WikiEN-l December 2002

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

38 participants
107 discussions

Start a nNew thread

sysop
by Oliver Brown 09 May '03

09 May '03

I would like to be a sysop to assist in the general maintenance and welfare of wikipedia. Sincerely, Oliver King Turtle

4 3

May I be a sysop, please?
by Sheldon Rampton 01 Jan '03

01 Jan '03

Hi there...Sheldon Rampton here. I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia, but I'd like permission to be a sysop anyway. I am making this request because I am in the process of creating my own separate project, a "Disinfopedia" that will be modeled after Wikipedia. In addition to the Wikipedia software, I would also like to use or adapt a number of protected pages (e.g., guidelines on how to create an article). I am not planning to make any changes to those pages as they exist in Wikipedia, but in order to cut-and-paste the information into my own project, I will need sysop status. If you need any further information about my bona fides, I am the editor and webmaster for PR Watch (www.prwatch.org). Thanks! -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts --------------------------------

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Shared resources
by Alexander Stephen Bradbury 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

Eclectiology, I don't know if you know about this project, but archive.org keeps snapshots of websites, like a library for the internet. There was an interesting interview with the inventor in the New Scientist a little while back (It's probably available online if you look for it). ASB [[User:Smelialichu]] Eclctiology said: >>Along the same line, I've often found interesting web sites which I've bookmarked for later reference when I can focus my attention on the subject matter. Several months later when I'm ready ... poof! it's gone. Some of these have useful information, and it's a shame that it becomes lost because somebody didn't pay his ISP bill. These sites are covered by copyright, so for the most part we just can't copy the material onto Wikipedia and make it available to the public. Still it could be in the public interest to copy material from threatened sites into a restricted access file where it could be revived if and when the original site could no longer be maintained. It would be a lot easier to come to a conditional release agreement while the site is still functioning than after it has gone under.<< -- <signature> There are only 10 types of people in this world; Those that know binary...and those that don't </signature>

3 2

Re: Make summaries mandatory
by Daniel Mayer 31 Dec '02

31 Dec '02

>What about requiring an edit summary >for major edits, and not requiring >one if the minor edit box is checked? > >Danny Unless there is a byte counter married with the diff that would only encourage people to mark moderate and major edits as minor. Vera Cruz already marks all edits as minor and this is *VERY* annoying. --Daniel Mayer (aka mav) WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today? http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cartography&diff=0&oldid=540169 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

6 6

Addition of just external link pages
by Magnus Manske 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

24.189.173.175 <http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24…>(among making contributions to many articles) keeps adding new "articles" that consist of nothing but "External link" and a link to some website. IMHO these are *not* articles, not even stubs. Therefore, I just deleted 3 or 4 of them. Just letting you know. Magnus

