While I agree with much of David Gerard's reasoning, I am unconvinced
that a one-month hiatus would provide any greater or more meaningful
space for discussion of an alternative than would business-as-usual at
AfD.
I do believe that it would lead to a rash of speedy deletions that lack
sufficient policy basis.
I continue to believe that any discussion of process issues at AfD will
go nowhere until there is greater agreement on what articles we want to
keep and what articles we want to delete. The process discussions are
all polarized by the winners and losers they would create in the
inclusionism vs. deletionism spectrum.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
I would be against this however making it the First in the tab ordering would be great. Tab once and its there and ready to start searching.
~Terry
----------------------------------------
Return-Path: <wikien-l-bounces(a)wikipedia.org> Wed Sep 14 03:07:21 2005
Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org [207.142.131.234] by mail7.webcontrolcenter.com with SMTP;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:07:21 -0700
Received: from zwinger.pmtpa.wmnet (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D64115839C;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.193])
by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CF0115838E
for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:07:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id n15so49316nfc
for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.5.13 with SMTP id h13mr17248nfi;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.1.7 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Delivered-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=DEUWg5dLnPE9dY6CjaDObdqpOnVO4T9uNyPwgMODqt//xWgiztJBSNkGSvCZW9NjZ0St3Lhy6Be8sTO/5/38gtP37VG7YWW0i+2c/d4CJ/wF3DvbyznftCgcl0oYSpSIm7LedpIUL+pyS00p6i7ibunO2B/+NXyAGTFD4mJ3zF4=
Message-ID: <fb7fdd9c050914030717ba762f(a)mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:07:25 +0200
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Site search
In-Reply-To: <98dd099a050913165614fadcdb(a)mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050910143714.D251D1AC5A32(a)mail.wikimedia.org>
<98dd099a050910200233379d14(a)mail.gmail.com>
<cfe1dfe1050911010870013643(a)mail.gmail.com>
<43244EF6.3090709(a)wikia.com>
<49bdc743050911152945f33ece(a)mail.gmail.com>
<fb7fdd9c05091115403cdd6418(a)mail.gmail.com>
<cfe1dfe105091208444b39c6a9(a)mail.gmail.com>
<fb7fdd9c050912103732b813a0(a)mail.gmail.com>
<cfe1dfe105091304425f68e4b8(a)mail.gmail.com>
<98dd099a050913165614fadcdb(a)mail.gmail.com>
Cc:
X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com,
English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
X-SmarterMail-Spam: SPF_None
X-Rcpt-To: <bader(a)tcbader.com>
We also get continued requests, now even through the info-en
mailinglist for the cursor to be automatically put in the search box.
Personally, I don't like it, but maybe it can be made optional?
--Mgm
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
agreed.
----------------------------------------
Return-Path: <wikien-l-bounces(a)wikipedia.org> Wed Sep 14 08:24:01 2005
Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org [207.142.131.234] by mail7.webcontrolcenter.com with SMTP;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:24:01 -0700
Received: from zwinger.pmtpa.wmnet (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBB211583CF;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:24:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hotmail.com (bay107-f23.bay107.hotmail.com [64.4.51.33])
by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9E41158395
for <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:23:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:23:55 -0700
Received: from 64.4.51.220 by by107fd.bay107.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:23:55 GMT
X-Original-To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Delivered-To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <BAY107-F23DBFF942A6682A9A1715DB09F0(a)phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [64.4.51.220]
X-Originating-Email: [jayjg(a)hotmail.com]
X-Sender: jayjg(a)hotmail.com
In-Reply-To: <cfe1dfe105091315414fcf8a29(a)mail.gmail.com>
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why changing the deletion process is a bad idea
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:23:55 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2005 15:23:55.0317 (UTC)
FILETIME=[51E89650:01C5B940]
X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
X-SmarterMail-Spam: SPF_None
X-Rcpt-To: <bader(a)tcbader.com>
>From: Dan Grey
>
>On 13/09/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: But
> > keeping unencyclopedic ones hurts Wikipedia too.
>
>Does it? How?
