User talk:Peterblaise

Still looking for an accurate, contemporaneous "MediaWiki Installation Manual"
Peter Blaise says: failing contribute to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Contents/To_do (loca cookie/chache issue), I'll try to create one here. I look forward to anyone else trying to document the various roads to success implementing MediaWikis. As of 2007-05-18 there is no discussion yet!

My Struggle #1: prototype, building an intranet-sharable Wiki that does not require admin privileges on my local primary workstation. Cornelius Herzog's Wiki on WOS (Webserver On a usb Stick) from http://www.chsoftware.net/ works, but requires that I permit each visitor access by manually entering their IP address into a list, which requires that I be here for newbies to achieve initial success, and so dampens their enthusiasm to stay with the learning curve, and also is blind in that I can't easily know who's at what IP address. Also, this in Intranet only.

My struggle #2: alpha/beta, building an intranet-sharable Wiki WITH admin privileges on my remote secondary workstation. After many iterative struggles with Windows, IIS versus Apache, PHP, MySQL, I finally have 2 MediaWiki systems working on 1 MySQL. However, I have yet to find a resource that lists the linking steps and confirmation checks between MSWinXPPro, Apache, PHP, MySQL, and MediaWiki. PHPMyAdmin refuses to connect to MySQL, so there's more to do.

My dream struggle #3: build multiple Wikis that do not share the same database, and share over the Internet.

If anyone has links to resources that support resolutions to these struggles, please share! I've read most of the ones in Google's top search results and find they are missing specific linking steps and confirmation checks, and are usually out of date (MySQL 4 and PHP 4 and MediaWiki 1.3, for instance).

Here are some http://www.Google.com/ searches and results:
 * Search Terms: install mediawiki apache php mysql win xp winxp windows xp phpmyadmin ... and so on.


 * http://www.Google.com/ results:
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-Apache,-MySQL,-PHP,-and-phpMyAdmin-on-a-Windows-PC
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-phpMyAdmin-on-Your-Windows-PC
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-the-Apache-Web-Server-on-a-Windows-PC
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-the-MySQL-Database-Server-on-Your-Windows-PC
 * http://www.bicubica.com/apache-php-mysql/index.php
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-the-PHP-Engine-on-Your-Windows-PC
 * http://www.devside.net/
 * http://oss.segetech.com/wamp.html
 * http://www.wampserver.com/en/index.php
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installing_MediaWiki_on_Windows_Server_2003
 * http://www.sematopia.com/?p=28http://www.yafla.com/dennisforbes/Many-Ways-to-Skin-a-Wiki-Hosting-a-Wiki-on-Windows/Many-Ways-to-Skin-a-Wiki-Hosting-a-Wiki-on-Windows.html
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installing_MediaWiki_on_Windows_XP_-_MediaWiki_1.9.2
 * http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.windows.php
 * ... and so on for ~1,100,000 others.

... NONE of which are contemporaneous, complete, accurate, nor do they include linking steps and confirmation checks for the entire suite of OS, WS, DB, PI, WP, and E&E. Don'tcha love abbreviations? Anyway, these generic terms might help structure a "manual":


 * OS = Operating System - Linux, Windows ...
 * WS = Web Server - Apache, MS/IIS ...
 * DB = DataBase - MySQL, PostgreSQL ...
 * PI = Program/html parser/interpreter - PHP ...
 * WP = Wiki Program - MediaWiki ...
 * E&E = Extensions and Enhancements - FCKEditor, PHPMyAdmin, cache ...

I'll contribute what I have, but I have scant little success because no one else seems willing to return here or anywhere with their notes on the way to their own success.

-- Peter Blaise peterblaise 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved your additions
Hi, and welcome to the mediawiki wiki. I have moved your addition to Manual:Backing up a wiki to the talk page, because it doesn't seem appropriate the way it is now. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 11:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Peter, thanks for your input and the thoughts about this "looking for a manual" issue. I think your hints will become more useful soon … I dunno when this could lead to a nearly complete manual though (always depends on the people actually adding new and reworking existing contents). Well, there's still no real community on this site, and the main discussion about the site's content itself is somehow fragmented and often laggy. I added a short note to Manual talk:Contents btw., and Manual:Contents/To do was already helpful :-) Regards -- :Bdk: 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
Hi Peter, could you please not mess up pages here? Two points: Thanks -- :Bdk: 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  – The help namespace is for the general PD help, not for system administration or manual stuff.
 * 2)  – Use talk pages if you have questions. That's why they are there.

