Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>That seems to be a growing consensus. The remaining questions,
>then, are the exact details. Exactly which characters do we want
>to consider "punctuation", and under what circumstances? My
>suggestion is this: After parsing URLs the way it does now, if the
>URL ends with one, and exactly one, of the characters period, comma,
>question mark, or exclamation; then remove that character and
>assume it punctuates the sentence. Otherwise, leave the URL alone.
There's also the endings ".)", "?)", "!)", and "...".
Getting too complicated? I agree.
So the rule should be a string of *any* length at the end of a URL
consisting of characters that (should shouldn't be hard to determine)
aren't commonly used to end a URL.
Annoying if you want to site <http://www.com/page.html?secretcode=*%.)?!@>?
Yes, but that's going to be an extremely rare occurrence,
and anybody that does that will know that they have a weird little URL
and will check the <Preview> if they're not a fool.
In contrast, everybody and their mother is going to write
"(For more information, see http://www.com/moreinfo.html.)",
at least while they're newbies.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
Brion VIBBER wrote:
>Which reminds me: do we still want to restore the edit histories from
>the usemod wiki days?
*I* certainly do, if possible.
In fact, I'd always assumed that they weren't restored in March
only because it was *not* possible, so I never brought it up.
I actually think that it should be a very high priority.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
Lars Aronsson wrote:
>We could learn a lot from the experience of traditional encyclopedia
>editors over the last few centuries, but very few of us would take the
>time to do so. I've read a biography of Denis Diderot, and "The
>Professor and the Madman", and have a small collection of old (Swedish)
>encyclopedia and dictionaries, but that's about all. One conclusion that
>I've drawn is that they all used to borrow facts and ideas from each
>other, without too much worry for copyright infringement.
That may be because one can't copyright facts and ideas.
I notice that we keep copying public domain text from 1911,
which is usually so out of date that it must be completely rewritten.
This is a waste of time, and makes our own articles wrong.
We should look at the 2002 encyclopaedia and completely rewrite *that*.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
(re-sent with the attachement in place)
--------------------------------------------
Dear all,
This is another hack-up of the Cologne Blue style, mostly using the
user-selected font.
This now uses CSS rather than tables (except for the table at the top).
Disclaimers:
* It does not yet have the final link layout, or any working links.
* Not all links are present.
* It probably does not validate yet, or work in older browsers which are
not CSS-aware.
I am purely tweaking this for gross graphical layout, and seeing if the
"ergonomic" sidebar is too big.
Please let me know if this continues to look clean and nice, and whether
something like this would be a good idea as a default skin, as and when
it is completely debugged and cleaned-up.
Neil
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I like it just fine, since we've lost that function where I could for instance hover over [[Koyaanis Qatsi]] in the Recent Changes page and see what his IP was. So if someone has to log in to upload, that prevents us from blocking the person if s/he decides to start uploading copyrighted, irrelevant, or otherwise objectionable stuff.
kq
You Wrote:
>I have mixed feelings about this -- what does everyone else think?
>
>--mav
I wrote the following bug report, and got the accompanying response:
<<Bugs item #584421, was opened at 2002-07-21 01:20
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=584421&group_i…
Category: Special pages
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Rejected
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Zoe C (zoec)
Assigned to: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker)
Summary: Recent Changes for (x) days
Initial Comment:
When I request Recent Changes for (x) days, I can't
get past "diff) (hist) . . Theophylline; 23:38 . . Kpjas
(more) ", no matter how many days back I ask.
If I ask for 500 Recent Changes, it goes beyond this
point with no problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker)
Date: 2002-07-23 21:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=3076
This was a problem only on the test server, after restoring
from an old database dump.>>
But the response isn't true. I still can't get "view the last (x) days" to work.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
Opps! I missed the "Assigned To" part before "Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker)"
and totally missed the "Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)" part.
Grumble, grumble.... I wouldn't have spent on hour on my previous message if
I had known it wasn't from LDC (I /knew/ the comment sounded out of
character). Since it has been mentioned, this topic should be discussed
anyway though.
--mav
Hum, I just had an idea that may just satisfy everyone --- why not have
something like the warn function of AIM? Then anybody, including sysops,
could be blocked for an hour if they are warned enough by enough users.
I would suggest that warning users should be limited to 'old/trusted hand' or
greater status users (for policy learning curve issues).
--mav
LDC wrote on sourceforge:
>After having my user: page vandalized repeatedly today,
>I'm convinced that user pages should only be editable by
>the logged on user. Furthor, there should be a submit
>form to submit IP addresses of users who abuse the
>system. Perhaps with a "1 hour suspension" which
>takes effect immediately so that an admin has time to
>investigate and take permanant action.
I'm ambivalent about whether or not user: should only be editable by
logged-in users and would oppose this only if it were difficult to implement
or could break anything (there are /far/ more important things to do). But
really, this is kinda anti-wiki, no? As it is me thinks too many pages are
not editable by too many people. I know, I know, this is done for practical
reasons but I suggest we re-implement something like "trusted user"status on
a 30 day/30 edit (or whatever) basis so that 'old hands' could edit protected
pages, move articles and their histories and do any other non-meta sysop
functions.
I see no need to block users like Zoe or Jheijmans or Enchanter etc. from
editing the Main Page, copyediting and condensing policy pages (which is
/badly/ needed for some of them BTW) or administratively moving articles.
These users and many others have more than enough experience with our
policies, naming conventions and such to be trusted to do semi-sensitive work
like that. Heck, Zoe and Jheijmans already meet the requirements for being
sysops; they are trusted members of the community, and they contribute to
policy discussion (although trusted, I don't remember Enchanter contributing
to this list on a regular basis -- I may be wrong...).
However, we should be careful to not have many scores of sysop accounts --
there simply would be too much potential for random internet thugs coming in
and guessing some ancient, no longer contributing sysop's password and really
doing some harm. BTW, the contributor status of sysops should be checked once
in a while anyway and those that have not contributed in some time (more than
x months) should be non-punitively demoted to user and a note placed on their
page telling them to ask another sysop or better yet the list to re-promote
them after/if they return.
Furthermore, non logged-in users contribute a hell of a lot to the project
and I don't fault them for being anonymous (its their /right/). Why single
them out by allowing /any/ logged-in user the ability to block them for any
period of time (even totally green users that set-up their accounts 5 minutes
before)? I forsee much abuse with that feature. In addition, I constantly
read comments on talk pages of logged-in users chiding non-logged-in users to
"sign-up" in a tone that implies that it is some type of sin not to be
signed-up!
Yes I am probably guilty of this too but only with those that were majorly
annoying me and chatting a lot on talk pages (hopefully this is all in my
past now). BTW, please correct me whenever I am being too harsh on the
'pedia.
I reserve that right here though :->
--mav
The guy attacking [[User:Rlee0001]] is back with a new IP.
I blocked it (see [[Special:Blockedips]], but I'm new at this sort of thing,
so if there's anything that I should know when I become part of a cabal --
like how to figure out if an IP is dynamic and when to unblock it? --
then somebody should tell me.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>