text:
Talk:TWiki

Neutrality of the article
(Self-confessed noob here - don't bite me please) Article reads like an advertisement. 7/8ths of the references are from twiki.org/twiki.net. Many edits done by Peter Thoeny who is not neutral, being the creator of the software. I therefore evoked NPOV. I suppose I will follow up with a request for deletion? Help. --dbastien (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that Dougbast (who registered today on Wikipedia) raised the NPOV, I would need to know some specific details why NPOV was raised. I am editing the article more frequently than others, which is the case for many other open source projects listed on Wikipedia as well. I did my best to write the article in a NPOV; if there are any parts that are questionable I (or anobody else) can fix that. Please be specific. I am going to remove the NPOV note in a few days if I do not see specific feedback. -- Peter Thoeny - 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did a fact check: In the last 12 month there have been 10 edits by PeterThoeny and 42 edits by other other people. -- PeterThoeny (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A data point on the references to twiki.org/twiki.net claim: 1. Most references are pointing to technical details for readers who want to learn more. 2. For comparison, the reference list of the MediaWiki article has 14 entries, 11 of which are pointing to mediawiki.org or wikipedia.org. Personally I find this OK. Same standard for all wiki engines? -- Peter Thoeny - 07:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This article may not be the most well written article that I have seen but it certainly does not seem to contravene the NPOV guidelines. I would suggest that the NPOV Dispute banner be removed. ProductBox (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the NPOV article:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."

I fail to find multiple or conflicting perspectives within this topic. The fact that a significant author of an article also happens to be the founder of the project that is the subject of the article does not automatically evoke NPOV issues. The article is informative about Twiki features, etc. but does not appear to be vastly different in this respect than articles for other software projects/products. Thus, I would say this is no more "advertising" than what the accepted standard appears to be.

I removed the POV tag. TRosenbaum (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merged "Projects based on TWiki" and "Projects inspired by TWiki" into "Related software projects" section
Refactoring done without deletion: I merging the "Projects based on TWiki" and "Projects inspired by TWiki" sections into "Related software projects" section. I moved the JosWiki info from the top to the "Related software projects" section. TWiki was a continuation of JosWiki, not a typical fork. TWiki developers sent patches to JosWiki developers and vice versa until the JOS project was abandoned (and with it, JosWiki). If anyone finds this refactoring work objectionable, please discuss here instead of reverting the change. -- PeterThoeny - 05:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly removed important information regarding the FOSWiki fork from this page, and attempted to move any mention of the fork to the appendices - can you please explain why? Most of this information was cited, and related to a major issue in TWiki's history that has a huge impact on its current viability. 121.73.73.40 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The Foswiki mention is present in the appropriate section and there to stay, so that dispute is pretty much over with. Steven Walling 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Marketing
This reads like a marketing page. Where is the information that twiki.net is trying to supress? This article is not really giving a good picture of the overall situation.

--82.95.71.210 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Continual removal of negative information by PeterThoeny
I note that it is extremely perilous to NPOV for criticisms of the project to be edited by a person with a personal fiscal stake in the profit of a private enterprise. PeterThoeny continues to edit this article under guise of statements like "refactoring without deletion" in which the origin of the project "a fork of Joswiki" becomes "a continuation of Joswiki" (thus implying the start of TWiki was all perfume and roses, while the beginning of Foswiki, after Peter's lockout of the people who had built the project, was an ugly fork.   Note that the Foswiki developers have sent patches to TWiki, such as for the recent cross-site scripting vulnerability.  These patches were briefly credited on twiki.org and then references to the Foswiki programmers were removed.  While hiding under the "refactoring" blanket, PeterThoeny has essentially applied public relations balm with every edit and, understanding that he cannot remove critical material, has sought to soften it and move it deep into the appendices. 67.242.45.72 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest of this talk page is also worth a read - most of it relates to this same topic, despite the different headings used. 121.73.73.40 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pivotal events following change in project governance
I believe that the events subsequent to the project's change in governance—the departure of key contributors to create a fork—are a significant development and challenge in the history of the TWiki project and so merit a very brief mention the lead paragraph. Any comments? Isaac Lin (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the change in governance is an important turning point that deserves mention in the lead, and the current version does include it by saying "In October 2008, the company TWiki.net, created by Thoeny, assumed full control over the TWiki project." What's not worth mentioning in the lead (it's in the forks section) is Foswiki. Per the article's AFD it's clear that Foswiki isn't notable. What is notable is the change for TWiki, and that's what is mentioned and sourced. None of the news references are about Foswiki, they're about TWiki's governance. Steven Walling 04:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The change in governance is not particularly notable in itself, except for the fact that it caused a change in the development community. I believe that the challenge TWiki has had to face, which is described in the cited article, is a notable event in the history of the TWiki project. Note that whether or not Foswiki has independent notability is an aside; even without this, Foswiki can be notable within the context of TWiki's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose modifying the last sentence in the lead to mention the events of a fork and change in developer community, as this is what makes the change in governance notable in the life of the project. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per our style guidelines the lead section is for summarizing the contents of the rest of article, and should speak in generalities, not explain detail not present in the rest of the article. I think if you want to expand the forks section to explain more of why Foswiki came about, go ahead. But I think mentioning specific forks is a lean to recent events rather than a strong overview of the entire subject. In other words, it's undue weight. Steven Walling 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not propose mentioning specific forks in the lead, but just that the change in governance led key contributors to create a fork, in order to show the notable consequences of the direction taken by the project. Otherwise, the final sentence seems disconnected, as it does not explain how one company assuming full control of the project is notable. The article already mentions the fork resulting from the organizational change, and so the lead would indeed have information contained in the rest of the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me then. Steven Walling 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of useful media sources for this issue are listed at the bottom of this page. 121.73.73.40 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not in consensus with your proposal and active efforts to sanitize this

page. It presumes erroneously that the brand and the content/work are inseparable. Most of the time there is a clear unity and legal (or at least moral) equivalence between the work and the brand. When a corporation locks people out of hardware it has held in trust and seizes a domain name for its own unilateral use, it forfeits the right to the sort of deference that your proposed lead section would entail. Those responsible for the bulk of the current state of this codebase (I reiterate, the *bulk* of the development) were divorced from credit and their consultancy pages deleted. This is documented by reliable sources. The current state of the TWiki *code* (as opposed to brand) is hybrid, with both branches newsworthy, and notable by virtue of their wide deployment. That Foswiki itself has few reliable sources documenting its notability as a brand (few, certainly not none) does not remove its notability as a codebase attached to the developers that made it and continue to develop it, though I am prepared to admit a minority dissidency but accept a consensus (in the interests of Wikipedia amity) for larger coverage to make coverage of Foswiki as a separate brand moot. But to ignore the current reliable-source documentation of the hostile lockout of the developers of this codebase and the appropriation of their work to a corporate brand is highly NPOV, and both sides of the code development split should be mentioned in the lead. Thus my reversion of your revert, with apologies. 67.242.45.72 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what most of that rant is about, but suffice it to say that Wikipedia isn't here to discern the truth of anything. It's here to report as a third party on what reliable, secondary sources have verified as facts. Foswiki's article was deleted as non-notable for lack of source material, and this article is about TWiki, not the place to continue any debate Foswiki's contributors might be having with TWiki.net. Please take your grievances elsewhere, because Wikipedia is not the place to air them. The lead section of an article is for a summary of the rest of the article's content, not the place to introduce new, unreferenced material that promotes a fork. Steven Walling 00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)ÍÍ