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: You say: "... don't change other user's comments ..." when you probably mean "...please do not change my comments...", which is hypocritical since you changed - DELETED - my comments elsewhere rather than discuss my comments with your own contrasting point of view!
 * Now, I cannot read your post above due to abbreviated references, so I expanded the references. If you prefer that I leave your post truncated and abbreviated, so be it!  Here's my expansion of your post so I can read it and see what you are talking about, so I can cut and past and print the links and check them for myself:


 * Hmm
 * Hi Peter, could you please not mess up pages here? Two points:
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Namespaces&diff=prev&oldid=101131 – The help namespace is for the general [Project:PD help] = PD help, not for system administration or manual stuff.
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Extension:CheckUser&action=history – Use talk pages if you have questions. That's why they are there.
 * Thanks --:Bdk: 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you missed one point. You started an editwar within the help namespace. Do not do so again.
 * The rest of your reply is in the wrong location as it belongs to another thread below. -- :Bdk: 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we make pages for the words we type into [search] bar?
Peter Blaise says:

Since Help:Namespaces is the article we get (bot) when we ask for "namespace" or "namespaces" at MediaWiki.org, why not put ALL help (or links) for "namespaces" in the an article page under that name? The Help:Namespaces article page does not offer much help on the MediaWiki meaning of the the word "namespace" - see
 * MediaWiki.org: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Namespace

So ... what is the Help:Namespaces article for? It does not even have links to deeper inforamtion about Namespaces. I can't find the definition of "namespace" when typing into the MediaWiki [search] bar. Searching on Google, I can find the following:
 * Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

which comes from
 * Meta.WikiMedia.org: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

Is there a reason MediaWiki.org can't see "meta" or can't find the meanings of any MediaWiki word typed into it's own [search] bar? See also Google search for define:namsespace for general non-MediaWiki meanings of the word "namespace". May I suggest that we all look up the existing meaning of words before we create new meanings?

Note that MediaWiki "articles" without a colon (:) in their name are in the "main" "namespace", which is for "articles". When contributing to a wiki, "articles/documents" that aren't directly related to the main/default "namespace" are probably best placed in/under other namespaces. When articles/documents are in another namespace than the main namespace, you get to them and build them by typing namespace:article-name; e.g. ':'. For example, to build "wtf" under "help" go/search for "help:wtf" and the MediaWiki software will with bring you to an existing page if there is one, or it will respond with an offer to allow you to build such a new page.

Here are a few default namespace names:


 * Help:nnn
 * Documentation about working with the wiki software. This could be mirrored from outside sites, or locally written.
 * Help typically used for the MediaWiki User's Guide, with the wikitext a frequently refreshed copy of the master version on Meta-Wikipedia, but with project-specific templates
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Image:nnn
 * For descriptions of uploaded files. You shouldn't create these directly; they are created when you click the Upload file link in the toolbox.
 * Image images and other uploaded files, with image description pages (list: Special:Imagelist)
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Media:nnn
 * Use this namespace to link to uploaded files directly, rather than through the description pages.
 * Media pseudo-namespace for images and other files themselves, as opposed to the image description pages; see also below
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * MediaWiki:nnn
 * Use this namespace to change the default system messages, See Help:MediaWiki_namespace on meta.
 * MediaWiki system messages (list: Special:Allmessages), editable by users, or if protected, by sysops
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Project:nnn
 * Information about this wiki; i.e. policies that apply here. This namespace also has an alias, which is the name of the wiki installation.
 * Meta the project namespace for matters about the project, such as guidelines and discussions; see also the Help: namespace
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Talk:nnn
 * Each page has a corresponding discussion page. This can be used for feedback/comments about that page, or other local notes that another group may want to associate with the page, without modifying the document directly, or for any other additional information to associate with the document.
 * Talk see Help:Talk page for this and the following odd-numbered namespaces
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Template:nnn
 * This is used for meta-information that is to be transcluded into multiple documents, such as tags to mark the status of a document.
 * Template the default namespace for templates: the wikitext code refers to and includes the page Template:name
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * User:nnn
 * For personal notes. Each User has a corresponding user page for their own information.  Users can also create subpages, by using a / after their name.
 * User registered users (list: Special:Listusers) have a user homepage User:username (linked to by the system from user names in lists of edits, e.g. on page histories, and from signatures on talk pages); this and subpages of it can be used to present oneself, for project-related bookmarks, and for drafts, tests, and other working material. One can put here material to give oneself one-step access to it from any page in the same project, and one can put here links to give oneself two-step access to the link targets from any page in the same project as the user page. For users who do not log in, the same applies, with the IP as username. Dynamic IPs are a complication.
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * User_talk:nnn
 * The discussion page on a user's page can be used for leaving messages. If this page is edited, the next time that user logs in they will see a box notifying them that they have new messages
 * User_talk
 * Examples: (needed, please)

... more - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

What say, does anyone want to DISCUSS this rather than delete it? What will it take for us to have respect for contributor's information when we find it, and a functional organization, including standard site-wide tables of contents, index and glossary?