It reduces the credibility of the project.
Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem overlaps somewhat with the problem of including images in
templates, when those images are not truly free in every sense. For
instance, consider the popular user boxes that are cropping up all over
the place (for some examples, see [[User:NSR/userboxes]]). Many of these
include images that are tagged as fair use.
When images first started being used in templates, the images were all
freely licensed or public domain. Because people editing a template do
not control how other people will use it, I do not think it is
appropriate to add a "fair use" image to any template. Since
legitimately claiming fair use depends on considering the nature of each
use separately, I find it virtually impossible that they could say with
any confidence that all of the resulting uses qualify as fair.
--Michael Snow
That wasn't a cheap shot. Now *this* was a cheap
shot, but I laughed anyway.
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028547.html
It was an honest statement of my opinion, and I don't
know why you seem to have interpreted it as an attack
or an attempt at debate oneupsmanship or whatever. I'm
sorry if you were offended.
I think we can let these rules slide for user pages
because editors contribute to the project and the
project can't exist without their hard work, so we can
allow them little insignificant perks like this. To
tell an editor "you can contribute your hard labor to
this project for free but you can't put up a pic of
your kids unless you release the copyright" strikes me
as - and again, no personal offense intended here - an
incredibly petty act.
I really don't understand how the occasional non-free
userpage pic will clog up anything. Of far more
concern to me is the endless number of "fair use" pics
in articles whose sole fair use justification seems to
be "I want this".
Matt Brown morven at gmail.com:
Who's denying them the permission to put up pictures
of them, their dogs or
their kids? They can make the images PD, Creative
Commons, GFDL ...
But if they want to put up restricted-license images,
that's a step too far,
IMO. Your userpage isn't the same as your personal
homepage, and if you care
so much about those image licenses, keep them there.
Given that unscrupulous mirrors will probably suck up
the whole contents
anyway, it's not smart.
I've put in probably thousands of hours of free labor
too, and I'm sure most
of us have, so that's a cheap shot.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Wow.
Editors put in thousands of free hours of labor here,
I don't think the permission to put up a picture of
their dog or kids is such an outrageous thing to allow
them.
-Gamaliel
Matt Brown morven at gmail.com:
"There has been 'de facto' tolerance of
unfree-with-permission images on user
pages; I think this should go, too. If you're not
comfortable with putting
pictures of yourself, your family, your dog et al.
under GFDL or another
compatible license, don't put them on Wikipedia even
for your userpage.
After all, you could say 'Go to my personal web site
for more info about
me', or something - links are perfectly fine."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I just wanted to compliment the entire wikipedia team on a truly
remarkable contribution to our entire world.
An encyclopedia of this magnitude made free to anyone with internet
access, in multiple languages, is in my opinion the greatest gift of
knowledge ever given to much of the worlds less fortunate.
Thank you very much, I use it all the time, and plan to donate what I
can regularly.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Laventure-Johnston
jbowski(a)gmail.com
Well, think of it like alternate handling. Consider
also the fact that disambiguations (and redirects) are
often anomalies in the encyclopedia model: They arent
entirely encyclopedic (though they are close) nor
Wikipedia pages. Theres the other issue that
disambiguations are in essence "choice redirects", and
have the potential to someday be integrated into
metadata article organization.
In that sense, having Disambiguation sections might be
a hindrance, but its at least more definitive and
organized than hatnotes, which just obstruct from the
article.
SV
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that in case of say for example a
> name disambiguation
> for John Smith. This section would need to be
> duplicated for all
> articles and if edited, again edited on all the
> pages having the dab
> section. Having it seperate makes editing it easier.
> Adding it as a
> transcluded section could perhaps cut on the number
> of clicks someone
> needs to get somewhere, but it's little gain for a
> major change like
> that IMO.
>
> On 9/13/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In some cases, I have used the same disambiguation
> > link at top, only it links to a Disambiguation
> section
> > at bottom, rather than on a separate page. The
> link
> > looks the same. In other cases, where the
> > "disambiguation" is misused for overly specific
> links,
> > I will used the {{fn|1}} footnote tag. Thats for
> > linking to a Notes section, put before External
> links.