Removal of NPOV flags
Please don't remove the NPOV flags (I noticed this was removed by Steven Walling with no discussion) - as evidenced by this talk page, there's clearly an ongoing dispute. NPOV flags are supposed to remain until this has been resolved. 60.234.45.173 (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless your IP address has changed, I can assume that you're not one of the anonymous users who've been participating in the discussion thus far. NPOV tags exist to denote an article that is currently under discussion, not to be a tool for pushing opinions on to an article. If you'd like to stick around and participate, you're more than welcome. But adding a tag and then doing nothing except talking about others shouldn't remove it is not okay. Steven Walling 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not part of the discussion, but with all due respect removing an NPOV tag without reaching a resolution isn't OK - whether or not I take part is irrelevant. I put the flag back earlier today because you seem to have removed it without any discussion actually taking place - the flag was on the page for less than a day, despite there being a pretty obvious dispute going on in the talk page. As the flag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" - that seems pretty clear to me. 60.234.45.173 (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, tags shouldn't be removed if there's an ongoing dispute...but there was no ongoing debate about NPOV so far as you're concerned. There was a consensus among a couple editors and one IP spamming for Foswiki, and you weren't a part of any discussion. If there was no ongoing discussion, then there was no reason for the banner. Steven Walling 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone pls indicate what precisely the NPOV issue is, maybe we can change the respective statements and bring the article in a better state. NPOV status should trigger improvements, not debates. --Edoe (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm considering TWiki and a few other candidates for an upcoming project. I just came here to read the article, and followed the NPOV tag to this discussion.  From my non-editor's point of view it just wasted my time.  In my opinion there is no ongoing dispute given that no specific POV issues have been identified.  Perhaps Wikipedia has some sort of disclosure or conflict of interest policy that would be relevant here, but NPOV is a non sequitur at this point. 76.247.43.67 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the NPOV flags now, since the dispute above is clearly not continuing. If there's no debate currently, then the banner is inappropriate. Steven Walling 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename article to TWiki and Foswiki
I would like to suggest, that the page should be renamed "TWiki and Foswiki" instead of TWiki alone. Foswiki is where almost all developers went and where all the new programming takes place. The Foswiki-article was recently redirected to this page. That is, why I think, this is right to do. --Kalyxo (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrible idea. Foswiki was deleted and redirected here after a consensus was reached that it's not notable enough to have an article of its own yet. If it wasn't notable enough to have a standalone article, there aren't enough reliable, independent sources to merit dividing the attention of TWiki's article. Clearly Foswiki advocates have spent considerable time and energy trying to promote their project on this article and others, but that doesn't change the fact that their software isn't considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. Steven Walling  20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd point out, with due respect to Steven Walling, that the "consensus" he refers to was reached at the point of a gun, so to speak, with many erudite arguments dismissed by a few Wikipedia deletionists with their grab-bag of catch-phrases ("delete per nom.", etc) which provided no engagement -- nor, one might add, any opportunity for rebuttal. That is no consensus.  But Wikipedia has its procedures -- and thus the opportunity for wikilawyering -- and I think we can all be a bit more patient since apparently some media coverage is in the pipeline.  The migration to Foswiki of some of the largest internal TWiki instances -- Motorola, Yahoo's (in progress, and perhaps the world's second-largest wiki behind Wikipedia) -- would seem, if not to convince deletionists here, to at least invite coverage sufficient to make their arguments more unconvincing than they already are. 67.242.45.72 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think there are enough independent, reliable sources covering Foswiki to merit creating a new article, you can go ahead and do that. But renaming the article it was merged with is not an acceptable way of sidestepping the fact that it was deleted as non-notable, whatever you may think of the consensus among Wikipedians. Steven Walling  00:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read my earlier comment carefully, you see that I propose exactly that out of an abundance of deference. Where I differ with you is in two areas.  The minor point is that you imply that I and numerous others are not Wikipedians.  We may not have your administrative privilege, but there is abundant disagreement with your interpretation (and thus claim of consensus) here and on the deletion pages.  Please give us the respect of acknowledging this voice by not claiming false consensus where it does not exist.  The larger point is that the Foswiki programmers, codebase, and project do not exist in isolation:  they were forced from a name by a trademark claim.  Many articles exist celebrating and noting the contributions under the previous name.  Please inspect the talk page of the Wireshark project, which forked in May 2006 because of a fairly similar trademark issue (the manner of the fork was somewhat different).  Wikipedia covered Ethereal, the fork, as a notable project immediately and in fact as development essentially ceased under the previous name, within a year it was redirected to Wireshark.  The circumstances are different here.  Instead of all developers moving, 16 of 18 did.  Instead of all development changing over, 90% of it did.   I'm curious how you would reconcile the Wikipedia discussions over Wireshark (which were numerous, but in which notability was *never* mentioned) with the Foswiki issue, in which a primary significant difference would seem to be the presence of the trademark owner loudly arguing the issue against notability of the project where the programmers reassembled after their eviction.    67.242.45.72 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Foswiki is already relevant, it has more developers, deploys and it had many versions published since it was created. One of the best references for wikis is the http://www.wikimatrix.org and foswiki has an article there since the fork. If you look on their statistics page you will see that it is the 7th most viewed (out of 146). I don't see any reason to not have an article on its own. +1 to create the foswiki page and let both communities follow there own path Jonas Fagundes (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that at the deletion discussion and deletion review for the Foswiki article the notability of Foswiki under its new name could not be established. We have no process for dealing with forks in which only one side retains the old name, and the impression that some Foswiki people tried to manipulate the deletion discussion has led to a defence reflex in some Wikipedians who at first didn't understand the situation, and then probably doubted that they were being told the truth. For psychological/sociological reasons it's still too early to revisit the deletion decision now. The best solution would of course be if someone could point to publications other than wikimatrix (which doesn't count much here) that discuss Foswiki (not TWiki) in some detail.
 * In the meantime we have this article for the discussion of both TWiki and Foswiki. It's normal for encyclopedias to discuss several related topics in a single article. It hardly gets more related than these two wikis, so a single article for both is currently an excellent solution even ignoring the notability problems. If one side tries to monopolise this article and marginalise the other, we have ways of dealing with that. The proposed name change would make some sense, but I am not too enthusiastic about the idea. Hans Adler 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In Foswiki in the News you can find several links of about Foswiki (even if you remove the blogs from the list). Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's slightly better than what I found when I last looked for sources establishing notability, but still probably not enough. I think it would probably be enough to prevent deletion under normal circumstances, but I doubt it's enough to get the Foswiki article undeleted. Unfortunately many of the news portal articles don't contribute to notability since they are either critical coverage or there is no editorial control. I realise that this must be very frustrating, but the English Wikipedia's notability requirements are different from those of the German Wikipedia: for some topics weaker, but for software generally stronger. With these sources I wouldn't risk a new attempt yet. It's too soon after the last one and the sources are still too marginal.
 * I think we would be in a much better position if someone wrote a full article about how to use Foswiki, for publication in a computer magazine. Some magazines, such as freeX, appear to publish even articles that were written by their readers, so this might not be such a hard thing to do. Just look at articles about other wikis for inspiration, but make sure to avoid plagiarism.
 * If the success of TWiki is based in part on its creator's marketing abilities, then you may have to learn from him in the Foswiki community. This is probably important for more than just getting a Wikipedia article. Hans Adler 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is not about foswiki marketing or helping then to get notability. They already have it, a lot of buzz was caused in the free software community when TWiki locked all developers out of the version control system. The question here is the ability of wikipedia to handle this case. I see wikipedia as a reliable source of information and I really appreciate the fact that is free and open to everybody to contribute (actually is one of the main cases of high quality content generated by the community). Demanding that a software to be in the print media is a little bit strange because most of the print media are migrating to web and there is a crise in the print media (lots of newspaper and magazine are just closing their doors). But what is ironic to me is demand to have editorial control to recognize the article. The wikipedia itself is an example that editorial control is not best way to create high quality articles :) . Anyway, foswiki is there, it has notability in the free software community and it annoys me that wikipedia does not recognized it (it is the first time that I don't find something on wikipedia). I am not a foswiki devoleper, I am a free software advocate but I give up of trying to improve this article. Hans, thank you for your explanations and for your positive contributions to this matter. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonas, just in case it's not clear: When I talk about "notability", I mean the technical term as defined in WP:N. Of course Foswiki has more than enough notability in the normal sense of the word, and so under normal circumstances an article would easily survive by just staying under the radar. But it doesn't (yet) satisfy the technical criteria, which is why, when someone started a deletion discussion on its article, a lot of diplomacy would have been necessary to let it survive. What happened instead was that suddenly a lot of Foswiki supporters arrived here, voting at the AfD and doing nothing else, and logging in here so rarely that no real communication was possible. At least one was also irate most of the time, which really didn't help. In this context, see DarkSideOfCommunity.
 * The sociology of this place is quite different from the German Wikipedia. The fact that in contrast to the German project we have no separate notibility rules for software and therefore have to apply the standard rules, which are notoriously unfavourable to everything that happens mostly in the internet, also doesn't help us here at all. I did my best to save the article at the AfD and then the deletion review; at those times I thought there was a chance. But I strongly doubt that we have a chance if we revisit things in the next few months unless we have very strong new sources. Hans Adler 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hans, again, thank you for all your efforts. I think that foswiki has much notability as twiki! I know, these zealots makes more harm than good for the cause (or for any cause). Thank you for your persistence on this subject. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, Foswiki is already for years old and it has a lot of activity in the project. When it will be allowed to have its on page on wikipedia? I'm not asking to remove the Twiki page but to allow both to have their own separated page. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Read through the section again for the reasons. Find answers to the concerns raised and then it's worth discussing.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Do you think that foswiki is not relevant or do you think this page is under attack? Both statements are false and Foswiki outplay Twiki by any criteria you want. Foswiki had many realeases in those years and it has a large community around it. Wikipedia should not judge the fork or its merits but let both softwares have their own page. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for ignoring my comment and all of the points raised previously. There was a serious point to my comment which is the reasons for not having seperate articles have been pointed out and need to be addressed.  You haven't bothered to respond to those reasons.  Until you make a serious attempt at that, not worth my time or effort.  I don't do homework for others when it's been pointed out what is needed multiple times.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 * None of the points raised are valid anymore (and they arguably were accurate), Foswiki is relevant (and there are articles about it) and no one is trying to takeover the Twiki page anymore. So I have no idea about what you mean about homework. Ravensfire, your argument is a fallacy (more precisely an argumentum ad hominem fallacy), remember to be friendly (or at least polite) in your answer to help to keep this conversation helpful to wikipedia readers. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Guys, does any see any problem to have a separated page for foswiki now (the fork was in 2008)? I talked about this subject 2 years ago with Hans Adler and we agreed that that wasn't the moment because of the troubles caused by the foswiki zealots. My question is, what about now? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Foswiki -- Very large, active development team"
People against a separate page/article on Foswiki, please have a look at the facts from the statistics by Ohloh:

