Straight from the horse's mouth. Not that Mr. Vibber is a horse.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Foundation-l] Undelete view changed
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:01:39 -0800
From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org>,
wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
I've changed how the Special:Undelete view works a little bit. The last
page text is no longer displayed above the revisions list; it tended to be
rather annoying for big pages and could make things hard to deal with if the
page had hostile CSS (eg obscuring the buttons).
The revisions also now display the wiki source code by default, making
to examine the code of a deleted page or copy-and-paste if necessary.
preview from there is optional.
Please copy this notification to whereever your wiki's curious sysops may be
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
foundation-l mailing list
> I am requesting that you unblock my account.... that is something you
> cannot do? I am sick of self-righteous power tripping Admins... I am
> neither threatening you are personally attacking you... see the "don't
> be a dick" article on wikipedia, or maybe you are not familiar with
"self-righteous power tripping admins" isn't a personal attack?
> Finally, you say, "generally "we" don't grant..." I am assuming by
> "we" you think that "you" are the entire voting population and elected
> speaking voice of wikipedia???
I was making an observation about the community in general.
> I have neither personally attacked you
> nor do I have a "history of invincibility"... so that comment about
> redeeming myself.... well you know what you can do with it.
I said "incivility", not "invincibility". Thankfully we also provide
Wiktionary so you can look up the meanings of those words.
Quite frankly, I would unblock you, but since you lack the common
courtesy to ask nicely, I don't have to do a goddamned thing for you.
I don't know how they run things at Ellsworth Air Force Base, but at
Wikipedia, bullying and insulting people doesn't get positive results.
Philip L. Welch
Plagiarism does have something to do with the law if it is a breach of
copyright. I assume that the banned editor is hostile, so being
defensive may be prudent.
The key points are that the GDFL allows derivative use of the text
provided it is correctly attributed. The use described is not
derivative and changes the attribution - this contravenes the GDFL.
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:33:52 -0500
>From: Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Plagiarism has nothing to do with law,
>True, but the original poster also claimed it was a copyright issue, which
>would make it something of a legal matter. I simply forgot to completely
>repeat his point.
Today I took the opportunity of an interview on IRC, organised by The
Signpost, to ask Jimbo about userboxes:
:Feb 15 16:53:49 Ral315 Tony_Sidaway asks: "In the past six weeks
the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to
6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to
political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150. Can the problem of
unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?"
:Feb 15 17:11:57 jwales eh
:Feb 15 17:11:59 jwales userboxes
:Feb 15 17:12:00 jwales eh
:Feb 15 17:12:40 jwales I'm looking at the political beliefs one now.
:Feb 15 17:13:50 jwales My only comment on the userbox situation is
that the current situation is not acceptable.
By which I take it that something must change, one way or the other.
Those figures are from the database, by the way. I took measurements
of numbers on January 4 and on February 14. During January,, about
2000 new userboxes were created, but the rate has slowed and now in
the first two weeks of February we have only seen about 600.
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the concept of "grandfathering",
asking people who didn't want to get rid of their userboxes to use the
"subst" command on the templates in their user page. This is good for
the user because, if he really wants to keep the userbox, it protects
him from the effects of deletion and editing. It's also more
wikilike because it gives him the opportunity to alter the text a bit
to say a bit more about his own precise views instead of just some
Well the good news is that someone is going around doing just that.
He follows after template deletions and inserts the code of the
deleted template into user pages. This reduces the backlash effect
and enables really unsuitable templates to become, perhaps acceptable,
items on a userpage, while the template source is delete.
On Feb 16, 2006, at 6:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Although mailing list threads go all over the place, note of a serious
>> problem vandal is probably not the place to go randomly riffing on
>> spurious concerns that would completely invalidate how Wikipedia
>> actually functions; you could at least change the subject line.
>So could you.
*cough* This is what I get for making a pissy email post. My apologies
to Karl and the list.
(I am NOT hairy chested. How dare you.)
[and no, I don't have references: headers again. I'll have to see what
I can do other than turn the firehose of this list upon my gmail
My ip I am afraid to post my ip on the world wide web beacuse of all the craszs My user name UltraBrain The issue Blocked If an adim absoultly needs my ip then I would provide it to them. Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing
You were blocked by Ricky81682
Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "UltraBrain". The reason given for UltraBrain's block is: "recreation of deleted content and vandalism". (see our blocking policy)
The aritcle keept on getting vandilized by just getting deleted. It needs protection. And I should be unblocked. It is only meant to provide knowledge of the subject matter. But it seems that some people are just big babys with power that they should not have.
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
I've seen various vague comments about the search database not being
updated in a while, but what's the story? It's not too good that if
you type in the exact name of an article in the search page, Wikipedia
may fail to find it (as just happened to me with my lovely example
Would it also not be possible to make the behaviour of the search page
the same as the go/search box on the left of the main interface?
If I had a third wish, how about making the namespace checkboxes
display the first time you're taken to the search page, rather than
the second? To search for an object in the user or user talk
namespaces, you have to search for an article which doesn't exist
Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 2/15/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
>> if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
>Why? Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
It's routine with banned editors to revert everything they do - and
many banned editors mix in good edits, and accidentally hitting those
is a common form of collateral damage from cleaning up after a banned
So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the good edits stay in
Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
Karl Krueger wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:29:15PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
>> So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the good edits stay in
>> Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
>> others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
>> good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
>> for others.
>Banned editors are disallowed from editing. However, banned editors
>still hold copyright over their own words. If you revert their good
>contributions and then re-post their own words under your name, you
>might be seen as illicitly taking credit for their work.
In the general case, it's GFDL, it's still in the history, and if what
you said was a serious concern then no-one would ever refactor or
merge an article. In the specific case, if you look you'll see the
edits are minor maintenance edits.
Although mailing list threads go all over the place, note of a serious
problem vandal is probably not the place to go randomly riffing on
spurious concerns that would completely invalidate how Wikipedia
actually functions; you could at least change the subject line.
>Dropping our name so as to imply a more active collaboration than
>downloading a database dump ... that seems slightly questionable
>behaviour. Unless, of course, there was an active collaboration with
Ah, turns out there is!
Brad Fitzgerald wrote:
>They jumped the gun with the release but yes, there is a deal with