On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward
to dropping in the line Wikipedia smells of hammers. ([[Brass Eye]])
Very nice! I liked the The FBI told them to go away-line :) I might
be biased, but I
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to
the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Cormac Lawler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/8/08, K. Peachey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to
the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
I just get silence on that link -
The BBC has a story on the IWF's censorship:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7770456.stm
William King (Willking1979)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Magnus Manske
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Well, AFAIK we all agree that metadata like categories and interwiki
links don't really belong into wikitext. Maybe we could find a general
solution that also encompasses references (that is, the contents, not
the position
Apologies for accidentally over-quoting on my last post :-s
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM, R E Broadley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the show, the last thing said (in the mp3) file is we've only blocked the
URL that contains the image.
Does this mean that:-
1) they have just blocked the URL
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:56 AM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/8 K. Peachey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to
the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
Yeah, they pushed it to last in the
One of those rare occasions where I am disgusted with my country. The skulking
cowardice of these officious mid-level button-pusher busybodies is beyond
belief. The prying etatiste mentality is something, frankly, I had always
assumed to be confined to France and other European nations.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First of all, thanks a lot for your replies.
Let me clarify a couple of assumptions that I've made:
i) there should be at most one article on any given topic in a language
edition, which is not true in sh:, az:, ku: and possibly others.
ii) the sum
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:24 AM, R E Broadley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apologies for accidentally over-quoting on my last post :-s
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM, R E Broadley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the show, the last thing said (in the mp3) file is we've only blocked
the URL that
2008/12/8 Tim Starling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The poor woman clearly didn't know the difference between a URL and a web
page. Most likely the same can be said about the IWF staff member who
listed those two pages.
Apparently their guidance is to routinely block the page containing
an image as
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Tim Starling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The poor woman clearly didn't know the difference between a URL and a web
page. Most likely the same can be said about the IWF staff member who
listed those two pages.
The colatteral damage will mostly go away if they block
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Lukasz Bolikowski wrote:
Let me clarify a couple of assumptions that I've made:
i) there should be at most one article on any given topic in a language
edition, which is not true in sh:, az:, ku: and possibly others.
ii) the sum of interwiki links
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end
handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a
critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact),
yet if another interview such
I understand the intent in helping ISPs to limit collateral damage, and it
certainly would be handy to have the problem resolved for the UK editors
effected...
But in the midst of the news cycle, and with a bit of a PR backlash in
progress, I'm not sure you want to get into Wikipedia
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end
handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a
critic (and these things are so
2008/12/8 Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I understand the intent in helping ISPs to limit collateral damage, and it
certainly would be handy to have the problem resolved for the UK editors
effected...
But in the midst of the news cycle, and with a bit of a PR backlash in
progress, I'm not sure
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/12/8 Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I understand the intent in helping ISPs to limit collateral damage, and it
certainly would be handy to have the problem resolved for the UK editors
effected...
But in the midst of the news cycle, and with a bit of
2008/12/8 geni [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/12/8 Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I understand the intent in helping ISPs to limit collateral damage, and it
certainly would be handy to have the problem resolved for the UK editors
effected...
But in the midst
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, geni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since wikipedians can rapidly generate very large numbers of thumbnail
URLs and have just the sod you attitude to do it such an approach is
unlikely to be effective. Blocking wikipedia by URL is unlikely to be
effective.
We could
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from
accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair
notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia
didn't have such heavy traffic it probably would have gone unnoticed.
So what
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but in the experience of someone non-technical they generally
are. You don't generally see the URLs for images/scripts/etc.
directly, and if a URL has lots of confusing stuff appended to it you
just ignore it as being
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from
accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair
notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia
didn't have such heavy traffic it
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from
accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair
notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia
didn't have such heavy traffic it
Perhaps you should canvass for votes from Norwegians. Maybe the vote should
even be restricted to Norwegians. I do not like the idea of Ingglish
politicians being more significant only because English people seem to hav
written the software used to describe them.
(...)
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at
I can not say anything about [[Glamour (presentation)]], because it is
beyond my ken in the field of arts how you would properly cover a topic like
that outside of a book. Magazines and television do mostly demonstrations
without giving you a clue about how it works.
[[Star Shipping]] is
From: phoebe ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(...)
Sure, and maybe this isn't even a problem per se -- it's the job of
scholarly discourse to present and discuss new ideas, etc. etc. I am
thinking more about a failure of scientific publishing as meaning a
(theoretically) respectable journal
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
snip
It's like that Voltaire-quote. You know which one I'm talking about
(I'm not gonna actually say it, because only douchebags actually say
it).
--Oskar
/snip
Does that mean I have to defend to the death your right /not/ to say it,
so as to assist you in your
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/8 Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end
handed her a very strong
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants
to tell us what it is.
Going on the Today program is traditionally a pretty effective way
to challenge any decision by a public body :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/article2016131.ece
(no, no breasts)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, I loved the Amazon has money and will sue, and (WP) is an
educational charity.. - so pleased you were able to wedge that in, David!
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
In a message dated 12/7/2008 2:25:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But child porn? please. Whomever that image /arouses/ belongs on a
sex offender registry.
---
Sure when we finalize the ink on the thought police.
But until then, you
Yes, very good. :)
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/8 KillerChihuahua [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oh, I loved the Amazon has money and will sue, and (WP) is an
educational charity.. - so pleased you were able to wedge that in,
David!
Yes. It stops
On 08/12/2008, Sam Blacketer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further comments about how the IWF just ensured that millions go to see the
cover in order to work out what all the fuss is about. Millions of people
may just be an exaggeration.
Yeah, looks like only ~500K hits on the article so far:
2008/12/9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In a message dated 12/7/2008 1:35:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On second thought, those pics would be derivative works of the cover and
hence not acceptable for Commons.
--
A derivative work must pass the
In a message dated 12/8/2008 4:48:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the album cover is the key feature of the picture (which it would
be, since that's the point of making the picture) then it could well
be enough.
I think it would be a hard
I'm inclined to agree. There are simply too many unremarkable D-list
celebrities to realistically keep an eye on them all.
- GlassCobra
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Skyring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:39 AM, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
38 matches
Mail list logo
