Fred Bauder and The Cunctator!
Are we having a reunion?
Hi guys!
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:33 AM, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:21:25 -0400
The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:34 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2013 01:29, Gwern Branwen gw...@gwern.net wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Jimbo and Angela did not play a significant role in debates over
inclusion and
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwen gw...@gwern.net wrote:
My own
impression was that the debates were never resolved so much as the
inclusionists driven out. Just look at the editor population numbers
from the last 9 years, since 2006, or look at the article growth
rates. Has the
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2013 13:41, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
He certainly could have intervened in the arb com cases where I was
vilified for my VfD comments, which I guess would be characterized as
inclusionist.
I
Looking more at this, it seems that Wales has been given credit for
exactly this intervention:
Wales has, in the past, instructed Wikimedia's system administrators to
implement software changes that constitute de facto Wikipedia policy
changes. For instance, in December 2005, in response to the
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2013 14:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2013 14:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
We have Wales to thank for the absurd Articles for Creation process
(Is
that still around? I
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2013 13:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A commercial enterprise a bit like a wiki or a blog that's a way to
crowdsource *high-quality* information.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dl Bt (752nd nomination)
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/18dcov/if_someone_gave_you_the_entirety_of_wikipedia/
- d.
___
Place of death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae,_New_York
Make sure you stay away from [[Troy, New York]] too. And don't bother
predicting its destruction. No one will believe you.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yeah, like that would work!
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F
How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]],
[[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time
If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
notable, no?
No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is irrelevant.
My bad. My comment was based on the apparently mistaken
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
notable, no?
No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Achim lives in Germany, so is very much subject to German law. He's
equally subject to German law if he edits the English Wikipedia,
though. There is no connection between a particular language Wikipedia
and the law
In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that getting a sense of
the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is
precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia.
Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment,
appropriate.
On this, he is
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
In the court's opinion judicial notice was not taken, but information
obtained about common usage of the term, jet ski, used in the insurance
contract. Judicial notice seems to be out of bounds under some reasoning;
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
And the best post I've found on the current case:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/16/citing-wikipedia-in-court-opinions/
Am I missing something? That's just a cut and paste of the concurring
opinion and a paragraph of the
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Matthew Bowker
matthewrbowker.w...@me.com wrote:
Even through all that, I believe AfC needs to exist. It does provide a
great service to anon editors who won't create accounts for whatever reason.
The only reason that makes any sense would be that they don't
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What established framework are you talking about, here?
I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more
importantly, the underlying principles).
An editor, acting in good faith, might
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Anthony's complaint there is more one complaining about what he thinks
is a misleading summary.
It's been asserted that your experiment's parameters were poorly
selected (and therefore won't yield
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What established framework are you talking about, here?
I'm referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and more
importantly, the underlying principles).
An editor, acting in good faith
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
You certainly should revert Gwern's changes. There's no dispute about that.
Indeed, but that's a different context; we were discussing the
appropriateness of Gwern's experiment and ones like it.
So we
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I believe I answered this above. Trusting people to act in good faith
in the way that they feel is in the long-term best interest of
creating an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia is all about.
I answered
think.
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding
back the ones that deserve to be added back?
I think it's less questionable to just re-add all the links, no
questions asked about 'deserving'.
I have
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Removing 100 random external links? For a few weeks? Then adding
back the ones that deserve to be added back?
Where and when did Gwern specify a time frame and indicate that the
appropriate links would
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
The procedure: remove random links and record whether they are
restored to obtain a restoration rate.
- To avoid issues with selecting links, I will remove only the final
external link on pages selected by
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:57 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2012 22:32, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
There's nothing to answer; and I've been copying the most informative
or hilarious quotes for posterity, such as an active administrator in
good standing
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Okay, I'm imagining it Sounds like something that would
improve the encyclopedia.
Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
So, you are not removing random links at all.
. I should just link XKCD here, but I'll forebear. I am reminded of an
anecdote describing a court case
Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users, whose methodologies
are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon
themselves to conduct such experiments without consultation or
approval? That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred.
Yes, I know.
And you believe
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
How could we do that? You could have just cherrypicked the worst
links that were last links which are not official or
template-generated in External Link
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Oh c'mon, even the updated terms of use allow for limited
vulnerability testing which is not *unduly* disruptive.
