Hello,
I would like to suggest making a mailing list for users running
robots. Would this be possible?
Something like wikibots-l or similar.
Thank you in advance.
--
Palica
http://sk.wikipedia.org/User:Palica
Nezabudni si vziať svoje Wikamíny. / Don't forget to take your
Wikamins today. - Palica
http://sk.wikipedia.org - slobodná encyklopédia, ktorú môže každý
upravovať - AJ TY
Hello
The organisation team will be
Danny
Britty
Datrio
BjarteSorensen
We will also be helped by Tim Starling on the
technical side. Bjarte will be able to assist/control
the technical settings.
Two candidates were not kept (I explain below why,
nothing personal), and Danny suggested that we add to
the team Britty, which I thought was a very good idea.
Upon asking, she accepted.
Why did we keep these names ? (and not others...)
First, I thought a team of 3-4 was a good idea. More
would be harder to organise.
Danny was already the organiser last year, so will
bring the weight of knowledge on top of his own
abilities.
All people kept have been active for several months at
least, so know community dynamics.
All people kept are both active on meta AND on irc,
which unable vivid and immediate discussions.
People chosen represent 4 continents, several
languages and several projects. We hope that this will
further stimulate the idea the project is
international and all languages should get involved on
meta issues.
Britty represents the female touch and her involvement
in translation issues will be most appreciated. Bjarte
is a rather newcomer in the meta team (good to avoid
formation of cabal...and renew blood). Datrio is very
involved in wikinews (and should keep the team aware
all projects are involved :-)).
Here we are !
The new team has already escaped in
#wikimedia-conclave
so I can not tell you more.
We will keep them informed of the last basic
requirements soon.
If there is an opposition to one of those, please
explain why now or keep your words within you forever
;-)
Anthere
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com> wrote:
> My setup:
> 1) I accept cookies and don't delete them so I am almost never logged
> out of Wikipedia.
> 2) Firefox 1.0.x on WinXP.
> 3) *Possibly* it seems to happen more when I make a whole series of
> edits in quick succession, but this could be coincidence.
Same setup I had. I don't remember this ever happening on my Linux box at home.
And this also happened while I was on RC patrol when I opened a whole bunch of
rollbacks in new tabs only to discover that almost all failed (one can't click
the back button to get to the rollback link again at that point).
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Rollback failed
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been
canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and
reload the page you came from, then try again.
--------
This is very annoying. Why did it happen? There isn't a throttle on edits, is
there?
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi folks,
is there any way to retrieve the # of articles in a wikipedia language
with a GET request or something similar?
I know, one can edit an article and put {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} there, make a
preview, and save the value, but it's kinda overkill to automate all
that just to get a number. Is there a simple way to access that number?
Thanks,
Alfio
"Xyz (Logged in)" ... for example on the http://test.leuksman.com
This "(Logged in)" as such makes sense, but not, when it only means
"user has not yet logged-out"
I propose to add a "decay time" let's say in the range of hours, and
when this time has elapsed without the user coming back, the >>display
status<< (Logged in) is dropped in Special:Listusers. Of course, this
shall not mean, that the cookies for "login across sessions" are
invalidated.
T.
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the privacy policy is there for all users, anonymous or
> not. WE do not log what people read. We leave that to our respective
> governments.if they care to. My question is what the added value is to
> adding more cruft to each and every article people read? What is the
> added value? I do not think that adding all kinds of everything to every
> page is a good idea. I prefer a clean crisp look. I prefer that all
> relevant information is readily available from apropriate pages like a
> help page, a user portal..
The point is that many sites *do* track where specific IPs do on their sites.
We need to tell readers that we don't do that - that we respect their privacy.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 25/04/05, Tim Starling <timstarling(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Modified Files:
> Parser.php
> Log Message:
> Cleared $wgLinkHolders after they are used. This fixes bug 1770 and probably improves performance too.
This change has the unfortunate side-effect that one can no longer
replace the link holders from just one part of the page, as this will
cause all the link targets to be effectively thrown away (with some
rather amusing effects).
The only place I know that does this is the hack to make links within
image captions not disappear. This is very hacky at the moment anyway,
as it uses the $wgParser global from Linker.php, but I'm just about
done rewriting that code such that that part (i.e. the parsing part)
will be in Parser.php anyway.
Would it be ugly to add a parameter to switch off this clearing out,
so that that approach could still be used?
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
Hello
On wikipedia [[free content]], there is the following paragraph :
Free content licenses differ from open content licenses in that they
require a "source" copy of the content to be provided. For example, a
free content publisher should make the source document (f.ex. InDesign
or word-processor file) available along with a PDF, which in this case
would be considered the "object" copy of the creative work. Some free
content licenses have stronger requirements. For example, the GNU Free
Documentation License not only requires that a "source" copy of the
content is provided, but that the source copy should be in an
"transparent" format, i.e., in an open format whose specification is
freely available to everybody.
It is my feeling that the following point stating that free content
licenses differ from open content licenses for the reason free content
licenses require a "source" copy of the content, while open content
license do not require such a "source" copy
... is making me feel very unconfortable.
Actually, I thought that open content meant that precisely the "source"
of the content had to be provided, made available for public scrutiny
and to ensure somehow a sort of transparency. In other words, I thought
that an open source stuff, for example code, was basically mostly about
saying "hey, this is how I wrote the software, this is the code used to
make that stuff work, just check it !)
While I thought free content was related to using the content, reusing
it, redistributing it and if desired, modifying it (which requires the
source to be available).
I removed the sentence of the text as I found it not only very
confusing, but strictly speaking wrong in terms of making a difference
between what is free and what is open.
To be fair, reading the whole articles on the matter is a real mess,
because of such confusing sentences. Perhaps you developers can make
sense of it and accept that several definitions are given to the same
terms and that conflicting definitions just results in giving
contradicting differences between 2 terms, but to be fair, these
articles are so confused that they are not far from being useless.
I have been wondering if the problem was not in the definition of the
term "source". Can anyone explain to me what is "source" ????
I tried to discuss it in the article page and I was basically shut down
(sort of "I am right, you are wrong, this article is perfect and you are
the only one with this crazy idea so get out of here - I exaggerate...
but the content is back in, and I still do not get it).
Now, I could obviously just put my hat on all this and consider that
"WHO CARES ABOUT OPEN AND FREE AFTER ALL !"
The problem is that I am spending all my free time on a "free and open"
stuff, and am now wondering if I am working for what I think I am. And
when I present wikipedia, maybe I just say crap entirely on the topic.
Consequently, if some of you could look at the free content article, I
would be delighted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content
There's a way to have single quote character slanted (italic) using only
wiki-sintax?
If I write something as ''A'A'' the "A" charatecters appear slanted, the
quote character (') appears as normal test.
If I write something as '''A'A''' all characters appear bold (as expected).
If I write something as '''''A'A''''' all characters appear bold and
slanted, the quote character (') appears bold, not slanted.