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
So, it seems (if I interpret Jimbo's mail on wikitech and the discussion
here correctly) that most of us would like *some kind* of category
scheme in wikipedia. I do, too! But, we seem to differ on the details
(shocked silence!).
So far, I saw three concepts:
1. Simple categories like "Person", "Event", etc.; about a dozen total.
2. Categories and subcategories, like
"Science/Biology/Biochemistry/Proteomics", which can be "scaled down" to
#1 as well ("Humankind/Person" or something)
3. Complex object structures with machine-readable meta-knowledge
encoded into the articles, which would allow for quite complex
queries/summaries, like "biologists born after 1860".
Pros:
1. Easy to edit (the wiki way!)
2. Still easy to edit, but making wikipedia browseable by category,
fine-tune Recent Changes, etc.
3. Strong improvement in search functions, meta-knowledge available for
data-mining.
Cons:
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
*little* complicated.
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
birth_place='London' death_month=.....>")
For a wikipedia I'd have to write myself, I'd choose #3, but with
respect to the wiki way, #2 seems more likely to achieve consensus (if
there is such a thing;-)
Magnus
Is it just me, or is the server bogged down? 50% of clicks to another
page are
timing out, and the ones that succeed take multiple minutes. Hardly seems
worthwhile trying to edit anything when it's like this. Is the load
coming from
users or wikipedians or what?
Stan
There's a second server joining the first, and Jason would like a naming
scheme for the servers. This is less a technical than an asthetic issue,
so I'm bringing it to the attention of the general list. I like the idea
of naming the servers after famous encyclopedists.
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com>
> (Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>):
>
> You're right, and I retract my suggestion completely if someone comes
> up with something more fun and standards-compliant! :-)
> Famous encyclopedists?
>
> Pliny, Vincent of Beavais, Denis Diderot, Jimbo? (ha ha)
...don't forget Mortimer Adler. Besides, having a server named
mortimer is about as nerdy as it's possible to get.
Hum, I am a bit embarrassed here. But well...
We have a bottle neck problem I fear.
Utilisateur:Alvaro asked to be a sysop on the french
wiki quite a while ago, and nobody spoke against
(indeed, several spoke for him). Then, since this is
asked on our pump, he was first forgot for a while.
Had to kindly ask again.
So I put a message asking for him to be made sysop in
the database on your page Brion, on the english
wikipedia, as well as the metapedia if I remember
well.
He still is not sysop. It is clear it is a pain for
you developpers to do this type of chore; Ed
mentionned it several times. So, we wait, and ask
again, and again.
But, then, isnot there a way for us to make people on
the international wikipedia ourselves ?
Could there be something like a query, which could
allow french sysop to make french user (just an
example of course) a sysop automatically ? Maybe a
list of user could be displayed, and one sysop could
click on the name of one user to make him sysop ? Of
course, it would be absolutely required then than a
log is clearly visible to everyone, to avoid abuse.
Is something like this possible or not ?
Meanwhile, could someone please make Alvaro sysop ?
Also, as Aoineko mentionned previously, the mispelling
page is quite broken, and has never been working well
since we are phase III (31th of october). It was
already reported.
I know you are overbooked. Is there something we can
do (ok, not me, but there are some developpers among
us) to make that work ? Do the other international
wikipedias using accentuated letters do have the
problem as well ?
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
I just double-checked my reference shelf. The field guides (Peterson's
and Audubon Society) capitalize names in running text, but Peterson
also prints names in ALL CAPS both at the head of the entry and on
the pages with the illustrations. It looks more like a design choice than
an editorial one. (I should also admit that I'm skeptical of using, as an
authority on English spelling/capitalization, a volume that consistently
spells "juvenile" "Juvenal".)
The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds lower-cases
species names.
I don't know if this reflects a recent tendency among birders to capitalize
for clarity, or a difference between field guides and references that you're
expected to use at home.
Does anyone have Sibley's? (It's more recent than any of my references,
and I mean to buy it when I can afford to.)
As a side note, I both write and copyedit Wikipedia entries, and wrote the
entry on the red-winged blackbird.
Wikikarma: random copyediting last night.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
Our current way of selectin diffs with (cur) and (last) is quite
confusing and restrictive. Often when listing a page's history, I see a
group of edits from a single user and would like to check the net
effect of that group of edits, but the software doesn't let me do this.
Here's a proposal for an improvement: on the page's history, (cur) and
(last) are junked. Instead, every listed version has two checkboxes in
front of it. To get the diff from version x to version y, you check the
first box in front of x and the second box in front of y, then click on
the diff button.
Only one button can be checked per column. When initially viewing a
page history, the buttons for the two most recent versions are already
checked, so that hitting the diff button immediately will show the
effect of the last edit.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp> wrote:
> Aoi, je ne saurais d�crire la profondeur de perplexit�
> dans laquelle ton message me plonge...
Ben pourquoi ?
