:
That’s addressed my concerns, though it might be worth disabling Google indexing of that directory if you have not.
EG:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HB2nGi5PQ7IJ:toolserve...https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HB2nGi5PQ7IJ:toolserver.org/%7Ebetacommand/UserCompare/Carmettu.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand
User:Promethean @ en_wiki
ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
*From:* John [mailto:phoenixoverride@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:32 AM
*To:* toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Cc:* Brett Hillebrand
*Subject:* Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Also I only keep the files about 30 days. (I regularly run a purge script that clears old files)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
Ive just adjusted the "Normal edit time" which was never really worked correctly anyway in order to salt the actual values to a non-standard format in order to prevent any privacy issue.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Brett Hillebrand < bretthillebrand@internode.on.net> wrote:
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Easiest way is to add
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
To the head in the html of the output files.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand
User:Promethean @ en_wiki
ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
From: John [mailto:phoenixoverride@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:48 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Brett Hillebrand Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
I would have zero clue how to disable google searching/indexing Im not sure I can do that, it may require a TS root
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
That’s addressed my concerns, though it might be worth disabling Google indexing of that directory if you have not.
EG:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HB2nGi5PQ7IJ:toolserve... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HB2nGi5PQ7IJ:toolserver.org/%7Ebetacommand/UserCompare/Carmettu.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand
User:Promethean @ en_wiki
ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
From: John [mailto:phoenixoverride@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:32 AM
To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: Brett Hillebrand
Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Also I only keep the files about 30 days. (I regularly run a purge script that clears old files)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
Ive just adjusted the "Normal edit time" which was never really worked correctly anyway in order to salt the actual values to a non-standard format in order to prevent any privacy issue.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Brett Hillebrand bretthillebrand@internode.on.net wrote:
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that I can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Not to belabor the point, but the obfuscation is fairly transparent. After looking at a few of these pages it's pretty easy to tell that midnight is probably 50 and 12:01am is probably something like 8. And you can get a rough idea of what all the values correspond to from that.
Why not just throw an htaccess file up there to password protect the pages?
Ryan Kaldari
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:00 AM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
Ive just adjusted the "Normal edit time" which was never really worked correctly anyway in order to salt the actual values to a non-standard format in order to prevent any privacy issue.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Brett Hillebrand < bretthillebrand@internode.on.net> wrote:
Nope.avi
Also any further discussion of my disclaimer can be directed to myself and not the Toolserver mailing list to avoid off-topic clutter. I'm sure most sensible people would agree that people getting caught up over a disclaimer is quite frankly, pathetic beyond belief and detracts from the initial (on-topic) thread.
I myself don't intend to participate in this sideshow any further.
Cheers,
Brett Hillebrand User:Promethean @ en_wiki ACC Developer
This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-----Original Message----- From: toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:toolserver-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:13 AM To: toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Privacy Violation?
Brett Hillebrand wrote:
Well aware of that fact, but you seem to operate on the assumption that
I
can and would be arsed removing it just for this mailing list? Obviously common sense isn't so common. But all this detracts from what I actually raised earlier, but if some people have nothing better in their lives to
do
I'm all for a topical discussion about none other than, that's it folks, EMAIL DISCLAIMERS!
No. You should not remove it just for this mailing list. You should remove it for all mailing lists you are in (unless the ml policy is to require disclaimers). That would be the polite thing to do, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
You could instead just output a correlation-factor for the two edittime curves (integrate the product for example). That would reduce the amount visible data drastically, making it very hard to tell anything about the editing habits of each individual. Daniel
It's a 48 point scale with a sliding base value that changes on a daily basis. With enough time and data the base values could be figured out, but for all real purposes it's obviscated. Using a pure time delta would not work, most reports involve three or more accounts and deltas just don't really work for that. As it stands the time values are shifted an unknown value. Any other method would make it either useless or would require a massive rewrite of code
On Friday, April 1, 2011, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
You could instead just output a correlation-factor for the two edittime curves (integrate the product for example). That would reduce the amount visible data drastically, making it very hard to tell anything about the editing habits of each individual. Daniel
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=This+message+and+it%27s+attachments+ma y+contain+confidential+information+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:e n-GB:official&client=firefox-a
From the very first Google search result:
"Email disclaimers are statements you often find appended to the end of an email.[..] What they have in common is that my blood starts boiling at their sight. [..] While these statements have a sane purpose, namely to avoid liability for the content of the emails which you cannot control, it is interesting that so many of them are... well... misguided. The best examples are stating two things. For one, you are bound to certain terms just by having your mail server receive the message. Second, you have violated those terms by having read the message and the disclaimer. Such disclaimers are bad."
