On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
Dear all,
Most of you would be aware of some of the discussions that have occurred
around Wikipedia in the Norwegian languages. Since the last round of
discussions on this list, there has been a lot of internal debate, as
well as what seems to be a fairly widely accepted agreement following
voting.
This e-mail intends to, after a brief recap on Norwegian language and
wikipedia issues, take those interested through the latest development
and will stake out the road ahead. It is also intended to inform the
international community about the current agreement on no.wikipedia, so
as to prevent misunderstandings in the future.
Finally, we will mention an unfortunate reaction to the vote by a small
number of users at the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål (no:) wikipedia who want
to disregard the result of the voting and are planning to create a
_third_ Norwegian wikipedia with the sole mission of mixing the contents
of the two current Norwegian versions.
== A short language history of Norway ==
Spoken Norwegian ("norsk") (ISO 639-2 alpha-2 code "no") is in a fairly
unique situation compared to most other languages of the world in that
it has two widely accepted written standards, Bokmål (ISO 639-2 alpha-2
code "nb") and Nynorsk (ISO 639-2 alpha-2 code "nn"). By national
legislation they are both regarded as official written forms of
Norwegian. In addition, many people still make a distinction between
Bokmål and its precursor which still is in use, Riksmål.
Briefly speaking, Bokmål and Riksmål are descendants of the Danish
written language. Until the 1800s, Danish was the only widely used
written language in Norway as a result of four centuries of union with
Denmark. With increasing independence came a wish to norwegianise the
Danish standard, with Knud Knudsen at the forefront for changing parts
of the vocabulary and orthographics. Thus, Riksmål, and later Bokmål,
resulted. These forms together are today probably used by about 90% of
Norway's population, or somewhere around 3,500,000 people.
Parallel to this development, a new written standard was created by Ivar
Aasen. He travelled extensively throughout Norway, and based his new
language, landsmål, on the grammar and vocabulary of dialect samples
from around the country. This was later renamed Nynorsk. Modern Nynorsk
differs significantly from modern Bokmål, and may be linguistically
looked upon as as different (or as similar if you like) as Swedish is to
Danish. For English or Dutch/German speakers, the differences may be
likened to those between (Lowland) Scots and English or Low German and
Dutch. Today it is estimated that about 500,000-600,000 people have
Nynorsk as their first written language.
More information about the Norwegian language history can be found in
English, German, French, Spanish or Portuguese on the website of the
Norwegian Language Council:
http://www.sprakrad.no/templates/Page.aspx?id=653
== A short history of Wikipedia in Norwegian ==
The first Norwegian wikipedia started 26 November 2001 on the subdomain
no.wikipedia.org. As most wikipedias, its contributor and article count
started really picking up around the end of 2003. At the time, it
accepted all written standards of Norwegian, although the amount of
Nynorsk was minimal. There were already several debates about the
feasibilty and appropriateness of keeping the two languages united on
one Wikipedia. On 31 July 2004 a Wikipedia for Nynorsk was created.
The creation of nn:, however, split the community at no: wikipedia. Many
felt that given that Nynorsk now had its own wikipedia, no: should
become a Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia only. Others disapproved and claimed
that there was no need to change and that it should continue its
language policy of accepting all and keep its interwiki link name of
"Norsk".
Nynorsk Wikipedia soon proved a success, as it within the next few
months gathered several people who had felt uncomfortable in the
(mainly) Bokmål environment at no:. The name displayed in interwiki
links became "Norsk (nynorsk)" (languages are not spelt with upper case
in Norwegian). To date it continues to be one of the fastest growing
wikipedias, with a steady article increase, now at over 6000 articles
and >50 editors with more than 10 edits since arrival.
== Votes ==
The issue of no:'s language policy has come up time and again, and a
vote was held in March ([[:no:Wikipedia:Målform]]) as to which policy to
adapt. Independent of the method of the tally (whether or not to include
new contributors etc.) there was a majority for switching to a
Bokmål/Riksmål only language policy (50% for Bokmål/Riksmål, 43.2% for
Bokmål/Riksmål/Nynorsk/Høgnorsk, and 6.8% for the official variants
Bokmål/Nynorsk only).
Following this result, there is now going to be a vote on which
interwiki link name will most appropriately reflect the current language
policy of no:. The result of this vote will most likely be either "Norsk
(bokmål)" or "Norsk (bokmål/riksmål)".
Understandably, there has also been a debate as to whether the subdomain
should change from "no" to "nb", as this is the correct representation
of Bokmål according to ISO 639-2. However, there is some resentment
towards such a move and currently a general acceptance in letting the
Bokmål wikipedia stay at "no". The alternative some have suggested is a
server-side redirect from "no" to "nb", in the same way that "nb" today
is a server-side redirect to the equivalent page on "no".