2 1

Remarks about Danny's odd comments
by Robert 30 Dec '02

30 Dec '02

This is in regards to the article on "Israelites". Danny writes "I don't frequently post on this list, but I do read it and have been following the discussions taking place here. I am on the verge of getting into a major flame war with RK. Rather than do that, I have decided to follow Ed's example and leave Wikipedia for a while." I am puzzled and astonished to read this. The flame war is coming from Danny alone. I have been trying to talk to him and work with him, but Danny refuses to talkm literally. I have tried to make peace with him, and have repeatedly requested that he contribute to the article, instead of making personal attacks. I have added new material, and explicitly asked Danny to comment on this material, and offer any constructive criticism he would like to. But Danny refuses to contribute to any articles, and simply writes ad homenin attacks. For whatever reason, Danny simply fills the Talk pages with implications that I am ignorant, he attacks the beliefs of mainstream scholars, he refuses to clarify his statements, and he makes unilateral deletions without explaining what the problem is. Worse, he also now claims that he, and apparently he alone, has the right to decite what is NPOV, and has repeatedly implied that the views of any scholar other than him are not worth describing in the article And all this is despite my repeated requests for conversation and discussion. These remarks are still on the Talk page in the Israelite article. Frankly, I am terribly confused. These recent actions by Danny are not like him at all, and until two days ago we had a good relationship! But after he saw just one sentence he disapproved of (I said that Jews are descendents of the Israelite tribe of Judah, and refugees from some of the other tribes.) he begain fixated on some imaginary claims that have to with "racial purity" or something, and never let go of this idea. Danny then refused to speak to anyone about the issue, and simply implied that Jews were lying about their heritage. Since this particular Biblical minimalist position is used on the Internet by anti-Semitic groups on a daly basis, I was extremely concerned, and I told him so. NO ONE ACCUSED HIM of being an anti-Semited. Rather, I asked him to clarify precisely what he meant. Yet instead of writing clarifications, he made personal attacks. (In later days he did make some clarifications, but he still refuses to bring forth any sources at all to back up his position.) Ironically, the ONLY person on Wikipedia in recent days to offer any support for Danny's claims has been ME. I went out of my way to add material, in the article on the "History of ancient Israel and Judah", on both Biblical minimalism and Biblical maximalism, with sources, bibliography and weblinks. Danny, mysteriously, refuses to give any support for his own position. Danny's most recent remarks about me are, to put it charitably, incomprehensible. He attacked me by claiming that I was writing nonsense, that literally every proposed addition I had offered was wrong...and then he admits that almost every proposed change I made was, in fact, correct! He then concludes that I am totally wrong. In a word, "Huh?". He has continually attacked me for beliefs that I don't have, and keeps imagining that someone is trying to prove that Jewish people are some sort of "racially pure" group, whatever that means. Yet no one is making such a claim. And its not just my point of view; other people have joined in on the Talk pages, trying to explain this to Danny, but he insists that his mis-reading of the material is correct. I went through his comments one at a time, and explained to him that he was attributing many beliefs to me that I don't have, and that he was attacking claims that I was not making. Further, I explained that some of his beliefs I actually agreed with! Yet all he gave in return was silence. All of this disturbs me greatly, as this is not like Danny at all. I just can't explain why he refuses to talk, why he refuses to explain his position, why he refuses to back up his own position, or why he is making up all sorts of attacks on non-existent beliefs, and attacking me personally. This is not right, folks. This is justplain wrong. Robert (RK) ===== "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous". The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815] __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

13 23

Wikipedia:Shared resources
by erik_moeller＠gmx.de 29 Dec '02

29 Dec '02

Expanding an idea by fonzy, I have created a skeleton for Wikipedians to organize the sharing of information from proprietary resources. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AShared_resources The current text that is there: This page is a reference for Wikipedians in need of certain proprietary information resources (encyclopedias, CD-ROM archives, expensive books etc.). The page has a section of resources that are offered and one of resources that are wanted. These sections are separated into subsections for specific resource types. Feel free to offer any type of resource, but please understand that this page is not intended to facilitate copyright violation -- "shared resource" implies that you are willing to make use of that resource for someone else, in your own time. Please provide as much detail as possible about: * version of the resource * storage form of the resource (paper, CD-ROM, online archive etc.) It is assumed that these resources are available to you for free or that you are willing to cover any costs. Users should note that these shared usage offers, unless otherwise noted, are only valid for Wikipedia purposes. Please add your own resources in the appropriate section. .. some content follows .. Regards, Erik

2 1

Re: Proposal: make summary mandatory
by Daniel Mayer 28 Dec '02

28 Dec '02

On Thursday 26 December 2002 04:00 am, Tom Parmenter wrote: > Rule or no rule, an empty summary field is bad manners. > > You can always cut and paste something from your change. The > statement that writing a summary can be more onerous than making the > change is ludicrous. > > Tom Parmenter > Ortolan88 Not when fixing formatting. Having to fill-in an edit summary would significantly slow me down so I definitely would object to having to perform the needless keystrokes for these mundane changes. However, when I do make an edit worth documenting I do so nearly every time and if anything I over document. This should stay a 'rule to consider' for at least logged-in users. It would be OK by me if this was a requirement for non-logged-in users (along with taking-away their ability to mark edits as minor). Anything to slow the rate of useless experiment page creation AND give non-logged-in users another reason to log-in or at least use the preview function is a good thing. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) WikiKarma payment. Have you had your Wiki today? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Ritts (new)

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proposal: make summary mandatory
by daniwo59＠aol.com 28 Dec '02

28 Dec '02

What about requiring an edit summary for major edits, and not requiring one if the minor edit box is checked? Danny

3 2

RE: [WikiEN-l] My proposal
by Poor, Edmund W 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

The software is already set up for Jimbo's proposal (all we have to do is turn on one setting). Oh, and give the admin password to everyone on the moderator team. When you log in as a mailing list admin, you'll find a list of "posts awaiting administrator approval". You may browse through the posts in any order you choose. When viewing a particular post, you have the following choices: * approve it (software sends it out and takes it off the queue) * leave it in the queue (someone else will deal with it) * reject it -- for Jimbo's use only (software provides a nice big text box for comments!) Ed Poor wikiEN-l Administrator

10 17

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2002