emails, mine actually mean something. I think the shitter just got shat on? *Dances around playing a trumpet*
Yeah... a little im- and permature.
Krinkle wrote:
- Automated updates: Since the messages are file-stored in the
messages-directory of the tool. There's no need to keep track or update anything for you.
(...)
-- TranslateWiki
I'm currently in talks with TranslateWiki how to best set up the syncing system. Although initial chat with Nikerabbit didn't bring up any expected problem (as it's fairly similar other projects they translate), it still needs to be set up. I expect to have something going within one or two weeks.
Wouldn't DBA be preferible?
I'm not sure which definition of DBA you're referring to in this context. Can you elaborate ?
I was thinking in using the cdb handler, which is what Wikimedia uses on its LCStore.
Looks promising, maybe just one question...
Krinkle (2011-03-29 02:46):
- Fallback languages: If a message is not found in the current user language, a fallback
will be used. And if that one isn't found English is used.
Do you plan to make the first fallback language set-able by the tool developer? Some tools are for certain wikis (in certain language) and would be best to have the fallback to the language of the wiki the tool was designed for.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but did you thought about bulk updates of the list of messages? The main problem I'd like to address is making a new tool with a lot of new or very specific texts. How would I get them translated quickly just for testing? How would I quickly lunch an application with main users in one language but with bigger perspectives in few months?
BTW. What would be returned if a message is not found? I think a notice should be thrown and the message should be returned as is. Meaning _('Something to be written') would return 'Something to be written'. And the notice probably should be optional (not thrown when testing).
Also I think there has to be some mechanism for overriding some variables. This is done on Wikipedia by changing a message on local MediaWiki page and it doesn't affect other Wikis. Similarly certain tool author could change (should be able to) some message to better suit it's tool while leaving the name unchanged. One should be encouraged to change the translation on TRLwiki or add a new translation, but I think we shouldn't force him to do so.
It was supposed to be one question, but... :-)
Variable replacement ($1, $2, etc.)
$welcome = $I18N->msg('welcomeback', array( 'variables' =>
array( $username, $lastvisit ) ) from [[Toolserver:Mytool-welcomeback]] which contains "Welcome back $1 (last visit: $2)".
I think named variables work much better then those driven by certain order.
For example:
$welcome = $I18N->msg('Welcome back', array('username'=>$username, 'lastvisit'=>$lastvisit)) [[Toolserver:Mytool-Welcome back]] contains: "Welcome back {{username}} (last visit: {{lastvisit}})".
Could be shorter but still usable:
$welcome = $I18N->msg('Welcome back', array('u'=>$username, 'v'=>$lastvisit)) [[Toolserver:Mytool-Welcome back]] contains: "Welcome back %u (last visit: %v)".
Sorry, but one more thing - what about offline (localhost) testing? Will there be a downloadable message file?
Cheers, Nux.
Maciej Jaros wrote:
Looks promising, maybe just one question...
(...)
Cheers, Nux.
I'd love to answer any questions you have, however from your e-mail I conclude that you are a developer yourself. Please refer to the following files in SVN and the documentation.
If your questions / concerns / suggestions still stand, I'm happy to answer hear then of course.
Back-end system: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/tools/ToolserverI18N/
(other than for localhost testing please do not check this repo out to your ts-account, instead php-include the central checkout in the central i18n directory. Otherwise your messages will not be updated.)