Over the past twelve months, 29 developers contributed new code to Foswiki.

This is one of the largest open-source teams in the world, and is in the top 2% of all project teams on Ohloh.

For this measurement, Ohloh considered only recent changes to the code. Over the entire history of the project, 49 developers have contributed.
 * This is not a forum for discussing whether Foswiki should have an article. Steven Walling  21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of wikilawyering you could then suggest such a forum? You have kept a very close eye on this article over the last two years and your friendship with Peter Thoeny, I would maintain, has created the possibility of the appearance of impropriety (note, not impropriety itself -- merely the possibility of its *appearance*).  With the gentlest possible suggestion, perhaps a little more distance would be more appropriate, or instead of using rhetorical devices to create inertia, then assisting?67.242.45.72 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does FosWiki redirect to TWiki?
I was looking for the FosWiki article to learn more about it, but was redirected to TWiki. I wasn't able to find the FosWiki section; was there one? FosWiki is one of the few free and open source enterprise wikis, so I'm quite surprised that there isn't a separate FosWiki article, especially after reading why in early talk page entries. Normally, my experiences when looking up things in Wikipedia are wonderful, but this time it was so disappointing that I wrote about it in the talk page, which I almost never do. 12.163.172.130 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. Whatever the past history, FosWiki is now an established platform separate from TWiki. See, e.g., and . I am not sure there ever was a real consensus to keep it off Wikipedia as separate article. Regardless,  consensus can change. Someone who is knowledgeable should change the re-direct into a separate article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You are incorrect. If you think there's enough for a separate article, you might want to try deletion review first.  That's the least-dramatic way to see about recreating the article.  Editing Foswiki from a redirect to an article again without that will just cause a lovely amount of wiki-drama.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 * O.k., I'll bite, how does one "try deletion review"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Is it possible to access the original Foswiki article? The WP:Articles for deletion/Foswiki didn't seem to have any convincing reasons for deletion.  Also, the comment "I have closed this early due to the new accounts that were showing up." by User:Deskana seems to suggest that the Article did not receive the normal discussion period related to its proposed deletion.  Actually, it is quite clear that this deletion action was rushed through.  Perhaps the individual that proposed deletion feared that continued discussion would have resulted in sound arguments for keeping the article that complied with Wikipedia policies. ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.172.130 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrator Deskana refused to let me take a look at the seleted page, see User_talk:Deskana. At the same time I failed to find enough evidence that foswiki has gained sufficient attention in sources other than blogs. I guess, you have to wait until at least rel. 2.0 for it to become prominent enough for wikipedia. :-) Lorem Ip (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Boldface for Thoeny
Peter Thoeny redirects to this article. Please see the instruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article only says that it will "often be appropriate". I do not believe it is appropriate in this case to set Thoeny's name in boldface when the topic of the article is an open source project that has a broader scope than him. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He is founder and defacto owner of twiki today. His name redirects here. How can it be inappropriate? The breadth of scope is irrelevant. Boldface is not used to signify importance: it is purely "eyeball search" convenience trick for redirects. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject TWiki is not just about Thoeny; it is about the entire software product and community. As an analogy, if there were an architect whose only notability was designing a particular famous bridge, the architect may not warrant a separate article and so the architect's name could redirect to the article on the bridge. It would seem inapt, though, to place the architect's name in bold on the article, as the bridge is not just the product of the architect. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you didn't read the guideline. The guideline is not about notability; it is about th ease of search of a particular item when redirected. In our case, a reader clicks the name link and pops at the article about bridge. The firt thought is "WTF??? Did I click a correct link??" Unless the reader immediately sees the name in question. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't understand why to see the name of the architect of a famous bridge is "inapt". Lorem Ip (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline gives an example where the redirecting term is not set in boldface; it is not a simple cut-and-dried rule to follow. The initial sentences are supposed to make it clear why the redirection happened; I fear you may not have noticed that the guideline does not say that the redirecting term must be set in boldface. Wikipedia's guideline on the first sentence remains applicable. By putting a mention of a subject in boldface when it has a broader scope than the article's topic, the subject is being diminished, and this makes a value judgment on the subject. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is diminished. Project's founder is as notable as the project itself (and founder may be not notable more the project, so there is no separate article about founder). I fail to see that project's founder name impairs value judgement. I fail to see how "Format of the first sentence" relates to the issue. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Recall that everyone visiting the article directly will also see the boldface, and will bear in mind the guideline for Wikipedia's guideline on the first sentence. The article's subject is what is set in bold, and so unless there is a very clear equivalence between each of the bold terms, it will be misleading to readers. "Foswiki" redirects to this article, but it would be misleading to set "Foswiki" in bold, as it is not equivalent to the article's subject. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect you have a grudge against this Thoeny guy (I guess not without reason), and I don't want to waste my time on the issue. My only final argument that I have seen artcles about books with author redirected/boldfaced without a separate article. This is quite close to the situation at hand. But you may have it in your way, since nobody joins the chat to break the tie. I guess it isn't worth a dime.  Lorem Ip (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all — the two subjects just aren't synonyms for each other. The subject of Thoeny isn't solely limited to the TWiki project, and vice versa. The reason why the guideline on article redirection suggests considering using boldface is because redirection is commonly used for synonyms of the target article's title. In this case, though, the two are distinct. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems there hasn't been much discussion about when to bold and when not to bold, or maybe I just can't find it. But the following seems to describe our pretty universal and uncontroversial practice quite well: We use boldface for the actual title and for alternative titles that could also in principle be used for essentially the same article, provided they are markedly different from the actual title. This rules out bolding the founder of a project (since an article named "Peter Thoeny" would be a biography). It also rules out something like "sometimes incorrectly spelled Twiki" (not sufficiently distinct).