Firstly, that text pertains to probing, scanning, or testing the
vulnerability of any
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012 12:54, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, unless I read this wrong you are admitting to 100 random vandalisms of
Wikipedia? If so please stop your experiment now and revert any
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, I have been finishing an experiment involving the
removal of 100 random external links by an IP; I haven't analyzed it
yet, so I don't know the outcome, but this gives us an opportunity!
Would anyone in this
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
First shouldn't we guess as to what percentage of the links were
actually good in the first place?
I must say, I didn't expect to see someone
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:34:49 -0500, Anthony wrote:
Put 184.172.174.94 for wikipediareview.com in your hosts file.
(Fortunately, as SOPA has not passed, this is legal :)).
Like I'm gonna go reconfiguring my own system
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Ironically, Conservapedia seems to be in agreement with Wikipedia in
opposing SOPA/PIPA. Talk about strange bedfellows
Wikipedia Review has been down for more than 24 hours now.
Put 184.172.174.94 for wikipediareview.com in your hosts file.
(Fortunately, as SOPA has not passed, this is legal :)).
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On the day that Wikipedia is temporarily blacked out, it seems like
one of its most prominent groups
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
(Which is a good lesson that Jason Scott would also appreciate,
anyway, about trusting the cloud with your content. Not that trusting
your content to Wikipedia is much better, from the long-term point of
view.)
Long term?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The main advantage is that we know that
no one is likely to spend $1,000 to spoof an account.
It's even more unlikely that someone is going to spend $1,000 to
create a legitimate account.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who you are, and
probably won't accept your own testimony as other
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
To wit, why not pay $1,000 to get someone else to deal with OTRS for
you? For $1,000 surely you can hire an expert in the OTRS process to
draft up a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy taking his birthdate as that which his mother tells him rather
than that which is on his birth certificate doesn't sound like a lie
to me. A lie is saying something that you know to be untrue, this is
simply a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:36 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2011 04:03, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Or, if you need the whole story:
I think you've just proven Tony's point.
Glad to be of service.
___
WikiEN-l
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jimmy taking his birthdate as that which his mother tells him rather
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2011 16:55, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
That's what he said September 18, 2004. So no, this wasn't an honest
mistake (which still would be reason not to trust what he says). And
it wasn't even
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
And for the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to Anthony's decision
to drag in a reference to pointless blog discussion thread about Jimmy
Wales' birth date.
I guess one person's pointless blog discussion thread is
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
And for the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to Anthony's decision
to drag in a reference to pointless blog discussion thread about Jimmy
Wales
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2011 12:01, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
'So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was Hello world! isn't to be
taken literally?'
I don't see why not. It's far from unusual for a tech-savvy
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
I remember that in 1992 I was stung by a wasp near the end of a day in
York. I would happily take you to the precise location outside York
station, I said fuck. There is absolutely no documentation for this.
It
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:04 AM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive
discussions here is not very practical.
I would think that fewer participants would make
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I came to accept the Wikipedia is not a dictionary
guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
dismay I find
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. The grinches did get rid of the
recipes though; not many left.
I'm ok with that one because there can be many
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles
about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about
the concept
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Wiktionary: what does meh mean?
By the way, I just want to point out that Wiktionary, like most
dictionaries, contains more than just word meanings. It also contains
usage and etymology, which seems to me to be exactly
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable
deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why.
What makes a word notable? Without looking in Wikipedia: Is argh
notable? Is ahoy notable? Is
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part
to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting
requirements...
Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a failure
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural
history, associations etc.
Anthony replied:
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
The English Wikipedia
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each
of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes.
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
Anthony replied
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written
as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional
encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied:
That point
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that,
guidelines, that means that not a dictionary is it's own EXCLUSION test,
aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go
Are you suggesting that the content presented in
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger
entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion
in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ?
It
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not
the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored.
In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've uploaded my latest attempt at converting the backup to XML:
http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-2001-08-xml.7z
The archive contains an invalid XML file, with control characters
preserved, and a valid
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Have you tried escaping them?
By which I mean, using character references.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I provided both versions of the XML if you want to muck around with
that. I don't think there's much historical value in the control
characters.
Probably not. I was reminded again today that XML 1.1 (for a reason
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is, of course, a miserable failure. How can we duplicate this
failure?
Huh? Why would you want to duplicate a failure?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we decide to call them) feel no
qualms about kicking out clearly disruptive people.
If it was clear to
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy isn't the president of the Wikimedia foundation.
True, and that's the one really egregious error.