 * Thanks. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * You will be delighted to hear that Manual:Namespace now exists, and explains the concept of a namespace in MediaWiki parlance, while providing a technical overview and relevant links to similar documentation on this site. 86.134.91.23 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

Peter Blaise responds:

Great, and thank you, Rob.

Now all we need are examples. For instance:
 * How to export or print all articles in a namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to control who can see or edit the articles in a particular namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to restrict search to include or exclude a particular namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to auto-build a table of contents for all articles in a namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to export and import one or more namespaces?
 * ... more?!?

In other words, what are the features and benefits of using the "namespace" function, and how (examples, please) can a wiki admin or wiki user take advantage of those features and benefits?


 * Thanks -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Same needs for examples in understanding "categories" and "sub-pages".

Stop
Peter, please stop disturbing by double- and cross-posting long threads, by re-inserting removed texts on (random talk) pages and by very unusual (formal) reworking of other users' comments, immediately.

I'm watching your behaviour for some weeks now, first with a rather positive impression (see the above section "Thanks") and with the hope that you'll get used to the site and the work of its small community (what we do in which way) by and by. This seems not very likely at the moment :-/

In addition, if you want to improve your understanding of wikis/wiki communities in general and mediawiki.org in particular, please make yourself familiar with the basic conventions of this site; please read at least About this site, Project:PD help, Project:Current issues carefully.

Before adding your questions and/or comments directly to (article) texts written by other users, please consult the appropriate (article or user) talk page. If you don't understand the aim of the PD help project, refrain from editing the help namespace.

-- :Bdk: 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds:


 * Dear Bdk,


 * Thank for your efforts to support others here. And thank you for the links.
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/About_this_site
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:PD_help (What does the abbreviation "PD" mean?)
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Current_issues


 * How would I have found them if you didn't tell me? If they are important, is there a way to incorporate them into a welcoming presentation when anyone enters MediaWiki.org?  I'll get back to you on what I think of them - perhaps I'll edit them to make them as accurate as I can.  Thanks for pointing me to them.


 * Also, thanks for your offer to me (above - to stop "disturbing" and double posting, and so on), but I decline to give ownership of the open-source wiki-based MediaWiki.org support environment to you in exclusion of my contribution. I'm not sure what you mean by "...unusual (formal) reworking of other users' comments...", so you might provide a link or example to clarify what you mean.  Do you mean expanding small links to full kinks like "[1]" to "http://www.link.com/" ?  I'm not sure what's so wrong with that, as that's the only way I can see the links when I cut and paste and PDF and read the pages off line then go to another computer to type in the referred to links.  [1] gets me nowhere.  But, I suppose that if such abbreviated links are in someone's discussion comments, then I might instead leave them as is, and respond by adding my expanded links below their comment, as I show here above.  I've printed the articles and discussions and will read them next.


 * However, I read your comment above as threatening to somehow close the open source wiki MediaWiki.org environment to me if I do not do things your way or the way you think others have done things. Is that what you are saying?  Please clarify!  I'm sorry for you, but I insist on participating, just as you do, and I insist on participating in my own way, just as you choose to do.  You may think you are following "rules" but if your "rules" end up making MediaWiki.org hard to comprehend for the next person, then I hope you would consider the goals of the rule you are following.  However, unlike you, I don't want to delete other's hard work.  I strive to edit for clarity.  I do NOT delete entire contributions by other people, and you and some others have.  We use the MediaWiki.org resources differently.  There are two reasons I cut and paste one comment to more than one place:
 * (1) every MediaWiki.org resource is already split across many places, so asking for help in multiple places is perfectly in pattern and logical - perhaps you can take the hint to consolidate the divided resources, eh?
 * (2) people like you delete entire posts, so, if I put it in a couple of places, one copy at least may last long enough to garner a helpful response - I hope!