Foswiki is a borderline case. Foswiki is in many respects the same thing as Twiki, e.g. the two share most of their features and most of their history. If the TWiki article was renamed to "Foswiki", not much would have to be changed. The current solution (italics for "Foswiki") looks like an excellent compromise to me. Hans Adler 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Letting the past stay in the past
I recently made my first ever edits to this page (AFAIK) and cleared off some statements which spoke more to TWiki's development history than to what it IS as a web application. Those changes were then undone by 132.236.6.93 - someone who won't even identify themselves by name, but who claims "The test is relevance, not pleasance"  This condescending and page-owning attitude isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I know. I reapplied my changes, and I intend to do so again as needed. I recommend anyone interested in Foswiki work on Foswiki, and promote Foswiki, without going to lengths to disparaging TWiki. If they want to write about the TWiki/Foswiki split, they can do that on a page about Foswiki, not a page about TWiki.

-- PaulReiber 02:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

 * Paul, I totally agree with you. There is no reason to create a separated page for Foswiki.Jonas Fagundes (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

''Jonas I didn't say there's no reason to create a page for foswiki - quite the opposite. (did you accidentally omit "not" - as in "no reason not to"?) The foswiki redirection to the TWiki page creates an artificial pressure for the TWiki page to somehow represent both web applications, even though they're no longer the same at all. -pbr 4/20/12''

 * Please familiarize yourself with the history of this page, argued in part below, where a fragile consensus has emerged with a redirect such that this page at this point in time represents both projects, which are after all similar codebases, similar authors, etc. The idea of being bold is that if you want to propose a wholesale reorganization and a split into two pages, do it.  I suspect, however, that a considerable amount of wiki-drama would emerge.  The claim that the material you removed is "fluff" requires substantiation. I require you to stop requiring things of me. -pbr 4/20/11  It would appear to be a vital part of the history of both projects, which are presented on this one page. due to a poor decision about redirecting foswiki here -pbr 4/20/12  A quick web search also reveals your affiliation and vigorous advocacy for one of these projects. A deeper search would reveal much more.  I feel almost a parent to both projects.  -pbr 4/20/12  Neutral parties would be far better editors. I am a neutral party - I love both projects/products however I'm saddened by how both groups behaved as well.  -pbr 4/20/12   The "I intend to do so again as needed" attitude is hardly consistent with wiki-culture. The tell-me-what-is-and-isnt-right attitude while speaking from only your IP address isn't consistent with wiki-culture either.  I had someone simply undo my updates without discussing that with me - not consistent with "wiki culture" either.  Eat your own dogfood.  -pbr 4/20/12  74.79.147.25 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Articles aren't about just what something currently is, but also what it was, how it evolved, etc. For larger entities, articles are split as a single article would be too massive.  This is a fairly short article and the split was a fairly notable event in Twiki.  The current section on the fork does a good job of summarizing the event without giving undue weight.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 03:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Ravensfire, no, the current article does not do a good job, the point is not the fork but foswiki itself. Both softwares should have their own page. There were 15 foswiki releases since the merge and the community is healthy and alive. I asked about that and no one gave any reason to not create the page. +1 to the Foswiki page creation. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC) +10,000 more.  Agree fullheartedly.  Let Foswiki have its own page.  -pbr 4/20/12

 * Spartz removed the page and put it back the redirect, I put back your version (with the warning). How should I proceed to revert the old AFD decision? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Ravensfire, Spartz, this is an interesting short description of what happened with opinion from both sides: http://www.cloudsurfing.com/site/3640-TWiki/reviews/384-TWiki-is-dead/ FALSE - I am not on the "TWiki" side - I was there, but did not take part in the "split". I simply lived through it. -pbr 4/20/12 where you can check the level of the conversation (one side was presenting facts and the other was trashing talking, have a look to take your own conclusions). I checked both irc room on freenode.net. #foswiki is active (right now 39 active users and it has logs where you can verify the activity); #twiki is empty (only 9 users, no logs, no conversation in the last hour, there is a bot asking anyone that enters in the room to send any questions to the company support). I talked to the #foswiki guys and they were quite helpful and polite. (They even asked me to "note: don't make more enemies on wikipedia than we already have, please no matter how hard any comment by some of the wikipedia admins or deletionists might be: stay calm and professional.", what I think is a good advice for any discussion :) ). Jonas Fagundes (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)  Jonas, this isn't about friends/enemies.  I love TWiki, and I love Foswiki too - I was part of making both of them what they are today.  This is about extricating the two from each other, so we can somehow, soon, hopefully, let the past stay in the past.  Re: IRC - ask me and I'll explain why TWiki doesn't do much IRC anymore. -pbr 4/20/12

Please continue the talk on the notability of Foswiki at Talk:Foswiki. Nuddlegg (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ''Will do - see you there. -pbr 4/20/12''

Foswiki has its own page now
I applied edits some weeks ago intended to STOP airing the dirty laundry that happened years ago between the TWiki and Foswiki projects. I'd like to re-apply those changes to the TWiki page without having them reverted by anonymous IP addresses. Can I get an agreement on re-applying those now, since Foswiki has its own page, where its history can be documented, without having to sour TWiki's history? I'll re-apply the changes in a month or so if I don't hear objections.
 * The changeover in the developer community was a significant event in TWiki's history, and as such, warrants the current references in the article. They are matter-of-fact, very briefly describing the event, without undue bias. More details on how the TWiki community has progressed post-split would be welcome additions to the article. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Foswiki to TWiki
The Foswiki article is currently a fork of this article with slight modifications to represent the changes made to TWiki codebase over time. As these two articles significantly overlap in their scope (both mainly cover TWiki), I propose to merge all verifiable information about Foswiki's subsequent development into this article. Such merge would benefit both subjects: Any comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TWiki served the basis for Foswiki, so covering the latter would help to make the coverage of pre-split TWiki more thorough.
 * Foswiki would eventually be covered the way its own genuine peculiarities would not be overshadowed by the common legacy.

