WP:AN#Accusation_of_breaking_the_revert_rule_against_Sam_Spade
I did not revert three times. Indeed, I was quite careful not to.
Please look into this matter.
Thank you
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
I would like to comment on something RamMan said on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ram-Man#Spambot.
He said
The reason not to make this an official solicitation is because this is a group project and the multi-licensing drive does not represent the desires of every Wikipedian. It also does not strictly have ''anything'' to do with official Wikipedia policy, as the status of Wikipedia will remain unchanged and intact. Now my [[User talk:Jimbo Wales|proposal]] to Jimbo is something that would affect Wikipedia policy and ''would'' be a good candidate for an official solicitation, if it was accepted. Whether or not it is "official", however, is irrelevant in this context because a solicitation would still need to occur to get explicit permission. Multi-licensing is inherently a private issue, not one that Wikipedia needs to be delving its hands into. -- RM
I am troubled by this comment very much, doubly when I perfectly know some users want to change our license.
If you wanted this drive not to affect Wikipedia policy and not to sound official, and to be simply a relicensing of your geographical pages, you should have asked only editors who edited those articles, and you should have asked them to only relicense the geographical articles. As soon as you begin to ask people to relicense ALL their contributions, then it becomes official and it affects all of us and all projects.
I am sure you would agree that it would be damned stupid that the english wikipedia is under one license while all other wikipedias be under another license, because in becoming compatible with wikitravel, you would cause our projects to become non compatible with one another. So, in effect, this is a global issue and you are trying to force all projects to follow what you started, without even involving them. I think this is just incorrect toward other projects.
Even though dual licensing could be a good decision one day, this should be a global discussion.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
Hello,
I want to raise a concern about the potential proliferation of viruses via
Wikipedia. I'm new to the list, so I apologise in advance if this has
already been covered.
The fact that any user can upload practically any content to Wikipedia, via
[[Special:Upload file]] is a potential risk. It is relatively easy to
disguise a hostile executable as a document or other ''encyclopedic''
content. While it is likely to be speedy deleted when eventually caught,
there is a realistic chance that a few people will download it and be
infected. This may potentially be a legal risk to Wikipedia too, if a virus
causes severe damage and some lawyer claims there was "negligence" involved.
An even greater concern to me is the JPEG GDI+ Buffer Overrun exploit
announced by Microsoft on September 14th.(
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-028.mspx ). This
exploit theoretically allows code to be run in various Microsoft products,
including recent unpatched versions of Internet Explorer, ***just by viewing
a malformed JPEG image***. This is a far greater concern, because any anon
can upload a JPEG - perhaps even link it at the main page - and quickly
infect many users. Theoretically.
Water works its ways through any cracks it finds; as Wikipedia grows and
trolls look for new ways to disrupt the community (and a-hole virus authors
look for quick ways to distribute their product), this risk to Wikipedia
will probably increase.
This problem isn't just academic; at [[Vandalism in Progress]] a user
recently reported getting a JPEG GDI+ exploit warning flag from his software
firewall, pointing to a Wikimedia address. Maybe a false alarm, but who
knows?
What do people have to say about this issue? Are my concerns unfounded? (I
want to re-iterate that I'm new to the list, so apologies if this has all
been covered already.)
Best wishes, FP.
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Whether we like it or not, the current license IS
>> gfdl. And changing license under which
>> we offer information should be a global decision,
>> not the decision of one person only.
>On the contrary. Each person's edits belong to them,
>not Wikipedia, so the decision of how to license them
>(in addition to the gfdl license applied on
>submission) is solely theirs.
>Mark
This is true Mark. People can just put their content in dual licensing just as they wish to do. And I absolutely do not imply it is wrong to place it under dual license at all. However, CURRENTLY the FINAL result IS gfdl.
When I read this comment in RamMan proposition :
"Ultimately, if we reach the point where over 95% of copyrightable edits are dual licensed, then there will be the concern of an incompatible Wikipedia forking or the consideration of changing Wikipedia's license, but that is all academic at this point."