 * So, we disagree. Fine.  We disagree.  THAT is what open-source and wiki-based environments are designed to allow - DISAGREEMENT - and we all can still just get along!  In the war you are declaring against me, neither if us will win.  But, I hope to encourage you to use your powers NOT for deleting, but for honoring my efforts, and the good faith efforts of others who try to contribute what we can here, by respecting our contributions.  Can you make our contributions better?  Great - then edit them, move them (if you know a better place - and PLEASE include links so others may know of such places, too!), add to them, and even share your opposition to them - right there beside, or below, the person's who's contributions you are at odd with.  Cool.  That's what we're all here for - to SHARE the space and make it better for everyone, not to bump each other off and make it inaccessible to those with whom we disagree.


 * I resent you "watching my contributions" as if you feel obliged to approve or delete my participation in the MediaWiki.org environment. When the name changes to BdkWiki, I'll leave it up to you.  Until then, welcome me, make a functional connection with me, or leave me alone, and just get along with me.  I am a MediaWiki evangelist in my organization, why crush my attempts to get and give support right along with everyone else on MediaWiki.org?  Thank you. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * No, what I asked you to follow – the basic conventions of and for this site – is not at all about ownership, but about community and understanding of constructive collaboration!


 * You instead insist on adding your (more or less confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful) comments to the main and help namespaces, including your signature, "open questions" and personal claims. This is not and will not be acceptable, and the next attempt to do so might result in an unexpected break (yes, this is a warning).
 * If you are – for whatever reason – frustrated, this is no reason to add complaining comments all over the site and to keep other users busy with such stuff.
 * If you really want to help mediawiki.org, than get familiar with it and then start editing and actual improving, not the other way around. Especially, do not add questions and complaints to help pages if you are unsure – if needed or possible, add reviewed/confirmed content, that is in fact usable and helpful for readers.
 * Note: There's not much sense in this sort of complaining (like you did) within an open source project where nearly everyone is active on a voluntary basis. You can't expect, that everything that you aren't comfortable with will be fixed within days. If you want something to be fixed, than 1) ask others to help in a friendly and motivating way, or 2) learn and do it yourself.


 * Do not lie! The only things added by you that I deleted were duplicate (or completely misplaced redundant) and therefore highly pointless posts, e.g. this one. I did not delete "the last copy" in any case.
 * If you would edit like all other more active users here – only once per issue and on the appropriate pages – there would be no need for removal or deletion, of course. By "unusual edit format" I meant stuff like this and that (in addition see en.wikipedia where another user asked you the same in April).


 * PS1: The 3 links I gave you above are all linked from the main navigation. Just click the second link. Well, about this site is even linked from the recentchanges and several other interface pages.
 * PS2: If you would have read Project:PD help and/or the note that is placed on every page within the help namespace once, you would already know what PD stands for: public domain.
 * PS3: There's no CamelCase within Wikimedia, and lay off the caps lock, please.
 * -- :Bdk: 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really have much to add to Bdk's comments, except that I don't expect you would behave in this manner if you decided to visit your local community centre for the first time, or a new gym, or a film club. If you would like to contribute to our community (and it appears from your early postings that you could become a valuable member) then please try and learn a bit about what we are trying to do and the ways the community has already chosen to do it.  Most people don't seem to have any difficulty doing that. --HappyDog 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds:
 * Yep, we disagree. You find my contributions "...confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful..." but that's EXACTLY the way I find the MediaWiki.org site!  =8^o  Let's work together to make it better.  However, better for you and better for me may be different - but that's okay, we can co-exist.  I'm just asking you to contribute rather than delete!  New adopters of MediaWiki software are not suffering from too much information, we are suffering from too little information, and disorganized information at that.  Let's not denigrate each other just because we learn differently.  Speaking of learning, I'm informed by a quote attributed to Albert Einstein:
 * "Example isn't just another way to teach. 
 * Example is the only way to teach."
 * -- Albert Einstein
 * I find a sore lack of examples here at MediaWiki.org. That "help:namespace" page is one.  Who cares if there's a list of default namespaces if there are no examples of how to use them?  Please put examples on MediaWiki.org wherever you roam today.  Try it for just one day - instead of deleting other people's work (deleting is so much easier to do than constructing, right?), try ONLY contributing examples for 24 hours.  I'm trying to construct and share examples, please join me.  Why not explain the features and benefits of "namespaces" - or share links that you think do that?  And, most importantly, include examples!  In other words, instead of trying to prevent me from participating because you think newbies like me are so messy, why not welcome me, and dive in, and get dirty once again, as you probably also had to when you were first learning, yourself?