 * oppose The Foswiki article isn't a CFORK of the WP Twiki article, but Foswiki itself has forked from Twiki. The WP article is not a forked article, merely a reflection of reality. There is also a question of article primacy, as which is the leading product post-split is far from clear.
 * Some Twiki developers do not accept this and both continue with Twiki, and have a somewhat distant relationship with Foswiki. The nominator of this merge has already nominated Foswiki for a failed AfD that has only just closed. They have even nominated a previous Foswiki redirect to Twiki for deletion. As the nominator of a supposed merge has already tried to delete the resultant redirect, one has to wonder just how effective such a merge would be in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting an issue is not a good way to go. I nominated the redirect for deletion because there was no content related to Foswiki. Now there is content, which is a copy of TWiki article with slight modifications. As the separate notability of Foswiki is at least questionable (see the closing comment of AfD), and several editors are passionate about the coverage of the article, I'm now seeking a compromise solution to avoid 4th AfD nomination. Now, as in AfD discussion you failed to draw any arguments, I would ask you to express at least something viable here. Do you state that these projects don't share significant part of codebase (and consequently their features)? Or may be you believe there is a good reason to describe the very same implementations of the same features in different articles? Or may be any other comment besides history of Foswiki and of its AfD and RfD nominations? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 * oppose Merging Foswiki to TWiki is only one solution out of four. The other three are: (2) merge TWiki to Foswiki, (3) create an article called TWiki_and_Foswiki and redirect both TWiki and Foswiki to it, (4) create an article called Foswiki_and_TWiki and redirect both TWiki and Foswiki to it. So I have to oppose as long as these alternatives haven't been considered. Furthermore, we might run into issues while merging the articles when wikipedians don't agree on the facts presented, e.g. deployments in fortune 500 organizations, numbers of installations etc. Some presented numbers simply aren't verified by secondary sources. Now, when bringing Foswiki and TWiki together on one page, the problem becomes even more obvious. Maybe it will be a healthy process to improve the article. But it won't be an easy experience at all affecting the named companies as well. When it comes to a merge, please help out calming down the edit wars ahead. Thanks. Nuddlegg (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait what? Are you familiar with WP:COMMONTITLE? BTW, as I get it, you are supporting the merge, but want to discuss the name? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I am against any sort of merge. But your proposal has to be rejected just for the simple fact that the name of the article won't properly reflect what it is about. A merge would have made more sense if there were two articles describing the same thing. But TWiki and Foswiki aren't the same thing. With regards to WP:COMMONTITLE, only naming the article TWiki won't comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Please consider the alternatives. There are so many other reasons why a merge is inappropriate ... Nuddlegg (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose The projects have been separate for 4 years now, and to the best of my knowledge (I am a Foswiki developer and until 2008 one of the main TWiki developers) there has been no little or no new code shared between them in that time. The codebases are still, to the best of my knowledge, architecturally similar, but in detail have diverged as the two projects have focused on different requirements (Foswiki on being the best open source, free wiki, and TWiki I guess on being a stable, revenue-earning commercial product). With regard to feature sets, Foswiki has grown a large number of new features which, due to the architecture of the base system, are optional for end users. In a wikipedia notability sense, both projects are victims of their own success. By drawing in and hosting third-party contributions (extensions), those contributions have become identified as not independent of the subject. Add to that a "just do it" culture in Foswiki that fosters real contributions rather than empty rhetoric. I note that Ohloh records Foswiki as having required an estimated 3898 years of development effort, versus Twiki's 518 years. In absolute terms the numbers are meaningless, but I would say they are probably a fair reflection of the relative project sizes. Swandodger (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose We already had a long discussion about deleting Foswiki page four months ago and the decision was to keep the page. None of the arguments presented then became invalid. This discussion here is just noise. The foswiki page is a valid one, can it be improved?, yes, is this a reason to delete it?, no. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 * oppose Same comment as Jonasfagundes Nasa-verve (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on TWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420142241/http://www.twiki.net:80/customers.html to http://twiki.net/customers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on TWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141218064033/http://twiki.net/ to http://twiki.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505011451/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_36/b4048441.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_36/b4048441.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:TWiki


text:
User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 1

=Archive 1=

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hello Nat
Hello, fellow HG´er! Greetings Doidimais Brasil 18:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC).

Hi.

Wikipedians/Singapore
I think you may be interested in knowing about the above-mentioned page, if you haven't done so yet. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume I'm free to add my name in, correct? :) -- Natalinasmpf 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SGpedians' notice board
Our very own notice board is up! Do try to look through and contribute. ;)--Huaiwei 08:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Military History of the Soviet Union
I fail to see how Somalia shows American crimes against humanity. In fact, Somalia was an instance in which America tried to end crimes against humanity. GreatGatsby

My percetion was that the US military was responsible for much of the collateral damage done to civilians, when this could have been avoided, and furthermore, instead of staying neutral and disinterested from the entanglement, while intervening, they got themselves more factionalised and entangled, and biased, instead. -- Natalinasmpf 23:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How would the Americans kill civilians? They were under attack from the start of the engagement. And there were very few true civilians in the Mogadishu disaster, most were armed and attacking the strike force. America was already against the warlords in Somalia, it was just a matter of acting or not. There was no increased biased or factionalization. America wanted to wrong a right and got a handful of dead soldiers for their troubles. GreatGatsby

It's over
Hello, Natalina. Just wanted to let you know your minion has been dealt with.

Have a nice day. =] --Kaonashi 01:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Was it? :{ Doesn't appear so. -- Natalinasmpf 01:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I was hasty. Didn't think he'd come back again and again.

But it'll be sorted out in a way or another.--Kaonashi 01:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've protected the pages for now... Fire Star 01:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Natalinasmpf

Are you from RGS?

History of Malaysia
Your sentence on Singapore's departure from Malaysia is very badly phrased, and also rather tendentious. Since you are a 14yo Singapore Communist (I hope your government doesn't read your User page), I guess that is not surprising. I will do some research on what actually happened and rewrite that paragraph later. Adam 03:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it? I'm only trying to be NPOV. To standardise the information, and not to clutter up the pages, I've written the bulk of the info in PAP-UMNO relations - it is kind of crude at the moment, I will admit, but that's only because I am afraid to go into too much detail since the issue is being disputed. The event is often termed as an expulsion and against our will in our textbooks. But of course, our textbooks aren't 100% politically reliable for obvious reasons concerning authoritarianism. My general impression is that it wasn't Singapore's choice to leave Malaysia - it was the Federal Government's decision, hence an expulsion. However, since you dispute this, I've noted this as a "ceasing of Federal ties" - meaning that the Federal Government, excluded Singapore because they could, and no longer treated it as a state after two years of ideological conflict. -- Natalinasmpf 03:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gay rights in Singapore
I appreciate your comments about being NPOV in the short section about the situation of gay rights in Singapore. Can you be specific about what information I included that you believe to be untrue? Here is what I object to in the current edit:

1. "generally ostracized" is not the same as "illegal" which should be stated in the article, given the life imprisonment penalty in the penal code for gay sexual relations. The article currently makes Singapore sound somewhat tolerant. I suggest being more truthful about the actual situation.

2. The fact that the government is willing to tolerate some gays in positions in the government is unnecessary information, given that the same government strictly maintains illegality.

3. The paragraph is clearly about homosexuals, not anyone else with an alternative lifestyle. Let's just say "gay" since that's obviously the topic. I am not sure who else we would be referring to.