== Summary of the problem ==
Unfortunately, a small group of users (who all write Bokmål/Riksmål) are
ignoring the results from the vote, and are claiming they want to
re-establish a wikipedia for all written standards of Norwegian. They
claim they have been in touch with people centrally in Wikimedia
(developers? stewards?) and that they have so far received positive
comments. With this email, we would like to state the fact that there
have been no official decisions about creating a third Norwegian
wikipedia containing both Bokmål and Nynorsk, it is merely an unofficial
initiative from a small group of users which started a sign-on list at
[[:no:Bruker:Norsk_Wikipedia]]. A spontaneous list with signatures
against this activity was immediately created at
[[:no:Wikipedia-diskusjon:Fellesnorsk]]. The process of creating a third
Norwegian wikipedia has not gone through a voting process in any of the
two existing Norwegian wikipedias (no: and nn:) and can not be
considered as a decision by the Norwegian Wikipedia community.
We believe the creation of a third wikipedia under the Wikimedia
foundation would have a serious and unfortunate impact on the existing
wikipedias in Norwegian, no: and nn:, and would undermine Wikipedia's
reputation in Norway. This being said, we are all for extensive co-
operation between the four Scandinavian language wikipedias (including
Swedish and Danish), as evident by the recent creation of
[[:meta:Skanwiki]], the Scandinavian meta-pages, and the use of featured
articles from neighbour wikipedias.
== Conclusion ==
Hopefully, this letter will help people better understand the
complicated language situation of the Norwegian Wikipedia community, so
as to give a background on which discussion can take place on this list
in the future, such as the inevitable debate following a possible
request for a re-establishment of the common (and third!) Norwegian
Wikipedia.
>From the community of no.wikipedia.org and nn.wikipedia.org,
Bjarte Sørensen [[:meta:User:BjarteSorensen]] (Administrator/bureaucrat on nn:)
Lars Alvik [[:no:User:Profoss]] (Administrator/bureaucrat on no:)
Øyvind A. Holm [[:no:User:Sunny256]] (Administrator on no:)
Onar Vikingstad [[:no:User:Vikingstad]] (Administrator on no:)
Jon Harald Søby [[:no:User:Jhs]] (Administrator on no:)
Chris Nyborg [[:no:User:Cnyborg]] (Administrator on no:)
Guttorm Flatabø [[:no:User:Dittaeva]] (Administrator on nn:)
Gunleiv Hadland [[:meta:User:Gunnernett]] (Administrator on nn:)
Jarle Fagerheim [[:nn:User:Jarle]] (Administrator on nn:)
Øyvind Jo Heimdal Eik [[:en:User:Pladask]] (Administrator on nn: and no:)
Kristian André Gallis [[:nn:User:Kristaga]]
Vegard Wærp [[:no:User:Vegardw]]
Nina Aldin Thune [[:no:User:Nina]]
Thor-Rune Hansen [[:no:User:ThorRune]]
Claes Tande [[:no:User:Ctande]]
Arnt-Erik Krokaa [[:no:User:AEK]]
Rune Sattler [[:no:User:Shauni]]
Hello everybody,
It's been now some time we are providing actual proof
in support of a petition to close the Moldovan
wikipedia.
However, it is obvious that something is wrong,
because every single message of ours is simply buried
under sequences of messages from Mark Williamson.
Moreover:
- Our messages are sequences of facts that can be
verified by anybody. Proof, in the scientific sense.
- The edits of Mark have the sole goal of
discreditating the opposed camp. No proof, just
"their oppinion is biased, because they
have a hidden agenda". The very definition of FUD.
Under these conditions, nobody says nothing! We are
left here to exchange messages in an uncontrolled
fashion, while the matter is really important.
Where are the decision makers? Isn't there nobody
Yours,
[[:en:Dpotop]], [[:ro:Dpotop]]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello everybody,
Remember, you decided to leave the Moldovan wikipedia freezed, but not completely deleted. Now, its unique contributor [[:en:User:Node_ue]], is back (probably on school holiday), with his anti-Romanian edits. I cite from [[:mo:Wikipedia_talk:Administrator]]:
<i> Please don't write in Romanian here, write Moldovan. Every time you write Romanian on the Moldovan wikipedia, god kills a kitten. </i>
No to mention that he initiated a vote to become again sysop, then tried to falsify the results (because they were not favourable). The current version of the page [[:mo:Wikipedia:Administrator]] is that rigged by Node_ue, but take a look at the history on the vote page [http://mo.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator&oldid=115…], which shows the true result of the vote according to the original rules set by Node_ue.