Aoineko
ben, parce que tu indiques que ces deux articles sont tr�s neutres, et que quelqu'un doit absolument leur injecter des positions non neutres.Avoue que cela a de quoi laisser perplexe...:-) ne voulais tu pas dire le contraire plutot ? Ou bien est ce de l'humour ? Noir l'humour, forc�ment. :-))) J'ai perdu deux soir�es enti�res sur [[media manipulation]], en raison de l'attitude obstructionniste de little bouda, qui s'est senti oblig� de faire jouer la montre en pr�textant que le contenu de l'article n'avait aucune valeur puisque le nom sous lequel se trouvait le contenu n'�tait pas report� par google. Alors qu'en r�alit�, ses deux uniques probl�mes �tait l'un que l'article initial �gratinait l'amour propre am�ricain (en prenant des exemples sur le mod�le am�ricain - probl�me pouvant facilement et sans douleur �tre r�solu en ajoutant d'autres exemples) et l'autre qu'il s'ennuyait consid�rablement et avait besoin d'une petite confrontation pour se fouetter les sangs. On a peut �tre pas la m�me d�finition du [[boodism]].:-) Au final, l'article r�sultant, quoique issu d'une bataille parfaitement *d�bile* consistant essentiellement � prouver sa capacit� � faire c..... les autres, me semble acceptable en terme de neutralit�. Ceeeeeeeertes, tr�s centr� sur des exemples am�ricano-am�ricains, associ� d'un peu de coups de batte de base ball sur Chirac, mais enfin...au final...il est pas mal. Ce qui est le plus g�nant dans toute l'histoire de cet article est surtout la d�monstration que certains sont incapables de construire par collaboration, mais uniquement par confrontation et attaques personnelles sur les autres.Et qu'�videmment, � Rome, fait comme les romains. ------------- Quand � l'article sur le [[anti-french sentiment in the United States]], je pense que tu voulais dire au contraire, qu'il est un exemple parfait d'article non-neutre, absolumment pas respectueux des diff�rents points de vue sur la question. En quoi tu as *totalement* raison. En fait, j'ai commis une erreur en essayant de l'�diter; j'aurais du au contraire le laisser tel quel, sous cloche de verre, telle la preuve ultime que la neutralit� expos�e sur le fronton est une imposture de la plus belle esp�ce. Mais, non, l'a fallu que j'essaye d'arranger les choses. J'ai vu en repr�sailles certains de mes edits sur d'autres articles r�vert�s (par erreur m'a t-on soutenu), mes commentaires et questions dans la page de discussion supprim�s (accidentellement egalement bien sur). Maintenant, quand je fais des commentaires dans d'autres articles n'ayant aucun rapport avec celui ci, je suis suivie � la trace, et la moindre de mes erreurs est mont�e sur �pingle. Dans cet article, il faut justifier absolumment le moindre petit commentaire concernant la position fran�aise, alors que le reste de l'article ne se prive pas de se contenter de "certains disent", "certains pensent", "certains affirment", "des critiques indiquent" dans le flou artistique le plus total. La position am�ricaine peut se permettre de ne pas avoir � se justifier (normal, tout peut �tre lu dans les nouvelles bien sur) alors qu'�videmment la position fran�aise doit �tre prouv�e point par point. Evidemment une attaque facile est de signaler qu'un fran�ais ne lisant pas la presse am�ricaine ne peut pas �diter un article sur lequel �videmment il n'a pas le recul n�cessaire. Cela s'appelle l'�galit� entre les points de vue. Tu te souviens de ce que disait Coluche "on est tous �gaux, mais certains plus que d'autres". Ou "dans les bus, y a pas de noirs, y a pas de blancs, tout le monde est bleu, alors les bleus clairs devant, les bleus fonc�s derriere." Actuellement, sur la wikipedia anglophone, les fran�ais sont bleu fonc�, c'est tout. Avec un peu de chance, �a finira par passer. Putain de camion. Anth�re
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
It is a pure pipe dream to think that tables are going
to go away because they are so damn useful and
visually appealing to the great majority of our
readers. Heck, we need /more/ not fewer tables because
Wikipedia is filled with tabular/almanac data that
isn't at all well-suited to prose.
Think of how difficult it would be to find the thermal
conductivity of lithium if there wasn't a table with
that information in it. Having this information in a
very predictable place for a themed set of articles is
a very good thing. But it is ugly in the wikicode
code, so;
tarquin wrote:
>One simple option would be to put the code for the
>table on another page, and import it -- much like we
>do with images.
>We could agree on nicer table syntax at a later date
>too.
Which is something I suggested some time ago. A
table:namespace would be most useful here. The outside
border could be clickable so that a user can navigate
to the table namespace page.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I lost track of my WikiKarma somewhere in Death Valley
- I'm sure I had some left.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
It is a pure pipe dream to think that tables are going
to go away because they are so damn useful and
visually appealing to the great majority of our
readers. Heck, we need /more/ not fewer tables because
Wikipedia is filled with tabular/almanac data that
isn't at all well-suited to prose.
Think of how difficult it would be to find the thermal
conductivity of lithium if there wasn't a table with
that information in it. Having this information in a
very predictable place for a themed set of articles is
a very good thing. But it is ugly in the wikicode
code, so;
tarquin wrote:
>One simple option would be to put the code for the
>table on another page, and import it -- much like we
>do with images.
>We could agree on nicer table syntax at a later date
>too.
Which is something I suggested some time ago. A
table:namespace would be most useful here. The outside
border could be clickable so that a user can navigate
to the table namespace page.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I lost track of my WikiKarma somewhere in Death Valley
- I'm sure I had some left.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com