4. The prevention of gay rights groups from forming in Singapore by the Societies Act limits internal public debate. I object to the current sentence in the article that refers to "much debate" both inside and outside of Singapore. In Singapore, debate is not condoned on this issue, and ST articles always toe the government line.

If you think my edit was unnecessarily long, then cutting it shorter is ok, but I prefer to make sure the article conveys the fact that gays/lesbians do suffer legal discriminition and have been imprisoned/caned for what in many other countries is perfectly normal behavior. It is a vital piece of information about the ways these people (gays/lesbians) are viewed that should be helpful to foreigners learning about the country. Please let me know your thoughts

Xa Qua

Xaqua 01:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I did not notice the page had been censored a few edits before I came in. I should have noticed. I re-added the detail...I have added prosecution and conviction, I believe this is a sufficient phrase. Detail should go into Culture of Singapore, feel free to add as much detail as you like to the sub-pages, because the Singapore article is really about Singapore at a glance, and hence most of the detail should be located in another article. (That is the whole purpose of being a wiki).

 * 2. Yes, I have deleted that irrelevant piece of information. Prosecuted a large portion could easily make that info redundant, so I removed it as you wished.

 * 3. "Gay" is sort of a colloquial term, so I prefer to use the scientific term. Well lets make it standard as it will fit better, just like we use centimetres in science as opposed to inches.

 * 4. Info was re-added back in.

 * Suppression of debate and groups is not only suffered by homosexuals / or only because Singapore is conservative. Being a political radical and a pro-democracy advocate myself, I am also worried about the extent of political suppression. I did not realise some of the detail had been removed earlier (I thought I was restoring the version of that section I saw yesterday, yikes). I shall concede most of your additions are justified, just that a lot of information is really irrelevant for the main page (as in, just as adding nasi lemak and every other dish in the world to make the food article 5 MB long isn't really needed, hence kept in separate articles)....and the gay rights group should be placed in a separate article about the situation of gay rights in Singapore, not in the main country articles, (Culture of Singapore doesn't suit this case because that is also still a broad article)....

 * I encourage this practice of division of such detail, case in point: PAP-UMNO relations which I made a separate article rather than putting all the detail in the History of Singapore and History of Malaysia pages as it would be took awkard for organisation, not needed, lack of flow. Also it ensured some sense of uniformity because it would be redundant to repeat the detail in two articles and would have better flow if it was a separate article other articles could link too. Hence this should be applied to your situation too (and maybe for situations with Singapore's neighbours), or even be a subdivision of articles concerning (or in the category) political suppression in Singapore. -- Natalinasmpf 02:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks -- I'm happy with the version after you changed it again.
 * -- Xaqua 16:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry for me butting in, but with regards to the above issue, a page called Homosexuality in Singapore might be the best solution, instead of trying to lump too much detail into general pages. In addition, I have also nominated this page Singapore gay movement POV problems, as well as possibly being a case of copryright infringement.--Huaiwei 16:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Definitely, the page Singapore gay movement needs work. I didn't actually know such a page existed until now.  I'd  volunteer to help but unfortunately I don't know much about the history of gay rights in Singapore.  I do not think the few lines pertaining to gay rights should be eliminated from the main Singapore page though, because they fit in well with other issues under culture which include how different groups are treated and looked at within Singapore - different religions, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations.  Moreover, Singapore's distinction of being the only developed country in the world to allow legal prosecution of gays and lesbians (and at the same time prevent rights movements) is quite unique and deserves mention.
 * -- Xaqua 22:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the Singapore gay movement article into Homosexuality in Singapore, with a redirect for the former title. I feel it is more appropriate, until the movement becomes quite major. I don't think it is a movement just yet, come on, Singapore doesn't even have a democracy movement either, despite the fact that around 5-15% of the population votes for the SDP. -- Natalinasmpf 23:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please refer to my comment in that talk page. I do not feel the move is a good idea.--Huaiwei 23:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page cleanup
I would just like to inform you, that while no one can stop you from deleting your talk page, it can also be used to charge against you for deleting evidence when the need arises, which will be greatly against your favour should anyone decide to take action. I would strongly advise you to restore those comments for your own sake.--Huaiwei 23:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't do that. That just encourages him. Dysprosia

missing bracket
re the missing bracket. I didn't. There is a technical flaw on wikipedia in recent days that is removing brackets from many users. There is nothing that users are doing to cause it. It has been raised on the technical pages. They thought they had fixed it. Obviously not fully. Thanks for telling me. Unfortunately there is however nothing I can do about it. When I leave a msg it is OK; my name has the correct commands and brackets in place. Somehow later things change. Hopefully the technical guys can fix it soon. Fear ÉIREANN  22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chess Game 1?
How bout it 1 mistake for you 1 mistake for me? Least you got to revert yours while I went to Lunch, lol :-)?

