On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:42:13 +0530, Rohan Sharma
<gates.plusplus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On the message-changing: I don't know, I take it this that has not
> been a common issue?
Well, as you said in your original mail, there aren't many places in
the world which *require* anything other than a number of hours. I've
certainly never come across anyone else *mentionning* the
problem/confusion, but it's hard to tell how many people will have
shrugged and assumed it's not possible.
Since it *is* possible, though, and since, according to Tim, you can
enter "1.5", which is still a "number of hours", I'd say it's not
exactly a high priority to change the message.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
Living in one of the two time zones where the time from UTC cannot be
expressed only in hours, I've experienced a minor inconvenience. Is
there any way this problem can be fixed? Or am I just being ignorant?
What is the policy on copyrights that are disputed on suspicion?
Suppose there exists a photograph donated under GFDL and the uploader says
that it was produced by him.
Is the assertion of doubt by a third party _alone_ reason to post this as
a "possible" copyright violation and recommend it for deletion on that
basis?
I'm not talking about the case where circumstantial evidence or other
evidence exists to suggest that the image is a copyright violation. Only
that someone has voiced the possibility that it is one.
> From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
> > a) It's not at all clear to me that http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103
adds
> > much to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Homo_floriensis article
> > b) Even if it does, it's not clear that the Wikinerds link is the best
> > source, or even a particularly good source for that information. It is
not
> > nearly as close to the source, or as authoritative as several of the
other
> > links that are already in the article.
> > c) NSK does have a clear promotional interest in wanting to build up his
> > site.
>
> I have no hesitation in reverting this variety of edit as spam, and usually
> in blocking the IP if it's an anon. I fully expect to continue as well.
> Because it is spam.
>
> If it's not one of *the* *best* possible links the article could have, and
> it's not a reference used in the article, there's no reason for it to be
> there. Hence the frequent edit summary "Wikipedia is not dMoz". (Or Wikia.)
Well, sure.
I said it was borderline, I said it was skating on thin ice, and I said that
NSK shouldn't be surprised if people removed his links.
If I found one of his links on a page that's on my watchlist and that I
specially care about, I'd click on the link and read the page it linked to.
If it struck me as pure spam, I'd probably delete it. But if it struck me as
being egg bacon spam and sausage, I might figure "that's not got much spam"
and leave it in.
The actual Homo floriensis link under discussion struck me as being more like
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam.
It is, of course, very easy for NSK to avoid the issue altogether, and he
doesn't need to "leave Wikipedia" to do it.
Looks like a borderline case to me, because
a) It's not at all clear to me that http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103 adds
much to the http://en.wikipedia.org/Homo_floriensis article
b) Even if it does, it's not clear that the Wikinerds link is the best
source, or even a particularly good source for that information. It is not
nearly as close to the source, or as authoritative as several of the other
links that are already in the article.
c) NSK does have a clear promotional interest in wanting to build up his
site.
There is such a thing outright gross spamming. I don't think NSK is doing
this. In the email world, outright gross spammers are the people who simply
pump the stuff out in bulk, more or less acknowledge that it's spam, hang
tough, and just defy anyone to stop them. In Wikipedia, it is people who
systematically add links as fast they can type (or as fast a Wikipedia's
servers can accept them!) There was (for example) a used bookstore site that
was planting literally scores of links to the site, one in every article
about an author whose books they carried.
NSK isn't doing anything like this.
On the other hand, my perception is that he _is_ seeking to find ways in
which he can simultaneously help Wikipedia _and also_ promote his site as a
byproduct.
This is skating on thin ice, and NSK should know it.
There's a wide variation in peoples' attitude toward and trigger-happiness
with things that are perceived as spam. NSK should not be surprised that some
editors are going to delete this kind of link, with varying degrees of
politeness.
I don't think there's any need for NSK to "leave Wikipedia" but I don't think
he should be too surprised or indignant if links of this kind are removed. A
reasonable reaction would be for him to exercise more restraint in adding
them, and adding them only when it is clearer that the Wikinerds link
_really_ is valuable. NSK should keep the frequently low. Add a note on the
talk page justifying the link, because some people will tend to be trigger-
happy on anything that looks spammish, even if it really isn't. And if the
links get deleted as spam, shrug it off.
I'm trying to set up our MediaWiki site to use clean URLs and have
run into a snag. My pages take a long time to load and kick out a
couple of error messages that say "too many HTTP redirects" for the
following URLs:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/-?action=raw&ctype=text%2Fcss&smaxage=18000&maxa…http://www.sourcewatch.org/-?action=raw&ctype=text%2Fjavascript&smaxage=180…
It appears that these URLs are being generated somehow by the lines
in xhtml_slim.pt which read as follows:
<script type="text/javascript" tal:attributes="src jsvarurl"></script>
and:
<style tal:condition="usercss" type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/
${usercss} /*]]>*/</style> <script tal:condition="userjs"
type="text/javascript" tal:attributes="src userjs"></script><script
tal:condition="userjsprev"
type="text/javascript">/*<![CDATA[*/${userjsprev}/*]]>*/</script>
When I delete these lines, the error messages stop.
I've reviewed the MediaWiki page on rewrite rules and am wondering if
my problem has to do with the ampescape patch that it says is needed
for Apache. I haven't tried installing the patch and don't know if
I'll be able to. (The patch says it's for Apache 1.3.26, whereas I
have 1.3.29. Also, I don't know if my web host will agree to install
the patch.)
I'm guessing that if I can't patch Apache, I can get away with
deleting the lines above from xhtml_slim.pt, and everything will work
except that (1) users won't be able to customize their javascript and
css, and (2) ampersands won't work in page titles. Is this correct?
The current rewrite rules in my .htaccess file are as follows:
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/(stylesheets|images)/
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/(redirect|texvc|index).php
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/error/(40(1|3|4)|500).html
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/favicon.ico
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/robots.txt
# Rewrite http://www.sourcewatch.org/article properly
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /index.php?title=$1 [L,QSA]
Can someone tell me what I need to do?
Regards,
Sheldon Rampton
Could some people please take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paulokalik.jpg ? The contributor has, at
the least, a highly eccentric understanding of crown copyright, and rebuffs
any attempts to persuade him/her thereof.
Thanks,
Matt (Montrealais)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 12/28/2004
Now I know I'm biased against Slashdot but what is the point in comparing
ourselves against them when the unavailable message is shown (a link to
Alexa.com compares our web traffic)? Would it not be possible to link to
something more appropriate? We demolish Britannica.com (though would they
complain about the comparison) and Apple.com and IBM.com are both
interesting.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 10/01/2005
Wikipedia doesn't have a clear policy on the proper response to legal
threats. According to [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]], legal threats
against Wikipedia by editors are a violation of policy, but there does
not seem to be consensus to block or ban users who engage in this
practice. Nevertheless, many admins do routinely block people for
making legal threats. I don't believe these blocks are justified by
policy. Whether or not you believe blocking should be allowed, the
policy is currently inconclusive. Maybe someone could clarify this, or
if necessary, we could have a vote about it. Cross-posted to [[Village
Pump (policy)]].
Rhobite
Could anyone record this segment, even if only by holding a microphone upto the speakers?
Nick Moreau, "Zanimum"
Replied to:
You can hear it on "Listen again" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?morning# until tomorrow's show goes up -- click the +15 minutes button three times as soon as the programme begins, and you'll be right in the middle of the quote.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