Continuing the pattern, A majority of the non-trivial statement of
fact in the article are incorrect.
has
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Wow, so he's able to delete content on *one* of the 200+ languages of
Wikipedia. I'd still say the statement is substantially correct. He
used
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of
birth
is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship.
Even
edit wars that break out over this if some aspects of flagged revisions or its
interface are editable and changeable on-wiki (presumably in the Mediawiki
namespace, editable by admins only).
I would have hoped that our project's administrators would be capable
of working on a project without
If you haven't caught it— my strongly held and long standing recommendation is
that we make the process as invisible as possible: By overloading the cookie
that is set when a user (inc. anons) edits we can switch these people over to
the draft-by-default view, either in a full-on all articles
I don't see what why it is advantageous to not tell an anonymous
editor that their change will only be visible once it has been
approved. Some might even be glad that we're finally bringing in a
peer review system for the more bothersome articles.
AGK
Because I've run across a few IP editors that seemed to care, even if
they don't edit on a consistent basis.
These type of editors are a pleasure to come across. I suspect more
than a few are current or former editors who can't help but fix an
error they come across when browsing an article.
I've been out of the loop since January-ish, so I was pleased to see
that some headway has been made on implementing FlaggedRevs. I see
that a two-month trial on enwiki has been approved by the community:
*
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that it is annoying to think of commons admins going to all this
trouble just for the benefit of unknown people selling t-shirts, but if
people *aren't* allowed to sell t-shirts then it's not free-culture
project.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:29 AM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone help with an authoritative opinion about this? The doubts about
it are causing problems on a number of articles, including during featured
article reviews.
Where an image is in the public domain in its country
2) Delete all unreferenced BLPs - or BLPs referenced only to own website
or IMDB etc
What's the rationale behind this?
And why only BLPs?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Google has agreed to take down links to a website that promotes racist
views of indigenous Australians.
Aboriginal man Steve Hodder-Watt recently discovered the US-based site by
searching Aboriginal and Encyclopedia in
Hello, all.
I've just been named a Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, and one of my
first tasks is to drum up some new recruits. I was hoping there might be
a few brave souls on the mailinglist who are willing to help resolve
disputes with us. There's nothing that you need to do to apply for
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I'm personally not a big fan of the ads either, but if they were
substantially more effective, then I'd have to think about whether this
is one of those many occasions where my personal tastes diverge from
what makes a
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Rob wrote:
In this context, the secondary source is I found a reference to a
newspaper
article which quotes the date. It's not going
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
And it's not a primary source. In historiography, a primary source
(also
called original source) is a document, recording, artifact, or other
source
of information that was created at the time under
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
If the you've understood a rule as some formality that
you must comply with when it clearly does not help you've
misunderstood something. (Either the rule, the applicability of the
rule, or that it helps; Even a poorly
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/5 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
Charles a few things.
You do not need to be in the US to read a
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:14 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I like that. Make Google Books just one of the options. I can see a
potential problem if we're trying to cite a convenience link directly to a
page number and the book has multiple editions. We'd need to know the
ISBN. If the
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
Either Google or the publisher/author of the book you viewed. People
get sued for
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
They could also try suing Google (again?). Not sure if the terms of the
settlement requires Google to actually keep non-US people away or if it just
requires them to kinda try to keep non-US people away.
Or maybe
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Ok, so it would be publisher or author, then.
And how are they going to find out about it?
The same way file sharers get caught when they share lots of music and
films
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other
day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine the whole
encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000
people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000 in the
US. Now is your local library in the top 10,000,000 articles?
I
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine the whole
encyclopaedia is evenly fleshed out, so that every town of 100,000
people in Namibia has an article as good as a town of 100,000
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wales sole founder? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable
definition of founder by which that is true.
I would make the following
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which,
admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's
inclusion policies as currently prescribed) is to ask: would
anyone, anywhere in the world (other than the
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 03:29:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
geni wrote:
2009/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on
yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the
fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
From a news company's POV there is little point in sending someone to
Iran to report on events if people are only going to read your reports
as rehashed by blogs and wikipedia.
Maybe they should start their own blogs and
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson
oskarsigvards...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, you wanna hear a really stupid thing *we* could do? The exact
same thing! We write emails to a bunch of inactive admins, pretending
to be disgruntled wikipedia-haters asking for their accounts, and if
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
In Will's example it's even easier than that, as there's no GFDL muddying
the waters, so the article is more likely a work of joint authorship, so
therefore *all* the authors have an undivided interest
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