 * I'll leave it to you to address what I find as myopic, subjective, and judgmental: calling my contributions names like, confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful ... highly pointless. All anyone can really say is "I (or we) personally experience your posts as confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful ... highly pointless."  It's a personal thing.  I, however, disagree.  And that's a personal thing, too.  If MediaWiki.org were so well organized, then why doesn't it speak to me?  For instance, on the front page, MediaWiki.org asks the audience to split itself into three categorizes:
 * Users
 * System Administrators
 * Developers
 * ... well, are those also split as 3 separate namespaces on MediaWiki.org? Does MediaWiki.org really have such a perfectly organized and divided structure?  I don't think so.  Type anything into the search bar and see what comes up - a jumble of all things supposedly intended for "Users", "System Administrators" and "Developers" alike - all in one undifferentiated bucket.  THAT's what MediaWiki software is all bout - a bit bucket.  However, everyone wants to organize their stuff, and you can help - by showing how MediaWiki and MediaWiki.org can be organized (or show how they ARE organized, if you believe them to be so).
 * Please explain how MediaWiki.org is organized.
 * Please explain the structure and organization of MediaWiki software .
 * Please explain the features and benefits of how " namespaces " work, include examples.
 * Please explain the features and benefits of how " categories " work, include examples.
 * Please explain the features and benefits of how sub-pages work, include examples.
 * If MediaWiki.org doesn't do this in a clear, succinct, and easily findable way, then I will try, and I ask you for help, not hindrance. If "namespaces" and "categories" and sub-pages do not really have the features and benefits required to organize the contents of a SQL database as presented by MediaWiki, then we need to know that.  I find communication to be a skill, an art, a science, continually expanding with each practitioner, always growing, never finished.  Our styles may differ, but can we agree on or select targets to address, and then either coordinate or at least stay out of each other's way?  The above list are targets I am researching now while addressing my customer's needs.  Help, please, if you can.


 * Actually, I sincerely doubt "Users" come here. I presume they stay on their own wikis.  Rather, I presume the "User" section is actually for "System Administrators" to copy and provide for their users.  Perhaps Users will be directed here to the User namespace (is there one?) to get contemporaneous User support?  I don't know - there is no overriding scheme I can see to MediaWiki.org contents, actually.  If there is one, please either explain it to me, or cause the site to explain it to me.  Otherwise, allow me to try to figure one out and try to lend a hand in providing such a clearly visible structure.


 * Anyway, I find my posts helpful to me. I hope they are potentially useful to others like me - newbies to MediaWiki, but oldies in the computer universe. I also find my posts to be imperfect, that is, in need of evolutionary development.  I want to revisit them and enhance them just as I do all the other imperfect (human?) contributions on MediaWiki.org.  Think about it - if anything here were perfect, why would anyone have any questions or even need to come here?  We'd all just be happy as we use our perfectly functioning MediaWiki software, merrily as we roll along.  But that's not the case, and singling me out because you feel uncomfortable with my struggle and my contribution doesn't help anything, but tries to maintain the status quo.


 * Let's try to grow beyond the status quo. Let's admit the MediaWiki.org is in need of everyone pitching in, including newbies, and I suggest that that will happen best when we don't fight each other, and don't waste time deleting each other's work.  Let's add and build MediaWiki.org, instead.  Are we going to have differences of opinion?  Sure.  And that's all your assessment of my posts is - opinion.  If your ideas are better, let them stand side by side with my ideas, and may the best ideas win in the (hopefully) ever-growing audience's minds.


 * Look, I don't know how to resolve this "dispute" any more than you do. I don't know how to motivate you to contribute, contribute, contribute, and stop deleting, any more than you know how to motivate me to leave things as they are and supposedly only make changes after I learn (heck, If I COULD learn from MediaWiki.org as it stands, why would I make changes?!?).


