WikiEN-l February 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

184 participants
279 discussions

Re: Counter-Stupidity Unit (was Worst. Userbox. Ever.)
by David Gerard 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

Peter Mackay wrote: > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard >> That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people >> less inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel. >Don't ask people to do this. Tell them. I think that a lot of people who ask >for power shouldn't have it. Where would we be if juries were made up of >those who held their hands up to do it? You underestimate my diplomatic powers when I try. "This user is a _native_ speaker of _Bullshit_." We have ways of *asking nicely*. However, anyone reading this who's been on Wikipedia more than six months and is flabbergasted at the levels of STUPID surrounding the entire {{user pedophile}} incident should consider themselves a hot draft prospect ... - d.

4 3

Coin photos and scans
by Joshua Griisser 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

According to our [[WP:IUP|Image use policy]]: "''According to the image use policy: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing.''" Does this mean that images taken from coin auction catalogs (whether paper or online) could be uploaded under a {{tl|Money-US}} license? As an example of what I'm talking about, see this: [http://www.coinfacts.com/nickels/shield_nickels/1866_nickel_obv.jpg] This and similar images are clearly either scans or straight-on photos, with essentially no creative work involved. Since they are large, high-resolution pictures, they would be very useful on Wikipedia. Can they be used in compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy? - [[User:Crotalus horridus]]

2 1

Sam Korn and Morven have been given the checkuser privilege
by Chris Jenkinson 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

Just to let people know, Sam Korn and Morven, two members of the Arbitration Committee, have just been given the checkuser privilege. More on CheckUser can be found at: --> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser Chris -- Chris Jenkinson chris(a)starglade.org "Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

1 0

add UTC to time
by Dan Jacobson 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

One each page e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_codes we see e.g., "This page was last modified 03:06, 1 February 2006.": Say GMT, UTC, etc., like you do for signatures.

2 1

blocks
by BRIAN ROBERGE 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

I got blocked and I live in an apartment with brother and he is a Wikipedia, but I like to say Wikipedia vandalizer. He is the one who got blocked we just share a computer, so could you guys unblock me please. Thank You. Truly, BDR_23 February 3, 2006 3:52 PM My IP address is 24.118.74.124.

2 1

A novel policy interpretation
by Andrew Gray 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

[[WP:AN]] currently contains this announcement: "The userbox Template:User pedophile [...] is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template [...] Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles." I can just tell this one's going to be a fun argument to watch. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

5 4

use of "vandalism" as a political weapon
by daleyl＠peak.org 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

It seems quite apparent that the charge of "vandalism" is being used as way of imposing ideological conformity. It only takes two "editors" to do this. For instance to call Fidel Castro a mere student "activist", after he had killed several times at the University of Havana, is simply POV. And then to block a person for merely changing "activist" to "lethal activist" is absurd and shows political bias. I suggest that the two editors who did this be demoted or chastized.... A friend of the Jigue

3 2

Discussion of Block against 69.39.68.109 by Hall Monitor
by Alexis Bugnolo 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

Hall Monitor seems to have blocked 69.39.68.109 for 48 hours for a 3RR violation However this IP is used by a good number of Christian Net subscribers, who were not involved. Also it seems that Hall Monitor has not checked back at 69.39.68.109's discussion page to hear his side. As one who accesses the Net through Christian Net and who has been contacted by original the blocked individual, I am requesting this block be removed; as the individual has assured me that he has now read the Wikipedia guidless for edits, and misunderstood the expected and established policy by the board of editors which is overseeing edits, AND WILL not engage in what Wikipedia terms vandalism again. Sincerely in Christ, Br. Alexis Bugnolo --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

3 2

Re: Database locking
by David Gerard 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

Phil Boswell wrote: >IIRC this also happened when SnowSpinner "deprecated" {{if}} by replacing >the functional (but horrible, don't get the idea I fail to agree with that >:-) code with a notice saying that this template had been deprecated and >should be replaced. >I recall reports that it took about 15 minutes to recover, but I can't >remember whether this was for the DB lock, or for all uses to be replaced. I >do know it was surprisingly fast, even for those of us who had been >expressing scepticism that any one template could hold the DB to ransom :-) It should be noted that he did check in #wikimedia-tech first to make sure the devs wouldn't hunt him down and kill him! - d.

1 0

Database locking
by The Cunctator 06 Feb '06

06 Feb '06

On 2/4/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/4/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an > > > > extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of > > > > holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty > > > > entertaining, though. > > > > > > > > > > How long a database lock do you view as acceptable? > > > > I'm not sure what you're talking about -- you're going to have to help me here.. > > It is fairly trivial for an admin to trigger a database lock. Depending > on what they do exactly it could be quite a long one. Can you explain what you mean by "database lock"? Or point me to a reference? I'm happy to RTFM.

4 3

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Older →

Jump to page:

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 February 2006