Granted. I normally would object in real life (because I have revealed my intentions at this point), whereas in my previous revert I did not, but since this is Wikipedia and there's a certain spirit to it, I will allow an undo. :-) -- Natalinasmpf 23:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Nice summary, and welcome to the climate article mess. — Cortonin | Talk 22:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats
Please review No legal threats, which is an official policy stating that users should not make legal threats against other users. This message is regarding this post on User talk:Natalina smpf. Thanks. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But he wasn't a legitimate user - he was a vandal. Doesn't Wikipedia adopt legal stances against vandals? -- Natalinasmpf 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, no. However, there is a rule saying that users are not allowed to pick names that are offensive or are confusing with/impersonating other users (like the Jimbo Wales vandal). Zscout370 00:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Specifically, as per Blocking_policy, impersonation is grounds for an indefinite block, and "Natalina smpf" has in fact already been blocked within half an hour of their first edit. -- 04:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the impersonating username is still visible in the article histories, and therefore in engines like google. -- Natalinasmpf 04:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont believe Google stores history pages in their search engine. -- 04:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Natalinasmpf, in the meantime, you may want to read Username and consider listing Natalina smpf on RFC. I do agree that this person's user name is deliberately confusing. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting how a 14-year-old from Singapore will be able to sue a Wikipedia "vandal" from another country, one that will not be named, for 2 million dollars, when at the same time, threating to do illegal activity (DDOS attack) against this vandal. 207.248.240.118 20:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The vandal did illegal activity (interfering deliberately, in an organised, focussed manner with a website run at non-insignificant cost), so hence gives up his own rights not to have his own computer dealt with justice. Quid pro quo. Therefore its not illegal to threaten him, since he's a vandal himself. And his IP is so prominently displayed at the vandalism notices, a quick trace is all that's needed. Long term vandals don't have any legal internet rights against his own computer being defaced because why should a vandal who does vandalism himself, be protected from vandalism? Its only reciprocity. Plus, its only one vandal - he can suffer (since he did wrong anyway), rather than have the entire Wikipedia project which 8 million users access every month, (and growing) suffer, who probably haven't done anything wrong to warrant a "Wikipedia is Communism" caption printed on every page. -- Natalinasmpf 20:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The vandal has now been placed at "Long Term Alerts," so if he/she decides to spam that stuff again, he/she will be banned without question. Zscout370 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, will you please stop making legal threats? Vandal or no, it's against the rules here. If you are planning to pursue legal action against a Wikipedia user, please stop using Wikipedia. A word of advice, it's utterly pointless to argue with vandals. Threatening to sue them only makes you look silly. Furthermore the IP which you believe is the vandal's, is simply an open proxy in Mexico. I've blocked it indefinitely. Rhobite 05:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Since when were vandals "Wikipedia users"? I thought they were the opposite? Wikipedia ABusers? I mean, look at the discussion on the Sollog vandalism, even they advocate legal action, which has basis (interfering deliberately, in an organised, focussed manner with a website run at non-insignificant cost). No, I wasn't really planning to sue, but I just felt like hollering at a vandal anyway, but wouldn't Wikipedia successfully win the lawsuit, and gain money for its servers in the process? We can make the vandal pay maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it would set a powerful deterrent against vandalism henceforth. Newbie experiments/contributions won't be affected, because they don't have the ill will in the first place, which this vandal has. The proxy can be contacted, then the ISP traced, then right to the physical mailbox address, on which the court can then issue a subpoena. If the RIAA can say, sue poor college students for 250,000 dollars for illegal online activity like copyrighted file sharing, can't Wikipedia sue possibly rich petit bourgeois delinquent vandal snobs who have nothing else better to do? -- Natalinasmpf 05:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It isn't a user's place to initiate legal action on Wikipedia's behalf. In order to win a court case, one needs to demonstrate significant damages in court. Volunteer labor to clean up vandalism probably isn't enough. In my opinion Wikipedia doesn't have a case against most vandals, and it isn't worth pursuing. But anyway, that decision isn't up to you or me. I think it's improper for users to threaten legal action, even against vandals. As for scaring people, legal threats are pretty much useless. It is so rare for someone to actually follow through with Internet legal threats, that they are pretty much laughed at. Legal threats are empty threats - people who really intend to file a lawsuit don't holler about it on the Internet. Rhobite 05:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Zscout's PfD
Hi, Natalinasmpf. Just wanted to make sure you know that I don't actually want to delete Zscout370. We're just being silly—he added the deletion notice himself (with the edit summary of "giggle, giggle, giggle"), and "forged" the nomination from "User:Abcdef". (Also note where the "Guide to People for Deletion" links). Cheers! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I just realised that a few minutes after I posted, but kept the comment just for fun. :-) Maybe to make it ironical or something, hey, makes it a more convincing joke. -- Natalinasmpf 04:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Singapore pledge
your singapore pledge 'spelling' is wrong. it's 'yan yu, zong jiao' not 'yuan yu, zhong jiao'. shame to you for being corrected by a non-singapore citizen. H.Mib 03:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I did that late at night and wasn't thinking. I messed up at a Wikipedia Chess game I was playing too. I was half asleep while I surfed Wikipedia. Maybe that's the first sign of wikiholicism. -- Natalinasmpf 09:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Why don't you use the Chinese characters themselves? Better than pinyin, don't you think? H.Mib 02:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know how to insert them into Wikipedia. I don't have any Chinese writing software, as well. Well I could think of searching for one compatible with Linux, but my key mapping in X is only good for well, characters I need to write French or German, not Chinese. So hence. -- Natalinasmpf 02:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Haha, done. Windoze can be useful sometimes. BTW, don't you think that an anarcho-communist using such blatant fascist government propaganda is a tad ironic? H.Mib 03:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Much thanks. I heard of some GPL Pinyin to character software, but I forgot where it was, I'll recheck sourceforge and hunt for it one of these days. Anyhow, I don't think it ironic because its mainly for fondness/nostalgia, plus the egalitarian elements (regardless of race, language or religion, to built a democratic society, after all, anarchy can be seen as a decentralised direct democracy), plus its mainly attachment to culture, not the political loyalty to the government. I've reiterated and sung national pledges and anthems for probably around years straight now, so hmm. -- Natalinasmpf 03:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You can check out http://sourceforge.net/projects/xsim/ It's dead, though. Interesting bit about 'nostalgia'. It's like Hitler saying 'We love peace', you know it to be untrue, just because of the person saying it. In this case Fuhrer Lee. Still fascist propaganda nevertheless. :) Very interesting political viewpoint you have... for someone from Singapore. Is there an email address/MSN I can contact you with? I'm intrigued... :p

Importance of schools on Wikipedia
I just read what you wrote on the Votes for deletion/Clover Park High School bulletin board and wanted to share with you that I couldn't possibly agree more. There are a lot of great things Wikipedia has to offer, and informational school articles are just one of them. If you'd like to see what other schools are being deleted and want to help improve the articles, check out the User:GRider/Schoolwatch BBS some time. Tallyman 23:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your welcome note, I'm still exploring this weird wiki-world (it really works!?) Hoping to find a niche. Greatly appreciate your edits, learning alot from them already, so keep doing it. Cheers! Vsion 07:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Government pages as public domain?
Greetings,

In the description for Image:Mrtlrt_system_map.gif you assert that the content of Singapore government pages are in the public domain. Can you provide a source for this? Government material being PD is generally limited to the United States, and the LTA Conditions of Access page in fact explicitly forbids any sort of reuse without written permission. Jpatokal 16:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally because its on government posters available to the public, I could take a photograph of the system map if I wanted to, and we're not using it for commercial purposes...Plus, its not like there's much "creative work", or effort or interests damaged by reproducing the system map, which is the common criteria for a copyright. I for one, don't see, "copyright Singapore LTA" on that image. Furthermore, its not creative work because I can easily duplicate it myself in a different form with my own colours and lines and dots and my own typing. Its just plain tedious, that's all, nothing creative, hence "ineligible for copyright" as well. -- Natalinasmpf 18:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The image clearly qualifies for fair use or fair dealing. Its creation is for disseminating information. In fact, should be: "encouraged to use". The LTA's all-encompassing ("everything under the sky") claim serves to protect against abuse, manipulation and commercial exploit, etc., but does not override fair-use for research and education. This is my two-cents and I'm not a lawyer. Vsion 20:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and my other point is that international law overrides Singapore law, especially since Wikipedia is stationed in Florida. Besides, international law wouldn't recognise the map as a creative work and therefore ineligible for copyright. And I'm sure there's a "fair use" clause in Singapore as well - I took a look at a notice posted at my school one day, and although it was being applied on reproduction of materials for educational materials and granting permission for copying copyrighted materials for that, I'm sure since Wikipedia is an educational source... -- Natalinasmpf 21:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * International law may supercede Singapore law but I don't think it would apply since the picture is IP of the Singapore government. The map is from them so it's their IP, but if you were to make your own map I'm sure they wouldn't have anything to say, kinda like taking your own picture as opposed to using pictures others took. -Hmib 00:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am contesting whether it is IP or not because it is not a work that requires much creativity or thought. It is not commercially risked by it being duplicated, as well. Furthermore, should that fail, we can always introduce the fair use clause, which as I explained, does exist. -- Natalinasmpf 00:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In Fascism the government shoots you and take your cows. :D Although the map itself does not require much work, the actual MRT system is indeed the property of the SG government. Like I said you can just do the map yourself to be safe. It'll only take 10 minutes... And shouldn't you be in school? -Hmib 01:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * MC. Legitimate excuse, I have this splitting stomach ache. Anyhow, I'm only using it out of convenience, because, of course the system is the property of the government, but the information surrounding it, not necessarily. I will get a replacement map soon, but I contest that it should be removed for the time being, because the case for copyright violation isn't particularly strong. -- Natalinasmpf 01:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet
Chilean coup of 1973 has a good timeline of the events that led to Allende's overthrow. Gazpacho 00:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Amazing work on the Go board images
It has been fun playing with the templates and images with you this evening :) I asked on the talk page about the program you used to make them and such but hey ill ask again here. Also was it difficult getting them to line up or was that automatic as long as they are the exact same dimensions? Dalf | Talk 07:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I was looking through the articles here on go and I looked on KGS and it looks liek the common convention is for the coordinates to start in the lower left corner so I have modified the main template to reflect that. I will do the others later. Dalf | Talk 08:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Go
I have to ask, how long have you been playing go? Because..... how should I say this gently.... that's not a very.... ehmmm.... common starting move :P Gkhan 22:53, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Several years, actually. It may not be common, but its nothing foolish, I assume. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 22:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope you didn't take offence because I certainly meant none. It's just that in the beggining it's all about staking out a claim, area (called moyo) that is surrounded by your pieces and this is easiest done in the corners and walls. But however, I just wanted to say that I was looking forward to a private game between just to players, and that playing in the sandbox makes it a kind of a collaborative venture. Is it ok if we branch our game at my last move and move it to User:Gkhan/Go? Gkhan 18:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Go ahead, but leave an entry (or specify you want it to be private) as (SGO1-A), that way I can integrate it into the records when we are complete. -- Natalinasmpf 22:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ahh, there we go, sorry it took some time, I just forgot. It's your move at User:Gkhan/Go. (BTW, was there anything else I was supposed to do?) Gkhan 21:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not really, I just assigned an ID to it, so observation/standardisation can occur. Yeah, its proceeding smoothly. -- Natalinasmpf 23:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