> > [[Monica Lewinsky scandal]] now has this, and I
> note
> > that people are using these more consistently.
> > Disambiguation could benefit from the same thing.
> > Whoever said that disambiguations needed to be
> > exclusively pages, and not sections? In cases
> where 98
> > percent of traffic links to a main article, or
> where
> > only one separate entry (which people try to stick
> at
> > the top) a simple disambiguation section seems
> > justified.
> >
> > SV
> >
> > --- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Disambiguations are there to make it easier for
> > > people to find the
> > > article they're looking for and have a similar
> name
> > > to the article
> > > they end up at. Shortening to a regular "For
> other
> > > uses see Foo
> > > (disambiguation)" seems better than hiding them
> at
> > > the bottom, which
> > > defies the entire point of having them.
> > >
> > > Only expand such top dab notices for stuff
> that's
> > > searched for really often.
> > >
> > > --Mgm
> > >
> > > On 9/13/05, steve v <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > There has been a dislikable tendency to use
> large
> > > > notes -- often dealing with superficial
> aspects of
> > > the
> > > > name -- as disambiguation headers.
> > > >
> > > > As a solution, I suggest using the footnote
> tags
> > > > {{fn|1}} (top) {{fnb|1}} (bottom), under a ==
> > > Notes ==
> > > > section, to move such things down as footnotes
> > > rather
> > > > than hatnotes. Hatnotes should be substantial
> and
> > > as
> > > > brief as possible, not links to punk bands, or
> any
> > > > other thing other than disambiguation, or
> exactly
> > > > similar titles.
> > > >
> > > > In some cases, using a Disambiguation section
> > > (after
> > > > links) seems a better compromise than even
> > > creating a
> > > > disambiguation page.
> > > >
> > > > SV
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > > protection around
> > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > >
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:20:12 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why changing the deletion
process is a bad
idea
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<bd4c411e05091308201e654122(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Deleting encyclopedic articles harms the encyclopedia.
Just because a
"consensus" of professional deletionists decide that
some article or
another isn't "notable" doesn't make it
unencyclopedic. See
Snowspinner's post that started this iteration of this
discussion.
Kelly
Then exactly the same applies to deletion of links.
This proves that if there is a well-organised mob
opinion claiming to be a consensus, that a link isn't
notable while an opposing one is, to argue with that
view and reinstate the link for balance's sake is not
"link spam" or a blocking offence. Least of all is it
grounds for an admin-imposed block without any due
processes,followed by a permanent block for the
offence of claiming to have any rights against it.
So Kelly has here proved conclusively that I was
abused, and is proposing that Wiki's functioning
pattern should incorporate that proof.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Dan Grey wrote:
> It's not "wikipolitics". You had made two edits to the Commons beyond
> your user pages before you applied for adminship. Not suprising you
> were turned down, is it?
It's becoming clearer to me that, for better or worse, commons sees
itself as a separate entity that does not have close ties to Wikipedia.
In that light, it is unsuprising that people's history and involvement
at en.Wikipedia, or meta, or on other sister projects isn't much of a
consideration in granting or denial of adminship at commons.
I do want to make it very clear that I'm not bringing this up here on
the mailing list in an effort to try to get adminship for myself on
commons. That is not my goal. My goal, instead, is to address the
much broader matter of coordination and shared trust between projects.
I realize that commons policies are not identical to en. policies, and
that the projects despite their overlap do each have their own
decisionmaking.
On the other hand, I believe that the en admins (and the de and fr
admins, and those of other large wikipedias) are trustworthy,
responsible people who are familiar with wikis and respect the rules.
En (and de and fr) admins, in the course of dealing with vandalism, are
likely to encounter it on commons images. If there is a shared goal
between the projects, and shared trust, there is no reason that I can
see to refrain from granting adminship on some sort of reciprocal
basis.
I don't think that it's fair or appropriate to insist that admins from
these large projects leave a message for someone from commons when they
need to protect an image. They should be empowered to do so themselves.