Documentation of PHP Class and utility functions: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toolserver_Intuition
Maciej wrote:
Do you plan to make the first fallback language set-able by the tool developer? Some tools are for certain wikis (in certain language) and would be best to have the fallback to the language of the wiki the tool was designed for.
No. Although I will consider this if there are more use-cases, for the scenario you described I believe it would not be desirable if developers set their own fallback order.
If your tool is primarily written for a Hungarian Wikimedia project, make sure your tool messages are available in Hungarian and anyone who has their language preference set to hungarian will see the tool in that language.
The language choice will be remembered by TsIntuition across all tools. So if you visit a tool once and set your language, if you visit a totally different tool the next week it will default to the language you choose the previous week for that other tool (if available), and otherwise it's fallback, and otherwise the system default (English).
Maciej wrote:
I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but did you thought about bulk updates of the list of messages? The main problem I'd like to address is making a new tool with a lot of new or very specific texts. How would I get them translated quickly just for testing? How would I quickly lunch an application with main users in one language but with bigger perspectives in few months?
I think these are separate questions, so I will answer them as such.
As said before, one of the main powers of this tool will be that there is no decentralization of localization. There is 1 place where the i18n system is located which is only updated for one of three reasons: * synchronization update from TranslateWiki * software update my me or someone else on the team (right now just me) * a text-domain ('message group for a tool') is added or removed from the cycle.
BTW. What would be returned if a message is not found? I think a notice should be thrown and the message should be returned as is. Meaning _('Something to be written') would return 'Something to be written'. And the notice probably should be optional (not thrown when testing).
In default mode inexistent messages will return [keyname].
So $I18N->msg('blabla') (or _('blabla') ) will return the "[blabla]" string. The reason for the brackets is because this should never happen in practice and indicates an important error.
It should never happen in production for two reasons: * The source language (eg. 'en') should have each message defined. if this is not the case, the developer did something wrong. * Other languages may but do not have to have each message defined. Because of the fallback system a message is always found.
I like your idea of the notice. Added it in r85052 [1]. notices are suppressed by default. To show them set 'suppressnotices' to false in the options [2]. See also this demo [3].
Errors (in contrary to notices) are shown by default. If those are set to false the [brackets] will not be shown and the message will be returned exactly as the key with the first letter uppercase [4]. so instead of "[blabla]" it reads "Blabla".
Also I think there has to be some mechanism for overriding some variables. This is done on Wikipedia by changing a message on local MediaWiki page and it doesn't affect other Wikis. Similarly certain tool author could change (should be able to) some message to better suit it's tool while leaving the name unchanged. One should be encouraged to change the translation on TRLwiki or add a new translation, but I think we shouldn't force him to do so.
I presume you mean 'messages' by 'variables'. Please note that the perspective is very different from that of a wiki. Toolserver users (users that have a toolserver account and can develop tools) are the developers. They define the messages for their tools. Why would you want to override your own messages ?
Although you didn't name it, there are scenarios where you want to quickly modify a message to try something (ie. development and debugging purposes). In that case one can use the setMsg()-method to override a message [5].
I think you may have misunderstood the context or goal of this system a little bit. There is no scenario I can imagine in which a tool author would want to "change a message to better suit it's tool while leaving the name unchanged". He (the tool author, is the person who created those messages in the first place. He can just change the original message if there's something wrong.
Translation goes through TWN (TranslateWiki.net), what other way would you propose ?
Nux wrote:
It was supposed to be one question, but... :-)
Variable replacement ($1, $2, etc.)
$welcome = $I18N->msg('welcomeback', array( 'variables' =>
array( $username, $lastvisit ) ) from [[Toolserver:Mytool-welcomeback]] which contains "Welcome back $1 (last visit: $2)".
I think named variables work much better then those driven by certain order.
For example:
$welcome = $I18N->msg('Welcome back', array('username'=>$username, 'lastvisit'=>$lastvisit)) [[Toolserver:Mytool-Welcome back]] contains: "Welcome back {{username}} (last visit: {{lastvisit}})".