After this, he managed to invite the entire Russian wikipedia to take position on a language they know nothing about here: [[:meta:Proposals for closing projects]]. Take a look at his post here [[:ru:ÐикипедиÑ:ФоÑÑм/ÐовоÑÑи#Moldovan]], and notice the blatant lie concerning the cyrillic script (whereas the problem is in fact the absence of Moldovan editors).
In the meantime, Node_ue is copying articles from ro.wiki to mo.wiki and pretends they are in a different language.
It must be noted that he is the only one on the entire wikipedia (all wikipedias took together) to pretend speaking a "Moldovan language" different from the Romanian one. Just take a look at [[:en:Category:User mo]], [[:mo:Category:User mo]], [[:ro:Category:User mo]], [[:ru:Category:User mo]].
Moreover he himself places himself at level mo-2. I can assure you this guy isn't able to write correct text in Moldovan. Any native Moldovan can tell you the same (in fact, this is why he keeps copying articles from ro.wiki).
While no native Moldovan editor exists, the Moldovan wikipedia will continue to be a political statement that exacerbates nationalisms from Romania, Russia, and Moldova itself, and a playground for clever and stupid trolls.
It should be closed until a native Moldovan editor requires its re-opening and assumes admin rights.
This argument has already been put forward here [[:meta:Proposals for closing projects#What decision makers need to know]].
Yours sincerely,
[[:en:User:Dpotop]], [[:ro:User:Dpotop]]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:06:22 -0700
From: Stan Shebs
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l]
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <44A2EF4E.1000202(a)apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
>* Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
>
>
Please please please let it be so! After having to mark several
thousand bad uploads for deletion, and realizing it was just a
tiny percentage of the total problem, I'd agree to anything that
would stop the deluge of sh!t.
I think it's hard for people who haven't worked on image cleanup
to realize how much grunt work is created by the hundreds and
sometimes thousands of bad uploads that accumulate each and every day.
Stan
Agreed. Tried it out again, for the first time in months, and it's amazing how many junk images are uploaded.
Nick/Zanimum
---------------------------------
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we
often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe
only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their
talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to
contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact
the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what
the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email
address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for
contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be
able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just
because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact
the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint
photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get
in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year
ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com
In a message dated 6/28/2006 10:13:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
marudubshinki(a)gmail.com writes:
I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of
requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid
evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler.
I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness
w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the
level of vandalism by IPs.
Do you not consider the amount of images deleted because they are
potentially copyright violations harmful?
Danny
Special:Export is now supposed to work even with history from wikipedias
(wiktionaryZ may be apart), but you will need an 'special right' to be able
to import.
"Sabine Cretella" wrote:
>Hi Berto,
>yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in
>a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the
>same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
>Ciao, Sabine
>Berto schrieb:
>> Hi!
>>
>> is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
>> the
>> level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it
>> looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
>>
>> Bèrto
Someone from it.wiki recently asked me where I got a picture of a Beatles single sleeve that I used on scn.wiki. I said I got if from en.wiki. He then responded that in that case it is not covered by Italian law because Italy does not have the fair use provisions found in the USA. He suggested I delete the image from scn.wiki.
I was a bit dumbfounded by this response. For instance:
1. What does Italian law have to do with the Sicilian wikipedia?
2. Why is USA law necesarily valid for the whole of the English language wikipedia?
3. In any event, aren't the servers all in the USA? So what's good for one wiki is surely good for another.
He then told me that the Sicilian wikipedia sat on the Italian servers. Once again I was equally dumbfounded, why? since when? under whose direction? Remember that 90% of the contributions to scn.wiki arrive from sources outside of Italy.
So - can I or can't I have this particular picture of a Beatles single sleeve, considering that it is ok to put up on en.wiki?
pippu d'a
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food
>> for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use
>> the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few
>> of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
>>
>> There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march.
>> *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails.
>> *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
>>
>> There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march.
>> *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails.
>> *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
>>
>> I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based
>> on the numbers.
>
> So about 40% of useful contributions come from users without confirmed
> emails, and we would be throwing them away ?
That's only if you assume that all of these users, who previously
haven't been required to have a confirmed email, would obstinately
refuse to do so once it becomes a requirement for uploading images.
Common sense, and actual experience with the experiment to halt article
creation by unregistered users on the English Wikipedia, suggests that a
great many of those wanting to accomplish a specific task will take the
steps necessary to be allowed to do it.
It might be interesting to have a survey of image uploaders and find out
how many either don't have an email address they can use, or would
refuse to provide it for this purpose. Then we'd have a better idea of
what your 40% number really boils down to. But such a survey would be
most practical for us to conduct...via email.
--Michael Snow