Ron Ritzman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question What is Wikipedia?. Is meta-content
like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading
2009/1/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
Instance number 192,453,345,252 that someone complains about something that
makes no sense and turns out to be completely wrong. Next!
No-one said that.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question What is Wikipedia?. Is meta-content
like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question What is Wikipedia?. Is meta-content
like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I
The problem is *this* particular example is on commons. If james meant
to point out our complex image policy.. He should have linked to a
closed discussion on en wiki.
Common's rules are simpler then en wiki... Most of the complexity is
really copyright law.
On 1/19/09, Ron Ritzman
Right, but it is on wikimedia commons.
If it were hosted on en wikipedia, you could argue fair use, etc. As
far as the image's current status, I explained that in a prior post.
Remember commons hosts only free images.
On 1/19/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/19 Wilhelm
2009/1/19 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
True, but IMX images hosted on enwiki get moved to commons PDQ.
Not always. There are situations where they cannot be moved and
notices are placed. In this case however the image could not be used
on en since we don't allow non free images outside
Congrats a deletion discussion (that is not even over yet) is not
going the way you want it to. I don't see your comments on it as far
as I can tell, as it is not yet closed can we avoid canvasing on the
mailing lists?
My suggestion to you, go post your opinion and explain why those
images should
2009/1/18 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Spider-Man_sculpture
You care less about Wikipedia because some people on Commons aren't
entirely sure of the law so see the need to go through standard
procedure in order to
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Spider-Man_sculpture
Congrats a deletion discussion (that is not even over yet) is not
going the way you want it to. I
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Watch your language
--
Alvaro
On 18-01-2009, at 14:18, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar
2009/1/18 Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com:
On 18-01-2009, at 14:18, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On 1/18/09, James Farrar
It didn't offend me, I just find it inappropriate.
--
Alvaro
On 18-01-2009, at 14:26, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com:
On 18-01-2009, at 14:18, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/18 Wilhelm Schnotz
2009/1/18 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
2009/1/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
[IFYPFY as well.]
What does that mean? Google tells me it means I fixed your post for
you, but you don't seem to have made any changes to the emails you
are replying to when you quote them...
My iPod puts the answers in the top, there's where they'll stay.
--
Alvaro
On 18-01-2009, at 14:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
[IFYPFY as well.]
What does that mean? Google tells me it means I fixed your post for
you, but
The reason why it is top posted is because that is the default action
that google mail does. As I am writing from a mobile device, it is
impossible for me to change that default. (google mobile mail hides
comments on the assumption that you can just scroll up through the
mail history.)
So for me,
2009/1/18 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Spider-Man_sculpture
Existing copyright law is not wikimedia's fault.
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Hah,
I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining
why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by
default to top post, and users don't tend to change those defaults as
that requires extra work. (assuming its even possible)
For those remotely curious... The
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Hah,
I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining
why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by
default
2009/1/18 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
That may well be his point. The example he gave does not support it, though.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
2009/1/19 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, The Cunctator wrote:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
In this case, the image actually may be unusable even under fair use. It's
the *real* law which has lost all perspective. We have no
2009/1/19 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
Oh, we always have a choice. In this case, one available choice is do
nothing and see if they send us a CD.
We could do that in a lot of cases. Rather runs into the problem that
wikipedia is meant to be free content though.
Another would be to
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy
is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free
images, which
24 matches
Mail list logo