 * Point, counter point:
 * - HappyDog, I find analogies fall apart rather quickly. Wikis are intended to be user-built sites, so comparing them to a physical town community center (tax built, professionally sub-contracted, legal rule/regulation domain, and so on) seems odd.  But, hey, I clean up messes I find at my local community center too, and clean and polish the white board, and otherwise pitch in.  And I'm not hew here - I've been struggling since February 2007 (4 months).  Should we put on a time restriction or have newbies pass a wiki-driver's test before allowing us to edit articles, limiting us to discussions only until a certain community standard is proved to have been attained?  Do you think I'll agree with the (lack of) organization at MediaWiki.org after ... how long?  After I have how much additional MediaWiki savvy?  My point is that even when I attain master wiki status in anybody's estimation, I'll still want to grow MediaWiki.org to be the best it can be for ME and my perception of my customer's needs.  Isn't that all anybody asks, here?  Isn't that what you and Bdk think you are doing, also?
 * - Bdk, I have no idea what CamelCase is, and I have Caps Lock defeated on my keyboard, using bold, italics, underline, (shift)CAPS, indent, color, bullets and so on for emphasis and visual structure exactly as I have seen them in my years of reading. I prefer Rolling Stone magazine to Wired magazine, and I don't do text messaging (all smalls).  If you think I have contributed anything that is formatted so as to be unreadable, even cryptic to you, please share an example so I can tell what you are talking about.
 * - Back to you, HappyDog: If we were at a local community center, I bet we'd have no problem and get along just fine. It's only though emails and posting like these that I find people taking unintended umbrage at each other's contributions. Really, all I want to do is support my customers and make MediaWiki a successful resource for them.  Good for my customers, good for MediaWiki, good for everyone.
 * Sincerely, -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--
 * You might want to have a look at CamelCase … -- :Bdk: 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

Peter Blaise responds:

Okay, let's get sidetracked on CalemCase (definition: typing words with capital letters in the middle of non-capital letters, looking like the hump on a camel). When you say "There's no CamelCase within Wikimedia," I thought you were trying to tell me that the MediaWiki program does not honor CamelCase as a program instruction to do something special, the way it honors multiple ' (quote) marks or multiple [ (brackets) or the way it honors words joined with a : (colon) as in en:CamelCase. Since you seem averse to telling me what it is that I have been typing that you are referring to, I will guess. Let's play 20 questions. I'm down to 18 or so left. Do you object to me writing MediaWiki and prefer that I write Mediawiki? Is THAT it? Please note that at http://www.wikimedia.org/ I see all type styles in use by the mother company:
 * W IKIPEDI A (combination of large and small caps)
 * WikiBooks (using ... CAMEL CASE!!!)
 * Wiktionary, and Wikiquote (using capital first letter, the rest smalls)
 * WIKIMEDIA, WIKINEWS, and WIKIVERSITY (using all caps)

... your point? I think you are spouting your own personal preference as if it were a universal rule, law, or program function, eh?

FYI (for your information), I have been typing so-called "CamelCase" for years to assist my customers in understanding and reminding themselves of what to them was meaningless computer geek jargon otherwise:
 * ChkDsk - told users the two root words - Check and Disk
 * FDisk - helped them remember Fixed Disk
 * ... and so on.

Neither Microsoft nor the DOS command interpreter demanded or expected the CamelCase. But, by capitalizing the first letter of each root word inside invented compound words, I was helping customers understand the source and meaning of the jargon they were asked to manage. In the novice user community, with no desires to become jargonistas, I frequently got an, "Ooooooh, so THAT'S what the gobbledygook means! Thank you so much, you've resolved months of guessing!"

Bdk, imagine a world where you are not the only audience. =8^o


 * Thanks. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You repeatedly wrote WikiMedia within texts you added to the main and help namespace (well, I don't mind how you spell words and names within your comments on talk pages).
 * I already gave you the link to this page on the Support Desk nearly three weeks ago, see there. So you should know about the differences between MediaWiki (the software this site is about, its name is written with CamelCase) and Wikimedia (the Foundation that hosts and supports this site, written without CamelCase, not only for clarity reasons).
 * Again, there is no CamelCase within "Wikimedia" (it's a trademark, and there's no point in writing it wrong intentionally). And no, this is not a personal preference. -- :Bdk: 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

--

Peter Blaise responds:

Okay, let's get sidetracked on CalemCase (definition: typing words with capital letters in the middle of non-capital letters, looking like the hump on a camel). When you say "There's no CamelCase within Wikimedia," I thought you were trying to tell me that the MediaWiki program does not honor CamelCase as a program instruction to do something special, the way it honors multiple ' (quote) marks or multiple [ (brackets) or the way it honors words joined with a : (colon) as in en:CamelCase. Since you seem averse to telling me what it is that I have been typing that you are referring to, I will guess. Let's play 20 questions. I'm down to 18 or so left. Do you object to me writing MediaWiki and prefer that I write Mediawiki? Is THAT it? Please note that at http://www.wikimedia.org/ I see all type styles in use by the mother company:
 * W IKIPEDI A (combination of large and small caps)
 * WikiBooks (using ... CAMEL CASE!!!)
 * Wiktionary, and Wikiquote (using capital first letter, the rest smalls)
 * WIKIMEDIA, WIKINEWS, and WIKIVERSITY (using all caps)

... your point? I think you are spouting your own personal preference as if it were a universal rule, law, or program function, eh?