Could be shorter but still usable:
$welcome = $I18N->msg('Welcome back', array('u'=>$username, 'v'=> $lastvisit)) [[Toolserver:Mytool-Welcome back]] contains: "Welcome back %u (last visit: %v)".
Using numbered variables has been the convention for MediaWiki for a long time and translators have gotten used to them. Other then that, they are language independent, easier to parse and require less typing.
It's not a big deal to add named parameters though, however the syntax will be like $username and $v and not {{username}} as those cause unneeded confusion with templates and/or template parameters.
Nux wrote
Sorry, but one more thing - what about offline (localhost) testing? Will there be a downloadable message file?
There already is [0]. If you're outside toolserver scope (ie. localhost) you can use SVN checkout [6] to install it locally. All you have to do is require_once('ToolStart.php'); and you're ready to roll.
Nux wrote
Cheers, Nux.
You're welcome. Thanks for your interest in i18n!
-- Krinkle
[0] http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/tools/ToolserverI18N/ [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/85052 [2] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toolserver_Intuition#construct [3] http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/TsIntuition/sandbox2.php [4] http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/TsIntuition/sandbox3.php [5] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Toolserver_Intuition#setMsg [6] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Svn#Check_out
Krinkle (2011-03-31 01:43):
Maciej wrote:
Do you plan to make the first fallback language set-able by the tool developer? Some tools are for certain wikis (in certain language) and would be best to have the fallback to the language of the wiki the tool was designed for.
No. Although I will consider this if there are more use-cases, for the scenario you described I believe it would not be desirable if developers set their own fallback order.
If your tool is primarily written for a Hungarian Wikimedia project, make sure your tool messages are available in Hungarian and anyone who has their language preference set to hungarian will see the tool in that language.
True, but let's suppose we have a developer that only knows: * Polish (native) * German (de-5) * English (en-2)
Naturally the main person who maintains translations is the developer. And so natural gradation of languages would be pl>de>en. But if that would complicate Tin code too much then I don't think it's that important.
Krinkle (2011-03-31 01:43):
[...] I like your idea of the notice. Added it in r85052 [1]. notices are suppressed by default. To show them set 'suppressnotices' to false in the options [2]. See also this demo [3].
Errors (in contrary to notices) are shown by default. If those are set to false the [brackets] will not be shown and the message will be returned exactly as the key with the first letter uppercase [4]. so instead of "[blabla]" it reads "Blabla".
In wiki you wrote:
* suppresserrors (bool): Allows a tool to suppress errors, which will prevent TsIntuition from showing fatal errors (will also suppress notices) * suppressnotices (bool): Allows a tool to suppress errors, which will prevent TsIntuition from showing notices
I think it should either be the other way around (notices suppressing errors) or I wouldn't call them "fatal". Fatal for me is when an application halts in execution.
If by suppresserrors you mean showing values in braces then I would make errors and notices separate. So it would possible to have notices disables to not clutter the error.log but still be able to quickly see what is still to be translated (is in braces).
Krinkle (2011-03-31 01:43):
Also I think there has to be some mechanism for overriding some variables. This is done on Wikipedia by changing a message on local MediaWiki page and it doesn't affect other Wikis. Similarly certain tool author could change (should be able to) some message to better suit it's tool while leaving the name unchanged. One should be encouraged to change the translation on TRLwiki or add a new translation, but I think we shouldn't force him to do so.
I presume you mean 'messages' by 'variables'. Please note that the perspective is very different from that of a wiki. Toolserver users (users that have a toolserver account and can develop tools) are the developers. They define the messages for their tools. Why would you want to override your own messages ? [...]
Wasn't this suppose to be a system where you have some groups of messages common to many tools of many authors? I thought whole domain idea was about this - one domain for my tool(s) and other domains for other tools and some common domains loaded optionally. For example: * "general" could contain things like "OK", "Cancel", "Close", "Language"... * "namespaces" could contain all namespaces translation * "editcounters" could contain phrases common to counters (e.g. "number of edits", "deleted edits")
Regards, Nux.
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org