I do not read it as so academic.
This discussion is occurring in a user subpage. And only on the english wikipedia.
If we change the license of our articles one day, I wish that this is global decision, not a case by case article decision. And I wish that we do not find ourselves with the english content being in license A, the german content in license B and the japanese content in license C.
Of course, it is very much a private opinion, but I think that just as we use a common software, just as we have a common goal and just as we share a bunch of rules such as the NPOV, it would be nice that we also put our final content under the same license or groups of licences as well.
Consequently, any change in the global licensing scheme should not be made/decided on a user subpage on one of our project. EVEN if this is the larger project and EVEN if RamBot was one of the more active contributor ;-)
-------
As for spamming people, each time I want to have a chance to reach for more people, I go to each project in turn, for each language one after then other, I create manually an account on each of them (or I log in for each of them in turn), then I put my message manually in each of them in turn.
It is a HUGE loss of time. It is quite depressing to have to do such things by hand. I cant criticism him for using his bot to do such a boring thing, but it is unfair that some have those tools while others do not. So, if we use spamming tools, these should be widely accessible.
I do not have time to edit the english wikipedia any more. The last three messages I got over there are spam. RamMan spam and spam for images tagging. Should this proceed in such directions (all personal messages on my talk page being spam messages), I will not go to see my talk page any more. It will be as useless as some of my yahoo boxes. TALK pages are about TALKING. If you want to spam people, create a SPAM box :-)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
I support you there Fennec.
I do not think bots should be used in such a way.
There is another thing bugging me with RamMan drive.
Not only is it asking editors to do dual-licensing on his geographic article, but
it is first asking that editors do it in a more general way.
Whether we like it or not, the current license IS gfdl. And changing license under which
we offer information should be a global decision, not the decision of one person only.
I understand well why RamMan is doing this, but indeed the geographic articles are special
and the relationship/reusability with wikitravel is special as well. But I do think RamMan should only
make a call for THOSE articles, not for the whole wikipedia articles.
Since I am at it, I regularly have editors asking me to fix my image license (I uploaded them before any tagging existed).
While I understand the need to tag images extremely well (I worked on such policy on fr a year ago)
it is bugging me that the spam message proposes me either to tag them gfdl, or to tag them fairuse under the USA law.
I do not think we should encourage tagging with a fairuse mention. And I do not think we should encourage
a tag for a system existing only in US law.
If there were choices to make, could not be the spam propose gfdl and other free licenses ?
Ant
Hello. I'd just like to draw attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ram-Man#Spambota discussion about whether Ram-Man should be permitted to use rambotto send unsolicited bulk messages (soliciting participation in a"dual-licensing drive") to thousands of user-talk pages. The bot iscurrently blocked indefinitely, pending the resolution of this issue.Ram-Man seems to believe that an implicit community consens exists andapproves of his use of the bot in this fashion. Currently, he claimsto have "over 70% support" of users who responded to the message,although I believe this figure to be skewed by the "users whoresponded" part. I therefore would appreciate it if otherwiseuninterested individuals provide Ram-Man with a more concrete measureof the level of community support which exists regarding this message.Others have expressed concerns regarding the precedent which this setsfor distribution of unsolicited user-talk messages, and suggest that amore concrete policy be
formed to deal with this form of userpagespam.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
It looks like the virus warning was a false alarm - see my talk page [[User talk:FirstPrinciples]]. Nevertheless, the event raises very important issues.
Doug [FirstPrinciples]
I recently stumbled across
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_version]],
and ... wow! I've neither knowledge of this dispute nor any great ideas on how
Wikipedia should do arbitration, but I think this 500k page is one of the most
mind-boggling -- and disturbing -- artifacts I've yet come across on Wikipedia
;-)
(Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just needed to voice a "wow".)
--Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Known sent messages haven't come through for a few hours, but there's
nothing in the moderation queue. Let's see if this one gets through ...
(cc'd to a few people - who actually administers the mail server itself?)
- d.