FYI (for your information), I have been typing so-called "CamelCase" for years to assist my customers in understanding and reminding themselves of what to them was meaningless computer geek jargon otherwise:
 * ChkDsk - told users the two root words - Check and Disk
 * FDisk - helped them remember Fixed Disk
 * ... and so on.

Neither Microsoft nor the DOS command interpreter demanded or expected the CamelCase. But, by capitalizing the first letter of each root word inside invented compound words, I was helping customers understand the source and meaning of the jargon they were asked to manage. In the novice user community, with no desires to become jargonistas, I frequently got an, "Ooooooh, so THAT'S what the gobbledygook means! Thank you so much, you've resolved months of guessing!"

Bdk, imagine a world where you are not the only audience. =8^o


 * Thanks. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * You repeatedly wrote WikiMedia within texts you added to the main and help namespace (well, I don't mind how you spell words and names within your comments on talk pages).
 * I already gave you the link to this page on the Support Desk nearly three weeks ago, see there. So you should know about the differences between MediaWiki (the software this site is about, its name is written with CamelCase) and Wikimedia (the Foundation that hosts and supports this site, written without CamelCase, not only for clarity reasons).
 * Again, there is no CamelCase within "Wikimedia" (it's a trademark, and there's no point in writing it wrong intentionally). And no, this is not a personal preference. -- :Bdk: 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

You say Wikimedia, and I say potato

Peter Blaise responds:

Thanks for clarifying, Bdk. From now on I'll write "Wikimedia Foundation" when I mean "Wikimedia Foundation", and nix the briefer "WikiMedia" ... though ... "Wikimedia Foundation" themselves use the briefer "wikimedia," as in "wikimedia.org"! See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey#Current_projects for their trademark registrations that I submitted on 31 May 2007 to the Wikimedia Foundation Brand Survey as a reference in just case anyone wants to look 'em up and read 'em for themselves. Caps and smalls are totally irrelevant to the trademark registrations, by the way. It's not as if I personally can go off and register "wIkImEdIa" and claim it as mine just because I type it different. Trademark wise, they're all the same, and they all belong to the Wikimedia Foundation.

You seem to love to use disappearing links! Lemme see what these are:
 * "... I already gave you the link to [ http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms&oldid=510858 this page ] on the Support Desk nearly three weeks ago, see [ http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Project:Support_desk&diff=prev&oldid=97801 there ] ..."

Well, let's see what you actually wrote "there":


 * … and, not to forget, have a look at meta:Glossary or its "old" shorter version to complete the confusion ;-) --:Bdk: 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That explains it - it's those dang short, disappearing links again! Let's see what your offering looks like when printing, or even selecting "Printable version":


 * … and, not to forget, have a look at meta:Glossary or its "old" shorter version (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms&oldid=510858) to complete the confusion ;-) --:Bdk: 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Still missin' at last one link! When I read your offering, I see no links, and when I print your offering, I don't always get a copyable link I can try elsewhere after reading and red-penning the printout. You like small, disappearing links, fine. You win some of your audience, and you loose some. I like complete visible links, and I suppose some people's eyes glaze over at what they see as gibberish. I win some, and loose some, also, I guess. Is there a perfect world where one way of sharing suits all commers?

But, I see that even you use the word "wikimedia" too (as in "wikimedia.org") without adding the differentiating "... foundation." The Wikimedia Foundation uses it that way - and that's their trademark - without the differentiating "... foundation"! So, maybe I should keep using is as they do, after all, and keep differentiating it from MediaWiki (the software) some other way. So, there are at least three places to search for support on MediawIki software:
 * MediaWiki (the software): http://www.mediawiki.org/
 * Wikimedia (the Foundation): http://www.wikimedia.org/
 * Wikipedia (a project): http://www.wikipedia.org/

... and various mailing list tech support sites:
 * mediawiki-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
 * wikien-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
 * commons-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
 * wikitech-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


 * Thanks for caring to make yourself clear. Me too. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

But we are a community!
"HappyDog, I find analogies fall apart rather quickly. Wikis are intended to be user-built sites, so comparing them to a physical town community center (tax built, professionally sub-contracted, legal rule/regulation domain, and so on) seems odd."