New chess game
Could you please set me up a new game of chess in the Sandbox/chess? Thanks. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, anyone can do that, its colloborative ;-). Unless you're not sure how to? -- Natalinasmpf 08:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to. I apologize for not knowing it. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  19:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL, there's nothing to be apologetic about for not knowing things... how many of us know everything, eh? -Hmib 22:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No no, no need to apologise, Lst27. I wasn't sure if you meant whether you meant knowledge of how to, or permission.

Here, there are some instructions on the page, but I shall repost them: copy off a new section from one of the pages, but reset the boards and notation areas.

A reset board looks like this, this is the normal chess position:

As you can see, you can tell which is the pawn, king, etc. Then make your move by cut and paste from one side (and filling the empty square with two spaces for alignment) into the square its supposed to be, then removing spaces as needed for alignment. I really should write a manual for this. -- Natalinasmpf 01:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  13:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the AoW article!
Nice to see another HGer on the Wiki! And thanks for adding some more stuff to Age of Wonders - it's a bit messy ATM, but content is better than nothing. I didn't realise you'd been here so long - my first edit was 2 days after yours, and as of 11:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC), you've got about 250 more edits than I do. Thanks and many happy edits, Alphax τεχ 11:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Politics of Singapore
Merci, … and this is about the only French word I know, I’m afraid. Can you elaborate on the "further taxonomy" ? Are you referring to the different political forms as someone wrote in Singapore: "… Singapore to be closer to authoritarianism rather than true democracy …" I’m not sure how far this can go. In my opinion, pragmatism is probably the only feature that is consistent in LKY’s and Goh’s policies. Maybe an article/section on "Pragmatism in Singapore Politics" will be useful to discuss things like the reversal of population policies: "Stop-at-two" become "More-if-you-can"; "Gambling-ban" become "integrated-resorts", etc. About tying articles up, I have some ideas, including Also, your suggestion on gerrymandering is good, closely related is Pork barrel politics (HDB upgrading, MRT stations along NE-line, etc). Besides politics, the Culture of Singapore can be expanded and also more interesting. I feel we might be too concerned with finding things unique to Singapore. Instead, a rojak of Chinese, Malay, Indians, Western culture (in food, arts, music, events, etc) should be okay even if they somewhat overlap with other countries’, don’t you think so? I feel that "Culture" is probably the main weakness in Singapore FA candidacy.
 * List of policies at Goh Chok Tong (already started) and will do the same at Ah-Lee’s and Ah-Loong’s articles
 * List of issues at general elections (at least the most recent one, and also start preparing material for the next election)

 * For taxonomy I meant more of a large scale organisation - ie. the categories and templates slowly break down from the general to the specific and each article is nicely interwoven to one another in cohesion. -- Natalinasmpf 20:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Once we have enough articles and material on "culture" we can start a template on "Life in Singapore" or "Culture of Singapore", such as the one seen in Culture of Hong Kong which I think is quite good. Vsion 21:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * My idea is also to have templates link up to each other (references to each other in finer print) such that from Politics of Singapore you can easily access Education in Singapore, etc. but that is for the future - I just wanted to tell you my plan for the organisation of future articles so when we create them you have them in mind. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 21:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Good idea, I see what you mean... A template has a hierarchical structure, like a tree with its spreading branches. And many templates can link up with each other, much like in a tropical rainforest where branches from different trees interleave and form the canopy. And, as we are navigating through the wikipedia, it is like jumping from branches to branches, just like ... err ... monkeys?? :P  Vsion 02:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Chess Championship
Hey,

I made my move at Chess_championship/Tournament_1/Game_5. I accepted your invitation to be white, I hope you don't mind... :D

Just a couple notes--I've never played wikichess before, so if I'm doing something dreadfully wrong, please do correct me. Also, I often have severely limited internet access on weekends, so I often disappear for a day or so. I hope this isn't a problem.

Anyway, good luck. May the best man win! ;-) Jonathan Christensen 13:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah!
Where the hell did the Marxism page go? Is this related to the page moving crap the vandal's been doing? Should that option perhaps be blocked, considering how rediculously complicated it's making our lives?--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 09:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
Hi; I'm sorry to be bothering you concerning this, but Chess championship is up for a VfD. Votes_for_deletion/Chess_championship Please vote to keep this thing alive... this is so lame that I need to ask people to help out here. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

chess & go
Hi.

A few questions/points:
 * 1) At least on my setup, the go pieces/board are a bit hard to see.  The main problem is that there isn't much contrast between white pieces and the tan board.  I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is, but here are a few ideas:
 * 2) * surround the white pieces with a thin black border to make them stand out more
 * 3) * give them a bit of texture
 * 4) * make the board darker
 * 5) * make the board and pieces textured (I like Goban's contrast and appearance, though if every square is the same, the wood texture would need to be simpler and more repetitive then that one.
 * 6) If you're interested, I'd be willing to make new versions of all the pieces, complete with their symbols, etc.  I can script photoshop to show/hide layers and the process should be relatively painless.  Let me know what you think.
 * 7) Look at the talk at the chess template page.  It should be possible to allow for multiple length symbols in the same game, without using different images.  Maybe this is what you did, but it seemed anyway that the one letter and two letter versions you have now are incompatible.  It should be possible to have the system easily arbitrarily extensible, by using underscores.
 * 8) It seems to me that the method of writing games without using so many comment tags works better/is cleaner.  For example:

--jacobolus (t) 23:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, go ahead with the borders, but I'm warning you that there will be a lot of images to update. Also concerning the incompatability between the two invocation systems - they are completely compatible and use the same template. I just have two sets of images (one being way larger in number of images than the other, in fact) which are called in separately. I just choose two segregate between the two systems purely out of aesthetics - underscores would still not help, considering that it would make one character usage go out of alignment in the editor (not the displayed version, but I'm stressing ease of edit). It looks good right now, no problems as I see - all the work concerning duplicate images are done. -- Natalinasmpf 23:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Esplanade-nite view.jpg
Hi,

I was just admiring the photo Image:Esplanade-nite view.jpg that you uploaded and was considering adding it to the Commons. Unfortunately I can't read Chinese, so I couldn't verify that the image is in the public domain. Is it generally the case that works of the Singapore Tourism Board or work of the Singapore Government are public domain? And are we sure this isn't a photograph that they have licensed. Is there additional copyright discussion on the website that I can't read? -- Solipsist 11:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 1