Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Note: This foundation-l post is cross-posted to commons-l, since this
discussion may be of interest there as well.
From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
It is a in house made problem, as i explained at brainstorming [1].
To put it short: It is a self made problem, based on
Re
I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to
get the
categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image
is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the
images already that any org that may wish to could block images
Thanks for a fantastic report!
Asaf
On Oct 15, 2011 4:49 AM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
Below is the Wikimedia UK monthly
reporthttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reportsfor the period 1 to 30 September
2011. If you want to keep up with the
chapter's activities as they
You view them as standalone pieces of information, entirely distinct
from those conveyed textually. You believe that their inclusion
constitutes undue weight unless reliable sources utilize the same or
similar illustrations (despite their publication of text establishing
the images' accuracy
On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:19, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 21:27, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk
Hi Beria,
My apologies for taking so long to answer the question. I was not hiding or
avoiding your question. I missed your question till Phillipe pointed it out
to me last week since for some reason your initial email and subsequent
emails on the topic landed in my junk folder.
We asked the