 * Well, only if you want to extend the analogy that far. My point is that we are a community and have our existing practices, conventions, history and idiosyncracies.  If you think our practices are wrong then you need to first understand (a) how they came into existence (is it the work of one person's whim, or did it arise after months of community discussion?) and (b) why they exist (for example, your comments about Help:Namespace clearly shows that you do not understand what belongs in the Help: namespace on this wiki.  This is explained in the links Bdk posted for you, but which you are appear not to have read).

"But, hey, I clean up messes I find at my local community center too, and clean and polish the white board, and otherwise pitch in."


 * If the convention in your local youth center is to leave things on the whiteboard until closing time so everyone gets a chance to see it, cleaning the white board would be a mistake. The point I am making here is that sometimes there are reasons that things are as they are.  This is a wiki - we will never have a problem with someone 'fixing' something that isn't actually broken (it can always be reverted), but we do have a problem with people repeating the error once they have been told about it and refusing to listen to us when we explain why we do things in a certain way.

"Should we put on a time restriction or have newbies pass a wiki-driver's test before allowing us to edit articles, limiting us to discussions only until a certain community standard is proved to have been attained?"


 * No - that would completely defeat the point. However, when we engage newbies in discussions in order to help them understand a bit about how we work, we expect them to co-operate rather than being inflammatory, and to learn from their mistakes, rather than claiming that the "system is wrong" repeating them.  If the system is really wrong, then discuss it in the appropriate place and see what the community consensus is.

"Do you think I'll agree with the (lack of) organization at MediaWiki.org after ... how long?


 * That is based on the assumption that the wiki is not going to change. It is a wiki.  It is going to change.  Compare the current wiki with how it looked 6 months ago... there is a _lot_ more structure, a _lot_ more content and a _lot_ better navigation.  Your problem is that you think that MW.org was birthed into existence in its current state and is not going to change unless you holler.

"My point is that even when I attain master wiki status in anybody's estimation, I'll still want to grow MediaWiki.org to be the best it can be for ME and my perception of my customer's needs. Isn't that all anybody asks, here? Isn't that what you and Bdk think you are doing, also?"


 * No - we are trying to make it the best it can be for everyone. If you are approaching MW.org as something that should be moulded to you and your customers needs, then you are at the wrong wiki.

The above quoted comments were by PeterBlaise, the indented comments were added by HappyDog 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

AND we are a community

Peter Blaise responds:

Hi again, HappyDog,

Point counter-point:

YOU prefer to learn how a community works when you join others. Cool. That is your preference, and it may (or may not) effect your behavior. Me too. Exactly. However, are we just put off by each other's style, as if style were a rule? I see that some people present themselves in society by saying, "Oh, no, I'm fine," when someone offers them a drink, and some people may throw open the refrigerator and ask, "What's everyone want to drink?" No one's wrong. We each may have preferences, and we all here seem to be enjoying the exploration of how to share. That's a good thing! And that's a Wiki thing.

Oopps, when I said "clean up the white board" I meant to really clean it, you know, where people sort of erase it and it's still smudged, or they use indelible marker instead of eraseable markers, or people put tape all over it and don't clean it off. That's what I mean by "I clean the white board" - and automotive polish is great for cleaning and resurfacing an abused white board. I didn't mean for you to think I meant "erase the white board" - that's Bdk's job! ;-) Hahahah.  No, what I meant was I'm here to support everyone and anyone as best I can, without waiting.  Have you seen how many questions have gone unanswered here for MONTHS?  Doesn't anybody report back in with results of subsequent efforts?  Geesh!

Just because anyone reads the same references does not mean everyone "gets it" the exact same way. I plead alternative viewpoint and interpretation, not ignorance, not stupidity, and not plain ol' ordinary contrariness. I have read the references. And still I hunger for more, more, more. Maybe, just like my own contributions, the references you would have me read and re-read are just so inadequate after a fashion.

Please accept the fact that my contributions to MediaWiki.org are part of the growth you claim that you want and that you seem to want me to wait around for. Hey, it's a WIKI! Why wait? Pitch in and edit every page! I am. How about you?

Good luck making anything perfect for "everyone", if that is your goal. Me? I'm happy to move forward, trying to satisfy one person at a time, starting with myself. Like they say on the airliners, "Put your own oxygen mask on first, then you can help other people." I imagine it's an unrewarding challenge for you to ask "everyone" if they are satisfied with your support offering, to ask if they find your service offering appropriate. Now, for me, with the "one person at a time" approach, I can always ask that one person if they are getting something of value out of the relationship. Funny how I accept and support you and your goals on MediaWiki.org, yet you somehow feel overwhelming nonacceptance and an unwillingness to support me. What was a wiki all about again?


 * Thanks for sharing. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)